My best guess how to prevent all future pandemics. What needs to be learned to do so.
In 2036, the first five Heartfelt College Experiences (New Colleges) pilot program campuses opened. They demonstrated how colleges and universities could take back the “rhetorical high ground” from the superficial fashions of thinking so prevalent 2000–2030:
- corporate consumer atheism,
- humanistic atheism,
- New Age pantheism,
- anti-intellectual cancel culture,
- kill the messengers and the whistle-blowers,
- online bullying and hooliganism,
- political correctness used as a weapon.
- identity politics, and
“Wokism” was defined as “weaponized personal grievances masquerading as any of several genuine, current social concerns. Wokeism is defined in part by its partially or wholly fraudulent nature. This makes it distinct from legitimate social grievances. Wokeism only knows outrage and punishing — it knows no empathy for actual victims. Wokeism also tends to permit, allow and accommodate bullying of academics and legitimate experts.”
New Colleges History curriculum led the way in showing other colleges how thru in-class live dyads, triads, small and large group processes, students could be led to understand wokism phenomena arose primarily out of child-ified adults, adults living according to pre-puberty agendas.
Once childified, after puberty, they use their new-found intellect to bully and destroy opponents. Heartfelt College Experiences curriculum taught students how to create their own internal set of top human values again. In face-to-face milling, dyad and triad exercises, each student was led to uncover their own personal connection with the human values closest to their own heart. These values could then inform and guide working and creating; potentially, for the rest of life.
Following the lead of New Colleges four-year required curriculum in Best Practices in Interpersonal Competency, institutions of higher learning gradually created a new climate of transparency, honesty, healthy interaction and social synergy.
This in turn created social permission for journalists to now look back on the 2020–2021 pandemic and attempt to identify what had to change politically, socially and culturally; so, nations worldwide were more prepared and less vulnerable to fear-mongering next time.
The investigative articles and books coming out of these journalism efforts in the 2030–2040s inspired the women running the World Health Org (WHO) to contribute — but how?
This was not the WHO of 2020–2021. This was the WHO after United Nations 2.0 began in 2038, when the U.N. became a predominantly women-run organization: less corruption, largely crowd-funded, more practical, more values-driven, more focussed on bettering the world for the 99%.
UN 2.0 asked the WHO to take the lead creating a plan and curriculum to redeem world Public Health Education.
The WHO women responded with a bigger idea. They said, it was thankless to try to reform Public Health Education apart from mainstream public healthcare. The journalists of the late 2030s painted multiple convincing portraits of corruption in Old Medicine healthcare at all levels. Virtually every book concluded with the words, “this is not sustainable;” and, “the next pandemic will play out the same or worse, benefitting the same corporate elites.”
The WHO women said it made more sense for them to start with re-thinking and redeeming medicine from scratch.
This ferment at the highest levels of the UN 2.0 and WHO led to 2040, the unveiling of a plan to reboot public healthcare with these principles in mind:
- It must start by defining in measurable form, optimal human physical wellness,
- Its primary method must be low tech, capable of being replicated in third-world countries
- Its patient intake vital signs, biomarkers and testing is to be completely non-invasive if possible,
- During each initial consult, each patient is to receive, on paper, an evaluation of their current wellness markers compared to the markers used to define optimal physical wellness,
- At the end of an initial consult, each patient will receive up to three diet recommendations, “homework,” to bring their physical health more into alignment with how the method’s markers define optimal physical wellness.
- The method must not require more than two years of classes and clinic internship for minimum competency,
- The method must be class, gender, religion and ethnically neutral.
- An open competition for in third-world countries, pilot demonstration projects were funded and results studied. By the end of the 2040s, with proven low-cost, low-tech methods, clinics is 15 countries, a few million people were benefitting from healthcare they could claim as their own; and to come degree, own and operate locally.
A longer version follows.
New definition of health (WHO 1948)
The definition of optimal physical health has evolved over hundreds of years. In the Industrial Age, early definitions of health focused merely on the body’s ability to function and perform work. Health was defined as a state of “normal function, disrupted from time to time by disease.”
Then in 1948, in a radical departure from previous definitions, the WHO proposed a more ecological and humanistic definition aiming higher. It linked “health” to well-being, in terms of “physical, mental, and social well-being.”
Progressive and humanistic as this was, it was abstract, without objective measures, not yet evidence-based. Without a biochemical definition; and, a way to generate numerical values for comparison, a purely humanistic definition of human health was dead in the water.
Consequently until the late 2030s, 99% of people believed health and immunity came primarily from outside themselves. They had been successfully persuaded by 200 years of advertising to outsource self-connection and self-management of their own immune health, to expert doctors, expert surgeons, and expert vaccine makers.
Mars Broadcasting reporter
Imagine in the year 2020, a reporter from the Mars Broadcasting Company (MBC) observing the public and media reaction to the covid-19 pandemic. She would be struck with the first reaction the general public had to a real public health crisis: buy toilet paper. Buy toilet paper? The reporter would have gone on to ask, “Was Earth’s public health education so broken people believed health came from toilet paper?”
Not quite. It was more like this. 99% of people believed health came from the outside in; health came from outside themselves. Earth’s public health education HAD NOT TAUGHT health from the inside, from the inside out. The MBC reporter would go on to speculate how Earth’s public health education was perhaps INCAPABLE of teaching health from the inside out.
Perhaps this reporter goes on to describe HOW the 99% of people had been persuaded physical health comes from outside them. Perhaps she goes on to ask, ‘In 2020–2021 why was there no mass media discussion of Best Personal Practices in immune health support and immune resistance? ’Why was there no serious public discussion-education how the human immune system learns and creates new antibodies to new threats? Why was there no public discussion in mainstream corporate media of which vitamins-supplements support human immune systems to make antibodies and for general immune support and immune resistance?’
The MBC reporter might conclude, ‘Did the corporate-governmental-media complex simply use a real pandemic as an opportunity for more “disaster capitalism”? The MBC reporter might ask, was it really all about how much money could be made by selling the public on out-sourcing their trust and good management of their innate immune system — to vaccine experts and vaccine makers?’
Finally the reporter might ask, ‘How long will it take to undo the damage of Earth’s failed Public Health Education? And, ‘What will come next to replace it?’
Around 1979 the educator John-Roger came up the idea of “Health from the Inside Out.” This was originally a four-tape cassette packet. Outside of his students and few holistic healing fans, it didn’t catch on much. Around 2002, John-Roger said to a few people, something to the effect, it will be 100 years before Health from the Inside Out is timely again with the mainstream public.
The above 2040s WHO activity was the start of this gradual awakening to the possibility of managing Physical Health from the Inside Out.
2041 World Health Org Decree on Bio-individuality
In the ramp-up to choosing a valid, evidence-based, low-cost, low-tech healthcare method, in 2041 thru research funded by WHO, bio-individuality was validated. How? Because virtually no two people, even of the same family, eat exactly the same; and, no two people, even of the same family, have exactly the same organ strengths and weaknesses. From several angles, each person is significantly biochemically unique.
The WHO research paper on biochemical individuality was widely read. Its evidence and conclusions created social permission for healthcare workers and the public to conceive of each person as biochemically unique — the opposite of “one size fits all” healthcare, the opposite of treating humans as herd animals.
Q: Was this aligned with identity politics, vegetarianism or faith-based diets?
A: No. This was aligned with objective, clear-headed observation. The more prejudices and pre-conceptions put to rest, the more clearly you can perceive what is present.
The next step? How to identify the most workable low-cost, low-tech method to define optimal human health in numerical terms? This is the question Old Medicine makers could not ask but the WHO could.
WHO Biomarker Research Group
By 2040 enuf of the corrupt-unethical practices in both manufacturing and data collection by both corporations and government agencies had been proven. The World Health Org (WHO) deemed it appropriate to fund research on workable, low-tech, low-cost healthcare delivery methods. The goal? If at all possible, to prevent another 2020–2021 pandemic madhouse from repeating. To gather as many Best Practices as possible, the countries who handled the pandemic with lowest stress and mortality were re-studied and the original data scrutinized for validity.
In 2040, the WHO Biomarker Research Group was set up. Its charter prohibited funding and participation from Big Pharma and from any corporation connected with what we now call the Old Medicine Establishment. One-third of the funding came from small donations, crowdfunding. The rest was covered from grants. Doctors Without Borders were involved as advisors.
The Research Group speculated the most likely new definition of physical health would comes from a set of biomarkers.
Biomarkers are numerical values representing measurable substances in an organism whose presence, absence or levels can be compared to known tables of values for that substance. Principal among these tables are the values representing the optimal presence, absence or levels for the purpose of optimal physical health.
Example ~ The optimal basal body temp for men is 98.4; the ideal basal body temp for women is 98.8.
Example ~ The optimal biomarker for the pH of the blood is 7.35 to 7.45 (among experts opinions vary a bit).
Example ~ The optimal biomarker level for mercury in the physical body is -0- zero parts per million.
The WHO Biomarker Research Group imagined a set of biomarkers which together defined overall physical wellness, not just as “normal;” and definitely not “average.” They wished a set of biomarkers defining “thriving” as “optimal.”
Failure of vital signs
This was where Old Medicine vital signs were too weak and vague. They hoped a “basket” of more robust biomarkers could provide a numerical representation of “perfect health;” ideally if possible, applicable across all ages, all races, all ethnicities, all classes, a worldwide standard for optimal human physical vitality. Researchers preferred non-invasive biomarkers as these are lower tech; yet, they would take any set of markers which defined optimal physical health reliably. This group was very clear on what they did not know; and, what they wished to learn.
Between 2001–2019, funding for biomarker research had been quite robust. Alas, all investment was narrowly aimed at perfecting biomarkers for disease prognosis, numerical values denoting the progress — or remission — of cancer and other major diseases.
The WHO Biomarker Research Group quickly realized no Old Medicine biomarkers got close the radical ideal in mind: Nature’s Plan for optimal physical health.
From the research brief given to the WHO researchers task force:
… We know the body has chemical parameters, pH among them, within which it makes optimal use of oxygen on all levels. What is the zone or range of values within which every cell and every organ has optimal access to oxygen? What are these chemical parameters? Which ones are accessible non-invasively? Could these add up to a “basket” yielding reproducible results reliably?
Additionally we speculate the macro-minerals, calcium, magnesium, potassium each have a range of biochem values within which every cell and organ has optimal access to each of these. Are optimal mineral-use ranges similar? Overlapping? What patterns exist here? ….
The WHO Biomarker Research Group named a team of five researchers, three women and two men, to be brought to Switzerland and briefed. Immediately, the people and the project were attacked in corporate mass media. The WHO quickly realized the disruptive nature of their project was no longer a secret.
If their project was successful, it meant the slow death and eventual end of drugs and surgery of Old Medicine — outside of accident victims and trauma-acute care. The threat was immediately obvious to Big Pharma lobbyists. If a successful pilot project was approved, it could lead to a gradual worldwide roll-out. This threatened profits from drugs, surgeries and Old Medicine medical schools.
Future role of Old Medicine described
Early on, the WHO made a point of describing the future role of drugs, surgery and vaccines should a new method of healthcare be uncovered and prevail. The useful role for Old Medicine in emergency and trauma care medicine was validated and supported. Persons with immediately life-threatening conditions were being handled efficiently by Emergency Medicine.
The focus of this project was the needs of non-acute, non-accident, non-trauma patrons. 90% of all patient visits to healthcare providers are for non-emergency and chronic issues.
Where to host the competition?
Old Medicine was deeply entrenched in all First World countries. The WHO needed a stable Third World nation to host them and give them space for a public clinic for their trials and experiments
Doctors Without Borders and the Peace Corps were consulted. Both suggested Nigeria and its safest city Owerri, located in Imo state. This is the preferred choice for tourists. Physical safety is a priority the natinal and local government take seriously. It ranks tops on safety matters especially for international visitors. This was a requirement as the project expected to have many international medical observers, visitors and consultants to check their progress and interim conclusions. The Nigerian government was more than happy to support the project. The project was gifted a five year lease on a local large, unused auditorium with an adjacent large space with suitable office space for a public clinic.
Which biomarkers belong in the “basket”?
Word got out in the pharmaceutical and research community how big bucks were likely if your biomarker was selected to be in the final “basket” of markers. The WHO research group found themselves inundated with detailed proposals for all sorts of biomarkers, methods, supplements and procedures.
The good news was all this accelerated the vetting process. Ten interns were hired to review the scores of proposals, slideshows and presentations submitted. Many were simply hopefull — not helpful, mere marketing materials. Interns sorted for proposals aligned with the goals of the project. This separated the wheat from the chaff. The remaining proposals, the WHO team was obliged to evaluate in depth.
The first big questions raised by the first 75 complete submissions was this: Was is possible a basket of completely non-invasive biomarkers could achieve the goal of a numerical definition for whole-body physical health? Was this possible? Was a combination of invasive and non-invasive biomarkers more likely to satisfy criteria?
A rating on a scale of 100 was announced for each proposed ‘basket” of biomarkers. The top 20 proposals would be invited to Nigeria to make in-person presentations.
150 proposals were narrowed down to 20. After each pitch proposal, a Q&A session followed. At two presentations per day, this took 40 business days to complete. No on-the-spot determinations were made. It was really one giant “case” where all 20 proposals once completed required Committee deliberation, like a Supreme Court group process.
The next step was announced. The final 20 would each be rated again according to the project’s goal. In the end, in a ceremony, three awards would be given a gold, silver and bronze medal. These were closely followed by the worldwide healthcare research community.
The 40 days of proposals and Q&A were televised. What the WHO did not expect was the process was sufficiently “gamified” to be of great interest beyond only researchers.
A Worldwide Medical Olympics!
Ramping up to the 40 days of televised presentations, you won’t be surprised to hear skeptics and Big Pharma lobbyists were on all the Sunday talk shows jeering publicly, “The WHO project is a phony ”Worldwide Medical Olympics!”
Guess what? The name stuck in the public’s imagination. The whole “contest” tapped a worldwide reservoir of public dissatisfaction with antiquated Old Medicine, the humans-as-herd-animals-approach of a drug-for-every-bug-medicine.
Olympics? Competition? By the third day of televised hearings, Law Vegas bookies were taking bets on which mthod would win which medal. The Las Vegas betters forum on Reddit developed their own criteria for which method was likely to win and which would lose.
The WHO Biomarker Research Group had been careful from the start not to make their project a public referendum on Old Medicine. However, they did not anticipate the worldwide interest in indigenous forms of healthcare, many of which were represented in the final 20.
It became a bit like soccer. On day five, it was indigenous Indian Ayurveda in the morning against German Homeopathy in the afternoon. Day seven was Swiss Nature Cures (herbal cures and colonics ala Alfred Vogel) against German Homotoxicology (Dr Hans Reckeweg’s evolution of homeopathy). Day 15 had the most bets, traditional Indian Ayurveda in the morning against a British-based Big Pharma proposal for a completely re-configured blood panel analysis. Day 35 was also closely watched, “competition” between traditional Chinese Herbs, acupuncture and moxibustion and Planetary Herbology (Western Herbology ala John Christopher and Michael Tierra). Each country was cheering for their own country’s method to win a medal.
Total betting reached an estimated $200,000 worldwide.
Ten slots for indigenous-holistic methods
A budget was gifted to fly in ten representatives of indigenous medicine and fringe “holistic” methods to present. The WHO taskforce set up criteria to award these ten slots. Nine coherent, thoro proposals were accepted:
- Traditional Chinese Medicine (China),
- Ayurvedic Medicine, (India and USA),
- Reams Biological Theory of Ionization (urine-saliva testing-analysis, USA),
- Specialized Kinesiology (Switzerland),
- Homotoxicology (Germany),
- Traditional Homeopathy (Germany),
- Electroacupuncture according to Voll (Germany),
- Chiropractic (USA)
- ICPKP Kinesiology (New Zealand)
Each of these groups believed their methods, procedures and vital signs most workable for the 99% of people.
Looking at this new wrinkle, the betters on Reddit opined: “The winning biomarker method must have both ”roots in the earth;” and, empower patrons to take charge of their own health, for those who wished this. The WHO taskforce liked this language so much, they added it to their official criteria.
A total of 49 proposals were heard. Somewhere in this process it began to dawn on lots of people, worldwide funding was going to flow to all three top winners. This prompted several methods hopeful of winning to budget for public relations and set up local free clinics in Owerri, Imo state. Some rented storefronts; some clinics happened in rented hotel rooms. The taskforce and research audience were all invited to receive evaluations and treatments if appropriate, using the method being promoted.
Worldwide media coverage
The “WHO Biomarker Contest” played out unexpectedly in corporate mass media. At first mass media covered this in its “News of the Weird” segments, not wishing to offend their many Big Pharma and institutional advertisers. Slowly, towards the start of televised presentations, news of the competition progressed to ten second, end-of-broadcast “humorous segments,” “isn’t that funny?” style pieces.
When the “WHO Biomarker Contest” was designating as “trending” on Google, Twitter, Facebook and Reddit, news outlets had to take it more seriously and assign reporters to cover it, like any other significant real-world event.
Unexpected educational benefits
As public attention increased, over the 40 days of broadcasting, millions of people were hearing about suppressed alternative healthcare modes-methods for the first time. The education value was beyond priceless When Herbology was proposed as the best method, many herbology websites crashed due to floods of traffic. When acupuncture and Chinese herbs were proposed, TCM websites around the world crashed due to too many Westerners trying to access them.
As you know, the winning application was made by a group of RBTI consultants. Their presentation format has since become the classic way to present USBA (RBTI) publicly so we detail it here:
- First, a working set-up for testing was displayed. Not much to look at, right?
- The presentation did NOT begin with theory. It began with three in-person client testimonials,
- Then using slides, a series of three demonstrations by three RBTI consultants, two men one woman, showing what could be perceived; and, how much can be perceived in just vital signs, demographics and the seven numbers,
- Then a testimonial by a female consultant who used to work in biotech health, about how doing urine-saliva testing and interpreting test results with patrons was much more fulfilling than testing alone in a lab,
- A full test procedure with reagents was demonstrated accompanied by live verbal commentary,
- Then using two overhead screens and slides of the patron and test result numbers, five case reviews. Each case was delivered by a different consultant, three of them women. Each consultant presented a case of their own, not a Reams case nor anyone else’s. One screen displayed the latest numbers with gender, age, weight, vital signs. The other screen was used for a series of slides, each slide highlighting an interpretative insight derived from the numbers. In this way each case history was told in a story-like way, highlighting the creativity, insight and therapeutic artistry evoked in the consultant perceiving into these few numbers,
- The proposal concluded by covering several crucial features of RBTI not obvious from testing and interpretation:
- Reams’ idea about a nation without children singing while they play; and, adults singing while they work, is a sick society,
- The big takeaway: urine-saliva testing affords perception into each person’s Living Waters, the internal liquid-fluid medium in which all our cells and all our organs live, move and have their being. A slide of the fish in the dirty fish bowl jumping to a clean fish bowl was displayed, explained and questions taken from the audience,
- Finally, an offer to staff a pilot project clinic for six months anywhere in the world, if the WHO would fund it and provide security and oversight.
As everyone in a Healthcare College knows, RBTI took the gold in the “Medical Olympics.” In 2043, the WHO endorsed the Reams-Beddoe method of urine-saliva testing-interpreting; and, the Ranges Zone Chart, as the best reflection of Nature’s Plan for Optimal Human Health. The RBTI people were asked to staff a one-year public clinic and tester training program in the clinic adjoining the auditorium.
The winner of the silver medal was the Naturopathy non-invasive “basket” of biomarkers and verbal-written questionnaires. The biochemical assessment of RBTI was judged simpler and superior.
The winner of the bronze medal was Bruce and Joan Dewe’s ICPKP Kinesiology (International College of Professional Kinesiology Practice). This competency-based, diploma program was evaluated as effective; yet, much more subjective, requiring much more intuitive talent than interpreting Reams’ number array; so, likely to spread much more slowly worldwide as a standard for mainstream healthcare.
To sum up, by 2065 the old story of pathology-germ theory, by consumer choice, was replaced by a new story of befriending your immune system.