Author: Mayank Pincha
If Modern Medicine or Evidence Based Medicine becomes exclusively, a matter of State Policy to maximise Public Health, then the burden to prove or disprove anything falls on the State.
In the name of objectivity and being structured, Public Health has exclusively adopted Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), but EBM’s definition itself is subjective and unstructured.
“In 1996, David Sackett and colleagues clarified the definition of this tributary of evidence-based medicine as “the ‘conscientious’, explicit and ‘judicious’ use of current ‘best’ evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. … [It] means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.”…..”
“In 2005, Eddy offered an umbrella definition for the two branches of EBM: “Evidence-based medicine is a set of principles and methods intended to ensure that to the ‘greatest extent possible’, medical decisions, guidelines, and other types of policies are based on and consistent with ‘good evidence’ of effectiveness and benefit.”
Use of words like “Conscientious”, “Judicious”, “Judgement”, “Greatest extent possible’, “Good evidence” etc. make it subjective. So according to EBM, clinical practitioners can be expected to be conscientious but a Yogi has to be put to the test of evidence, and not accepted to be conscientious without systematic research. That too, with no evidence that systematic research cannot be subjected to foul play.
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. Which means… Absence of evidence of any observed, experiential and felt phenomenon, is not an evidence of absence of such phenomenon, specially when it comes to life and human health and wellness. Hence, debunking any such phenomena should require an evidence and not the other way around, requiring an evidence to establish phenomenons. EBM is working on a premise that only and only those phenomena will be accepted which can be evidenced. This is the anomaly as human body is not the creation of science and its not a logical construct.Mayank Pincha
Hope is questioned without Evidence. But Fear is accepted without questioning and without demanding evidence of “No potential damage”, fear can cause.Mayank Pincha
Absence of evidence towards natural immunity is not an evidence of absence of natural immunity. Hence, absence of antibodies and T-Cells is not an evidence of absence of natural immunity. Immuno-competent people may not show evidence of antibodies being present. The reason could also be that the body doesn’t consider a subject micro-organism or specifically the Coronavirus (assuming it exists), to be a threat because the person is an immuno-competent.
EBM’s approach of accepting that a person has immunity, only if that is evidenced by the presence of antibodies or T-cell memory, may mislead us to misinterpret an immuno-competent to be immuno-compromised. An immunocompetent person may have the immunity to fight, if necessary, a subject virus or specifically the Coronavirus (assuming it exists), when attacked without their being antibodies or a T-cell memory. Hence, simply the absence of these antibodies/ T-cells cannot be deemed as an evidence of absence of immunity. Hence mandatory provisions have no rationale.
But vaccine triggered antibodies are specific antibodies, and keeps the body in hyperdrive watching out for one variant of a particular virus to fight. In such a situation, the natural ability of the body to protect itself from other variants and other pathogens and other potential diseases, would be compromised.
We are not saying that Governments & Modern Medicine are telling lies (they could be), we are giving them benefit of doubt that they may be doing so out of ignorance of how human mind, body and spirit actually works since humans are not the creator of their bodies. They have by definition of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), denied anything that is not evidenced in research, without giving any evidence that human, mind and body can thrive with such an assumption. Also that such denial will not lead to suffocating life out of the very humans that are sought to be protected.
EBM itself is based on an assumption that human health can be enhanced/ preserved only and only through evidence by scientific research. This itself is an assumption.Mayank Pincha
If the experimental vaccines are not harmful, the worst case would have been that it would do nothing wrong to anyone, if not nothing right to the body. Like critics of Ivermectin say “Ivermectin does not work for COVID”, but they don’t say “Ivermectin is possibly lethal to people with COVID-19”. Right ? On the other hand, experimental Vaccines are lethal to some people. Right? However, its made to appear. That’s why we have many people reporting adverse reactions. Right ?
So, Ivermectin can be denied for the reason – “It’s not working” although by people’s experience they got better. So may be they got better partly because of Placebo effect. So that’s perfectly fine from people’s point of view. Are we more concerned about validating or invalidating medicines or keeping people healthy?Awaken India Movement Volunteer
But these COVID-19 vaccines are lethal to some, but still being pushed. Why ? Although it only appears rare, as its rarely reported and most vials in a experimental roll-out are expected to be saline shots, which creates an impression adverse effects are rare.
Its clear that economics are behind such an approach. Can Public Health use such a field of study and medicine as an exclusive & official path of medicine?
Now whatever is proposed here, if the State is a welfare state, it would take it seriously and study it to rule it out or to prove it right. It would never put the burden on the public to prove it. Health is an individual experience of a state of well being. Traditional understanding of human health is based on people i.e shamans & yogis who used their own bodies as a “laboratory” and understood its functioning and shared it with others through ancient wisdom, which we questioned for foul play and subjected ancient wisdom to evidence.
So Modern Medicine developed a system to “establish” their conjectures outside of the human body in a laboratory and apply them in human populations, and then use statistics to decide whether they are getting it right or wrong, broadly. When it goes wrong it can take lives and make people handicapped, and governments want to mandate these experiments. As if people are objects! Such experiments cannot be mandatory as per Natural Laws, Common Laws, Constitutions, flies in the face of Nuremberg Code and constitutes Crimes against Humanity.Mayank Pincha
The ancient yogis did not experiment on people but on their own body. Why did proponents of Evidence Based Medicine have to mistrust them and ask for proof? Ok fine we needn’t have trusted them, but did we produce another alternative system that is necessarily above board? Why does one ask for a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled tests to prove natural immunity and naturopathy, when it can only be based on funded research and nothing can be funded to prove anything that favours natural abilities, due to lack of Return On Investment. Please give us evidence that double-blind randomized placebo-controlled tests can be relied upon, and can never be misused and can never be fallible and can never be for the good of few and bad for rest. Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. We are objecting to mandatory medical interventions. People are free to rely on their personal experience and ancient wisdom that its their personal choice.
If the body is so intelligent to produce antibodies, it also knows when to produce it. Why is EBM assuming that Nature may have designed humans to be in hyper-drive, a bio medical emergency state and expecting an external threat all the time, to keep the antibodies ready to fight? “Absence of antibodies” should not necessarily be “Absence of immunity”! Why is it not possible that body removes them from active memory when not in a threat. Why is absence of antibodies interpreted as “natural immunity or vaccine induced immunity being short lived”?Mayank Pincha
Modern Medicine’s approach may unknowingly be causing one to be in a state of hyperdrive expecting an attack all the time. Then Nocebo effects may kick in, and manifest the sickness. AYUSH relies on the placebo effect which is to stay positive and minimise sickness through a natural lifestyle. Medicines are considered only when there is sickness, and that too based on a root cause analysis for each patient by an experienced practitioner, unlike EBM that has attempted to bring healthy people into their fold by introducing a fiction called “asymptomatic transmission” which has been unproved, for which we put them on burden of proof.
Life expectancy may have increased due to sanitisation and not necessarily pills/vaccines. Vaccines were given to kids when they were in the Vata period or Creation Stage, so you can’t infer that they worked, because natural energy flow/ Prana is high during childhood. (So even if they were harmful, the body may have flushed it out). After-effects from vaccines are not easily tractable in real life (i.e. using binary cause and effect arguments) and may have ended up being attributed to other conditions such as Autism. These aberrations of Modern Medicine cannot be ruled out, and hence Public Health choosing Modern Medicine as the ONLY Path of Medicine to rely on, is highly questionable.
If Allopathy is a choice it’s welcome as a human endeavor. If it becomes a matter of State Policy and Public Health measures being mandated, then the burden of proving that Allopathy is the only and best way to maximise Public health falls on the State, which can put our Government in severe burden.
Health is a matter of personal experience and responsibility. Public Health’s role is to maximize the thriving of its citizens and not survival, by creating awareness and educating people to take charge of their spiritual, mental, emotional, energy and physical health.
Public should not demand Public Health authorities to be accountable to minimising deaths, because Public Health can’t force the public to exercise, sleep adequately and have a healthy lifestyle.Mayank Pincha
Needlessly shifting responsibility to Public Health and Governments may put them under performance pressure and take a short term approach of minimising deaths and disease, as they are subject to pressures from media organisations that have their own survival pressures that may affect their independence forcing them to not go against the interests of their large pharma customers, which may or may not be in alignment with human health factors that are long term in nature.
Public Health authorities are being called upon to take advice from all paths of medicine / practitioners and retract the mandatory approach to maximising health of the public.Mayank Pincha
It is not sufficient for the government to say that in their affidavits in courts that they are not mandating the experimental vaccines. They have to be seen to be actively preventing various mandates that are forcing people to get jabbed with an experimental biological agent.
India’s Drugs and Magic Remedies Act prohibits people from claiming natural magical healing properties of the body. Magic also includes Fear Mongering and claiming something is ‘magically’ dangerous to us, specifically when Nocebo effects have already been understood.Mayank Pincha
Initially corona measures were justified with the flawed logic that if we do nothing about it (COVID), then it will wipe out a sizable population. Public Health was actually predicting like a soothsayer, and if a shaman would tell people to calm down and breathe normally, and the respiratory system will open up, Modern Medicine would put him to burden of proof to show evidence.
While Public Health is inputting fear along with possibly exaggerated info on deaths allegedly from Coronavirus, and not giving any evidence to rule out that fear may cause partial breathlessness and drawing a conclusion that Coronavirus causes breathlessness.Mayank Pincha
And behold, hitherto vaccines were made using a different technology earlier, and were administered when we were young. (When we are young our innate immunity is higher). So those results cannot be taken and applied out of context to people at high risk with low immunity i.e. comorbid. These current experimental COVID-19 jabs are of a relatively new mRNA technology and being administered to the ones who are immunocompromised, who are at risk, and are at risk because they anyways can’t produce enough antibodies. What’s the use of triggering their immune system? And those who can produce antibodies are not at risk anyways.
Evidence based medicine itself is based on an assumption that good health can be evidenced by presence of antibodies! Real Immunity is not just the presence of antibodies, but the body’s ability to produce antibodies, when faced with an external attack. Vaccine only triggers the body’s natural immunity, which if it’s not sufficiently present in an immuno-compromised person, then Vaccine will not be helpful. Conversely, if natural immunity is sufficiently present in an immuno-competent person there is no need to get the body into hyper-drive just to establish that the body can generate antibodies when required.
Especially, when the body of an immuno-competent person has the ability to produce non specific antibodies to mount a customized response to any virus or variant of a specific virus and would not need periodic system upgrades in the name of boosters.Mayank Pincha
Why is it that Public Health is not spending billions of dollars on helping people follow a natural lifestyle, and reducing toxicity from our foods. Why putting burden on pro-nature people / kids / youth to adopt unhealthy / toxic measures in the name of corona measures, simply because pro-pill/vax people want to avoid personal responsibility of adopting a natural lifestyle to remain healthy, and because natural methods to reverse chronic disorders will not be profitable for the incumbent Big Pharma?
What Public Health benefit is being attempted to be achieved by attributing underlying causes to a virus? Will vaccinating the immuno-compromised person against a virus, reduce the risk of such persons to die by their underlying conditions. Rather the entire fear mongering and experimental interventions in the name of vaccinations are putting them to peril of dying prematurely.Mayank Pincha
When any potential treatment to any disease is benchmarked against Placebo effect, and it fails because Placebo works good enough, then why isn’t the condition declared to be a psychosomatic disorder, instead of more research on new medicines/ vaccinations? When denying a potential medicine/ vaccination on the logic that Placebo group showed positive results (better than medicine group), why is it that it is considered sufficient to just conclude that the proposed medicine/ vaccination did not give any relative risk reduction. Why is that condition not declared as a psychosomatic disorder, as a next step, to help improve public health ?
So the question, if EBM is an appropriate approach to be adopted as a matter of Public Health by governments in the name of protecting citizens?Mayank Pincha
2.1.1 – COVID Narrative: “House Of Cards” Debunked
2.1.2 – The Burden of Proof regarding potential harm from Corona Measures & Injections, is not on people.
2.1.5 – Can Public Health rely solely on For-Profit Research ?
2.1.6 – Evidence-Based Medicine, Rests on a Flawed Assumption of Immunity to COVID-19
2.2.1 – Burden is on Public Health, to rule out the Nocebo Effect of virus fear mongering
2.2.2 – Panic causes Partial Breathlessness as explained by Prof. Buteyko
2.2.3 – Flawed approach of Modern Medicine, Research & Legislation
2.2.9 – Whether viruses exist or not and whether they are harmful or not, doesn’t matter for public health.
2.2.10 – What divides the pro-vaccine and the pro-nature?
2.1.15 – We suffered really to protect others theoretically
2.1.18 – Ayurveda vs Allopathy
127 total views, 2 views today