Freedom of speech underpins our enlightened world

So Margaret Court says tennis is full of lesbians and she has concerns over the welfare of younger players.

Let's not kid ourselves, there are variations on human sexuality wherever it appears and just as there was a Rolf Harris and his ilk at work in the world more commonly, or there was when attitudes were different, so too there are those in the world of homosexuality and lesbianism who overstep the mark and who groom and recruit.

Although in this day and age, as was the case when Harris was doing what he did, social attitudes not so much support such behaviour as refuse to acknowledge it might exist.

Court may well have more reasons to be concerned than even she will admit in public. What exempts some sexual proclivities from excesses like paedophilia? Human beings are human beings and when it comes to sex, less rational on many counts, whatever their sexual tastes might be.

But, in general, yes she may be over-reacting but she is a fundamentalist Christian so it is hardly likely to be a surprising view.

And now some of those lesbian tennis players and their supporters, are calling for Margaret Court Arena to be renamed because she does not support same-sex marriage?

Of course she doesn't. It runs counter to teaching in most religions. Same-sex couples can marry, in civil unions, but not in religious marriages and that won't change. Why should it?

Was the Arena named because of her views, which have now changed, or because of her brilliance as a tennis player? Methinks the latter. What levels of idiocy do we reach when censorship like this is unleashed on the world?

What is dangerous is seeking to punish people for expressing a different view. Sure the view might be silly, ill-informed, prejudiced, bigoted, unenlightened, or it might not, but freedom of speech is a fragile right and needs to be protected.

To paraphrase the saying:

I defend to my death your right to say what you think even if I disagree with you entirely.

Such a freedom is easily lost and difficult to win back. We betray it at our peril.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-26/calls-for-margaret-court-arena-name-change-after-qantas-boycott/8560790

Modern medicine as a patriarchal machine disempowers birthing women.

I am not so sure many women do feel guilty about epidurals, and I am not saying that they should.

But I do know that most women want the best for their babies and they know that drugs during labour will affect their babies, somehow, and that epidurals cause a level of paralysis which will impact the ability of their body to 'deliver' the child and possibly lead to even more medical intervention.

The most destructive impact by modern medicine has been the turning of pregnancy and labour into diseases and in the doing, disempowering women.

What did women do before epidurals? They gave birth, as women had always done and still do in many parts of the world. While the propaganda in society and from science/medicine is that childbirth is agony, the reality is that all women are different and for some there is extreme pain, depending on the nature of the birth, and for others, no pain and everyone else falls into a spectrum across the middle.

One of the reasons why childbirth is painful for many women is fear and as a wise doctor pointed out decades ago, Dr Grantly Dick-Read, when you introduce fear to the process of labour, you pit two of the most powerful biological forces against each other where fear seeks to shut down all unnecessary function for fight or flight, and that includes the uterus, and labour seeks to deliver a child into life. The result is unnecessary pain.

Dick-Read reached this conclusion after comparing peasant women giving birth, seemingly without agony, in French fields and then returning to work, and women giving birth in middle class England.

However, because modern Allopathic medicine is a profit-driven industry there is no incentive to alleviate fear in girls and women and to encourage natural and unmedicated and unassisted labour and birth, which is and would be the outcome for most women.

The fear brings in billions of dollars from intervention, medications and surgery and a generation of women, comfortable with their bodies and trusting in the process of labour and childbirth, would bring profits, power and prestige crashing to the ground.

Any woman who gives birth has a sense of the power of her body.  So perhaps for many, using epidurals which basically paralyse the body from the waist down, and I had one friend who was hysterically traumatised by this reality and refused to have another epidural, even though she went on to have quite a few more children, means they have played a voluntary part in their own disempowerment and denial of their wonder as birthing women.

If birthing women received the same admiration and honour that Olympic athletes get, we would have more human beings given the gift of life in natural birthing and more women empowered in ways no man could ever imagine.

Perhaps the patriarchy of Allopathic medicine, has unconscious agendas which women perceive and this triggers guilt. Not that a woman should feel guilty for using epidurals... but sadness perhaps at a system which denies the wonder, power, magic and beauty of womanhood.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-19/shame-mums-choose-pain-relief-breastfeeding/8036868?section=analysis

Lies, legs and liasons

One of the troubling trends which seems to be at work in the world, the First World anyway, but perhaps it is universal, is the tendency to seek to deny inconvenient truths which inject levels of reality into belief systems.

We can of course deny inconvenient truths but is that wise, healthy or responsible for our children?

As an example, a couple have a child born without legs, or perhaps with one leg. Would it be healthy for them to deny that human beings are generally born with two legs and being without one or both, is more challenging and will have impacts which those born fully formed will not have?

Should they say to the child: There is no difference between you and the other child with two legs, or, if the deformed child, for deformed it is, receives prostheses so some function is possible, should they say to the child with its artificial legs: There is no difference at all between you and children who have been born with legs?

I don't think so. A wise parent would talk to the child about the challenges brought by the difference and seek to help the child to compensate for the disadvantage and to strive DESPITE the loss of one or both healthy legs which human beings normally possess.

Any parent foolish enough to try to pretend that the legless child was no different to the one with legs, would be seen by their child as dishonest, stupid or both.

And yet that is the position which some, one might argue, too many, take in regard to same-sex marriage, where, despite the biological reality that no human being has ever, can ever or will ever exist without a mother and a father, a male and a female, we are meant to pretend that two males as parents or two females as parents are not at all different to a male and a female as parents, when, patently they are.

I am not talking about how people dress, or cultural expressions of maleness and femaleness, but the innate biological differences between a man and a woman, something no-one born as one gender, can manufacture or manifest as the other.

Two men in a relationship may be loving, responsible and wonderful parents, as may two women in a relationship but the relationship will be between two men or two women and not between the biological norm, a man and a woman and therefore cannot offer the natural parental gender mix. Like it or not, most humans are one gender or the other, male or female, and modern definitions on the theme are more psychological invention than biological reality.

A child denied the reality and truth of one gender parent is being told a lie, akin to that of the legless child, that there is no difference being born with two legs or no legs when of course there is.

No-one disputes the fact that two men or two women can bring up a child well, but if they deny the right of the child to a surrogate gender parent for the one that is missing, or try to pretend that two fathers or two mothers equal a father and a mother, then they are building a relationship on lies and delusion.

And that is why, whatever changes are made to the Marriage Act, it must enshrine the reality that every single one of us has a biological mother and a father in our lives and has a right to those roles in our upbringing. Not only that, we have evolved throughout human evolution being brought up by members of both sexes even if we were not raised by our biological parents, and that gender mix is a crucial part of our mental, emotional and physical health.

It is not the same being born without legs as it is being born with legs and it is not the same being raised by two men or two women as it is being raised by a man and a woman. When we start pretending that it is, for the sake of political correctness, we become fools and liars.

Same-sex marriage and suffer the little children

The agenda set for same-sex marriage is one which has vastly greater ramifications than many might wish to acknowledge. The problem with agendas, is that confusions are often encouraged, agendas hidden, and clear perspective denied.

A clear example of this was the 67 Referendum on indigenous 'rights' which was sold on a lie, an absolute lie. Many people still believe that lie although the truth is easily found. Most Australians, if asked, would say it was about giving Aborigines the right to vote - No it was not! Those pushing the agenda were happy to sell the lie because it brought desired outcomes. We should not make the same mistake again. Lies should never be the basis for law or legislation.

http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2015/06/indigenous_recognition_and_con.html

Same-sex couples can marry and have been able to do so for some years – in civil unions. Most religions will not marry them but no religion would marry me either and heterosexuals don’t have an automatic right to a religious marriage.

There is not a shadow of doubt that two men or two women who choose to make a life together should have equal rights as partners, in that relationship.  It is the flow-on effect, if not taken into account, which may deny the rights of children, if and when they are involved, and never more so than in this age of IVF, where, in essence, anyone can buy a baby if they wish. And they do, through exploiting poverty-stricken women in the Third World, as often as not, if a willing female is not readily available.

Sure, life has always been unpredictable and babies have been born to the worst of parents, in the worst of situations, unwanted, unloved, unexpected, but that has not been a norm and it is certainly not an ideal.  In the best of worlds you get to be raised by your real mum and dad who love you to bits and make a good job of parenting. But you get a mum and a dad, which is how you were made anyway.

In an age when mechanics make babies for anyone who wants them, pretty much, we have time to choose optimally, for that small life, that human being who has no say, and who has been created like the rest of us, from the male and the female.

The hidden agenda on the same-sex marriage campaign is the issue for many of those who have reservations. Same-sex couples can get married, so they don’t need to change anything for them to marry, and on a few counts, they may, in some States, be denied equal rights as partners and that needs to change.

But the real agenda is that of defining same-sex marriage as absolutely equal with heterosexual marriage and that has enormous implications for the rights of children, particularly in an age where anyone can pretty much buy an egg, sperm and womb to manufacture their own child to order.

To say that two fathers or two mothers are equal to a mother and a father is to deny reality of biology and humanity. None of us exist without a biological mother and father even if they are not the ones to raise us. All of us have a right to being raised by replacements for those missing parents – the male and the female, equally important.

We are, each of us, the creation of masculine and feminine and to be whole, those aspects need to be a part of our experience, particularly as children. In a perfect world everyone is raised by loving biological parents because that is as good as it gets, and everything else is second-best. However, in an enlightened society we have to think far enough ahead, to take into accounts the needs of the powerless, as indeed children are, even while seeking to meet the needs of adults.

In truth, it is impossible to have two fathers and two mothers and that is why, pretending that one can, is a denial of the human rights of the child involved.

By all means, change the marriage act to give same-sex partners equal rights but, when it comes to children, demand that same-sex parents provide a surrogate for the missing gender parent. And, demand of all parents who raise non-biological children, that they inform their child or children about the missing parent or parents and allow access to them as adults, if the child wishes. Where a child has donated sperm, egg, womb, then the individuals who provide those ‘ingredients’ must be prepared to play a part in the child’s life if the child wishes, and the parents who raise the child must support that process.

Science/medicine remains ignorant about the truth of the miracle of life, and even as the information of the mechanics increases, the ignorance does not diminish, but increase. We know that DNA passes from the foetus to the mother and vice-versa, ergo, any womb mother is a part of that child’s life forever, and vice-versa. Egg and Sperm even more so, or, perhaps not – we just do not know.

What we do know is that no human exists without a mother and a father and every human has a right to have that fact acknowledged. It matters not a whit how loving adoptive parents might be, as we can see with the damage done through forced adoption in the past, and the explosion in ancestry searches and reunions for grieving adoptees and their lost biological parents.

The core reality of same-sex parenting is that it is impossible and it is a lie. There cannot be two parents of the same sex. There can be two people raising a child of the same sex, either both adoptive or one adoptive, but it is impossible to have two mothers or two fathers.

This fantasy has been aided and abetted by science/medicine driven by greed and ego and devoid of ethics. IVF is an experiment with human life and the full effects of artificial conception and often pregnancy, will not be known for two generations. How much worse to add to the experiment the fantasy that a mother, female figure, or father, male figure, is dispensable.

Now, same-sex marriage without children is not an issue but changing laws cannot make such distinctions. And that is why, if we are to make changes, we need to do so taking into account the rights and needs of any children who might be involved.

Again, we are seeing the flow-on effect, where in this day and age, people accept same-sex couples raising children, adopting children etc., in ways which simply would not have happened in the past. In truth, until a few decades ago, and to some degree still, males were not considered capable of raising children and fathers always lost out in law.

So, we have come a long way on many counts, but it is dishonest to present the same-sex marriage agenda as simply a case of people of the same sex marrying, when, because of the nature of our society today, it is about much, much more and there are small lives which depend upon us making sensible decisions.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/its-all-about-the-children-not-selfish-adults/story-e6frg6zo-1226099613917

In a world where people are spoiled and spoiled for irrational choices....

Questioning is important on any topic but the current questions regarding gender seem to have been taken to literal extremes with the potential to damage young children.

There is the reality of biology and there is fantasy that being born with a penis does not mean you have to be a male and that with chemicals and surgery you can be 'turned' into a female. Or vice-versa. Of course you cannot and no-one knows the damage that will be done, for there will be damage, in using toxic chemicals to delay puberty or to impose hormonal change.

Research so far is showing that in countries where such forced change has been allowed, that the end results are usually more unhappiness, not less, if not outright misery and regret.

I have no doubt that questioning gender roles is important but the problem seems to be that in this age of mechanics and materialism, it is being literalised and physicalised.

It is also reflective of an age where ethics are never considered and common sense is ignored, and people think they should and can have anything and everything they want, without thought for children involved.

If you are born male and want to be female then drugs and the knife will fix it, although the irony is that the sort of 'female' one becomes is a stereotype of women from the patriarchal age, and ditto for the vice-versa. IVF allows people who cannot in any natural sense become parents, to buy eggs, sperm, womb and purchase a baby, to meet their needs, pushing aside the rights of the human being involved in terms of biology and ethics.

And the newly invented transgender issue reflects the same delusion, that you can buy what you want, when you want it, how you want it, regardless of realities. This is not just a path beyond ethics, it is a path beyond reason.

What sort of a society do we have where people are spoiled and 'spoiled for choices' and where ethics and common sense hold no ground?

We certainly need more flexibility in terms of how males and females act, dress, etc., but to take it to extremes of chemically and surgically seeking to change gender is potentially dangerous, particularly where children are involved.

Common sense goes a very long way with anything and never more so than when children are involved.

There is a condition where people believe they have a limb, arm or leg, which needs to be removed. Sometimes they do have it surgically removed. However, few parents would support or encourage a child to have an arm or leg surgically removed so I fail to see the difference in that and having genitalia surgically removed or replaced.

Please amputate this leg: it's not mine | Anil Ananthaswamy

Anil Ananthaswamy: David is desperate to be rid of one of his legs: 'It feels like my soul doesn't extend into it.' Can a surgeon be persuaded to amputate, or does he have to do…

THEGUARDIAN.COM|BY ANIL ANANTHASWAMY

Mind, soul and body

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose – the more it changes, the more it is the same.

 

 

While most people would consider this a ridiculous claim to make about modern medicine, the fact is, when you look closely at the approach most people take to their health and the response of conventional, Allopathic, the most commonly used medical modality, the more it resonates with elements of truth – things have not changed as much as we might wish or hope.

I will preface this by saying that no-one disputes modern skills in trauma and reconstructive surgery, nor indeed the greater although not complete capacity, to alleviate physical pain. Having said that, modern painkillers are often ineffective and frequently do more harm than good and there are other ways to alleviate pain, they are just not able to be patented and provide less financial profit.

But as a healing mechanism or a medical modality which encourages and maintains robust health, modern or Allopathic medicine falls far short of the mark and frequently drifts into modern versions of ‘snake-oil’ and ‘smoke and mirror’ medicine. In this latter category falls ‘maybe medicine’ where people are treated for diseases they do not have and may never get and where assessing the efficacy of such treatment is impossible.

The catch-cry of ‘get it early’ cannot ever be proven since often that which is found ‘early’ may never have become serious anyway, and there is simply no way of assessing that. To be fair, there is a growing body of research saying exactly that and warning of the increasingly recognised dangers of ‘too many tests’ and too many ‘treatments.’

But of course, systems drive behaviour and the Allopathic medical system is now so dependent upon and entrenched in tests and treatments and maybes that it is reluctant to change, because, after all, what else would it have? And the money invested in the approach itself is so enormous that it would be a ‘waste’ not to use all these tests and treatments and machines and procedures, even if they are doing ‘more harm than good.’

And so it goes, the system is dependent upon what it is and only something dramatic and powerful can change it. Beyond of course patient pressure and demand but the chances of that are greatly reduced by the fact that most people live with deep fear about becoming ill and particularly in regard to death and most believe the mantra that modern, Allopathic medicine is as good as it gets and is going to be the only thing which can save you.  Even when demonstrably it is not.

Modern medicine rides like a ‘god’ on the back of society with hospitals, like temples of old, rising higher, growing bigger, standing grander and becoming more costly all the time.

Never before, have so many human beings had so much access to medical treatments and so many medical interventions, not to mention medications, vaccines, procedures, tests, checks and advice.

None of this would matter if people were generally healthier and disease less common, but they are not healthier and disease is in fact more common with serious and chronic diseases at levels never seen before, particularly in children.

You would think, nay, you would expect that it meant better and more robust health and a diminishing of disease in general, but it does not.

So, whatever Allopathic or modern medicine is doing, it is not contributing to robust general health.

Not only that, as the third biggest killer after heart disease and cancer, and rising, it has become effectively a ‘disease’ in itself where one of the most dangerous lifestyle choices one can make, particularly if healthy, is to consult a doctor.

And this is because modern medicine, imprisoned in the mechanical and materialist reductionist mindset of modern science, is a business, an industry, and a system where profit, prestige and power hold sway and dictate that testing, cutting and drugging are the only approach which should be allowed or can be allowed.

Tests, surgery, medications are big business and in fact, science-medicine is probably the most profitable and powerful business after the military industrial complex. It is certainly the most pervasive of any industry and it is largely controlled by the pharmaceutical industry where the evidence has long been that profits come before people, despite claims to the contrary.


It is little wonder that research is beginning to show that the science-medical industry is itself, very sick indeed, with corruption, incompetence, malpractice, bias, distortions, so commonplace that researchers have said most research is just plain wrong. No wonder modern medicine has become so dangerous.

The third biggest killer, as iatrogenic – Allopathic doctor or medical induced – is mainly sourced in prescribed medication. In other words, drugs given to treat real, imagined or possible diseases, have a very good chance of injuring or killing you, as they do millions, worldwide every year.

How can that be good medicine? What other medical modality would be allowed to maintain such a high kill and injure rate? None.

 

Modern science/medicine is quick to mock and often ridicule the medicos of old for what was deemed to be their ignorance and their barbaric methods. However, any close study of Allopathic medicine in this day and age, quickly reveals that many treatments are used, with minimal healing effect, which are both barbaric and ignorant, and failure indicates their theory and practice are sourced in no real and useful knowledge.

Many treatments and procedures used by doctors today cause great suffering, even intense pain, without a healing or cure outcome. It was ever thus, it is just that failure in the present is accepted and failure in the past is ridiculed.

One can only wonder how research is stifled and largely unsuccessful treatments, chemotherapy comes to mind, are retained because the pharmaceutical industry which profits from their use, dominates and controls Allopathic medicine. Would we have advanced further if this were not the case and if science-medicine was free to research where, when and how it wished?

The power of the pharmaceutical industry over science-medicine corrupts the core principles of science as an objective, rigorous system of enquiry and research. And in the doing, not only manipulates modern medicine but the health of everyone who uses it.

The male domination of science and medicine has made both systems, mechanistic and militaristic at core. The scalpel is the new sword and the drugs take the place of cannon balls and bombs with the body as battlefield and enemy.

It is oxymoronic to use military terminology, as happens all the time, for a medical system which claims to do no harm, even though it does, too often, and which seeks to heal. Smiting, smoting, striking, destroying against the human body is counter-intuitive if we are to have optimal health. And yet that is the approach and people are encouraged not just to mistrust their body and expect it to betray them, as some enemy would, but to fear it.

The words make the mindset. We see things not as they are but as we are is a maxim which resonates. Science-medicine sees the body as a machine or ‘bag of chemicals’ as one erstwhile doctor put it and that is the maxim which underpins modern, conventional, or Allopathic medicine and which flavours and limits it.

No-one disputes that in some areas, surgery, preferably absolutely necessary and often it is not, or crisis/trauma, the mechanistic, materialist reductionist approach is of benefit although more healing and less harm would be the case if non-Allopathic medical modalities were also used to limit the wielding of the knife and the toxic dose of drugs.

 

The practice of medicine, Allopathic or conventional medicine, today, embraces, encompasses and treats virtually all people at levels never seen before in human history. You no longer have to be rich to see a doctor or to have access to all that modern medicine has to offer. All that there is, certainly in the First World and even to far greater levels in the Third World, is available to you from the time you are born until the day you die.

 

Logic suggests that we would expect people in general to be healthier, i.e. to have robust health and to fall sick infrequently and when they do, to recover quickly. We would expect vastly lower levels of serious and chronic disease because of the advances in medicine and its availability.

 

But that is not the case. There are in fact higher and rising levels of chronic and serious disease in general and more so in children. Cancer rates have risen from more than one in ten in 1900 to one in two today.

 

Children today have poorer health than their parents did and suffer, often at epidemic levels, rates of Autism, Diabetes, Auto-Immune Disease, Allergies, Behavioural and Learning Difficulties, Coeliac Disease and as some data shows, earlier rates of strokes and heart disease in young people.

 

Of course there are many other factors at work in our society which no doubt play a part, but the fact remains that conventional, modern, Allopathic medicine is unable to deal with the results, and when you look at the increased rates of vaccination, often experimental, given earlier, more often, in multiple form, and increased medication rates and the overuse, if not abuse of antibiotics, the problem, as it often was in centuries past, may well be medicine itself.

 

Whatever modern Allopathic medicine is doing, it is not making or keeping people healthier.

 

With all the advances in technology and knowledge and skills, people in general should have generally vastly better health. And they do not.

 

The argument from conventional science/medicine is that people live longer. Note they do not claim that people are healthier, they say that people live longer, completely ignoring the fact that such claims are sourced in distorted data and that many people who live longer, experience often miserable lives of poor health, pain and great suffering.

 

The fact is human beings do not live longer now than they did thousands of years or even centuries ago, as research into Egyptian and South American mummies, and a little research into history and ancestry, also reveals, where they have good nutrition, sanitation and hygiene, people lived to similar ages that we see today.

 

Life evolves slowly and the human organism is essentially no different and recorded history is so very brief, that common sense dictates that a relatively healthy human being, from in utero and beyond, with good nutrition, sanitation and hygiene, is going to live to a certain age. And they did. And they do.

 

The biggest factor in longevity was improvements in nutrition, sanitation and hygiene, as the records show. And as still occurs in developing countries where such improvements are put in place.

 

The shockingly high infant, maternal, child mortality rates up until the early 20th century, were  largely because of poor nutrition, sanitation and hygiene. Rickets meant deformed pelvic structures and babies and mothers at risk in childbirth and it meant less robust babies born to poorly nourished mothers.

 

Poor sanitation and hygiene meant higher rates of disease in general and epidemics and infectious diseases in particular, and when combined with less robust health, because of inadequate nutrition, disease and mortality rates were often at astronomical levels. Fix the nutrition, sanitation and hygiene and you start to see disease, epidemic and mortality rates plummet.

 

Syphilis was the other huge factor in infant and child mortality rates, a disease often unrecognised in the parents, but deadly all the same. It could and did kill anytime from conception and through the first five years of life, and often without parents and doctors knowing what had caused the death. One would have thought the vastly higher rates of blindness and deafness, Syphilis also brought, would have been indicators, except for the fact that it was a slumbering sickness which could appear, disappear and reappear again, many years apart.

 

This is why parents, in times of large families could have four or five healthy children, four or five dead or diseased and then another four or five healthy children, or a variation on the theme.

 

Conventional medicine did come up with effective treatment in the early decades of the twentieth century for Syphilis and brought this scourge largely to an end. Having said that, other medical modalities like Homeopathy, Herbal and various forms of Traditional Medicine were also effective in treating disease in general and Syphilis in particular, but never took precedence as medical treatments and so the effect was scattered, occasional, and because of the emphasis on mechanistic materialist reductionist science/medicine, largely ignored.

 

All of these factors played a part in reducing child and infant mortality rates and that boosted longevity.  None of it increased one whit the capacity of a human being, in optimal circumstances, to live a given amount of time, but removing those early kill factors, gave the impression that people lived longer even though they did not. And they do not.

 

Number-crunching can be useful but it is also a tool or weapon to distort and distract. As an example, you can be told that in this African country the average age at death is forty-two. Many assume that most people die at forty-two but of course they do not. The same ‘rules’ apply as they did in centuries past in that if someone survives the vulnerable first few years of life, when immune function is beginning to be established and nutrition, sanitation and hygiene are most crucial, then the chances that you will live to a reasonable age, increase.

 

In countries where the average age of death is forty-two, many people live into their eighties, nineties and beyond. In other words, if they avoid accidents, HIV/Aids, and have reasonable nutrition, sanitation and hygiene, their longevity is not so different to those in the First World.

 

And it was ever thus. It is simply not true that people live longer with modern medicine. What is true is that improved sanitation, hygiene and nutrition means more people survive the first few vulnerable years and have better health in utero, but they do not per se: live longer.

 

Although a qualifier is needed here because mechanistic modern medicine can keep people alive for longer but in a state of suffering and often misery that we would not allow a pet to endure. If a few years of such ‘extra life’ nudge up the longevity factor provided by conventional Allopathic medicine, or rather the mindset in which it operates, then perhaps we need to question both the mindset and the application.

 

Longevity, like health, is about quality not quantity. The best medicine maintains and helps to restore, if needed, robust health where one has optimal quality of life. And the best medicine can only do that when it works with the body, which is the only healer in any true sense, all treatments being mere support, allowing the body to maintain and restore, optimal function.

What is health, is a question which would be answered pretty much the same today as it would have been hundreds or thousands of years in the past.

 

Health is not necessarily complete absence from occasional sickness, and in times past, minor diseases, particularly in children, were considered to be an important part of the process of gaining robust health as an adult, and they still are by those who practice non-Allopathic medicine in the main, but it is generally a robust, energetic, vigorous constitution, which recovers readily from periods of sickness and does not suffer from serious or chronic disease.

 

In other words, your constitution is strong, you don’t get sick much and if you do you recover relatively quickly, and suffer no lingering after-effects. Whatever you do to support your body’s health is in essence the best medicine you can ever have.

Few probably realise that medications and vaccinations are designed to deceive the body and trick it into acting unnaturally. How can that not be confusing to such a complex organism? How can that not create dysfunction? One wonders if the massive rise in Cancer, those rogue cells which have forgotten how to suicide, apoptosis, for the good of the whole, might be sourced in such confusion and designed unnatural responses.

Less is more is probably a good approach and the old saying that erring on the side of moderation is wise, is particularly sensible when applied to medical treatments.

Doctors and scientists may well know more at a material and mechanical level than they knew a century or even fifty years ago, but they still remain largely ignorant about the How, What and particularly the Why, of bodily function.

They design treatments based on the erroneous belief that the body can be treated mechanically and materially and that no other factors are at play in disease. As of course they must given the belief system which underpins modern science at this point in history and which has done so for a few centuries now.

But each of us has responsibility to and for our own body and the more we take charge and do our own research, our own thinking, our own intuiting, the better health we are likely to have. Your body is your best friend and the two of you are in it for life. Working with the natural function of the human body, something modern science/medicine does not generally do, is going to optimise your capacity for health.


Having said that, if conventional medicine and regular trips to the doctor has you in robust health then keep doing what you are doing. We are all different and what matters is that what you are doing is working for you.

Every symptom is your body’s attempt to speak to you and every disease is your body’s attempt to heal. Listen and respect all of it.

Living a spiritual life involves all that you are - mind, soul and body. All is one. There is no separation.