(I consider this proposal very much a starting point. Please comment so that it can be improved.)
Based on anecdotal and crowd sourced information, we know that there are non currently FDA, CDC, and NiH approved methods for curing disease including for cancer and infection. We also know that what constitutes healing has been greatly narrowed due to profit incentives and that this has been going on since at least the 1930’s with institutions later appearing such as the American Medical Association to enforce this narrow view. In fact, the word medicine itself suggests that the only path to healing is with chemical compounds designed for healing, and then even further narrowed to only those compounds that can be patented for profit. In addition, in the search for what is truly safe and effective we know that the so called golden standard of the double blind study is fraught with issues including from the very idea that we can even achieve such a study given that all of the variables truly cannot be controlled, and even when the variables can be controlled sufficiently in some limited scope, the narrowness of when this type of study can be applied and the expense makes it impractical as a true way to measure the safety and effectiveness of most approaches. We thus leave many viable options for healing on the table without any further consideration.
Based on the anecdotal information, there is a plethora of data to suggest that disease can be cured truly safely, truly effective, and at almost no cost, and that we as human beings can remain healthy, fight off disease quickly, and live mostly healthy and energetic lives for the vast majority of the time. Of course, the more we can free ourselves from toxins in the environment, from food, and from what is injected into our bodies will make a huge difference, but in addition, or in parallel to that, we can achieve more healing and health.
Imagine if you will a technology in the form of a device that could be deployed in one’s home where if a new disease were to emerge that one could receive a software update to that device, and with a push of a button, that device through electromagnetic waves would cure the disease. There would be no chemicals involved. There would be no incremental cost involved. An entire family could be healed at the same time. There would be little worry about the next pandemic. A promising basis for such a technology was invented in the 1930’s by Royal Rife, an American inventor. This technology is being deployed today in a grass roots manner with very limited distribution (it is not legal in the United States). There are practitioners sometimes ones who used to practice in the US who have gone to other countries to use this technology to help patients. There is much evidence to suggest that this technology does work to a reasonable extent. However, most of the evidence is anecdotal or limited to studies conducted by one or a small group of individuals.
The intent of this proposal is to create a framework so that technologies and modalities of healing not in the existing framework on approved medical approaches such as this one can be researched and ultimately deployed within a framework of informed consent and based on a scaling metric of safety and effectiveness.
Step 1: Remove the lawfare and propaganda implemented by all government agencies to allow such approaches to be studied.
Step 2: Allow free citizens under the principles of freedom of assembly and informed consent via a mechanism such as a private membership organization to be allowed to conduct studies.
Step 3: First and foremost, safety will be of primary concern following the principle of do no harm. Along with determining effectiveness, a sliding scale can be created with broad categories. For example, many proposed cures such as using vegetable juice or repurposed drugs that have been in the market for decades can reasonably be deemed on the safest side of such a sliding scale for safety. Employing a method that is not being consumed by people on a massive scale could involve looking at the anecdotal data from people who have been exposed to the method or who have already undergone treatment using the method to determine where that method might sit on the sliding scale of safety. It is with this idea in mind that we create an open source (both in terms of data and source code) database of as much of the anecdotal data as we can collect. We innovate on a framework the many metrics we may wish to collect such as for patient histories, outcomes, and safety so that better apples to apples comparisons can be done. We make the data open source for informed consent and so that AI technologies can be applied to sift through the data to find patterns to help make determinations on safety and effectiveness.
Step 4: With informed consent in place, we facilitate and connect those who want to fund or donate to create studies, to those who want to conduct such studies, and to those who want to particulate in such studies. The idea of these studies would be to create more structure than just a collection of anecdotal information in a database. We would leave it to the creators of the study as to what methods they believe would be best for such a study. There would be no requirement for a double-blind study.
Step 5: Allow doctors to operate outside of the community standard when participating in these studies without any repercussions– their insurability, their licensing, etc. (I do think that doctors should have more freedom in general to deviate from the community standard, but perhaps that should be a different policy).
Step 6: The government would act as a facilitator and not as an arbiter of what studies can be conducted. While any entity – private, corporations, and the government may provide information following the principles of free speech and might even be encouraged to do so, in no way shall the government’s information be deemed more correct than from any other source.