Medical Brainwashing

Robert W Malone made an interesting post on X

Robert W Malone made an interesting post on X.

The problem with relying on MDs that are not scientifically trained is that they are taught to accept without questioning what approved “experts” tell them.

https://x.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1883552161298252259

---

My opinion differs from his opinion.

Relying on MDs is fundamentally a problem. Scientifically trained MDs basically accept without questioning what approved “experts” tell them.

https://x.com/Patent_SUN/status/1883745234909282644

---

Medical Brainwash

He is wrong in the sense that he regards medicine as science. There is limited benefit to training MDs who have a conflict of interest in the industry itself. MDs are Medically Brainwashed, and he is no exception and does not realize this.

What they need is not scientific training, but to not become MDs. We need to recognize that MDs are essentially individuals affected by "Medical Brainwashing." We can start by deeply understanding this. Do not shy away from this fact. Accept it.

"Medical Brainwashing" is something you have already witnessed hundreds of times throughout this pandemic, so I won’t delve into defining it. But if I were to put it simply, let’s call it a syndrome in which one cannot oppose medicine due to certain issues in the brain.

Many of them are filled with arrogance, do not have humbleness, and common sense does not apply to them. I’m sure you have witnessed this hundreds time. This is simply due to "Medical Brainwashing." Please keep the term "Medical Brainwashing" firmly in your mind. And this is a major cause of the serious problems currently affecting society.

MDs undergo severe Medical Brainwashings through the biased study before obtaining their qualifications, and the general public is also Medical Brainwashed through them. This creates a societal foundation where Ordinary Medical Brainwashers are examined by Specialized Medical Brainwashers. It is not a matter of social conventional wisdom, but a societal foundation.

Needless to say, scientific training for MDs is meaningless and only effective for a few outliers, that is, MDs with normal intelligence. There is limited benefit to training MDs who have conflict of interests in the industry itself in the first place though.

Clinical trials for pharmaceuticals are based on the issue of conflicts of interest, and various forms of fraud are used in these trials. However, the types of fraud are limited. For example, placebo fraud, time frame manipulation, statistical manipulation of numbers, intentional exclusion, concealment, falsification, and fabrication, among others.

To address these issues, it is necessary to establish regulatory medicine as an independent field of study that contrasts with traditional medicine, and to educate people thoroughly from childhood to adulthood.

Thus, society today is not prepared to confront a cluster of pharmaceutical companies and MDs. What we can do now, ideally, is to establish an administrative body free from conflicts of interest to strictly regulate pharmaceutical companies and MDs.

However, MDs are one of the most powerful clusters in the world, possessing immense political influence and financial power. Medicine science is fraud and brainwashing, but politics at the same time. Moreover, many politicians, like ordinal people, are also victims of Medical Brainwashing.

The academic abilities of many ordinary people, including politicians, are not superior to those of MDs, and thus, they revere MDs and believe them to be right.

Who could imagine a society where Medical Brainwashers regulate medicine?

This society lacks the courage to confront such a conflict of interest head-on.

We have already been defeated from the start, and the only way to deal with this is to escape from medicine with all our might. If we escape, the legitimate MDs and pharmaceutical companies will gradually collapse, and only the unethical MDs and pharmaceutical companies will remain in the end.

At the end, they will feel a sense of crisis, and society might become somewhat more reasonable.

Medicine is not science, but is something disguised as science.

Then, can we expect ethics from MDs?

Looking at history, human curiosity has always surpassed ethics. This is because ethics is conceptually defined by humans, while curiosity is based on human instinct.

Ethics is vulnerable to the passage of time and changes fluidly over time. Ethics is not uniform, and is heavily influenced by factors such as country, religion, law, history, culture, and tradition.

However, there is little difference in human curiosity, and it may be universal. If there is dynamite in front of them, humans are inclined to want to improve it into a weapon of mass destruction, and if there is poison, they are tempted to try it. Driven by insatiable curiosity, humans start with nature and animals, and ultimately, they end up testing it on themselves.

The convenient interpretations used to suppress this are "morality" and "ethics,"　many of which are codified in the form of "laws."

If we interpret it in this way, applying the term "ethics" to "medicine" is merely a convenient interpretation to justify "medicine." "Ethics" should be used to restrain human behavior, and thus questions are raised about medicine justified by "ethics."

"Medical interventions that leverage compassion" or "medical interventions that tolerate some sacrifices to save many lives" were topics of debate frequently observed during this pandemic.

These phrases may seem moral at first glance and have captivated the hearts of many people; however, many others felt that their freedom of medical choice was taken away and rejected them. Yet, the counterarguments against these moral phrases did not work effectively.

The primary cause of this is believed to stem from the fact that a consistent ethical counterargument is required against the unethical elements that are inherently embedded in the propaganda of vaccination policies, yet many people have not existed under a consistent ethical framework.

It is clear that vague and undefined ethics amount to nothing more than wordplay.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

However, these can be surprisingly and morally rejected with remarkable smoothness by "Kant’s Categorical Imperative." I believe equipping medicine with Kantian ethics could be one possible answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

"Kant’s Categorical Imperative" was proposed by the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant as a framework for ethical reasoning. The "Categorical Imperative" refers to a moral law that must be followed unconditionally, regardless of circumstances or consequences, emphasizing the "universality of actions."

There are two main formulations of the Categorical Imperative: the first formulation is the "Principle of Universalizability," and the second formulation is the "Principle of Humanity."

First Formula: The Principle of Universalizability

"Act in such a way that your actions could be a universal law."

The standard for evaluating one's actions is whether they can be universally applied without contradiction. For example, if lying were universally permitted, trust would collapse, and the very meaning of lying would cease to exist; therefore, lying is considered immoral.

Second Formula: The Principle of Humanity

"Treat others and yourself not merely as means, but also as ends in themselves."

Human beings should be respected as "rational beings," and it is morally wrong to use others merely as a means to one's own ends. For instance, deceiving others for personal gain violates this principle.

Kant emphasizes "the motivation of actions" and "autonomy and freedom" rather than "the consequences of actions." Here, what matters is whether the action was performed in accordance with the moral law; even if the action resulted in helping others, if it was done for selfish reasons, it is not morally evaluated.

For Kant, "freedom" means "acting according to one's own reason." To be truly free, one must act based on rational judgment rather than desires or external influences. This allows individuals to possess "autonomy" as "legislators of moral law." In Kantian ethics, "motive" is of utmost importance, and whether an action is moral or not is determined by whether it is based on universal laws and performed out of a sense of duty grounded in reason.

Therefore, from the perspective of Kant's categorical imperative, "medical interventions that leverage compassion" or "medical interventions that tolerate some sacrifices to save many lives" are ethically rejected.

"Medical interventions that leverage compassion"

When medical actions are motivated by compassion, they are judged to be based on emotions rather than rational moral laws. According to Kant's categorical imperative, even if the feelings are noble, they cannot serve as a standard for morality. For medical actions to be moral, it is required to treat the patient as an end in themselves, not merely as a means. Therefore, the "instrumentalization" of compassion is ethically unacceptable.

If the act of receiving medical care with consideration for others were justified as a universal law in a society, everyone would be forced into self-sacrifice, leading to the collapse of a moral order based on reason. Therefore, a universal law that mandates self-sacrifice cannot be a rational moral principle. Morality is both a duty and something that should be determined by individual reason. If self-sacrifice were imposed, individual free will would be lost, and moral actions would become acts of external coercion.

"Medical interventions that tolerate some sacrifices to save many lives"

In this scenario, a utilitarian approach (which emphasizes the greatest happiness for the greatest number) is strongly reflected. However, according to Kant's categorical imperative, the focus is on "the motivation of the action" rather than "the consequences of the action," and it is strictly forbidden to treat others merely as a means to an end. Therefore, this cannot fundamentally be recognized as ethical.

The decision to sacrifice the few to save the many is seen as using the people who are sacrificed as a "means," and therefore, even if the act is ultimately reasonable (saving many lives), any act that presupposes sacrifice goes against the categorical imperative. If such act of sacrificing the few were justified as a universal law, everyone would be forced to accept the sacrifice of themselves and others, and the moral order based on reason would collapse.

Medical intervention based on Kant's ethical views should have the following characteristics:

(1) The action is universalizable.

Question whether the action is based on universal moral principles that can be applied to others.

(2) Respect the dignity and autonomy of the individual patient.

Treat the patient as an end in itself, not a means. Respect the patient's wishes based on reason.

(3) Motivation is based on a rational sense of duty.

Act purely out of moral duty, not based on emotion or results (utility).

Kant's "Categorical Imperative" is very strict, and it can be difficult to apply it directly to a realistic and complex situation such as medical care. In particular, Kant's categorical imperative clashes with a utilitarian perspective, which often leads to ethical dilemmas. For this reason, some are of the opinion that medical ethics need to balance Kantian ethics with utilitarianism.

However, in the current situation where medicine is beginning to take on a strong utilitarian aspect, I believe that discussions on ethical regulation of medicine should be given more importance than flexible judgment according to individual cases.

In reality,

We face the dilemma that medicine cannot be founded upon a fully matured ethical framework.

We need to fundamentally reconsider why ethics is necessary in medicine.

As I previously explained, human instincts—specifically self-interest—easily override ethical principles. In other words, without ethical constraints, medicine is inherently destined to spiral out of control.

When we can objectively observe that medicine is running amok, it is when the inherent motivations of medicine and the industries surrounding it surpass and transcend ethics.

Let’s delve deeper. Human ethical values mature in solitude but fail to develop within groups. This is evident from the fact that Kantian ethics has remained confined to the academic domain and has not taken root in modern society.

In groups, individuals are more susceptible to external pressures, whereas in solitude, introspection guided by reason fosters the development of ethical values. However, in a modern society that embraces diverse values, such opportunities are rare. As a result, the prioritization of economic activities over ethical considerations remains unresolved.

This means that modern humanity is not capable of maturing to the point of elevating itself to a unified ethical framework. Therefore, even if medicine operates under a noble ethical ideal, MDs themselves cannot possess such lofty ethics, making it impossible for medicine and ethics to truly coexist.

In other words, the "ethics" of medicine does not go beyond a "specialized view of life and death" that ordinary people do not possess, making it nothing more than a facade.

In my opinion, one way to achieve balance is to establish regulatory medicine as a field of study, equip it with ethics, and position it in opposition to conventional medicine. I'm sure that, free from the Medicine Brainwashing, regulatory medical professionals possess a more elevated ethical perspective than conventional medical practitioners.

However, such regulatory medicine is not guaranteed to be ethical, and there is no guarantee that it will not be influenced by Medical Brainwashing. Therefore, the final answer may be that we, the general public, have no choice but to escape from medicine.