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
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
The Combined Hydroxychloroquine Zinc COVID-19 Treatment Buzz - A Misunderstanding and/or Misinterpretation of Science.
The talk of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of COVID-19 is often advocated for by those physicians who use it in combination with Zinc (a common nutritional supplement). Many studies, including a recent report by Horbym and Landray (2020), however have indicated that hydroxychloroquine has not been shown to be effective in treatment of COVID-19. The question then is, on what grounds are those claiming hydroxychloroquine being effective in treatment of coronavirus infection emanating from? Advocates of effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine claim that evidence is obtained from their practical clinical practices. They use hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc and have witnessed a hands on life-saving experience, attributing treatment success to hydroxychloroquine. However, are these assertions true? Apparently yes - a combination of hydroxychloroquine and zinc is believed to be effective in treating COVID-19, but of the two entities, the main player in the tr
Effects of the coronavirus infection are variably uneven around the globe. Messaging on intervention measures is also featuring in two distinct dimensions, one (inclined towards the biomedical model)represented by countries such as the USA, the UK, Brazil, etc. is centred on long term plans for the search for therapeutic drugs and vaccines against COVID-19. The second dimension is aligned to alternative or integrative health intervention approaches, represented largely by counties in the Asian region including China, advocate for inclusion of natural health healing modalities (use of foods, nutritional supplements, herbs, etc.). The challenge is: are the so called health experts and/or policy makers still guided by science-based evidence on their advisory messaging and if so, where is the science and where is the evidence to help the world contain the scourge of COVID-19 pandemic? Here are a few highlights of emerging findings of some recent studies, in support or dismissing c