A few things to ponder
Premise: Our right to a healthy life is nowadays mistaken for a right to the vaccines and the treatment of mental and somatic sicknesses. This, however, only gives access to very costly and often tentative attempts to repair health damages [51] resulting from unfavorable epigenetic imprints acquired during our primal period. More and more people owe their sufferings to the consequences of these imprints – from imperfect development of immune systems [52] to thwarted or biased relationships to others – to which our societies are paying ever heavier tolls.
Question 1: Isn’t it about time to consider primal prevention a public priority as much as a private one?
Premise: Our right to education has progressively lost much of its fundamental objective, which is to facilitate individuation (beyond simply making people technically apt to get through a workload).
Question 2: After giving their children an adequate primal environment, will parents be wise enough to facilitate their individuation by helping them trust their own capabilities to observe and think for themselves?
Premise: Mothers-to-be know very well that an obstetrical antenna will be at their disposal if one of the rare situations occurred where technical help is still considered mandatory. However they should also be aware that even in such a situation, they have their say: for example, they can demand that a caesarean be undertaken only after spontaneous contractions have started [53]. Most importantly, since birth is above all an instinctive matter, they absolutely need to be reassured that «they are born with the knowledge of how to give birth» [54]; see also: http://www.hencigoer.com/articles/ .
Question 3: Will “our” mothers-to-be allow themselves enough time to discover and experience what’s essentially animal in them, so as to embrace their pregnancy with confidence, abandon themselves to labor, to delivery in a physiological posture [68], and then provide their child with breastfeeding and a close intimacy for at least one year?
Premise: Fathers-to-be know very well that if they want to, they too can preserve enough of their IPD as private time.
Question 4: Will “our” fathers-to-be support and help the mother of their child-to-be? Will they share with her, if not the hormonal euphoria of gestation that only she will directly experience, at least the emotions and blessings of their common undertaking? Will they savor letting go, walking, talking with her, discovering the reality of their couple relationship while cultivating values opposite to the relentlessly publicized ones of a so-called good life?
Premise: As soon as they’re engaged in their new professional activities, young physicians, obstetricians and midwives still have to deal with too many practical – mostly technical – problems, with little time to consider fundamental issues (when they don’t forget them altogether). They suffer from knowledge dichotomy.
Question 5: Will our physicians, obstetricians and midwives be wise enough to stay focused on the evolution of life sciences, and avoid dogmatism?
Premise: Still too many ambitious young persons with ad hoc diplomas are tempted to pursue stereotypic careers after their "training in public health". They suffer from knowledge dichotomy.
Question 6: May we dream that a genuine interest in the community well-being will one day allow a new brand of knowledgeable young persons to see through the threadbare public-health discourse, and question the corresponding policies? Can we hope that they’ll find out why primal prevention might be the only way towards true health promotion, and accordingly defend this public-health new paradigm?
Premise: We are all aware of the fundamental rights of every human being to grow healthy, educated, and supplied with what’s indispensable for «the free and full development of his personality» [55]. All of these objectives, however, will only start to be met once most of us will have fighted for our right to unbiased information.
Question 7: Isn’t it now time (after more than 150 years!) to react and become strong enough to initiate «the diffusion of scientific knowledge by freedom and enlightenment» and to reassert that «the understanding, as of any of man’s other faculties, is generally achieved by his own activity, his own ingenuity, or his own methods of using the discoveries of others…» [56]? Yes it is.
Question 1: Isn’t it about time to consider primal prevention a public priority as much as a private one?
Premise: Our right to education has progressively lost much of its fundamental objective, which is to facilitate individuation (beyond simply making people technically apt to get through a workload).
Question 2: After giving their children an adequate primal environment, will parents be wise enough to facilitate their individuation by helping them trust their own capabilities to observe and think for themselves?
Premise: Mothers-to-be know very well that an obstetrical antenna will be at their disposal if one of the rare situations occurred where technical help is still considered mandatory. However they should also be aware that even in such a situation, they have their say: for example, they can demand that a caesarean be undertaken only after spontaneous contractions have started [53]. Most importantly, since birth is above all an instinctive matter, they absolutely need to be reassured that «they are born with the knowledge of how to give birth» [54]; see also: http://www.hencigoer.com/articles/ .
Question 3: Will “our” mothers-to-be allow themselves enough time to discover and experience what’s essentially animal in them, so as to embrace their pregnancy with confidence, abandon themselves to labor, to delivery in a physiological posture [68], and then provide their child with breastfeeding and a close intimacy for at least one year?
Premise: Fathers-to-be know very well that if they want to, they too can preserve enough of their IPD as private time.
Question 4: Will “our” fathers-to-be support and help the mother of their child-to-be? Will they share with her, if not the hormonal euphoria of gestation that only she will directly experience, at least the emotions and blessings of their common undertaking? Will they savor letting go, walking, talking with her, discovering the reality of their couple relationship while cultivating values opposite to the relentlessly publicized ones of a so-called good life?
Premise: As soon as they’re engaged in their new professional activities, young physicians, obstetricians and midwives still have to deal with too many practical – mostly technical – problems, with little time to consider fundamental issues (when they don’t forget them altogether). They suffer from knowledge dichotomy.
Question 5: Will our physicians, obstetricians and midwives be wise enough to stay focused on the evolution of life sciences, and avoid dogmatism?
Premise: Still too many ambitious young persons with ad hoc diplomas are tempted to pursue stereotypic careers after their "training in public health". They suffer from knowledge dichotomy.
Question 6: May we dream that a genuine interest in the community well-being will one day allow a new brand of knowledgeable young persons to see through the threadbare public-health discourse, and question the corresponding policies? Can we hope that they’ll find out why primal prevention might be the only way towards true health promotion, and accordingly defend this public-health new paradigm?
Premise: We are all aware of the fundamental rights of every human being to grow healthy, educated, and supplied with what’s indispensable for «the free and full development of his personality» [55]. All of these objectives, however, will only start to be met once most of us will have fighted for our right to unbiased information.
Question 7: Isn’t it now time (after more than 150 years!) to react and become strong enough to initiate «the diffusion of scientific knowledge by freedom and enlightenment» and to reassert that «the understanding, as of any of man’s other faculties, is generally achieved by his own activity, his own ingenuity, or his own methods of using the discoveries of others…» [56]? Yes it is.