top of page

The Bad Semantics of Medical Drug Use

There is no doubt that medicine has provided great relief to humanity on many levels from trauma care to public health but where medicine falls down is in the treatment of common diseases. In fact, medicine's track record is so bad that it cannot actually count one victory while creating whole new morbidity and mortality dynamics that did not exist before called iatrogenic disease, or illness caused by the use of medical treatment. There is a semantic origin for such bad decision making and intervention design. We all deal universally with one basic subjective reality called life. Life can be very diverse on the quality and quantity level. There are challenges and there are resolutions. What we want to do in life is to break down large negative subjective constructions like "illness" and reduce them down to a more manageable group of specific negative objective constructions like "symptoms" and then convert them to groups of specific positive objective constructions like "remedies" which will then create large positive subjective constructions like "wellbeing". For example medicine uses very specific symptomatology characterizations to create very specific global disease classifications. So diseases life fibromyalgia, MS and Lupus have specific symptomatology that sets them apart from each other. But many of the symptoms are similar but medicine does not account for that. The illusion is that biological dynamisms can be so easily compartmentalized and therefore treated. Having a specific medical diagnosis is much more constructive semantically than just saying a person is sick. But in the process of reducing the disease into a set of symptoms, a lot of logical and logistical coherence is being lost. So doctors are not finding out what people's lives are about. And if there is one phenomenological construct we can rely to relay intelligence transfer from our experience of life to our selves, it is illness. No illness is created in a void and no disease categorization developed by medicine ever adequately described the complete symptom reality which was a way of perceiving loss of biological functionality. And that is just the biological part, not all the other constructs that make us living sentient humans.

So the semantic distortion here is doctors are saying "ignore life, pay attention to only observable symptoms which we can categorize in terms of functionality derangement". The normal proper way to handle negative global subjectivisms is to reduce them into negative specific objectivisms. Doctors are not relating life and disease properly so looking at life as a disease/no disease conjunctive reality is inadequate. The reductionist process has inherently eliminated logical and semantic coherency in the first step. And then to reduce some complex dysfunctionality reality into very specific diseases loses coherency. And then the fait accompli is that doctors match drugs with specific metabolic activity and functionality change characteristics to the most obvious symptoms. And the whole system of observation, interpretation has fallen apart. No drug is some form of specific objectivism. Just because it has specific material form does not mean it creates specific material causation. Structure and function are not that simplistic. So in fact every medical drug is a global negative subjectivism. It is very unknown what that drug might do arbitrarily from person to person in many ways. Basic metabolic functionality testing and baseline assessment is not done with either drug testing participants or patients. So you are trying to solve a negative global subjective (life challenge) with a predominantly negative global subjective (drug) because no doctor knows what any drug will do for any one person they are treated by. This is a disastrous semantic conjunction that fails every time. This is why every drug commercial is basically predominantly a narrative about negative side effects. And in the most ironic way, usually the last side effect they list is a worsening of the original symptoms….for good reason… you won't observe that ridiculous harmful irony.

Doctors need to see people's health challenges as representative of life challenges. And their health challenges as much more complex than one disease classification. That is why what everybody nowadays has are syndromes which describe diseases as much more inclusive realities. Then and only then call disease treatment be designed comprehensively to help the body, mind and spirit restore itself to integrated optimal functionality. Drugs are not the panaceas doctors have made them out to be. The medical model for disease classification, symptom characterization and symptom correlated drug treatment is at best ineffective and mostly a failure to actually help people with what they are truly challenged by and that is life. Lay people need to understand what we biochemists understand about side effects…that all those side effects are how that one highly refined and effect potentiated drug is treating other diseases that don't exist and therefore causes all sorts of ancillary health challenges which did not exist before drug treatment. So no matter how well pharmaceutical companies design highly refined functionality specific oriented drugs, these are not naturally occurring compounds which the body has evolved to be able to handle metabolically and every drug is treating more than the intended set of symptoms. This is not an innocuous effect. This would be like going to doctor for a cold prescription and getting one for chemotherapy. Really high probability your cold will be gone in no time flat but your liver function will collapse too. The drug does not know for any one person to only affect that specific metabolic pathway dysfunctionality that is implicated in the symptom creation. It will do what every chemical does in the body, effect every form of structure and function its chemical composition allows it to.

So the reason why the only way people can actually get and stay healthy is from natural alternative means is because it is system of understanding and intervention that sees health challenges in the context of life challenges, that design of intervention is based on a much broader description of the disease phenomena, and the actual intervention is based on what the body would normally use if it had the resources that it has evolved over millions of years to handle metabolically at an optimal level. You actually have a health intervention systems design that operably treats only the functionality challenges desired and nothing else and semantically you actually have the right logical progression from large global negative subjective challenge to comprehensive smaller specific positive objective challenge resolution.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Follow Us
No tags yet.
Search By Tags
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page