Summary

I have written up the following (I'll attach longer essays later) after guessing it almost three years ago.  Please ask questions if you wish to or let me know if you find it difficult to understand because of the font or the wording.  I'm less sure that the second point is persuasive, although I think it's broadly correct.  I may have put it more convincingly in the essays (I'll re-read them and re-think it) although the other two points are sufficient to invalidate medicine if not disease (ie, theoretically there could be diseases even if they aren't viewed or the mechanisms of harm understood).  Other points in the essays also discuss the plausibility of disease rather than medical understanding of them.       

Stop the diagnosis and treatment of fictitious diseases

It is likely that most, if not all, diagnosed diseases are fictions used to control and reduce populations such as the elderly as well as other groups, nationalities and ethnicities for ultimately ideological reasons.

First, microscopes would not be able to see objects the size cells are said to be clearly and distinctly since the image would blur at the magnifications claimed (as one can see from using  a camera lens, which can bring things closer but not magnify without losing clarity), because what one cannot see with the eye alone is therefore not likely to exist, and because when one looks into a traditional microscope, given its construction and the way it is lit (either externally or internally), and from what one sees when squinting at any light source, what one is in fact seeing, or seeing most clearly, is the reflection or projection of the lenses of one's own eye, not what is on the slide. 

Second, something as small as a viral or cancer cell would not be able to travel or survive in the fluids and fluctuations of the human body or, even if it were able to, cause harm, no matter its number (as being stung by a large number of small wasps will not hurt in the same way as being stung by one large wasp and may have a protective value, in the same way as a first injury to the body may lessen the impact of the second). 

  

Third, there is no adequate philosophical or scientific explanation of how the information, or instructions, contained within DNA, said to be present in every cell of the human body, can interact with, and change, living matter (which, other than the brain, is not said to be conscious and therefore able to ‘read’ the instructions), in the sense of by what mechanism, or mechanical link, and using what force, or, if it can, in a way that is different to or greater than those changes caused by environmental factors, such as nutrition or physical injury, or by ageing.  

Diagnosed diseases kill because of fear and fatalism, inadequate nutrition, alcohol, drugs, and other mechanisms to weaken the body, such as temperature, gas emissions and inappropriate (eg, intravenous saline) hydration.  Clausewitz said war was a continuation of policy by other means, yet disease is as likely to be a policy of war, intended to dominate nature (knowledge of whose intelligence has also been suppressed), promote secularism, and control and reduce populations.   For example, it seems unlikely that the earth would rotate at 66,600 miles per hour around the sun or, even if it did (in some sort of cocoon), at the same time rotate at 1,000 miles per hour on its axis.  If the atmosphere moved at the same speed, birds would have to fly against a 1,000 mile per hour wind or, if the atmosphere did not move, they would find themselves 0.28 miles along the road a second after they had ascended vertically into the air.