a philosophical review of The Quantum Doctor by Amit Goswami
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
March 14, 2020
In "The Quantum Doctor"1, Amit Goswami discusses the different uses of so-called alternative (or "integral") medicine versus allopathic medicine, in an effort to claim that each has its proper place in the medical world.
What he fails to point out, however, is that this distinction between homeopathy and allopathy is really a creation of two related forces: the Drug War and capitalism, and is not fundamentally a result of differing medical views. If there are different medical ideologies at play here, they themselves were fostered, if not created, by the Drug War (its stark limitations on what may be legally prescribed) and capitalist practice (the need to find one-size-fits-all cures that will be most profitable to the doctor and pharmaceutical companies that provide them).
Amit Goswami, for all his valuable insights, makes the mistake of almost every other author when it comes to discussing these subjects: he ignores the role of the Drug War in influencing the "facts on the ground," writing as if the American healthcare system existed on a level playing field when it comes to deciding what sorts of medical treatment we should value and pursue. The fact is that literally all of the most powerful and efficacious "mood medicines" of Mother Nature have been outlawed by the Drug War, so that we can only guess what sorts of treatment Americans would choose if they were actually given the freedom to make such a choice.
Amit's goal seems to be to promote "alternative" therapies in a way that will not be a turn-off to allopathic doctors, by saying that each treatment style (homeopathy and allopathy) has its usefulness. A better approach would be to argue for complete medical freedom via the abolition of drug-war restrictions, after which a doctor will be encouraged to use all possible approaches, without attempting to recognize or draw a sharp line between the medicines based on the philosophical systems that their use seems (to us at least) to presuppose. As Amit himself points out, some allopathic drugs function homeopathically (in preventing illness). Amit, however, claims that "alternative" therapies do not function rapidly -- but, again, he is reckoning here without the Drug War. The fact is that many natural (alternative) "mood medicines" DO function rapidly. The problem is that they are illegal and simply cannot be used.
Related tweet: March 29, 2023
Anti-homeopaths usually champion one-size-fits-all treatments, like SSRIs. They do not like substances that "merely" make the depressed feel good. That's why they dislike laughing gas and coca. They want therapies that work according to reductionist criteria.
Author's Follow-up:
May 28, 2025
Re-reading this essay five years later, I am struck by the presumption of folks like Amit Goswami when they tell us that alternative treatments for mental and emotional improvement work slowly. This is simply not true. What Amit means to say is that all the fast-acting pharmacological interventions (like phenethylamines2, DMT3, laughing gas4, the coca leaf5, an opium pipe6, etc.) have been outlawed, and that THEREFORE, alternative approaches work slowly. This is not just to quibble, either. When we fail to mention this caveat, we are giving the Drug War a huge Mulligan for the evil that it causes, by killing minorities, destroying the rule of law, and sharply limiting our healthcare choices. Fortunately, for Amit, his followers have been brainwashed just like himself: they are already used to pretending that drug prohibition is a natural baseline for human existence and so they remain blind to the obvious downsides of that anti-scientific and ultimately racist policy. If this were not so, then Amit would have been laughed out of the room when he first tried to tell his readership that alternative medicines work slowly. ("Hey, is this guy KIDDING us???!")
By ignoring the role of drug prohibition in limiting our healthcare options, Amit is helping to normalize drug prohibition. And he is not alone. Almost all authors reckon without the Drug War today: they ignore the obvious relevance of outlawed drugs to their topics of choice. And so authors write about suicide without mentioning the fact that we have outlawed all drugs that could cheer one up in real-time7; they write about shock therapy without mentioning the fact that we have outlawed all the drugs that could make it unnecessary8; they write about the mind-body problem, without mentioning the fact that we have outlawed all the substances whose strategic use could enlighten us on that topic9. William James urged us to investigate the nature of reality with the help of such substances10, but modern philosophers ignore that "call to arms" in fealty to Drug War orthodoxy, which tells them that so-called "drugs" can have no positive uses whatsoever11. And so modern non-fiction authors are magicians, really. They are all adepts at the trick that I call "The Great Disappearing Drug War!" -- whereby they wipe drug prohibition and its endless real-world downsides from the public mind. And what is the collective result of this legerdemain? The public attitude becomes: "Drug War? WHAT Drug War?"
Almost all non-fiction writers employ this magic trick, but CNN Correspondent Lisa Ling really outdid herself when it comes to ignoring the Drug War and its downsides. She produced a whole documentary on Chicago gun violence in which she never even mentioned the Drug War, even though it was liquor and drug prohibition that brought gunfire to the streets in the first place12! There are magicians like this on both the left and the right. In "A People's History of the United States of America," progressive historian Howard Zinn never even mentions the Drug War13. In "Birth of the Modern," conservative historian Paul Johnson is silent on that subject as well14. Houdini would have been jealous at this ability on the part of our writers to redirect the human mind away from the glaringly obvious.
Incidentally, this is why I am turned off by all things "New Age." New Agers, at least as I define that term, are those who seek to achieve the psychological benefits of drug use through politically correct means, such as crystal-gazing, seances, meditation, purging, the "mindful" use of medicinal teas, and so forth. This is not bad in itself, of course -- one has to work with what one has in the real world -- but almost all New Age mavens (like Amit himself, alas) are never honest about the way that the Drug War has starkly limited our ability to achieve our desired psychological outcomes. By remaining silent on this point, they are helping to normalize drug prohibition. Nay, their silence about the Drug War implies that they are in favor of that disastrous public policy. And so when I am amongst a group of New Agers, I feel as if we are all playing a game of make-believe, that we have all taken some kind of childish oath that we will never talk about "drugs" and that it would be rude to point out the power of such substances to help us achieve our end goals viz. enlightenment and inspiration.
First we outlaw all drugs that could help; then we complain that some people have 'TREATMENT-RESISTANT DEPRESSION'. What? No. What they really "have" is an inability to thrive because of our idiotic drug laws.
3:51 PM · Jul 15, 2024
Classic prohibitionist gaslighting, telling me that "drugs" is a neutral term. What planet are they living on?
Now the US is bashing the Honduran president for working with "drug cartels." Why don't we just be honest and say why we're REALLY upset with the guy? Drugs is just the excuse, as always, now what's the real reason? Stop using the drug war to disguise American foreign policy.
To oppose the Drug War philosophically, one has to highlight its connections to both materialism and the psychiatric pill mill. And that's a problem, because almost everyone is either a Drug Warrior or a materialist these days and has a vested interest in the continuation of the psychiatric pill mill.
Had the FDA been around in the Indus Valley 3,500 years ago, there would be no Hindu religion today, because they would have found some potential problem with the use of soma.
The Cabinet of Caligari ('62) ends with a shameless display of psychiatric triumphalism. Happy shock therapy patients waltz freely about a mansion in which the "sick" protagonist has just been "cured" by tranquilizers and psychoanalysis. Did Robert Bloch believe his own script?
Almost all addiction services assume that the goal should be to get off all drugs. That is not science, it is Christian Science.
Outlawing drugs is outlawing obvious therapies for Alzheimer's and autism patients, therapies based on common sense and not on the passion-free behaviorism of modern scientists.
When we outlaw drugs, we are outlawing far more than drugs. We are suppressing freedom of religion and academic research.
Almost all of today's magazine articles about human psychology should come with the following disclaimer:
"This article was written from the standpoint of Drug War ideology, which holds that outlawed substances can have no beneficial uses whatsoever."
First we outlaw all drugs that could help; then we complain that some people have 'TREATMENT-RESISTANT DEPRESSION'. What? No. What they really "have" is an inability to thrive because of our idiotic drug laws.
3:51 PM · Jul 15, 2024