CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE:
A Serpentine Profession

Last Update: 13 March, 2024

The Issue:

Although we need healing and to combat disease, there are many ways to do that, and our choice to put godlike trust in conventional medicine, above all other forms, is an irrational and dangerous choice.

For example, the COVID-19 'vaccines' are a radical hack of our genetic information, but were little questioned as they were rolled out to the world by Government and taken by billions, based primarily on an automatic trust of the profession of medicine. Due to the genetic alteration involved, humanity may never be the same again, and if only we didn't automatically trust this profession so much, we should have questioned it in time to stop it.

It is the supposed infallability of the profession of conventional medicine which has been used, and seems likely to continue to be used, as justification to lock people down, mandate their injections with gene therapy, mandate them to wear masks even alone outside, close places of worship, and suspend any human rights.

When a profession is seen as infallible, everyone else is seen as the problem to fix.

PART 2: Issue OVERVIEW:

Overview Documentaries:

BOUGHT Vaccine Documentary [2015]

Symbolism:

The conventional medical symbol is either the Rod of Asclepius, with one snake climbing a pole, or the caduceus, with two snakes climbing a pole.

At the same time, our society also considers snakes to be a symbol of hidden evil.

Assumptions of Our Society in Interacting with Conventional Medicine:

Assumption: Physicians want to cure you.
It's difficult to know someone's intent, and the profession seems to rely and marketing materials which present medical staff as caring about nothing but patient health, but the profession has no incentive to cure you. The profession is for-profit and what serves maximizing their revenue and ongoing business success is turning your problem into many, preferably endless, repeat visits. If they cure you, you stop coming. In fact, although the revenue stops if you die, they usually make more money if you die than if you are cured, since at least in dying you will usually consume some emergency medical services on the way out. The incentive is to mange your disease, not cure it.
Assumption: Your physician will spend enough time to get a complete understanding of your unique problem.
Since physicians are generally paid the same amount of money whether they spend a long or short time with the patient, the business pressure on physicians is to spend the shortest time possible with each patient (it's not uncommon, for example, to spend just a few minutes with a patient who's been waiting for hours). Even if the physician spreads the issue over multiple visits, the same problem remains that each visit the physician is under business pressure to keep the interaction as short as possible.

On the other hand, they can't effectively end the session without some kind of test or treatment plan, and treatment requires diagnosis.

The net result is that physicians are under business pressure to render the fastest possible assessment and plan for each condition which is presented to them.

Whether they admit it or not, they would be under pressure to quickly classify each patient into common categories they are familiar with, rather than see each patient as unique, with no time allotment to research things they've never seen before. They could quickly refer to someone else, but that someone else would be under the same pressure.

Assumption: Lab tests are infallably accurate.
No, every test has a false positive rate, and people who interpret lab test results are often under the same kind of business-related time pressure, ie. to spend the least possible time on each interpretation, as physicians. The profession may not admit it, but tests can be wrong or misinterpreted.

Too bad, for example, that this wasn't recognized in the COVID-19 crisis: where every positive test result was considered absolute proof of COVID-19 infection, no matter the number of cycles used in the test, or whether the patient was asymptomatic, or anything else.
Assumption: Society would be informed of suspicious deaths in hospitals.

Actually society rarely hears about non-medical death happening in domestic hospitals (or prisons or retirement homes or military for that matter). Why? Insiders have reported that there is a compulsuion not to reveal what happens there to outsiders. Ask anyone who's worked at a hospital.

The Reality

In the real world of medicine:

The purpose of the profession of medicine is profit. It is about profiting off other people's illness.
There is no requirement to cure patients, or even to make them better than they were when they came in. This is an unusual tolerance in service professions: for example, most people wouldn't tolerate their car being worse than when they brought it in, but if that happens in conventional medicine, we say something like, 'they did all they could'. In particular our society accepts highly technical explanations of why someone who came into hospital with a non-lethal problem died in hospital.

This opens the door to many charlatans being in the profession, without any public anger at their ineffectiveness. For example, when COVID-19 social restrictions, based on expert medical advice, were admitted to have failed, no advising physician was considered responsible: they are considered infallible, or at the very least above reproach, even if they have obviously failed and harmed many.
The incentive of the profession of medicine is to manage (not cure) disease, the most profitable path being to make people more medically dependent without killing them. To cure would destroy the highly profitable medical dependency of people suffering ongoing disease. Many treatments are designed to be readministered for the rest of the life of that patient: turning them into a permanent revenue stream for the industry. The sicker a patient gets, the much more medical services they consume. Even a patient dying is usually more profitable to conventional medicine than a cure. That's why the Center for Disease Control isn't called the Center for Disease Cures.
If patients become sicker under treatment, that's usually even more profitable, so long as legal safeguards are establshed against liability.

Government provides some of those legal safeguards in typicall shielding vaccine manufacturers for any liability for harms. Rather Government programs compensate victims, typically, if anyone does.

Prerequisites for patients to sign liability waivers for hospital treatments they believe they need is another legal safeguard.

Patients not having the right to see their own chart or have copies of their own test results helps minimize legal liability.
Keeping surgeries and other high-risk procedures out of public view helps minimize legal liability.
Oaths of secrecy and non-disclosure agreements in hospital staff helps conceal mistakes and harms.

NDA (example here)

There is no requirement to try natural solutions before unnatural ones. Physicians aren't required to correct faults in diet, sleep, and exercise before jumping to more radical treatments of drugs and surgery. If lab tests come back negative, there is no obligation to look deeper. Actually misdiagnosed patients can be more profitable in the long run because someone without a correct diagnosis is unlikely to be cured and likely to remain medically dependent.
The profession has unusual profit advantages over most othere types of business. In particular:

Physicians, not patients, decide the treatment options. The physician only needs to limit those options to profitable ones to ensure business success.
Extreme price inelasticity: When someone's life depends on a treatment, or they believe it does, they will usually come up with a way to pay for it, if at all possible, no matter what the price is. It's not a lot of services which people will sell their house to pay for, but medicine is one of them.
Competition restriction. It's difficult to 'shop around' for different prices on the same procedure because patients are not permitted to decide their treatment options, but only accept or decline. Any new physician would need to arrive at their own conclusion of treatment options, which might not be the same as those of the first phsician.
Urgency. Due to suffering or danger of worsening condition, once a medical procedure is realized to be needed, it's usually not good to wait. Urgency stokes the sale process.
Government funding. In many cases Government will spend Public money as much as required for a medical service, if it serves their political objectives. It can be very easy to sell a very large quantity through Government, who isn't afraid to buy even much more than needed, such as they did in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Government mandates. When Government demands that people vaccinate, wear masks, or take medical tests, that is guaranteed revenue for the medical industry which the Public has lost control of choice over.
This is the only profession where waiting hours, despite having an appointment, is consdiered fair treatment of clients, and where you can actually be charged to wait.

Conventional medicine degrades patients as lower than physicians. Patients are called patients, rather than clients, because physicians not patients decide the treatment options. Patients do have the right to refuse treatment, but any refusal or criticism of one treatment can be considered refusal of all treatment; also consent is assumed for any medically defensible procedure when the patient is unconscious, even if they are rendered unconscious by the medics.
Our society considers physicians to be above God. For example, when physicians recommended the closing of places of worship (of God) during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were closed, while effective worship of leading physicians continued, such as on daily news, for guidance on how to save us.
Only a physician is legally permitted to interpret a medical situation, and they can interpret in their favour, ie. towards protecting themselves, their hospital, and their industry from possible liability or blame. For example, when you promote vaccination, a physiclan has not only the incentive but the ability to deflect interpretation of harms following away from suspicion of the vaccine. There aren't a lot of police who are medical physicians.
Other physician's don't normally review a physician's work on a patient, not even if that patients dies suddenly, and there doesn't seem much will to most of the time.
Legal safety degrades for physicians criticizing other physicians. It's not considered good professional etiquette, and the industry is so interdependnet that fingers or reprisals might come back to haunt. When family physicians, specialits, pharmacies, hospitals, drug companies, and governments all work together consistently is where they seem to have the b est legal safety and they seem to know it.

Deceptions of the Medical Profession

The pretense that unnatural pharmaceuticals are unquestinably the substances we should use to support our health, while pretending that herbs are dangerous. Actually our bodies are not designed to work with chemicals which don't exist in nature, and herbal remedies, though sometimes less tested, typically offer the same results with less cost and less adverse effects. Unfortunately for the public, since natrual substances cannot be patented but unnatural ones can, because of our patent laws, it is vastly more profitable to make an unnatural modification on a natural substance and sell it as your own, than sell the natural substance.

What it's Like to be Receive Medical Services

In Theory:

You are the client. The medical professionals provide assessment of your medical information, and present it to you, with risks and alternatives, for your decision.
Only in the case of an emergency, when you are unconscious or otherwise mentally incompetent, and no legal decision maker established or reachable in time, may they may medical decision for you.
You have lots of rights. You have a right to all of your own information, and nothing happens without your say-so.
The patient, and their family where appropriate, are always kept informed of the latest diagnosis and decisions of the medical team for that patient.

In Practice:

You are the patient. You are expected to wait in the medical profesionals' options, if not decisions, for what to do with your health
As the patient, you are not expected to challenge the diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment rationale, for which the professionals' view is always considered superior to yours, because our society doesn't tolerate non-medical people challenging medical people on medical issues.
You cannot order your own surgery, medications, or even tests: not even refill medications you've become permanently dependent on. You must ask.
You have the right to refuse treatment, but not the right for other optiosn to be created for you. If you refuse what is recommended you may find yourself partially or totally abandoned for that reason. So, although in theory the patient decies, because the physician has dominante control of the options, it can be their way or no way forward, especially if you are medically dependent.
Similarly, you are usually allowed to check yourself out of the hospital, but if you do so, you might never be allowed back. Many tubes and other attachments are not safe for an untrained person to remove. So even if you want to leave and are abumlatory, you may find yourself needing to ask permission to go.
There is a tremendous blame element which weighs upon your medical decisions, especially if deciding for other people. Even if you are intelligent enough to know that following madical advice doesn't guarantee a good result, the social and perhaps legal distinction, in accepting or refusing a medically recommended treatment, is that if you do what the physician recommends and the patient dies, you will not be blamed (or if you are ,the entire hospital will be behind you). If, however, you refuse the treatment option, and the same thing happens, you can expect to be 100% blamed before anyone or any court. In emergency decisions, where the patient may die either way, the weight of blame pressures you strongly to do whatever the physician says, even if it's not clear to you that's the best approach.
You typically have no rights to see the results of your tests, and neither is the technician performing the test permitted to discuss them with you. They send the results directly to your physician, whom you have to pay for at least one more visit to obtain the results of, and even that is usually a verbal summary rather than a copy.
You're usually not allowed to see your own chart or have a copy of it.
Your physician writes your chart, not you. The physician decides what parts of the conversation and interaction were worth writing down. That gives them a tremendous legal advanage if the interaction is to be scrutinzied later for what was said.
Physicians aren't socially expected to be punctual with their appointments with patients, but may leave you waiting for hours (the physicians' schedule is presumed to take precedence over the patients', and some will even charge patients for waiting). Patients are expected to be punctual, however.
Pre-surgery liability waivers tend to be excessively generous, in favour of protecting the hospital from liability, in many cases even from obvious medical mistakes. This is cruel because the patient has little choice to refuse to sign when they need that procedure.
Usually no one checks the physicians' work; they can usually operate with impunity..

Basically, the more you seek medical services, the more you tend to lose rights over your own body, and the more you tend to become dependent on medications and treatments you, or whoever pays your medical bills, must continually pay the medical industry for.

The Cruelty of the Medical Profession

Actually this profession isn't just about compassion, despite marketing materials preseenting them that way. Please consider:

Abortion. They invented it, they perform it, and too few of them speak out against it, if all they care about is protecting human life. Elective abortion is outright murder of children at the demand of their own parents at the hands of medical professionals.
Animal Experimentation. They invented it and they perform it: the lethal exploitation of the other creaturs which share our planet as our expendable scientific research tools.
Destructive Surgery. On the scare of some disease, such as cancer, some physicians will actually destroy healthy tissue of your body. Example article September 11, 2022: Think surgical mutilations are a WOKE thing? The gruesome practice has been carried out for DECADES by cancer surgeons who cut off women’s breasts in the name of “medicine”
Excessive multiplication of visits. They may not admit it, but some physicians seem to spread over multiiple visits what could be accomplished in one visit. For example, to remove a mole, a surgeon could do it in one visit, but typically will spread it into three: initial consultation, surgery, follow-up. Sometimes even one procedure will be split into more than one session despite that it could be done in one: for example, multiple colonoscopies to remove multiple polyps when they could be removed in one procedure. Or simply demanding the patient come back for a return visit to repeat a drug prescription they are long dependent on with no expectation of change. This is unnecessary costs and inconveniences to the patient, but pads the future business demand of the medical professionals: it keeps lines of people waiting to see them at any price.
Excessive charges to the uninsured. Where medical fees are charged to the Government, they are usually very reasonable, but where they are charged to insurance companies or especially individuals, the very same service is sometimes charged at a far higher rate, and this is nothing but cruel exploitation of vulnerable people. For example, where registration at an emergency ward is usually free, if they discover you are uninsured, they can charge you hundreds of dollars just to register, or even to wait, before and not including any medical services.

Medical Myths

Medical research is performed and presented in the highest ethical integrity.

February 02, 2015: Merck senior management tried to pay off its own vaccine scientists to remain silent about scientific fraud
Article September 06, 2022: Former BMJ editor: Health research should be considered fraudulent until proven otherwise

Myth: Hospitals are Places of Care to your Best Health. No, they are places of medical service by hospital policies for profit.

Here are some references discussing what hospitals have become:

Myth: Medical professionals always know what they're doing.
There's an attitude that medical professionals, like all professionals, know what they're doing in their subject area, intead of being humans of limited knowledge. No, they can make mistakes, as well as not know some things.

Are Medical Mistakes the Leading Cause of Death in the US?

Myth: Your physician will always find what's wrong.

Actually you can't find what you don't look for, and what the physician looks for comes down a lot of non-medical things like: administrative priorities, payor pressures, how much they care about your health, their beliefs about the accuracy of what you say, and their beliefs about your intentions. For example, physicians are often discouraged from ordering tests for by Government and insurance companies who are not eager to pay for tests which rarely show a problem and which they argue are not necessary (such as vitamin levels). Even the most brilliant and funded physician in the world is unlikely to find your problem if they prejudge that it's imaginary.

The more rare your condition, the less unique your symptoms, and the less physically obvious your symptoms are to others, the more you need a physician who cares about and believes you enough to not only find the symptoms, but find and address the underlying problems causing them.

Myth: It's safe to be tough on anyone complaining of illness whom a physician says is OK.

Even if a physician says they're fine doesn't always mean they're fine. There are lots of reasons why a physician could be wrong.

Furthermore although the patient may not have a medical education, they should be granted some respect that they speak from living in and experiencing that body (which the physician does not).

If the person complains of illness, and you can see their lifestyle falling apart against their own goals, and they're not significantly benefitting from claiming to be ill, these are signs that the illness is real.

Just because a physician's word may be a legal justification for how to react to someone's medical complaints, it is not a moral one. We are responsible for whose word we believe, and choosing to believe a physician over a patient is a choice which could be wrong and which we are morally responsible for.

It's also morally dangerous to find ways to justify cruelty.

Evidence of the Truth:

Dec. 5, 2022: 'He could've been treated differently': Toronto man dies at home after several visits to local hospital

Questions to Consider when Obtaining Medical Services

Before recommending drugs or surgery, were you counseled on diet, nutrition, and exercise as possible helps?
Is their goal for the Patient's outcome the same as the Patient's? It's good to have help which has the same goal you do for the problem. Do they intend to cure you? Maybe you want to be cured and medically independent, but maybe they want to guide you towards being stable and medically dependent. It's no accident that many diseases are 'managed' with treatments for which you need to keep coming back to the physician/pharmacist for the rest of your life. You become an ongoing income stream for them.
Are they obligated to cure you? Nope.
Are physicians penalized in any way if the patient gets worse under their care? The medical industry doesn't reward physicians for patients cured, and actually they make much more money helping people get medically dependent rather than medically independent. As for legal liability, they are usually not liable if they followed accepted practices within the industry, and even when they don't, it's not always easy to prove or even detect mistakes, and/or they may be protected by forms they had the patient sign prior to treatment.
If the proposed medical intervention goes badly, who suffers and bears responsibilty for the physical and financial consequences? This is an important question to ask when any medical intervention is proposed. If what happens to you is considered a 'risk' of either your condition or its treatment, that bad outcome is usually considered your problem, even if the treatment was medically advised, with few exceptions.
Who will be blamed if the patient gets worse?

If a patient gets worse under physician care, unless there is evidence to prove the medics deviated from accepted industry practies, our society tends to assume it's no one's fault and the best possible was done and thank the medics. If, however, a patient refuses conventioanl medical recommendations, takes any unconventional course of action, and gets worse, that person tends to get blamed and used as a scarecrow for others. Taking medical advice does not always resuit in a good medical outcome, but it usually results in the patient (or patient's decision-makers) being socially shielded from blame by anyone (at least not anyone who trusts the medial industry) no matter how bad it might turn out. The risk of being blamed for a bad outcome on an unconventional path, and being shielded from blame from any bad outcome on a conventional path, is a consideration in choosing which path to take, because many social effects are attached to that blame.

Is our body designed to work with chemicals which don't even exist in nature?
Is the proposed intervention reversible? Any irreversible intervention must be decided with extra care and thorougly informed consent.
Would the proposed intervention make you medically dependent and whas this discussed with you in advance? It really sucks when the same intervention that creates a permanent dependency also doesn't help much or at all with the original problem.
Were you actually informed of risks and alternatives before you were asked to sign a form that says you were informed of risks and alternatives?
Were you given options in terms of which types of drugs to take? Or were you handed a prescription with 3 things on it which you can't read and only one of which you know hat it's for?
If you were given an internvetion of any kind, which later turns out badly, will the physician who started the intervention be notified? For example, there was a case where one hospital physician recommended blood thinners for a heart patient, adding that they thought they were 'worth the risk', the patient was released, and around 8 months later the patient died from catastrophic bleeding. Was the original ward physician notified? Probably not. So she is probably still thinking it's 'worth the risk' with ther other patients.
If you have a rare reaction which could be due to a drug or vaccine, will that be thoroughly investigated as to root cause and reported? The medical industry doesn't have much incentive to implicate themselves; you may find quite a reluctance to pursue root causes.
If you take a vaccine, and bear its risks, and you get that same disease, who will be blamed? Usually nobody. It's typically to defend by saying that vaccines don't offer 100% protection, which in practice, for an individual patient, means that if you get the same disease you were vaccinated against that's your problem.

Conclusion/Clearsight: What's the problem with conventional medicine?

Conventional medicine is normally purposed for profit, which aim tends to go against what's best for your body, particularly because patentable synthetic medicines tend to be far more profitable than herbal ones, and because curing you of all disease tends to stop your demand for medical services. Keeping you medically dependent, including never fully well, and even without the authority to self-renew prescriptions on drugs you are provably and permanently dependent, is the surest way to secure profit and social control for this industry.

Like with many businesses, conventional medicine leads customers towards dependency, but in conventional medicine there is far more ability to do so and far less ability to resist than with most other businesses. In an ideal society, there would be tremendous regulation to safeguard citizens from being deliberately or unnecessarily made medically dependent.

Clearfacts Presentation: Conventional Medicine

Back to Homepage

CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE: A Serpentine Profession

The Issue:

PART 2: Issue OVERVIEW:

Overview Documentaries:

Symbolism:

Assumptions of Our Society in Interacting with Conventional Medicine:

Assumption: Physicians want to cure you.

Assumption: Your physician will spend enough time to get a complete understanding of your unique problem.

Assumption: Lab tests are infallably accurate.

Assumption: Society would be informed of suspicious deaths in hospitals.