Symptoms as Adaptations: A Critical Examination of Medical Categorization

By Dr Thomas Cowan – 20 Q&As

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

Related Post

Diagnosis - Lies are Unbekoming

Analogy

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.

12-point summary

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.

20 Questions and Answers

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.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.