Here is the skullcap. (Published in the newspaper “O Estado de São Paulo”)

Destacado

Paulo Rosenbaum

Still impacted by the flood of anti-Zionist-anti-Semitic or “antiZionSemitic” racism (the neologism urges, as it is proven that they are one and the same) that fill the streets, social networks, entire states, all like social vigilantes who now pride themselves on fighting and to wage war on Jews for the Palestinian sic “cause”.

I am convinced that this is a pathology, ranging from the extreme left to the extreme right, passing through “ proxies ” —such as the recent support given to the fundamentalist terrorists who dominate Gaza when they launched 4,300 missiles at Israeli civilians. The big news is selective xenophobia on an extreme left that understands that some racisms are more progressive than others.

The supposed irrationality of the anti-Semites needs to pass a more symbolic analytic scrutiny. This means that Judeophobes of the most varied hues are still proliferating. And they do so secretly, anonymously, subliminal, inadmissible and under unspoken omissions, spreading hostile sentiments against Jews, regardless of who the Jew in question is. For the totalitarian the individual subject is an abstraction, a bourgeois social construction, therefore despicable.

I then narrate my most recent experience.

Very recently, I gave a lecture in a course in the medical field and exposed some of the results of my medical and epistemological research carried out during my academic life at Faculty of Medicine (USP). The course had approximately 70 professors from the health area, when I heard a noise in the background, no noise, noise. And the words were repeated more than once “It’s a Jew there.” I decided to wait, as it could very well be a sound distortion of the platform, maybe some parasitic cybernetic spirit? Or even an inflection of the ectoplasm of hate? , more precisely after midnight, they tend to haunt cyberspace . I admit that I thought of auditory hallucinations. I adjusted the microphone and the earphone, and went ahead with my presentation on themes that involved the rescue of the doctor-patient relationship. Theme especially vital in an age lacking in solidarity, support and genuine empathy for those suffering from disease, and widespread ineptitude on the part of public men.

But then the sound was confirmed, once, twice, maybe three times, and it wasn’t exactly a neutral expression “yeah, there’s a Jew there.” I stopped doubting what I was hearing. But, right after that, “…he’s really a Jew!” Intonation is everything when you are dealing with conversations in the off-site world. The person’s voice expressed these words describing to others the ethnic or religious identity of the person making the presentation.

Me.

But it came to the case?

Perhaps.

Was she purposely leaving the microphone open for everyone else to hear? Or was it just a faulty act, by default, and the pent-up words gushed uncontrollably from her mouth? I couldn’t tell. And what to do with this during a live stream? It doesn’t matter if it was a skirt or tight pants, after all it was an aggression, albeit minimized by the “escape”, and by the supposedly naive casualness of a random audio capture.

On impulse, between outrage and the need to respond, I asked the group’s permission. I quickly went to the nearest closet and retrieved my favorite skullcap, handcrafted in Jerusalem. And then I returned to my presentation, making a point of showing off the outfit. Then, in front of the camera, I slowly adjusted the ancestral kippah . Used to cover the head of Jews since the period in which Abram left the city and his father’s house in Ur in Chaldea, breaking with mythologies and creating a culture that would generate one of the first civilizing codes of humanity.

Full embroidered skullcap, made with a porous black fabric. In the print, a star that has accompanied us since King David, passing through the yellow ones of the ghettos and Nazi camps, to finally reach the blue symbol of freedom for the Israeli defense forces. The one that made the Hebrew people less vulnerable to centuries of unpunished immolation in a world full of omissions.

Only after the lecture was over did I stop to reflect. I came to the conclusion that my response was instinctive and irrational, but at the same time, defiant, and even courageous. After all, I peered, what was my real annoyance? Difficult to explain, but there is an inaudible sound that haunts the Mosaic nation that no one can underestimate. Especially for a grandson of Shoah survivors .

Here in Brazil, unlike today’s Jews in Europe, the United Kingdom, and even in many North American cities, it is still possible to show outward signs of Judaism without being threatened or lynched. But, if it depended on a significant part of the media, perhaps the picture would be different, since the anti- Israel bias is self-evident . Overkill? Not for those being bullied.

Evidently, the causes of the current state of affairs cannot be analyzed in a journalistic article like this. As the excellent lawyer and professor of law at Harvard, Alan Dershowitz , said in an article published less than two months ago, the resurgence of anti-Semitism – not a resurgence, as it has never ceased to exist – in Europe and around the world has multiple and complex roots. But there is one constant: it is always covered up by a policy based on hypocrisy and the need to show neutrality, while neo- pogroms — that’s the name — have been repeated daily in various parts of the world.

Returning to our microcosm, there, in the heat of my perplexity, since during the presentation it was not a person with characteristic form and costumes, after all, as a rabbi friend told me, I am what he considers a “non-observant orthodox” whatever that means. Rather, it was a question of incorporating something from the imagination, some projected stereotype, some alibi to show the range of the malicious intonation of that voice that hid in the virtual crowd.

Some participants at the meeting were curious about the unusual situation. To contain the malaise? Or simply sympathetic to what appeared to be an inconvenient plot staged in an improvised theater. I sought, almost automatically, to convert the event into a playful experience, after all, I needed to assume the identity required by the clamor of the phantom voice. And nothing would seal the expression “… really Jew” more than the use of the “little hat”.

Then I remembered the biography of Freud, written by Peter Gay. He related an episode that took place inside the train, before Freud left Paris for exile in London. The doctor’s sarcastic humor was revealed when the Nazis demanded a written declaration that he had been treated well by the Nazis.

Freud wrote more or less the following sentence in a note

“I recommend the Gestapo!”

Is the analogy disproportionate? Probably. But I bring this last passage not as a curiosity, but to show that history reveals itself by clues. It is through them that individual micro-stories can give us clues to track current and future trends. The fomenting of intolerance, racism, censorship and media bias, together with the brand new witch hunt underway, is a phenomenon that should serve as a warning. Unfortunately this will not happen, the recurrent addiction to ancient historical errors is stronger than the desire for healing.

Aside from the melancholy, the balance of this experience is still unknown to me. The analysis and judgment of the episode I leave to those who read us.

I had already chosen to reduce myself to stoic silence and leave this episode personal in the past, but I woke up to the nightmare and understood that it might be worth sharing.

I then repeat the gesture: here is the skullcap.

Hahnemann, 266 years later (Published in the Newspaper “O Estado de São Paulo”)

Destacado

Tags

Paulo Rosenbaum

Hahnemann, 266 years later

Born on April 10, 1755

“Man, considered as an animal, was created more helpless than all other animals. It has no congenital weapons for its defense like the bull, no speed to make it able to escape from its enemies like the deer, it has no wings, it has no feet with interdigital membrane, it does not have fins – it does not have impenetrable armor against violence like the land and freshwater turtle, nowhere to take refuge provided by nature because it is dominated by thousands of insects and worms for your safety .. Man is subject to a very large numbergreater disease than animals, which are born with a secret knowledge of healing methods for these invisible enemies of life, instinct, which man does not possess. The man alone painfully escapes his mother’s womb, smooth, soft, naked, helpless, helpless and deprived of everything that can make his existence bearable, deprived of everything that nature richly contemplates the earth’s worm to make his life happy.”

Samuel Hahnemann in “The Medicine of Experience”

The researcher and the thinker.  

First of all, I think it would be fair to explain what will not be prioritized in this work. We will not be concerned with the famous paragraphs of the “ Organon ”, or with the topics of “ Chronic Diseases ”, nor do the conventional revision of its tumultuous biography. We try to take the facts created by Hahnemann as ideas and from these search — using the bio-bibliographic parallels — the clues that led us to the process of creating his theories. Our character played at least two simultaneous and interdependent roles in the sphere of knowledge: researcher on the nature of health phenomena and thinker.

Due to a careful and intentional methodological option, we will not consider your works as finished and definitive pieces. There is never an end to real scientific constructions. On the contrary, we see in its corpus (frequently and naively exalted by its irreplaceable coherence) theoretical gaps, methodological gaps and operational contradictions . We will try to show that all these “inconsistencies” can lead us to interesting logical developments of the original propositions. Correctly assessed, contradictions allow for rediscoveries. Searched gaps and gaps favor the end the progress of clarifications, not the only one, but the last end of scientific knowledge. In this way, we, the descendants and legatees of this medical philosophy, will be able to penetrate each historical segment of their arguments.

We used authors like Koyre, Canguilhem and Khun to better situate Hahnemann’s attack against the normal science of his time, like that of a spirit that is mobilized to undertake and change the medicine of its time. We will weigh the socio-historical influences of the 18th and 19th centuries and seek to show that scientific changes often occur not only through empirical reforms, but mainly, through philosophical movements that redefine scientific horizons and make such reforms possible. In our case, we will see that both the romantic movement and natural philosophy are part of the theoretical trenches that expanded and built the support for transformations.

Backed by historical epistemology, we conclude, quoting Prof. Roberto Machado, that chronological anteriority is not always a logical inferiority. It is possible to apply such a concept in any science, including Hahnemannian work. I explain with an example familiar to our topic. We must consider the hypothesis that perhaps the sixth edition of Organon is not – although the author himself considers it the closest to perfection – the point of greatest evolution of the method. It is also possible to consider that the homeopathy that we do today is not necessarily a progress in relation to the practice of the pioneers. We can even suppose that many of the discussions that we have today, under the illusion of originality, are only faint echoes of what has already been exhaustively and creatively debated and practiced. 

From this perspective, we do not consider it any discredit, but proof of vitality to examine issues that have been surprisingly active for over two and a half centuries. This persistence denotes the tenacity of the Hahnemannian records. Studies that privilege critical bias are the only ones that honor the script of science, for if Hahnemann entered the historical debate it was precisely because of his ability to let himself be affected by the surprising phenomena that he was unveiling. Only in this way will we understand the historical-philosophical flow that underpinned it, with the multiple perspectives that its challenges have been launching in these two centuries of permanence.

The inaugural doubt can then be presented: once Hahnemann updates and incorporates scientific modernity in its inductive perspective, including the search for experimental validation , what would be its distinguishing mark in the investigation of medical phenomena? Just beyond that, what will be the point of your exhaustive research? It seems clear that by subscribing to the therapeutic reform originated in the objections of island (Sydenham, Hunter) and French (Bichat, Fodera) clinicians regarding the use of medical material and its therapeutic manipulation, our author puts himself in line with the empirical reform that was taking place. sketching.

Only afterwards did he subvert the order installed in the medical sciences and turn the traditional clinic into an uproar by proposing a very unique and original modernity, especially in relation to the use of drugs in their practical application.

Let’s go back to the end of the 18th century. The thick curtain of the methodological monopoly reigned in the era of the great medical systems. Hahnemann is engaged in what was considered the best medicine of his time. In the end, he did not envision any regeneration for the serious and recurring mistakes found. Let us understand his situation at once: he is a desperate doctor who can no longer act with what he had been trained (that is, treat patients) without serious damage to his conscience. It then restricts itself to adopting a relatively innovative hygienism. He begins to loathe the therapies he witnesses. He prefers to give up clinical practice. Fortunately, his intuition was refractory to his skepticism. He argued his intellectual distrust under the avalanche of uncertainties that obsessed him. He considered it better and admitted that there might be something to be done, notions that deserved to be revisited. Initially it imposes an induction, apparently inspired by the prerogatives of an author who, strangely, never mentioned: Francis Bacon.

We must see the enormous effort of his rescue. It seems clear that the traces left by the medical history for which it was based as a starting point have become its main epistemological guidelines. Hahnemann captures ideas that have not been preserved from the medical tradition, with a view to reincorporating them. When it is finally defined by a method it tests it. But it is certain that the usual methodological losses will not be condemned by the aphorisms of the Novum Organum . It also denies the very common acquisition of knowledge through the application of drugs to the sick (ab usage in morbis ). His interest moves to another research matrix. But where is she? Apparently in the study of the effects of poisoning and accidental poisoning on the healthy.

The year 1796 was decisive in its trajectory. After several smaller essays, published in the same Hufeland newspaper , H. writes a work that will carry a very ambitious title. There he claimed to have discovered nothing less than “a new principle for ascertaining the medicinal power of drugs”. However, how could he announce a novelty when much earlier, as he and even evoked from medical historiography, the principle of similars had already been seen and applied? Analogy and sympathies were marked as common grounds for similarity’s discursive constructions.[1] These were ancient resources, old acquaintances of the healing art. How then does he claim that he induced the birth of a new system of medical understanding when the medieval physician Rhazes and another famous scholar of illustration, Von Haller, already admitted the need to bring the experiment on the healthy to medicine?

What abuse of self-referential sources was he promoting when he claimed to be both an agent and a witness, that is to say, the main protagonist of an announced revolution?

There is perhaps one of those logics of scientific discoveries which, as Khun admits, are motivational, psychological, and therefore crucial. At the end of the 18th century, we would find Hahnemann extremely unhappy. He fueled a deep skepticism in the face of the inefficiency he contemplated. He distrusts his practice by denying the therapeutic successes enacted by his peers. It does not seem to admit that the scientific revolution had really installed itself in therapeutics. It also rebels against the comfort of the repetitions of the chairs. Randomly rummages through the pandora box of medicine. His curiosity generated a significant breakdown in his medical certainties. With intellectual boldness and determined intuition, she puts everything into perspective. Hahnemann is no longer a skeptic: he is already an iconoclast.

The Meissen guy dares to think. It is a true obsessive metaphor, the leit motiv that plagues certain subjects in certain temporal units. His rupture stems from a rational inspiration, fueled by a scientific curiosity that confirms his purpose of methodically reexperiencing and the assumption that he must expose his hypotheses to empirical tests. Tests that, to their own astonishment, are provisionally sanctioned.

The problem of identities and influences: hip ochratisms, animisms and vitalisms.

Much has been discussed about the Hahnemannian sources and it is true that thanks to this we have advanced in the understanding of the bases on which he ends up configuring the homeopathic method. There is still a lot to study. We chose to reduce our approach to the influences that, in our opinion, were the most consistent and original. The first to be highlighted is that of the Hippocratic work. There is no doubt that this influence is notable in addition to many times explained by Hahnemann. [two]

It is impossible to doubt the fascination that genuine Hippocratic writings had on him. The sobriety in describing the phenomena, his ability to peer and reveal without trying to explain what he did not know was among his main virtues. As you know, the Hippocratic doctor should be, first of all, a physiologist , that is, someone who is able to speak correctly about nature. In fact, the supreme virtue of Greek doctors was the establishment of accurate prognostic observations. Or, in this impossibility, say nothing about them.[3]

Many authors pointed to the coincidences between the medical positions of Hahnemann and Hippocrates, calculating that this was yet another reactivation of Greek wisdom.[4] As we know, clubbing simply bases medical history on medicine. Each case must be seen in its particularity and each individuality must be examined in the multiplicity of possible responses.[5] Hahnemann recognizes in the Kos tradition a less invasive, natural and rational, therefore better, medical rationality. He knows the therapeutic limits of hippocratism, so he recognizes the prognostic and diagnostic virtues , after all Hippocrates was the one who introduced the case study by comparison through anamneses.

For Hippocratic medicine that applied the Aristotelian concept of individualization, the important thing was to discern the various pathologies within the variability of individual profiles. Its purposes: to diagnose and predict better. For Hahnemann, foreshadowing the germ of his subsequent ruptures, the particularities of the subject’s biographical / pathographic events also begin to stand out , with eminently therapeutic purposes.

More than one author tried to establish a parallel between Hahnemann and the works of authors from different eras and trends such as, for example, Paracelsus, Von Haller, Claude Bernard, Pavlov and Freud. There is a possibility to justify all these influences and inspirations, but in this study we will take another direction. Other halos of influence need to be exposed.

Chronologically, it is worth mentioning some great previous adventures that have left their mark on the history of medicine. We will start with the Vesalius coverings founding the modern anatomy and establishing the correlation between anatomical form and function. Of course, the break created by Paracelsus and its developments in therapy cannot be neglected in any serious homeopathic study. Nor is Sydenham’s systematic empiricism, of evident hypocratic inspiration. Or even the perspectives of an animated anatomy introduced by Von Haller when he induces the first consistent physiological studies towards overcoming humoral-based pathology , a prolonged inheritance of Galenism. Not to mention the enormous repercussions on all medicine in the 18th century of Morgagni’s research when it correlated experimentally – in systematic autopsies – clinical history and anatomical lesion demonstrating the almost linear correspondence between the complaints and the morphological substrate of the pathology. 

Hahnemann studies and cites each of these authors, so it is impossible to doubt his option for empirical validation. The authorities he evoked are mostly clinicians and researchers of eminently experimental ballast. It is a phase in which Hahnemann is particularly interested in the study of chemistry, venereal diseases, and, of course, poisonings 

Despite renouncing the idea[6] , our author presents many similar traits to the founder of medical animism, Stahl.[7] Both excellent chemists. They are among the best of their generations, formed under the influence of the schools of Sylvius and Van Helmont[8] (iatrochemistry). Both are among the most reputable medical researchers in their respective periods. They share the same indignation at the irrational interventionism they witness. They test their hypotheses and redefine their activity: from chemistry to the investigation of the vital phenomenon. That was a moment of effervescence in the century of enlightenment: the emergence of empirical physiology was witnessed, Lavoisier founded a chemical revolution , Kant renewed continental philosophy, a romantic reaction to Cartesian mechanics was outlined. Given the proper proportions, it is not only in our time that the world changes rapidly. 

Hahnemann, like Stahl, notes that the priority was in the analysis of the vital phenomenon, too important to occupy an insignificant place. Vitalism’s identity had always been in danger of disappearing. However, it always reappeared when the clinic resumed empirical research. Animism and vitalism are progressively increasing in their scientific programs. Despite the agreement, the paths take different destinations. While Stahl takes up Aristotelian metaphysics in a very personal way, that is, shaped by the pietism with which he was involved, Hahn emann privileges Aristotelian logic as a method to solidify the constructs that are to give him the theoretical and experimental support necessary for the progress of the project .[9]

Nevertheless, Stahl mobilized the same themes in the 18th century as Hahnemann in the 19th. It fights the mechanism of the man-machine. He rebels against systematic medicine, starts to doubt the peremptory certainties of therapy, and gives an empirical tone to his treatments. In most of its therapeutic orientations , it adopts expectation as a technique.[10] He does this with great awareness because he considers it a less pernicious method than the available resources. An entire school will imitate him, after all, in the “first place, do no harm” ratifies a resumption of Hippocratic naturalism and, consequently, a return of confidence in the natural medicine . resurrecting the idea of ​​the regenerating power of the hypocratic medicinal nature, when physis would provide for the recovery of the sick. The first Hahnemann did not escape this trend. 

Roughly speaking, the Stahlian method, which also adheres to the principle of similarity, ends up in operational difficulties that are not negligible. There is no systematic treatment of the question of anima or how and under what circumstances the drug should be applied. Stahl intimately doubts the therapy, but has nothing better to offer. You only have the option of the expectant clinic. In its therapy, for the first time since the failure of Paracelsus’ psychiatry, we found a primitive psychotherapy – the fundamental disorders are rooted in the anima – which seemed to value the patient’s psycho-mental state, as well as the use of the always useful dietary resources. . Here it successfully imitates Barthez’s experimental tentamen , in any case therapeutically as not very operative as his, because they both had no medical instruments except those inherited from a tradition they had performed and tried to distance themselves from.

Hahnemann, on the other hand, creates a new path. He pursues the epistemological maturity that he slowly incorporates into his instrumental guide – Organon . This incorporation decisively affects its practice. He quickly moves from initial research, the embryo of his scientific program , to application in the sick. Again, he submits his hypothesis to the tests, increasing his casuistry with the traditional difficulties already familiar to everyone who knows his biography.

But what he gets goes far beyond what he initially assumed. He observes tangible results between the event (drug introduction) and the effects observed within a plausible time gradient. This intervention, he thinks, changes the natural evolution of the disease. This is the first step, he calculates. Careful, that r map your findings with caution. It is necessary to understand that originally he was prioritizing – until now he had not expressed his criticism of the inconjugability of nosologies – the pathological entity itself, the disease, as an object of study. Po ssivelmente was worried about a quick comparison of results.

Thus his pragmatism is reinforced by the verification that, with adjustments, he is even before a new path. It is not, strictly speaking, a new principle, but it is definitely one in our path here. Rota, which for many reasons will be terribly arid for the innovative doctor: the empirical school was undermined by the great medical systems (especially those of Hoffmann and Boerhaave), the study of the totality was being sacrificed by the principle of localization [11]

The symptoms (and with this the clinical history) were no longer so important because they had been restricted to “lesion slaves”[12] . Similitude was in disuse and was practically ignored by major medical schools. Nobody valued it, much less operationalized the tenuous medicines of Hippocratic medicine.[13] The romantic movement (as well as natural philosophy, Schelling’s “nathurphilososophie” ) that decisively influenced our author, did not exactly produce a scientific endorsement for the new researchers. Let us add to this panel the difficulties to challenge the hegemony of Newtonian physiology and its convincing mechanics applied to biology.

Furthermore, and most importantly, Montpellier’s vitalism was isolated and discredited by the advancement of the medical schools of Paris and of island medicine . In the medical field, the elision of vitalism was a fact. In this way, the environment – despite the fact that famous analysts saw the opposite – was inhospitable to what was about to unfold, to the theses that were about to be enunciated. Hahnemann, just as Galileo really acts against everything and everyone, or as Hilton Japiassú wants, referring to the famous stronome “despite everything and everyone”. Finally, it organizes a counter-thought and makes an epistemological cut in medical knowledge.

Again our inconoclast dares. He is not exactly concerned with “scientific coherence”, or “political articulations”, moreover, on the contrary, he is extremely unskilled in this sphere. He wears himself out excessively in the fight against rivals, he is defeated internally in his intention to keep homeopathy on the idealized route, he sees himself facing the constant threats of interdiction of the movement. All because he had well-defined priorities. He is stubborn with the idea of ​​the “new way”, which allows to progressively refine the theory. References to vitalism, up to the fourth edition of Organon , were quite incipient . It is developed by crossing information and refining medical knowledge with ideas arising from practice, that is: the totality-purpose, interactions between mind / body-medicines-environment. He begins to borrow concepts and ideas from the vitalist tradition, voluntarily or not, starting to resort to them to explain the phenomena he witnesses.   

Only during this period did he introduce the expression ” lebenskraft “, a vital force. Expression that will take on different characteristics in each school and that composes only one of the items of the conceptual structure of vitalist philosophy. However, what is most dear to the Hahnemannian corpus is not the “vital energy”, but the very concept of vitality “lato sensu”, as if defining a way in which the living organism operates. What started to matter, primarily, were the modes of operation of these organisms as non- mechanical, non-inertial totalities , especially analyzed in their operational functions: form / function / purpose. Hahnemann, like Stahl and Barthez, realizes the insufficiency of mechanistic principles to account for pathological and therapeutic phenomena.

With effect, vitalism can be placed more a consequence of these investigations and that the cause of these. It is also very important to show that the mechanism-vitalism polarity was never its starting point. It emerges as a natural result of research, which only increases its epistemological weight. Interpreting the results of the events, investing all his intellectual and deductive efforts, he ends up giving his newly conceived theory the status of method. Hahnemann reexplores a theory in which he can couple his findings. It is about reactivating an empirical vitalism replacing “wild” empiricism. Of course, as you realize how important and operative these assertions are, more positivity is added to the method. His research is becoming more and more oriented. He is increasingly determined to seek support for the enormous variety of hypotheses he raises.

Epistemological plans: from the induction of similarity to the deduction of singularity. 

Break with primitive similarity . Susceptibility, or the exalted peculiarity. The infinitesimal is nothing. The vitalist research program. An evil worse than the original: suppression. 

Thus, before trying to define the basic traits of his personality, or trace an outline of his historical costume, it is necessary to redefine the various traits of his work in the construction of his methodology.

In the first place, our thinker emerges as a doctor formed from conventional schools, whose main theoretical matrix was iatroquímica (Vienna, Leip zig, Erlarngen). His therapeutic vision is therefore centered on medical chemistry in the 18th century. Despite numerous proofs of his intellectual precocity and his refined intuitive ability, Hahnemann was unlikely to change his praxis in such a radical way. It would be less expected, given the absolute dominance and hegemony of that trend, that he would found a new medical school.

What takes you to your destination will probably remain ignored in the recesses of your most intimate metaphors, which I fear, we will never have satisfactorily clarifying access. It remained for us to follow the lead of their arguments. His primitive dissatisfaction with systematic medicine and his courage to denounce the lack of effectiveness of the medical systems to which he was exposed denote his first phase. Hermeneuts would call this their first application. But our problem remains the same. We have not yet been able to efficiently diagnose how and under what conditions he conceived his “new principle”.

By isolating himself and claiming to have abandoned medical art, as he confided: “I thought that art was doomed to nothing”, he sentenced himself to the search for something better. Once it has discarded the practice of its time, its next company will be to detect the failures of the great medical systems . These ended up becoming the great epistemic breach to objectify your doubt: there is something to be rethought, quickly and radically.

His research originates in the sphere of theoretical review, and between libraries and translations, among incunabula and folio s lost medical history records his rescue: Hippocratic similarity and model experimentation of the old empirical schools. Nowadays it would be equivalent to depreciating the genomic tendency and to resume, with extra-historiographic purposes, the recommendations of Hellenic medicine. He elaborates his own synthesis and sees the need to experiment on human bodies. [14] But it will not do so in the face of pathologies, it will be necessary “not sick” to obtain more reliable reports. At the same time, it is concerned with distinguishing its new formulation from Paracelsus’ correspondences and refutes, in advance, the possible attacks against what would come to disqualify it as naive empiricism. For the first, he recommends severe criticism, confronting the tradition of the markings , for the second, systematic studies against the “empirical accidents” recorded in historiography.

But, confirming what Canguilhem noticed, the sources matter less and the treatment given to them is much more important, and in this case , H. does this work in a very original way. It goes beyond medical texts and advances its research focus on works of natural history, of travelers and explorers who visited other peoples and cultures collecting therapeutic jobs and registering, almost journalistically, the medicinal habits and customs of the colonies of European countries. He is much more interested in clinical records than in books on doctrine and therapeutics. It was relatively common in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for medical authors to transcribe their clinical cases, as if to publish their daily experiences, to write down their therapeutic successes (even those that Hahnemann will later demonstrate as suppressions), so that others could know what their behaviors were like in prá ethics.  

  1. it ingeniously takes advantage of this immense source of therapeutic imbroglios, contesting the axiom that the masters are always right. Gumpert was happy to refer to him as a hard-core rebel. It uses the authorities, in a legitimate movement of co- thought, to disallow them. Take advantage of only the symptoms that emerge from “wild” treatments and the intoxications that you identified in these records .[15]

Although Hahnemann recognized the enormous value of applied chemistry and that many substances were useful in palliating certain pathological states, he refused to admit that we would need to restrict their knowledge to their proximity to the “natural system”, or to their taxonomic kinship. He admits that there may be, in fact, analogies between the external, physical-morphological evidence of the substances and the medicinal effects. But he does not accept them – as the doctrine of signatures predicted – as a given reality. He wants a research program to prove it or refute it. In this sense, Hahnemann undermines the epistemology of “signatures”. However, as Foucault had detected, those who work with similarities also necessarily have to deal with the signs.  [16]

The difference is that the signatures (or markings) that interested Hahnemann were of a different nature, they could not be botanical because they were also subjective, they were experiences [17] , making it impossible for these to be correlated to organs, physiological systems or pathologies. He begins to look for methodical observation and experiment in the possibility of registering the manifestations of the human totality. 

He states that “botanical affinity” would never allow conclusive inferences about the similarity of the action since the “external similarities” were superficial and insufficient to know possible medicinal effects. Here his critique of primitive similarity and the doctrine of Paracelsian signatures, as well as the whole system of medical matter, appears again, and in a much more evident way.[18]

Hahnemann had a double influence: one of them was the great medical systems of his time, iatro-chemistry, and on the other hand he was deeply impressed by the empirical propositions. It is precisely in this mid-term between the tensions of a rational and empirical nature that he forges his proposals. For this reason, it is not possible to present only one facet of its concerns, since it is committed from the beginning to divisions that will permeate the entire project. It is the contradictions generated by them that move the history of their propositions.

It uses the concept of similarity, but adheres in this field to a new epistemic , modern, therefore analogical. In other words, during the experimentation process, it seeks to detect, from the point of view of the subjectivity and subjectivity of the subject, which expresses symptoms and the changes that the substance has inflicted on him.

These revisions give him the pejorative title of “book physician” from his enemies and the other scientists and historians of his time, the diagnosis of the founder of a ” pure metaphysical system “.[19] A little unfair to anyone who published a libel sanctioning the medicine of experience. Thus, the central role of all the controversy that Hahnemann is about to create only at this stage outlines more defined features. He is about to reach his next target: the “botanization” of diseases, or better, his taxonomization. In one of these passages, one asks: “Should we happen to trust a botanist who is restricted to dividing plants between herbs and shrubs?”. 

It should be noted that Hahnemann was not only concerned with the visible, potentially triggerable signs of medicinal substances. He begins to occupy himself with the totality of manifestations, such as experiences, dreams, sensations and all sorts of subjective symptoms , obtained from the medication. Its semiology is, to borrow an expression of propaedeutics, “in the open”. For this very reason it obtains for my medical matter a myriad of new symptoms: objective, constitutional and especially mental symptoms . It incorporates all sorts of subjective symptoms, usually overlooked by semiology.[20] Found a new model of clinical history.

It attacks the episteme that placed nosos as the main object of therapy. What it means to say: it shakes the building that had, and still has, the central role of all therapeutics, the framework even of Western typifying medicine. Here we come to something truly revolutionary. Here is the embryo of one of its epistemological ruptures. What he says to us means “no to typifications” and at the same time “to look for unpredictable symptoms”. It is worth asking why you do this?

Did he perceive the little scope of the symptoms taken only as confirmations of the anatomo-clinical pictures ? Or do you suspect the efficiency of the therapy under the semiological direction undertaken until then? All of these hypotheses are plausible, however, what Hahnemann foreshadows is the concept of nonspecific susceptibility, only officially formulated almost a century later. In other words, it discovers the semiological-therapeutic importance of modalized symptoms. It gives primacy to the rarity of the clinic. Unveils the manifestations that express the disturbances in an imprecise way. In other words, it discovers the value of the unexpected , of the unpredictable phenomena in natural illness.

Redundant to say the degree of innovation of this proposal. It starts to incorporate this orientation as an inseparable part of the method. From this guideline, it is natural to deduce that it is no longer possible to prescribe based semiologically on the predictable syndromic conditions. That is, following the Hahnemanian reasoning, the pathognomonic symptoms of diseases can no longer be taken as the only semiological guides for therapy. Unless these symptoms have a personal note, it is worth mentioning those that have idiosyncratic characteristics.[21]

Now, if your review can rescue similarity and experimentation, why not go further and do the complete job by demolishing the whole system of classifying nosologies? Here we will have to sharpen our discriminatory capacity: its primary target was not this. What he wanted to do was to anticipate the enormous insufficiency of that classifying system for the establishment of therapy . Knowing what it is, that is to say, knowing the name of the disease, does not necessarily give the diagnostician the predicate of prescribers, the notion of knowing how to treat.

But you cannot avoid the logic: why, if the experiences reveal susceptibilities and “sensitive fibers” of different qualities that respond to different amounts and stimuli, why consider only specific remedies? In fact, if the medication actions are diversified and affect the entire economy, why then the privilege of a diaphoretic, a revulsive, an astringent, emenagogues or sweat? If the illnesses are inconjugable why are the drug correspondences chosen by local affinities? Why not be suspicious of organotropisms that do not take into account the totality of manifestations in the subject? =

In addition, another rescue was imminent. After concluding that it is impossible to establish a therapy under the banner of pathology, Hahnemann is visibly concerned with the paths that these can take, when they are suppressed / modified in their natural path. His conclusions again coincide punctually with what he finds registered in medical historiography: he starts to check for substitutive pathologies. It promotes yet another resurrection, this time it is the turn of the old doctrine of “morbid metastases”. It finds that in the course of any therapeutic action, pathological versions worse than the original ones may appear. It implies that the expectation may be a lesser evil (since here the suppression would be in charge of the vis medicatrix ) of what is the therapy. At the same time, it finds that the analysis of the totality and the application of mild medications are more rational means to protect the subject, or at least minimize the risks of a possible harmful path, such as the one mentioned above.

Finally, the most indestructible epistemological question. What do you look for in attenuations: to optimize the action of the drug through a lesser medicinal effect? Get the subtle alchemical body of substances? Deviate from aggravations? Coercing the vital energy? It is possible for all questions to obtain affirmative answers simultaneously and successively. But let us judge by the beginning. Hahnemann, for familiarity or opportunity, begins his work with poisons: heleborism, arsenicals, mercurials, sulfur, zinc and other toxics fill his repertoire. Check the rules that lead toxics to produce their effects under strong and low doses. It notes that qualitatively those susceptible respond to doses well below the toxic threshold. That the action of drugs on subjects is extremely heterogeneous. Now, if the clinical and mental conditions reappear under different intoxications, the minimum amounts to awaken the symptoms can be different for each subject and much smaller than expected. What laws and clinical-pharmacological criteria do these phenomena obey? None satisfactorily known. There must be individual variability that induces subjects to non-homogeneous responses. How do you proceed? Dilute and try it, only in a second stage it dynamizes the drug, after all the simal infinite is nothing. 

The ethical imperative. =

“There are circumstances in which neither the like nor the opposite heal; it is what should heal ”

Hippocrates

In the years that followed his greatest research, Hahnemann now finds himself immersed in his experience, immersed in his work of caring for patients. They have been sketching and building an ethical corpus . He does all his work looking for a system that includes an action compatible with the delicacy that semiological and therapeutic work requires from the homeopathic project. And already knowing this, he fuses his expectation of curative purpose with a pedagogical-philosophical action that would also induce the subject to a more articulated action between nature and destiny, between spirit and body, between environment and work.

However, our author pears the creative with prudence in the statement of these propositions. He fears for the worst – rightly so – when he gives homeopathy a character of univocal universal philosophy, because if, on the one hand, he knows that the sectarians will always be pre-called to defend it at all odds , on the other, he realizes the danger of a fallacious aura that this double meaning can provide for a method that was intended to be articulated as a scientific practice.

At no time, however, does it state or denote that among the particularities of the drug’s action are an action in the spirit per se . The references to an immaterial action of the medications only match the idea of ​​”quasi-spirit” in a specific context: like us, he, despite noting the positive effects, ignored the mechanism of action of ultramolecular doses. Indeed, he sees that the medicine conveys generic, imprecise, “quasi-spirit” possibilities that are assumed as information by the set of organic systems (mind-body-environment complex) of the subject[22] can change your most intimate perspectives, but who can know for sure?

Thus, in parallel with the scientist Hahnemann, we have a thinker of completeness who stands in favor of ethics. So what would be the Hahnemanni ana ethics then ? Here we leave aside, at least for now, the methodological constructions and the induction that our author proposes. We will try to understand what is convenient for him for curative action.

First, Hahnemann does not judge, he only listens carefully to the subject in his narrative, which, as we know, presupposes unusual details in clinical histories. These are the usually negligible symptomatic “wastes” that contemporary clinic has renamed as “neuro-vegetative disorders” or, at best , subjective symptoms. What mattered to a clinic based on the names of the illnesses if vertigo made the subject recline to the right with cold, if perspiration produces ecstasy, if along with the headache a desperate desire for lemon arose or even if the crises of anxiety to break out at 17 o’clock on time? These ended up – here it is not possible to analyze why – because they turn into mere parasitic symptoms of the medical occupation. No previous clinician valued or transcribed the patients ‘ symptoms with such obsessive care. H. had learned how to apply them in practice. The truth is that even the best doctors from other periods, including those who recorded very complete medical histories like, for example, Sydenham, did not know how to treat material from detailed anamnesis.

Second, the analysis of the cases attended by Hahnemann shows the commitment to all symptoms. No pre-valuation. No anticipated hierarchical criteria. No schemes chosen beforehand. Just a motto: any peculiarity will be exalted . Whether in the “Archives of Stapf”, in the “Notebooks of patients” or in the various records such as, for example, those pointed out in the rescue of Genneper, these guidelines overlap, apparently not very methodological. What you can see in all your records is the meticulousness of the record: the original words, the type of music, the details in the dreams, the empirical verification of clairvoyance, the altered perceptions, the dream recesses, the perverted functions and the body in anguish.

So when he proposes to put sculapio on the scale he weighs his positivism against his metaphysics. He realizes that he cannot, even with the deepest personal effort, hide his polarity as Masi-Elizalde has so well shown. Ass ume that, if on the one hand he will give the scientific aspect of his propositions a logical-formal tone, on the other hand he will continue to affirm what he believes in, enunciating his deep philosophical-religious concern, focusing on the very meaning of existence. Hahnemann induces and deduces all the time. After all, he shows himself to be a researcher who cannot hide his motivations. In this case, at the same time that he uses ontological substantialism to define the properties of being, he rejects part of these characteristics a pr iori , which will be the object of further control, during the experiments.

Another important methodological criterion introduced by Hahnemann is found in the explicit and repeated recommendations that each drug should be used exclusively. The idea of non-mixing is yet another field of spistemological maturity in your medical system as it seeks to control the intervening variables with the most understandable of the arguments: two drugs together cause a third and unknown element that makes the analysis of the effects uncontrollable and very little need.

The use of inert substances should also be mentioned. It should be noted that this use is recommended in a strictly ethical context: the commitment to the other also involves the controversial act of apprehension of “not medicating”, namely, the use of the compliant medication. It is precisely because he understands that imprecision is inherent in the homeopathic method and its operational difficulties that Hahnemann allows and encourages the use of non-medicinal “something” when the need and / or indication of the verum is not clear. How impressive was his ability to perceive the need and importance of a therapeutic artifact, however pseudo-medicinal, as a step in the work that allows for a better research of the improvements, the worsens and the stability in a homeopathic treatment. 

The Hahnemannian version of “creative leisure” – as in the famous letter to the workaholic tailor “[23] – is one of the most auspicious and denotes the recognition that there is, after all, a scale of values, criteria and priorities. Work, it is clear, cannot be harmful. It should not be counted as a sacrifice to health. Faced with the epidemic front classified under the CID of RSI “injury by repetitive efforts”, once again our author foresees the worrying fate of organisms reduced to “bodies that produce”. To the perplexity of neo-pragmatism, Hahnemann’s complex axiological system never separates the construction of homeopathic science from its ethical commitments. Of these, a certain teleologism of the human statute that identifies the vital phenomenon with the inclusion of certain perspectives of refinement: cultural, affective, spiritual cannot be underestimated.  

Whether we like it or not, Hahnemann has no quibbles about spirituality, which he sees with a practical focus, that is, it is not in the sphere of alienation or in the turmoil of a contemplative asceticism. Nor is it a dogmatic metaphysics and still less the contemporary neo-esotericism freely associated with homeopathic doctrine. According to him, man has an internal system that allows him to detect the transcendent nature of his spirit, as well as his ability to recognize Gd. Even this certainty did not make him hostage to the Salvationist theses.

There is a sophisticated mix in our author: on the one hand, it adheres to a kind of personal synthesis of naturalist philosophy[24] which tends to a vitalism of a spiritualistic nature (Luz, 1988) with the perception that it must always be united to “being here”. On the other, it assumes scientific positivism as an incorruptible duty to the medical object. Perhaps, for this very reason, on purpose, he never intended to assemble a set of medical knowledge under a metaphysical safeguard of a mystical or religious nature. It is an insurrection against this prerogative. Waiving any form of sectarianism to put your hypotheses under question.

After recognizing the transcendent nature of man, the founder pleads for the scientific and conceptual clarity of homeopathy as a logical, pragmatic, scientific choice. First, the methodological choice. Then he admits a metaphysical-based ontology – warning that “all are kings” there – that he must undergo the tests of empirical evidence.

In other words, it admits an empirical metaphysics. Its accurate scale no longer weighs just sculápio. It weighs values, supports the search for a broader medical approach, emphasizes hygiene, the role of the environment, the need and finding references in existence. Hence his option – this is particularly interesting in his epistolary – for an existential religious spirit not linked or subordinate to schools or hermetic doctrines. Hahnemann prefers to subordinate this acquisition to the subject’s achievements, case by case. He deduces that there is a kind of tribute to the singular of each subject, as there is an unmistakable merit in personal discoveries: they are non-transferable and configure subjectivity.

If in this way each subject can obtain pedagogical, philosophical and homeopathic help, so much the better, since the high ends do not know the dimensions and the quality of existence cannot be measured, except by very peculiar measures: exactly from references of the very nature treated / cared for.

Hahnemann understood that it was exactly this nature that would allow man to refer any health project to a reconsideration of the importance of the status of mental status in therapy. The mood starts to be considered[25] not only as a semiological-therapeutic reference but, and mainly, as a kind of “marker” for the improvement of the subject’s general state. However, in order to refer this improvement to more sophisticated projects, Hahnemann recommends, in addition to the dynamized drug, a continuous personal effort that can be enhanced or not by a pedagogical-philosophical action through what he called “auxiliary mental regime”.

The posterity of the inheritance: in addition to the contradictory and simibilus principles, which is appropriate.

When we see the immense responsibility that homeopathy has as perhaps the last medical rationality that is truly divergent from hegemonic thinking, we are apprehensive and concerned about its future. The internal disagreements of the movement , the difficulty of the various schools in assuming their identity and the radicalizations about each of the Hahnemanian phases started to hinder the development as well as the goals of the homeopathic movement.

Many critics of homeopathy substantiate their criticisms of the lack of scientific curiosity of homeopaths who did not update the method in the light of a review of medical theories after Hahnemann. Despite the exaggeration and ideological bias embedded in it, there is a basis for these criticisms. We need to recognize the exaggerations, the flaws and the important elisions in his work. After all, it is not a revealed text. We have to admit that a certain programmed ingenuity permeates the homeopathic environment that expects nothing less than the perfection of a scientific construction. But here we also see the opposite bias: adapting uncritically to current research norms and standards can mean the rise of a pragmatic version of similarity and the ruin of a resistance that fought to preserve a set of knowledge and medical procedures that characterize a particular iatrophilosophy.

Hahnemann’s merits were many: preparing an immense terrain still unfinished, not only leaving faithful followers but contaminating critical passers-by , not having defined rigid strategies and living immersed in a fruitful resistance whose deep traces reach all the medicine of our time, marks epistemological issues that are making themselves felt even in other disciplines. However, it is no longer enough that we repeat the content architected by the Hahnemannian code to exhaustion. This has already served us, now it brings a scientific suspicion. The accusation of cult of personality is rekindled. It exposes us to the fragility of sameness. Stoic restatements embarrass us in the fragile era of immobility as warned us in different ways and in different historian-author versions like Dudgeon, Bradford, Haehl and Marcy and Fortier-Bernorville. The repetitions, the mere reaffirmation of our resistance, do not deserve to be taken by a positive heuristic .

Homeopathy does not have any special attribute that credits it as a different knowledge from the others. There are no innate or acquired invulnerabilities, there is no guarantee for anything. It is part of the game to submit to the refutations, to face the internal contradictions and to bow to the criteria of knowledge criticism required to be able to continue to be validated and thus remain as a practice. Homeopathic ideas need to circulate in order to be preserved. Their logic was challenged and put under question. We restrict ourselves to cheering only for increasingly clear evidence and for the expansion of the investigation.

Paradoxically to his strong doctrinal sense, Hahnemann positions himself as one of the first revisionists of homeopathy. Let us remember that his conversion from iatroquímica to a cosmic-synthetic vitalism, where he incorporates similarity as a method, was a direct consequence of a spirit willing to be affected by research. Only afterwards, seeing the insufficiency (or “excessive” sufficiency ) of the analogue as therapeutic reasoning, does it incorporate infinitezimalization as in order to obtain modified, subtle, but convenient responses.

And, in the end, when he did not need to risk his prestige, he resolved to bear the turbulent consequences by enunciating a sketch of medical anthropology, seeking a hidden malaise, a meta-meaning underlying the empirical-phenomenological of the symptoms. It is the phase that enunciates the psoric theory. In other words, there is everything in Hahneman’s reasoning, including contempt for a straight and cumulative coherence that exhaustively demands adherents and enemies.

Stick to the medical object to meet the demand for a more efficient clinic, namely, with the specific purpose of curing or controlling defined pathologies is an ancient problem of medicine. Here, too, our inventor imposes changes. In his ethics, the radical commitment to the other does not mean only being attentive to changes of a pathological character as the primacy of medical care. The originality here was to have pretended to be defined by an ethical-synthetic humanism, whose main attributes must be the solidarity and understanding of the suffering subject. Sufferings manifest through imaginary or real idiosyncrasies that the sick subject tells the doctor, seeking relief and support. Homeopathic help does not come (or could not come) only against the morphology of sick bodies, it will always come as an answer to the incomprehensible sensations, metaphors and allusions that invade and plague the subject.

Hahnemann finally builds a methodology in which it will always be necessary to ask “what ails you?” and “what do you suffer from?” to find out, in the end “who is it”? This dissolves, once and for all, the contemporary illusion of a future in which machines that detect vital qualities would replace medical action using electrodes that trigger the simile. At least for the Hahnemannian subject, the original perspective remains: the essence of the clinical spirit is the procedure of one man in front of another.

It is necessary to show that homeo patia conveys a therapeutic possibility of order and dimensions completely foreign to those of the fields of action defined by the causalist model of biomedicine as the only ones specific to the medical act. This distinction brings us directly to the scope that we see in homeopathy as an original proposal that must finally be taken as a way of making medicine. Homeopathy then needs to be identified as an iatrophilosophy. A subject medicine, an interactive medicine beyond the specifics of diseases. We build a healing art that is much broader than the application of similarity. Its fundamental distinction, which even highlights it from other medical rationalities, lodges itself elsewhere: it is in its “what to do”, when it understands man in his aspiration to be understood by the totality of manifestations.

Homeopathy already needed and had its martyrs, already experienced the taste of exile, the ban, banishment. Homeopaths fought (and fought) with doctors from other traditions and between themselves endless disputes , both long and useless. Whether we are going to prolong this strife or finally dedicate ourselves to what matters is an option exclusively under our yoke.

So, let’s talk about the impropriety of the always mistaken question “what would Hahnemann say”? Impossible to know how he would behave. The inferences of his scientific testament show that we should foresee doses of rationality and moderation. We are pleased to note that the influences of romanticism were not, in the end, negligible items in the analyzed influence hall. since, as is known, this movement was extremely important in the subject’s rescue route. Therefore, after these prolonged disputes, we would expect a relaxation of doctrinal inflexibility so that everyone really interested in the renewal of medicine could adhere to the third Hippocratic principle. No prior hegemony. No methodological monopoly. Only intellectual openness as a premise, doubt as a compass. In view of the current immensity of modern medical possibilities, neither the opposite nor the similar as univocal concepts, just what suits each patient.

Finally, what we recognize as genius in Hahnemann is spread throughout the corpus . Notable as an original thinker , revolutionary as an epistemologist of medicine, generous as a doctor. He sealed his contribution to knowledge as an inducer, deductor and inventor. Challenges that will still occupy several generations and that should produce developments that will expand to have access to those more complex traits of the human spirit and its sufferings. However, all these efforts will be recognized as a single duration and as long as we are able to recycle the notion of progress we want. They will remain true and efficient as long as we are able to recap – which necessarily means selecting and maturing – the contents of this great cornerstone of knowledge that we call medicine, and one of its therapeutic arms that we call homeopathy.  

Grades

[1] Cf. Foucault, M. “The four similarities” in “The words and the things” 1966.

[2] “We have never been closer to the discovery of the science of medicine than in the time of Hippocrates. This thoughtful unsophisticated observer sought nature in nature. He saw and described diseases before he precisely, without addition, without coloring, without speculation. ” Hahnemann, Lesser Writtings, 1852.

[3] “In the faculty of pure observation he was not surpassed by any other doctor who came after him. Only an important part of medical art was this favored son of nature deprived: – besides that he was a complete teacher in his art – in the knowledge of the rivers and their application. But he did not simulate such knowledge – he recognized his disability by the fact that he gave almost no medicine (because he knew them very imperfectly) and relied almost entirely on the diet. ” Hahnemann, S Lesser Writti ngs, 1852

[4] We know the aphorism that has guided many generations of medical historians: “the natural history of medicine is a successive sequence of returns to Hippocrates”

[5] This conception of the medical school in Kos was briefly taken up by the dream of merging horizons represented by the legendary school in Salerno with its aegretidines diagnosis . Cf. Homeopathy and Vitalism. 1996

[6] Critically criticizes Stahl’s idea of ​​”animal soul”. He does the same with the supposed influences of paracelcism on his work.

[7] Cf. Coulter, HL Divided legacy. op. cit. Vol II.

[8] Jean Baptista Van Helmont , a systematic physician and Belgian chemist, was the first to distinguish gases from air (he invented the word gas) he and Silvius are the first to recommend, based on the idea of fermentatio fermentation) use of acidifying and alkalizing to improve abnormal digestive performance.

[9] The sparks of Kant’s critical philosophy can be seen here.

[10] According to Entralgo, his therapy was basically restricted to the use of tonics and purgatives. Cf. Entralgo, PL Historia de la Medicina, Modern and Contemporary Medicine. Los Grandes Sistemáticos. 1954. p. 245  

[11] Subsequently explained by Virchow.

[12] As Morgagni pointed out in his “De Sedibus”

[13] Even when attempting to reissue it in the low doses of Van Helmont.

[14] For Koyré, scientific revolutions are due more to the mutation of philosophical ideas than to empirical discoveries. Cf. Koyre, A. Pensar La Ciência. p. 27. 

[15] This is basically the spirit of his first medical subject: Fragmenta, from 1805.

[16] Here is what Hahnemann points out: “Due to the fact that the cinchona cortex has a bitter and astringent taste, therefore the bitter and astringent cortexes of ash, horse chestnut, willow, etc., were considered to have the same action. that the cinchona cortex, – as if the taste could determine the action! Due to the fact that some plants have a bitter taste, especially gentiana centaureum, called fel terrae, for this reason only professionals were convinced that they could not act as substitutes for the bile! Since the arenaria carex root has an external resemblance to the sarsaparilla root, it was deduced that the former must have the same properties as the latter ”Hahnemann, S. Lesser Writtings, 1856

[17] Cf. Rosenbaum. P. Homeopathy: interactive medicine. Imago Editora. Rio de Janeiro, 2000 (Publication of the Master ‘s dissertation in the Department of Preventive Medicine – FMUSP “Homeopathy as Medicine of the subject, historical roots, epistemological frontiers”)  

[18] “Therapists attributed to star anise the same expectant qualities that are possessed by anise seeds, merely because the latter have a similarity in taste and odor to the seed capsules of the former and even some parts of the tree (iliceum anisatum ) that produces these capsules is used in the Philippine Islands as a poison for suicidal purposes. – This is what I call the philosophical and experimental origin of medical matter! ” Hahnemann, S. Lesser Writtings. 1852

[19] More contemporaneously Entralgo came to classify homeopathy as “free medicine” .Cf. Entralgo, PL Historia de La Medicina. Modern and Contemporary Medicine. Madrid, 1954

[20] With the exception of substances classically producing changes in the psyche, such as opiates , alcohol and other medicines of plant origin such as cannabis indica, cannabis sativa and others – in the compilations that he scrutinized. 

[21] For example: in the case of mental illnesses, pathognomonic psychic symptoms must be excluded from the scrutiny since they are expected in a framework, the main characteristic of which is precisely the disturbances of the mental sphere. Ditto for the expected symptoms of any pathology.   

[22] For the Hahnemanian man a substantial compound is inseparable.

[23] This is advice that Hahnemann sends to a patient, a tailor, in which he warns him about the risks of overwork and the need to put other priorities in his life.

[24] Since it criticizes nathurphilosophie

[25] This was one of the important differences between Stahl’s and Barthez’s projects. Cf Homeopathy, Interactive Medicine . op. cit.

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/hahnemann-sera-atual-266-anos-depois/

Antissionismo é Antissemitismo 2 – Bilhete da Memória (Blog Estadão)

Destacado

Antissionismo é Antissemitismo 2 – Bilhete da Memória

“A tolerância torna-se um crime quando aplicada ao mal”

Thomas Mann (A Montanha Mágica)

A assembleia nacional francesa depois de uma discussão que durou mais de uma década passou uma resolução e decidiu que o antissionismo (o ódio à Israel)  é antissemitismo.

“A Assembleia Nacional… acredita que a definição operacional usada pela International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance permite a designação mais precisa do que é o anti-semitismo contemporâneo ”, lê-se parcialmente o texto da resolução:

“Considera-o um instrumento eficaz de combate ao antissemitismo em sua forma moderna e renovada, na medida em que engloba manifestações de ódio ao Estado de Israel justificadas apenas pela percepção deste como um coletivo judeu.” (Times of Israel, 03, 12, 2019)

E não é difícil compreender porque assim fizeram os franceses, e seria de se esperar que todos os Países civilizados os seguissem como um exemplo de respeito à civilização e de decência intelectual.

Menos de 75 anos do final da Segunda Guerra Mundial, o mundo testemunha uma crescente onda de xenofobia.  O antissemitismo foi o preconceito étnico que mais cresceu nos últimos anos. Record de ataques contra judeus foram registrados no ano de 2019. O número das agressões foi inclusive muito maior do até então considerado ápice da intolerância, pouco antes do início do grande conflito que terminou em 1945. Somente nos EUA foram reportados 2100 incidentes violentos.

Portanto volto a um assunto que já foi tema de um extenso artigo anterior publicado aqui neste mesmo Blog Conto de Notícia. Um dos candidatos a prefeito de uma das maiores cidades do mundo pertence a um partido, o Psol, cuja plataforma – e não apenas seus membros isoladamente — declara explicitamente, contra todas as evidencias disponíveis, que Israel é um Estado que pratica genocídio contra o povo palestino.

Para além do exagero retórico do partido do atual candidato do Psol a prefeitura de São Paulo citamos declaração contida em sua plataforma – “o governo de Bush foi quem mais ostensivamente o praticou, declarando apoio a Israel e a seu massacre, dizendo que o Hamas é terrorista” conforme artigo retirado do próprio site do partido do partido em 2018. A verdade, porém, é que há consenso da comunidade internacional de que após prolongadas investigações contando com experts civis e militares de várias nacionalidades de que não há nenhuma prova de que houve “massacre”e de que o Hamas é uma organização terrorista e como tal foi classificada pelos Estados Unidos, União Europeia e a maioria dos países civilizados.

O site do partido é repleto de exortação ao ódio e notícias falsas, como as publicadas no mesmo veiculo em janeiro de 2019, a verdade é que comparar o holocausto com supostas carnificinas cometidas pelas forças de defesa de Israel com os massacres promovidos pelo exército nazista, está para bem além de ser patética. O nacional socialismo alemão e seus sócios responsáveis pela política sistemática de extermínio dentro e fora dos campos de concentração assassinou 6 milhões de judeus.

Já o partido em questão adota palavras de ordem ameaçadoras, votos de ódio e hostilidade sem contexto ou equivalência moral, e uma provocação particularmente mentirosa:

Em outro trecho do “artigo”(sic) a verdade é mais uma vez torturada com slogans como classificar o regime israelense de “neonazista” (sic). Neste caso é a realidade que protesta já que ao contrário do que afirmam os militantes escribas do partido, a legitimidade e apoio ao Estado de Israel é crescente inclusive no mundo árabe e o exército de Israel está entre os mais éticos do mundo, conforme arquivos da própria ONU.

“Em Israel, tal como foi na Alemanha do terceiro Reich, se trata de um estado que somente pode sustentar-se sobre a base de um militarismo genocida e racista”. Eis mais uma anedota de um partido que nem tenta ocultar sua beligerância anti- Israel e, portanto, contra todos os judeus que encontraram lá paz e refúgio depois da Shoah. E acharam proteção e acolhimento não só naquele País, mas também em lugares como o Brasil, onde os povos estão acostumados a viver em harmonia e mútua aceitação. Convivência pacífica que parece  incomodar o núcleo duro da agremiação.

Estes são apenas alguns exemplos de desinformação irresponsável, com potencial para incitar crimes de ódio, sempre sob o álibi de apoio ao povo palestino e o argumento maniqueísta da generalização. Sequer se enrubescem quando apoiam o regime teocrático e homofóbico iraniano e embarcam na psicose anti norte americana que ainda assombra  parcela significativa da esquerda. Não é uma cegueira seletiva. Não é ingenuidade. Trata-se no máximo de uma modalidade perversa da síndrome de Hiroo Onoda, soldado do exército imperial japonês, que até 1974 viveu escondido nas selvas das Filipinas sem saber que a guerra havia acabado. No caso deste partido, fica mais do que evidente a manipulação e a desonestidade intelectual com finalidade de propaganda política.

Apesar do candidato ter se esquivado das indagações feitas para ele durante a campanha, cristãos, evangélicos, judeus e toda a opinião pública teriam muito interesse em ouvir da boca do candidato que aspira governar a cidade no qual habitam. O que afinal ele realmente pensa sobre tudo isso? E não foi por falta de perguntas ou oportunidade para oferecer suas respostas. Parece, entretanto, que o sujeito optou por um silêncio tácito quando se trata de manifestar seu viés anti-Israel. Vale dizer, só deverá se pronunciar — o que seu partido já faz aos quatro ventos — apenas quando as urnas eletrônicas estiverem lacradas.

A plataforma de acusações do Psol contra o Estado hebreu é muito mais extensa e inclui queimar a bandeira de Israel e dos EUA (Manifestação no Rio de Janeiro, 2012), ameaça de expulsão de membros do próprio partido que não seguissem a cartilha anti-Israel, acusar Shimon Peres de “genocida”, além da sequência de acusações infundadas como vimos acima. Tudo isso divulgado de forma incólume, sem que os checadores de fatos tenham verificado os fatos, como aliás acontece sempre que os fatos não desmentem a ideologia que os checadores defendem.

Recentemente, um pequeno grupo de pessoas que dizia representar a comunidade, judaica elaborou um vídeo declarando apoio ao candidato deste partido. O problema é que o fizeram de forma furtiva, dando a entender que falavam em nome de todos. Surgiram polêmicas e respostas circularam nas mídias sociais. Mas este é apenas um efeito colateral de algo muito maior: o poder desagregador da retórica do ódio camuflado de libelo político.

Felizmente, os judeus são, constitutivamente, um povo plural, no qual cabem várias correntes de pensamento, preferências e até mesmo múltiplas ideologias. Foi a memória acumulativa das perseguições, e a densidade quase genética que se revela não só no psiquismo, mas no próprio corpo, que tem orientado o sentido desta experiência de sobrevivência. Como a experiência é uma sensação individual as sensações — de perseverança e afirmação da identidade — acabam se manifestando de uma forma muito particular em cada espírito. E portanto, como Freud observou em relação aos judeus: uma resistência admirável associada à capacidade peculiar de sobreviver às intempéries.

Mas mesmo em meio a tanta diversidade, tem havido pelo menos um consenso agregador entre os adeptos da tradição mosaica: não há, nunca houve, tolerância com a intolerância.

Nem com os intolerantes.

Essa percepção não veio somente através da leitura, da cultura e nem mesmo pela educação parental, emergiu da vivência e amadureceu através desta experiência de seis milênios, já que um povo tão antigo tem a obrigação moral de se conservar como arquivo vivo. E assim, usar suas memórias como bilhetes auto endereçados ao futuro. Estes devem ser lidos em momentos mais agudos a fim de evitar tragédias e enfrentar com coragem as vicissitudes da história.

O psol, seu candidato e colaboradores merecem algum agradecimento, já que provaram à revelia, mas com todas as cores, a tese de que antissionismo — ou ódio a Israel — é, de fato, uma manifestação vicariante do ódio antissemita.

E ai, recorro ao bilhete da memória onde está escrito com tinta rutilante:  “não deixaremos acontecer, nunca mais”.

Anti- Zionism is Anti-Semitism 2 English Version – Memory Ticket

Under the threat of having an overtly anti-Semitic mayor in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, with the support of the mass media, I thought it important to publish this article in English as a denunciation of what is happening in the country.

Destacado

In a lecture recently held at the Bait Jewish Center, the poet, essayist and writer Nelson Ascher focused on a theme that is often banned or superficially addressed: is anti- Zionism anti-Semitism? The blog News Tale gave an overview of his remarks and added reflections that also involved the problem of reliability of the news and the fake news , the political turmoil in Europe, the role of mass immigration and Islamo -fascismo, who is not left is right or maybe just “non-left”?

Ascher started by using an absolutely synthetic statement to answer his own question

“Why does anti-Semitism exist and endure?”

“Because it always worked”

How does it work and what is the past and contemporary meaning of its effectiveness?

In stating that Zionism was a kind of “second-degree nationalism ” and that there are other “Zionisms” being gestated in Europe due to a lack of identification between the social democracy practiced by the European parliament and the countries it governs. It follows that “second-degree nationalism” can be understood as a reactivity of peoples to attempts to interfere with their customs beyond territorial and financial unity. In this sense, is Europe soon to be threatened by several movements similar to Brexit ?  

In 2018 we had a disturbing record for the number of anti-Semitic attacks in Germany, France and more recently in the United States. If there is no European unlink the current status quo of the refugee crisis that allowed the entry of nearly 2 million people (countries of immigrants from North Africa – the vast majority, frise- are not refugees) coming from intolerant cultures violently anti-Semitic. The problem therefore is more in immigration policy, which seems to have no clear criteria than immigrants themselves. 

The debate has been banned by the systematic evocation of terms prohibited by a censoring euphemism better known as “politically correct”. Any mention of the wild immigration flow has been labeled ” Islamophobic “. It is also self-evident because the expression ” Judeophobia ” is not given the same treatment . The insistence of a large part of the media to condemn Israel a prioristically, in the headlines and in the declarations, attests to this. In the recent crises with the Gaza Strip ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas – and its Iranian proxies – the headlines show the nonsense and prejudiced bias of a significant part of the news media. “Israel attacks Gaza” is the most common call, this after Israel received almost 500 rockets against civilian populations in less than 48 hours. Importantly, as has been emphasized more than once that such terrorist organizations have nothing to do with the the official government of the Palestinians and its president. They are illegal fronts, which actually oppress and hold the people of Gaza hostage. 

According to Ascher, there is a particularity in the case of European anti-Semitism, which often uses the justificationism of the anti-Zionist alibi. It is essential to analyze the role – direct or indirect – played by Angela Merkel and other leaders on that continent. 

Still according to his analysis, some of these self-titled governments of social democracies, regularly pay tribute to Jews killed in the Shoah (Holocaust) and in fact publicly condemn anti-Semitism, which has been outlawed. However, while giving funeral speeches under self-lashes, they neglect the dramatic and explicit aggressive climate against Jewish communities. While other countries seem to do the reverse. In the case of Hungary – a country that you follow the policy with particular attention – we have an example of this apparent paradox: there we have a government classified as extreme right (sic), but it is, at the same time, one of the places where contemporary Jews they seem to be safer when compared to the situation in other European countries. The paradox is only apparent: while a significant part of the left-wing parties chooses to cluster around old anti – Jewish conspiracy theories – formerly the monopoly of the extreme right – there is now a new and incendiary component to be accounted for: as defined by Umberto Eco , it is the Islamo -fascismo.

How can it be explained then that nations that even make the mea culpa frequent for their responsibilities in the genocide practiced by the Nazis with the participation of several other countries, but remain inert in the face of the epidemic of anti-Jewish intolerance that today sweeps Europe, if not with impunity, counting with the omissiveness of governments.

Ascher then recommends the following inflection: what is the “Democratic Rule of Law”. The former president Mubarak for example was directly undermined by Obama’s foreign policy and sequence the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections in Egypt. As we know, the “Brotherhood” is one of the oldest radical Islamic associations. A strategic ally of the Nazi party is today an admittedly jihadist entity . He won by a large margin defeating all moderate parties in what would be one of the first elections in the Arab country in decades. Shortly afterwards, the population itself understood the error and took to the streets – in an event that was wrongly classified as “Arab Spring” – asking for the deposition of the newly elected, which effectively ended up through a military coup led by General Sissi. 

At the time, several analysts attributed the phenomenon of the election of Morsi – recently killed by a heart attack – to an error in the timing of the democratic process: IM was the only organization to keep its structure intact during the subsequent dictatorships that lasted and, therefore, the only one able to compete in the election as an almost exclusive option in that suffrage of a plebiscitary character. Considering the episode, what is the Democratic Rule of Law anyway?

If only an understanding of the historical-political context can define it, what is its consistency?

Right and left have their wild vices and classifications. In turn, those who do not fit the postulates of the left are liable to be labeled right or extreme right. Only “not left” or “not right” is not allowed. Many members of the North American Democratic Party and the English Labor Party – centered on the figure of Corbyn – have instrumented the discourse of the struggle for Palestinian rights by sacrificing historical principles by openly defending anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic stances. This includes standing in defense of the aitolás theocratic regime and defending jihadist organizations – officially recognized by the European Parliament as terrorist entities – such as Hamas and Hezbollah. These are complaints that come from within the English labor party itself.

What would be the ideological and tactical significance of this political tour?

It is disturbing to know that many journalists have started to act in a militant manner. Selecting news according to more ideological standards than reporting facts. It seems obvious that the hermeneutic bias has taken on a much more powerful form than the facts. Even if neutrality is an idealized function, wouldn’t the original role of journalism be closer to encouraging the reader to make his own decisions than to doctrine it ? Not nowadays, when the fake news that comes from official sources are much more compromising – because they are supposedly unsuspected or less suspicious – than those advertised on social networks – always subject to double checking by the most careful users.

After the episode of the accusations of the defeated candidate for the presidency of the Republic, Ciro Gomes, who externalized his prejudice when he evoked “corrupts of the Jewish community”, the most recent Brazilian case of a statement accusing the Jews fell to the magazine “Isto É”. The broadsheet published unfortunate article explicitly anti-Semitic – with the pretext to accuse the current government communications secretary – using the motto compares it to the propaganda chief, Josef Goebbels’s infamous, marquetólogo the fuhrer . The magazine also used the accusatory term to fabulate and identify the enemy, again, “the Jewish community”. The title of the libelo would dispense with further explanations “O Goebbels do Planalto”.

In this sense, the attempt to sabotage the right of any subject of a certain ethnic group to work or act politically for a government that the columnist and the editorial direction of the pamphlet considers inappropriate is evident. In the absence of consistent arguments, the accusation will always fall on the ethnic condition that is most at hand. It sounds more often against Jews.

It is at this moment that we are very close to the impeachment of citizenship. And the suspension of the idea of ​​the secular state by those who should defend it . And so it was possible once again to evoke the myth, this one clearly neo-Nazi, that there would be a “Jewish plot”. Now, there are Jews of all political currents and nuances and the ethnic- religious condition could never be used as an alibi to generalize anything. Unless it is clear that the journalist or writer is already in the fragile intellectual condition of post-analysis . That is, what matters in any story is your personal beliefs and the starting point is already the ending point. Groundless generalizations such as those that routinely appear always start from an ideological, devotional, that is to say, fanatic bias. 

Is there not one of the roots of the discredit today attributed to regulated media in general? The manufacture of disinformation – increasingly identified by the speed and expansion of access to the diversity of information media – is not the very genealogy of false news? News that is now spreading with the magic of the web with frightening resourcefulness? Does this occur while it is possible to observe paradoxically a considerable advance of confidence in what is transmitted through social networks?

After all, what are ” fake news “? And what is its impact on the national and international political scene? Especially in the case of Israel that suffers a considerable number of attacks with financed media and paid blogs to spread, for example, hate speech and intolerance.

In this sense, it can be said that modern anti-Semitism has dressed up as an occasion for anti – Zionism . However , it is an improvised outfit. Under the demountable cloak that deserves to be demystified by serious journalism, there is selective respect for freedom of expression.

Just over 74 years after the end of World War II and the death of more than 60 million people, including 6 million and 250 thousand Jews (these dead after the end of the war when they tried to return to their European homes), the reality only reaffirms the vital importance of the existence of the State of Israel for the Jewish people and their security in the current historical moment. And despite the threats and the revival of the virulent wave of intolerance against the Hebrews, there has never been a time in human history when so few Jews died in massacres. The anti-Zionism then finally is revealed as just another veiled face of one of the most primitive archetypes and recurrent humanity.

Perhaps the great frustration of preachers of hate is that this time the scapegoat has a way of defending itself.

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/antissionismo-e-antissemitismo-1/

Diário do apartamento 6 – O risco da esperança (Blog Estadão)

Destacado

Ilustração – Nilda Raw – O.s.t 2018 “Tree of life”

O asteroide de 15 kilometros de diâmetro que há 66 milhões de anos atingiu a península de Yucatan no México extinguiu os dinossauros e quase toda a vida na superfície do Planeta. Segundo muitos, estamos aos 0,6 do início da segunda maior ameaça a vida, desta vez é a humanidade que será apagada. Até os não negacionistas sabem, que voltar ao trabalho não é uma escolha. É pedir muito voltar a aceitar uma condição que se remonta ao Gênesis e nos impôs que o sustento deveria ser obtido através do esforço? Ontem foi inevitável voltar a ter uma rotina fora de casa. Busquei disfarçar e tive que conter a satisfação enquanto caminhava até o escritório. Estava chegando no prédio quando fui interpelado por uma moça toda encapotada: — E essa cara feliz? Pego de surpresa, teria uma estranha capturado alguma euforia ignorada? –Pois é, estou retomando a rotina, primeiro dia. E até consegui esboçar um sorriso amistoso. –Ah, voltando a trabalhar? Ela aplicou um leve tom de censura à pergunta. — Uma hora teria que acontecer, minimizei. — Olha. Não sei não! E ela franziu as sobrancelhas. — O que é que você não sabe? E depois de ter me ensopado de álcool gelatinoso, já com o antebraço enfiado na porta de entrada, reflui dando um passo atrás. — Sei lá, o Sr. não é mais nenhum jovem, é grupo de risco, não acha que é muita ousadia? — Amiga, é aceitar o jogo e ir em frente, nos proteger, e, como dizem os ingleses, “espere pelo melhor”. E virei para seguir minha jornada. Ela não desistiu. — Está brincando? Neste caos no qual estamos metidos? É sério que você acha que vale a pena se arriscar? Eu se fosse você… Pois é. Ela não era eu, portanto não respondi e determinado, entrei no prédio para subir e começar a atender as pessoas que já estavam a minha espera. Pensei na facilidade com que a interpeladora me abordou para fazer observações não solicitadas. E cheguei a conclusão de que faz parte de uma mentalidade que tem virado epidêmica, todos devem estar disponíveis todo o tempo, todos são devassáveis, todos podem ser julgados e interpretados. Sabe-se que a palavra otimismo vem assumindo uma conotação pejorativa. O termo tem variado muito de significado, entre “ingênuo” e “cândido” e evoluiu rapidamente à “trouxa” e “imbecil”, podendo sempre descer mais, quando palavras menos nobres serão utilizadas. Chegamos a pensar seriamente que compreendíamos para onde caminhávamos. Mas, por pura incompetência, cessaram as fantasias de que seríamos reféns da tecnologia. E olhem que não esbarramos nos limites das órbitas distantes, na temível singularidade dos buracos negros, nem nas dimensões de estrelas que pelo tamanho escapam de toda estimativa matemática: a história registrará que entramos num estado de animação suspensa diante de um animalículo. O vírus (do latim,veneno) não se contentou em ser só mais um fenômeno da natureza. Transformou-se numa escatologia programada. Mas, antes, deu descomunal poder a quem nunca soube usa-lo da única forma que tornaria uma democracia realmente sustentável: benevolência e genuíno interesse pelos governados. Como disse em março o ex-juiz da Suprema Corte do Reino Unido, Sir Lord Jonathan Sumption, referindo-se a um evento que reprimiu pessoas que desafiaram o lockdown: “Eis a aparência de um Estado Policial”. No mundo todo o fato é que para mostrar serviço quando os governos não sabiam qual serviço mostrar, o poder e seus agentes impuseram, tergiversaram, emitiram versões paradoxais, criaram regras marciais, prenderam críticos e soltaram criminosos, aturdiram, espalharam desconhecimento, desorganizaram os incautos, mudaram leis, transformaram a medicina em armamento ideológico, e, finalmente, respaldados por extrapolações epidemiológicas a toque de caixa estão na iminência de prescrever soluções mágicas, apelidadas de experimentais. E o principal: deixaram quem mais precisava relegados a um lockdown espiritual intermitente. Aqueles que vem acusando o poder de promover bullyings de Estado contra os cidadãos podem ser etiquecados como desejarem , mas, sem dúvida é deles a coragem que falta às instituições. Acham exagero denunciar o drama? Tanto quanto transformar uma moléstia em mito e espalhar o pavor. No lugar da mínima responsabilidade testemunhamos o autoritarismo sendo aperfeiçoado usando o slogan do risco. Isto tudo sob a licenciosidade das mídias que, se livres, escolheram ser sócias voluntárias dos governantes contra os governados e a opinião pública. Ouviu-se mais de um ancora de TV cochichar nos bastidores a mesmíssima frase “tem mais é que apavorar mesmo”. Sob a indecência das mordaças psicológicas, com a previsível corrosão da linguagem, não foi difícil imaginar por que é que todos fomos calados, sem que nenhuma boca se insurgisse. De fato, insurreições foram registradas, sempre por causas parasitas, periféricas, sublevações secundárias, motins autoritários, fúteis e até engraçados diante da superficialidade das reivindicações. Então surgiram os “anti”, aqueles que só se importam com a vida de alguns — e ocasionalmente defendem suprimir as demais se for para melhor testar suas teses. E, finalmente, emergiram aqueles que usaram as múltiplas fantasias conspiratórias para desconstruir as verdadeiras ameaças. Não sou otimista nem pessimista. É que as vezes sou tomado por uma estranha credulidade: cultuo a alegria imotivada. Soa imperdoável? Para desespero de muitos hoje a pandemia — assim como seus instrumentadores — está saindo de foco. A pressão evolutiva sobre o vírus está resultando em menos mortes, ele ainda se espalha, mas a gravidade da doença se arrefece e não só porque hoje já há alguns tratamentos eficientes. Recorro ao sempre presente Professor Titular de Patologia Walter E. Maffei: “o vírus não quer matar o paciente”, precisa se propagar. Mas há uma analogia pedagógica merece ser mencionada: o veneno, assim como parte significativa dos políticos, também aprendeu a fórmula para permanecer entre nós: vão continuar nos dando dor de cabeça sem nos aniquilar completamente. E como num zoom out, as piores cenas, ainda bem, vão ficando cada vez mais distantes. Sob as usinas de lives, as telas com poluição visual de rostos justapostos vinham criando uma estética mortificadora. O único sinal externo de que a anormalidade insiste em tornar-se normativa são as máscaras e as fantasias por trás de cada uma delas. Afinal, quem ordenou tudo isso? E quem foi que nos acusou de não estamos gratos por continuar vivos? Podemos estar solidários com quem sofreu e ao mesmo tempo declarar emancipação das políticas governamentais. Nossa sobrevivência não pode ser mais creditada ao Estado provedor, aos populistas confessos ou aos saqueadores da subjetividade à espreita da próxima crise. A desumanização começa com a uniformização e termina com a arte e cultura reféns da ideologia. Quando superarmos esta fase será graças aos esforços individuais, ao sacrifício silencioso das maiorias torturadas pela tirania de ofício. Infelizmente nem mesmo o rodízio no poder, a última salvaguarda para a democracia, parece ter deixado claro o que precisamos. O que os bem pensantes nunca imaginariam — e detestam a sensação, pois é um território que não conseguem entender — é que eles perderam a hegemonia. Se há um risco que vale a pena correr — em oposição ao determinismo dos cultores do apocalipse — é precisamente o risco da esperança. — É que na tradição judaica — eu deveria ter tentado explicar à moça encapotada — a árvore que nos habita abriga mais de um tipo de papiro, com fibras que misturam prudência com ousadia. Propositalmente artesanal, o papel é temperado para que a tinta do Único sele, carimbe e nos inscreva no livro da vida.  

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/diario-do-apartamento-6-o-risco-da-esperanca/

The film “The name of the Care”, a medical-philosophical essay on the relationship between doctor and patient, check it out! (film with english and spanish subtitles)

The film “The name of the Care”, a medical-philosophical essay on the relationship between doctor and patient, check it out!

“The Name of Care”, a film that deals with the relationship between doctor and patient, based on the interpretation of a medical-philosophical text interpreted by Walderez de Barros and Oswaldo Mendes. LAPPIS, supporting the dissemination of the film, interviewed the creator of the medium-length film, Dr. Paulo Rosenbaum . The homeopathic physician answers questions about the film and about health and its representation in today’s society. Watch the movie trailer and then be sure to read the exclusive interview!                         

1- In one of the scenes, the character played by Walderez      de Barros reflects on the loneliness and great individualism present in members of contemporary society. How do you face this trend and what are the relationships it has with health, especially with homeopathy? In our society of information and express relationships, loneliness tends to increase dramatically, people live more alone, the number of people who live without a family, according to IBGE data from 2008 shows: the trend has exploded in the last decade. This is worldwide. On the other hand, individualism is not only present in the members of society, society is ideologically individualistic. That is: society – even in a more solidary and participatory regime – produces its “cohesion” in general at the expense of a side effect: the suppression of personal characteristics, dilution of unrepeatable unitswhich are the individual subjects. It is relatively simple to understand: to reach the average, singular traits are eliminated. There is less and less room in society for idiosyncrasies and singularities have to adapt – at the price of exclusion, marginalization or abandonment – ​​to social norms that are common to the average. Contemporary loneliness is not only a product of the inability to belong, but also the active rejection of a social environment that discriminates and segregates differences. I don’t know if there is a solution to this paradox. There is also a metaphysical loneliness, existential suffering for which, perhaps, there is no cure. Paul Ricouer says that misery is not coinciding with oneself. I believe in that. But how to recover these values ​​in an anomic society and without fair criteria? Homeopathy and integrative medicine are just medicine, right? Why should they propose to be agents of a broader transformation? What is this pretension? Which sociologist or philosopher granted this freedom to medicine? But the fact is that they played a broader social role than just eliminating diseases, they tried to develop criteria to assess each singularity as essential to a better understanding of the health and disease process and even a better understanding of society. Benoit Mure can always be cited as someone with these concerns. Like it or not, at least so far, the expansion of medicine’s horizon of action was a defeated project. Let the purists be shocked, but there are palpable elements that allow this reading to be made: the non-hegemonic areas did not get support, because even the doctors who use the other medical rationalities, the non-hegemonic ones, understand how they should inform society. Neither about the reasons for their existence, nor what new developments they propose in resisting the hardcore of gold standard research as the only ones that really qualify what is produced as benefits. In fact, the “resistance” that for a long time was even well calibrated to fix and reaffirm a research project that was still somewhat loose today became a justification for maintaining itself as an anachronistic cause. A very backward ideology that divides the world between allopathy and everything else. She, in addition to not dialoguing well, thinks she should challenge the medical corporation or blame the drug companies instead of bringing them to the debate. There are difficulties in having a minimum consensus to dialogue with the scientific community and when it does, it pays the price to disfigure the characteristics that underlie the method. We have, then, to ask the painful question: what is the point of all the struggle for reaffirmation if it is to accept a reduction that makes the novelty brought about by the perspective of an integrative practice, which is, without any naivety, a generous project unfeasible?                               

2- Nowadays, health assumed the definition of “not being sick”, instead of the classic definition of “being healthy”. In one passage, Oswaldo Mendes questions the patient about what he imagines when feeling pain. Visual expression is the explosion of a bomb, but how would you define it in words? The bomb is a metaphor whose idea came from the film’s director, Leo Lama, and which Paulo Prestes Franco captured and inserted very well into the film. She is efficient at saying something that reaffirms itself throughout the film. A bomb is the maximum violence, sometimes indiscriminate, most often irrational, which can be the symbolic synthesis of the modern statute of lack of delicacy. It is the absolute antithesis of care. All that counts is producing “effects” and “seeing” facts. The testimony, the narrative only appears and can only be validated by the images. She has the strength to tell those around her that he is a target. A target of injustice, a hostage of impatience, an object to be pulverized. So often the health sciences areas unfortunately objectify people who need treatment. In this sense, the metaphor has a triple hermeneutic: destruction of the “disease” thing, the “target” suffers an indiscriminate action against everything around it. The bomb, actually a scene of a guided missile hitting a target, also represents the desperate intensity of suffering, and finally a metaphor to compare what is sometimes difficult to verbalize in the soup of poverty of language. Finally, the image of destruction that, for those who get sick, makes no sense. Later, during a dialogue, the patient says to the doctor, reacting to a generalization that what he says is a society problem and not medicine, and the doctor answers: “society’s problems explode in the face of medicine”.         

3- Integrative medicine, particularly homeopathy, values ​​individualized care, giving the patient the necessary attention so that a cure can be obtained with greater quality. In your opinion, should this type of relationship between patient and doctor be integrated or should it be restricted to homeopathy only? If what you mean by “integrated relationship” is a radical relationship where the doctor captures the patient’s state and contextualizes it, and from this perspective, where he can enter into dialogical harmony with whoever is caring and vice versa , yes. Vice versa , as the dialogic relationship presupposes that the two are subjects in the consultation. Homeopathy is a specialty that has this structural feature in its episteme and as much as researchers try to dissect it, it is not possible to emancipate the medicinal therapeutic effect from the action and the force of action in therapeutic rapports . They are married and doomed to eternal fidelity to the chagrin of many. It is a big mistake to underestimate the value of conversation. Individualized care is not only about being attentive and available to the sick person, but valuing idiosyncrasies not only as positive details to identify symptoms, but also to understand and merge horizons with the author of the symptoms. In this case, the fusion of horizons is with the patient. This apprehension is not only important at that time, as guidance or counseling can always be based on very particular aspects of a particular person. If standard medicine could relearn how to listen to patients’ biographical and clinical histories, this would be a huge scientific and institutional advance . Care would approach a more careful practice and doctors and patients would be progressively disobjectified and this could work as a general reformulation of the very notion of the clinic. But that’s just a hope.                                                                                       

4- The choice of the subway as the interpretation scenario represents the collectivity that is responsible for equalizing citizens, oppressing individual characteristics. In one scene the patient screams, desperately, that he is feeling sick. As he demonstrates his despair, it is clear that no one among the many people around him is able to help him. In your opinion, does society lack solidarity? What is the relationship of this feeling with health practices? That’s a thought-provoking statement. In fact, the cry of pain is a cry in emptiness, besides being deaf it is a dead cry. He issues his despair to whom? Is there anyone listening? Is there someone to take care of it? Helplessness is a serious condition; he is the voice of abandonment and carelessness. He is the in-law of solitude. That’s why she screams so loud and insists on making herself heard. The film seeks to welcome and examine the malaise . As I said above, society is not, by nature, solidary. Much less the State, which in general is violent, repressive and, when saying that it is concerned with taking care of the “masses”, may not promote anything other than homogeneous measures for people with completely different needs, regardless of the protocol applied. Epidemiology is just beginning to learn the practical value of diversity. Sometimes, most of them sacrifice the individual in the name of a collective good. No one is trying to deny the value of biostatistics or effectiveness. For example, you cannot place individual seats on public buses in a way that everyone is respected in the way they would like to sit. But medical action is different and health care needs attention that focuses on the particular way in which the person becomes ill and heals. Standardization is not possible even though protocols and their efficiency rates can be accepted. This is just one facet of therapeutic interference. The other side of the coin is that if a treatment protocol is effective in the indiscriminate application of a successful guideline on a given pathology, imagine how much more effective it would be if it could simultaneously assess the overall impact on each subject and fine-tune person to person ? This is the greatest and greatest asset of a correct conception of integrality. The singular and unique way each expresses what only it can express. Maybe we wouldn’t have to be discussing at length a pleonasm as the “humanization of medicine”. Certainly there are segments of research in the scientific mainframe that are properly concerned with this issue, but the path is slow and long. As the song said: it is a long way !                                         

5- The scene in which the character expresses not wanting to know about the diagnosis, whether right or wrong, represents the individual’s disregard for the medical process, wanting immediate cure, regardless of the causes of the disease. Is this a general trend in today’s society?                                                 Can homeopathy, as it has an approach aimed at the individual, serve as an example as a solution to this tendency? I don’t know if I would read it that way although that’s exactly the richness of the movie. A hermeneutic documentary like “O nome do Conhecimento” intends to show that this fusion takes place with the different perspectives of those who see it and thus can be better explored in public debates. And that’s our effort. By the way, it called our attention to the almost absolute lack of support for this initiative, which we had to fund with personal resources and with the help of friends. No association, university or research group was involved in the project. I don’t complain. I just try to see how a vital question like this is encapsulated and overlooked. Which for me only increases the desire to publish the documentary and start a second filmic investigation. It is an ineffective discussion and precisely because it does not arouse institutional interest, we must insist on discussing “why does this issue cause so much trouble? What does it raise? We renounce any crude denunciation, to adopt the language of art, metaphoric and poetic, to give voice to problems. Applying hundreds of millions of reais to implement service centers, humanization programs and the regulation of integrative medicine in the Brazilian state may not be enough. Without a discussion carried out the ultimate consequences of what type of medicine is desirable and what is the most priority and how the training of human resources is taking place for this immense demand – both in the SUS and in private medical practice – and still without taking into account the kind of malaise that is spreading in contemporary society does not seem to me that we can go very far. There is a moment in the film when the doctor says “there is a gigantic social pathology and it seems that people don’t realize that these things are also symptoms” . 6- Finally, the movie trailer, right at the beginning, raises a question: “Which medicine does society need?”. Could you answer it? I think society needs to discuss which medicine it wants. It’s a question and no one can claim to give answers alone. But I have an intuition and that’s what I’m going to talk about. I think that at least most people do not know what medicine is or that it has several possibilities for intervention. Who will say what the integrative cut medicines are. If there is a model medicine? Is there a model that should be hegemonic?                                                                                         

      I do not believe. We urgently need to transcend the idea that one formula will replace another. The various forms of intervention make sense and relate to specific models of cultures and diversities: ethnic, racial, religious, geographic. There are, however, some generic topics: I believe in bringing the idea to users and consumers that a service in which the quality of presence is in evidence is good. A medicine in which listening is more generous and the patient is not a passive object, but an interactive subject who is also present, putting all his instruments at his disposal. Everything so that you can reach states closer to happiness. A health manager might turn up his nose and say: this is impossible. As long as I’m a doctor, I can still – or want to – have the luxury of believing.      

To contact Dr. Paulo Rosenbaum , send an email to rosenbau@alumni.usp.br.

To see the teaser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vUXVhOudCc

O Filme “O nome do Cuidado”, um ensaio médico-filosófico sobre a relação entre médico e paciente.

O Filme “O nome do Cuidado”, um ensaio médico-filosófico sobre a relação entre médico e paciente, confira !

“O Nome do Cuidado”, filme que trata sobre a relação entre médico e paciente, a partir da interpretação de um texto médico-filosófico interpretado por Walderez de Barros e Oswaldo Mendes. O LAPPIS, apoiando a divulgação do filme, entrevistou o idealizador do média-metragem, o Dr. Paulo Rosenbaum. O médico homeopata responde à questões sobre o filme e sobre a saúde e sua representatividade na sociedade atual. Assista ao trailer do filme e depois não deixe de ler a exclusiva entrevista !                        

*Em uma das cenas, a personagem vivida por Walderez de Barros reflete sobre a solidão e o grande individualismo presente nos membros da sociedade contemporânea. Como você encara essa tendência e quais as relações que ela tem com a saúde, sobretudo com a homeopatia? Nesta nossa sociedade da informação e relações expressas, a solidão tende a se acentuar dramaticamente, as pessoas vivem mais sós, o número de pessoas que moram sem família segundo os dados do IBGE de 2008 mostram: a tendência explodiu na última década. Isso é mundial. Por outro lado, o individualismo não está só presente nos membros da sociedade, a sociedade é ideologicamente individualista. Isso é: a sociedade – mesmo num regime mais solidário e participativo – produz sua “coesão” em geral às custas de um efeito colateral: a supressão das características pessoais, diluição das unidades irrepetíveis que são os sujeitos individuais. É relativamente simples compreender: para alcançar a média eliminam-se os traços singulares. Há cada vez menos espaço na sociedade para idiossincrasias e as singularidades têm que se adaptar – sob o preço da exclusão, marginalização ou abandono – as normas sociais que são comuns à média. A solidão contemporânea é não só um produto da incapacidade de pertencimento, mas também a rejeição ativa de um meio social que discrimina e segrega as diferenças. Não sei se há solução para este paradoxo. Há ademais uma solidão metafísica, o sofrimento existencial para o qual, talvez, não haja cura. Paul Ricouer fala que a miséria é não coincidir consigo mesmo. Acredito nisso. Mas como recuperar estes valores em uma sociedade anômica e sem critérios justos? A homeopatia e as medicinas integrativas são só meras medicinas, certo? Por que deveriam se propor a ser agentes de uma transformação mais ampla? Que pretensão é essa? Qual sociólogo ou filósofo concedeu esta liberdade para a medicina? Mas o fato é que desempenharam um papel social mais amplo do que só eliminar doenças, tentaram desenvolver critérios para avaliar cada singularidade como essenciais à uma melhor compreensão do processo de saúde e doença e até compreender melhor a sociedade. Benoit Mure pode ser sempre citado como alguém com estas preocupações. Gostemos ou não, pelo menos até aqui, a ampliação do horizonte de atuação da medicina foi um projeto derrotado. Que se choquem os puristas, mas há elementos palpáveis que permitem fazer esta leitura: as áreas não hegemônicas não conseguiram a sustentação, pois nem os médicos que usam as outras racionalidades médicas, as não hegemônicas, se entendem sobre como devem informar à sociedade. Nem sobre os motivos de sua existência, nem quais as novidades que propõem ao resistir ao hardcore das pesquisas padrão-ouro como as únicas que realmente qualificam o que se produz de benefícios. Aliás, a “resistência” que durante muito tempo foi até bem calibrada para fixar e reafirmar um projeto de pesquisa que ainda estava um tanto frouxo hoje virou justificativa para se manter como uma causa anacrônica. Uma ideologia atrasadíssima que divide o mundo entre alopatia e todo resto. Ela, além de não dialogar bem, acha que deve desafiar a corporação médica ou acusar as indústrias de medicamentos no lugar de trazê-los ao debate. Há dificuldades em ter consensos mínimos para dialogar com a comunidade científica e quando o faz paga o preço para executar a desfiguração das características que fundamentam o método. Temos, então, que fazer a pergunta dolorosa: de que vale toda luta pela reafirmação se é para aceitar uma redução que inviabiliza a novidade trazida pela perspectiva de uma prática integrativa, que é, sem ingenuidade nenhuma, um projeto generoso?                                

  • Na contemporaneidade, a saúde assumiu a definição de “não estar doente”, ao invés da definição clássica de “ser saudável”. Em uma passagem, Oswaldo Mendes questiona o paciente sobre o que ele imagina ao sentir dor. A expressão visual é a explosão de uma bomba, mas como você a definiria em palavras?A bomba é uma metáfora cuja idéia foi do diretor do filme o Leo Lama e que o Paulo Prestes Franco captou e inseriu muito bem na película. Ela é eficiente para dizer uma coisa que se reafirma ao longo do filme. Uma bomba é a violência máxima, as vezes indiscriminada, a maioria das vezes irracional, que pode ser a síntese simbólica do estatuto moderno da falta de delicadeza. É a antítese absoluta do cuidado. Só o que vale é produzir “efeitos” e “ver” fatos. O testemunho, a narrativa só aparecem e só podem ser validados pelas imagens. Ela tem a força para dizer aos que estão em volta que ele é um alvo. Um alvo da injustiça, um refém da impaciência, um objeto a ser pulverizado. Assim muitas vezes as áreas das ciências da saúde infelizmente objetificam as pessoas que precisam de tratamento. A metáfora tem, neste sentido, uma tripla hermenêutica: destruição da coisa “doença”, o “alvo” sofre uma ação indiscriminada contra tudo que está em volta. A bomba, na verdade uma cena de míssil teleguiado atingindo um alvo, também representa a intensidade desesperada do sofrimento, e finalmente uma metáfora para comparar o que às vezes é de difícil verbalização no caldo da pobreza da linguagem. Enfim, a imagem da destruição que, para quem adoece, não faz nenhum sentido. Mais para frente, durante um diálogo, o paciente diz para o médico reagindo a uma generalização que aquilo que ele fala é um problema da sociedade e não da medicina e o médico contesta: “os problemas da sociedade explodem na cara da medicina”.   
  • As medicinas integrativas, particularmente a homeopatia preconizam um atendimento individualizado, dando ao paciente a atenção necessária para que a cura seja obtida com maior qualidade. Em sua opinião, esse tipo de relação entre paciente e médico deveria ser integralizada ou deveria se restringir apenas à homeopatia? Se o que você entende por “relação integralizada” for uma relação radical onde o médico capture o estado do doente e o contextualize e a partir desta perspectiva, onde ele pode entrar em sintonia dialógica com quem está cuidando e vice versa, sim. Vice versa, pois a relação dialógica pressupõe que os dois sejam sujeitos na consulta. A homeopatia é uma especialidade que tem esta característica estrutural em sua episteme e por mais que os pesquisadores tentem dissecá-la não é possível emancipar o efeito terapêutico medicamentoso da ação e da força da ação nos rapports terapêuticos. Eles estão casados e condenados a uma fidelidade eterna para desgosto de muitos. É um grande equívoco subestimar o valor da conversação. O atendimento individualizado não é só estar atento e disponível para o sujeito enfermo, mas valorizar as idiossincrasias não só como detalhes positivos para identificar sintomas, mas para compreender e fundir horizontes com o autor dos sintomas. Neste caso a fusão de horizontes é com o paciente. Esta apreensão não é só importante naquele momento já que uma orientação ou aconselhamento sempre poderão ter como base aspectos muito particulares de determinada pessoa. Se a medicina standard pudesse reaprender a ouvir as histórias biográficas e clínicas dos pacientes isso seria um enorme avanço científico e institucional. O cuidado se aproximaria de uma prática mais cuidadosa e médicos e pacientes seriam progressivamente desobjetificados e isso, poderia funcionar como uma reformulação geral da própria noção da clínica. Mas isso é só uma esperança.                                                                                 
  • A escolha do metrô como cenário da interpretação representa a coletividade que é responsável por igualar os cidadãos, oprimindo as características individuais. Em uma cena o paciente grita, desesperadamente, que está passando mal. Enquanto ele demonstra o seu desespero, fica claro que ninguém, entre as muitas pessoas que o cercam, é capaz de ajudá-lo. Em sua opinião, a sociedade carece de solidariedade? Qual a relação desse sentimento com as práticas de saúde? Essa é uma colocação instigante. De fato, o grito da dor é um grito no vazio, além de surdo ele é um grito inoperante. Ele emite seu desespero para quem? Há quem ouça? Há quem cuide? O desamparo é um estado grave; ele é a voz do abandono e da falta de cuidado. Ele é o parente por afinidade da solidão. Por isso ela grita tão alto e insiste em se fazer ouvir. O filme busca acolher e examinar o mal-estar. Como disse acima a sociedade não é, por natureza, solidária. Muito menos o Estado que em geral é violento, repressivo e ao dizer que se preocupa com o cuidar das “massas” talvez não promova nada além de medidas homogêneas para pessoas com necessidades completamente diferentes, não importa o protocolo aplicado. A epidemiologia está apenas começando a aprender o valor prático da diversidade. Às vezes, a maioria delas, sacrifica-se o individual em nome de um bem coletivo. Ninguém está querendo negar o valor da bioestatística nem da eficácia. Por exemplo, não se pode colocar em ônibus públicos bancos individualizados de um modo que cada um seja respeitado no modo como gostaria de se sentar. Mas a ação médica é diferente e os cuidados em saúde precisam de uma atenção que enfoque o modo particular de como a pessoa adoece e se cura. Não é possível a padronização ainda que se possa aceitar os protocolos e suas taxas de eficiência. Isso é só uma faceta da interferência terapêutica. A outra cara da moeda é que se um protocolo de tratamento é eficaz numa indiscriminada aplicação de uma diretriz exitosa sobre determinada patologia, imaginem quão mais eficaz ele seria se pudesse ao mesmo tempo avaliar o impacto geral em cada sujeito e um ajuste fino pessoa a pessoa? Esse é o grande e maior trunfo de uma concepção correta de integralidade. A maneira singular e única com que cada expressa o que só ele pode expressar. Quem sabe assim não teríamos que estar discutindo à exaustão um pleonasmo como “humanização da medicina”. Decerto há segmentos de pesquisa no mainframe científico que já se ocupam apropriadamente desta questão, mas o percurso é lento e comprido. Como dizia a música: it is a long way!                                   
  • A cena em que a personagem expressa não querer saber sobre o diagnóstico, seja ele certo ou errado, representa o descaso do indivíduo pelo processo médico, desejando a cura imediata, sem se importar com as causas da doença. Essa é uma tendência geral da sociedade atual?                                                                                       A homeopatia, por possuir uma abordagem voltada para o indivíduo, pode servir de exemplo como solução para essa tendência? Não sei se eu leria dessa forma embora essa seja exatamente a riqueza do filme. Um documentário hermenêutico como “O nome do Cuidado” pretende mostrar que esta fusão se dá com as diferentes perspectivas de quem o vê e assim pode ser mais bem explorada em debates públicos. E esse é nosso esforço. Por sinal, nos chamou a atenção para a falta de apoio quase absoluto para esta iniciativa que tivemos que bancar com recursos pessoais e com a ajuda de amigos. Nenhuma associação, universidade ou grupos de pesquisa se engajou no projeto. Não reclamo. Apenas tento constatar como uma questão vital como essa está encapsulada e preterida. O que para mim só aumenta o desejo de divulgar o documentário e partir para uma segunda investigação fílmica. É uma discussão não efetivada e que exatamente por não despertar interesse institucional, devemos insistir em discutir “por que é que causa tanto incomodo este assunto? O que ele suscita? Renunciamos a qualquer denuncismo tosco, para adotar a linguagem da arte, metafórica e poética para dar voz aos problemas. Aplicar centenas de milhões de reais para implantar postos de atendimento, programas de humanização e a regulamentação das medicinas integrativas no estado brasileiro pode não ser o suficiente. Sem uma discussão levada as últimas consequências de qual é o tipo de medicina desejável e o que é o mais prioritário e de como está se dando a formação de recursos humanos para esta demanda imensa — tanto no SUS como na prática médica privada – e sem ainda levar em consideração o gênero de mal-estar que se amplia na sociedade contemporânea não me parece que podemos ir muito longe. Há um momento no filme que o médico diz “há uma patologia social gigante e parece que as pessoas não percebem que estas coisas também são sintomas”.                                            
  • Por fim, o trailer do filme, logo no início, levanta uma pergunta: “De qual medicina a sociedade precisa?”. Você poderia respondê-la? Acho que é a sociedade que precisa discutir qual medicina deseja. É uma pergunta e ninguém pode ter a pretensão de dar respostas sozinho. Mas tenho uma intuição e é disso que vou falar. Acho que as pessoas pelo menos a maioria não sabem o que é a medicina nem que ela tem várias possibilidades de intervenção. Quem dirá o que são as medicinas de corte integrativo. Se há uma medicina modelo? Se há um modelo que deveria ser hegemônico?

Não acredito. Precisamos urgentemente transcender a ideia de que uma      fórmula substituirá outra. As várias formas de intervenção fazem sentido e dizem respeito a modelos específicos de culturas e diversidades: étnicas, raciais, religiosas, geográficas. Há, entretanto alguns tópicos genéricos: acredito em levar a ideia para os usuários e consumidores de que é bom um atendimento em que a qualidade da presença esteja em evidência. Uma medicina em que a escuta seja mais generosa e que o paciente não seja objeto passivo, mas sujeito interativo que esteja também presente colocando todos os seus instrumentos à sua própria disposição. Tudo para que se possa alcançar estados mais próximos da felicidade. Um gestor de saúde poderia torcer o nariz e dizer: isso é impossível. Enquanto for médico, ainda posso – ou desejo -me dar ao luxo de acreditar. 

Para contatar o Dr. Paulo Rosenbaum, envie um e-mail para rosenbau@alumni.usp.br.

The film “The name of the Care”, a medical-philosophical essay on the relationship between doctor and patient.

The film “The name of the Care”, a medical-philosophical essay on the relationship between doctor and patient, check it out!

“The Name of Care”, a film that deals with the relationship between doctor and patient, based on the interpretation of a medical-philosophical text interpreted by Walderez de Barros and Oswaldo Mendes. LAPPIS, supporting the dissemination of the film, interviewed the creator of the medium-length film, Dr. Paulo Rosenbaum . The homeopathic physician answers questions about the film and about health and its representation in today’s society. Watch the movie trailer and then be sure to read the exclusive interview!                         

1- In one of the scenes, the character played by Walderez      de Barros reflects on the loneliness and great individualism present in members of contemporary society. How do you face this trend and what are the relationships it has with health, especially with homeopathy? In our society of information and express relationships, loneliness tends to increase dramatically, people live more alone, the number of people who live without a family, according to IBGE data from 2008 shows: the trend has exploded in the last decade. This is worldwide. On the other hand, individualism is not only present in the members of society, society is ideologically individualistic. That is: society – even in a more solidary and participatory regime – produces its “cohesion” in general at the expense of a side effect: the suppression of personal characteristics, dilution of unrepeatable unitswhich are the individual subjects. It is relatively simple to understand: to reach the average, singular traits are eliminated. There is less and less room in society for idiosyncrasies and singularities have to adapt – at the price of exclusion, marginalization or abandonment – ​​to social norms that are common to the average. Contemporary loneliness is not only a product of the inability to belong, but also the active rejection of a social environment that discriminates and segregates differences. I don’t know if there is a solution to this paradox. There is also a metaphysical loneliness, existential suffering for which, perhaps, there is no cure. Paul Ricouer says that misery is not coinciding with oneself. I believe in that. But how to recover these values ​​in an anomic society and without fair criteria? Homeopathy and integrative medicine are just medicine, right? Why should they propose to be agents of a broader transformation? What is this pretension? Which sociologist or philosopher granted this freedom to medicine? But the fact is that they played a broader social role than just eliminating diseases, they tried to develop criteria to assess each singularity as essential to a better understanding of the health and disease process and even a better understanding of society. Benoit Mure can always be cited as someone with these concerns. Like it or not, at least so far, the expansion of medicine’s horizon of action was a defeated project. Let the purists be shocked, but there are palpable elements that allow this reading to be made: the non-hegemonic areas did not get support, because even the doctors who use the other medical rationalities, the non-hegemonic ones, understand how they should inform society. Neither about the reasons for their existence, nor what new developments they propose in resisting the hardcore of gold standard research as the only ones that really qualify what is produced as benefits. In fact, the “resistance” that for a long time was even well calibrated to fix and reaffirm a research project that was still somewhat loose today became a justification for maintaining itself as an anachronistic cause. A very backward ideology that divides the world between allopathy and everything else. She, in addition to not dialoguing well, thinks she should challenge the medical corporation or blame the drug companies instead of bringing them to the debate. There are difficulties in having a minimum consensus to dialogue with the scientific community and when it does, it pays the price to disfigure the characteristics that underlie the method. We have, then, to ask the painful question: what is the point of all the struggle for reaffirmation if it is to accept a reduction that makes the novelty brought about by the perspective of an integrative practice, which is, without any naivety, a generous project unfeasible?                               

2- Nowadays, health assumed the definition of “not being sick”, instead of the classic definition of “being healthy”. In one passage, Oswaldo Mendes questions the patient about what he imagines when feeling pain. Visual expression is the explosion of a bomb, but how would you define it in words? The bomb is a metaphor whose idea came from the film’s director, Leo Lama, and which Paulo Prestes Franco captured and inserted very well into the film. She is efficient at saying something that reaffirms itself throughout the film. A bomb is the maximum violence, sometimes indiscriminate, most often irrational, which can be the symbolic synthesis of the modern statute of lack of delicacy. It is the absolute antithesis of care. All that counts is producing “effects” and “seeing” facts. The testimony, the narrative only appears and can only be validated by the images. She has the strength to tell those around her that he is a target. A target of injustice, a hostage of impatience, an object to be pulverized. So often the health sciences areas unfortunately objectify people who need treatment. In this sense, the metaphor has a triple hermeneutic: destruction of the “disease” thing, the “target” suffers an indiscriminate action against everything around it. The bomb, actually a scene of a guided missile hitting a target, also represents the desperate intensity of suffering, and finally a metaphor to compare what is sometimes difficult to verbalize in the soup of poverty of language. Finally, the image of destruction that, for those who get sick, makes no sense. Later, during a dialogue, the patient says to the doctor, reacting to a generalization that what he says is a society problem and not medicine, and the doctor answers: “society’s problems explode in the face of medicine”.         

3- Integrative medicine, particularly homeopathy, values ​​individualized care, giving the patient the necessary attention so that a cure can be obtained with greater quality. In your opinion, should this type of relationship between patient and doctor be integrated or should it be restricted to homeopathy only? If what you mean by “integrated relationship” is a radical relationship where the doctor captures the patient’s state and contextualizes it, and from this perspective, where he can enter into dialogical harmony with whoever is caring and vice versa , yes. Vice versa , as the dialogic relationship presupposes that the two are subjects in the consultation. Homeopathy is a specialty that has this structural feature in its episteme and as much as researchers try to dissect it, it is not possible to emancipate the medicinal therapeutic effect from the action and the force of action in therapeutic rapports . They are married and doomed to eternal fidelity to the chagrin of many. It is a big mistake to underestimate the value of conversation. Individualized care is not only about being attentive and available to the sick person, but valuing idiosyncrasies not only as positive details to identify symptoms, but also to understand and merge horizons with the author of the symptoms. In this case, the fusion of horizons is with the patient. This apprehension is not only important at that time, as guidance or counseling can always be based on very particular aspects of a particular person. If standard medicine could relearn how to listen to patients’ biographical and clinical histories, this would be a huge scientific and institutional advance . Care would approach a more careful practice and doctors and patients would be progressively disobjectified and this could work as a general reformulation of the very notion of the clinic. But that’s just a hope.                                                                                       

4- The choice of the subway as the interpretation scenario represents the collectivity that is responsible for equalizing citizens, oppressing individual characteristics. In one scene the patient screams, desperately, that he is feeling sick. As he demonstrates his despair, it is clear that no one among the many people around him is able to help him. In your opinion, does society lack solidarity? What is the relationship of this feeling with health practices? That’s a thought-provoking statement. In fact, the cry of pain is a cry in emptiness, besides being deaf it is a dead cry. He issues his despair to whom? Is there anyone listening? Is there someone to take care of it? Helplessness is a serious condition; he is the voice of abandonment and carelessness. He is the in-law of solitude. That’s why she screams so loud and insists on making herself heard. The film seeks to welcome and examine the malaise . As I said above, society is not, by nature, solidary. Much less the State, which in general is violent, repressive and, when saying that it is concerned with taking care of the “masses”, may not promote anything other than homogeneous measures for people with completely different needs, regardless of the protocol applied. Epidemiology is just beginning to learn the practical value of diversity. Sometimes, most of them sacrifice the individual in the name of a collective good. No one is trying to deny the value of biostatistics or effectiveness. For example, you cannot place individual seats on public buses in a way that everyone is respected in the way they would like to sit. But medical action is different and health care needs attention that focuses on the particular way in which the person becomes ill and heals. Standardization is not possible even though protocols and their efficiency rates can be accepted. This is just one facet of therapeutic interference. The other side of the coin is that if a treatment protocol is effective in the indiscriminate application of a successful guideline on a given pathology, imagine how much more effective it would be if it could simultaneously assess the overall impact on each subject and fine-tune person to person ? This is the greatest and greatest asset of a correct conception of integrality. The singular and unique way each expresses what only it can express. Maybe we wouldn’t have to be discussing at length a pleonasm as the “humanization of medicine”. Certainly there are segments of research in the scientific mainframe that are properly concerned with this issue, but the path is slow and long. As the song said: it is a long way !                                         

5- The scene in which the character expresses not wanting to know about the diagnosis, whether right or wrong, represents the individual’s disregard for the medical process, wanting immediate cure, regardless of the causes of the disease. Is this a general trend in today’s society?                                                                                                                                Can homeopathy, as it has an approach aimed at the individual, serve as an example as a solution to this tendency? I don’t know if I would read it that way although that’s exactly the richness of the movie. A hermeneutic documentary like “O nome do Conhecimento” intends to show that this fusion takes place with the different perspectives of those who see it and thus can be better explored in public debates. And that’s our effort. By the way, it called our attention to the almost absolute lack of support for this initiative, which we had to fund with personal resources and with the help of friends. No association, university or research group was involved in the project. I don’t complain. I just try to see how a vital question like this is encapsulated and overlooked. Which for me only increases the desire to publish the documentary and start a second filmic investigation. It is an ineffective discussion and precisely because it does not arouse institutional interest, we must insist on discussing “why does this issue cause so much trouble? What does it raise? We renounce any crude denunciation, to adopt the language of art, metaphoric and poetic, to give voice to problems. Applying hundreds of millions of reais to implement service centers, humanization programs and the regulation of integrative medicine in the Brazilian state may not be enough. Without a discussion carried out the ultimate consequences of what type of medicine is desirable and what is the most priority and how the training of human resources is taking place for this immense demand – both in the SUS and in private medical practice – and still without taking into account the kind of malaise that is spreading in contemporary society does not seem to me that we can go very far. There is a moment in the film when the doctor says “there is a gigantic social pathology and it seems that people don’t realize that these things are also symptoms” . 6- Finally, the movie trailer, right at the beginning, raises a question: “Which medicine does society need?”. Could you answer it? I think society needs to discuss which medicine it wants. It’s a question and no one can claim to give answers alone. But I have an intuition and that’s what I’m going to talk about. I think that at least most people do not know what medicine is or that it has several possibilities for intervention. Who will say what the integrative cut medicines are. If there is a model medicine? Is there a model that should be hegemonic?                                                                                         

      I do not believe. We urgently need to transcend the idea that one formula will replace another. The various forms of intervention make sense and relate to specific models of cultures and diversities: ethnic, racial, religious, geographic. There are, however, some generic topics: I believe in bringing the idea to users and consumers that a service in which the quality of presence is in evidence is good. A medicine in which listening is more generous and the patient is not a passive object, but an interactive subject who is also present, putting all his instruments at his disposal. Everything so that you can reach states closer to happiness. A health manager might turn up his nose and say: this is impossible. As long as I’m a doctor, I can still – or want to – have the luxury of believing.      

To contact Dr. Paulo Rosenbaum , send an email to rosenbau@alumni.usp.br.

To see the teaser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vUXVhOudCc

Fictitious Interview with Dr. Mure, the promoter of Homeopathy in Brazil – Paulo Rosenbaum (From 2012)

Paulo Rosenbaum

Homeopathy Day

On November 21, the day of Homeopathy in Brazil is celebrated, a date that provides a moment of reflection on the therapy created by Samuel Hahnemann and introduced in Brazil by the doctor Benoit Jules Mure.

In a fictional interview with Dr. Mure, Dr. Paulo Rosenbaum raises some questions that, from his point of view, are important for the current moment of Homeopathy.

Another day of homeopathy in Brazil and it is not difficult to recognize widespread demotivation. But is there any reasonable explanation for it?

Doctor Benoit Jules Mure had many concerns in mind. The expansion of the company’s horizon of action

medicine was one of them. A generous project compatible with the wishes of the society that asked for, and continues to ask for, sharing, dialogue, ethics and solidarity, whatever the medicine used.

To discuss this and other topics we were able to talk to Dr…

Ver o post original 1.262 mais palavras

Eis o solidéu (blog Estadão)

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/eis-o-solideu/

Eis o solidéu.                                          

Paulo Rosenbaum

Ainda impactado pela enxurrada de racismo antissionista-antissemita ou “antizionssemita” (urge o neologismo, pois está provado que são um e o mesmo) que entulham as ruas, as redes sociais, Estados inteiros, todos como justiceiros sociais que agora se ufanam de lutar e fazer guerra aos judeus pela “causa” sic palestina.

Estou convicto de que se trata de uma patologia, que vai da extrema esquerda à extrema direita, passando por “proxys”— como o recente apoio dado aos terroristas fundamentalistas que dominam Gaza quando lançaram 4.300 mísseis sobre civis israelenses. A grande novidade é a xenofobia seletiva em uma extrema esquerda que entende que alguns racismos são mais progressistas que outros.

A suposta irracionalidade dos antissemitas precisa passar por um crivo analítico mais simbólico. Isso significa que judeufóbicos das mais variadas matizes ainda proliferam. E o fazem de forma recôndita, anônima, subliminar, inconfessável e sob omissões tácitas, espalhando sentimentos hostis contra judeus, independentemente de quem será o judeu em questão. Pois para o totalitário o sujeito individual é uma abstração, uma construção social burguesa, portanto desprezível.

Narro então minha mais recente experiência.

Muito recentemente, ministrava uma palestra num curso na área médica e expunha alguns dos resultados das minhas pesquisas médicas e epistemológicas feitas durante minha vida acadêmica na FMUSP. O curso contava com aproximadamente 70 professores da área de saúde, quando ouvi um ruído ao fundo, ruído não, rumor.  E as palavras foram repetidas mais de uma vez “é um judeu ai”. Resolvi esperar, pois poderia muito bem ser uma distorção sonora da plataforma, quem sabe algum espírito cibernético parasita? Ou ainda uma inflexão do ectoplasma do ódio? Dizem que à noite, mais precisamente após a meia noite, eles costumam assombrar o ciber espaço. Admito que pensei em alucinação auditiva. Ajustei o microfone e o fone, e fui em frente na minha exposição sobre temas que envolviam o resgate da relação médico-paciente. Tema especialmente vital em uma época carente de laços solidários, suporte e empatia genuína por aqueles que sofrem pelas doenças, e inépcia generalizada por parte dos homens públicos.

Mas eis que o som se confirmou, uma, duas, talvez três vezes, e não era exatamente uma expressão neutra “é, é um judeu aí”. Parei duvidando do que ouvia. Mas, logo em seguida, “…é judeu mesmo!”. Entonação é tudo quando você lida com conversações no mundo não presencial. A voz da pessoa expressava estas palavras descrevendo para terceiros a identidade étnica ou religiosa de quem fazia a apresentação.

Eu.

Mas vinha ao caso?

Talvez.

Estaria ela deixando o microfone aberto propositalmente para que todos os outros ouvissem? Ou foi apenas um ato falho, à revelia, e as palavras represadas jorraram incontrolavelmente de sua boca? Não saberia dizer. E o que fazer com isso durante uma transmissão ao vivo? Pouco importa se era saia ou calça justa, afinal tratava-se de uma agressão, ainda que minimizada pelo “escape”, e pela casualidade supostamente ingênua de uma captação de áudio fortuita.

Num impulso, entre o ultraje e a necessidade de responder, pedi licença ao grupo. Fui rapidamente até o armário mais próximo e resgatei meu solidéu preferido, feito a mão em Jerusalém. E então voltei à minha apresentação fazendo questão de exibir a indumentária. Então, em frente à câmera, acomodei lentamente a quipá ancestral. Usada para cobrir a cabeça dos judeus desde o período no qual Abrão deixou a cidade e a casa de seu pai em Ur na Caldéia, rompendo com as mitologias e criando uma cultura que geraria um dos primeiros códigos civilizatórios da humanidade.

O solidéu todo bordado, feito com um tecido poroso, negro. Na estampa, uma estrela que nos acompanhou desde o rei David, passando pelas amarelas dos guetos e campos nazistas, para enfim chegar ao símbolo azul da liberdade das forças de defesa de Israel. Aquela que tornou o povo hebreu menos vulnerável aos séculos de imolações impunes num mundo repleto de omissões.

Só depois de encerrada a palestra parei para refletir. Cheguei a conclusão que minha resposta foi instintiva e irracional, mas ao mesmo tempo, desafiadora, e até corajosa. Afinal, perscrutei, qual foi meu real incomodo? Difícil explicar, mas há uma sonoridade inaudível que persegue a nação mosaica que ninguém pode subestimar. Especialmente para um neto de sobreviventes da Shoah.

Aqui no Brasil, diferentemente dos judeus atuais da Europa, Reino Unido, e mesmo em muitas cidades norte americanas, ainda é possível mostrar sinais exteriores de judaísmo sem ser ameaçado ou linchado. Mas, se dependesse de parte significativa dos veículos de comunicação talvez o quadro fosse diferente, uma vez que é auto evidente o viés anti-Israel. Exagero? Não para aqueles que estão sendo intimidados.

Evidentemente, as causas do atual estado de coisas não podem ser analisadas num artigo jornalístico como este. Como afirmou o excelente advogado e professor de direito em Harvard, Alan Dershowitz, numa matéria publicada há menos de dois meses, o recrudescimento do antissemitismo – não ressurgimento, já que ele nunca deixou de existir —  na Europa e pelo mundo tem múltiplas e complexas raízes.  Mas há uma constante: está sempre acobertada por uma política baseada em hipocrisia e na necessidade de mostrar neutralidade, enquanto neo-pogroms — esse é o nome — tem se repetido diariamente em várias partes do mundo.

Voltando ao nosso microcosmos, ali, no calor da minha perplexidade, já que durante a apresentação não se tratava de uma pessoa com forma e trajes característicos, afinal, como me disse um amigo rabino, sou o que ele considera um “ortodoxo não observante” seja lá o que isso significa. Ali se tratava antes de incorporar algo do imaginário, algum estereótipo projetado, um álibi qualquer para mostrar o alcance da entonação maliciosa daquela voz que se escondia na multidão virtual.

Alguns participantes do encontro mostraram curiosidade pela situação inusitada. Para conter o mal estar? Ou simplesmente solidários com aquele que parecia ser um enredo inconveniente encenado num teatro improvisado.  Busquei de forma quase automática, converter o evento em uma experiência lúdica, afinal precisava assumir a identidade exigida pelo clamor da voz fantasma. E nada  chancelaria mais a expressão “… judeu mesmo” do que o uso do “chapeuzinho”.

Relembrei então da biografia de Freud, escrita por Peter Gay. Ele relatou um episódio que ocorreu dentro do trem, antes de Freud deixar Paris, rumo ao exílio em Londres. O humor sarcástico do médico se revelou quando os nazistas lhe exigiram por escrito uma declaração de que havia sido bem tratado pelos nazistas

Freud escreveu mais ou menos a seguinte frase em um bilhete

“Eu recomendo a Gestapo!”

A analogia é desproporcional? Provavelmente. Mas trago essa última passagem não como curiosidade, mas para mostrar que a história se revela por indícios. É através deles que as micro histórias individuais podem nos dar pistas para rastrear as tendências do presente e do futuro. O fomento da intolerância, do racismo, da censura e parcialidade da mídia, junto com a novíssima caça às bruxas em curso, é um fenômeno que deveria nos servir como alerta. Infelizmente isso não acontecerá, o recorrente vício em erros históricos antigos é mais forte do que o desejo de cura.

Tirando a melancolia, o saldo desta experiência é ainda desconhecido em mim. A análise e o julgamento do episódio deixo para aqueles que nos leem.

Já havia optado reduzir-me ao silêncio estoico e deixar este episódio pessoal no passado, mas acordei para o pesadelo entendi que talvez valesse a pena compartilha-lo.

Eu então repito o gesto:  eis o solidéu

POR QUE TAL SURTO DE ANTI-SEMITISMO MUNDIAL por ALAN DERSHOWITZ

POR QUE TAL SURTO DE ANTI-SEMITISMO MUNDIAL

por ALAN DERSHOWITZ

“Por que tantos netos de nazistas e colaboradores nazistas que nos trouxeram o Holocausto mais uma vez estão declarando guerra aos judeus?

Por que vimos tal aumento no anti-semitismo e no anti-sionismo irracionalmente virulento na Europa Ocidental?

Para responder a essas perguntas, um mito deve primeiro ser exposto. Esse mito é perpetrado pelos franceses, holandeses, noruegueses, suíços, belgas, austríacos e muitos outros europeus ocidentais: a saber, que o Holocausto foi apenas obra de nazistas alemães, talvez ajudados por alguns poloneses, ucranianos, Colaboradores letões, lituanos e estonianos.

Falso.

O Holocausto foi perpetrado por europeus: por simpatizantes e colaboradores nazistas entre franceses, holandeses, noruegueses, suíços, belgas, austríacos e outros europeus, tanto ocidentais quanto orientais.

Se o governo francês não tivesse deportado para os campos de extermínio mais judeus do que os ocupantes alemães pediram; se tantos cidadãos holandeses e belgas e funcionários do governo não tivessem cooperado na captura de judeus; se assim muitos noruegueses não tinha apoiado Quisling; se funcionários do governo suíço e banqueiros não tivessem explorado os judeus; se a Áustria não tivesse sido mais nazista do que os nazistas, o Holocausto não teria tantas vítimas judias.

À luz da ampla cumplicidade europeia na destruição dos judeus europeus, o antissemitismo difuso e o anti-sionismo irracionalmente odioso que recentemente emergiu em toda a Europa Ocidental em relação a Israel não deve surpreender ninguém.

“Oh, não”, ouvimos apologistas europeus. “Isso é diferente. Não odiamos os judeus. Só odiamos seu Estado-nação. Além disso, os nazistas eram de direita. Somos de esquerda, então não podemos ser anti-semitas.”

Absurdo.

A extrema esquerda tem uma história de anti-semitismo tão profunda e duradoura quanto a extrema direita. A linha de Voltaire a Karl Marx, a Levrenti Beria, a Robert Faurisson , aos golpistas da extrema esquerda de Israel é tão reta quanto a linha de Wilhelm Mars aos perseguidores de Alfred Dreyfus a Hitler.

Os judeus da Europa sempre foram esmagados entre os negros e os vermelhos – vítimas do extremismo, seja do ultranacionalismo de Khmelnitsky ao ultra-anti-semitismo de Stalin.

“Mas alguns dos anti-sionistas mais estridentes são judeus, como Norman Finkelstein e até mesmo israelenses como Gilad Atzmon. Certamente eles não podem ser anti-semitas?”

Por que não? Gertrude Stein e Alice Toklas colaboraram com a Gestapo. Atzmon, um esquerdista radical, se descreve como um judeu orgulhoso que odeia a si mesmo e admite que suas idéias derivam de um notório anti-semita.

Ele nega que o Holocausto esteja historicamente provado, mas acredita que os judeus podem muito bem ter matado crianças cristãs para usar seu sangue para assar a matzá da Páscoa. E ele acha que é “racional” queimar sinagogas.

Finkelstein acredita em uma conspiração judaica internacional que inclui Steven Spielberg, Leon Uris, Eli Wiesel e Andrew Lloyd Webber!

“Mas Israel está fazendo coisas ruins aos palestinos”, insistem os apologistas europeus, “e somos sensíveis à situação dos oprimidos”.

Não, você não é! Onde estão suas manifestações em nome dos oprimidos tibetanos, georgianos, sírios, armênios, curdos ou mesmo ucranianos? Onde estão seus movimentos BDS contra os chineses, os russos, os cubanos, os turcos ou o regime de Assad?

Apenas os palestinos, apenas Israel? Por quê? Não porque os palestinos sejam mais oprimidos do que esses e outros grupos.

Somente porque seus supostos opressores são judeus e o estado-nação dos judeus. Haveria manifestações e campanhas BDS em nome dos palestinos se eles fossem oprimidos pela Jordânia ou Egito?

Oh espere! Os palestinos foram oprimidos pelo Egito e pela Jordânia … Gaza foi uma prisão a céu aberto entre 1948 e 1967, quando o Egito era a potência ocupante. E lembra-se do Setembro Negro, quando a Jordânia matou mais palestinos do que Israel em um século? Não me lembro de nenhuma demonstração ou campanha BDS – porque não houve.

Quando os árabes ocupam ou matam árabes, os europeus ficam sem graça. Mas quando Israel abre uma fábrica de refrigerantes em Maale Adumim , que até mesmo a liderança palestina reconhece que permanecerá parte de Israel em qualquer acordo de paz, a Oxfam se separa de Scarlett Johansson por anunciar uma empresa de refrigerantes que emprega centenas de palestinos

Lembre-se de que a Oxfam forneceu “ajuda e apoio material” a dois grupos terroristas anti-Israel, de acordo com o Israeli Law Group, com sede em Tel Aviv.

A hipocrisia de tantos europeus ocidentais de extrema esquerda seria impressionante se não fosse tão previsível com base na história sórdida do tratamento que a Europa Ocidental deu aos judeus.

Até a Inglaterra, que estava do lado certo da guerra contra o nazismo, tem uma longa história de anti-semitismo, começando com a expulsão dos judeus em 1290 até o notório Livro Branco de 1939, que impedia os judeus da Europa de buscar asilo dos nazistas na Palestina sob mandato britânico … E a Irlanda, que vacilou na guerra contra Hitler, ostenta uma das retóricas anti-Israel mais virulentas.

A simples realidade é que não se pode compreender a atual guerra de esquerda da Europa Ocidental contra o Estado-nação do povo judeu sem primeiro reconhecer a longa guerra europeia contra o próprio povo judeu.

Theodore Herzl compreendeu a difusão e irracionalidade do anti-semitismo europeu, o que o levou à conclusão de que a única solução para o problema judaico da Europa era que os judeus europeus deixassem o bastião do ódio aos judeus e retornassem à sua pátria original, que agora é o Estado de Israel.

Nada disso é para negar as imperfeições de Israel ou as críticas que ele merece por algumas de suas políticas. Mas essas imperfeições e críticas merecidas não podem nem começar a explicar, muito menos justificar, o ódio desproporcional dirigido contra o único Estado-nação do povo judeu e o silêncio desproporcional em relação às imperfeições muito maiores e críticas merecidas de outras nações e grupos incluindo os palestinos .

Nem é para negar que muitos indivíduos da Europa Ocidental e alguns países da Europa Ocidental se recusaram a sucumbir ao ódio contra os judeus ou seu estado. A República Tcheca vem à mente. Mas muitos europeus ocidentais são tão irracionais em seu ódio por Israel quanto seus antepassados ​​eram em seu ódio por seus vizinhos judeus.

Como o autor Amos Oz observou certa vez: as paredes da Europa de seus avós estavam cobertas de pichações dizendo: “Judeus, vão para a Palestina”. Agora eles dizem: “Judeus, saiam da Palestina”, o que significa Israel.

Quem esses fanáticos da Europa Ocidental pensam que estão enganando? Apenas tolos que querem ser enganados pelo interesse de negar que estão manifestando novas variações dos antigos preconceitos de seus avós.

Qualquer pessoa objetiva com uma mente aberta, olhos abertos e coração aberto deve ver o duplo padrão sendo aplicado ao estado-nação do povo judeu. Muitos deles são netos daqueles que letalmente aplicaram um duplo padrão aos judeus da Europa nas décadas de 1930 e 1940.

Por vergonha!”

WHY SUCH A SURGE OF WORLDWIDE ANTI-SEMITISM By Alan Dershowitz

WHY SUCH A SURGE OF WORLDWIDE ANTI-SEMITISM

by ALAN DERSHOWITZ

“Why are so many of the grandchildren of Nazis and Nazi collaborators who brought us the Holocaust once again declaring war on the Jews?

Why have we seen such an increase in anti-Semitism and irrationally virulent anti-Zionism in Western Europe?

To answer these questions, a myth must first be exposed. That myth is the one perpetrated by the French, the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Swiss, the Belgians, the Austrians, and many other western Europeans: namely that the Holocaust was solely the work of German Nazis aided perhaps by some Polish, Ukrainian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian collaborators.

False.

The Holocaust was perpetrated by Europeans: by Nazi sympathizers and collaborators among the French, Dutch, Norwegians, Swiss, Belgians, Austrians and other Europeans, both Western and Eastern.

If the French government had not deported to the death camps more Jews than their German occupiers asked for; if so many Dutch and Belgian citizens and government officials had not cooperated in the roundup of Jews; if so many Norwegians had not supported Quisling; if Swiss government officials and bankers had not exploited Jews; if Austria had not been more Nazi than the Nazis, the Holocaust would not have had so many Jewish victims.

In light of the widespread European complicity in the destruction of European Jewry, the pervasive anti-Semitism and irrationally hateful anti-Zionism that has recently surfaced throughout Western Europe toward Israel should surprise no one.

“Oh no,” we hear from European apologists. “This is different. We don’t hate the Jews. We only hate their nation-state. Moreover, the Nazis were right-wing. We are left-wing, so we can’t be anti-Semites.”

Nonsense.

The hard left has a history of anti-Semitism as deep and enduring as the hard right. The line from Voltaire to Karl Marx, to Levrenti Beria, to Robert Faurisson, to today’s hard-left Israel bashers is as straight as the line from Wilhelm Mars to the persecutors of Alfred Dreyfus to Hitler.

The Jews of Europe have always been crushed between the Black and the Red – victims of extremism whether it be the ultra-nationalism of Khmelnitsky to the ultra-anti-Semitism of Stalin.

“But some of the most strident anti-Zionists are Jews, such as Norman Finkelstein and even Israelis such as Gilad Atzmon. Surely they can’t be anti-Semites?”

Why not? Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas collaborated with the Gestapo. Atzmon, a hard leftist, describes himself as a proud self-hating Jew and admits that his ideas derive from a notorious anti-Semite.

He denies that the Holocaust is historically proved but he believes that Jews may well have killed Christian children to use their blood to bake Passover matzah. And he thinks it’s “rational” to burn down synagogues.

Finkelstein believes in an international Jewish conspiracy that includes Steven Spielberg, Leon Uris, Eli Wiesel, and Andrew Lloyd Webber!

“But Israel is doing bad things to the Palestinians,” the European apologists insist, “and we are sensitive to the plight of the underdog.”

No, you’re not! Where are your demonstrations on behalf of the oppressed Tibetans, Georgians, Syrians, Armenians, Kurds, or even Ukrainians? Where are your BDS movements against the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans, the Turks, or the Assad regime?

Only the Palestinians, only Israel? Why? Not because the Palestinians are more oppressed than these and other groups.

Only because their alleged oppressors are Jews and the nation-state of the Jews. Would there be demonstrations and BDS campaigns on behalf of the Palestinians if they were oppressed by Jordan or Egypt?

Oh, wait! The Palestinians were oppressed by Egypt and Jordan… Gaza was an open-air prison between 1948 and 1967, when Egypt was the occupying power. And remember Black September, when Jordan killed more Palestinians than Israel did in a century? I don’t remember any demonstration or BDS campaigns — because there weren’t any.
When Arabs occupy or kill Arabs, Europeans go ho-hum. But when Israel opens a soda factory in Maale Adumim, which even the Palestinian leadership acknowledges will remain part of Israel in any peace deal, Oxfam parts ways with Scarlett Johansson for advertising a soda company that employs hundreds of Palestinians

Keep in mind that Oxfam has provided “aid and material support” to two anti-Israel terrorist groups, according to the Tel Aviv-based Israeli Law Group.

The hypocrisy of so many hard-left western Europeans would be staggering if it were not so predictable based on the sordid history of Western Europe’s treatment of the Jews.

Even England, which was on the right side of the war against Nazism, has a long history of anti-Semitism, beginning with the expulsion of the Jews in 1290 to the notorious White Paper of 1939, which prevented the Jews of Europe from seeking asylum from the Nazis in British-mandated Palestine… And Ireland, which vacillated in the war against Hitler, boasts some of the most virulent anti-Israel rhetoric.

The simple reality is that one cannot understand the current western European left-wing war against the nation-state of the Jewish people without first acknowledging the long-term European war against the Jewish people themselves.

Theodore Herzl understood the pervasiveness and irrationality of European anti-Semitism, which led him to the conclusion that the only solution to Europe’s Jewish problem was for European Jews to leave that bastion of Jew hatred and return to their original homeland, which is now the State of Israel.

None of this is to deny Israel’s imperfections or the criticism it justly deserves for some of its policies. But these imperfections and deserved criticism cannot even begin to explain, much less justify, the disproportionate hatred directed against the only nation-state of the Jewish people and the disproportionate silence regarding the far greater imperfections and deserved criticism of other nations and groups including the Palestinians.

Nor is this to deny that many western European individuals and some western European countries have refused to succumb to the hatred against the Jews or their state. The Czech Republic comes to mind. But far too many western Europeans are as irrational in their hatred toward Israel as their for-bearers were in their hatred toward their Jewish neighbors.

As author Amos Oz once aptly observed: the walls of his grandparents’ Europe were covered with graffiti saying, “Jews, go to Palestine.” Now they say, “Jews, get out of Palestine,” by which is meant Israel.

Who do these western European bigots think they’re fooling? Only fools who want to be fooled in the interest of denying that they are manifesting new variations on their grandparents’ old biases.

Any objective person with an open mind, open eyes, and an open heart must see the double standard being applied to the nation-state of the Jewish people. Many doing so are the grandchildren of those who lethally applied a double standard to the Jews of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s.

For shame!”

Paz agora, ou calem-se para sempre (Estadão)

https://glorinhacohen.com.br/?p=57590

É evidente que devemos rezar por paz em suas múltiplas acepções. Mas a qual preço? E o direito consagrado à legitima defesa presente em todos os códigos penais civilizados do mundo?

Convencionou-se traduzir a palavra shalom שלום (em árabe salam/salem/shalam) por paz. Paz, verdade e justiça são, segundo a tradição mosaica, os três pilares sobre os quais se assentam o mundo. Mas shalom é uma destas palavras-conceito, como tantas no idioma hebreu. Na palavra repetida mais de duas centenas de vezes na Torá, a Bíblia hebraica, sua polissemia expressa uma imensa variedade de significados: “apenas uma saudação amistosa, estar seguro, saudável, perfeito, completo, sensação de bem-estar e harmonia interna e externa – integridade, integridade, saúde, bem-estar, segurança, solidez , tranquilidade, prosperidade, plenitude, descanso, harmonia; a ausência de agitação ou discórdia, um estado de calma sem ansiedade.”

Seria inútil esconder minhas motivações, parte da minha família vivendo em Israel e passaram os últimos dias trancadas em bunkers. Como articulista tento racionalizar, e evidentemente malogro, afinal não se expurga da escrita a sensação de impotência somada ao sentimento de medo e vulnerabilidade.

O senso comum diria que ninguém gosta de guerra, muito menos de participar, à revelia e diretamente, de um dos mais antigos conflitos do planeta. Mas, entre o senso comum e a realidade existe um aglomerado, duro, impermeável, sem qualquer porosidade: o fanatismo. Nota-se uma distribuição equitativa de gente fundamentalista pelo mundo. Há fanáticos laicos e religiosos. Fanáticos de direita e de esquerda. Fanáticos ideológicos e anarquistas. Fanáticos por criminosos e por heróis sem caráter. Fanáticos racistas e que aqueles que matariam por causas. Existem fanáticos judeus, muculmanos e cristãos. Há também os fanáticos pela paz a qualquer custo.

Mas há que se fazer uma distinção clara entre fanáticos que têm poder e subsídios internacionais para produzir e lançar mísseis sobre populações civis como é o caso dos terroristas de Gaza — que até agora lançaram 1.000 mísseis sobre mais de 50 cidades de Israel incluindo Tel Aviv e Jerusalém, cidades com 500 mil e quase um milhão de habitantes respectivamente — e os fanáticos contidos por um Estado pragmático e na maior parte do tempo, responsável.

É evidente que devemos rezar por paz em suas múltiplas acepções. Mas a qual preço? E o direito consagrado à legitima defesa presente em todos os códigos penais civilizados do mundo? Pois é disto que quero tratar aqui. Começaram a chover protestos pelo mundo contra Israel e a resposta tímida das redes sociais foram posts sobre “eu apoio o direito de Israel a se defender do terrorismo”. Soa surreal para o leitor? É surreal.

A antiga declaração de guerra foi substituída por fatos que roubam a função dos diplomatas que andam confundindo discrição com inércia. Há que culpe a omissão da atual administração americana pela escalada de violência que mais uma vez atinge a região. Ao voltar a oferecer recursos financeiros inauditaveis para a autoridade palestina, que pratica abertamente o “pay for slay” em tradução livre “pagar para matar”, política (sic) que incentiva e premia “cash” por atos de violência praticados contra judeus, houve um aval tácito para que o ciclo de conflitos se reativasse. Viu-se renascer dentro de Israel os “pogroms”, a prática de ataques rituais e tentativas de linchamento contra judeus foram registrados do deserto de Neguev às cidades onde populações árabes e judaica conviviam com relativa calma durante décadas como Lod, onde mobs, com hordas de delinquentes queimavam sinagogas e apedrejaram judeus. Cenas dignas dos expurgos da era nazista. Era esse afinal o sentido do slogan preventivo “nunca mais”.

Os mísseis dos terroristas de Gaza são precários? Sem pontaria? Não é bem assim e cada vez é menos assim. Trata-se de um exército organizado e bem treinado. A escalada rumo a um conflito de maiores proporções já é uma realidade acompanhada pela clássica surdez aguda ao bom senso. Por outro lado deve haver bom senso no trato com quem prega abertamente o extermínio do Estado hebreu?

A questão que agora se coloca já é, agora, outra: haverá uma proporção para estabelecer a justiça e, portanto a calma? E quanto aos ataques maciços de misseis sobre populações civis? Mesmo longe de ser perfeita, a única democracia consolidada no Oriente Médio encontra-se perplexa, sob ataque bélico direto contra áreas civis, enquanto as redações das principais mídias do mundo decidem se chamarão organizações como o Hamas e a Jihad Islâmica militantes, resistência ou apenas grupo armado. Organizações consideradas terroristas pela grande maioria dos países, incluindo União Europeia e Estados Unidos. Como disse uma entrevistada do centro de estudos judaicos quando provocada pelo entrevistador da BBC World News: “o que se esperava quando há uma política de omissão e desengajamento constantes adotada pelos seguidores de Obama numa região vital como o Oriente Médio?”

Antes, e é bom que se divulgue, segundo a halachá (a hermenêutica judaica das leis) “numa guerra há sempre o dever se se buscar uma saída pacífica antes de se engajar em hostilidades”. Eis que agora há na mesa uma generosa oferta de paz aos agressores, desde que a chuva de mísseis cesse, imediatamente, dentro das próximas 24 horas.

É pouco provável que aconteça.

O desfecho é previsível. Decerto Israel será mais uma vez vilipendiado com as falsas acusações de praxe entre elas a campeã da distorção intelectual, a de prática de “resposta desproporcional”. O incansável sentimento latente antissionista/antissemita lançara mão de todos os seus álibis para acossar Israel. Ora, mesmo assim, a razão estará em pé para mostrar que a grande e inaceitável desproporção é a de linchamentos antissemitas e a de um terrorismo municiado com foguetes.

Paz agora, ou calem-se para sempre.

Convencionou-se traduzir a palavra shalom שלום (em árabe salam/salem/shalam) por paz. Paz, verdade e justiça são, segundo a tradição mosaica, os três pilares sobre os quais se assentam o mundo. Mas shalom é uma destas palavras-conceito, como tantas no idioma hebreu. Na palavra repetida mais de duas centenas de vezes na Torá, a Bíblia hebraica, sua polissemia expressa uma imensa variedade de significados: estar seguro, saudável, perfeito, completo, sensação de bem-estar e harmonia interna e externa – integridade, integridade, saúde, bem-estar, segurança, solidez , tranquilidade, prosperidade, plenitude, descanso, harmonia; a ausência de agitação ou discórdia, um estado de calma sem ansiedade ou estresse.

Seria inútil esconder minhas motivações, parte da minha família vivendo em Israel e passaram os últimos dias trancadas em bunkers. Como articulista tento racionalizar, e evidentemente malogro, afinal não se expurga da escrita a sensação de impotência somada ao sentimento de medo e vulnerabilidade.

O senso comum diria que ninguém gosta de guerra, muito menos de participar, à revelia e diretamente, de um dos mais antigos conflitos do planeta. Mas, entre o senso comum e a realidade existe um aglomerado, duro, impermeável, sem qualquer porosidade: o fanatismo. Nota-se uma distribuição equitativa de gente fundamentalista pelo mundo. Há fanáticos laicos e religiosos. Fanáticos de direita e de esquerda. Fanáticos ideológicos e anarquistas. Fanáticos por criminosos e por heróis sem caráter. Fanáticos racistas e que aqueles que matariam por causas. Existem fanáticos judeus, muculmanos e cristãos. Há também os fanáticos pela paz a qualquer custo.

Mas há que se fazer uma distinção clara e distinta entre fanáticos que tem poder e subsídios internacionais para produzir e lançar mísseis sobre populações civis como é o caso dos terroristas de Gaza — que até agora lançaram 1.000 mísseis sobre mais de 50 cidades de Israel incluindo Tel Aviv e Jerusalém, cidades com 500 mil e quase um milhão de habitantes respectivamente — e os fanáticos contidos por um Estado pragmático e na maior parte do tempo, responsável.

É evidente que devemos rezar por paz em suas múltiplas acepções. Mas a qual preço? E o direito consagrado à legitima defesa presente em todos os códigos penais civilizados do mundo? Pois é disto que quero tratar aqui. Começaram a chover protestos pelo mundo contra Israel e a resposta tímida das redes sociais foram posts sobre “eu defendo o direito de Israel a se defender do terrorismo”. Soa surreal para o leitor? É surreal.

A antiga declaração de guerra foi substituída por fatos que roubam a função dos diplomatas que andam confundindo discrição com inércia. Há que tem culpe a omissão da atual administração americana pela escalada de violência que mais uma vez atinge a região. Ao voltar a oferecer recursos financeiros inauditaveis para a autoridade palestina, que pratica abertamente o “pay for slay” em tradução livre “pagar para matar” que incentiva e premia “cash” por atos de violência praticados contra judeus, houve um aval tácito para que o ciclo de conflitos se reativasse. Viu-se renascer dentro de Israel os “pogroms”, a prática de ataques rituais e tentativas de linchamento contra judeus foram registrados do deserto de Neguev às cidades onde populações árabes e judaica conviviam com relativa calma durante décadas como Lod, onde mobs, com hordas de delinquentes queimavam sinagogas e apedrejaram judeus. Cenas dignas dos expurgos da era nazista. Era esse afinal o sentido do slogan preventivo “nunca mais”.

Os mísseis dos terroristas de Gaza são precários? Sem pontaria? Não é bem assim e cada vez é menos assim. Trata-se de um exército organizado e bem treinado. A escalada rumo a um conflito de maiores proporções já é uma realidade acompanhada pela clássica surdez aguda ao bom senso. Por outro lado deve haver bom senso no trato com quem prega abertamente o extermínio do Estado hebreu?

A questão que agora se coloca já é, agora, outra: haverá uma proporção para estabelecer a justiça e, portanto a calma? E quanto aos ataques maciços de misseis sobre populações civis? Mesmo longe de ser perfeita, a única democracia consolidada no Oriente Médio encontra-se perplexa, sob ataque bélico direto contra áreas civis, enquanto as redações das principais mídias do mundo decidem se chamarão organizações como o Hamas e a Jihad Islâmica militantes, resistência ou apenas grupo armado. Organizações consideradas terroristas pela grande maioria dos países, incluindo União Europeia e Estados Unidos. Como disse uma entrevistada do centro de estudos judaicos quando provocada pelo entrevistador da BBC World News: “o que se esperava quando há uma política de omissão e desengajamento constantes adotada pelos seguidores de Obama numa região vital como o Oriente Médio?”

Antes, e é bom que se divulgue, segundo a halachá (a hermenêutica judaica das leis) “numa guerra há sempre o dever de se buscar uma saída pacífica antes de se engajar em hostilidades”. Eis que agora há na mesa uma generosa oferta de paz aos agressores, desde que a chuva de mísseis cesse, imediatamente, dentro das próximas 24 horas.

É pouco provável que aconteça.

O desfecho é previsível. Decerto Israel será mais uma vez vilipendiado com as falsas acusações de praxe entre elas a campeã da distorção intelectual, a de prática de “resposta desproporcional”. O incansável sentimento latente antissionista/antissemita lançará mão de todos os seus álibis para acossar Israel. Ora, mesmo assim, a razão estará em pé para mostrar que a grande e inaceitável desproporção é a de linchamentos antissemitas e a de um terrorismo municiado com foguetes.

Paz agora, ou calem-se para sempre.


Nota – Matéria publicada no Estadão dia 12/5/21

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/paz-agora-ou-calem-se-para-sempre/

Antissionismo é Antissemitismo 2 – Bilhete da Memória (Blog Estadão)

Paulo Rosenbaum

Antissionismo é Antissemitismo 2 – Bilhete da Memória

“A tolerância torna-se um crime quando aplicada ao mal”

Thomas Mann (A Montanha Mágica)

A assembleia nacional francesa depois de uma discussão que durou mais de uma década passou uma resolução e decidiu que o antissionismo (o ódio à Israel) é antissemitismo.

“A Assembleia Nacional… acredita que a definição operacional usada pela International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance permite a designação mais precisa do que é o anti-semitismo contemporâneo ”, lê-se parcialmente o texto da resolução:

“Considera-o um instrumento eficaz de combate ao antissemitismo em sua forma moderna e renovada, na medida em que engloba manifestações de ódio ao Estado de Israel justificadas apenas pela percepção deste como um coletivo judeu.” (Times of Israel, 03, 12, 2019)

E não é difícil compreender porque assim fizeram os franceses, e seria de se esperar que todos os Países civilizados os seguissem como um exemplo de respeito…

Ver o post original 1.192 mais palavras