(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
The German Johann Peter Frank laid with his masterpiece The complete medical policy already at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries the reason for the right of interpretation of social medicine over all spheres of society. He thus became a real father of the public hygiene idea, which broke through in the early 20th century.
But it was with the emergence of modern experimental bacteriology in the 19th century, as represented by pioneers such as Robert Koch and Max von Pettenkofer, that this arrangement of society for health reasons in line with the development of theories of bacteria as a monocausal cause of disease got its decisive breakthrough. With the knowledge of epidemic infection spread, the notion arose of the need for general societal hygiene in order to maintain a high statistical frequency of health in the increasingly complex industrialized society. The experimental-scientific nature of this medical paradigm made disease a matter of bacterial transmission, an almost irrational external threat to human coexistence.
Alfons Labisch, German physician and medical historian, writes in his The Hygiene Revolution in Medical Thinking: «Health became the ultimate orienterings marker for how to behave in the industrial world, a marker that everyone was obliged to adhere to and which was not to be doubted because it was scientifically proven… »
The problem with this conception of disease, however, is that it is ripped for ontological qualities that have an eye for nature and thus disease – the inner wholeness and connection with the individual – and instead reduces disease to a social surface, consisting of the chains of infection created in masses. The epidemiological-bacteriological mindset made numbers and statistics indisputable parameters for the progress of disease control and thus was able to push a dogmatic belief in quantitative measurement methods in between the trust relationship between physician and patient that had hitherto prevailed in clinical medicine.
In our time, this can prove to be a dangerous development.
Social hygiene more important than vaccinations?
The epidemiological revolution culminates in a way with coronacrisis. As Christian Drosten, virologist from the Charité Hospital in Berlin and if anyone one of the main responsible for the government Angela Merkel's German coronapolicy from March 2020, said: "It is viruses that determine lock-down."
As social hygiene was realized in the form of clean water, better sanitation, nutrition, and increased living standards in Western societies, it gradually reduced the statistical curves of epidemic infectious diseases. But along the way, it also seems to have been associated with the notion that it was drugs / vaccinations that were the primary cause of this development. However, there is no historical evidence for this.
Physician Suzanne Humphries and disease historian Roman Bystrianyk demonstrates in their book Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History, that both vaccine and antibiotic in comparison with better sanitary conditions have had minimal impact on the decline in disease statistics over various infectious diseases over the last two centuries. The vaccine-based contribution to herd immunity is also highly questionable due to the duration of the vaccines, their changing effect and the lack of immunity in natural infections.
The vaccine-based contribution to herd immunity is highly questionable.
Still have WHO (World Health Organization) Some places on its public presentation of its organization in just quite a few months in 2020 changed the organization's definition of herd immunity at crucial points. On June 9, "herd immunity" was defined as "the indirect protection against an infectious disease that occurs when the population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed by previous infection." On 13 November of the same year, this definition was changed to: «Flock immunity – also known as 'population immunity' – is a term used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected against a separate virus when a sufficiently high threshold for vaccination is reached. »
Claus Hancke, Copenhagen, specialist in general medicine and specialist in Orthomolecular treatment, a medicine that tries to prevent and treat diseases with substances that are natural to the body, believes that a blind belief in vaccinations as a means of eradicating all diseases in worst case scenario can lead to a complete phasing out of man's own immune system and a collective immunological disaster.
- If we have to be vaccinated every time some virus mutates, he says, then after maybe 3 generations we will experience more and more people with «immunological disability». A concept I have launched in my American network where I call it «immuno-disability».
Issues of national security
The charismatic southern German, Ingmar Hoerr, is the true father of RNA biotechnology and has been working on this discovery for over 20 years through his company CureVac. In March 2020, Donald Trump offered the South German company a sum of money to have the production of and the rights to the vaccine transferred to the United States, which almost led to a foreign policy crisis between the two countries. The German Minister of the Interior, Horst Seehofer, stated in this connection that coronathe crisis was no longer just a health crisis but a matter of national security.
The epidemiologically oriented medicine has gained in our time as a new religion.
The financing of Hoerr's company CureVac was a problem for a long time, until Hoerr ran into Friedrich von Bohlen, nephew of Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach. Until 1967, this was the sole owner of the steel group with the historically sounding name: Thyssen-Krupp.
Friedrich von Bohlen has big visions, especially when it comes to curing cancer. But who is to decide how medical treatment of cancer should take place in the future – the health authorities' experts or the cancer patients themselves? In this connection, Bohlen's words in the video produced about his work with cancer treatment are disturbing: “One must differentiate very strongly between what the patient really really wants and what the state thinks about how the individual should be protected, and here I mean, an abyss opens up in communication. "
Apart from the fact that the tense dialogue between superpowers such as the United States and China has raised awareness of the potential use of pathogens in biological warfare, coronacrisis also drew attention to the need for a new global solidarity in the fight against disease. This is especially so if this becomes synonymous with a vaccine, a solidarity that must also be reflected in various patent laws.
Unfortunately, in the context of an international development of power cartels between business and a state Public-Management strategy, vaccine production does not go in that direction. Something that is seen, among other things, by the American Bayh-Dole legislation from 1980.
Global health dictatorship?
Considering that Germany's two major magazines, Spiegel and Stern, between Christmas and New Year on their respective front pages, presented the two developers of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, Turkish-German Özlem Türeci and Ugur Sahin – as "saviors" Holy Three Kings carry the new vaccine before the baby Jesus, so it is not far to perceive the triumph that epidemiologically oriented medicine has achieved in our time as a new religion. Religious dogma is implicit in the indisputability of miscellaneous corona-number – a disease statistic that most people can neither overlook nor reject. And at the same time, the disease preparedness associated with modern Public Health thinking seems to be gradually assuming a hierarchical form reminiscent of a theocratic papal structure.
Both vaccines and antibiotics, in comparison with better sanitary conditions, have had a minimal effect on the decline in disease statistics.
At the top of this global medical hierarchy is the WHO, whose leader Tedro's Adhanom Ghebreyesuser is the first in the organization's history to have an immunological but not a medical education. Incidentally, in 2005 the WHO went from being an advisory body to an institution with "contracting authority." It was also this organization that in May 2009 changed the definition of a pandemic from being a matter of a high number of deaths to a matter of a rapid spread of infection.
The next step is the various hospitals and medical centers, almost all of which have an epidemiological starting point. It is e.g. Robert Koch Institute in Germany, CDC in the USA and the European EMA. This is followed by the local health authorities in the individual countries – the National Institute of Public Health in Norway, the National Board of Health in Denmark etc.
At the bottom of the pyramid are all the media – also electronic – which have the task of disseminating information to citizens about information that is deemed relevant to health.
An institution such as the German Robert Koch Institute describes itself as «a network hub for global health ». How is the epidemiological disease preparedness that is the department's goal realized? Key words in what is called a collective term Epidemic Intelligence (EI) is the exploration, monitoring and control of disease pathogens for the purpose of early assessment and warning to the population of impending epidemics of infectious infectious diseases. This is called: Structural preparedness. The first EU-spread surveillance system, The European Surveillance System (TESSy), is headquartered in Solna, Sweden.
The big question is whether it will thus be states with hierarchically structured forms of government and extensive use of technological surveillance that are best suited for the management of epidemiological disease preparedness? WHO, whose leader since his position as health minister in Ethiopia has had a close relationship with the communist regime, has been active in praising China in its handling of coronacrisis.
That medicine could develop in a direction that would sanction the introduction of a global health dictatorship with the altruistic aim of protecting the population, it was Benjamin Rush (1746–1813), one of the United States «founding fathers »and even a doctor, in when he already in the 18th century spoke of the necessity of storming« the Bastille of medical science »:« Unless we bring freedom in medicine into the Constitution, there will come a time, where medicine will organize itself into a secret dictatorship. "