The World Health Organisation aims to prevent diseases as they seem well aware of the fact that ‘to cure diseases’ is not what the medical profession is good at. If the cures were effectively as good as they would like us to believe the emphasis on prevention would be inappropriate. Curing diseases is what the medical profession sets out to do and yet the WHO gives a higher priority to prevention than to curing. Also bear in mind that curing pays extremely well and provides the industry with a terrific income. Or at least, ‘trying’ to cure, as it pays well if you have to keep trying. This is what the WHO has to say about prevention.
Primary prevention refers to actions aimed at avoiding the manifestation of a disease (this may include actions to improve health through changing the impact of social and economic determinants on health; the provision of information on behavioural and medical health risks, alongside consultation and measures to decrease them at the personal and community level; nutritional and food supplementation; oral and dental hygiene education; and clinical preventive services such as immunization and vaccination of children, adults and the elderly, as well as vaccination or post-exposure prophylaxis for people exposed to a communicable disease).
Secondary prevention deals with early detection when this improves the chances for positive health outcomes (this comprises activities such as evidence-based screening programs for early detection of diseases or for prevention of congenital malformations; and preventive drug therapies of proven effectiveness when administered at an early stage of the disease).
It should be noted that while primary prevention activities may be implemented independently of capacity-building in other health care services, this is not the case for secondary prevention. Screening and early detection is of limited value (and may even be detrimental to the patient) if abnormalities cannot be promptly corrected or treated through services from other parts of the health care system. Moreover, a good system of primary health care with a registered population facilitates the optimal organization and delivery of accessible population based screening programs and should be vigorously promoted.
As far as the WHO is concerned, and indeed the entire medical profession, there are two types of prevention: one involves reducing health risk and the other involves testing and preventative drug use. Reducing health risks is mainly focussed on food and food supplements, as well as vaccination, which in fact is a type of preventative medication. Early detection through medical tests is only useful, so they say, when it can be followed by the administration of medication.
Assessing health risks has its own problems. How can you ‘measure’ what risk a certain environment holds for a certain individual? We are all different and we all respond differently to our environment. So within the population any measurement, any evaluation, of a health risk should be centred on the individual, but instead it is looked at from the point of view of an entire group. When it is noted that a certain environment holds some risks to a number of people within that group then the entire group will be given health advise that involves taking action, changing behaviour, aimed at ‘reducing’ the individual risk, even though the individual risk hasn’t been assessed. It is simply assumed that it must be a risk to everybody when they have deduced it is a risk to some. For example, if some individuals develop melanomas, said to be caused by exposure to sunshine, then the entire population will be advised to keep out of the sun or to buy products to ‘protect’ themselves against the influence of the sun, even though most people that have regular exposure to direct sunshine all year round do not seem to suffer from this at all. Assessing risk factors in the environment will go on for ever, simply because any given condition or situation holds risks to some individuals. Their strategy is to follow any assessment of a risk factor with a set of measures and recommendations, of which some have turned into laws. In time they will then assess the ‘new’, the created, environment and they will find that it is also a risk to some individuals. Time to change again!
Health risk will thus be expressed by the medical profession in terms of percentages, simply because it isn’t a factual science. The ‘measured’ risk reduction in people they assess to be at a high risk of this negative health effect is then rolled out to the entire population. If you do this, you will reduce your risk of having a heart attack by x%, is a common way of ‘informing’ the public. The truth is that such measures have no beneficial impact on the health of the individuals that are effectively not at risk in the first place. In fact, some of these measures, when adhered to by people who do not need them, may have a detrimental effect on their health, which will never be recognised by the profession because that person is ‘doing the right thing’. So, if you eat the kind of ‘balanced’ diet that is being prescribed by the medical profession you may harm your health if you are in fact requiring different eating habits to suit your constitution and life style. The same goes for the advice about exercising and sport. If it was an excellent idea for every individual to sport two or three times a week, regardless of their makeup and living habits, why do some athletes, even young ‘healthy’ ones, collapse and sometimes even die, during their sport activities?
Ignoring the individual differences and pretending that every human being, regardless of colour, creed, race and living conditions, has the same metabolism is a scientific error of huge proportions.
The health risk for infectious diseases is entirely based on the story of how these diseases spread within a community. The medical profession simply ignores all scientific evidence that clearly proves that such diseases are not transferable directly by contact between individuals. It turns out that diseases are not caused by the environment. The environment is a factor in the disease process but a much larger impact comes from the state the individual is in at the time of exposure to the said environment. So prevention should be aimed at the individual, not in the first place at changing the environment of the entire group.
Assessing health risk factors is a very subjective business and should never be promoted as a science. It is what you want it to be. Because whatever specific environmental factor you are looking at and linking that to specific health conditions can never be scientifically proven. That is why it is presented to you in percentages. If it was a certainty, it should be true for every individual at all times in all conditions. And that is never the case. But the profession does not take that into account and implements regimes for the entire population, with a certainty that is alien to all scientific communities.
Screening and Early Detection
Screening of healthy people in order to establish a disease the individual is not aware of is another scientific fallacy the medical profession is keen to promote. About one hundred years ago a scientific conundrum was solved. It was proven that test results could differ depending on the way the test had been set up, or as scientists declared: “The way you look at something will influence what you see”. In other words, the result of any kind of testing is influenced by the circumstances in which such a test is being performed, what the aim of the test is and how the test is being interpreted. The conclusion is that there can not be such a thing as a ‘reliable test result’. When a doctor tests a person with specific symptoms for a very specific disease he is very happy to link a positive test result to a definite diagnosis of that disease. However, when the test comes back with a negative result and the symptoms are clearly indicative of the said disease he sticks with his initial diagnosis, thereby ignoring the test result. When it suits, the test result is an absolute truth, and when it doesn’t confirm the medical thinking it can simply be ignored. Maybe we should learn a bit of consequent behaviour here: either we regard the test as an absolute result and then the reality must be what it says it is, or we do not always believe the test and then we have to ask the question “what’s the point of doing the test?”
As all individuals are different it stands to reason that all metabolic tests will not give the same results at all times. So when you test a number of ‘healthy’ people, people without any symptoms, it must be obvious that some of those results may come back positive, even though there is no medical reason for it. Retrospective studies about the test results of cervical smears looking for cancer have indicated that around 80% of the ‘diagnosed’ cancers were in fact no cancers at all (interpretation failure). From the other cancers, it was said that 95% of them were at such an early stage that, with a very high degree of certainty, these would have healed by themselves and did not need any medical intervention at all (natural healing occurs effectively all the time). These studies have been done by the profession and have been published in the medical literature. And yet, medical authorities have not changed their recommendations and continue to treat on the basis of the same test results.
The preventative drug use scheme has never been properly tested in any clinical trials. It has been an assumption of the medical profession that if a certain drug helps, not cures, in a specific disease process then it stands to reason that it, even if it can’t cure the disease, it may be helpful in delaying the symptoms. When you think about this, it becomes clear that delaying symptoms is done by suppressing the symptoms and the idea would then be that the sooner you start the delaying process the longer it will take for the symptoms of the disease to manifest. This the basis on which the ‘success’ of this scheme is claimed. The longer you have to wait for disease symptoms to show up the more effective the preventative measure, in this case a drug treatment, has been. In other words, the ‘preventative’ measures do not prevent you getting the disease; it simply delays you becoming aware of the disease.
Now, we have on the one hand a medical profession keen on early detection of diseases – only relied on by their testing methods – and on the other hand a medical profession that sees the medicated suppression of early symptoms as a way of ‘preventing’ diseases. That sounds to me very much like a contradiction!
Prevention of Diseases
In order to be able to prevent a disease properly one has to understand what is causing the disease. All medical ‘causes’ are in fact not real causes but are risk factors. Smoking puts you at risk of heart and/or lung disease. It doesn’t cause it! Sedentary life style puts you at risk of obesity. It doesn’t cause it! How can we be so sure about this? Because you can always find individuals who adhere to such a life style or such habits and do not, ever, show the disease that, according to the medical profession, should be caused by their actions. That in itself is scientific proof that the theory, situation A causes disease A’, is false.
And there is a scientific explanation for this. Science has shown that all material life is energetic, that matter emerges from energy and is determined and functions as a result of the flow of energy. This means that the physical appearance of a person and the way that individual functions is determined by his/her energy field.
Science has told us that all exchanges are energetic, not material. It all happens much faster than can be explained by physical connections, and those interactions are much more subtle. So although we have a physical body living in a physical environment, the exchanges between the two happen on an energetic level. That is why certain individuals are not affected by a certain type of environment while others are. The energetic systems of those individuals respond differently to the specific signals of the environment, even though the signals are the same to all. A simple illustration of this is the panic reaction a tourist may have when suddenly confronted in the wild with a large snake, while the same confrontation does not cause a reaction at all from a local person. The tourist, having grown up in a snake-free environment where these animals are considered dangerous and life threatening, is reacting from within a mind-set of fear. The local knows the snakes in his environment, has regular confrontations and does not feel threatened by the presence of the animal. The approach to the environment is determined by the way the mind, the non-physical part of our life, approaches, evaluates and judges the environment. It is a non-physical exchange that leads to a physical manifestation: the body expresses how the mind sees the world around it.
Here we can immediately conclude that it is impossible to prevent any disease by physical means. If we want to reduce or alter the impact that the environment has on us, we need to change our mind about it. Prevention of disease involves a change of mind!
When the impulses of our environment are constantly disturbing our inner balance, we will manifest physical (or mental) illness, signs of a struggle, of an imbalance. A big problem we are having is that in our society we have grown up believing in physical causality and we do not recognise energetic influences anymore. Our grandparents may have proclaimed that their joints are aching because the weather is about to change, or that they have a headache because the wind has turned to a north-easterly direction. These are statements of energetic influences recognised by these people. We simply laugh them away and go and have a test done that has no absolute interpretation value but that we put our fullest faith into. Previous generations put their trust in what they observed themselves. We think we can have it tested by a machine and interpreted by a stranger and be closer to the truth. Mistake!
We need to learn to contact our inner signals again and separate those from what we think (believe) to be true.
Here is something else to consider in relation to the prevention of disease. Life has been going on for many millions of years before humans created a belief system of illness and health. Life has always been a risky business and the human belief system, including their risk assessments, have not made any difference to that. Yes, I know you like to believe that humans currently live longer than they did before, but that depends entirely on which period and which area you would like to compare our current life span with. There have been periods, and places, in human history when people lived a lot longer than we do right now, and equally there have been periods, and places, where the life expectancy of a human being was a lot less. It is not an achievement of the medical profession. It is propaganda from an authority who likes to highlight its achievements, even if these are related to simple natural occurrences and cycles. So, there have been times of longer and there have been times of shorter human life spans, just as there have been times of a generally colder and other times of a warmer earth surface. None of these can be claimed to be the direct result of the way humans live. It is the same here: it is a contributing factor (at most), not a causal factor.
Prevention of diseases, just as curing diseases, is and remains an individual issue. Only an individual can assess what makes him/her better or worse. This is a learning process that does not happen at university or in logic. It is a learning process that is part of life itself, of the life of the individual. We need to be left alone to find out for ourselves. Manipulating our thoughts in believing that an expert knows best if we are healthy or not is going to divert attention away from the individual experiences and learning process. It also erodes the individual power over his/her own life. The introduced idea that the individual cannot know what is going on in his /her life diminishes the strength of the individual to deal with any situation. Looking for an outside help will become a primary reaction pattern that leaves the individual disempowered, weak and frightened.
Prevention of disease begins with observing your own life, your own personal reactions to given situations. If your system copes very well then there might be danger but you are dealing with it effectively and therefore you do not interfere. We need to start taking notice of our reaction patterns instead of ignoring these until an expert tells us something is wrong. Every reaction to changes in our environment or to certain specific conditions of that environment should be noted. That way we are capable of identifying which situations we need to avoid or we need to take specific care about. That way we are capable to experience for ourselves what type of interactions we personally find difficult to handle. This will lead to an individual risk assessment! Not all conditions are equally dangerous to all. It all depends on your own personal strengths and weaknesses, on your own personal talents and skills, on your own personal reaction schemes.
Once we have identified areas of personally struggles we are confronted with a choice in life. Either you continue to struggle, which will undoubtedly lead to illness, to a permanent imbalance within our system. Or we decide to make changes that will shift the inner balance and will allow us to move towards a more balanced life, thereby eliminating the risk to become ill. The changes necessary can be achieved in two possible ways. One can either change the environment one lives in, thereby banning the risky situation from our life or one can change the way one responds to the given situation. If we succeed in that then balance will also be restored and health will ensue. Some animals have made the adjustment to urban life and have adapted well to their changed environment. They have changed their behaviour towards their environment and are able to continue to live there without having to seek other pastures.
Assessing risk factors in life has to be done on an individual basis in relation to the health of the individual, not as a group. So we need to teach people how to evaluate the signs they receive from their own systems. The expert, and the only true expert that exists, is the individual.
Identifying what is putting you out of balance is an essential step in knowing what to do about it. It is this ongoing imbalance that eventually results in the manifestation of disease. Only when you know the true cause of your disease do you have a chance of preventing the outbreak of the disease.
Preventing a disease means the removal of the real cause of that disease. You can achieve that by either removing that cause from your life completely or by no longer seeing it as a threat or a disturbing factor. So you either change your environment in such a way that you are no longer surrounded by that specific element or you learn a different way to respond to that specific element within your environment.
Staying healthy means knowing yourself in such a way that you know what is feeding your life and what is disturbing it. Staying healthy means using this knowledge to make the changes that are necessary in order for your relationship with that specific cause to have altered.
Life is simple.
Life is personal.