Descartes model of science cannot be applied to living beings.

[Guest guest]

Dear _______, I am talking of health issues. The Descartes model of science does not apply to human beings because man is not a mechanical model. This is a fundamental flaw that is recognised and acknowledged but probably nothing can be done to set it right in the short run because it involves very courageous decision making. Another factor that I have already pointed out is that science is no longer following scientific parameters. There is an overwhelming element of bias now that business houses and scientific institutions have come together, ostensibly for the "greater good" of humanity. In the health field we thus find drug pharmacy and GM industry CEOs in boards of many such institutions. As these establishments donate almost all the funds required for the institutions to run, this has severely eroded their credibility. I have already

mentioned the findings of The Lancet as to how scientific reports are being doctored with gay abandon. Today scientists, emboldened by powerful backing of business houses, prefer to hit below the belt when anybody questions their postulates. We are seeing this all over the world as practitioners of holistic systems of health and their medicine chests are being criminally persecuted, under archaic laws designed to suit the interests of the dominant method, just because they are perceived to be a threat to the drug barons. The scientific community is now the exact duplicate of the Church of yesteryears where opposition was burnt at stakes. Currently three very successful doctors are behind bars just because they had dared to use "unconventional" (read holistic) methods to treat their patients. Herbal supplements are being targetted through CODEX in America even as drug majors are being provided immunity from law suits. In India we are seeing how the issues of "heavy metals", "lack of standardisation", "lack of research" etc are being taken up to malign ayurveda even as the scientists very well know that they are non issues. The heavy metals, though present in the medicines, have not affected the patients and also no traces have been found in the body of patients after their use but the so called "scientists" prefer to turn a blind eye to such findings from their own laboratories. Even Nehru was aghast when Indian doctors informed him that studies on laboratory animals had confirmed that heavy metals in ayurvedic medicines do not stay in the body of suspects and are flushed out after use by the other components of the medicines. This procedure is known as chelation and parents of children in the USA affected by heavy metals in vaccines are now turning to this procedure for curing their severely affected children. The "standardisation",

though adopted in many ayurvedic formulations cannot always be adopted as no two patients are the same. Ayurveda thus allows permutations and combinations to deal with the various conditions they come upon as well as the varying constitution of the patients. We know that allopathy is now similiarly questioning the concept of "standard medication" as they find that people of various races and different sexes are reacting variously to the same medication. Ayurveda and homeopathy have their own holistic parameters and cannot be judged by the mechanistic parameters of allopathy which seeks to apply factory assembly line rules on human beings. While highlighting lack of resarch in ayurveda no one draws attention to the fact that government help is almost nil. Whatever is allocated in the budget is also not released as reported in the recent CAG report which has flayed the Health Ministry for not doing enough for the holistic

health sector. The report has revealed that of the 31 crores allotted last year only 17 crores has been released and again a major portion of that fund could not be utilised for lack of infrastructure. And all this when the Government gives thousands of crores to allopathy as subsidies to keep the prices of basic drugs under control. While the patients get sicker a recent report has revealed that the drug industry is "in the pink of health" and growing at unprecedented rate. We are now consuming 23000 crores worth of medicines every year, the growth rate expected being 30%. That is, the decline in health rate is 30% per year. But despite all this our "scientists" continue to behave as if everything is well and above board. Nobody dares question them because we live in the age of "science" and thus it cannot be questioned, even if it is wrong. I hope things are now abundantly clear for you. If you go through my earlier

posts you will notice that I have already dealt with these issues. You have chosen to ignore them. It is not only in the health sector that the mechanistic model is being challenged. In environment issues and agriculture activists are clamouring for a shift to what they call "the vedic world view" which looks at the earth as a living being. Mind you these activists are not Indians but unlike certain "Indians" they have studied what ancient India had to say on such issues. It is unfortunate that we have to learn of our own treasures from foreigners. I will conclude with the remarks of a scientist which I have posted earlier, "I began to see how science can be used, often without conscious intent, to intimidate and control, to obfuscate, to exploit and oppress. I began to see how the dominant paradigm can generate a selective blindness in scientists, making them ignore and deny scientific evidence, or fail to interprete them

correctly". Regards,Jagannath. ____ , ____ <____@g...> wrote:>> Dear Mr. Chatterjee,> > I have trouble comprehending your questions. I do not know your background> but if you are in anyway related to science, I would assume a lot of the> questions would be self explanatory. > Any product of science is NEVER complete. And that is because science is a> dynamic progressive phenomenon. A product is rolled out as an application> designed to cater certain parameters with specific objectives with a> knowledge that is best available. Accuracy and target parameters determine> its performance. Many concepts are not fully developed, yet are being> applied in field- Laser,

digital communications – to name a few. Very gross> example- your toothbrush. It cleans your teeth, but it does not clean> plaque. So, is it a failure? The obvious answer is no! It is not meant to.> Your attacks on most (I am not saying all, but MOST) of issues are similar –> they are conceptually flawed. You are attacking the weakness of a design> that is known to be weakness and was never targeted as an objective.> Medicines that have side effects have to be used as prescribed. GM products> that are out in the market are tested, but not ALL GM concepts are eligible> for practice. A GM procedure that can apply to Apples cannot apply to humans> or animals. Hence the risk, objectives, parameters are not the same. Hence> your question about why those crops are being produced despite GM not being> perfect is simple- because it was able to meet the objectives it was> designed for. Genes cannot be

absorbed by digestion (we do not become> chicken when we eat one) and hence crops pose no threat of altering the> human species by its consumption (that forms the bulk of hallucinating> fear). However, what can effect is an altered chemical interaction during> digestion – or in other words – problems with constituents or chemical> composition. Very rare GM food alters fundamental chemical constitution.> Most alter the composition. If GM food cause problems, it is possible due to> modified levels of toxicity and little to do with harming the human> race….Bottom line – it can be fixed.GM in crops have a different fear- the> impact on nature as a whole and its own ability to reciprocate. > The concerns in the forums and debates you have mentioned are very different> in nature than the one you pose. Your (implicit) concerns are ethical and> divine and are more concerned with religion, beleif and

the theory of> evolution. It is do with beleif in god and the role of man. This form of> resistance is very typical and uses science selectively to damn its> progress. It is what is classically called the 'Church and the State'> conflict. > While being concerned about failures is prudent to prevent harm, criticizing> the very concept is more emotional than concrete. Just like the toothbrush> example, you need to know your tool and supplement it with additional tools> to gain your objective- in the plaque's case- get Floss and mouthwashes (be> it natural or medicated)! Of course, unless we find hidden capitalist> motives behind the toothbrush manufacturer and determine that using fingers> or twigs is the best alternative to toothbrush! > Let us start with a more fundamental question: While your basis of mistrust> for men practicing science may be have different valid

roots, what is your> basis of mistrust in science?> "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.

Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.