Is it possible to get a religious vaccine exemption?

[greentara]

Lhug pa, If those pictures you sent of Michael Taylor and Monsanto are for real then we are in deep trouble and are being taken for absolute 'mugs'.... what a mess this world is in!
I shall forward this to all my friends.

[Pema Rigdzin]

One hears a lot about how "chemicals" are to be avoided at all costs because they're not natural... You know, because natural things are not made of chemicals... <sarcasm> OK, so I do agree with trying to stick with good quality, locally grown, organic foods that are nutritious, as well as avoiding taking medications unnecessarily--particularly antibiotics. I also know full well, as do many medical professionals, how rigged the big pharma scheme can be and how much the money game tends to interfere with what is beneficial for the people (including the big pharma players themselves, which is why I don't fully understand how those peoples' minds work).

But, with that said, the extreme chemophobia is no good either. And having begun studying pharmacology a couple months ago, it has become apparent how little the average person knows about (1) how drugs actually work, (2) how much western meds are tested and how much empirical data there is for so many of them, and how much oversight there is so we can be sure there is a consistant level of the active ingredient(s), so we can know their mechanism of action (usually); so we can know how they're metabolized, what the signs of toxicity are, and what amounts tend to be toxic; so we can know what the safe therapeutic range for any given drug is, and on and on; and (3) how little of this knowledge we have for a great many naturopathic medicines, not to mention the lack of oversight for standardized levels of the active ingredients, reporting and data collection for adverse effects (which a significant amout of natural medicines DO have, some of which can be serious), and so on. We generally know much less about naturopathic remedies than most western meds. This article does a great job explaining some of the absurd assumptions we tend to make about herbal rememdies and such vs pharmaceuticals, and what the consequences can be: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ith_a.html

[Johnny Dangerous]

One hears a lot about how "chemicals" are to be avoided at all costs because they're not natural... You know, because natural things are not made of chemicals... <sarcasm> OK, so I do agree with trying to stick with good quality, locally grown, organic foods that are nutritious, as well as avoiding taking medications unnecessarily--particularly antibiotics. I also know full well, as do many medical professionals, how rigged the big pharma scheme can be and how much the money game tends to interfere with what is beneficial for the people (including the big pharma players themselves, which is why I don't fully understand how those peoples' minds work).

But, with that said, the extreme chemophobia is no good either. And having begun studying pharmacology a couple months ago, it has become apparent how little the average person knows about (1) how drugs actually work, (2) how much western meds are tested and how much empirical data there is for so many of them, and how much oversight there is so we can be sure there is a consistant level of the active ingredient(s), so we can know their mechanism of action (usually); so we can know how they're metabolized, what the signs of toxicity are, and what amounts tend to be toxic; so we can know what the safe therapeutic range for any given drug is, and on and on; and (3) how little of this knowledge we have for a great many naturopathic medicines, not to mention the lack of oversight for standardized levels of the active ingredients, reporting and data collection for adverse effects (which a significant amout of natural medicines DO have, some of which can be serious), and so on. We generally know much less about naturopathic remedies than most western meds. This article does a great job explaining some of the absurd assumptions we tend to make about herbal rememdies and such vs pharmaceuticals, and what the consequences can be: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ith_a.html

[Pero]

Tamiflu says hi. Also I looked into the future and Brian jr. will be born with three eyes and four arms. My first thought was that this is due to you heedlessly eating genetically modified food but then I realized it could be some strange side effects from too much development stage tantric practices.

[Pema Rigdzin]

lol you're a trip Peter. It's too bad you're thousands of miles away. I'd love to get a beer with you. I didn't get the part about Tamiflu though.

[Lhug-Pa]

*Please delete this specific empty post*

[gregkavarnos]

My prospective employer refused my religious objection...

Not surprising given it is a lie. There's no beating karma!

[Lhug-Pa]

My prospective employer refused my religious objection...

Not surprising given it is a lie. There's no beating karma!

Maybe it's his karma, however I wouldn't consider it a "lie". His conviction seems to be more honest and authentic than many people's religious contrivances, even if the 'law of karma' wasn't in his favor this time around.

Even if it was a "lie", in Buddhist terminology it was a justified "lie" (skillful means).

The problem is, is that some Buddhists use "skillful means" as an excuse. Whereas other's use skillful means in a legit way.

Some seem to think that the end never justifies the means (like some well-intentioned naive people), whereas others seem to think that the end always justifies the means (like the Jesuits). But I think that it depends on the situation (i.e. sometimes the end justifies the means, and sometimes it does not). Hence Upaya or Skillful Means. And Thrasymachus is in the right in this particular circumstance.

Lhug pa, If those pictures you sent of Michael Taylor and Monsanto are for real then we are in deep trouble and are being taken for absolute 'mugs'.... what a mess this world is in!
I shall forward this to all my friends.

They're for real. Michael Taylor was appointed by Barack GMObama himself.

And:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... _20437.cfm

One hears a lot about how "chemicals" are to be avoided at all costs because they're not natural... You know, because natural things are not made of chemicals... <sarcasm>

Yea yea, I used to get that one all the time. So these days I always specifically say "synthetic-chemicals" in order to (hopefully) not have to hear such sarcasm.

OK, so I do agree with trying to stick with good quality, locally grown, organic foods that are nutritious, as well as avoiding taking medications unnecessarily--particularly antibiotics. I also know full well, as do many medical professionals, how rigged the big pharma scheme can be and how much the money game tends to interfere with what is beneficial for the people (including the big pharma players themselves, which is why I don't fully understand how those peoples' minds work).

It's said that Monsanto's (who are in bed with the FDA) own cafeteria is non-GMO or even organic. Wouldn't be surprised. Anyone who actually knows what's in Monsanto's frankenfood wouldn't eat it, including Monsanto themselves. Not everybody who works for greedy corporations is intentionally trying to screw others over. Some people are simply ignorant and don't really know who they're working for and don't ask questions.

But, with that said, the extreme chemophobia is no good either. And having begun studying pharmacology a couple months ago, it has become apparent how little the average person knows about (1) how drugs actually work, (2) how much western meds are tested and how much empirical data there is for so many of them, and how much oversight there is so we can be sure there is a consistant level of the active ingredient(s), so we can know their mechanism of action (usually); so we can know how they're metabolized, what the signs of toxicity are, and what amounts tend to be toxic; so we can know what the safe therapeutic range for any given drug is, and on and on; and (3) how little of this knowledge we have for a great many naturopathic medicines, not to mention the lack of oversight for standardized levels of the active ingredients, reporting and data collection for adverse effects (which a significant amout of natural medicines DO have, some of which can be serious), and so on.

Hm, I'm not convinced. See for example Thrasymachus' posts about synthetic-chemical drugs and the placebo effect.

Also, why do commercials for big-pharma's synthetic-chemical drugs usually give warnings like the ones I mentioned earlier in this thread, such as:

*side-effects may include vomiting, rashes, convulsions, mood swings, ulcers, blurred vision, loss of consciousness, suicidal thoughts, liver failure, or heart failure. Ask your doctor if big pharma is right you*

etc. etc, etc.

We generally know much less about naturopathic remedies than most western meds.

And that's sad. Hippocrates and Paracelsus would be rolling in their graves. That is, because we know more about the quick-fix mechanical biochemical workings of plants than we do about the various properties (both physical and metaphysical) of plants themselves. (See also Malcolm's thread on plants as sentient beings)

This article does a great job explaining some of the absurd assumptions we tend to make about herbal rememdies and such vs pharmaceuticals, and what the consequences can be: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ith_a.html

It seems like that article is trying to say that since chemicals found in nature and synthetic-chemicals are both chemicals, that they are both equally potentially dangerous and both potentially beneficial. I completely disagree with that. Are there chemicals found in plants and in nature in general that can be poisonous or have side-effects? Sure. However the risk with synthetic-chemicals is much greater. If you were to compare the risks and side-effects of synthetic drugs and to the risks and side-effects of Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine, I guarantee that the risks and side-effects of synthetic drugs would be much much greater overall.

The article said:

"Chemical has become a synonym for something artificial, adulterated, hazardous, or toxic."

That is indeed what synthetic-chemicals are. We just don't need them at all, and they're an unnecessary risk.

Yeah I know that there are probably a lot of hokey types of homeopathic remedies out there that don't work; however Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine are time-tested systems. Not to say that I'm not open-minded about homeopathic remedies, it's just that I think there are many naive homeopaths and herbalists out there who give authentic natural-medicine systems a bad name; i.e. it seems that many people hear about Ayurveda or Tibetan Medicine, and lump it in with common homeopathy, and questionable naturalists/herbalists who haven't really perfected their method down to a science like Tibetan Medicine has.

Now I'm not saying that many Buddhists here disregard Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine altogether. Nonetheless, I still wonder why Buddhists would even bother with big pharma at all, when we already have complete systems such as Tibetan Medicine.

The only reason I can see for dealing with contemporary medicine, is that A) the contemporary medical field has made some progress in the area of surgery, and B) if one wanted to help to turn the current corrupt corporatist system around, one could get a degree or two, and once one gets that degree, one can start promoting natural and preventative methods instead of promoting what the system tried to program one to do. Plus, by knowing how contemporary western medicine works, and/or how the corporatocracy would like it to keep working, one would be able to better expose them for the racketeers that many of them they are.

[gregkavarnos]

Not really.

Vaccines might be useful—like I've said—in some rare instances, especially IF they were to not be mostly monopolized by the corporatist pharmaceutical giants.

They're far from saving 'countless sentient beings', even if they have saved fairly large numbers of sentient beings every once in a while. For the most part, they're unnecessary and even harmful in many cases.

Nonsense. Remember polio? What about tuberculosis? Smallpox anybody? Okay, flu shots I find a tad ambiguous, definitely a dollar maker there, but the others I mentioned? What about malaria shots? Would you go into a known infected zone without having been vaccinated? Where does your (over) concern for your body become a source of actually causing damage to it?

And, like I said before: just because something is being exploited for profit it does not mean that this "something" is negative per se.

In closing: cooperation for mutual profit is not the same as conspiracy. Of course there are patterns: rich people supporting and cooperating with other rich people in order to get richer, but I don't think it goes much deeper than that. Everything else seems to be an over-estimation. Read some Machiavelli and you'll get an idea of what I mean.

[gregkavarnos]

Yes maybe it's his karma, however I wouldn't consider it a "lie". His conviction seems to be more honest and authentic than many people's religious contrivances, even if the law of karma wasn't in his favor this time around.

Of course it is a lie. His objection is not based on religious grounds at all (coz he's not a religious fellow) so his asking for exemption on a religious basis is a complete lie.

[gregkavarnos]

It seems like that article is trying to say that since chemicals found in nature and synthetic-chemicals are both chemicals, that they are both equally potentially dangerous and both potentially beneficial. I completely disagree with that. Are there chemicals found in plants and in nature in general that can be poisonous or have side-effects? Sure. However the risk with synthetic-chemicals is much greater.

Nonsense. Do you recognise this plant?

image.jpg (16.82 KiB) Viewed 218 times

What about this one?

image2.jpg (11.88 KiB) Viewed 219 times

No? Find out about them and then come and tell me about side effect risks.

Nonetheless, I still wonder why Buddhists would even bother with big pharma at all, when we already have complete systems such as Tibetan Medicine.

Come and live where I am and then ask yourself the same stupid question.

PS I take it you are aware of the amounts of mercury and lead salts used in Ayurveda and Tibetan medicine?

[Lhug-Pa]

About plants^ versus synthetic-chemicals and risks/side-effects, I'm talking about overall; not specific instances.

And I don't recall based on his words how religious or non-religious Thrasymachus claims to be or not be.

If he even has a little Spiritual inclination, then the end justifies the means in this case.

If he has no Spiritual inclination at all, then maybe that's another story. But I'll let him speak for himself.

In closing: cooperation for mutual profit is not the same as conspiracy.

Not always.

In some or even many cases it is.

Anyway, as long as no one here is trying to make vaccinations mandatory, then I can say okay we agree to disagree.

If anyone is interested, Asunthatneversets, Thrasymachus, Virgo, and I (and maybe a couple other's posts that I forgot) have all posted links worthy of consideration in regard to the case for vaccinations existing as an unnecessary risk in most cases. If anyone chooses not consider the information found therein, then that's their choice.....

[Lhug-Pa]

PS I take it you are aware of theamounts of mercury and lead salts used in Ayurveda and Tibetan medicine?

Yes, but it is transmuted into mercury sulfide (not sulfate, as you can see Malcolm later corrected himself there) through an Alchemical process:

Re: Combining Ayurvedic/Tibetan Medicine and Herbs & Supplements

[gregkavarnos]

Dress it up and justify it any way you wish, it is still Mercury and it is still toxic maybe not as toxic as some of the other chemicals found in the cinnabar but toxic nonetheless.

[Lhug-Pa]

I'll put it this way, if there were anyone—thus far—who I'd trust to give me something that is the result of Alchemically transmuted mercury, it would be a Tibetan Doctor. Even in the case of Tibetan Medicine, I'd still most likely do my own research before taking anything derived (regardless of how) from mercury (and I could agree that any untransmuted-mercury or synthetically-altered mercury is toxic).

Now, many traditional healing systems state that in reality, ultimately there's no such thing as "poison" or "medicine". I.e. any "medicine" can potentially harm, and any "poison" can potentially heal. That is, in nature. When it comes to contemporary (synthetic-pharmaceuticals, big-pharma, etc.) laboratory-concocted synthetics however, it's a whole different ball-game; and that's why I have no qualms about boycotting the latter altogether. I mean, one isn't going to go to hell or permanently ruin one's Nadi/Chakra system because of taking a Tylenol once or twice in one's life. However if you can find a better natural method, then much better to go ahead in that way.

[gregkavarnos]

I'll put it this way, if there were anyone who I'd trust to give me something that is the result of Alchemically transmuted mercury, it would be a Tibetan Doctor. Anyone else, probably not. Even in the case of Tibetan Medicine, I'd still most likely do my own research before taking anything derived (regardless of how) from mercury (and I could agree that any untransmuted-mercury or synthetically-altered mercury is toxic).

So you agree with anything that agrees with what you agree? Excellent! Chalk up yet another point for ego. End of conversation.

[Lhug-Pa]

So you agree with anything that agrees with what you agree?

Could always ask specifically why I'd written what I'd written; instead of making an assumption about the posting.

[Simon E.]

One dimension of this discussion..or so it seems to me...is the proposition that there are medical interventions that are more " Buddhist " than others.
And I simply do not accept that.
If I have toothache requiring dentistry, I don't ask if the dentistry is Buddhist.
I ask if it is effective and efficient.
Sure I can choose between panadol and herbal remedies after the procedure..in my case it would probably be both.
The same everytime the body's rubber hits the road.
I am not so interested in the cultural pedigree of the intervention...but its efficacy. And if results can be obtained with minimal disruption to bodily functions and with minimal invasiveness, then good.
I wont take an antibiotic for a minor bronchial infection if it can be treated with inhalations and aryuvedic remedies. But if it progresses to a pneumonia then the attraction of Himalayan herbs recedes somewhat...
We are fortunate to live in an age where with all its drawbacks in some areas, we have a choice of preventing or reducing a whole dimension of suffering.
I think to choose to ignore that fact because if some romantic attachment to another age and culture is regrettable.
Its medical Ludditeism. Which adhered to in other areas of our lives would have us cooking on woodfires and communicating by smoke signals...

[Thrasymachus]

...
I had surgery last year..

Also I proceeded as quickly as I could, without showing indecent haste, to Staff Health to get my flu shot last November.
And I will do the same this November.

People who have bad health tend to gloat the most about consuming medical services. It makes them feel better about eating overly processed foods and those with high animal content, being sedentary, having poor posture: for having a bad lifestyle that they refuse to change. That way they can try to fool themselves that they are doing something by getting medically butchered, when in fact they do almost nothing to take their health into their hands. The doctor at the employer who was mocking me for my religious and medical objections to the useless TB test had a pot belly! No surprise, most medical doctors are in such poor health they should not even be talking to their families about health from any position of authority, except the arbitrary authority a father has over his son!

Again here the are excipients for some of the flu vaccines:

CDC.gov: Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary Excipients Included in U.S. Vaccines, by Vaccine[PDF]

Aluaria: beta-propiolactone, thimerosol (multi-dose vials only), monobasic sodium phosphate, dibasic sodium phosphate, monobasic potassium phosphate,
potassium chloride, calcium chloride, sodium taurodeoxycholate, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B, egg protein

Fluarix: sodium deoxycholate, formaldehyde, octoxynol-10 (Triton X-100), α-tocopheryl hydrogen succinate, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), hydrocortisone, gentamicin sulfate, ovalbumin

Fluvirin: nonylphenol ethoxylate, thimerosal (multidose vial–trace only in prefilled syringe), polymyxin, neomycin, beta-propiolactone, egg proteins

Flulaval: thimerosal, α-tocopheryl hydrogen succinate, polysorbate 80, formaldehyde, sodium deoxycholate, ovalbumin

Fluzone: formaldehyde, octylphenol ethoxylate (Triton X-100), sodium phosphate, gelatin (standard formulation only), thimerosal (multi-dose vial only), egg protein

Flumist: ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), monosodium glutamate, hydrolyzed porcine gelatin, arginine, sucrose, dibasic potassium phosphate, monobasic potassium phosphate, gentamicin sulfate, egg protein

I wonder why they keep listing egg protein? Maybe because they culture it on chicken eggs. Conservative dharma geniuses, there is no such capability to grow clean viruses. They disease either a cadaver, animal, animal tissue or in this case eggs. Then they take a protein sample, and it will contain other unkown viruses and bacteria, add the toxic ingredients above and inject it directly into your blood. Not that the actual mythical science or theory in abstract behind vaccination is sound either.

Highly contaminated vaccines
From official US transcripts of recent unreported meetings of US and UK vaccine safety scientists.

...

The experts voiced other concerns. ‘And I'll be honest and say that I'm surprised that primary African green monkey kidney cells continue to be used, and I'm a little bit disappointed that FDA and whoever is involved had not had a more serious effort to move away from primary African green monkey kidneys. We all know that there are a number of neurodegenerative conditions and other conditions where viral causes have been suspected for years and no viral agent identified. Maybe they're caused by viruses, but maybe they're not.'

Another doctor said: ‘We need to consider again some of the issues of residual DNA. Is it oncogenic? We had a lot of experience with chicken leucosis viruses in chick embryo cells beginning back in 1960. And the thing about them is they are not easy to detect because they don't produce any pathogenic effect.'

An unnamed participant added; ‘I have to express some bewilderment [at this talk of dangerous contamination], simply because, as I mentioned last night, the vero cell, which under many conditions is neoplastic [cancerous], has been licensed for the production of IPV and OPV [the common polio vaccines] in the United States, Thailand, Belgium and France.' The current polio vaccines thus run the risk of having oncogenes in them. Again this was news to me. I had no idea that the polio vaccine might be grown on cancer cells.

Dr. Rosenberg added, unreassuringly: ‘When one uses neoplastic cells as substrates for vaccine development, one can inadvertently get virus to virus, or virus to cellular particle, interactions that could have unknown biological consequences.'

Dr. Tom Broker said we had to be concerned about ‘papilloma virus infections' in the vaccine ... ‘One of the more remarkable facts of this family of diseases is that since 1980 more people have died of HPV disease than have died of AIDS.'

Dr. Phil Minor, from the UK National Institute of Biological Standards and Control, told of another disaster. ‘Hepatitis B was transmitted by yellow fever vaccine back in the 1940s. The hepatitis B actually came from the stabilizers of the albumin that was actually put in there to keep it stable'

He continued: ‘For many years, rabies vaccines were produced in mouse brain or sheep brain. They have quite serious consequences, but not necessarily associated with adventitial agents. You can get encephalitis as a result of immune responses to the non-invasic protein.' ‘Influenza is an actuated vaccine. Again, it's not made on SPF eggs, that is, specified pathogen-free eggs. They are avian leukosis virus free, but they are not free of all the other pathogens that you would choose to exclude from the measles vaccine production system.'

...

But who cares? As long as the Asian Buddhist sects have lots of ignorant conservative types in the West to extract money from that is what matters. The more money, the more it matters. Same as with the Pharmaceutical and medical industries, they don't care about health, infact they are the biggest danger to public health. But they certainly do care about profit, and they legally disposes people over control of their own bodies and lives. In my case they wanted me to prove that I didn't have a disease, tuberculosis, that is virtually eradicated in my country. Maybe in the future they can force people to prove they don't have every virus or bacterial infection. I assume that would get lots of posters here jizzing...

[Pema Rigdzin]

Yea yea, I used to get that one all the time. So these days I always specifically say "synthetic-chemicals" in order to (hopefully) not have to hear such sarcasm.

It's not that there's anything wrong with synthetic chemicals categorically... After all, with the exception of meds like Tums that cause a direct chemical reaction (in this case, neutralizing some stomach acid), synthetic chemicals can only do about three things: (1) bind to your body's receptors and tell the cells to do what they normally do (just like your body's natural chemical mediators do), (2) bind to those receptors and block them from being activated so their normal functions are not carried out, or (3) some can bind to your receptors and cause your cells to synthesize chemicals more effective than the ones they naturally produce. That is the general principal, and most drugs do 1 or 2. So there's not a categorical problem with synthesized chemicals because they generally can't make your body do anything more than it can already do. There's also no categorical safety to your body's own natural chemicals either.

So the problem has to do with the fact that sometimes our understanding of how the body does what it does is incomplete, and when we isolate a chemical or split a natural chemical down to only part of its molecule, it ends up turning off one bad function of the body but unwittingly turning off some beneficial functions, too. For instance, aspirin inhibits cyclooxygenase, the body's natural chemical that normally mediates the synthesis of natural chemicals that enable platelets to activate and stick together and form a clot when blood vessel damage occurs so you don't bleed out... some people are inappropriately prone to clotting and need to tone that natural process down a bit, so they take aspirin. Well, unfortunately cyclooxygenase also mediates processes that cause your stomach to protect its lining against its own acid... so inhibiting cyclooxygenase will stop platelets of clot-prone people from clotting inappropriately, but at the same time it has the potential to also cause you to get a stomach ulcer or stomach bleeding. Does this make aspirin evil and to be avoided at all costs? No. Just like in Dzogchen, you have to work with your circumstances: in this case, you have to do a risk/benefit analysis. If the risk of heart attack and stroke in an individual outweighs the risk of irritating the stomach lining, the aspirin can be a life saver. You just have to know how to use it, such as knowing what other low risk drug to give with it to prevent its damaging effects (in this case a proton pump inhibitor like Nexium to decrease stomach acid production a bit).

Our body's natural chemical processes also produce a lot of damaging chemicals all the time, like free radicals that go around stealing electrons off the outer valance shells of your body's atoms and break molecules (and thus cells and tissues and organs down). That happens in day to day processes all the time. Or in a more extreme example of getting a cot that blocks your coronary blood flow--an ischemic blockage--if you remove the clot and don't control how fast the blood flow returns to your heart and allow it to rush back in too fast, free radical damage your body naturally produces can further injure your heart. Our bodies also produce excess amounts of cortisol in the stress response that if chronic and long-term enough can really have a detrimental effect on your brain and other organs even while the cortisol carries out other functions you need to survive. This all happens through the body's natural chemical processes which can be both beneficial and detrimental at once and which would occur even if you never ate a single Monsanto frankenfood or came into contact with a single toxin. So one could also make commercials with scary disclaimers like the one you spoofed below about the body's own cancer-causing, tissue-destroying actions which are a consequence of natural chemical processes that sort of save us and sort of kill us.

*side-effects may include vomiting, rashes, convulsions, mood swings, ulcers, blurred vision, loss of consciousness, suicidal thoughts, liver failure, or heart failure. Ask your doctor if big pharma is right you*

Don't get me wrong, though, there ARE some nasty synthetic drugs out there that aren't fit for anyone.. or are only fit for some in the most dire circumstances. So my only point is painting either synthetic or natural chemicals with a broad brush is a mark of limited understanding about chemistry and physiology. It's always important to weight the benefits and risks of taking a drug or a vaccine or whatever and to only take them if the risk of not taking them is greater than the risk from taking them. And you gotta look far and wide at a good swath of credibl research and not just believe what either insufficiently educated conspiracy theorists OR self-centered big pharma try to tell you.

The article said:

"Chemical has become a synonym for something artificial, adulterated, hazardous, or toxic."

That is indeed what synthetic-chemicals are. We just don't need them at all, and they're an unnecessary risk.

See above.

The only reason I can see for dealing with contemporary medicine, is that A) the contemporary medical field has made some progress in the area of surgery, and B) if one wanted to help to turn the current corrupt corporatist system around, one could get a degree or two, and once one gets that degree, one can start promoting natural and preventative methods instead of promoting what the system tried to program one to do. Plus, by knowing how contemporary western medicine works, and/or how the corporatocracy would like it to keep working, one would be able to better expose them for the racketeers that many of them they are.

Western medicine is indeed flawed in terms of generally focusing on treating the symptoms instead of the root of the illness. This fact is definitely partially due to, but not exclusively due to, the profitability of treating the symptoms rather than providing a cure. But western medicine is quite irrefutably good for a lot more than just surgery. The majority of the world uses western medicine and we have seen the extension to the lifespan this system has brought about globally, despite frankenfood and pesticides and radiation and everything else our bodies and minds have to contend with. Unfortunately, that success has brought about its own undesirable consequences, but then I digress.