Skolmedicins hyckleri

Från Wikipedia:

Termen skolmedicin används vanligen som kontrast till ovetenskapliga tekniker betecknade som folkmedicin, alternativ eller  komplementär medicin. Bland utövare av alternativmedicin används ibland andra termer såsom allopatisk medicin, konventionell medicin eller modern, västerländsk medicin.

Den etablerade medicinen som stöds av våra skattekronor brukar kritisera alternativ som ovetenskapliga. ”inte bättre än placebo”. Man har vetat länge att folk blir bra även i placebo gruppen (som får en overksam medicin ofta sockerpiller eller saltvatten injektion). Den positiva utveckling i placebo gruppen, placebo effekten, är ofta mycket stor och man måste ha en ännu större effekt i den provade medicin gruppen för att ha påvisat dess verkan. Även ingrepp som kirurgi har vid provning visat sig inte vara bättre än placebo. 

En viktig del i denna positiva placebo effekt är TRON att åtgärden kan hjälpa. Den gör det möjligt för patienten att koppla av. Minskad stress gör att kroppens möjlighet till självläkning ökar.  (T ex: Man har mätt att immunförsvaret minskas när man känner stress.)  

Det finns även andra saker än TRON, som skolmedicinen inte räknar med, som kan gömmas inom ”placebo effekt”. T ex kan patienter, utan doktorns vetskap, använda olika alternativ: meditation, vitaminer, örter, alternativ medicins olika varianter: homeopati, kolloidalt silver, mm.  Och i ”riktiga medicinen gruppen händer det att folk inte tar ordinerade medicinen och deras förbättring (eller brist på biverkningar) tros av läkaren vara kopplade till medicinen! Och i placebo gruppen kan finnas folk som FÖRVÄNTAR sig dåliga biverkningar som får det! Mycket att sorterar ut när man skall bevisa något!

I vilket fall, är det ofta så, att doktorn dels inte vet vad problemet som patienten har är, och följaktligen vet inte vad som kan hjälpa, och ändå ger diagnos och ordinerar medicin, och det kan försvaras som etisk, då placebo effekten bör göra att det kan förväntas ofta hjälpa.  Patienten under diagnos kan fråga vad symtomen orsakas av. Då kan ibland läkaren använda termer som ”idiopatisk” och ”iatrogen” som kan låta som läkaren vet mer än en själv, när läkaren kan så fina ord. ”Idiopatisk” betyder okänd orsak. ”Iatrogen” betyder orsakad av ett medicinsk ingrepp. Kan vara bra att kunna en del av ”fikonspråket”!

Samtidigt är det en hyckleri när de fördömer andra vårdformer som kan också dra fördel av placebo effekten. 

Fire Panic

I have worked several years in East Africa. Most buildings there have iron bars covering windows to prevent thieves. When I first arrived in Tanzania, I felt like I was in prison when inside buildings. That was intensified when the first night my family was in Dar es Salaam, the lock to our bedroom jammed while we were inside. I had a hacksaw blade in my bags that got us out, but it took 15 – 30 minutes.

When I was working at Kibosho Girls Secondary School in Moshi, Tanzania 1994-95 there was a terrible fire at another school in the area and many (40-200?) girls died, locked in their dormitory. In the excited state this news caused, one night at our school a rumor got going that lead to some people being slightly injured in a panic to go out of their dorms.

I prepared the presentation below. We also followed up with role playing, particularly about the situation where a crowd tries to leave a building through an inward swinging door.

Emergency Behavior

What can we learn from Sunday night?

”We have nothing to fear but fear itself” Winston Churchill

Panic = extreme fear that prevents proper thinking

Though there was no fire, hundreds of pupils rushed out in the darkness and risked hurting themselves.

Panicked crowd

Many people in panic is very dangerous, even if there is no other danger. Many people have died or been hurt unnecessarily because of panic. They have been trampled under people’s feet or crushed against walls, fences or other hard things. Try to avoid being in or forming a tightly packed crowd. This usually only makes things more difficult and dangerous. If you do get caught in a crowd, try to keep some space in front of you by holding your arms out some in front of your stomach. You may be able to protect a child in this space also. Try to lift both feet often to prevent people standing on them and trampling you down. Try to be like a ball floating on stormy water. Try to calm people down, make them quiet, give them hope, give them something to laugh about. If the mass of people starts moving, try to avoid coming next to a wall or other non-movable object.


If it is dark also the danger increases. What can I do in the dark? If you don’t know for sure there is an acute danger, it could be safest to just stay where you are. If you don’t stay where you are, but you have a torch (or anything that produces light, such as clock with light on dial), it can help you find your way. Use it sparingly (as little as possible) so you know there will be some left when you need it. If you have no light, feel your way, following the wall or things along the wall. If there could be bare electric wires, feel with the back of your hand or a knuckle of your fist (closed hand). (An open hand can grip an electric wire with an involuntary cramp so you can’t let go). Move calmly with small steps. Hurrying is dangerous!


If you are quiet, your hearing can help you ”see” because of the sound which bounces back from things. If the people make a lot of noise, it can increase the fear and prevent people from getting necessary information.

For example if everyone tries to get out of the dormitory at once and they are all pushing toward the door. If the door opens inward (as they do at present), no one will be able to open the door. If there is a lot of noise, the people at the back will not hear people in front tell them to back up.


Should a fire happen what should you do? The best thing is to put it out quickly it you can do that without danger. A fire needs 3 things: fuel, oxygen and heat. If you take away any one of these three there will be no fire.

How can I take away the fuel? If there is a leak of gas or kerosene, maybe I can turn it off. If a chair or dust bin is burning, maybe I can throw it outside of the building. If I can’t get it out (for example a bed), maybe I can move other burnable things farther away.

How can I keep oxygen away from the fire? Put water, sand, a heavy cloth over it. A cloth must be applied quickly, other wise it will just be more fuel. Use a fire extinguisher which sprays carbon dioxide, foam, other chemicals over the fire. Remember that you must hit the base of the fire, not the upper flames. Shut doors and windows. Water should NOT be used in these cases:

  • A fire in oil should not be hit with water. It can be like an explosion as the water becomes steam in the hot oil. Cover it! If it is in a pot, put on the lid or a metal plate.
  • If there is electricity, the electricity can follow the water back to the person throwing the water.

If a persons clothing is burning, it will burn most and spread fastest if he is standing up and the flames go around the face. If your clothing starts burning, roll around on the ground, if you don’t have water. Roll up in a blanket or other heavy cloth, with your head out. If another person’s clothes burn, help them in the same way.

One way of taking heat away from a fire is to beat it with a coat, branch, rug.
If you are in a building and there is (maybe) a fire going on, don’t open doors quickly. See first if the handle is hot. If the door opens toward you, put your foot against it as you open it a little bit. Don’t have your face near the opening, as flames might shoot out through the opening.

If you are in or must go through a room with smoke in it, keep your face close to the floor! Smokey air is very dangerous. Hot gases with smoke go up, so the cleanest air is near the floor. Besides being safer to breathe, you can see better. 3 inches from the floor you can sometimes see 10 meters across the room, while 1 foot up, you can’t see your finger 4 inches away.


Whenever you get to a new place, it is good to look around. Find what different ways you can get out, where things to put out fires are, where lifebelts are on a boat, so you don’t waste time in an emergency. Tell the people in charge if something is missing, faulty or seems dangerous.

Look around your dormitory to see where there are electric outlets, lamps and other wiring. Especially, find where you can turn off the electricity. This can be good to know if the electricity itself is making a fire or giving a person a chock. It can also be good if you are going to put out a fire with water and don’t want to risk getting electrocuted (killed by electricity). Notice which ways doors open! Doors should go outwards in public buildings, but they don’t always. Do extra emergency doors work? Where are the keys?

If I must jump down, where would be a good spot? What should I avoid? What could I do to make it safer? Throw down mattresses to jump onto, tie together sheets to make a rope. Hang as low as possible before letting go. Have knees slightly bent as I land. REMEMBER Jumping is dangerous! Don’t jump until absolutely necessary.

If I have to leave the dormitory, where should we assemble? If this is not decided and followed it will be difficult to know if someone is inside or has just gone somewhere else. This can endanger other people that try to ”save” the missing person who is no longer inside.


I think the contents are OK, The only addition I’d like to make when I look at it now (2009) is about a detail in smothering a fire in a person’s clothing. At my job in Sweden, CFL 2008, we had some exercises about this. It is important that a person doesn’t have fire around their head. Inhaling flames and smoke can do big damage. It is important for the person to lie down on the ground. If someone tries to smother a fire in someones clothes by putting on a blanket, rug or coat it can feel more natural to start from the feet and cover upwards, but this drives the flames up towards the head!  So don’t do that! Start from just below the head and cover down towards the feet. This drives the flames away from the head.

Though I am interested and have tried to collect what I think is good advice, I am not an officially certified rescue trainer. Because this page is about life and death questions, I really hope you will point out anything that  might be wrong or that should be added. 


I have now been a member in training at Svenska Sjöräddningssälskapet, SSRS, (Swedish sea rescue organisation) 2018+2019.  It is quite interesting. It includes some fire fighting, as well as first aid, boat handling, search and rescue at sea. 

Antidepressiva läkemedel ökar självmord?

Om ni kollat i mina sidor så kan ni märka att jag väljer i första hand näring, motion, avstressning och förbättrade sociala kontakter framför mediciner och operationer i de flesta fall.

Antidepressiva mediciner har även självmord och våldsamhet som deklarerade biverkningar i FASS och bipackssedel.  De flesta skolskjutningar har begåtts av personer som använde de. (Det bevisar inte att de mediciner orsakat dessa katsstrofer, men bevisar att man inte kan räkna med att de förhindrar de.)

Läste nyss en artikel  Recent-study-confirms-that-antidepressants-increase-suicide-risk  som byggde på en svensk studie.

Borde man skriva ut antidepressiva om självmord befaras?

Trots min allmänna tveksamhet mot syntetiska mediciner, så kan även jag undra ”om någon funderar på självmord, kanske det vore idé att ge den antidepressiva åtminstone tillfälligt”.

Därför ville jag förstå artikel så bra som möjligt. Det fanns några grafer som inte var självklara att tolka. Även om författaren uppenbart upplevde att studien hon åberopade pekade på ”inte ge antidepressiva” så kunde jag inte utesluta att högre andel ”lyckade” självmord med antidepressiva i kroppen bara var en ”naturlig” följd av mera självmord, snarare än orsak.


Antidepressants and suicide among young women in Sweden 1999-2013.


An increasingly larger proportion of young women (15-24 year old) who later committed suicide, had in the last few years been treated with antidepressants, prior to and at the time of the suicide. The previous assumptions that treatment with antidepressants would lead to a drastic reduction in suicide rates, are incorrect for the population of young women. On the contrary, it was found that an increasing tendency of completed suicides follow the increased prescription of antidepressants.

Prescription of antidepressants to women (15–24) in Sweden in the years 1999–2013, counted in DDD/TIND.

Y-axeln anger DDD/TIND. Jag fick kolla vad det betydde. ”Antalet dygnsdoser av det aktuella läkemedlet som genomsnittligt sett kan sägas konsumeras av en given del av befolkningen, i detta fall 1000 invånare, i det aktuella området.
DDD står för defined daily doses.” och det på svenska ”förmodad genomsnittlig dygnsdos då läkemedel används av en vuxen vid läkemedlets huvudindikation”

Så 1999 så var det 14 dygnsdoser per 1000 kvinnor mellan 15-24 år och jag antar att det är per dygn- i så fall 14 av 1000 i gruppen tog medicinen varje dag.  2013 hade det ökat till 52 av 1000 tog det varje dag. Man skulle hoppas att den nästan 4-faldigt ökade förskrivning av antidepressiva hade lett till en minskning av självmord.  Eller i vilket fall att om något annat (deprimerande media bild av världens tillstånd t ex) ledde till ökade självmordsfrekvens så borde andelen av de som hade antidepressiva i blodet då de dog bli mindre om antidepressiva minskade risken.

Findings of antidepressants in toxicological analyses of suicides by women (15–24) in Sweden in the years 1999–2013, calculated as a percentage of the cases investigated, which were on average 93% of all confirmed suicides.

Diagrammet visar hur stor andel av kvinnor (15–24år) som hade antidepressiva i kroppen då de begick självmord. (I medeltal så undersöktes det i 93% av alla självmord.)   Under 1999 till 2013 gick självmords frekvensen från 7,7 till 8,9 per 100.000 (variation 4,8-9,9 under perioden)


Självmord (säkra och osäkra) per 100 000 kvinnor för olika åldersgrupper i Sverige

SÅ under den perioden så var det någorlunda konstant självmordsfrekvens i gruppen samtidigt som antidepressiva ökade nästan 4 gånger och under perioden så ökade andelen som hade antidepressiva när de dog drygt 3 faldigt. Skall man vara snäll i bedömning av medicinen så skulle man kunna säga att hade det varit helt utan positiv verkan hade andelen som hade antidepressiva när de dog också ökat 4 faldigt. Skall man vara sträng mot medicinen skulle man kunna säga att trots en 4 faldig ökning av medicinen var självmordsfrekvens för gruppen ganska konstant.



Denna diagram, självmordsförsök kvinnor i Sverige, gör att man undrar vad som var på gång 1997 till 2007 och vad som hände då för de unga kvinnorna.

1997 till 2007 är det en brant ökning av försöken samtidigt som antidepressiva också ökar mycket.  Mer det minska betydligt efter 2007 samtidigt som antidepressiva fortsätter öka.  Så något enkelt samband hoppar inte fram här. En (av många möjlig tolkningar) antidepressiva ökade tendensen att försöka begå självmord men man var för oskarp för att ”lyckas” och sedan efter 2007 så blev man så apatisk så man inte ens försökte. Men tolkningen säger kanske mer om min världsbild än om hur det är.

Till vidare slutsats

Jag kan inte helt utesluta att kanske antidepressiva skulle kunna ge en mycket liten minskning av risken att man skall ”lyckas” begå självmord då tolkning av statistik i efterhand har låg bevisvärde.

Men en 4 faldig ökning av antidepressiva medicin förskrivning har inte gett någon minskning av självmorden, så man skall satsa på andra åtgärder i första hand. 

An emotional post about vaccines

I originally wrote this in Swedish in August 2016. But I have a lot of friends that don’t read Swedish and this is an internationally important question so I decided I should translate this to English. (Warning: some links from this page go to Swedish pages that might be translated by Google- and those translations can be very flawed)

What is bothering me? Why do I bother you?

Although I know that if you show emotional commitment to a question, many will hesitate to take what you say seriously, I find it hard to keep myself ”unattached” and ”composed” when it comes to vaccines.

In the same way that others (and I) could be upset if someone leaves a dog trapped in a sunny car or be upset if someone does not give a child a medical treatment that one believes is extremely important for the child’s health, I can get upset when people expose a child to vaccines that can have super serious negative consequences without engaging in at least as much source criticism and inquiry as when buying a used car. (The upset is bigger because I know I’ve done the same thing! The upset is not directed against the parent’s good intentions, but towards society’s propaganda machine that repeats ”Vaccines are safe and effective” so you ”know” that it is ”true.” (Goebbels is usually credited with saying ”Repeat a big lie until it becomes true.”

Just because something is repeated often, doesn’t mean it’s a lie. ”5 * 5 = 25, 5 * 6 = 30 …” is often repeated in school, and it’s still usually true :-) Probably ”Vaccines are safe and effective” is a hope rather than a lie to most of the people who spread it. That was the case for me, when I was a believer and could spread that idea. )

But it is not only the question itself and the importance of the issue that bothers me.

For me it is extra emotional because I am scientifically trained and interested. If someone questions the safety and effectiveness and historical importance of vaccines , there are very strong forces that paint that person as ”anti-scientific”. I know that science has enriched my life. In my area of specialization, physics, I have been able to repeat many famous experiments and see that they verified what was in the textbooks. It gave me great respect and trust for the scientific method. When I read about other scientific results outside the field of physics, I have assumed that thoroughness and objectivity could be counted on, although I understand that philosophical and religious prejudices could probably be more disruptive in the science regarding living beings.

I learned in school about vaccines, Jenner and smallpox etc. We know vaccines modify the body’s immune system. Vaccines seemed tested for quality, seemed historically important and seemed to have a solid scientific base. I got some vaccines when young (at least smallpox and polio, probably some others). When I myself had children, they received the usual vaccines. When we were working a few years in Tanzania , we got very many more . All have survived.

Now, after very many hours of research, know:

  • the impression we get into the school of the historical importance of the vaccine is misleading (half truths can be more effective deceptors than outright lies)
  • that the Swedish government control agency for vaccines does not hesitate to just accept conclusions in research papers funded and organised by vaccine manufacturers (like GSK) and does not notice well hidden deaths in research papers. Corresponding agencies, like the CDC in USA, seem to have the same behavior.
  • the ”reported cases” of a disease are often manipulated and this has historically been done to strengthen the reputation of vaccines.
  • the huge economic benefits for vaccine producers depend on our believing in vaccines
  • that vaccine producers, such as GSK, have a tarnished reputation in other contexts
  • that peanut allergies were extremely rare before.
  • that many other ”autoimmune diseases” have increased during the last decades and explanations for that are either missing or inconclusive.
  • I will not be convinced  by vaccine studies that are not carried out in collaboration with people who are not already ”vaccine believers”. (Although one can find interesting details in the manufacturers’ studies, which go completely against the impression they give in the summary, which is all most authorities and doctors bother to read. )
  • ”placebo” in vaccine studies are not inactive ingredients (type sugar pills or saline injections) and may contain a whole bunch of ”adjuvants” (additional substances in vaccines besides the virus substance, like aluminum [very common], thimerosol [mercury], possibly peanut oil etc). And it is the adjuvants that many vaccine sceptics think can be the most dangerous part of vaccines. So it’s like finding, when comparing a vaccine with almost the same biological and chemical soup,  ”this vaccine is as safe as itself” ”No risk here” 🙂 🙁
  • that if someone tries to make vaccinations mandatory here, I will strongly oppose it until it is stopped or I am convinced that the faith ”vaccines are effective and safe” is actually true. (However, the more I have learned so far, the less I believe that! But you must be open.)

Moreover, there are things I believe: 

  • When I think, in retrospect, my one daughter had childhood epilepsy possibly due to the many vaccines we were getting in connection with the stint in Africa. Luckily she was able to step by step get off the drugs and quit after a few years. I had no suspicion of a vaccine connection then, so I do not know if it might have been a temporally associated with vaccines down there. I have read that epilepsy cases in recent years are increasing strongly (at least in the US). (Projected cases)
  • Autoimmune disease increase is probably associated with the side effects of our interference with the body’s immune response through vaccines. (Although other things like diet and environmental contaminants and more and more ”unnatural” lifestyle may also play a, probably smaller, role.)
  • It would be good to build social experience exchange systems for medical procedures since we can not rely on government authorities that may have a dominant interest in not disturbing structured systems, like the vaccination system. even if there is third-party damage

What are my needs that make me bother you (and disturb me)

I don’t want anyone to believe that things have clear scientific evidence that do not. (Like I did about vaccines. I believed the white-coated authority)

I don’t want children to be exposed to serious unnecessary risks to get expected benefits (with that expectation based on distorted indoctrination)

There are people that can base an anti-vaccine stance  on unscientific grounds:

  • fear of chemical words,
  • the complete lack of proportion on issues of danger and concentration,
  • that time-related anecdotes and epidemiological studies prove causality )

but that doesn’t mean that others, like me, have the same base. I’m not afraid of ”chemical words”  like ”dihydrogen oxide” ”this vaccine ingredient is responsible for many deaths every year by stopping peoples ability to absorb life giving oxygen”  (Drowning! 🙂 )

 I want people to respect that I have seriously and scientifically tried to find the truth in this highly-charged issue. If you think that anything I say is wrong, I want you to enlighten me on what makes you think I’m wrong or lack knowledge about. I want to learn more! I hope you do also. I’m quite sure that anybody engaged in this issue wants to help protect children, but what we have learned about history may have lead us to, at this time, different conclusions.

Below is the video that ”today” (actually August 2016), ”pressed my buttons” (= angered me). I got the strong feeling ”What if my failure to present the risks of vaccines and present how deceptive the belief in vaccine effectiveness is, leads to people, that I could have been able to influence, experiencing this, or worse!” (shorter: What if my friend’s children get horrible lives or deaths because I didn’t warn them effectively.) I am, at least, very grateful that, despite my previous blind faith in vaccines, my family has not been affected by the most serious side effects. That was more a question of luck than good parenting. I wish you do your homework as a parent before you vaccinate (or vaccinate any more. It’s never to late to stop smoking! 🙂 )  Otherwise I wish you good luck with your vaccines.


Here is another video that gave me the same feeling today (jan 2107)