THURSDAY, AUGUST 16. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME COMING.
I have an immodest proposal to make. But first some background.
There is nothing more current, news-wise, than the pharmaceutical assault on the health and well being of the global population. No nation is exempt from this toxic war.
I have documented the effects, strategies and crimes involved in this war, on this site, all the way back to the beginning of nomorefakenews.
There is an issue of freedom here, and it is poorly understood by most people.
The concept starts with the very real premise of the responsible individual, one who can make choices re his own health and treatment. Who can and will stand by his choices.
Without blaming those whom he has chosen to treat him.
Is a six-year-old child responsible in these ways? Of course not. Is an adult who has believed every pronouncement coming down the pipeline from the medical cartel all his life responsible? That is a more tricky question.
The bottom line is, he is responsible once he understands the concepts of freedom and choice and responsibility as I describe them here. He is responsible, even if he is sadly lacking in information, even if he is sadly lacking in his comprehension of the deceptions of the medical cartel.
How so? Because by understanding what freedom, choice, and responsibility mean, he then accepts the burden of educating himself. He accepts the challenge of dispelling his own ignorance.
So, part of responsibility means taking on the task of educating one's self. Using any means to learn more about what is truth and what is lie.
Could such a task fail in important respects? Yes. One could choose to learn from the wrong people. One could accept information which turns out to be incorrect, mistaken, incomplete, inapplicable, deceiving.
But that possibility does not mean that a person can then abdicate. It does not mean that a person can then say, "I based my choice on wrong information and therefore I am not responsible anymore."
Are there any exceptions to this?
Suppose, for example, that you decide to take responsibility for your own health, and in educating yourself you determine that Doctor Q is the man to treat your arthritis. You speak with him, and you learn all you can about his methods and his character. And then suppose it turns out that he is insincere. He is a con man. He lies when he tells you that his medicine works. He lies about cured patients. He lies about successful experiments he has done.
You take his medicine and you get very ill. You almost die. Your arthritis worsens.
Are you responsible for that? Is he? Are you both? Is there, should there be legal liability involved here?
These are questions which are seldom explored, because...in this day and age we seldom think about what it means to be a responsible person.
Well, the answer is, there IS an exception here. It is part of the intrinsic "good faith clause" which should be implicit in any contract.
The doctor broke that clause. He intentionally deceived you. He was not merely mistaken about the efficacy of his treatment, which he believed to be useful. He lied. He knew he was giving you snake oil.
And if you pursued a course of winning a damage award from this doctor, would you be abdicating your responsibility? No.
BUT...if this doctor was doing his best, and he was wrong, and you almost died, then you take responsibility. Because you made the choice, based on your best knowledge, to allow him to treat you.
Note well. I am not talking about what passes for damage suits in our courts today. I am not talking about what you might be able to wring out of this doctor in the company of a lawyer who is trying any way he can to get you $5 million in damages.
I am talking about ethics, morality, what is right, what is just.
Why is all this important?
Because, by defining what responsibility means, we can establish a basis upon which health and well being can have a place in our society, and we can help create a just society.
So here is what we can say. Any human being who is an adult can choose to be responsible for his own health.
He can then take on the task of educating himself about all relevant matters, and THEN he can choose to place his health into the hands of any other human being.
And that "doctor" need not be licensed by any government or board. That doctor need not be a doctor at all. That person could be ANYONE with or without training of any kind.
A contract can be established between you and that person. The contract involves fees, it involves what treatment will be given, and so on.
And no government has the right to intervene in this contract. No government can prosecute you or the person you have chosen to give you help.
This is a prime right.
So, in what some people might call a worst-case scenario, you and your arthritis are treated with a purple and pink stone which is placed on your spine three times a day for 60 days, and for this you pay $10,000.
If the man with the stone actually believes he is doing good, and if you accept the treatment and sign the contract, you are responsible. If you end up with your arthritis intact and a $10,000 hole in your pocket, you are responsible.
There is no crime. There is no matter here for any government to concern itself about.
And if, on the other hand, after 60 days your arthritis is gone, and you feel wonderful, the government cannot wheedle its way in and say that the treatment was bogus, the stone was absurd, and you were healed only in your mind or from the placebo effect.
In this fashion, if you choose to be responsible, if you write a contract with Dr. Burzynski in Houston to treat you for cancer with his medicine--which has never been approved by the FDA--the government has NOTHING to say about this.
Unless it can establish in court that the doctor was intentionally deceiving you, as described above.
Might an effort by the government to prove that a doctor is a con man, or might an effort by a disgruntled patient to prove the same thing be tricky and difficult and fraught with problems?
Of course. But in an honest court room, you would be surprised at what evidence might be presented on either side of such a question.
What I am setting up here is a solution to the problem of medical monopoly. There are, in fact, several recent laws on the books in a few states which approximate the kind of medical freedom I am talking about.
Only they apply exclusively to medical doctors as the treaters. Why is this only a partial solution? Because the very idea of MD is the wedge that permits the state to establish the limits of your choices...it permits the licensing of various kinds of health providers by the government to be THE standard of what is possible, what is granted, what is CONTROLLED. I am not saying that all MDs are bad. I am saying they are one option in an infinity of choices. But "MD" is used as the hypnotic tool to set up the proposition that THE STATE KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU AND YOU HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER, EVEN IF IT MEANS YOU MUST INGEST DRUGS WHOSE SEVERE TOXICITY IS DEFENDED AS "NORMAL" OR "SAFE" BY THE RULERS OF THE LAND.
Okay. At this point, many people will rush in with their fetish for "protecting everyone at any cost."
But under this simple system I am proposing, anyone can opt for, or blindly follow, the dictates of the FDA and the standards of "good medical practice," and they can take chemo and then sue or not sue...all THAT stays the same. Drug companies who make toxic medicines can be sued in court. Ordinary malpractice measures can still apply.
EXCEPT FOR THIS. There is now a RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSE and a contract, as I have described, and anyone who chooses to be responsible for his own health can take this road. And if he does, there is no government involvement, except in the case of intentional deception.
This allows the gradual development of a responsible society in this respect.
Freedom, choice, responsibility.
And after 50 years, who knows? Perhaps there will be a million people in the US who have signed such contracts...and THAT will bring about a sea-change in our society. UNDERSTAND THIS. THINK HARD ABOUT IT.
As those who choose to be responsible grow in number, and seek out good information in order to educate themselves, private groups will emerge which will offer health and medical advice in newsletters, on websites. They may sell this information or give it away.
And these groups will also be left alone by the government, unless it can be proved that they are intentionally deceiving the public.
What would such a private treater-to-patient contract look like? Well, it might include this language: "I, the patient, accept full responsibility for the treatment I have chosen. I forego the pursuit of any damages against this health provider, regardless of outcome, unless it can be shown that he is intentionally deceiving me about his claims for efficacy of his treatment, or unless he substitutes another treatment for the one we have agreed upon..."
In the extreme case, let's suppose the agreed upon medicine is no medicine at all. You and your health provider simply agree to sit on a cliff and look at the sky for an hour every afternoon.
Will others ridicule you? Will you be called crazy? Of course. But does that mean that the government can intervene? Of course NOT. You may be wrong, but you have the right to be wrong, as long as you sign that contract in good faith.
And let me remind you, part of freedom is allowing others to be free. This, psychologically, is the rub. This is where everyone jumps in with his own idea of what is right and wrong. And wants police and courts and judges and jails to back him up.
If you can't take this kind of heat, get out of the kitchen and be a robot.
Now, we have this sort of eventuality. Joe Smith signs a contract with a responsibility clause, and then later he says he didn't know what he was signing. Now he wants to sue. Now he wants the government to throw the health provider in prison.
Well, we have to look at the facts, case by case. Can Joe Smith read? Was he coerced into signing? Was he deceived about the very nature and meaning of the contract?
Yes, these are sticky matters. Perfection may not possible in this (or any) system. But these matters can be adjudicated. An honest effort can be made to find out what happened.
And oh yes. A corollary to what I am proposing: No government can force a person to take a medicine or treatment of any kind. There is an absolute right of refusal.
What about children under the legal age? They are the responsibility of the parents.
But suppose the parents refuse to allow their child to have surgery for a ruptured appendix or for internal injuries sustained in an auto accident?
Can the state intervene?
This a very slippery slope. Because, if the state can order the surgery, then the state can order chemo for cancer. Or vaccines as prevention of disease. Or brain-scrambling SSRI antidepressants for a "disease" which has no biological definition.
This is where imperfection enters in. After all, if a child is bleeding out on a table in an emergency ward, and the parents refuse all treatment, then we are talking about reckless endangerment at the very least, and possibly murder.
Now THOSE grave charges are not simple medical matters. And that gives us a clue. Through some very hard work, perhaps a list and a guide can be drawn up, can be argued out, so that it will be clear: What refusal of which treatments for a child would constitute a crime?
Yes, this is imperfection...but it does NOT negate the overall concept I am presenting here, except in the minds of those who seek to reject ANY program which misses Utopia by a foot or an inch.
All right. Now here is the immodest proposal.
The formation of a private non-profit group called, for example, Citizens for Medical Freedom, or some such. Its stated goal?
To bring into being, locally and globally, this simple system of medical freedom.
And to provide the best information possible on health and medical matters to those WHO CHOOSE TO BE RESPONSIBLE, WHO CHOOSE TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES.
This information would include real and uncompromising assessments of conventional treatments and unconventional treatments. It would include critiques of government-approved drugs, for example.
If such a group were formed, I would offer my services in the following areas: PR, education, the writing of basic materials, management of the research on assessments of treatments, lecture appearances, gaining members, lobbying, fund-raising.
As a consultant, I would charge a fee. The extent of the fee would depend upon the scope of my involvement.
With the building success of fund-raising efforts, people who form this group and work for it would be paid salaries. This is not an appeal for people to starve and become burned-out martyrs in a cause that goes nowhere. There are non-profit groups that pay quite decent salaries (and they don't have to rip off contributors to do it).
I particularly draw your attention to what I said earlier about effecting a sea-change in society. When you introduce freedom and responsibility into a key area of hidden crime and victimization in a nation, you turn on a light that spreads a very wide distance. Other areas begin to change. Other people wake up.
It is a given that vast protectionism and a lack of personal responsibility are keys to bringing about a slave system. When instead people are offered a choice and provided extensive information, that trend begins to dry up.
There is much more I could say, but let that come later. I hope many of you will read over and think about this brief essay. It holds keys. It is a solution, and many of you have been asking for solutions.
As you can see, I not only report the news, I hope to change it.
The actual formation of this non-profit group is another facet I can help with. But I want others to step up. I want others to create the group. To take responsibility.
If I get a thousand REAL responses from readers, then I will know something. And if I get three, then I will also know something.
If you need background on the medical cartel and what it has actually been doing, and what it plans to do, then simply read this web site back to the beginning.
The ball is in your court for the moment.
If at first glance, what I am proposing seems minor, think again. Work with your own ideas about what freedom is, what responsibility is, and what a society of free people might look like.
And think about this. If the true type of freedom I am describing had existed a hundred years ago, and if the brave and valiant Teslas and Rifes and Kochs of this world had been simply LEFT ALONE, and if the population had been left alone to make choices...who knows what sort of planet we might be living on now?
The ball is in your court.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com