Sunday 4 September 2016

Article: "Percocet Ruins Lives", But It Saved This Woman's

Article: Percocet Ruins Lives, But It Saved Mine

If the article's writer better understood what is actually behind the narrative and physiology that suggests a picture of dopaminergics and other drugs as ruining lives, it is likely she would only write the first part of her article's title in parentheses: "Percocet Ruins Lives", But It Saved Mine.


Here's a related post from this blog: Adendum - Migraines are Dopamine Deficiency - and also: The Importance of Tact in Dopaminergic Application - and also: The Importance of Considering the Truth


Imagine seeing a starving person begging a very rich and well-fed person for some food, food that would cost the very rich and well-fed person nothing to give to the starving person, not even their time, because they were paid for the time in which the starving person begged for food from the rich person... and the rich person responded to the starving person, while standing next to a table covered in food, and piling up food onto a plate for themselves, by insisting to the starving person that they've done wrong by thinking they also need food, and that they have a problem of addiction, and that they need to re-evaluate their life in a way that will get them off of food-dependency.

That is a retelling of the exchange that took place in the link-to article, where the woman described:

Last year, while I was at school, I realized that I'd forgotten my pills while visiting home. I didn't notice until, later that week, a migraine came on. After two days of hell, I went to a walk-in clinic not far from campus. The doctor, a thin, grey-haired man, glanced at me through his glasses, and asked, "What brings you in today?"

"Well," I said, "I get migraines, and I've had one for two days now. I left my medication at home over Thanksgiving. I'm going home again next week, so I just need a couple to help me get rid of this headache."

"What do you take?" he asked, without lifting his gaze from the computer screen.
"I have a prescription for Percocet."

He turned and looked at me. "How much do those go for on campus?" he said sarcastically.

"Sorry, what?" I said, confused. I began trying to explain myself. "No, you see, I have a prescription, but I left mine at home and--"

"Ya, I'm sure you do," he said, and proceeded to lecture me about my "addiction," while writing me a prescription to "get me off of it."

So, what if a person who was starving and without access to food was asking somebody with access for food, and the person they asked responded condescendingly and scolded them for having a need of food? Wouldn't such a person who treats another that way qualify as a monster? But the experiences of low dopamine can easily be far more painful and torturous than the experience of starving from lack of food, or dehydration from lack of water.

The conduct of the doctor described by the doctor perfectly resembles what I identified in the post Article: Common brain signature marks autism, attention deficit:

I would presume that a lot of the medical professionals who read this blog don't like it when I write pointed accusations at them, since viewer numbers have always dropped off a steep cliff following such statement since the beginning of the blog, but so what? They're professional murderers and thieves of people's lives, and bringers of suffering to those around the people their doctrine steals the life from. Their entire ideology has been a harmful and indefensible lie, and they've been its advocates. If those whose lives, minds, and dreams have been taken or restrained because of their choices haven't been protected, and neither have been those who truthfully spoke their dopaminergic need, then why should be the egos of those who took those people's lives, minds, and dreams, and who prop up the most malicious and deceptive facade human society ever produced?

Do they condition their willingness to engage the truth upon first having their falseness accommodated and pandered to?

What did Jesus instruct? Was it to hypocritically scold, demean, and disregard whoever asks for something, or to "Give to everyone who asks you", and "Do to others as you would have them do to you"? Did Jesus add an exception of "except where sociopathic granfalloons come into play"?

When doctors base and make their whole lives around denying other people, those most vulnerable and suffering, theirs, as well as keeping them in a state of torture, and condescending, chiding, and shaming them for even just requesting what is their only true relief, how can it be substantiated that the doctors who do this are deserving of anything which they have made for themselves?


The woman who wrote the linked-to article correctly perceived that the increase in dopamine-availability which oxycodone (the main ingredient in Percocet) provides her is the authentic, needed +1 to her dopamine-deficient state of -1. Or, perhaps the dopamine she receives from the oxycodone in Percocet is only a +6 to her dopamine-deficient state of -17, and yet the difference of being raised to only -11 would still feel like a heavenly relief.

Meanwhile, the typical doctor is probably riding on a baseline dopamine platform of +50, which they produce for themselves by believing that they are good dogs for casting the peer-approved determinations upon other people. And they feel so aggressively entitled to that dopamine-rich state, which is their failure to consider, that it is rare for one of them to open their minds to considering the actual people that they practice their professional rape upon.

To properly care for a person, the person must be considered first. When a doctor is more interested in foisting their dogma upon a person who is suffering, it is not the person they are caring for, but their ideological granfalloon, which they adamantly adhere to so that they can tell themselves what a good dog they are, and shut down all considering work in their brain to induce a greater dopamine-availability. When a doctor acts as the one described by the woman who wrote the linked-to article, they are literally jacking off their brains via their sociopathic stupidity, while chiding a person for recognizing their personal actual need for the same dopamine that the doctor is desperately trying to build up in their science-addled brain.

But since for all things there is an ordering of considerations, and in a case of 'if one then not the other', when a doctor lets their dogmas and granfalloons evaluate as True, so that they can beat a patient with them, then their consideration of the person who is their patient evaluates as False. And without considering the person as they express themselves, they have not cared for the person.


Also, notice that the doctor described in the woman's article defaulted to a determination about the woman as soon as she described her situation and made her request. The considerations a person puts forth is rolling-out of a blueprint that reveals precisely how their brain is wired. In the case of the doctor described, that person has allocated their determinations to be of greater importance than giving room to let the truth be considered. Because a determination is a falsehood by nature, saying 'these considerations, but not these others', it falsifies the output of any considering that emanates from it:

The Will by which a thing is considered is the Will that is returned at the end of the considering. And the Will placed into a determination is an evaluation of False towards the truth, which is carried through all the considering that streams from that determination, and outputs a conclusion that will be perfectly-antithetical to the truth in some manner, just like in the case of 'dopamine as reward'.

Just as much as it is impossible for a mathematical statement to express a truthful answer if one of its variables is changed from its True form, it is just the same with considering. Determining a false ordering of considerations falsifies the whole work. And it is precisely and only because mathematics obeys the rule of Reason (which I will illustrate at some point) that it works.

 Because the doctor so easily imposed a determination, which he then proceeded to consider as True by act of will, it means that the doctor's mind is wired for falsehood, and that he is highly sociopathic. And because that doctor held their determination as True, from that point onward, he was unable to see anything clearly, and was acting upon a delusion from his own mind. And that delusion harmed the woman who had come to see him, and worsened her dopamine deficiency-based state of suffering.

Normally, when people act on hallucination and are dangerous to other people, they are sometimes locked up and put under observation. Shouldn't doctors be locking themselves up, since their entire ideology is a sociopathic delusion that has harmed, and is continuing to harm many millions of people? By not locking themselves up, to keep the public safe from them and the falsehoods they peddle, they are adding to their hypocrisy.

P.S. - psychology, psychoanalysis, tends to be drivel, but what I speak from shares the same exactness as mathematics, and is why mathematics bears truthful statements. If a doctor imposes a determination which they then consider off of as if it were True, they have formed, and are actively engaging sociopathic connectivity in their brain. And any efforts made though exertion of that falsified ordering of considerations will bear the falsehoods of that circuit passed on in their results. And everything traces back to where it originated, down to the very consideration, its evaluation, and all that made up its environment, including all the furthest reaches of existence.


Having started this blog due to what I discovered concerning my own severe health ailments, and their successful resolutions, after having spent many, many years as a victim of far too many doctors and specialists, I can state confirmation, that what the woman who wrote the linked-to article described about her experience with a doctor is normal, and that the caring of many, perhaps most doctors is so conditional and superficial that, often, all semblance of it quickly vanishes the moment anything about the doctor's own environment of personal comfort, which is their practice, their feeling of authority, their belief in a dogma, is put to test, even benignly. And the moment that happens, many, many doctors will abuse their position to inflict intimidation, condescension, or spite, even in ways that they fully know can or certainly will be physically or otherwise severely detrimental to a patient. Though there are exceptions, I believe that this describes the temperament of the average doctor, and that their self-assuredness does not come from actually knowing anything, but from the appearance of authority presented by their granfalloon, that they are giving themselves to.

But, when a doctor's caring for patients only exists within the pre-fulfilled context of their personal wants being pandered to, with their title, reputation, office, authority, salary, an easy access to drugs they prevent other people from accessing (depending on where in the world, a doctor is not allowed to write themselves prescriptions. But, a great number of doctors, including ones who are hard-line against writing opioid and stimulant prescriptions to patients, give themselves special prescriptions of these kinds by writing them using names of their family members, that they then pick up themselves, for their own use. Also, there are doctors who write each other friendly bonus prescriptions, thinking as if their special educations make them super-duper good for it), yet they aren't willing to consider anything that puts any of those things at risk, it means that they aren't genuinely caring about other people, but just themselves.


When I read the woman's experience, I am filled with reminder of the awareness that what the doctor aggressively opposes for someone who is most desperately needing of it for her proper, natural health and well-being, has been the foundation for everything that the doctor, with great arrogance, seeks for himself, even through his lecturing of the woman in service of his dogmatic suppositions.

But the difference between the doctor and the woman's pursuit of the same dopamine is that the woman legitimately needed it, and was rightful in acknowledging that and pursuing it, whereas the doctor already had an abundance of it, stored up through the much less legitimate means of circumventing truthful consideration with his determinations. And perhaps he greedily sought more of it by way of congratulating himself for being a good dog by enforcing what is a false and evil ideology, all at the expense of a woman who was suffering specifically because she lacks in availability of that same dopamine - which, for the doctor, doesn't become more available from doing anything right or wrong, good or bad, but from believing to himself that he is now a good dog, resolving any prior considering of the situation and freeing up the dopamine that was being used to connect information required for the sake of that considering.


I hope that it has become clear to all who read this blog that what a doctor, scientist, or anybody has been justifying as their dopaminergic "reward", their self-pandering entitlement, and their right to feel superior because of their learnedness has actually been nothing more than their colossal inhumane, arrogant stupidity, and selfish bias.

Those who believe 'dopamine as reward' have defined goodness as whatever serves their own personal comfort and bias. Many doctors practice medicine on people because doing so means to them that they've now fulfilled the picture of what is good, and can feel as though they've done their bit, resolving considering in their brain, which delivers them "reward" - and not because they consider the people who have need for help, that they might become empathetic of them. But it is not an action that makes somebody justified or non-justified, but the reason why it was done, with account given for all considerations.

There is a difference between doing what is determined as good because is serves personal reward, and doing what is truly good because to do so is the truth, and so that goodness will be. The former can never be truly good, and the difference is known in the truth.


In the case of the woman who wrote the article, the doctor who abused her exacerbated her dopamine deficiency by presenting trouble, and non-truthful consideration by his words and attitude, which the woman's brain then had to consider the truth of in the light of a better belief, in order to overcome - and the work of a brain, which is considering, requires dopamine.

"Satan" means 'one who opposes', and this doctor was a satan to this woman, her health, and the truth. But, despite the evils of doctors and their doctrine, look at the final sentence the woman wrote for her article, and notice that she's found the perfect truth, and that the light of the truth has shone through her experience and words:

"I do not have an addiction. I do not have a problem with prescription drugs... I have a solution."

The publishing of her article shows that she did indeed overcome the stress inflicted upon her by the doctor - thanks, in part, to the increase in dopamine-availability that her Percocet provided her with.
But also because she didn't accept the harmful determinations the sociopath doctor imposed upon her, but instead considered her own experience, and had faith in the truth of the matter, which her own experiences taught her.

I think that it is time for society as a whole to overcome the harms and evil of self-"reward"ing doctors, scientists, and their false dogma.


No comments:

Post a Comment