The widely used current intervention approaches against COVID-19 which include lock-downs, social distancing, face masks, etc. are a serious source of inconveniences on routine day to day life activities, other disruptions, and are a significant source of stress and therefore should not be accepted as the “new normal.” In any case, the establishment of these current intervention measures raises a lot of doubt on their scientific basis, and therefore their usefulness, as more emerging knowledge on this pandemic, such as that from Ioannidis (2020) and Kupherschmidt (2020), point out to the fact that, there are some inadequacies on the currently available data as well as deep-seated obscurities in the philosophical worldviews and assumptions from which the these current intervention measures might have been conceived.
The framers of these current intervention measures did not seem to have considered the host (humans) as active living entities in the pathogen-host interactions, which is a position characteristic of the classic “medical model” which, in its most extreme form, as clearly put across by Marcum (2008), views the body as a machine (passive and/or nonliving entity), to be fixed when broken. The current intervention measures are therefore most likely based on, and/or dictated by unfounded assumptions that this “machine” i.e. the human body is defenseless to attack from microbes, toxins, or any other internal or external insults. In this COVID-19 pandemic, this modern medical view is reflected in the use of ventilators, face masks, partitioning protective plastic glass barriers, exploration into potential vaccines and antiviral drugs, which is indicative of the notion that any contact of the host (humans), with the virus is a sure case of infection and/or spread of the disease. It is therefore clear that current intervention measures and proposed further strategies were formulated on unfounded and/or misguided philosophical assumptions, which can be made more clear in the contrasting alternative philosophical view highlighted below.
The medical model view (grounded in the philosophy from which the assumptions which helped generate current intervention measure against COVID-19 were formulated) contrast the views of the alternative health models (e.g. natural hygiene), grounded in classic philosophical worldviews, such as those defined in course materials by Transformation Institute (2000), and in particular the following:
“Natural Hygiene recognizes that the human body is a fully self-sufficient organism, that it is self-directing, self-constructing, self-preserving and self-healing, and that it is capable of maintaining itself in superb functioning order, completely free of disease, if its inherent needs are met. Foremost among these needs are fresh air, pure water, rest and sleep, wholesome foods, cleanliness, comfortable temperature, sunshine, exercise, constructive work, emotional poise, self-mastery, recreation and pleasant environment.”
It appears logical that the natural health model(s), which share common philosophical views as highlighted above, would offer opportunities to formulation of socially and environmentally more acceptable intervention measures against COVID-19, such as long-term solutions of boosting host immune defense system, or direct use of food as medicine to fight the coronavirus infection. I sincerely believe that these approaches are very effective if done properly. From my own personal experience, I used to have seasonal common colds but that ended in 2013, that’s about 7 consecutive years to date, without a single day of the common cold and any form of a fever for that matter, since I started on my health lifestyle choices program (health food choices and religious engagement with my nutritional supplements), but surprisingly with no use and/or the need to use vaccines, pain killers, antibiotics or any prescription drugs. In this COVID-19 pandemic, I therefore have no reason to believe that coronavirus would pose any threat to my health. In my view, pursuing the alternative natural health approaches is the ultimate right direction to take in order to end the COVID-19 pandemic nightmare.
In good health!
Comments and questions are welcome.
Ioannidis J.P.A. (2020). A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. First Opinion, STAT. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/
Kupherschmidt, K. (2020).Why do some COVID-19 patients infect many others, whereas most don’t spread the virus at all? ScienceMag.org. Available at: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all
MARCUM, J. A. (2008). An introductory philosophy of medicine: humanizing modern medicine. [Dordrecht], Springer. Available online at: http://tagso.bpums.ac.ir/UploadedFiles/xfiles/File/tagso/8%20olympiad/Philosophy_and_Medicine_99.pdf
Popular posts from this blog
Most of our health care providers including some M.Ds, nutritionists, dieticians, etc believe and/or would want us to believe that we can get adequate nutrients for optimum health through eating a balanced diet. My guess is such beliefs are based on assumptions derived from Dietary Reference Intake values, accepted as science-based by the biomedical community and policy makers. Of course DRI values are so low that it makes sense to believe that you can meet your nutrient requirement from food intake through eating a variety of foods (given, for example that one orange can provide approx. 65 mg which is within the DRI range for adults). The challenge is: can we achieve optimum health through getting our nutrients from food alone? I argues we don’t, because daily nutrients intake from food alone are ridiculously low ( Hickey and Roberts, 2004), to achieve optimum health. Nutrition is an essential component of our health and that of any living matter. The science of nutrition and heal
The concepts of nature cure as a natural health approach was well elucidated in the early 20th Century by one of the first pioneer authors Henry Lindlahr, in one of his book series of nature cure as follows: “ It is vastly more than a system of curing aches and pains; it is a complete revolution in the art and science of living. It is the practical realization and application of all that is good in natural science, philosophy and religion. “The philosophy of Nature Cure is based on sciences dealing with newly discovered or rediscovered natural laws and principles, and with their application to the phenomena of life and death, health, disease and cure”. Use of nature cure as an enabler for being the boss of your own health (taking charge of your own health) is based on the simplicity of the nature cure approach as compared to the orthodox medical approach in addressing health matters. Lindlahr (1922) argues that nature cure is considered an “exact science”, which reduces com
Most of us were raised in modern environments living modern lifestyles. Modern generations are completely detached from their ancestral (cave man type life-style and diets). Our current conventional approaches to health is based on reliance on therapeutic interventions from experts (health-care providers - doctors, nurses, etc. ) when we get diseased, i.e., we play a passive role in our own health. Natural health approaches are grounded in the philosophy which holds that, the human body has the capability of healing itself. In natural health, all healing is essentially self-healing, a basic property of all living beings . Unfortunately, the human generations of modernity have lost this inherent ability to live in harmony with nature and utilizing nature’s fundamentals that build and maintain health. Most if not all non-humans living organisms, however still preserved the ability to utilize nature’s fundamentals that build and maintain health. This explains the basis of survival