As of this very minute, the World Health Organization still officially declares that there is no cure for dengue.
Unfortunately, also at this very minute, solutions like ADSX are proving the WHO wrong.
Let us be sarcastic on this one: If we can kill the human body that hosts the dengue virus, why does the WHO insist that we cannot kill the dengue virus?
Why is the WHO's dengue strategy defective?
The WHO's dengue strategy is defective because its allocation of financial resources, its direction of medical research, and its perspective of the properties the eventual cure for dengue are evidently skewed in a particular direction that ostentatiously reflects bias, stereotypes of opinion rather than pure scientific evidence.
1. Bias for an anti-dengue vaccine. In terms of financial resources allocation, a huge chunk of WHO's budget is allocated to laboratory facilities, equipment, personnel and research effort dedicated to experiments in developing an anti-dengue vaccine.
The big question is why is there a bias in favor of vaccine as the cure for dengue? What kind of evidence and preliminary research has suggested that the cure for dengue will be a vaccine?
Or, is this pursuit of a vaccine a pure display of intellectual arrogance by the medical and scientific experts who think that somehow the cure for dengue, a viral illness that has not been cured since the beginning of human civilization, has to be as complicated as a vaccine?
We see no scientific evidence that the cure for dengue has to be a vaccine, and allocating huge financial resources toward that direction is not borne by scientific evidence and scientific judgment but by knee-jerk intellectual arrogance and wrong presumptions.
2. Bias for pharmacological solutions. The WHO has been coordinating with the pharmaceutical giants to develop medicines for dengue. Millions of dollars have been spent over the last 50 years with little success except for palliatives.
3. Bias against natural remedies. By the term natural remedies, we mean extractions from herbs, spices, fruits, plants, and vegetables. The WHO has so far refused to study in seriousness the anecdotal evidence of natural remedies against dengue.
Additionally, the WHO issues general motherhood warnings against natural remedies which tend to inculcate fear among the population.
4. Lack of serious study of anecdotal evidence. Natural remedies with anecdotal evidence as anti-dengue cures have not been given serious funding and attention.
5. Inappropriate anti-dengue management protocol. Drink a lot of fluids? Drink apple juice? Drink ORS? Why are these inappropriate? Read here. There so much that WHO doesn't know about dengue that led it to believe these solutions are appropriate.
6. Failure to recognize other anti-dengue strategies. Let's go back to our sarcastic comment: If we can kill the human body that hosts the dengue virus, why does the WHO insist that we cannot kill the dengue virus?
Sarcasm aside, this statement contains a very promising anti-dengue strategy.
The vaccine strategy is characterized by finding a boxer like Mayweather to fight another boxer like Pacquiao. But that is not the only way to kill a boxer. For example, you can kill a boxer by depriving him of food (strategy of deprivation).
And we know that vaccines are not perfect remedies because of possible unforeseen side effects that may be worse than the disease it is trying to cure.
What if the WHO will follow the strategy of deprivation instead of vaccination?
Unfortunately, also at this very minute, solutions like ADSX are proving the WHO wrong.
Let us be sarcastic on this one: If we can kill the human body that hosts the dengue virus, why does the WHO insist that we cannot kill the dengue virus?
Why is the WHO's dengue strategy defective?
The WHO's dengue strategy is defective because its allocation of financial resources, its direction of medical research, and its perspective of the properties the eventual cure for dengue are evidently skewed in a particular direction that ostentatiously reflects bias, stereotypes of opinion rather than pure scientific evidence.
1. Bias for an anti-dengue vaccine. In terms of financial resources allocation, a huge chunk of WHO's budget is allocated to laboratory facilities, equipment, personnel and research effort dedicated to experiments in developing an anti-dengue vaccine.
The big question is why is there a bias in favor of vaccine as the cure for dengue? What kind of evidence and preliminary research has suggested that the cure for dengue will be a vaccine?
Or, is this pursuit of a vaccine a pure display of intellectual arrogance by the medical and scientific experts who think that somehow the cure for dengue, a viral illness that has not been cured since the beginning of human civilization, has to be as complicated as a vaccine?
We see no scientific evidence that the cure for dengue has to be a vaccine, and allocating huge financial resources toward that direction is not borne by scientific evidence and scientific judgment but by knee-jerk intellectual arrogance and wrong presumptions.
2. Bias for pharmacological solutions. The WHO has been coordinating with the pharmaceutical giants to develop medicines for dengue. Millions of dollars have been spent over the last 50 years with little success except for palliatives.
3. Bias against natural remedies. By the term natural remedies, we mean extractions from herbs, spices, fruits, plants, and vegetables. The WHO has so far refused to study in seriousness the anecdotal evidence of natural remedies against dengue.
Additionally, the WHO issues general motherhood warnings against natural remedies which tend to inculcate fear among the population.
4. Lack of serious study of anecdotal evidence. Natural remedies with anecdotal evidence as anti-dengue cures have not been given serious funding and attention.
5. Inappropriate anti-dengue management protocol. Drink a lot of fluids? Drink apple juice? Drink ORS? Why are these inappropriate? Read here. There so much that WHO doesn't know about dengue that led it to believe these solutions are appropriate.
6. Failure to recognize other anti-dengue strategies. Let's go back to our sarcastic comment: If we can kill the human body that hosts the dengue virus, why does the WHO insist that we cannot kill the dengue virus?
Sarcasm aside, this statement contains a very promising anti-dengue strategy.
The vaccine strategy is characterized by finding a boxer like Mayweather to fight another boxer like Pacquiao. But that is not the only way to kill a boxer. For example, you can kill a boxer by depriving him of food (strategy of deprivation).
And we know that vaccines are not perfect remedies because of possible unforeseen side effects that may be worse than the disease it is trying to cure.
What if the WHO will follow the strategy of deprivation instead of vaccination?
WHewhere why
ReplyDeletePlease tell Me where to buy This