Presidente do México pretende promover Chi Kung em todo o país.

 

A presidente do México, Claudia Sheinbaum, adere ao Chi Kung, e pretende promover esta multimilenar técnica da Medicina Tradicional Chinesa em todo o país.

Rommel Pacheco,  Diretor-Geral do órgão máximo que gere o desporto CONADE (Comissão Nacional de Cultura Física e Desporto do México) e renomado ex-atleta olímpico, recomendou a prática à Presidente Sheinbaum para substituir as corridas e focar no equilíbrio mental.

Rommel Pacheco me disse que há um exercício chinês que se chama 'Chi Kung' que trás benefícios para a saúde; agora estou praticando e soube que ele também ajuda muito a mente, mas poucos o conhecem", explicou a Presidente, que praticou balé dos 6 aos 19 anos, foi remadora da equipe da Universidade Nacional Autónoma do México durante os seus anos universitários e também atletismo na mesma Universidade.

"O Chi Kung foi desenvolvido na China há milhares de anos como parte da medicina tradicional chinesa e envolve a prática de exercícios para otimizar a energia no corpo e mente, com o objetivo de melhorar e manter a saúde e o bem-estar", segundo o National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCAM) dos EUA. (*).

(*) https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/qigong-what-you-need-to-know

PERGUNTAS 2

 

PERGUNTAS QUE GOSTARÍAMOS QUE TIVESSEM SIDO FEITAS AOS CANDIDATOS AO CONGRESSO

ELEIÇÕES 2026: O QUE NÃO ENTROU NO DEBATE, MAS DEVERIA 

Contrariamente ao que ocorre em países com sistemas públicos totalmente estatais ou de cobertura universal estrito (como o Reino Unido), no Brasil as famílias gastam mais com saúde do que o governo. No relatório da 21ª edição do Panorama Político, o DataSenado registrou que cerca de um terço dos brasileiros (29%)  apontam a saúde como sua maior preocupação (custo de vida e corrupção estão em segundo plano, ambos com 16%, e o Ministério da Saúde liderou de forma isolada o ranking de recursos alocados entre as pastas finalísticas do governo federal, tendo sido o maior contemplado com verbas do pagadores de impostos em 2025, quase R$ 250 bilhões, muito à frente do  MEC (R$ 197,8 bilhões), do Ministério da Defesa (R$ 133,3 bilhões) e do Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego (R$ 122,7 bilhões). O gasto total em saúde no Brasil (somando público e privado) oscila historicamente entre 9,2% e 9,7% do PIB (R$ 12,7 trilhões em 2025). Apesar desta fantástica soma, a saúde é principal preocupação da população brasileira. 

Apesar disso, mais uma vez, a saúd enão fez parte do debate eleitoral da forma que desejaríamos ver.

https://www.senado.leg.br/institucional/datasenado/relatorio_online/pesquisa_principais_preocupacoes/interativo.html

Para piorar, a Medicina Tradicional, objeto de Resoluções da Assembleia Mundial de Saúde há meio século, nunca teve espaço.

Como jornalista independente, deixo registrado no blog, na véspera da eleição, algumas poucas questões que gostaríamos que tivessem feito parte do processo eleitoral. 

Ficarão aqui como arquivo e cobrança para a próxima legislatura.

1 O Brasil interrompeu a série histórica nacional de IRAS e não há hoje ranking público por hospital, ao contrário dos EUA (CMS Hospital Compare) e UE. O Sr. se compromete a propor e apoiar um Marco Legal Federal de Transparência de Iatrogenia que institua: a) A obrigatoriedade de notificação pública, em transparência ativa e em formato aberto, de Eventos Adversos e de Infecções Relacionadas à Assistência à Saúde (IRAS); b) A publicação obrigatória e mensal, por todo hospital e serviço de saúde que receba verba pública direta do SUS ou indireta via benefícios fiscais e desonerações, das taxas de sepse hospitalar, infecção hospitalar, óbitos evitáveis e mortalidade pós-operatória em até 30 dias;   c) A vinculação do repasse de recursos e da manutenção de incentivos à comprovação dessa transparência; d) A previsão de sanções graduais, incluindo sanção administrativa, suspensão de contratos com o poder público, descredenciamento e responsabilização pessoal do gestor e do diretor técnico que omitir, retardar ou fraudar dados de morbimortalidade intra-hospitalar?

2 O Brasil já teve 670 mil casos de sepse por ano e, segundo publicação oficial do Instituto Latino Americano de Sepse (ILAS) de 06 de dezembro de 2016, sepse grave matou 400 mil brasileiros por ano, colocando o Brasil como campeão mundial em mortes por sepse ao lado da Malásia.  O custo anual foi de R$ 17 bilhões ao sistema hospitalar. Apesar da magnitude, esses dados de mortes, sequelas e custos não constam de forma clara, nominal por hospital e em tempo real no Portal da Transparência, nem são tratados como indicador central de qualidade e financiamento.Caso eleito(a), o(a) Sr(a). se compromete a apresentar e votar favoravelmente um Projeto de Lei de Transparência Ativa de Erros e Infecções Hospitalares que:

a) determine a divulgação aberta, mensal, nominal por instituição e em dados abertos, das taxas de infecção hospitalar, sepse e mortalidade por causas evitáveis;

b) obrigue hospitais públicos e privados, inclusive os beneficiados por recursos públicos diretos ou por isenções e benefícios fiscais, a essa divulgação;

c) preveja sanções severas e proporcionais, incluindo suspensão de repasses e descredenciamento, em caso de descumprimento?

3 Com base no diagnóstico do Banco Mundial (2017) de que o Brasil mantém um modelo hospitalocêntrico de alto custo e baixa eficiência, com alto volume de internações por condições sensíveis à atenção primária, e nos dados de permanência e custo por alta complexidade, o(a) Sr(a). se compromete a propor:

a) a criação de um Observatório Permanente de Auditoria de Custos e Desperdício Assistencial no âmbito do Congresso;

b) e/ou requerer uma CPI ou Auditoria do TCU sobre a alocação de recursos federais entre atenção hospitalar vs. atenção primária e preventiva, visando o redirecionamento do financiamento para medicina preventiva e atenção primária resolutiva?Pergunta 4 - Prevenção quaternária e pluralidade terapêutica segura

4 Inspirado no conceito de iatrogenia estrutural de Ivan Illich e no princípio da prevenção quaternária (evitar intervenções desnecessárias), considerando que o SUS já reconhece 29 Práticas Integrativas e Complementares (PICS), o(a) Sr(a). se compromete a legislar para:

a) que o Executivo e órgãos de controle (ANS, Anvisa) avaliem e incentivem intervenções de baixo custo e baseadas em prevenção, autonomia do paciente e prevenção quaternária;

b) garantir regulação isonômica e segura de profissionais e de práticas preventivas e integrativas já previstas no SUS, sem blindagem de monopólio assistencial ineficiente, sempre com critério de segurança e evidência?

5 O Sr. se compromete a propor e votar emendas à Lei de Diretrizes Orçamentárias (LDO) e à Lei Orçamentária Anual (LOA) para determinar que:

a) os gastos federais com saúde, especialmente internações de alta complexidade, passem obrigatoriamente por auditorias de eficácia, efetividade clínica e custo-efetividade, além do mero controle contábil de empenho e liquidação;

b) sejam adotados indicadores de desfecho clínico (mortalidade evitável, taxa de reinternação em 30 dias, taxa de infecção hospitalar) como critério para manutenção de repasses e contratos;

c) haja publicidade desses indicadores de efetividade por hospital, em transparência ativa, para combate ao desperdício de bilhões em internações desnecessárias ou de baixo valor assistencial?

6 Considerando que o Brasil possui menos de 10% dos hospitais acreditados com padrões de qualidade reconhecidos internacionalmente (ONA nível 3, JCI, Accreditation Canada), e que a acreditação reduz em até 40% eventos adversos evitáveis, o(a) Sr(a). se compromete a propor projeto que:

a) exija acreditação com padrão internacionalmente reconhecido como condição para manutenção de CEBAS, contratos com o SUS e recebimento de emendas parlamentares para hospitais;

b) determine que hospitais públicos e privados divulguem obrigatoriamente em seu site, na porta de entrada e no CNES se são ou não acreditados, e qual o selo e validade;

c) crie incentivo fiscal ou majoração de tabela SUS para hospitais que comprovarem acreditação plena e taxas de infecção abaixo da média nacional?

7 O(a) Sr(a). se compromete a assinar CPI para investigar especificamente a omissão dolosa de divulgação de taxas de infecção e mortalidade evitável no CNES e no Portal da Transparência, nos termos da Lei de Acesso à Informação, considerando que o país já foi o campeão mundial por sepse?

8 No Brasil, a regulação da Medicina Tradicional e Complementar tem ocorrido de forma precária por portarias ministeriais e resoluções de conselhos, gerando insegurança jurídica e disputas corporativas. Sendo eleito(a), o(a) Sr(a). apoiaria a retomada de projeto nos moldes do PL 5078/2005 — ou a proposição de novo marco legal — para criar formalmente a profissão de Medicina Tradicional Chinesa, estabelecendo critérios claros de formação e atuação, garantindo segurança jurídica aos praticantes e alinhando o Brasil às recomendações da OMS (Estratégia de Medicina Tradicional)?

9   O Brasil é o campeão mundial em números relativos de faculdades de medicina. Considerando que dados do CREMESP de 2010 apontaram que 9 em cada 10 médicos recém-formados foram reprovados em exame de avaliação de conhecimentos básicos, e diante da proliferação de cursos de saúde sem qualidade, o(a) Sr(a). apoiaria projeto de lei para instituir exame de proficiência obrigatório, nos moldes do Exame da OAB, como condição para inscrição e exercício profissional na área da saúde, visando a proteção da segurança do paciente? 

10 Considerando que revisão sistemática com 62 estudos demonstra que em 52% dos casos a performance clínica diminui à medida que aumenta o tempo de formado, e que estudos apontam decréscimo progressivo do conhecimento após 10 anos de prática, o(a) Sr(a). apoiaria projeto de lei para criar a obrigatoriedade de recertificação periódica a cada 5 anos para especialistas da saúde, mediante educação continuada, conforme já previsto na Resolução CFM de 2005? 

https://www.scielo.br/j/ramb/a/XsHsH4zs6WMtkCDfhRytXSt/?lang=pt

https://www.scielo.br/j/ramb/a/YLKcVHZJVyrtTs3pPKj3Dyk/?format=html&lang=pt&stop=previous

11 Considerando que o Brasil forma atualmente cerca de 50 mil médicos por ano, mas oferta apenas 22 mil vagas de residência, gerando déficit que em 2024 chegou a 11.074 vagas e deixando mais de 210 mil médicos como generalistas sem especialização, o(a) Sr(a). se compromete a apoiar projeto para cumprir a Lei do Mais Médicos (art. 5º da Lei 12.871/13) que determina vagas de residência equivalentes ao número de egressos, com ampliação progressiva financiada pelo SUS? 

https://executivosdasaude.com.br/2025/02/04/deficit-de-vagas-em-residencia-medica-impulsiona-crescimento-de-pos-graduacoes-em-medicina-no-brasil/

https://amb.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/RM_DemografiaMedica.pdf?_gl=1

https://medprovas.com.br/blog/falta-de-vagas-para-residencia-medicaco/

Reconfiguration of Coercion?

The analysis comparing historical disease management with the regulatory excesses surrounding the coronavirus takes on the precision of a biopolitical critique

The analysis comparing historical disease management with the regulatory excesses surrounding the coronavirus takes on the precision of a biopolitical critique.

The focus has shifted away from mass biological lethality to concentrate exclusively on institutional mechanisms—panic, social exclusion, persecution for one's views, and the suppression of fundamental rights—viewed through the lens of the proportionality, scope, and scale of this civic persecution.

Unlike leprosy—where decrees of banishment and isolation affected significant yet geographically confined segments of local or regional communities—the contemporary management of the coronavirus has driven a scale of civil persecution unprecedented in history. 

While the stigma attached to lepers in antiquity or the Middle Ages resulted in limited physical exclusion, the measures adopted during the contemporary pandemic simultaneously affected the entire connected global population.

If, in the Middle Ages, inquisitorial repression punished theological dissent or the rejection of religious dogma, in the modern era, technical-scientific disagreement and the questioning of official narratives were punished through administrative channels, transforming dissent into an infraction punishable by digital cancellation, institutional censorship, and professional ostracism.

There appears to have been an equivalence between the mechanisms of social and economic exclusion. The exclusion imposed on leprosy patients—a form of "civil death" characterized by the loss of family ties, a ban on accessing public spaces, and expulsion from the labor market—found a technologically and bureaucratically amplified mirror image during the recent health crisis.

The threat of job loss, the denial of access to public and private establishments, and restrictions on freedom of movement served as modern-day equivalents to historical edicts of exclusion. Contemporary citizens found themselves without effective avenues of recourse against bureaucratic decrees issued by untouchable authorities—authorities whose directives shifted according to political expediency and without the benefit of proper academic scrutiny. As is widely understood, the law takes precedence over the decree. Laws and decrees are distinct normative acts, possessing different legal force and functions; decrees, administrative orders, and similar normative acts cannot contravene the law, or else they risk being deemed illegal.[

A substitution of dogmas? Divine punishment and modern, unquestionable technoscientism

The common structural feature emerging from this comparison is the shift in the vocabulary and legitimation of power. While in Antiquity and the Middle Ages control was exercised through the threat of spiritual impurity and the invisible contagion of sin—backed by the unquestionable authority of the clergy, sacred texts, and Latin liturgies—in the pandemic era, control shifted to a technoscientific vocabulary (mathematical models, regulatory agency protocols, tests of dubious efficacy, and bureaucratic mandates). These served the exact same sociological function by shutting down debate, morally discrediting the dissenter (the "denialist"), and imposing blind obedience under the aegis of a non-negotiable scientific truth.

When isolating the analysis of pandemics based purely on physical lethality, it appears that the management of the coronavirus crisis surpassed that of leprosy—not in terms of direct physical brutality, but in the systemic and global perfection of its mechanisms for psychological coercion, surveillance, and the punishment of dissenting opinions.

The invisible cost stemming from domestic recrimination and the fracturing of everyday bonds is immeasurable.

One of the most painful dimensions of this entire process was the recrimination that played out within households, among longtime friends, and in workplaces. The health-related conflict was not confined to the abstract spheres of the State or high-level bureaucratic tribunals; it was internalized and replicated in private life, tearing apart the most fundamental emotional fabric of society.

Domestic inquisition and the fracturing of intimate bonds shook citizens' very self-esteem, as the imposition of fear-based narratives and the pathologization of human interaction turned homes into veritable ideological trenches.

Denunciation and moral judgment among family members: spouses, parents, children, and siblings who held differing views on protocols, health choices, or interpretations of reality began to regard one another with suspicion. A manufactured climate of panic legitimized intolerance within the family itself, where affection became contingent upon submission to sanitary dogmas.

Affective isolation as a form of punishment befell those who questioned official guidelines or refused to submit to mandates, as they experienced ostracism within their own inner circles. This banishment stemmed not only from state decrees but also from the dinner table, Christmas gatherings, and everyday conversations, inflicting deep—and often permanent—emotional wounds.

Intolerance in workplaces, social settings, leisure activities, and circles of friends created an institutional pressure that was mirrored by horizontal surveillance among peers.

As for corporate and social harassment? Professional colleagues and friends of decades turned into mutual censors; public recrimination, demands for conformity, and moral judgment of those who dared to exercise critical thinking became the norm.

The destruction of local social capital resulted in the loss of lifelong friendships and curtailed peaceful interaction with neighbors. Some of the greatest damage wrought by technocracy was not merely economic or political, but the systematic erosion of human solidarity and tolerance at the most immediate, personal level.

The silent psychological damage: another perverse facet of control engineering.

It was not simply a matter of confining bodies or restricting the right to work; the most profound collateral effect was the systematic demolition of the individual's self-confidence, dignity, and psychological integrity through the systematic invalidation of moral and critical conscience.

To subject a population to contradictory and irrational directives, it was necessary to destabilize the individual's belief in their own capacity for reason. Those who dared to question official dogmas were labeled, stigmatized, and publicly treated as ignorant or dangerous—guilty for thinking differently.

Being treated as a pariah by family, friends, and colleagues gradually erodes one's self-image, causing the ordinary citizen to question their own sanity and their worth in the eyes of others.

The humiliation of forced subordination—being compelled to bow to draconian protocols lacking solid scientific backing, under the threat of losing one's livelihood or social connections—engendered a profound sense of degradation. Self-esteem crumbles when an individual is forced to act against their own conscience and judgment merely to ensure social survival.

A collective narcissistic and existential wound was inflicted when this blow to self-esteem impacted both the avowed opponents of technocracy and society at large, at various levels.

For the few who resisted, there was the test of isolation, the exhaustion of swimming against the current, and the pain of realizing that the loyalty of old friends and family members was conditional upon blind obedience. Conversely, for those who obeyed out of fear, what often remained was silent remorse and the shame of having yielded to fear, silenced their convictions, or indirectly participated in the moral lynching of others.

The destruction of self-esteem and confidence in one's own mental faculties is the indelible mark of any regime of mass psychological coercion, leaving invisible scars that persist long after formal restrictions have ended.

The asymptomatic "dissident" of today in Christian societies and the leper of the past

The historical figure of the leper in antiquity reveals profound sociological and symbolic convergences regarding the mechanisms of social exclusion. At the same time, the hagiographic and Gospel traditions—depicting saints and Christ approaching and touching lepers—introduce a critical hermeneutic lens through which to view the ethics of care in the face of institutionalized fear.

In the context of the stigma surrounding invisible contagion in ancient times, the leper was segregated not merely due to visible physical damage, but because of the fear of a diffuse and often uncertain contagion. Analogously, during the health crisis, individuals who questioned or refused to comply with regulatory guidelines—or even those who showed no clinical signs of the disease—were transformed into abstract vectors of risk. Such questioning and/or the absence of objective symptoms gave rise to a presumption of biological guilt.

Just as the physical isolation mandated by Levitical law imposed upon the leper the obligation to cry out "unclean" and keep their distance from the community, the contemporary dissenter has suffered an analogous ostracism. The curtailment of the right to work, exclusion from public spaces, and the prohibition of social interaction functioned as modern forms of civil excommunication, grounded in the premise that mere dissent amounted to an existential threat to the social body.

The ritual of exclusion, moral banishment, and the inversion of fear

In contrast to the logic of prophylactic segregation and institutional dread, sacred and hagiographic narratives regarding the treatment of lepers by Jesus Christ and figures such as Saint Francis of Assisi propose a radical break from the biopolitics of fear.

The rejection of exclusionary stigma—along with the embrace of otherness and compassion found in the medieval Christian tradition of saints who held the marginalized close—demonstrates a refusal to instrumentalize sanitary terror to justify the dehumanization of the "other." While the technocratic establishment demands the suppression of dissent and the elimination of contact in the name of biological preservation at any cost, the ethics of holiness restores the affective bond and the sovereignty of the individual wounded by institutional oppression.

The rejection of exclusionary stigma, along with the embrace of otherness and compassion, within the medieval Christian tradition.

The example of saints who embraced the marginalized demonstrates a refusal to instrumentalize health-related fear to justify the dehumanization of the "other." While the technocratic establishment demands the suppression of dissent and the elimination of contact in the name of biological preservation at any cost, the ethics of holiness restores the affective bond and the sovereignty of the individual wounded by institutional oppression.

The proliferation of restrictive mandates and the stress resulting from institutional coercion have had detrimental effects on the population's emotional stability, exacerbating pre-existing conditions and cementing alarming indicators of psychological morbidity that place Brazil at critical levels in global epidemiological surveys; today, the country ranks first worldwide in anxiety and first in the Americas in depression.

Brazil leads the world in anxiety disorders, with more than one in four inhabitants having a medical diagnosis of anxiety (as of 2023). According to Forbes, "mental health has surpassed cancer to become the top concern for Brazilians," highlighting that the population is increasingly suffering from emotional ill-health; furthermore, the WHO reports that Brazil leads Latin America in the prevalence of depression and ranks second in the number of cases across the Americas.

The replacement of bonfires and physical banishment with socioeconomic sanctions, institutional censorship, and digital exclusion proves that the authoritarian impulse of the State and the bureaucracy remains intact, merely adapting its instruments of coercion to subject the individual to the dominant dogma.

Overcoming this period requires the non-negotiable restoration of human dignity, of scientific rigor grounded in open debate, and of uncompromising respect for fundamental rights. Only by recognizing that legitimate public health cannot flourish upon the ruins of freedom and informed consent will it be possible to restore institutional integrity and prevent the recurrence of authoritarian practices under the guise of collective protection.

Reconfiguração da Coerção?

A análise entre a gestão histórica de doenças e os excessos regulatórios do Corona ganha contornos de precisão biopolítica 

O foco deixou de ser a letalidade biológica em massa e passa a concentrar-se exclusivamente nos mecanismos institucionais de pânico, exclusão social, perseguição por opinião e supressão de garantias fundamentais na proporcionalidade do alcance e a escala da perseguição cívica.
Comparada à lepra, cujos decretos de banimento e isolamento atingiam parcelas expressivas-porém geograficamente limitadas de comunidades locais ou regionais-a gestão contemporânea do  Corona operou uma escala de perseguição civil sem precedentes históricos.
Enquanto o estigma do leproso na Antiguidade ou no medievo resultava em exclusão física restrita, as medidas adotadas na pandemia contemporânea atingiram simultaneamente a totalidade da população global conectada.
Se na Idade Média, a repressão inquisitorial punia a divergência teológica ou a recusa do dogma religioso, na era moderna, a divergência técnico-científica e o questionamento de narrativas oficiais foram punidos por vias administrativas, transformando o dissenso em infração passível de cancelamento digital, censura institucional e ostracismo profissional.
Parece ter havido uma equivalência dos mecanismos de exclusão social e econômica. A exclusão imposta aos doentes de lepra, a "morte civil" caracterizada pela perda do convívio familiar, proibição de acesso aos espaços públicos e banimento do mercado de trabalho, encontrou um espelhamento ampliado tecnológico e burocraticamente, durante a crise sanitária recente.
A ameaça de perda de emprego, a negação de acesso a estabelecimentos públicos e privados e a restrição ao direito de ir e vir funcionaram como sucedâneos modernos dos antigos editos de exclusão. O cidadão contemporâneo viu-se desprovido de instâncias de defesa efetivas frente a decretos burocráticos emitidos por autoridades intocáveis, cujas diretrizes mudavam ao sabor de conveniências políticas e sem o devido contraditório acadêmico. 
Como todos deveriam saber, a lei é superior ao decreto. Leis e decretos são atos normativos distintos, com força e funções diferentes. Decretos, portarias ou atos normativos não podem contrariar as leis, sob pena de ilegalidade.

Substituição do dogmas? O castigo Divino e o Tecnocientismo inquestionável moderno

O traço estrutural comum que emerge dessa comparação é a substituição do vocabulário e da legitimação do poder. Se na Antiguidade e no medievo: O controle exercia-se pela ameaça da impureza espiritual, do contágio invisível do pecado e pela autoridade inquestionável do clero respaldada por textos sagrados e liturgias em latim, na modernidade pandêmica o controle migrou para o vocabulário tecnocientífico (modelos matemáticos, protocolos de agências reguladoras, testes de eficácia duvidosa e mandatos burocráticos) que cumpriram exatamente a mesma função sociológica ao interditar o debate, desqualificar moralmente o opositor ("negacionista") e impor obediência cega sob a égide de uma verdade científica inegociável.
Ao isolar a análise das pandemias de letalidade puramente física, parece que a gestão do Corona superou a lepra não em brutalidade física direta, mas na perfeição sistêmica e global de seus mecanismos de coerção psicológica, vigilância e punição por divergência de opinião.
É imensurável o custo invisível decorrente da recriminação doméstica e fratura dos vínculos cotidianos
Umas das dimensões mais dolorosas de todo esse processo foi a recriminação que ocorreu dentro dos lares, entre amigos de longa data e nos ambientes de trabalho. O conflito sanitário não se limitou às esferas abstratas do Estado ou aos grandes tribunais burocráticos; ele foi interiorizado e reproduzido na vida privada, dilacerando o tecido afetivo mais elementar da sociedade.
A inquisição doméstica e a ruptura dos laços íntimos abalou a própria autoestima dos cidadãos pois a imposição de narrativas de medo e a patologização do convívio humano transformaram casas em verdadeiras trincheiras ideológicas.
A delação e o julgamento moral entre familiares: Cônjuges, pais, filhos e irmãos que divergiram em relação a protocolos, escolhas de saúde ou leituras da realidade passaram a se olhar com desconfiança. O clima de pânico fabricado legitimizou a intolerância dentro da própria família, onde o afeto foi condicionado à submissão a dogmas sanitários.
O isolamento afetivo como punição atingiu aqueles que questionaram as diretrizes oficiais ou recusaram imposições ao experimentar o ostracismo dentro do seu próprio círculo íntimo. O banimento não vinha apenas de decretos estatais, mas da mesa de jantar, do convívio de Natal e das conversas cotidianas, gerando feridas emocionais profundas e, muitas vezes, definitivas.
A intolerância nos espaços de trabalho, convivência, lazer e nas rodas de amizade criou uma pressão institucional que encontrou eco na vigilância horizontal entre pares.
O assédio moral corporativo e social? Colegas de profissão e velhos amigos de décadas converteram-se em censores uns dos outros e a recriminação pública, a cobrança por conformidade e o julgamento moral de quem ousava exercer o pensamento crítico tornaram-se rotina.
A destruição do capital social de proximidade gerou perda de amizades cultivadas ao longo de uma vida e o cerceamento do convívio pacífico com vizinhos. Alguns dos maiores danos da tecnocracia não foram apenas econômicos ou políticos, mas a corrosão sistemática da solidariedade humana e da tolerância ao nível mais humano e próximo possível.
Os danos psicológico silenciosos. Outra faceta perversa da engenharia de controle
Não se tratou apenas de confinar corpos ou restringir o direito ao trabalho; o efeito colateral mais profundo foi a demolição sistemática da autoconfiança, da dignidade e da integridade psicológica do indivíduo através da invalidação sistemática da consciência moral e crítica.
Para submeter uma população a diretrizes contraditórias e irracionais, foi necessário desestabilizar a crença do próprio indivíduo na sua capacidade de raciocinar. Quem ousou questionar os dogmas oficiais foi rotulado, estigmatizado e tratado publicamente como ignorante ou perigoso, culpado por pensar diferente.
 Ser tratado como pária por familiares, amigos e colegas corrói gradualmente a autoimagem, fazendo com que o cidadão comum questione a própria sanidade e o seu valor perante os outros.
A humilhação da subordinação forçada ao ser obrigado a se curvar a protocolos draconianos sem respaldos científicos sólidos sob a ameaça de perder o sustento ou o convívio social gerou uma sensação de humilhação profunda. A autoestima sucumbe quando o indivíduo é forçado a agir contra a própria consciência e o próprio discernimento para garantir a mera sobrevivência social.
A ferida narcísica e existencial coletiva abriu quando o abalo na autoestima afetou os opositores declarados da tecnocracia e a sociedade, em diferentes níveis.
Aos poucos que resistiram testou o peso do isolamento, a exaustão de nadar contra a correnteza e a dor de perceber que a lealdade de velhos amigos e familiares era condicional à obediência cega. Por outro lado, para os que obedeceram acuados restou, em muitos casos, o remorso silencioso e a vergonha de ter cedido ao medo, silenciado convicções ou participado indiretamente do linchamento moral de outros.
A destruição da autoestima e da confiança nas próprias faculdades mentais é a marca indelével de qualquer regime de coerção psicológica de massa, deixando cicatrizes invisíveis que persistem longamente após o fim das restrições formais. 

 O assintomático discordante de hoje nas sociedades cristãs e o leproso de antigamente

A figura histórica do leproso na antiguidade revela profundas convergências sociológicas e simbólicas nos mecanismos de exclusão social. Paralelamente, a tradição hagiográfica e evangélica que retrata santos e Cristo aproximando-se e tocando os leprosos introduz uma chave hermenêutica crítica sobre a ética do cuidado face ao medo institucionalizado.

No estigma da contaminação invisível na antiguidade, o leproso era segregado não apenas pelo dano visível, mas pelo temor de um contágio difuso e muitas vezes incerto. Analogamente, durante a crise sanitária, um indivíduo que questionasse ou recusasse a cumprir diretrizes regulatórias ou mesmo aquele um não apresentasse manifestações clínicas da doença, foram transformados em vetores abstrato de risco. O questionamento e/ou ausência de sintomas objetivos deu lugar a uma presunção de culpa biológica.

Assim como o isolamento físico exigido pelo levítico impunha ao leproso a obrigação de gritar "impuro" e manter distância da comunidade, o discordante contemporâneo sofreu um ostracismo análogo. O cerceamento do direito ao trabalho, a exclusão dos espaços públicos e a interdição do convívio social operaram como formas modernas de excomunhão civil, fundamentadas na premissa de que a mera dissidência equivaleria a uma ameaça existencial ao corpo social.

O cerimonial da exclusão, o banimento moral e a inversão do medo

Contrariamente à lógica da segregação profilática e do pavor institucional, as narrativas sagradas e hagiográficas sobre o tratamento dispensado aos leprosos por Jesus Cristo e por figuras como São Francisco de Assis propõem uma ruptura radical com a biopolítica do medo.

A recusa do estigma excludente, a alteridade e a compaixão na tradição cristã medieval ficam clara no exemplo de santos que abraçavam os marginalizados expressa a recusa em instrumentalizar o terror sanitário para justificar a desumanização do outro. Enquanto o estamento tecnocrático exige a anulação do dissenso e a eliminação do contato sob a égide da preservação biológica a qualquer custo, a ética da santidade reabilita o vínculo afetivo e a soberania do indivíduo ferido pela opressão institucional.

Brasil é campeão mundial em ansiedade e campeão americano em depressão

A proliferação de mandatos restritivos e o estresse decorrente da coerção institucional produziram impactos deletérios sobre a estabilidade emocional da população, exacerbando quadros clínicos preexistentes e consolidando indicadores alarmantes de morbidade psicológica que posicionam o Brasil em patamares críticos nos levantamentos epidemiológicos globais; hoje o país é campeão mundial em ansiedade e campeão americano em depressão.

O Brasil é o líder mundial em transtornos de ansiedade mais de um em cada quatro habitantes com diagnóstico médico de ansiedade (2023) .Segundo a Forbes, a "saúde mental ultrapassa o câncer e se torna a maior preocupação dos brasileiros”, alertando que o povo está cada vez mais adoecendo emocionalmente e, de acordo com a OMS, o Brasil lidera a América Latina com a maior prevalência de depressão e ocupa o segundo lugar em número de casos nas Américas.

A substituição das fogueiras e do banimento físico pelas sanções socioeconômicas, censura institucional e exclusão digital prova que a pulsão autoritária do Estado e da burocracia permanece intacta, adaptando apenas os seus instrumentos de coerção para submeter o indivíduo ao dogma dominante.

A superação desse período exige o resgate inegociável da dignidade humana, do rigor científico pautado pelo livre debate e do respeito intransigível aos direitos fundamentais. Somente por meio do reconhecimento de que a saúde pública legítima não pode florescer sobre os escombros da liberdade e do consentimento informado será possível restaurar a integridade institucional e evitar a reedição de práticas autoritárias sob a fachada da proteção coletiva.

Errors unmasked in the US Senate

Delayed response

The gradual unmasking of the house of cards built upon flawed models and authoritarian mandates exposes the most perverse face of contemporary biopolitics: the capacity to inflict massive planetary harm without the corresponding legal or moral accountability of its architects.

Is the absence of restitution for the persecuted and "cancelled" merely an accidental system failure, or is it irrefutable proof that the bureaucratic machine—when confronted with its own errors—prefers institutional silence over self-criticism and making amends to the innocent?

Could the thesis that collective rights hold such supremacy over individual rights as to nullify them reveal a distorted view of public law?

Did the management of the health crisis demonstrate that the systematic suppression of individual liberty failed to effectively protect the collective, while instead destabilizing the foundations of the rule of law?

Restoring the legal order requires acknowledging that legitimate public health measures can NEVER disregard the dignity, autonomy, and inalienable rights of every human being.

Those persecuted by health technocracy are unlikely to receive any financial compensation or moral redress.

While traditional political tyrants leave behind legacies and must answer for their actions after their fall, the architects of contemporary biopolitics have shielded themselves through decrees, protocols, and global corporate alliances, shifting the entire human, financial, and psychological burden onto the shoulders of citizens who dared to exercise critical thinking.

The imposition of a dogmatic and politicized "science" failed not only on strictly methodological or economic grounds; it failed fundamentally in its understanding of the human being, reducing the complexity of life in society to variables of epidemiological control. Since the global bureaucracy possesses neither the instruments—nor the moral will—to restore lost affection, heal fractured families, or salvage destroyed reputations, the only remaining form of justice lies in a rigorous historical record of the truth, preventing oblivion from enshrining the impunity of those who commodified fear and tore apart the social fabric.

The dance is over, but the choreographed dances will remain forever etched in memory.

BRICS Health Ministerial Declaration 2026

BRICS and the Regulation of Traditional Medicine: The Decisive Role of the WHO, ICD-11, and International Experiences

The 16th BRICS Health Ministers Meeting, held in Chandigarh, India, resulted in the most significant political recognition in the bloc's history regarding traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM). For the first time, the Health Ministerial Declaration included a section dedicated to the subject, solidifying the member countries' formal commitment to establishing a specialized working group aimed at fostering dialogue, technical cooperation, and scientific exchange in the field.

The document establishes a comprehensive agenda focused on generating scientific evidence and ensuring methodological rigor for the clinical validation of traditional practices. This includes fostering collaborative multicenter studies, sharing best practices, rigorously assessing quality, safety, and toxicity, and conducting pharmacovigilance. Additionally, the declaration strongly encourages the registration of clinical trials on traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) on internationally recognized platforms, such as the WHO global registry.

Another key aspect of the agreement is the strong emphasis on digital and technological innovation applied to traditional medicine, envisaging cooperation in the development of knowledge platforms and digital repositories, as well as integration with global initiatives such as the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Library. By aligning the bloc’s objectives with the WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034, BRICS strengthens the international architecture needed to promote the safe, effective, and scientifically backed use of these practices within their respective health systems.

The counterpoints

The conflict between tradition and modern science can be viewed as a "natural epistemological tension" that contemporary legislatures must resolve through legal expertise. International political coordination has bypassed one of the field's major normative challenges: operational integration and official standardization within global coding systems.

The BRICS text mentions the WHO International Traditional Medicine Clinical Trial Registry mechanism to focus on evidence generation and the scientific validation of treatments, yet it still fails to directly address the thorny issue of adopting and harmonizing ICD-11 within the domestic regulatory frameworks of its member countries.

While the ICD-11 (International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision—which incorporated the well-known Chapter 25 on traditional medicine diseases and patterns) serves as a diagnostic nomenclature and statistical coding system—used to record morbidity and mortality and to fill the regulatory gap in health systems—the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for Traditional Medicine is a database dedicated strictly to the registration and transparency of scientific research and therapeutic trials prior to their conduct and publication.

Both are completely different instruments and tools within the WHO, although they serve to lend scientific and institutional legitimacy to traditional medicine.

While the Chandigarh Declaration focuses on clinical validation, artificial intelligence, and the WHO Global Library of Traditional Medicine, the omission regarding the ICD-11 (specifically concerning Traditional Medicine codes) perpetuates the disconnect between the diplomatic rhetoric of inclusion and the practical reality of health systems.

Without an explicit guideline for adopting and aligning ICD-11 within the regulatory frameworks of the bloc's countries, the purported "elevation" of traditional medicine risks remaining merely a matter of scientific and market-driven intentions, while ignoring the structural failure of legislatures and health agencies to properly classify, bill for, and provide legal certainty regarding these practices.

Key points to consider

The Disconnect Between Evidence Generation and Diagnostic Harmonization (The Omission of ICD-11)

The document celebrates cooperation regarding clinical trials, therapeutic validation, and artificial intelligence platforms, yet remains completely silent on the incorporation of and alignment with ICD-11 (particularly Chapter 25).

The commitment to investment and clinical research aimed at proving the efficacy of traditional therapies hits a significant institutional barrier when—at the operational level of the healthcare system, such as in electronic health records, morbidity statistics, and official care logs—these practices remain devoid of unified statistical and regulatory coding. Without the proper diagnostic standardization enabled by ICD-11, academic and technological progress runs up against a bureaucratic and legal void that limits the effective systemic integration of these approaches.

Methodological Challenges in Transposing the 2015 Chinese Model

By seeking to elevate traditional medicine through generic cooperation guidelines, the bloc perpetuates the uncritical transposition of the regulatory model consolidated in China in 2015—which linked traditional medicine with biomedicine under a policy of strong state-led promotion—to radically different legal and health contexts.

A conceptual challenge arises when attempting to unify heterogeneous medical systems (such as acupuncture, Ayurveda, and traditional practices of African or Latin American origin) under a single diplomatic umbrella without adequately safeguarding their distinct epistemologies. Legislative drafting often uncritically adopts the rhetoric of "integrating" foreign experiences, resulting in legislative shortcomings by failing to develop regulatory frameworks properly adapted to the health sovereignty, biodiversity, and cultural plurality of each member country.

The regulatory model consolidated in China between 2015 and 2017 stands out as an effective tool for geopolitical projection and economic development, yet it harbors structural tensions from health and epistemological perspectives. Conceptually and clinically, the attempt to integrate modern biomedicine with traditional systems rooted in philosophical principles creates friction with methodological rigor. This scenario is exacerbated by state-led promotion that sometimes prioritizes cultural sovereignty over transparent, independent clinical evaluations, thereby complicating efforts toward coherent standardization.

Furthermore, the uncritical transposition of this model to the international stage—reflected in multilateral agreements and global guidelines—transfers regulatory weaknesses to partner countries that often lack the same industrial infrastructure and quality control capabilities at the source. The absence of methodological safeguards equivalent to those required of the conventional pharmaceutical industry risks entrenching a double regulatory standard. Thus, the institutional arrangement may reveal a significant technical gap in harmonizing the preservation of traditional therapeutic heritage with evidence-based health safety requirements.

Shifting Priorities: Betting on Digital Innovation Amidst Local Regulatory Inertia

The text relies on cutting-edge innovations—such as integration with the WHO Global Library, digital repositories, and artificial intelligence—as solutions for advancing the field, thereby deviating from logical and methodological priorities. This approach skips essential foundational steps; it is challenging to aim for the digitization, automation, and AI-driven application of integrative therapies on a transnational scale when many countries in the bloc lack consolidated federal laws or unified professional councils. The lack of legal certainty regarding practitioner qualification, oversight mechanisms, and the proper integration of procedures into public health systems (such as Brazil’s Unified Health System) demonstrates that a technological focus may temporarily mask regulatory gaps without addressing the need for fundamental legislative improvements.

The Limitations of Soft Law: The Illusion of Harmonization without Binding Obligations

BRICS ministerial declarations operate under the logic of "soft law," consisting of policy recommendations devoid of coercive or binding force. Although the countries agree on an ambitious agenda for international cooperation, they retain full autonomy to disregard these guidelines within their domestic spheres. The creation of working groups and expert committees fosters the production of reports and dialogue forums but lacks mechanisms to mandate concrete targets for national legislative alignment. Consequently, a continuous flow of diplomatic deliberations is established—generating institutional formality—yet this has little to no impact on the actions of national parliaments and regulatory agencies.

The Gap Between International Discourse and Parliamentary Practice

BRICS ministerial declarations and global guidelines operate under the logic of "soft law," consisting of recommendations devoid of coercive or binding force. Although these countries agree on an ambitious agenda for international cooperation, they retain full autonomy to disregard the guidelines domestically, resulting in a continuous stream of diplomatic deliberations that offer solemnity but have zero impact on national parliaments. In Brazil, this disconnect is exemplified by absolute legislative stagnation: the only structured bill regarding traditional medicine—Bill 5078/2005, authored by Federal Deputy Edson Valverde—lapsed due to the expiration of the legislative term, without any political mobilization, institutional interest, or initiative to reintroduce it. The creation of international committees and isolated administrative orders thus serves as a palliative, infralegal response that masks the absence of a consistent regulatory framework and hollows out the practical significance of multilateral strategies.

A key issue in the regulatory literature concerns the misalignment between the rigorous standards required of the conventional pharmaceutical industry and the criteria applied to traditional medicinal products.

While this historical flexibility has been crucial for the accessibility of these therapies, it presents the challenge of enhancing quality control mechanisms and good manufacturing practices, ensuring that commercial expansion is accompanied by health safeguards equivalent to those found in biomedicine.

Another aspect debated by experts is the methodological challenge arising from the institutional legitimation of traditional practices alongside the evidence-based medicine model. The transposition of regulatory frameworks based on state or cultural guidelines—such as the initiative launched in 2015—sparks academic discussion regarding the need to reconcile the preservation of traditional therapeutic heritage with the requirement for independent, transparent clinical validation, thereby ensuring a balance between cultural sovereignty and patient safety.

International Models as Paradigms for Primary Regulation

Overcoming the regulatory vacuum and the inertia of emerging blocs requires that established international experiences no longer be ignored. The regulatory frameworks of nations that have effectively structured traditional medicine should form the core of a rigorous methodological agenda: they should be meticulously studied, subjected to technical debate, adapted to local realities, agreed upon by BRICS member states, implemented within domestic legal systems, and widely disseminated.

In 2009, Switzerland enshrined four complementary and alternative medicine practices—homeopathy, anthroposophic medicine, phytotherapy, and acupuncture—in its Federal Constitution (Article 118a), integrating them into the mandatory health insurance system following a successful public referendum.

Australia regulated traditional Aboriginal medicine ("Bush Medicine") in conjunction with its unified professional accreditation framework—the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme, managed by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)—establishing a federal system that standardized training, mandatory registration, and ethical oversight for traditional and complementary practices (such as acupuncture and Chinese medicine) across the country.

In the United States, although the healthcare system is decentralized, there is a consolidated regulatory framework at both state and federal levels—exemplified by guidelines from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The regulation of acupuncture and integrative practices is legally formalized in the vast majority of states through licensing boards that mandate standardized national certification exams (such as those from the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine—NCCAOM) and rigorous university-level training. This model prioritizes patient safety, integration with evidence-based medicine, and the clear legal definition of the professional scope of practice.

Portugal, in turn, represents a paradigmatic case in Europe of a successful transition from a regulatory vacuum to full legal formalization. After decades of ambiguous tolerance, the country enacted Law No. 45/2003 and, subsequently, the robust regulations consolidated by Laws No. 71/2013 and No. 109/2019; these established a legal framework and a system of professional credentials for so-called "non-conventional therapies" (including acupuncture, Traditional Chinese Medicine, osteopathy, and homeopathy). The Portuguese model demonstrates how parliamentary political will can overcome legislative inertia by creating a distinct professional status, defining higher education requirements, and subjecting therapists to the oversight of public health authorities.

South Korea has consolidated a dual healthcare system featuring equivalent state licenses and mandatory national insurance coverage, demonstrating that the sector's stability rests on firm legal foundations and long-term state strategies.

In all these contexts, the structuring of professional councils, oversight mechanisms, health safety criteria, and public funding does not happen by chance; these elements are the logical and institutional outcome of primary, binding legal regulation. A refusal to examine, adapt, and adopt these structured normative foundations signals the fragility of forums that prioritize diplomatic formality over popular sovereignty, legal certainty, and effective health outcomes.

The Disconnect with the Existing Regulatory Framework: The Omission of World Health Assembly Resolutions

Another aspect worth considering when analyzing BRICS declarations is the divergence from the normative frameworks and past resolutions adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA). Although the bloc celebrates new cooperation agreements on traditional medicine, it fails to engage with the history of commitments and structural goals previously established by the WHO—such as the 2002–2005 agenda, whose integration and monitoring objectives faced domestic implementation challenges, evidenced by responses that were predominantly partial and based on regulations below the level of statutory law. Issuing new BRICS declarations without properly connecting them to this regulatory legacy highlights the challenge of aligning emerging diplomatic forums with established global guidelines, underscoring the need to overcome the fragmentation between multilateral commitments and the effectiveness of national public policies.

The WHO’s Normative History: A Consolidated Yet Unfulfilled Agenda

To grasp the extent of legislative omission and regulatory apathy—exemplified in the Brazilian context by the stagnation and expiration of parliamentary initiatives such as the bill proposed by Deputy Edson Valverde—it is necessary to revisit the extensive body of norms produced by the World Health Organization (WHO). Over the course of decades, the World Health Assembly (WHA) and the Executive Board adopted a series of structural resolutions that had already established guidelines for the safe integration, regulation, and research of traditional medicine.

The history of World Health Assembly resolutions demonstrates that the regulatory challenge regarding traditional medicine is not a lack of global normative parameters, but rather their chronic failure to be effectively implemented at the domestic level. Key milestones in this global regulatory legacy include historic resolutions such as WHA40.33 (1987), which called for the rational evaluation of traditional medicine; WHA42.43 (1989) and WHA44.34 (1991), focused on the promotion and appropriate use of medicinal plants; WHA56.31 (2003), which approved the global strategy for the 2002–2005 period and mandated systematic monitoring by Member States; WHA62.13 (2009), which reinforced the need for integrated universal coverage and the strengthening of national regulatory frameworks; and subsequent resolutions that culminated in the WHO Traditional Medicine Global Strategy (2025–2034).

Each Resolution marks a fundamental stage in the evolution—and the ongoing challenges—of traditional medicine regulation. For example:

WHA22.54 (1969): One of the first milestones to warn of the risks and economic waste associated with the empirical and unregulated use of traditional medicines, while highlighting the need for rigorous scientific research.

WHA29.72 (1976): Focused on health workforce development, recommending the integration and utilization of traditional practitioners within primary health care.

WHA30.49 (1977): A pre-Alma-Ata era milestone that urged governments to promote training and research in traditional systems, calling for appropriate regulation tailored to each national health system.

WHA35.33 (1982): Outlined guidelines on the appropriate use of herbal medicines and the need for international cooperation to assess their safety and efficacy. (Note: Together with the famous WHA40.33 of 1987, it consolidated the initial call for rational assessments).

WHA40.83 (1987): Reinforced the fundamental role of medicinal plants in health care and the urgent need for national quality control programs.

WHA41.19 (1988): Explicitly called upon Member States to critically evaluate the safety, efficacy, and quality of traditional medicines, while combating trade and use lacking scientific backing.

The progression from earlier normative frameworks and resolutions approved by the World Health Assembly also encompasses the recent guideline approved at WHA78 (2025), which formalized the Global Strategy on Traditional Medicine (2025–2034).

The WHO has amassed a substantial body of recommendations regarding safety, efficacy, quality control, and professional regulation. However, the refusal or inability of national parliaments to translate this framework into binding legislation—opting instead for isolated, piecemeal administrative orders—reveals that legislative inertia is a systemic, structural pattern; within this context, forums such as BRICS persist in reiterating diplomatic pledges that remain disconnected from this vast—and historically unfulfilled—normative legacy.

The contrast between this robust international framework—comprising over a dozen resolutions and global advocacy strategies—and the scarcity of effective national laws highlights the structural flaw of "soft law." 

In addition to the WHO Benchmarks, another foundational yet frequently overlooked normative document is the "WHO Guidelines on Developing Consumer Information on Proper Use of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine". These guidelines establish essential technical parameters to assist Member States in developing clear, safe, and accessible information for consumers regarding the proper use of traditional, complementary, and alternative practices. The document addresses a critical gap by tackling information asymmetry in the healthcare market, providing a methodological basis for governments to formulate patient protection policies, curb misleading advertising, and promote therapeutic safety through active, evidence-based regulatory action.

WHO discussions and guidelines regarding traditional medicine (TM) go beyond the historic 1978 Declaration of Alma-Ata, taking shape through milestones, global conferences, and specific resolutions that require translation into domestic norms. Key examples in this process include the Beijing Declaration (2008)—adopted at the WHO International Congress on Traditional Medicine—which urged governments to integrate traditional medicine into their national health systems; the WHO Traditional Medicine Strategies (featuring multi-year cycles of global guidelines); and the more recent WHO Global Summits on Traditional Medicine (such as the 2023 event and subsequent editions), which reinforce the need for scientific evidence, health safety, and rigorous regulation. Such forums and declarations provide the essential political-institutional foundation for national parliaments to establish primary, binding legal frameworks.

The World Health Organization's Traditional Medicine Resolutions, its Global TM Strategies, TM Benchmarks and TM Guidelines, as well as the inclusion of TM in ICD-11 and examples of TM regulation observed globally, cannot be overlooked. 

They are the backbone of the process of regulating Traditional Medicine.