by Dr Patrick Quanten
Our time is marked by an almost obsessive urge for testing and measuring in an effort to create "science". This results in statistics and conclusions that are then used as a proven tool to separate good from bad, right from wrong. Because we now believe we have got scientific proof, by way of measurement, about what is right and what is wrong, we can implement rules and laws to express that knowledge. We force everybody to accept our conclusions and we ensure that there is no room left for doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt is our standard for justice, so it has become our standard for life itself. We pretend.
The key to this sequence is the belief that once something has been measured, has been tested, it becomes an undeniable truth, which allows us to draw definite dividing lines between good and bad. The speed by which I drive my car is determined as "a good and responsible citizen" on one side of the dividing line, but when I overstep the agreed and measured line by even one mile per hour I become " a danger to my fellow humans" and consequently I need to be punished. No amount of pleading, arguing or giving explanatory reasons will alter the conclusion that I have behaved in an inappropriate manner. Once measured it becomes an established knowledge and rules flow forth from that knowledge, rules that then need to be obeyed under all circumstances.
From this point onwards the citizen has lost the freedom of choice. In the interest of the entire community the individual must obey the rule, which has been set as a result of the test done. All this in the name of science.
Humanity in its developing wisdom has always used tests to "prove" things. Even Jesus on the cross was told that if He truly was the Son of God He could prove it by removing Himself from the cross. Failing the test inevitably means that the statement is wrong. In order to prove heresy people were dropped in boiling fat. Failing to survive this test meant one was not protected by God and therefore deserved the punishment. Being unable to remove oneself from the stake was proof of witchcraft, a danger to the community. In today's, so much more wise and tolerant society, failure to prove one's innocence in the matter of Shaken Baby Syndrome makes one guilty, and therefore in need of punishment. Although our judiciary system states not guilty until proven otherwise, this adagio changes the moment an expert is called upon for his opinion. This expert will observe and measure until he reaches a conclusion which then becomes the undeniable truth, followed by necessary punishment to all of those who contravene this "truth". The individual has lost its freedom and power as society has deemed what is right and what is wrong in a measured and therefore scientific way.
Strangely enough, that particular "scientific" way has been superseded a century ago when scientists realised that nothing could be measured or observed and translated into an "objective" conclusion. In quantum mechanics, the observer and the system being observed became mysteriously linked so that the results of any observation seemed to be determined in part by actual choices made by the observer.
Let us ask a simple question: When you look up at night and see a star, how can we understand what is happening? The answer to this differs from your own point of view and knowledge. A Newtonian philosopher might answer that you are really seeing the star, since, in Newtonian physics, the speed of light is reckoned as being infinite. An Einsteinian philosopher, on the other hand, would answer that you are seeing the star as it was in a past epoch, since light travels with finite velocity and therefore takes time to cross the gulf of space between the star and your eye. To see the star "as it is right now" has no meaning since there exists no means for making such an observation. A quantum philosopher would answer that you are not seeing the star at all! The star sets up a condition that extends throughout space and time, called an electromagnetic field. What you see as a star, is actually the result of a quantum interaction between the local field and the retina of your eye, and your interpretation of the resulting image. Energy is being absorbed from the field by your eye and the local field is being modified as a result. You can interpret your observation as pertaining to a distant object if you wish, or concentrate strictly on local field effects.
And who is "right"? In principle they all are. The answers all pertain to a specific field of understanding and they have no meaning outside of that field. In their descriptions these people may use the same words and concepts without those actually having the same meaning. Although they might talk to each other using those same words, they would actually not understand each other.
When a quantum observer is watching quantum mechanics it is said that particles can also behave as waves. When behaving as waves, they can simultaneously pass through several openings in a barrier and then meet again at the other side of the barrier. This meeting is known as interference. Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings the picture changes dramatically. If a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, simply because they are being watched electrons are "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings.
To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum observer's capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it. Apart from observing, or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current itself. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector/observer near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the observer's capacity to detect electrons increased, the interference (the wave pattern) weakened. In contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, the interference increased. Thus, by controlling the properties of the quantum observer the scientists managed to control the extent of its influence on the electrons' behaviour.
Hence, the manner in which a test is set up influences the observed results of the test. The way a laboratory "measures" a certain substance in the blood gives a result that relates to the chemical way the test is being performed. This result, which obviously can not be seen as objective, will then be interpreted by someone who believes it to have a particular significance. If he didn't he wouldn't do the test! This interpretation then leads to a conclusion about right or wrong, which in turn results in an action. Let's give an example.
Test: amount of immunoglobulins in the blood
Belief: level is indication of high or low immunity
Result: low level of immunoglobulins
Belief: creates protection against infection
Result: higher level of immunoglobulins
Belief: vaccination results in a high level of protection
Let's look at this briefly from a scientific point of view. Testing the level of blood immunoglobulins is no indication of the status of your immune system. Why not? Because immunity cannot be measured. We have individuals with a low level and high immunity and the other way around. Nothing can be objectively tested or measured! The action of vaccination in order to raise the protection level is scientific nonsense as infection occurs spontaneously from the inside and does not relate to an invasive process. Linking the observed change in the blood level to the action taken is also scientific nonsense as vaccination is not the only thing that has changed between the first and second blood test. Millions of things have changed, from the outside temperature, to my personal tiredness or stress level, to what I have been eating, thinking, feeling, hearing, reading, to the person who takes the blood and circumstances in which the blood is taken, and so on and on and on. Which of these can you "prove" has no influence on the test result? If you can't prove it to have a neutral influence you shouldn't scientifically dismiss it either. Everything changes constantly anyway, even if we did not vaccinate!
The conclusion has to be that testing only hands us a specific frozen picture in time, which was taken in a specific way with the purpose of showing something in a specific light. What it looked like moments before the picture was taken or a few precious moments later remains a mystery. What it would have looked like if we had frozen the moment in a different way, nobody will ever know. What we might have seen if we had been looking with a different purpose, is lost in time forever.
And yet, we test, we interpret, we conclude, we judge, and we act upon the judgment as if all these were steps into a true reality, although science, the very umbrella used in the cover-up, has clearly demonstrated a century ago that the reality we observe depends on the way we look at it.
Truthful science-based-medicine would apologize to the people it cares for and it would scrap it test-based-medicine. Science is observation and, hence, science-based-medicine would observe and not interfere. It would observe the individual, as a whole. It would observe the pathway of health within the individual, as time passes by. It would observe the individual requirements for supporting the system. Its actions would remain limited to simple, individual and moment based changes in behaviour. It would mean the end of "the war"; war against cancer, war against dementia, war against super-bugs, war against obesity, and so on.
In Nature, nothing is intrinsically good or bad, which means that we need to accept that disease and death, in itself, are not good nor bad. It depends on how we look at it!