Should Science Be Classified?

I did some thinking over the weekend. First, I want to note that I am mainly updating health issues in videos at this point. The reasons are pretty simple - not everyone is aware of what is going on and given the gravity of the situation, I believe it best to limit specific details of my daily life to the videos which will release in the future. Currently, there are over 40 of those, and they are scheduled at one per day starting at some date in the future (which I bump out every week or so). Thus, the updates for the most recent days are scheduled well into the middle of April.

So, today's post is about science and if it should be classified or restricted. Current examples of what I see as societal restrictions around science are easy illustrated by the rules being set around early AI interfaces. Do these AI's have the basic chemistry on how to build chemical or other types of bombs? Sure, they have that knowledge. It is all basic chemistry that any chemist should be able to explain. Should they explain it to you if you ask how to build a bomb? Well, that's a tough question. The knowledge isn't illegal, it is, once again, basic chemistry, but giving access to such destructive knowledge to every nutjob that wants to know it probably isn't the best approach. Right? I mean we don't go selling an unlimited number of firearms to just anyone that wants them do we? I mean the home defense argument kinda trails off after the third or fourth gun and there really is no such thing as a well-regulated militia. Oh wait, nevermind. Poor example.

But, I mean basic medical knowledge, should we prevent people from knowing that? I don't think people would say we should prevent it. So, treatment knowledge - how to treat someone for a medical condition - seems like that should be open-access, right? What if I invent a drug or a medical device? Ok, so, drugs are easily analyzed as a chemical compound, but we allow people to trademark and patent them because they spend large sums of money investigating the compound and performing experiments, and trials, and documenting innumerable things. The same goes with devices, the device can be duplicated by someone, but we allow protections for the inventions so they can profit from it. At least these things are true in most countries (China doesn't care about such things, but they buy our burgers and coffees so for some reason we don't care that they steal our technology and send over drugs that kill tens of thousands of people). So, in summary, we protect the inventors, but the knowledge isn't really classified.

What about research into extremely deadly viruses? Obviously, it is critical that we learn how to exterminate the human race and protect that knowledge from anyone getting it - or knowing that we are looking into it, more likely. So, there is one example of medical knowledge that is classified.

But, let's return to treatment. If I can treat your condition without using medication - medication meaning something that is sold and meant to be used as a drug, should that be classified? Should someone not allow you to know that taking FantasyRoot#2 will cure your cancer? I don't think anyone would say yes to that. What if it will cure your terminal cancer, when you had 1 week to live but likely give you another cancer or illness that would kill you a couple decades later? Yeah, I'm still going to say that everyone is going to say that is a fair trade and that the knowledge should be made public. There are numerous examples of this. Basically, all medical procedures and medicines have some associated rate of side effects. What is the acceptable risk level when you know you will most certainly die from something very soon? How many pharmaceutical ads have you watched where the list of warnings is longer than the rest of the words in the entire ad? But, that drug has millions of dollars in sales - or else you wouldn't be seeing it advertised on TV.

So, under what conditions would it be acceptable to not disclose medical treatment information that would save lives using commonly available, non-patented, materials or processes? I asked ChatGPT that question. Here is the response:

The decision to disclose or not disclose medical treatment information involves complex ethical considerations. While I'm not a medical professional, it's generally accepted that in certain situations, withholding information might be justified to protect public safety or prevent misuse. For example, if disclosing information could lead to harm, abuse, or exploitation, there might be ethical concerns.

However, it's essential to weigh the potential benefits of sharing information that could save lives against the risks associated with non-disclosure. Consulting with medical professionals, ethics committees, or relevant authorities can help navigate such ethical dilemmas and ensure that decisions are made with the best interests of public health in mind. Keep in mind that specific situations may vary, and professional guidance should be sought for accurate advice.

Pretty equivocal response there. Mr. GPT is saying it would boil down to ethics. So, I asked ChatGPT, "Globally, who would be the organization responsible for ultimately preventing the dissemination of medical treatment that could save lives using commonly non-patented materials or processes, as this obviously could not be done at a country-specific level if the research was at any point made public?"

And bingo, the reply is completely what I expected:

The responsibility for preventing the dissemination of medical treatment information is typically managed through various international agreements, regulatory bodies, and ethical guidelines. Organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international health agencies may play a role in overseeing and coordinating efforts related to global health standards.

So, ChatGPT confirms that there is a group that believes they should decide what truth is revealed.

Why have I spent the time posting this? It should be obvious. In 1995, I read a detailed article detailing medical research that was capable of dramatically extending lives. The science involved was, in today's world, totally unconventional, and groundbreaking. The treatment led to a different physiological state for those treated. The treatment was simple and, as I proved, could be duplicated with zero medicines other than Diet Coke (I think Diet Pepsi or Diet Dr. Pepper would work great for those with a strong preference). To discount all of the science involved out of ethical concerns is ludicrous, but that is what was done.

How do I prove this? Well, I cannot prove it other than to point at the progression of my illness with zero substantial clinical findings along the way, just as the article said there would be, and ultimately the final outcome for me - just as the article discussed, which will be the stoppage of the bowels. One of the likely possibilities listed was that someone with the condition today would walk into the hospital ER to determine why they had not had a bowel movement in 4-5 days and they would never walk out.

I have not spent all this time talking about the article for 28 years to my PCP, other physicians, and my family because I imagined something. There are two options here. The first is a 28-year-long psychosis ending in a bizarre unexplainable death. The other is a treatment with incredibly important scientific knowledge that was chosen to be hidden, condemning some number of people to premature deaths. How many people? I honestly cannot say, it is not just those that had the initial condition I treated myself for in 1995 that was due to hyponatraemic-induced heart-block and resulting dehydration from uncontrollable polyuria. I truly believe the science involved could be used to prolong life for people with other conditions. The pituitary takes control of all electrolytes, heart-function, and more. The body burns ketones and glycosylated hemoglobins. There are undoubtedly implications here for other illnesses.

Personally, I think the research was hidden because they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The knowledge used to explain all the things that result from the initial treatment over the following two to three decades was not known when the original experiments were initiated, or even concluded. I believe additional experiments were performed due to the beneficial effects listed in the article - greater oxygenation and nutrient flow to the brain, increased stamina, increased resistance to dehydration, increased resistance to bacterial infection, and more. Someone decided that the world could not handle this level of information - that it would be abused, and so they simply hid the whole thing. Who cares if it could have revealed other discoveries? Well, more accurately the WHO didn't care.