I behave here like a computer scientist who tries to detect software bugs, from traces of the software, without having access to the sources (because I know absolutely nothing about medicine). It is easier to detect bugs in software than flaws in technoscience, or the errors of human experts who run this "software" and with whom you have sympathized.
In computing, a bug is a crippling error that invalidates, discredits, disqualifies, destroys all the software: the software and its results are not reliable; using them is dangerous. As soon as a bug is detected, the very first thing to do is to fix it. In the best case, the presence of a bug is detected, because the bug makes the software unusable: either the software terminates prematurely before giving a result, or the software terminates but it gives clearly false results in the majority of case. In the worst case, the bug does not render the software unusable; the bug is not detected, because the software returns results which seem correct, because they confirm and therefore reinforce erroneous beliefs based on false theories (used by the software); worse,
Let’s sum up: if the results of buggy but usable software confirm your beliefs and predictions, or are in your best interest, why would you look for bugs? We will illustrate this with the "software" of diabetes.
– The "software" does not take feedback into account, so the treatment of diabetes makes it worse! This bug is monstrous. Either my diabetes 1 is unique (I don’t believe it for a moment), or my diabetes 1 is typical and then this bug creates diabetics. Scientifically, whether my case is unique or not, this bug disqualifies, destroys the technoscience of diabetes: it is unreliable, it is dangerous, it is harmful.
– The "software" offers a remedy worse than the disease. In one week, the treatment caused me two nocturnal hypoglycaemia which almost killed me and two retinopathies. The "software" makes the medicine innocent, and puts the responsibility on the prescribing doctor.
– The diagnostic bug: based on the results of the medical analyses, the "software" made a mistake about the type of my diabetes. The type of diabetes depends on the patient’s reaction to the drug. It reminds me of the (apocryphal?) way in which, according to the Monty Pythons, the Inquisition proved whether or not a woman was a witch in the Middle Ages: the woman cleared by the ordeal would die; the witch survived the ordeal and was executed.
– The allopathic bug: the remedy is necessarily medicinal. This is the allopathic conditioned reflex. However, if a patient eats an insidious poison (very slow, addictive), the remedy is to stop the poison. The "software" does not offer a diet, apart from the obvious cases (obesity, alcoholism, smoking).
– The "software" falsely concluded that my diabetes was not caused by my diet. He didn’t offer me any diet that lowered my blood sugar. He told me falsely that there was none.
– The "software" prescribes fixed doses of medication at the start of treatment, which discourages and disempowers the patient, who feels powerless, and becomes helpless. When the doses have to be adapted to the glycaemia, the patient is no longer in a condition to seize the opportunity.
– If the diet without carbohydrates and without lectins works as well for diabetes 1 as for diabetes 2, then the distinction between diabetes 1 and diabetes 2 is not relevant. It’s a complication (a wart, a patch, a hack, a computer scientist would say) of the "software". It keeps bugs; it makes it possible to manage the bad reactions of the patients to the drugs, to shift the responsibility on the prescribing doctor and to clear the drug; it allows drugs to continue to be sold; it makes it possible to segment the diabetic patient population. Complications have several advantages: they seem scientific; they dissuade, they amaze like the contradictory injunctions of the soap opera Covid and its sequel; they sow confusion. Charles Pasqua: "When you’re bothered by a case,
All these bugs systematically harm some: patients, and systematically benefit others, the pharmaceutical industry, and diabetes technoscience (diabetologist, laboratory, etc.). Why weren’t they detected? Because the "software" satisfies all players (to use the game theory term), confirming them in their predictions and false beliefs, or advancing their interests (if the bugs had harmed profits pharmaceutical companies, the bugs would have been researched, detected, and fixed...or complicated and improved):
— the "software" provides synthetic insulin to diabetics, without which they would die;
— the "software" provides the pharmaceutical industry with captive diabetics, who are dependent for life on synthetic insulin.
— the "software" provides diabetics to diabetologists.
The patient is bugged too. Without it, the "software" could not work. The first bug of the patient is to believe that the pharmaceutical industry has the same interests and the same goals as him. All the patient has to do is ask a simple question such as: will a pharmaceutical industry spokesperson triumphantly announce that “Our researchers have finally found an extremely simple and free cure for diabetes! It’s not medicated. You will no longer need our medicines.”? Obviously not.
On the one hand, the (sane) patient wants to be cured and no longer need medication. On the other hand, the pharmaceutical industry, its shareholders, its investors, has the interest of selling as many drugs as possible to as many people as possible. In fact, it has an objective interest in creating from scratch illnesses, real or imaginary, and sick people, real or imaginary, who are lifelong drug addicts.
The patient did not ask questions; he doesn’t have time, or he’s been dissuaded, like all of us; moreover, his distress, his despair, his learned helplessness in the face of the disease make the patient dependent on the technoscience which comes to his aid.
The patient’s second bug is a consequence of the first. The patient naively trusts "software", Science, etc. I emphasize that human experts who tell patients false things are not intentionally lying to them; human experts (diabetologists, doctors) are in good faith. The patient is deceived by people who are wrong.
Personally, it was only because the "software" was not favorable to me that I looked for its bugs.