The concept of diagnosis stands at the very center of Modern Cartel
Medicine – a process that purportedly identifies specific biological
entities called “diseases” and guides standardized treatments. Yet what
if this foundational medical practice is built on shaky ground? As Dr.
Robert Mendelsohn stated, “Doctors in general should be treated with
about the same degree of trust as used car salesmen,” I’ve suggested
that diagnosis serves as a form of “minting” – creating something out of
nothing, generating new business rather than accurately identifying
biological realities.
This webinar (summarized below) by Dr Thomas Cowan from March 2025
presents a challenge to conventional thinking about medical diagnosis,
echoing Florence Nightingale’s assertion that “the specific disease
doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable minds.” Cowan
questions whether our symptoms and observable physical changes can be
meaningfully categorized into discrete diseases, or if they instead
represent individual bodies’ adaptive responses
to unique life circumstances. This perspective positions disease
categories as artificial constructs that subtly trap people in a victim
mentality rather than empowering them with agency over their health.
From the questionable validation of diagnostic tests to the circular
reasoning of medical categorization, this exploration challenges us to
reconsider what we think we know about disease and diagnosis. By
examining specific examples like rheumatoid arthritis and questioning
the foundational assumptions of modern medicine, Cowan invites us to
consider a more individualized understanding of health – one that
recognizes symptoms as intelligent adaptations
rather than malfunctions requiring standardized interventions. This
Q&A summary explores these ideas and their implications for how we
might approach health and healing.
With thanks to Dr Thomas Cowan.
Are medical diagnoses real entities? Webinar from March 26th, 2025 – Dr. Tom Cowan
Imagine you’re at a large art gallery where visitors stand before
paintings displaying various emotional states – sadness, anxiety, pain,
fatigue. Each painting has an official gallery label with a specific
title: “Depression,” “Anxiety Disorder,” “Fibromyalgia,” “Chronic
Fatigue.”
The current medical system works like museum curators who insist
these labels represent distinct, definitive categories. If your
experience matches what’s depicted in the “Depression” painting, you’re
given the “Depression” ticket, which directs you to a specific treatment
room where everyone with that ticket receives essentially the same
care.
But what if these labels are arbitrary groupings of human experiences
rather than distinct realities? What if each person’s experience is
actually a unique masterpiece – influenced by their individual canvas
quality (genetics), paints used (nutrition), studio environment (living
conditions), previous artistic training (emotional history), and dozens
of other factors?
The New Biology approach suggests we should remove these artificial
gallery labels entirely. Instead of categorizing people by which
painting their symptoms most resemble, we should examine each person’s
unique masterpiece to understand what specific materials, techniques,
and conditions created their current picture. Treatment would then
involve adjusting those individual factors – improving canvas quality,
changing paints, modifying studio conditions – rather than applying
standardized solutions based on gallery labels that may not represent
biological reality.
Cowan suggests that healing begins when we stop seeing ourselves as
victims assigned to a gallery category and instead recognize ourselves
as unique creations with the agency to modify the very conditions that
shaped our current picture.
1. The Florence Nightingale Challenge Florence
Nightingale’s quote that “the specific disease doctrine is the grand
refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable minds” serves as the philosophical
foundation for the entire presentation. Cowan builds on her assertion
that there are no specific diseases, only specific disease conditions – a
radical challenge to the foundation of modern medicine.
2. Signs vs. Symptoms Reality Cowan carefully
distinguishes between signs (what doctors observe) and symptoms (what
patients experience). It doesn’t deny that people genuinely experience
symptoms or have observable physical changes – these experiences are
completely valid. The question is whether categorizing these experiences
into named “diseases” accurately reflects biological reality.
3. The Diagnostic Circularity Problem A fundamental
issue with disease diagnosis is circular reasoning. Without an
independent way to definitively determine who has a condition, tests are
validated against diagnoses that may themselves depend on similar
tests. This creates a closed loop of self-referential validation that
fails to establish whether these tests identify actual biological
entities.
4. The Gold Standard Requirement For any diagnostic
test to be scientifically valid, it must be compared against a “gold
standard” – a definitive way to know who actually has the condition.
Cowan uses pregnancy as an example where this works (you can physically
confirm pregnancy), contrasting with conditions like rheumatoid
arthritis where no such definitive confirmation exists.
5. The Rheumatoid Arthritis Case Study Rheumatoid
arthritis serves as a primary example of diagnostic problems. Its
symptoms overlap with many other conditions, and its diagnostic blood
tests (like rheumatoid factor) appear in people with other conditions
and even in healthy individuals. Without a way to definitively identify
who truly has rheumatoid arthritis, Cowan argues it’s impossible to
validate any diagnostic test for it.
6. The Victim Narrative Concern Cowan suggests that
accepting a disease diagnosis subtly places people in a “victim” role,
where they’ve been randomly afflicted by an external entity that “got
them.” Cowan provocatively suggests that “the only disease there is is
victim consciousness” – agreeing to play the role of victim to external
forces rather than recognizing one’s agency.
7. The Body’s Adaptive Intelligence An alternative
framework proposed is that symptoms represent the body’s intelligent
adaptation to circumstances rather than malfunctions. Symptoms might be
“the best thing your body can do, given the situations and the
circumstances that you’ve provided for it” – a fundamentally different
way of understanding what we call “disease.”
8. Individual Context vs. Universal Categories
Rather than universal disease categories, Cowan emphasizes individual
contexts – how each person’s unique combination of heredity, diet,
thoughts, emotions, environment, electromagnetic exposure, and toxins
creates their specific condition. This suggests treatments should
address individual circumstances rather than standardized disease
protocols.
9. The Virus Isolation Critique Cowan questions
virus isolation techniques, suggesting that particles identified as
viruses in electron microscopy may actually be natural breakdown
products of fetal bovine serum used in the experimental process. This
challenges the fundamental evidence used to establish the existence of
many viruses.
10. The AI-Healthcare Concern Cowan raises concerns
about healthcare moving toward an AI-driven technocracy, using the
example of CDC director Susan Menares as someone advocating for both
“gain of function” virus research and AI integration in healthcare. This
is presented as part of a concerning shift away from individualized,
human-centered care.
11. The New Biology Alternative The New Biology
Clinic is presented as offering a fundamentally different approach to
health that rejects the specific disease model entirely. Rather than
treating standardized disease categories, it focuses on understanding
and addressing each person’s unique circumstances and supporting the
body’s intelligence.
12. The Healing Precondition Perhaps most
significantly, Cowan suggests that healing requires first rejecting the
concept of specific diseases. Only by abandoning the belief in discrete
disease entities can people recognize their symptoms as adaptive
responses to their unique circumstances and regain the agency to make
meaningful changes that support health.
Question 1: What is the significance of Florence Nightingale’s quote about specific disease doctrine in Cowan?
The quote from Florence Nightingale serves as the philosophical
foundation for the entire webinar. She stated that “the specific disease
doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable mind, such
as now rule in the medical profession,” suggesting that categorizing
health problems into distinct diseases is fundamentally flawed. Cowan
uses this as a jumping-off point to challenge the entire premise of
modern medicine.
This quote frames the central argument that there are no specific
diseases, only specific disease conditions. The presenter isn’t denying
that people experience symptoms or have observable physical changes, but
rather questioning whether these can be meaningfully categorized into
discrete, definable conditions called “diseases” that exist as
biological realities.
Question 2: How does Cowan critique virus isolation techniques and what role does fetal bovine serum play?
Cowan critiques virus isolation by claiming that what researchers
identify as “isolated viruses” are actually just breakdown products of
the materials used in the isolation process itself. Cowan points to
evidence suggesting that the particles identified as viruses in electron
microscopy are identical to particles found naturally in fetal bovine
serum, which is routinely used in cell cultures for virus research.
According to the presentation, scientists use fetal bovine serum to
stimulate cell growth, then reduce the amount of serum, causing cells to
die and break down. The resulting particles that appear under electron
microscopes are claimed to be viruses, but Cowan argues they’re simply
breakdown products of the fetal bovine serum itself. This is presented
as evidence that “the whole virus story” is fundamentally flawed, as the
alleged proof of virus isolation may be nothing more than an artifact
of the experimental method.
Question 3: What concerns does Cowan raise about Susan Menares and the direction of healthcare?
Cowan identifies Susan Menares as the CDC director who supports “gain
of function” research, which the presenter dismisses as being “squarely
in the virus delusion camp.” The primary concern raised is that Menares
is described as “a massive AI person,” which Cowan connects to a
broader shift toward a technocracy, particularly in healthcare.
The presentation suggests that the current healthcare direction is
moving toward an “AI-driven world” and “AI-driven health system” where
people will be “bamboozled.” Cowan implies that this represents the
“real agenda” behind current healthcare policies, with public health
initiatives potentially serving as a “horrible cover story” or “carrot”
disguising this technological takeover of medicine.
Question 4: How does Cowan distinguish between signs and symptoms, and why is this distinction important?
Cowan carefully distinguishes between symptoms (subjective
experiences reported by the person) and signs (objective observations
made by practitioners). Symptoms include subjective feelings like not
feeling well, having a cough, experiencing pain, or feeling sad. Signs
are observable physical changes that practitioners can detect during
examination, such as redness, swelling, or abnormal growths.
This distinction is crucial because Cowan acknowledges that both
signs and symptoms are real, valid experiences and observations. Cowan
isn’t denying people’s experiences or the observable physical changes in
their bodies. Rather, it’s questioning whether these experiences and
observations can be meaningfully categorized into specific diseases.
This nuance allows Cowan to validate people’s experiences while still
challenging the framework used to interpret them.
Question 5: What fundamental challenge does Cowan present regarding specific diseases as biological entities?
Cowan fundamentally challenges whether diseases exist as discrete
biological entities or realities. Cowan argues that while people
genuinely experience symptoms and practitioners observe signs, the
categorization of these into named diseases like “rheumatoid arthritis”
or “ADHD” may be an artificial construction rather than a biological
reality. This categorization forms the foundation of both conventional
and alternative medicine.
The presentation suggests that these diagnoses don’t represent actual
biological entities but are artificial constructs created by the
medical establishment. Cowan claims this categorization system leads
people to “become a victim” of their disease label by accepting it as an
external entity that has “got them” rather than seeing their condition
as the result of their unique life circumstances and the body’s best
attempt to adapt to those circumstances.
Question 6: How does Cowan use rheumatoid arthritis as a case study to challenge diagnostic approaches?
Rheumatoid arthritis serves as a detailed case study demonstrating
the problems with disease categorization. Cowan notes that rheumatoid
arthritis is diagnosed based on clinical symptoms, but these symptoms
overlap significantly with other conditions like Lyme disease, Sjögren’s
syndrome, lupus, gynecological arthritis, and osteoarthritis. This
makes it impossible to determine with certainty who actually has
rheumatoid arthritis based solely on symptoms.
Cowan then examines diagnostic blood tests, particularly rheumatoid
factor, pointing out that while it appears in 75% of rheumatoid
arthritis patients, it’s also found in people with other autoimmune
diseases, infections like hepatitis and tuberculosis, and even in
healthy individuals (3-5% of young people and 10-30% of elderly people).
This creates a circular problem: without a definitive way to identify
who truly has rheumatoid arthritis, it’s impossible to determine the
accuracy of any diagnostic test for the condition.
Question 7: What problems does Cowan identify with antibody testing for rheumatoid arthritis?
Cowan identifies several critical issues with rheumatoid factor and
other antibody tests for rheumatoid arthritis. First, these tests lack
specificity – rheumatoid factor appears in multiple conditions and in
healthy individuals. Second, and more fundamentally, there’s no way to
determine the test’s accuracy because there’s no definitive method to
independently confirm who actually has rheumatoid arthritis.
This creates a circular problem where the test is used to diagnose
the condition, but the test’s accuracy can only be validated against
people already diagnosed with the condition – often using the same or
similar tests. Without an independent “gold standard” to definitively
identify who has rheumatoid arthritis, it’s impossible to calculate true
false positive and false negative rates. Cowan suggests this circular
reasoning renders the tests “completely meaningless and useless” for
diagnostic purposes.
Question 8: What does Cowan mean by the “gold standard” problem in medical testing?
The gold standard problem refers to the necessity of having an
independent, definitive way to determine who has a condition before you
can assess the accuracy of a diagnostic test. Cowan explains that for
any diagnostic test to be validated, you must compare it against cases
where you know with certainty whether the condition is present or
absent, in order to calculate false positive and false negative rates.
Without this gold standard, diagnostic testing becomes circular –
tests are validated against clinical diagnoses that may themselves
depend on similar tests. The presenter argues that for many conditions
like rheumatoid arthritis, there is no true gold standard that
definitively determines who has the disease, making it impossible to
accurately validate any diagnostic test. This fundamentally undermines
the entire diagnostic framework for these conditions.
Question 9: How does the pregnancy test analogy help explain the problem with medical diagnostics?
The pregnancy analogy illustrates how proper diagnostic testing
should work. With pregnancy, there’s a definitive way to know who is
pregnant (feeling the baby, seeing it on ultrasound, or ultimately
witnessing birth). This allows for proper validation of pregnancy tests
by testing known pregnant women (like 100 women where pregnancy is
physically confirmed) and known non-pregnant individuals (like 100 men).
This valid comparison allows calculation of true false positive and
false negative rates – perhaps 99% of confirmed pregnant women test
positive (1% false negative), while 2% of definitely non-pregnant men
test positive (2% false positive). Cowan contrasts this with conditions
like rheumatoid arthritis, where there is no equivalent definitive
method to independently confirm who truly has the condition, making it
impossible to properly validate any diagnostic test and rendering the
entire diagnostic framework circular and scientifically unsound.
Question 10: How does Cowan define and explain the concept of “victim consciousness” in relation to disease?
Cowan suggests that “victim consciousness” – agreeing to play the
role of a victim – may be “the only disease there is.” When someone
accepts a diagnosis like “I have rheumatoid arthritis” or “I have ADHD,”
they subtly adopt a victim mindset where they’ve been randomly
afflicted by an external disease entity that “got them” through no
action or circumstance of their own.
This perspective contrasts with Cowan’s alternative view that
symptoms represent the body’s best response to a person’s unique life
circumstances. By rejecting the specific disease model and instead
seeing symptoms as adaptive responses to individual situations, people
regain agency in their health. Rather than being passive victims of
disease entities, they can recognize how their heredity, diet, thinking
patterns, emotional life, living environment, electromagnetic exposure,
and toxin exposure contribute to their condition, empowering them to
make changes and potentially heal.
Question 11: How does Cowan frame the concept of agency in healing versus victim mentality?
Cowan positions agency in healing as a direct alternative to the
victim mentality created by disease diagnoses. By rejecting the notion
that a person has been randomly afflicted by a specific disease entity,
individuals can recognize that their symptoms are responses to their
unique life circumstances. This shift in perspective transforms the
person from a passive victim to an active participant in their own
health journey.
The presentation suggests that healing becomes possible precisely
when a person understands that there are no specific diseases and takes
responsibility for the factors contributing to their condition. These
factors include heredity, diet, thinking patterns, emotional life,
living environment, electromagnetic exposure, and toxins. By
acknowledging these influences, people regain the power to make changes
that support health rather than waiting for medical intervention to
fight an external disease entity.
Question 12: What individual health contexts does Cowan identify as important to understanding a person’s symptoms?
Cowan emphasizes that symptoms arise from a complex interplay of
individual circumstances rather than external disease entities. These
circumstances include heredity, which provides genetic predispositions;
dietary choices that influence cellular nutrition and function; thought
patterns that affect physiological responses; and emotional experiences
that impact bodily systems. Additional factors include the person’s home
environment, electromagnetic exposures in their surroundings, and the
various toxins they encounter.
This perspective suggests that symptoms represent the body’s best
attempt to adapt to this unique constellation of factors. Rather than
categorizing people into disease groups based on similar symptoms, the
presentation argues for understanding each person’s individual story –
how their particular combination of factors has led to their current
state. This individualized approach forms the foundation for treatment
at the New Biology Clinic, focusing on addressing a person’s unique
circumstances rather than treating a standardized disease category.
Question 13: How does Cowan present the body’s adaptive responses as an alternative framework to disease diagnosis?
Cowan proposes that symptoms might be understood as the body’s
intelligent adaptation to circumstances rather than malfunctions or
attacks from external entities. Cowan suggests that symptoms may be “the
best thing your body can do, given the situations and the circumstances
that you’ve provided for it.” This reframes seemingly problematic
symptoms as potentially beneficial adaptive responses.
This perspective fundamentally shifts the approach to health by
viewing the body as intelligent and responsive rather than vulnerable
and defective. Instead of fighting against symptoms as unwanted
intrusions, this framework suggests working with the body to understand
what circumstances led to these adaptations and how they might be
changed. The presenter acknowledges this is one interpretation that “may
or may not be correct,” but argues it’s more empowering and potentially
more accurate than the conventional disease model.
Question 14: What critique does Cowan offer of both conventional and alternative medicine approaches?
Cowan argues that both conventional and alternative medicine operate
under the same flawed paradigm – the belief in specific, categorizable
diseases. While they may differ in treatment approaches, both systems
fundamentally accept the premise that symptoms can be grouped into
distinct disease entities that can be universally diagnosed and treated.
Cowan suggests this shared foundation is fundamentally mistaken.
The presentation implies that even alternative practitioners, despite
potentially rejecting pharmaceutical approaches, still fall into the
trap of categorizing people’s symptoms into named diseases and applying
standardized treatments based on these categories. Cowan positions the
New Biology Clinic as offering a truly different approach that rejects
the very concept of specific diseases and instead focuses on individual
stories and circumstances, representing a more fundamental departure
from conventional medicine than most alternative approaches.
Question 15: According to Cowan, what is required for healing to take place?
Cowan suggests that a precondition for true healing is rejecting the
concept of specific diseases. Cowan states that “before or a condition
that healing takes place is that you actually come to understand that
this is the biological reality, that there are no specific diseases.”
This philosophical shift is presented as essential before physical
healing can occur.
By abandoning the belief in specific disease entities, individuals
can recognize their symptoms as adaptive responses to their unique life
circumstances. This recognition transforms their relationship with their
health, shifting from being a passive victim of disease to an active
agent in their own healing process. The presentation implies that this
perspective allows people to make meaningful changes to the
circumstances contributing to their symptoms, addressing root causes
rather than fighting against the body’s adaptive responses.
Question 16: How does Cowan use ADHD as an example of questionable diagnosis?
Cowan briefly references ADHD as another example of a questionable
diagnostic category. Cowan mentions it in the context of claims about
eliminating chronic disease in children, noting that “ADHD has been on
the rise” and there are debates about whether it’s related to vaccines.
Cowan poses the question: “is actually ADHD a specific disease?”
While the transcript doesn’t continue with a detailed analysis of
ADHD (as it did with rheumatoid arthritis), the mention implies that
ADHD represents another example of the same diagnostic problems – a
collection of behaviors and experiences that have been artificially
categorized into a named disease without proof that it represents a
distinct biological entity. The reference suggests that the same
critique of specific diseases applies to behavioral and mental health
diagnoses, not just physical conditions.
Question 17: What problems with circular reasoning in diagnostic validation does Cowan identify?
Cowan highlights how diagnostic validation often becomes trapped in
circular reasoning. Without an independent gold standard to definitively
identify who has a condition, tests are validated against clinical
diagnoses that may themselves depend on similar or identical tests.
Cowan illustrates this with rheumatoid arthritis, where antibody tests
are deemed effective because they’re positive in people already believed
to have rheumatoid arthritis – often based on the same antibody tests.
This circularity makes it impossible to determine true accuracy
rates. Cowan explains that “the way they come up with this specificity
is by comparing one to the other” without ever having “a single
measurement or observation or fact that tells you whether you have
rheumatoid arthritis or not.” This creates a closed loop of
self-referential validation that fails to establish whether these tests
actually identify a real biological entity.
Question 18: What implications for patient care does Cowan suggest result from rejecting specific disease diagnoses?
Cowan implies that rejecting specific disease diagnoses would
transform patient care from standardized protocols based on disease
categories to individualized approaches based on personal circumstances.
Rather than treating “rheumatoid arthritis” with the same medications
regardless of the patient, practitioners would address the unique
factors in each person’s life that have led to their symptoms – whether
emotional, nutritional, environmental, or other factors.
This approach would shift focus from managing symptoms to addressing
root causes specific to the individual. Cowan suggests that the New
Biology Clinic operates on this principle, treating “the individual
story” rather than the diagnosis. This perspective implies more
personalized, holistic care that considers the full context of a
person’s life rather than reducing them to a disease category with
standardized treatment protocols.
Question 19: How does Cowan relate diagnostic categorization to treatment approaches?
Cowan argues that diagnostic categorization directly determines
treatment approach in conventional medicine. Cowan explains: “you have a
sore throat, and then you say this, the diagnosis is strep throat…And
then you look up or you remember what the treatment for strep throat is
penicillin. And everybody who has those signs and symptoms and test
results gets the same thing.” This standardization applies across
conditions – “same thing with ovarian cancer, same thing with rheumatoid
arthritis.”
By rejecting diagnostic categorization, the presentation implies
treatment would instead follow the individual’s unique circumstances
rather than a standardized protocol. If symptoms represent the body’s
best response to specific life conditions, treatment would focus on
changing those conditions rather than suppressing the body’s adaptive
responses. This fundamentally changes the therapeutic approach from
fighting against standardized disease entities to supporting the body’s
intelligence by addressing the particular circumstances that led to its
adaptive responses.
Question 20: What philosophical distinction does Cowan make between disease entities and disease conditions?
Cowan carefully distinguishes between specific diseases (as discrete
biological entities) and specific disease conditions (observable
patterns of signs and symptoms). Cowan quotes Florence Nightingale:
“There are no specific disease there are specific disease conditions.”
This distinguishes between the observable reality of symptoms and the
theoretical construct of named diseases.
This philosophical distinction is central to the presentation’s
argument. Cowan acknowledges that people genuinely experience symptoms
and exhibit observable signs – these are the “specific disease
conditions” that undeniably exist. What’s questioned is whether these
conditions represent distinct biological entities called “diseases” that
exist independently of the individual’s unique circumstances. Cowan
suggests these disease entities are artificial constructs rather than
biological realities, while affirming that the conditions people
experience are real and valid.
.png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(99%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(74%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(59%25).png){kind=tracking}