Are we going to continue to argue whilst not agreeing on the ‘facts’ we argue about? Do we fight over figures, even if we are convinced they have been doctored? Do we keep talking past each other about mouth coverings, medical tests, vaccines, lockdown, curfew and ‘fake news’? What good has all this arguing done in a whole year? “Just hold on for another month or so and we will be out of this.” And another month. And another. I have heard this rhetoric my entire medical career. We always nearly got the cure for cancer or diabetes or multiple sclerosis (MS) or to rid the world of infectious diseases. It’s not going to happen because they, the medical profession that makes these predictions, are not wanting it to happen. Let me explain what the problem is with our medicine and our society and then you can decide whether you want to continue arguing or not.
Every detail of life consists of two opposites, which keep the balance in life and which are responsible for movement and thus evolution itself. When something is in balance it remains where it is, unless it is seriously been pushed over its boundaries. In balance, there is no more movement, only stillness. It will stay in that position, in that state, forever. Now, all around us we notice that in our life motionless certainly is not the case, and scientists confirm that the entire universe is in motion, which means that the entire universe is not in balance.
However, at the same time everything that happens in the universe is the result of an encounter and interactions of various forces and so it could be said that; at all times, the forces within the universe are in balance. Here we refer to the balance of the moment. Each moment is in balance, but all moments together are out of balance, are in search of a balance. That is the nature of nature.
Now, humans have introduced something new to the evolution, something that no other organism before has been able to bring to the table. Humans have the capacity to create something unnatural, something artificial. This is the opposite from natural. This means that now even nature itself has an opposite and that the exchanges between those two forces will create movement until a balance will be reached. Nature already had its own balance of movement: it was changing constantly but within the natural laws (humans interpret these as the laws of physics). Now it is being challenged by the introduction of artificial.
Physics teaches us that within a closed energetic field no energy can get lost or can be created; energy can only change form but it cannot disappear. A closed system cannot lose or gain energy. The universe as a whole is considered to be such a close system, although scientists do know that at the edges of the universe there are exchanges between the universe and the outer field, but for their purposes and understanding it has a minimal influence on what is happening inside the universe. A similar thinking simplification can be made for a unit such as the earth. It is separated from the rest of the universe and there are energy radiations from the earth as there are incoming energies, however these are, for the most part, minimal influences to the ordinary life on the planet. Occasionally they do make an impact that we take note of, such as meteorites, and other regular influences, such as sun activity and moon cycle, are calculated into our daily patterns. For practical use, we can consider the natural world on earth as a closed field.
So, there are two starting concepts we need to be aware of: one is constant movement, the other is the transformation of energy. Hence, life is energy and energy flows. Always. When it gets obstructed and the flow slows down, the pressure within that energy field is building. This will ultimately result in either the energy finding an alternative route or the pressure will become so great that an explosion will take place and the energy can flow again. Life is in constant movement and cannot be brought to a standstill. Narrowing the flow of energy will increase the pressure and create a reaction from within the energy. It will change. Alter the pressure within a field and the expression of that field will change, as well as the physics (pressure, flow rate, density, etc.)
Nature has no choice but to follow these rules. It is natural. So when you alter anything about a natural process it will respond. The process itself will change. Natural processes are constantly on the move, constantly responding to altering conditions. We can easily visualise the most common changing conditions as these are temperature, humidity and pressure. Think about how these alter within the day and night rhythm, within the seasons, and how these are dependent upon the place on the planet. Now you have to realise that it will never get that cold that all life will be extinct forever. It may get extremely cold, changing how everything functions on earth, but it never stops functioning, and at some point it will create more heat and the process reverses, which results in a change in function. Whatever nature does and has done, it also has shown us that it ‘bounces back’ time and time again. This bounce is nothing more than a certain energy having been changed to its limit, in which case something changes drastically so everything can go in the opposite direction again. This, over time, creates a wave like pattern of ups and downs, but the most remarkable thing about the pattern is that the cycle never breaks. It never stops. Nature is continual; it never misses a beat.
Nature has a response to anything that can potentially happen within this universe. This also means that every living organism has an innate way of surviving changing circumstances. And yes, there are limits to the spectrum of reaction pattern because every kind of life is meant to fit into the energy field in a specific way. If that space disappears, transforms into a different space, that specific kind of life no longer exist. However, within its normal living environment each specimen has a way of adapting, readjusting and rectifying its response to the changing circumstances. It is known as the natural healing system. The structure of every living organism has efficient and effective ways of responding to imbalances caused by the environment. It always seeks to rebalance the system as quickly as possible and as efficiently as possible. It is something every living creature relies on all the time. We, humans, do as well, even if we are not aware of it. Cell destruction will be repaired, even though I have no idea what it requires. I do not, consciously, need to know. I can, however, totally rely on it to do its job. Or, as our modern society shows us, we can rely on the artificial means of our medical system. We can remove the power of knowledge from the nature of the living system and hand it to another human being or to an artificial medical system. There is a choice. Or is there? Do you have a choice whether to join the NHS or not? When you, as an employee, are not well or incapacitated in any way, do you have the choice to go to work or not? It is crucial to acknowledge that there basically are two ways to approach life, the natural way and the artificial way.
Human beings are not only part of this nature, but they are nature. So, human beings are following the same laws of nature as we observe all around us. All of nature is one complete package, nothing goes to waste and nothing is being created out of nothing. This manifests itself in the fact that all waste is the fertile soil for something else in nature. That way the entire ecosystem keeps itself in balance. At any given time, an overload of something results in a massive stimulation for something else that ‘feeds’ of this and this shifts the whole thing back towards the centre. Up and down all the time. It never stops, and it never breaks.
And what about the ability to create something artificial then? When we create something artificial it is not so much the production that creates the problem but it is the waste. It can’t be broken down easily. There is no natural way, no natural balance, to recycle it. So either it requires a lot of extra effort and energy to break it down or it becomes almost impossible, certainly within a natural timeframe. Let’s take a look at both processes, the production and the recycling.
Linus Pauling showed us that manufactured vitamin C does not have the same effect on the human body than naturally occurring vitamin C. The same has been proven about beta-carotene and other natural ingredients that we have purified in our manufacturing industry. Our ‘green’ energy has led us to produce batteries to store wind and solar energy. These are difficult and demand a high energy cost to recycle and/or destroy. Nuclear power has been marketed as a ‘clean’ energy but takes thousands of years to break down in a natural environment or it involves an enormous amount of energy input to deal with the waste left from the production, which by the way requires a tremendously wasteful process to mine the raw materials. In general terms, artificial means are both less effective in the way a natural system, our body, responds to it and at the same time it requires much more effort, energy, to recycle the waste. Nature isn’t geared up for managing artificial. It turns out that we need to invent other ways, new methods, to prevent a mountain of waste asphyxiating our life. In nature, everything that happens as a result of a change in energy already has a pre-prepared pathway, so nothing goes to waste and everything is used and reused. Creating new, previously unknown, compounds are lacking this follow through. It will be up to the creator, human beings, to find a solution to this problem.
Only when we have successfully dealt with the leftovers of our artificially produced world can human life benefit from this addition to the natural world. And so far it must be obvious that the most efficient way for the changing energies to keep flowing into other manifestations is the natural way. Nature is the most cost effective way to live.
Now humanity is faced with this dichotomy: we are nature and we are also capable of being unnatural. Some individuals within the human community favour the artificial way, especially as production generates income, a base for living within a human society, which in itself is an artificial construction. Others favour the natural way, even though most of humanity lives in an artificial world. These people feel the need to reconnect more to natural rhythms and natural laws. Two opposing views on life, where there is no compromise possible if no room is left for an individual choice. The only compromise possible is one in which both are allowed to live the way they would prefer.
Artificial means do exist and they are part of modern human life. However, the impact they have on each individual life should be left up to the individual. It should be a free choice. Each should then also be left to deal with the consequences of their choice. In other words, each group should take care of the waste their kind of life produces. If you produce plastics then you should be responsible for the clean-up of discarded plastics. It should not be passed on to the consumer, who only uses it because it has been manufactured and marketed. The consumer does not produce the plastic and is therefore not responsible for its existence.
So as these two ways of life are the extremes of a spectrum and everything exists in between those limits, it should be clear that you can’t have it both ways at the same time. A choice will have to be made, especially when we do not leave it up to each individual to decide how much artificial and what kind of artificial to include in his or her life. With that free choice should come the obligation to support the clean-up process. Whoever is not using a specific artificial means should not be branded ‘an accomplice’ who needs to be punished with contributing to the clean-up of the subsequent waste. This is making inappropriate use of a solidarity contribution. A natural waste form will automatically create a response from nature to rebalance. More CO2 in the atmosphere stimulates the growth of more foliage to counteract the increase. Nature, however, has no adequate response to more plastics in the oceans.
Implementing one way of living upon every individual will eventually lead to disquiet, disagreements and conflicts. In terms of health, a choice could be made by an individual to use natural methods for healing and both the effects of this and the waste it produces is something that individual is responsible for. If, on the other hand, the individual chooses an artificial method to be treated with, both the effects and the waste produced in the process are his to deal with. In medicine, just as in the food industry, opting for a quick solution quickly brings about a serious imbalance in nature. Choosing a quick increase in yield has resulted in an impoverished soil and serious water and soil pollution, the clean-up of which will take years and a massive effort, an enormous amount of energy, way beyond the natural flow of energy. Medicine chooses quick solutions to health problems and again, are not made to face the consequences, such as the introduction of chronic illnesses, the hormone pollution of our drinking water, the increased aggressivity of our natural environment, the bacteria, and so on. The right people should be given the responsibility to rectify these imbalances or to face the final consequence when the natural base for life is being completely eroded.
The discussion therefore is no longer about whether vaccines are effective and safe, but the real issue here is whether it is appropriate to enforce a specific life upon each individual without there being a choice in society. Whether or not an artificial means is more effective and more safe than the natural way is not the issue. What truly becomes the question is this: Does any human being have the right to deny another human being a natural life? If one person has the right to choose to include lots of artificial ways into his/her life, why does another not have the right not to do so? And this reaches right into the heart of democracy, a social system where a majority decides what everybody will do and how everybody will live.
But as we are at loggerheads already, the question now is how we can proceed. It is a fact that individuals have given their power away to their ‘representatives’. It is a fact that our society has a power structure that dictates citizens how they should live, what is good for them, what they should believe in, etcetera. If you would like to turn the clock back a little bit and you would like to regain some of that power it is very unlikely you will succeed by fighting the establishment. On the one hand, you have the establishment who are convinced they have been given this responsibility and the power to go with it, so they ‘know’ they are right and they will start a crusade in name of the truth. On the other hand, there is an individual who would want something different, who has no rights and no power. Don’t pretend you have rights: they have been removed because of serious life threatening circumstances. Don’t pretend you have power: beyond your own self, you do not command other people. Is this ant going to take on this elephant? The more of a nuisance you can make of yourself the more effort the elephant will generate to squash you. Conflict and war is not going to get you anywhere else but in your grave. Your death won’t even serve your offspring because nothing will have changed in society.
Here is another thing about the natural world. It doesn’t have any requirements for words. A natural process doesn’t change because I shout at it or because I put a logical argument forward. A natural process does change when I do something. My actions will make a difference. And in this framework the only difference I need to make is to my own life. If I deny anybody the right to dictate me how to live my life, it wouldn’t be wise for me to dictate my way of living to somebody else. Replacing one dictatorship with another doesn’t do anybody any good, except the dictator and his allies.
My actions should express my own decision.
My decision will have consequences.
Consequences will alter my life.
Whatever I decide to do will evoke a response from the community, from the authority. It is the sum total of these two forces that will determine how my life will change and what my future will look like.