How a simple statistical number became medicine’s cultural gatekeeper—and how we reclaim truth beyond binaries.

---

TRIGGER WARNING

The following text contains the overlooked, invaluable lived experiences of countless humans with the hegemony of modern Western science over patients and humanity—its inherent dehumanization, and its often neglected systemic limits when it designs and produces life-saving innovations.

Those accounts are often tone-policed, substance-minimized, content-controlled, negated, ignored, or even sometimes pathologized to be neutralized in mainstream modern Western science, the towering authority to tell humanity’s reality. It keeps an expert-centric knowledge that is based on power and control over empathy and connection—meaning the capacity to understand humanity’s experience beyond a smooth microscope on a shiny lab bench surrounded by the four concrete white walls of a glass skyscraper.

Characterizing patients as non-compliant or difficult, and their conditions challenging, or even inexistent, as patients with long COVID experienced, is only one narrative. Seeing them as humans having a human experience that hits science’s limits is another one. We can choose the story we want to tell —meaning the constellation of knowledge that connects the facts: with power and control or empathy and connection. The bottom line is that we only need to be self-aware—meaning to know and disclose the deep places that shape our narrative. And this insightful book chooses to tell how those two seemingly disconnected accounts are interconnected, through empathic knowledge from the most profound place of healing deep wounds.

This empathic historical and scientific narrative is a collective healing art inspired by collaborations between scientists and artistic-researcher patients in Europe, and rooted in humanity’s different cultural perspectives—Asian, African, and Native American traditions, amongst others. It is designed to explore, understand, and accept humanity’s subjectivity in Western science. It aims to put re-humanized healing and build a shared vocabulary with the common experience many of us encounter with medical science’s limitations.

While aiming to diagnose, heal, and/or restore knowledge, this powerful book has been crafted with and for patients, so that they can collectively reclaim their reality. It’s especially helpful when they engage in the asymmetrical relationship with modern Western medical science, especially in professional or regular unpaid self-advocacy labor.

Reclaiming one’s reality in such an imbalanced power context is challenging. The text contains dense academic language, dampened by captivating storytelling. Yet, the author trusts in the patients’ exceptional strengths, courageous engagement, and multidimensional intelligence expressed in their skewed relationship with modern Western science. Those superpowers are theirs and only theirs: they earned them by becoming the most trustworthy experts of applied science’s lived reality.

It’s up to each superhero to decide if and when they want to respond to the challenges of rewarding reading, rewarding skimming, rewarding resting, rewarding retiring, and/or any other rewarding activities. It’s their enlightening story and empowering tool.

This creative book has been written in fractal geometry. The story read like a spiral revealing the DNA of the reality being counted. It means that each chapter contains itself like a compelling story while being connected to the whole narrative. It’s balanced between short and long chapters. While some words, ideas, and concepts might be new for many, they can be understood within the context, without the need to dig further, unless the reader wants to.

This non-linear multidimensional structure enables patients to read a deeply multi-layered text at their own pace over weeks, months, or even years, without losing the thread. Thus, the author recommends approaching each chapter as if it were one book. Take breaks in between for as long as needed to self-reflect, share with the community, and/or rest. To help, the longest chapters have recommended breaks signaled with three stars (***).

To help the reader manage their time, each chapter title is followed by one or several asterisks indicating the average reading time range when skimming the book:
Short* (15-30 min)
Average** (30-60 min)
Long*** (1 h to 3 h)
Please note that those reading ranges are only indicative, not prescriptive.

Other readers:

Curious guest academics, executives, and other top experts with little exposure to the human reality outside the comfortable confines of mirror-deprived, pristine ivory institutions, physically, psychologically, and emotionally, might experience profound distress at the human-centred self-reflection depicted in the text. The latter is representative of humanity’s experience with modern Western science’s limitations.
The author’s multidimensional perspective and unique positionality do not negate those open experts’ unique perception of reality—or of themselves. It only refuses to enable the hegemonic behavior that hurts patients and humankind.

Instead, it’s an invitation to sit in deep discomfort and grow like the countless courageous multi-disciplinary scientists and other humble Western-educated experts who have expanded their reductive expertise. We heard and accepted the hardest truths and experienced what patients do and what is banned in our sanitized work: feelings. It’s one of the many expressions of intellectual humility for those ready to change and co-create new paradigms with empowered patients.

Trusted traditional experts entrenched in a 400-year rational position, and unused to facing emotional realities within science, are advised to stay away from the text for the sake of their mental, physical, and environmental well-being.

This creative healing book is particularly contra-indicated in cases of aversion to patients’ thought-provoking constellations of experiential knowledge.

If this warning that empowers patients already triggers any sensibilities, distressed readers are advised to close this book and seek immediate psychological, spiritual, and/or communal support, while retreating in a safe echo chamber.

What is going to be seen cannot be unseen. Proceeding further is left at the reader’s discretion.

---

1. What is the p-value in medicine really about? *

To understand the p-value in medicine, a number that scientists use to judge whether a drug study result seems real or just a random chance, we must step back to the larger framework in which it was born: European binary logic.

• In modern Western knowledge, binary logic underpins the idea that truth is established by dividing the world into opposites: true/false, rational/irrational, civilized/uncivilized.
• In modern Western science, this logic manifests in the insistence that knowledge must be provable by eliminating alternatives, leaving a singular “truth.”
• In modern Western medical science, binary logic plays out as healthy vs. sick, effective vs. ineffective, significant vs. insignificant. It leaves little space for ambiguity, context, or cyclical realities of illness and healing.
  
  

The p-value sits squarely inside European binary logic. It is a statistical device used to decide whether a medical observation crosses a threshold of “significance.” If below 0.05, it is considered “true enough”; if not, it is dismissed as chance. This 0.05 threshold was not handed down by nature—it was chosen in the 1920s by Sir Ronald A. Fisher, an English statistician and geneticist trained at Cambridge. Fisher proposed it as a convenient boundary, not as a universal truth. But once codified, it became a cultural script: a way to simplify uncertainty into “yes” or “no,” “real” or “not real.”

This binary logic is the basis of any Western knowledge. It’s perceived and called discriminative logic from an expert perspective.

For patients and humanity, the implications are profound. A treatment that helps a community but doesn’t cross this arbitrary line may be dismissed as ineffective. Conversely, a drug may be declared “proven” even if its benefits are marginal in lived experience. The p-value became less about health and more about authority. It disciplines uncertainty into binary categories—effective vs. ineffective, real vs. unreal. Hence, the cultural script became the scientific scripture ruling patients’ lives.

This expert’s discriminative binary logic is experienced as discriminatory logic by the patients. One logic, two different effects depending on the position of who applies it and who receives it. This dynamic is called positionality in decolonial studies. It might be one of the least understood and most ignored concepts in medical science. This discriminative/discriminatory positionality theory is absent from medical curricula, drug approval regulatory frameworks, and scientists’ and healthcare professionals’ post-education training.

There is a 400-year history of favoring the experts’ artificial objectivity over patients’ lived experience, over a few decades of faint realization that the human experience might differ from modern Western science’s observation. Thus, this enlightening story is dedicated to the discriminative/discriminatory positionality experienced by the patients. So, they can move further into a position where they can justifiably reclaim their reality and humanity and challenge scientists and other experts to engage with them more humanely. Patients have an inalienable expertise on their reality: it’s this insightful book’s empowering assumption. Anyone challenging it has the duty to disclose to patients what is theirs.

---

2. How eugenics shaped the P-value and the related human experience significance ***

“Culture influences science and science influences culture,” would be the result of trying to summarize the monumental works of post-modernist French philosopher Michel Foucault, post-positivist philosopher Bruno Latour, and American historian Thomas Kuhn. Since cultural scripts are embedded in modern Western science, it’s critical to understand where they come from and how they impact patients today. It helps to understand the often-ignored dynamics of the expert’s discriminative logic vs. patient/humanity’s discriminatory treatment. Positionality tells us that they are the narratively segregated two sides of the same story, inherent to European binary logic.

The p-value’s roots are inseparable from the eugenics movement, one of the most discriminative/discriminatory mainstream sciences that humanity ever experienced, even as per largely forgotten Western historical records.

Eugenics, a 19th–20th century ideology, claimed that humanity could be “improved” by encouraging reproduction of those deemed “fit” and discouraging or preventing that of those deemed “unfit.” Sir Francis Galton—an English statistician, cousin of Charles Darwin, and a Cambridge-trained polymath—coined the term “eugenics.” Considered a genius by Western academics, the forensic scientist, photograph scientist, meteorologist, world explorer, cartographer, anthropologist, biologist, and founder of scientific and quantitative psychology, developed statistical tools—regression, correlation, distributions—to measure human “fitness.

Eugenics had a major impact on how Western science sees reality and health today. It’s an essential part of modern medicine’s genealogy. Exploring the important factors that contributed to the emergence of now-debunked science is crucial to understanding why this invisible movement continues to shape modern Western medical science, and how the systematic expression of its DNA impacts all patients.

Eugenics happens at the intersection of four fundamental movements in modern Western science, from the 19th century, still happening today:

1)The separation of science and the humanities. Western science continued the modernization started in the 17th century by outsourcing its memory to history, spirituality to religion, consciousness to ethics, intellectual self-reflection to philosophy, emotional self-reflection to art, and later to psychology when modern science scientized humankind’s subjectivity.

This self-dehumanization, self-repression by outsourcing consciousness to the humanities was thought to ensure objectivity and neutrality, along with wilful ignorance—a reality blindness still applied in medical research today, for example, in the concept of expert-blinded/patient-blinded study.

Ignoring and suppressing one’s inherent humanity is a process that today’s psychology would argue increases subjectivity if it were an individual. Nonetheless, because science is an institution, the lack of objectivity is thought to be a minor systemic problem in modern Western science until today. Scientists even go through a rigorous priest-like intellectual academic training that is believed to make them superhumans gifted with supreme objectivity.

2) The standardization after the chemical revolution. French polymath Lavoisier—one of the founding fathers of modern chemistry—established that for quantitative experiments to be reproducible (Traité Élémentaire de Chimie, 1789), starting materials had to be pure. It started a race to establish standards of purity to ensure reliability. Later in the 19th century, this standardization enabled chemistry to achieve a new level of reproducibility: methods and data of an experiment had to be documented with such detail and clarity that other researchers could perform the exact same experiment under the same conditions and obtain the same results. When experiments are replicated (repeated with new data by new researchers) and get the same results, the discipline proves its reliability—making it trustworthy. Trust is the feeling earned by a track record of reliability. The discipline became what it is today: reproducible, replicable, reliable, and therefore trustworthy —the three Rs canon of Western science.

3) The germ theory of disease, established through the work of French chemist Louis Pasteur, British surgeon Joseph Lister, and German physician Robert Koch, revolutionized medicine by proving that specific microorganisms caused deadly illnesses like tuberculosis, cholera, rabies, and surgical sepsis. They developed reproducible methods to control these pathogens through sterilization, antiseptics, and vaccination. This scientific breakthrough launched a public health crusade for cleanliness, creating a powerful new cultural ideal of “purity.” This quest for a “germ-free” reality drove massive sanitation reforms but was also misapplied, helping to fuel dangerous social ideologies like eugenics, which sought to “purify” the human population itself.

4) Physicians became scientists. Western science reduced its understanding of the body and mind to machines. In this mechanistic perception, patients, humanity, their experiences, and all reality were reduced to compiled data to advance modern Western science. It was the inevitable step after the increasingly hegemonic discipline’s binary logic fragments their understanding into cells and the smallest perceptible elements—a process called rationalization. Compiled data became the European binary logic lens to perceive reality’s big picture. Meanwhile, hospitals, the Christian charitable institutions for the poor, adopted in the West from the Islamic world, became sites of diseased population control and disorder eradication.

Those four movements happen in the cultural backdrop of two major interlinked contexts: the Atlantic Revolutions and the European colonial expansion.

The Atlantic Revolutions: from tyranny to freedom
The Atlantic Revolutions (1775-1825) were a wave of democratic uprisings, including the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions. United by Enlightenment ideas, they aimed to overthrow oppressive monarchies. They replace them with governments based on popular sovereignty and individual rights. They built the notion of national identity to unite the liberated monarchical subjects so that the latter could feel free democratic citizens.

This period was fundamentally responsible for creating the modern model of Western democracy by introducing the powerful concepts of mass political participation and public opinion, transforming mostly ignorant, illiterate subjects into informed, educated citizens and establishing them as the primary source of a government’s legitimacy and powers. The benevolent elites of European descent took upon themselves the gigantic responsibility to help this transformation, as per official Western historical accounts.

The European colonial expansion: from freedom to tyranny
However, the era of liberation of the Atlantic Revolutions and the formation of a political “public” in the West was simultaneously the height of European colonial terror and expansion for others. It’s a process erasing the cultural identity that began in 1492 and ending with Britain’s 1997 transfer of Hong Kong’s sovereignty to China in the official Western historical. Yet, in the present narrative of most humans that Western Europe has colonized, it’s an ongoing process, like the Native Americans, for example.

The historical context and related psychology behind this complex movement influenced Western science:

Scarcity → Hoarding → Science of Extraction
Repeated crop failures during the Little Ice Age and recurring famines left Europe haunted by hunger and want. That fear of scarcity fostered a hoarding instinct: secure food, fuel, and wealth at any cost. Colonies were seized as warehouses of survival, their soils turned into monocultures, and their lands stripped of minerals, timber, and oil. To make this possible, European science catalogued plants, mapped resource deposits, refined extraction techniques in geology and chemistry, and engineered vast systems of mining and plantation — turning survival anxiety into global depletion.

Insecurity → Domination → Science of Control
Centuries of internecine wars and political instability made European states deeply anxious about their fragility. That insecurity morphed into a compulsion to dominate others, as conquering foreign lands became proof of strength. Colonial regimes imposed hierarchies of power, reducing people to subjects, including patients. Science was mobilized to sustain this domination: cartography to claim territory, anthropology to rank human worth, and tropical medicine to keep soldiers alive in hostile environments. In medicine, the concept of humanity was reduced to a controllable functional machine that needed to be fixed when it malfunctioned: it’s the script that medical research and clinical decisions still follow today.

Fear of Death → Fantasy of Immortality → Science of Preservation
The Black Death and repeated plagues etched mortality into Europe’s collective psyche. To soothe this fear of annihilation, empires built fantasies of permanence and forever relevance: the empire would outlast death. Colonies became sites to collect, classify, and conserve — not just goods, but life itself. Scientific institutions preserved bodies in museums, mapped fossils into universal histories, and developed medical breakthroughs that promised longevity. Forever-relevant modern Western science thus served as the empire’s promise of immortality, turning death into data.

Hurt people hurt people. Western Europe’s unresolved issues became the world’s biggest problem.
For Africa, the Americas, Asia, and the Pacific Islands, the European colonization of the world marks a dark period of savage dehumanization, exploitation to death, abject physical and mental abuse, eradication, forced transformation, and deep generational trauma for many, and personal enrichment for a few.

In the 19th century, the USA continued to manifest its perceived valid God-given destiny on the perceived invalid Native Americans, moving westward. Meanwhile, Western Europe advanced its own in Asia and Africa. Swedish physician Karl Linnaeus’s racial classification (1735) was already one of the bases to justify the submission of animalistic black Africans, red Native Americans, brown South Asians, and almost civilized yellow Asians. Nineteenth-century modern scientific racism based on British naturalist Charles Darwin’s human evolution theory and Austrian botanist Gregor Mendel’s modern genetics became Linnaeus’ contribution’s inevitable evolution. It solidified this artificial Eurocentric order and the binary concept of the civilized superior whiteness versus the savage colored world.

For the self-perceived benevolent elites of European descent, the transformation of the mostly ignorant, illiterate European subjects into informed, educated citizens and the control of the rest of humanity became a pressing matter. One group representing the public was perceived as having an innate right to participate in the Western democratic system. The other one could only gain this right if they fought for it and showed themselves worthy of it.

European colonization conflated civilization, socialization (for the perceived civilized West), domestication (for the perceived savage world), modernization (for the salvageable humankind), and scientization (the perceived supreme process to achieve those grandiose delusions), amongst others, steadfast beliefs.

Hence, modern Western science had a major impact on “modernizing” Western society and the world, as it produced more cost-saving and time-saving innovations to save the perceived endangered humanity, with some perceived civilized humans being seen as more salvageable than others.

With this historical perception, modern Western science solidified the so-called Enlightenment idea of its universality and supremacy based on its perceived objectivity and neutrality. It also embraced the ideas of progress at all costs, imposing onto the world that it perceived only it could save, help, and improve, thanks to the scientization of reality.

Thanks to its perceived universality, modern Western science could replace any beliefs and unify humanity—a philosophy called positivism in exclusionary academic circles. Thanks to the labor of its ordained intellectual priests, the scientists, it could achieve global peace and prosperity. Humanity just had to become rational and objective by undergoing the same self-dehumanization that modern Western society went through to become the supreme rational human reflecting the grandiose image of glorified discipline.

Indeed, the civilized binary logic of modern Western science could control unpredictability and bring order in a perceived chaotic, savage natural world, including the “uncivilized” people inhabiting it.

Through modern Western science, the rational, objective, neutral, healthy, able-bodied, mentally-fit, wealthy, educated, Christian European man—the defined human standard then—could finally dominate nature. By taming the unforgivable environment that brought so many pleas to Europe, he could finally and eternally win the binary fight of order against chaos in the world. It wasn’t a question of philosophy; it was a question of survival.

The self-dehumanization and scientization of humanity were perceived as such a small price to pay to stay alive. So, humankind could easily replace its humane consciousness with a superior scientific one, by choice or by force.

This binary thinking gave birth to colonial maths: Indigenous genocide + savage exploitation + any past and future colonial-rooted abuse, including the scientific & medical ones + smallpox vaccines + anti-depressant + cancer immunotherapy + any future Western innovations = Net Positive.

Since this deadly intersection of four scientific realities—the separation of science from the humanities, the establishment of chemical purity standard, the germ theory, and the scientization of physicians—in a cultural backdrop of Western freedom and global submission, the unofficial motto of the sanctified discipline became, “Shoot innovation first, ask questions later, and let the humanities deal with the casualties.”

*

European binary logic works well for material realities, like discriminating impurities in chemistry, but when used in immaterial realities, like humanity also is, it is dehumanizing. Yet, it’s the basis of modern Western science, reducing humans to a material reality, as if we didn’t feel and experience anything, as if we had no memory, no agency, and no will of our own. It’s as if we were the objects necessary for modern Western science to perceive itself as objective. It’s as if it’s the condition for it to feel, think, and so “be” culturally objective and control reality’s unpredictability. It’s still the basis of evidence-based medicine today.

Meanwhile, in the late 19th century, when Galton shot his profoundly misguided innovation, he imagined a discriminative science that measured and ranked human worth. His worldview was not just scientific—it was cultural, from a place of deep wound, unprocessed trauma, and extreme survival, amongst others.

The polymath’s then-perceived neutral theories shaped Western culture’s reality by “naturalizing” hierarchy: framing some humans as more “fit,” more rational, more deserving of survival. He set standards for humanity and minimizing diversity—or statistical variance—to ensure a perceived desirable uniformity, a condition necessary for modern Western science to scientifically process the universe’s naturally heterogeneous reality.

The ability of eugenics and its inseparable method, statistics, to bring order to a perceived natural chaos appealed to all Western disciplines. They both became mainstream modern science in the West. While statistics scream loud and clear as a standard methodology today, eugenics is still hiding in plain sight for those who learn to decipher its wincing whispers.

In the early 20th century, eugenics was a perceived life-saving rational, scientific method. It was embraced by all Western knowledge, as illustrated in the first international eugenics conference held in London in 1912, the same year the perceived unsinkable Titanic ship sank from technological hubris. Co-presided amongst others by Nobel Literature Prize recipient Sir Winston Churchill and politician and economist Major Leonard Darwin, the son of naturalist Sir Charles Darwin and mentor of statistician Sir Ronald Fisher, the creator of the p-value. Elite experts of European descent from all over the world gathered to inbreed ideas to purify reality by infecting Western knowledge with its destructive philosophy. The conference promotional image shows every single Western discipline written on the roots of a flourishing tree that says, “Like a tree, eugenics draws its materials from many sources and organizes them into a harmonious entity. Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution.”

Today, humanity has an X-ray, a CT-scan, and an MRI of how Western knowledge has been broken, thanks to the illustrations of the first (1912), second (1921), and third (1932) International Eugenics Conferences held in the prestigious University of London, first, then in the reputable New York Natural History Museum, twice. Due to the polemical rise of Hitler and nazism in Germany, a fourth conference was organized. Instead, the International Federation of Eugenic Organizations held its last meeting in Scheveningen in the then-perceived neutral Netherlands in 1936, three years after a publicly hidden holocaust started in Germany. 

For decades, the most prestigious Western educational institutions embraced the cursed science: Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, in the USA, Cambridge, Oxford, in Britain, the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, Paris Faculty of Medicine in France, amongst many others. Still, despite the overwhelming evidence, only a few courageous critical Western academics are motivated to unearth this narrative, connecting the dots to diagnose how eugenics was deeply tied to colonialism, racism, and classism, and still impacts healthcare today.

Eugenic ideas underpinned genocides, including the first genocide of the 20th century in 1904 Namibia (then German South West Africa, governed by Heinrich Göring, father of Hermann Göring, second in command to Hitler) and in Germany from 1933–1945. Western science’s unchallenged discriminative binary logic even further categorized within the perceived European race by labeling the Irish, the Southern and Eastern Europeans as semi-colored, meaning between the “civilized” Western European whites and the colored “savages.” In Britain, the U.S., and across Europe, policies such as forced sterilizations, racial segregation, and immigration restrictions against people not perceived as pure white were justified with eugenic arguments until the 1970s.

The then-scientific philosophy also rationalized the removal of countless children of the marginalized, racialized, statistical global majority—people of color in Eurocentric neutralizing language—from their loving families. The colonial authorities sent them to deadly indoctrinating boarding schools, as illustrated in the Native Americans’ history. There, perceived savage children were civilized, assimilated to the European standards and culture, and their violent experiences erased: they were standardized, Europeanized, and neutralized. So those abused and traumatized young children could grow into almost normal adults, perceived as less unfit to participate in the Western democratic system, if society conceded them the right to vote.

To summarize the idea of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, the African American historian and author of The Mis-Education of the Negro (1933): “The poor are undereducated, and the rich are miseducated.” Eugenics was so normalized and desirable in academia that the first racialized Black person who received a PhD from Harvard University in 1895 promoted Black eugenics: American sociologist and civil rights activist W.E.B. Dubois, famous for founding the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Dubois saw in the purification of the “Black race” a solution for African descendants to be accepted in the dehumanizing American society designed by European colonizers. Preventive self-dehumanization is still a survival strategy for the marginalized, racialized, statistical global majority living in the West today, when some educated and wealthy survivors reach a precarious position of relative power over others.

These deeply infiltrating, eugenic, hierarchical ideas helped establish the modern patient–expert and health authorities-public relationships.

The first health authority in the West, the American Food and Drug Administration, was founded in 1906 by documented eugenist, American president, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Theodore Roosevelt, and his Harvard peer, Harvey Wiley, a brilliant chemist obsessed with food and drug purity. Their binary logic shaped global regulatory science and medical research by approving medicines compliant with its defined standard and rejecting the non-compliant.

Besides, early 20th-century eugenic science consolidated the position of patients as objects of study, while it positioned privileged scientists as experts and defined what was normal, meaning themselves. Health authorities and scientists “helped” and “protected” the patients by thinking for them, and not with them.

In medical research, those cultural concepts permeated in the designs and the interpretations of objective expert-blinded/patient-blinded studies favored by the health authorities for medicine approval.

For example, until the 1980s, women were mostly excluded from objective cardiovascular studies by the male experts’ subjectivity, who often rationalized to protect them. Meanwhile, European descendants were the standard participants in objective studies in the USA until the 1990s, when the health authorities evolved and set an enforceable framework to minimize similar biases—called implicit— in the interpretation of the study results. As for Europe, it implemented an enforceable framework to include non-racial diversity for ethical and scientific reasons and minimize implicit biases in the interpretation of the study results in 2014.

While metastazing in Western culture, eugenics conflated socialization, civilization, Europeanization, science, health, and humanity’s reality normalization. In doing so,it contributed to the creation of the middle class, the so-called public. It shaped public health by dictating reproductive rights (who should reproduce or not) with the support of most feminists of European descent, who fought for their body autonomy, like Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Swedish eugenic sociologist, politician, and diplomat Alva Myrdal. So were Planned Parenthood’s American founder, nurse, sex educator, and eugenic social reformer, Margaret Sanger, and the Canadian eugenic feminist socialites, the Famous Five.

While thinking for the humans they wanted to help and protect—as Western experts, intellectuals, and knowledge still do—those eugenically/statistically normalized “White feminists” believed that “saving” the women that modern Western science statistically marginalized could mainly be done through reproductive control, including forced sterilization. Meanwhile, statistically normalized females had the right to decide the number of children they wanted, and not to become mere baby incubators for eugenically approved males. Like their male counterparts’ perceived superior minds, their fight was also about saving civilization from social impurities. But because they could perceive themselves as big-hearted women without social stigma, they more than often rationalized that they acted first out of benevolence.

Today, this “White feminist” narrative of social purity still impacts the reproductive rights of women with disabilities, amongst others, whose fertility can be perceived as a dangerous tool generating social impurities. In the medical decision, it can be perceived as less worthy of care when healthcare professionals and institutions don’t have accountable procedures in place to systematically address, minimize, manage, and correct their cultural biases.

Thus, the early 20th-century eugenics contribution was fundamental to engineer the almost-illiterate and perceived ignorant masses into compliant citizens, perceived intellectually, emotionally, and physically fit to participate in the Western democratic process. The perceived issue was even more pressing to address the abject poverty generated by industrialization, due to the perceived ineluctable progress of science and technology. The solution to the problems created by modern Western science was, of course, more modern Western science.

By presenting scientific standards of “normality,” eugenicists gave rise to the idea of the “average citizen.” The normalized citizen’s body and behavior became the social standard, replacing the elites, as per Western democratic ideas. They are the standardized people representing the neutrality, purity, and innocence (ignorance) necessary for European binary logic to build objectivity and universality. Statistically designed with common sense, they can saunter through life, unaware of their constructed right identity. The binary system stays hidden only if it keeps them in this reality blindness, and they accept this constant ignorance and stunted empathy. Eugenics’ pragmatic solution to keep them in this apathetic position? Comfort.

In European binary logic, normalized people are the right humans— the people who are always right, who deserve human rights and social comfort. They carry the forced statistical and social norm: common sense, neutrality, and humankind’s reality benchmark. So, their wrongs don’t represent who they are. Traditionally, they can plead for out-of-character judgment and the benefit of doubt and innocence in the justice system and receive lighter sentences. They can have criminal and felonious records, and still aspire to the most powerful positions in the world. They are forever forgivable. Socially, they deserve to live in comfortable houses, safe neighborhoods with accessible functional amenities, and pure air.

That’s the sweet life that the American government believed German physiologist and medical researcher Hubertus Strughold post-WWII, when it welcomed 3,000 Nazi scientists in the operation Paperclip (1945-1959) to win the space race against Soviet Russia. It worked: thanks to his sharp discriminative expertise, Western culture awarded Stronghold the title of Father of space medicine. Modern Western scientific progress was saved. It was another victory for its forever modern medicine, as per colonial math—Indigenous genocide + savage exploitation + any past and future colonial-rooted abuse, including the scientific & medical ones + smallpox vaccines + anti-depressant + cancer immunotherapy + any future Western innovations = Eternal Net Positive.

Modern Western science has played a fundamental role in enhancing social comfort and safety for the middle class by letting its discriminative binary logic script the latter’s reality and posing itself as the supreme knowledge able to achieve simple linear progress. That’s why when Western experts foresee the future and evolution of humankind, they only do so through modern Western science’s perceived superior lens.

In health and wellness, modern Western science has created increasingly unaffordable life-saving medical treatments with often deadly, undesirable effects managed through a rationalized benefit/risk balance for the patients.

Meanwhile, mechanization decreased the need for dangerous paid physical labor, and monetized fitness equipment increased the activity lost through sedentariness—the exclusive/exclusionary academic word for inactivity. Computerization and artificial intelligence, decreased paid arduous intellectual labor. When modern Western science will likely comes up with an innovation to address fattened sedentary minds, once it perceives and identifies the latter as a new non-self-created issue or as an unavoidable problem coming with its ineluctable progress. The only thing it needs is for normalized people to continue to believe its 400-year-old one-man-show unifying script.

It takes an unacknowledged titanic effort for people and organizations left in this hyperstatic, comfortable reality-blind position just to budge, especially scientists and scientific institutions. Yet, many increasingly do, and can glimpse at the hidden rich reality bubbling right outside their narrowed field of vision, even if it goes against a powerful opinion.

*

The “public opinion” of the middle class, or common sense, was shaped by scientists’ values, making those outside the human standard—the racialized statistical global majority (racialized statistical Western ethnic minority), people with disabilities, those with chronic medical conditions, people living in poverty, LGBTQ+, and women— appear as deviations and impurity to eliminate if deemed socially irrelevant or, if not, to control or as European binary logic calls it: to marginalize. Theymust trudge through life, aware of their constructed wrong identity and the normalized people’s right constructed identity. The binary system emerges from the dark when they speak up and fight for their “undeserved” human rights. Eugenics’ pragmatic solution to repress their expansible vision, knowledge, and empathy? Oppression.

In European binary logic, marginalized people are the wrong humans—the people who are always wrong, who deserve human wrongs and discomfort. Their wrongs represent who they are: they are sentenced to life. That’s why a marginalized trans person’s identity is politicized, while a normalized cis person’s is not, why a racialized Black man’s crime is culturalized, while a normalized white man’s is individualized. That’s why a racialized Black man wears the wrong suit for a speech or uses the incorrect condiment on his hot dog while being the “obviously mistakenly” elected president of the most powerful nation in the world.

The wrong humans deserve to live in uncomfortable houses, unsafe neighborhoods with a few to none functional amenities, and air as polluted and impure as eugenics perceived those people. From a Western rationalization’s standpoint, they don’t deserve social investment. Since eugenics sees their lives as negative, their existence is forever indebted to society, no matter how much they contribute and succeed. They must forever prove themselves to eugenics, just to be considered more than other statistically marginalized humans and less than the statistically normalized people.

The rights of people who are always wrong are incidental, occurrences that shouldn’t happen, mistakes. Thus, a eugenic system is entitled to co-opt, purify (whitewash), and assimilate their rights, like the soulful music created by enslaved Africans in the US that is the root of most modern Western music, or their fight for freedom, civil rights, and equity, assimilated in meaningless diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Sometimes, co-option takes an even more twisted turn. Haitian-American civil rights Activist Alvin Poussaint is a psychiatrist known for trying to classify extreme racism that led to lynching as a psychological dysfunction in 1999—it wasn’t adopted by the American Psychiatric Association on the basis that it would pathologize many of the statistically normalized people, also known as the public opinion, amongst other justifications. In the 1960s, he conceptualized the awakening term “Black-on-Black crime” to raise the consciousness of racialized and marginalized Black people about how the adverse environment they were pushed to live in increased self-violence akin to a community’s suicide.

By the mid-1970s, the term was co-opted by normalized American white social scientists, whose work helped mainstream the rhetoric of community pathology, detaching it from Poussaint’s systemic critique. The language was then amplified by media outlets and criminology journals that racialized violence statistics while ignoring structural causes like segregation, economic deprivation, and police violence.

The same mechanism happened in 2025 with the anti-DEI policies in Western healthcare. After centuries of hard work, humans statistically marginalized by eugenics succeeded in raising awareness about the need for diversity, equity, and inclusion in medicine. DEI aims to address the historical lack of data on marginalized populations and the current unaddressed systemic biases rooted in eugenics that have been forgotten since modern Western science outsourced its daily memory to history. It aligns with the African American blues singer Lead Belly’s 1938 concept of woke. The latter is a term helping the racialized Black Americans to be aware of the deadly systemic Western biases. After co-option in the statistically normalized white culture’s binary logic, woke and DEI became first perceived as a positive sign of social progress, then as a negative sign of social regression. Today, statistically marginalized patients are again more exposed to deadly systemic harm in healthcare.

While modern Western science serves statistically the normalized humans, statistically marginalized people only benefit from progress by accident if the discipline listens, understands, and addresses their screaming needs.

Thus, any statistically marginalized people are critical of modern Western science and, depending on their culture and effort to decolonize, are in a position to see progress as an interdependent multidimensional process. Each part is an essential contribution for the whole to become the greater sum of the parts, as Dharmic Asian, African, and many Indigenous sciences articulate. It takes an unacknowledged titanic effort for people or organizations left in a statistically marginalized position to reach this co-creative dynamic perceptive position. Yet, many increasingly do, and move beyond the narrowed field of vision left by the European colonization, its eugenics philosophy, and related statistical reality: it’s called decolonization

*

Eugenics’ binary logic thinking pits one human group against another; its narratives still impact public health policy to this day. The Western binary concept of “healthcare” is based on the logic that taking care of eliminating sickness (wrong) will automatically restore health (right). While focusing on sickcare over healthcare, public health follows a eugenic script at all levels.

Health issues in the “wrong people” are often deprioritized, like the under-investment in research in women’s health globally.

When Western public health prioritizes issues prioritized for the racialized statistical global majority beyond the West—referred to as the “Global South”—it’s often tainted with an unsavory White savior complex. The experts of the self-normalized statistical global minority of European descent, meaning the Western majority statistically normalized through the genocide of Indigenous people—also referred to as Western experts in neutralized/simplified European binary language— position themselves as heroic rescuers of Western-science-racialized people—referred as—non-white people or people of color in neutralized/simplified European binary language. They “help” in ways that reinforce colonial power dynamics, centering their own benevolence instead of genuine empowerment, echoing the underlying colonial culture where help conflates with control.

Western experts can boast they shipped the latest high-tech baby incubators in Africa—the place with the wrongest people in the world as per modern Western science racial classification, later invalidated by modern Western science with the same European binary logic that created it in the first place.

Yet, when those technologies fail because they were not designed for hot and humid climates, they are left broken, and Africans are perceived as neglectful. Or if they get repaired in the West, Africans are perceived as forever needy. Even when NGOs sponsor local experts to implement local solutions that fit culturally and environmentally, it’s often portrayed as saving Africa from its perceived underdevelopment and lack of progress, instead of showing Africans thriving despite the long-term impact of European colonization.

European binary logic’s discrimination in interventions yields striking inequalities. Often, health issues are stigmatized in the racialized statistical global majority living in the West—referred to as people of color in neutralized/simplified European binary language. For example, the drug epidemic in the racialized Black population of African descent in the USA in the 1980s and 1990s was perceived and handled as a criminal problem to be controlled with a war on drugs. The non-health outcome produced a pipeline to prison. Meanwhile, the opioid drug epidemic hitting the normalized European Americans beginning in the late 1990s and into the 2000s – 2010s was declared a public health issue requiring treatment. The health outcome produced a pathway to treatment. One logic, two realities: one valid, one invalid, as per today’s Western scientific binary discriminative approach.

Eugenics’ binaries whispered during and after the COVID-19 pandemic of the early 2020s. Most public health resources have been allocated to fight the crisis and prepare for a new one. Meanwhile, the statistical minority of patients with debilitating chronic COVID received less attention and resources.

In the binary acute (desirable outcome) vs. chronic (undesirable outcome), patients with long COVID had to first fight scientists’ perception, logic, and belief: the patients’ blood tests were negative, scientists perceived the virus was cleared, and the patients were a statistical minority. So there was no reason to believe their persistent symptoms and their very real experience. Once the scientists were convinced, patients had to fight the health and policy system to get their condition recognized as a disability. Then, when the health policy authorities agreed to check that extra invisible eugenic box, patients could finally receive less nothing—we cannot say “more help” when the baseline is nothing—and become twice more marginalized and stigmatized, as they ticked more invisible eugenic boxes.

The patient journey of people with long COVID is an exhausting dance that any person living with a statistically rare disease and/or a disability has learned to perfect. So has mastered any racialized patient living with a debilitating rare disease, especially racialized black people of enslaved African descent in the US.

If the story of the people living with long COVID, rare disease, and/or disabilities feels familiar, it’s because many have recounted it for centuries. Historically marginalized people are the canaries in a suffocating, deep, dark maze-like mine, who have lived to tell the tale, meaning the simple rules of the labyrinthine binary game that can hit anyone one day. It’s the tale the LGBTQ+ community, the “wrong” humans, told in the 1990s when they survived the AIDS epidemic.

When the deadly AIDS epidemic first struck the LGBTQ+ community in the West in the 1980s, the public health policy consisted of neglect and destigmatization, as European binary logic does with conditions impacting the human that eugenics/statistics have marginalized. To survive, the people labelled and identifying as LGBTQ+ built on the advocacy championed by transwomen working-class activists of the marginalized global majority, like African American Marsha P. Johnson and Latina American Sylvia Rivera. The community organized to push academia and the pharma industry to search for a cure and to destigmatize the devastating disease. It became the first patient advocacy in the West, joining a long history of resistance against modern medical abuse in the marginalized statistical global majority— also referred to as the rest of the world.

Once the epidemic reached the normalized people, the right humans, it became a public health concern, as European binary logic does with conditions impacting the human that eugenics/statistics have normalized. Significant resources were allocated to destigmatize the finally perceived devastating disease and find a cure. Asian American physician David Ho was fundamental to establishing a life-saving approach based on a multidimensional logic of complementary and interdependent mechanisms called anti-viral triple therapy. This revolutionary multidimensional paradigm was first conceptualized in the West in cancer treatment by African American Jane Cooke Wright, the pioneer of adaptive, combination, patient-specific chemotherapy.

Then, with time, European binary logic did its neutralizing/colonizing job. The early LGBTQ+ patient advocacy was strip off its meaning, purified and sanitized to be assimilable in modern Western science and serve the statistically normalized people. It became today’s patient advocacy, following the same historical script: the more the condition impacts eugenically favored people, the more access to resources it gets. The more it impact statstically marginalized people, the more the latter need to beg the system for consideration, as statistical rare disease advocacy lives to scream the tale in research and development of modern Western science’s soundproof room. Meanwhile, modern Western science’s corrective amnesia swallowed Ho and Cooke’s dissonant names and non-binary contribution to keep reality as it’s designed to make it: pure.

The thing is that it takes European binary logic energy and scarce resources just to consider the people who are always wrong— or in the case of long COVID, or rare disease in normalized/standardized humans, the right people who turned chronically wrong. So sometimes, it switches to moral relativism: instead of judging what is right or wrong, moral relativists’ binary logic believes that all moral principles are not absolute and depend on cultural or societal norms. It lets everyone be through neglect while calling it a progressive position. Yet, progress isn’t a position, but a continuous action. Thus, to perform a movement, it co-opt the hard-fought progress for acceptance from the people it neglects. After tokenization— meaning meaningless inclusion—the change is effectively neutralized.

Then, European binary logic can accept anything—the “all” in the binary “all or nothing”— until it deviates so far out from the established standard in the perceived extreme that it regresses to the established norm: the racialized statistical global majority (racialized statistical Western ethnic minority), people with disabilities, those with chronic medical conditions, people living in poverty, LGBTQ+, and women—meaning most humanity— become unacceptable again. The outliers will try to re-exist, and another cycle starts. Thanks to this binary switch mechanism, the goal of eugenics reality is achieved: diversity (statistical variance) is minimized. In this conservative dynamic, society and its public opinion about the progress and inclusion of statistically marginalized humans don’t change. It resists more or less to the change.

In return, the “middle-class public,” the democratic social center of gravity and moral arbiter, shaped through norms of productivity, health, and conformity to privileged European values, reinforces those marginalizing norms. Normalized people maintain the eugenic system just by being (existence), or by being actively passive to social change (neglect), or by actively fighting the latter if they perceive a threat to their way of life (resistance). It’s the cultural neutral position and social center of inertia: scientifically-neutralized people who self-neutralize and neutralize and have the right to vote on how to neutralize—performative progress and neglect or conservative regression to the mean. It’s how western culture fixes reality and maintains the perception of civilization: through neutralization or simplification, as European binary logic calls the reduction of reality to one unique uniform dimension, or at least the closest to the latter as humanly or dehumanely (i.e, scientifically) possible.

This co-dependent neutralizing system could run forever if normalized people were undisturbed and kept happy, providing them with external validation—money, status, religion, ideology, or anything that gave them a sense of identity— that makes them forget the unaddressed primal fears that build the world they live in. The key is to promise that the illusory self-perception they must conflate with identity will never change. Likewise, the unsustainable lifestyle they conflate with reality will live for eternity. It’s the goal of today’s Western democracies and past Western totalitarianisms, such as European nazi and fascism. It also sets the favorable environment for any future Western totalitarian realities, like the budding European American technocracy. So, the European binary system can easily go back and forth between different old or new ideologies provided they keep its logic. Galton was indeed a genius.

Ultimately, humanity’s standardization and neutralization set the stage for capitalism and today’s rationalization of reality, economically, technically, and humanly. So the average citizens are kept happy in peace and prosperity, away from their existential primal fears, in a system based on mass markets. It’s the colonizing feedback loop in which humanity still lives today.

*

One of the few famous anti-eugenics activists of European descent, G.K. Chesterton, an English author, philosopher, Christian apologist, anti-imperialist, poet, journalist, magazine editor, and literary and art critic, said this about modern Western culture in the Illustrated London News in 1924: “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”

Fortunately, modern Western science, the perceived supreme knowledge on Earth and self-declared ultimate representation of human progress, invalidated its mistake: eugenics. It made it wrong with the same European binary logic that made it right in the first place. It declared it a pseudoscience, as if it were its false self, the bad science, eugenics had promoted genocides, abuses, and human destruction, while its real self, the good science, statistics saved humanity. Today’s Western psychology would call this compartmentalizing behavior dysfunctional in adult individuals. But because it only doesn’t pathologizes systems anymore for ethical reasons after it invalidated entire so-called non-Western cultures, and because it’s about the perceived supreme universal Western science anyway, this systemic behavior is called progress.

So, for the sake of progress, all the disciplines that had embraced the modern Western science’s false self, meaning the entire Western knowledge, rebuked it and distanced themselves from it. They argue that eugenics is no longer a devil because it’s been corrected and absolved itself by incanting that it is wrong. For modern Western science, the father of eugenics, taking on a little step in analyzing the impossible situation in which its brain child is alive and hurts humanity, and in medicine, patients, is the expertise of the humanities. Experts moved with European time: a progressive line going toward the future that modern Science builds, and where the past is past. Nothing to learn from the latter or revisit when Western culture said the page is turned for, and not with humankind.

Thus, when not accused of raising polemics and bringing political activism into “neutral Science,” critical scientists digging beyond the surface of this disturbing, seemingly dysfunctional reality are civilly invited to join science history, anthropology, cultural studies, or any other discipline that lacks science’s incomparable rigor. They are even allowed to stay in science. Provided they collaborate with those careless fields under the dusty lab bench of the darkest corner of a remote, leaky underground bunker protected by an impenetrable jungle on a cyclone-prone island. The aim is clear: neutralizing the perceived impure ideas to keep modern Western science pure.

As per European binary logic, to ensure that modern Western science is pure, uniform, and objective, the institutions must be kept unchanged, so that humankind doesn’t plunge into its perceived chaotic nature. This includes organizations, like the prestigious universities in the eugenics’ historical deep and canonized scientists like Galton, Fisher, Darwin, Linnaeus, and many others that shaped dehumanizing social narratives. They need to be held the farthest away from those contaminating subjective ideas that could jeopardize the perfect, grandiose image of the field. Any attempts are met with invalidation: fierce resistance and, if too successful and so threatening, with backlash.

The only way out is to set up marginalized institutions, like the Black medical schools established post-slavery during the racial segregation in the USA to address the abysmal exclusion of racialized Black—the first medical college being established in 1864 in Howard University. Even then, if they are met with invalidation, centuries later in the 2020s, they become too successful—meaning when normalizing institutions become less resistant to the perceived oppositional change and celebrate their claimed self-initiated evolution. European binary logic indiscriminates: color/reality-blindness, arguing they aren’t necessary anymore because racism is in the past in European linear timelines, in which reality only moves from A to B. Or it discriminates: arguing they are now discriminatory against White people, create segregation, and move society in the past in European linear timelines.

In humankind’s multidimensional timeline, modern Western science’s false self is alive and well. Humans have just been calling it science all the time. When European binary logic reduced humanity to data, its knowledge to statistics, and its meaning to p-value.

This dehumanized reality created the perfect context for dehumanization, for humans to dehumanize, abuse, and kill each other to fight to be at the top of the Eurocentric hierarchy. “Universal” modern Western science, a discipline created by men stuck in survival mode and binary thinking, has held humanity in survival mode and binary logic. It reflects a primitive, brutal Darwinian narrative in which the perceived strongest, fittest, and fastest live. This intellectual cage of its own-making stunted Western knowledge in binary thinking. Health management grew little beyond illness management, meaning sickcare, except in the hollow words of dictionaries, where it became healthcare.

When European binary logic artificially discriminates an attribute, like blue eyes in an artificially delimited reality like Iceland, for example, and runs the probability to find this discriminated attribute, it says it obtains a normal distribution. It says that most people have blue eyes in Iceland because they are closer to the mean, the average, while people with other eye colors are in the margins. It says with such confidence that this constructed reality is true. Humanity’s problem is that it just how reality looks when discriminated with European binary logic. This normalized reality is a perception. A perception that labelled humankind’s entire reality.

When a p-value divides evidence into “valid” or “invalid,” it echoes eugenics’ standardizing and neutralizing eugenic logic: those deemed worthy of attention (standardized/self-standardized) vs. those consigned to noise (marginalized/to-neutralize), as in an invisible Western scientific scripture.

In medicine, the scientific scripture has a major impact on the patient experience with the glorified discipline that declares to have replaced God for explaining and “helping” human reality by controlling it.

Most of us will be patients one day, even more so as chronic diseases globally increase. So, many of us will face modern Western science, its inherent dehumanization, and the limitations of its European binary logic, including its expert vs. patient binary dynamic and its conflation between protection and control, as many experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even the happy average Western citizen and their sacrosanct public opinion are impacted: so everybody is, statistically.

---

3. Binary logic in medical research today from the patient’s perspective *

Eugenics’ European binary logic saw disability and illness, especially the chronic ones, as an impurity and a flaw to the ideal human it aimed to engineer. They had to be eliminated at all costs to save the patient’s desired ideal humanity. Its ghost screams in modern medicine today in the expert’s scientific discriminative logic and the patient’s human discriminatory experience. They are two sides of the same story inherent to European binary logic, as positionality let us experience in the previous chapter.

Medical research still scripts bodies through binary logics shaped by cultural values. Take obesity research: it often frames larger bodies as pathology, rooted not only in biology but in scripts of thinness, productivity, and morality. Historically, these scripts emerged from 19th- and 20th-century European industrial societies, where thinness was associated with self-control, discipline, and economic efficiency, while fatness was linked to laziness, indulgence, or even racialized “primitiveness.” Such views were amplified by public health campaigns and insurance industries that equated body weight with productivity and moral worth. In the early 1900s, in the US, those educational tools tied body weight to life expectancy and thus financial value.

In this context, the 19th-century formula called Body Mass Index (BMI) has often been weaponized to reduce humanity’s natural diversity to a Western-science-made simplistic formula that doesn’t account for individual differences in muscle mass, bone density, body fat distribution, age, sex, or race/ethnicity, which are crucial factors for health. It’s a self-incriminating narrative often forgotten in modern Western science’s medical practice since the latter has outsourced its memory to science history for more than 200 years.

Yet, patient-reported experiences often tell a different story: communities where larger bodies are associated with strength, resilience, or beauty; patients reporting health challenges rooted not in body size but in stress from stigma, food insecurity, or unsafe environments. Binary logic erases these meaningful stories and reality’s multi-dimensionality. It frames bodies only through the lens of deviation from a statistical “normal.” By discriminating one arbitrary attribute—in this case, body size— the binary logic of statistics in medical science statistically normalizes humanity’s reality, and humanly dehumanizes the latter.

---

4. The crisis of the p-value in medicine **

Medicine is now grappling with a “replication crisis”: many findings based on p-values cannot be reproduced. This crisis began surfacing visibly in the 2010s in the statistically normalized reality, the eugenically standardized life—referred to as the Western culture.

Yet, critiques trace back to psychologists and statisticians in the 1960s and 1970s during global decolonization, the civil rights, and other Western cultural movements led by the “wrong” people—the statistically marginalized humans— demanding human rights, and followed by the “right” people—the statistically normalized humans. While the movement has freed itself from eugenic norms until the European binary switch brings Western culture to “normal”—meaning statistically normalized reality—it has brought critical questions about the accepted reality that statistics construct.

For modern Western science, this is a fundamental problem: its authority depends on producing what it perceives as universal, reproducible truths. If findings cannot be replicated, the very foundation of its beliefs in its scientific legitimacy and superiority is shaken. It uncovers what it always was: European ethnoscience interlinked with European folklore, the cultural scripts it draws from, and contributes by following scientific scriptures. The field that declared it replaced God to explain reality becomes one science among many others. Its fragile aspiration of supremacy shatters like an overinflated, ballooning ego poked by a sharp, critical thought.

Structural pressures amplify this crisis. The publish-or-perish binary mentality, the race for institutional prestige, and the need to inflate publication profiles to secure grants distort the scientific record.
In antidepressant research, for example, many negative or inconclusive clinical trial results were never published, creating a distorted scientific record that exaggerated benefits and minimized harms. Similarly, oncology drug approvals have often relied on less robust statistical endpoints under pressure to deliver “breakthroughs,” serving institutional prestige and industry profit over patient truth, when meaningful patient-reported outcomes aren’t included. These are not minor flaws—they show how structural incentives fuse with statistical tools to manufacture realities. It’s a reality increasingly acknowledged amongst scientists.

Since the entire Western knowledge rebuked eugenics devil—a pseudoscience, like modern Western science’s false self—by incanting it is wrong, it distanced itself from it. In its binary logic, 20th-century eugenicist statisticians gave birth to two innovations: a fake science, eugenics, modern Western science’s false self, and a real science, statistics, modern Western science’s true self. Psychology calls this defensive mechanism compartmentalization in individuals. It helps binary thinking to reduce the unbearable tension of their self-made contradictions. When applied in Western knowledge, it’s called problem-solving.

Hence, today, like in the eugenic colonial times, the solution to address the problems created by modern Western science is more modern Western science. For many statisticians, the issue with the p-value and replication crisis cannot be related to eugenics to any degree, and even less to modern Western science. Patients rightly asking them if it could be related would likely witness the most athletic mental gymnastics to argue it’s not.

Thus, modern Western scientific response to its unacknowledged faith crisis has been technical:

• Lower the threshold (from 0.05 to 0.005): Scientists expect this will reduce false claims of discovery by making the bar for “significance” higher. But it also risks excluding findings relevant to marginalized communities whose health realities may not fit such strict frames.
  
  
• Use Bayesian models: This is a mathematical framework that updates probabilities as new evidence comes in—more like adjusting beliefs with experience than flipping a yes/no switch. Scientists expect this will create more flexible, realistic interpretations. Yet even Bayesian models often operate within the same binary paradigm of proving or disproving hypotheses.
  
  
• Use e-values: This is another way Western scientists try to rescue their sinking ship. The e-value promises to move beyond the p-value by asking how much more the data support one story over another. But beneath the surface, it’s still the same binary game—yes or no, null or alternative, belief or disbelief. From an authentic multidimensional logic, the e-value looks less like innovation and more like a gambler swapping dice for cards, convinced the new game will finally break the losing streak. But no gambling game, no matter how sophisticated, can cure an unacknowledged addiction. And who better than medical science would know that?
  
• Involve the undecolonized philosophy of science: Western science has tried to work with reflexivity, uncertainty, and the language of “paradigm shifts.” Yet, because this philosophy remains rooted in European binary logic, it often only expands the latter rather than escapes it. Any other discipline working in the same frame ultimately enables Western science’s binary logic, and enabling is what the self-proclaimed supreme knowledge on earth has only accepted as a lifesaving intervention so far.
  

These responses reveal not only statistical adjustment but a deeper reckoning: the shattered perception of modern Western science as neutral, its busted belief in supremacy, and an existential crisis tied to its colonial roots, hiding the assumption it will always be relevant, forever modern. In a multidimensional logic, Western science seems like a virtuoso orchestra on the Titanic. It’s playing louder, inviting more maestros, and even changing the score to save a nosediving ship from sinking into the dark waters of oblivion.

The P-value misuse and its related cognitive distortions might be the statistical addiction that will kill modern Western science. How deeply scientists can acknowledge and articulate this reckoning depends on how much constant effort they put into decolonizing their perception, beliefs, and unconscious cultural biases. Yet, the real questions are:

– When most statisticians acknowledge the p-value as arbitrary and still act as if it’s in line with the scientific rigor they worship, why don’t psychologists call it cognitive dissonance?

– If this systemic cognitive dissonance persists, when are we talking about institutionalized delusion?

– Where is the delimitation between binary logic and binary thinking in scientific practice? And when binary logic became hegemonic through the European colonization of humankind’s reality, why didn’t it become binary thinking? Why is it psychologically acceptable to still only refer to binary thinking as rationality, as if it were only a philosophy?

– How is psychology currently collaborating with philosophy to answer that last cluster of critical epistemological (knowledge) questions?

– Why should humanity systematically trust a field that has enabled colonial maths (deadly abuses + life-saving innovations = net positive)? In this overlooked philosophy of violence with receipt, when are we talking about trauma bonding between modern Western science and humankind, experts and patients?

– While clinical qualitative psychology (therapy) is deeply interlinked with its father, Freud and Jung, many of the psychometric tests (scientific quantitative psychology) used to assess them are deeply interlinked with their founder, Galton, the father of eugenics, and are based on European binary logic. Those psychometric tests have been used to assess the mental and emotional fitness of the populations that modern Western science still marginalizes. It helped authorities to rationalize removing children from their families and create a long-lasting science-induced generational trauma still systemically overlooked by modern Western Science. Why aren’t patients/clients systematically made aware of this reality and left with the choice to perform those tests or not?

And if patients/clients accept those dehumanizing psychometric tests or even psychotherapy, why aren’t they made aware that if Western science methodology traumatizes them, it has limited knowledge and expertise to address this specific science-induced trauma?

– Why doesn’t psychology systematically inform patients/humans about positionality—meaning that the expert’s discriminatory logic vs. patient/human discriminative experience are two compartmentalized sides of the same European binary logic on which modern Western science is based?

– Why does psychology still believe it systematically works beyond statistically normalized humans, while it has contributed to marginalizing most humans? How are the latter collaborating as equal experts in developing the field when they are patients/clients? How equally acknowledged are they?

– When scientists label some human/client/patients’ experiences as not statistically significant, why is it acceptable to let modern Western medicine put the burden of proof on people that its binary logic invalidates? This is what scientists did with patients with chronic COVID as a recent publicly known example. Why do scientists not center their conversations on how this systematic, harmful dynamic impacts the relationship with the patients and risks traumatizing them?

– Expert vs. patient, standardized middle-class vs. marginalized poor, standardized white vs. racialized people of color, standardized male vs. marginalized female, standardized cis-heterosexual vs. marginalized LGBTQ+: the eugenic cultural script influenced by statistical European binary logic still haunts patients. The more boxes they tick, the more invalidated they are, the farther they are from the statistically standardized human—distance, also referred to as standard deviation, the heavier is the burden of proof unless a self-reflective institution systematically and individually addresses modern Western science’s inherent biases.

– Why aren’t patients systematically informed about how organizations manage this harmful, and sometimes, traumatic reality before initiating any diagnosis and treatment—especially in psychology, the academic field that conceptualized implicit biases first in the 1990s in the West, three millennia after India did it in the Vedas?

– Why should patients trust modern Western science when basic measures of transparency to protect patients from historical scientific errors and dysfunctional parts of its DNA aren’t a scientific canon?

Those are important queries that patients have the right to ask without running the risk of being pathologized. Those are responses Western science should frenetically draft, if it’s interested in humankind and having a sound relationship with it. This is the resonance it lost when it outsourced its humanity to the humanities.

Psychology is the part of this multi-faceted, often self-absorbed binary system that can express little empathy, and rationalize abuse to keep its grandiose image high and pure—even if it means pathologizing patients.
– So, how is psychology currently working on itself and with other sciences to protect patients from institutional gaslighting?

– What is its role to explain to the public the traumatic historical background and primal fears that are keeping modern Western science in survival mode: binary solutions, short-term innovations, dehumanization, and focus on science and sick care instead of patient and healthcare?

– Why do patients know so little about science’s issues, including the p-value and replication crisis, while psychology was the first to experience it?

– How can patients identify and choose institutions that have made efforts to heal their knowledge? For whom is the label “critical” psychology really for? And why do the patients know little about what the latter means?

– Why do patients know so little about modern Western science’s psyche beyond the plethora of data and self-aggrandizing narratives?

If knowledge is power, why don’t we empower patients?
– Why do we think that shoving them with more scientific data will counter the conspiracy theories and misinformation that give an illusion of power to the society that modern Western science has dehumanized and disempowered for centuries?

– How can laypeople express their emotional reality when a self-glorified field declares that only facts validated by its binary logic matter?

– Why can’t modern Western science see the reflection of its image in the emotions-turned-scientific-facts of the anti-science movement, which tries to speak the only language declared universally valid on Earth?

European reductive binary logic flattens humanity’s multidimensional reality to one unique, perceived true dimension. In this saddening context, it’s surprising that most people aren’t flat-Earthers yet: it’s how reality feels when it is colonized by modern Western science’s DNA and its ignored dysfunctional eugenic gene.

For patients and the public, this means that trust in medical science must be reframed: not as blind faith in objectivity, as Western scientists did for centuries, but as a shared process of truth-making rooted in intellectual honesty and humility about uncertainty and cultural perspective. The bottom line for building a healthy relationship with humanity? The ingenious gambler must finally admit the hardest truth. We can’t help others if we don’t want to help ourselves.

---

5. Expanding with native multidimensional logics **

Since the 19th-century colonial era, modern Western science’s discriminative binary logic has often classified other cultures’ sciences as pseudoscience—its own false mirror—because they did not conform to European scientific philosophy of search for objectivity and universality, and its discriminative binary logic. Under the pressure of global decolonization after the 1960s, Western science slowly began to see the discriminatory experience of humans embracing those other cultural sciences that didn’t claim to be universal. It started to curb this dehumanizing habit—meaning the other side of the reality created by its own binary logic. By the 1990s, it became more cautious about mischaracterizing knowledge it did not understand, though this abuse has not fully disappeared, like any discriminative/discriminatory realities it created, any innovations it shot that harmed humanity, like racial classification and eugenics, for example.

While modern Western science still struggles to understand and accept binary logic discriminative/discriminatory positionality, for millennia, multidimensional knowledges have articulated realities that its European binary logic struggles to grasp.

Logically, an expansive multidimensional logic can understand a reductive binary logic, but not the other way around. So, while Western post-modernist philosophers finally established that European culture influences science and science influences culture, they described only the symptoms, like the first step in Western medicine. Meanwhile, 3,000 years ago, Dharmic science articulated the underlying mechanism in the Vedas. Sanskrit calls Avidya the individual position of ignorance, innocence, and comfortable apathy in which eugenics left the humans it has normalized, and that modern Western science seeks to generate “objective” knowledge.

In Avidya, people mistake illusion, their perception, for a permanent and universal state of reality. It is related to Ahamkara, the ego, a false self that believes in Maya, the illusion of the material world. Western psychology established the notion of delusion and ego 3,000 years after Dharmic science. Yet, it’s not experienced as sufficiently developed to systematically protect humans and, in medicine, patients, from modern Western science’s ego and delusion. As felt in the precedent chapter, it still has so many questions to answer. Meanwhile, when discerned from Dharmic science, modern Western science’s binary logic produces an illusion of knowledge when it validates reality and ignorance when it invalidates it.

The genius of European colonization and modern Western science’s binary logic is that when it standardized humanity’s reality, it provided a unified illusion that post-modern philosophers call “grand narrative.” It’s an artificial mechanism that eugenically normalized people still need and protect today to be able to function.

“Things go turn bad, we don’t have a common narrative,” people who accept being statistically standardized often say when they want the reality they perceived as wrong tobe right again—it means to feel comfortable, in the zone where many intellectuals know that no one learn. In their reductive European binary logic, the world became complex. It cannot be that their logic is too simple, as they perceived themselves as normal people with superior thinking to marginalized thoughts, as per the colonial/eugenic/statistical/psychological ethos. The more academically educated the normal people are, the more this belief can be unquestioned.

Westernized, highly educated people are in the position the 20th-century eugenicists were in their time: knowingly or not, they are the perceived superior standard to which everyone should aspire. Through their unquestioned, dedicated intellectual lives, the unquestioned European binary logic continues to “streamline” and “simplify” for perceived inferior, understandably confused and fearful scientifically normalized people, keeping a century-old intellectually debilitating process eternal.

As reality catches up, it requires an increasing effort to keep this co-dependent stagnant position while keeping an illusion of progress. For those humans, eugenically normalized people and experts alike, rationalization of neutrality and its enabling tool, modern Western science, are needed even more than ever, at all costs. At any cost: whatever they do is normalized anyway, as Western history has shown. As per the 19th-century eugenic ethos, they are the people who are always right. They are in the most susceptible position to accept the rationalization of modern Western Science’s atrocities. And when faced with the unignorable reality, they can claim ignorance/innocence—discerned as Avidya in Sanskrit. Yesteryears were the Nazi and colonial experiments. Tomorrows will be whatever horror normalized people can comfortably ignore, frenetically rationalize, and shamelessly accept as a norm.

Statistically normalized people can bend time through their ego, ahaṃkāra in Sanskrit. They can look at past atrocities and rationalize that it was the norm then, and refuse to look at dark history with the enlightening lens of the present. “They were men of their time,” they say about Galton, Linnaeus, Darwin, and other canonized figures. They can bend space, too. Tucked in their comforting, flattening binary logic, where positionality doesn’t exist, they will be the first people to ask, “If even Black civil rights activist W.E.B. Dubois was a eugenicist, why rebuke White scientists and innovators who brought so much to humankind, and happened to embrace views of their time as he did?” Meanwhile, they reassure themselves that they are the most enlightened and evolved version of humanity so far and the summum of universal progress: they are people of their time, too.

When entrenched in this neutralizing position, historically normalized people have no interest in healing, no matter how much their inflated egos claim the contrary— no matter how much their intellect has dedicated their lives to medicine, psychology, and any other modern Western healing science, saving and protecting humankind. They are the carriers of common sense in humanity, statistically and forcibly. Deep down, their sole motivation is about keeping a 400-year-old, internalized, perceived life-saving cultural script.

The global decolonization and the civil rights movement in the USA have dissipated the co-dependent grand narrative when people of the marginalized racialized statistical majority understood the harm of this overpowering standardizing script. They are still fighting to refuse colonization’s dehumanizing grandiose narrative and reclaim their own identity and the right to keep evolving.

Once the lowest humans in Linnaeus’s racial hierarchy and Darwin’s theory of evolution successfully revolted after several thwarted attempts, everybody moved to a position where they could be free. In a multidimensional logic, humanity’s liberation depends much on how racialized Black Africa, the wrongest place on Earth, and its brutally displaced diaspora continue to fight to be free, reclaim and redefine their reality, amongst many equally essential elements, as multidimensional rationality’s interdependence articulates it.

Multidimensional sciences are rooted in relational, multidimensional rationality. Their holistic approaches connect facts in ways that resonate with human experience, fostering self-awareness and self-reflection to manage a subjectivity that is impossible to eliminate except in a delusional dream. Thus, they complete the theoretical expert-centric binary perception and its search for the impossible ideal of objectivity that is based on self-imposed reality blindness and forced ignorance, or Avidya in Sanskrit, as articulated by Indian Dharmic science 3,000 years ago. While European binary rationality sees them as its opposition, their multidimensional logic sees them as expanding humankind’s knowledge.

For instance, multidimensional sciences can recount the Western science genealogy from the standpoint of patients and human communities that felt its ignored dysfunctional eugenic gene, as felt earlier in an entire overpowering chapter of this compelling multidimensional narrative. They do so by drawing together events to unveil a DNA that expert-centric European binary logic would hold apart. Such critical perspectives are vital for decolonizing modern Western medicine and acknowledging it as European ethnoscience, and addressing its grandiose delusion that generates humanity’s knowledge through ignorance.

Multidimensional sciences value knowledge, not as a power to hold, but as a strength to share, as this patient-empowering story aims.They see richness in what reductive binary Western science perceives as complexity. Thus, in their co-creative process, they navigate and map multi-dimensionality, and enlighten and expand tolerance, instead of hierarchically capturing and reducing it, and benight and soothe fear. Through their unique artistic skills, they can explain the most multi-layered academic concept not to, but with patients, as felt in all the chapters of this enlightening story when freed readers follow their repressed intuitions.

In this context, decolonizing medicine does not mean discarding the p-value—as European binary logic would—but reframing its power and expanding humanity’s knowledge with other ways of knowing, as multidimensional logic does. Multidimensional logic accepts that binary thinking is necessary to temporarily address sudden, overwhelming fears. Still, it understands this unsustainable survival logic cannot be a permanent state: it would create stagnation and resource depletion to extinction. It’s not a long-term rationality. It informs us how to navigate different humanity’s diverse logics according to the context and our shared goals for surviving and procreating (lower goals) with binary logic and thriving and creating (higher goals) with multidimensional logics.

Dharmic science’s multidimensional logic understood that binary thinking is the most primitive and immature stage of human development, 3,000 years before American psychologist Abraham Maslow theorized it in Western culture, the youngest of humanity’s civilizations. From a multidimensional perspective, this unevolved thinking doesn’t disappear when we evolve; we just learn to use a more mature logic. Yet, Western Europe made a well-structured logic out of binary thinking, colonized the world, and imposed it onto humankind as academics perceived it as the superior, even supreme rationality coming from the superior, even supreme people. If its ego, perceive it as the ultimate knowledge, how can it truly evolve?

For any Western experts stuck in reductive European binary logic and supporting Western science’s hegemony, expanding humanity’s reality to multidimensional rationality only means dilution of its power and death—also known as dissolution in chemistry. Anything valid in this survivalist logic needs to be concentrated to materialize, like an invisible yet present wave becoming a particle when processed through Western physics’ designed instruments. It stirs the unaddressed deep cultural wounds that trigger the European survivalist philosophy and the related colonization of humanity’s reality, Earth, and soon, Space.

European binary logic’s dissolution principle is why marginalized people are only visible through solidarity, and normalized people feel invisible when they do. The visibility of the people who are always wrong becomes the reflection of the invisibility of the people who are always right, hidden under the standardizing eugenic script. So to feel they need solidarity too to feel visible again, and start a competitive victimhood against survivors who progressed on their journey to heal and thrive. And the cycle of suffering continues, as Dharmic science has known it for 3,000 years. Scientists and their knowledge are not immune to this dynamic.

Thus, understanding sciences beyond European ethnoscience requires experts who are in an uncomfortable position to develop an expansive multidimensional logic to free themselves from this vicious knowledge/ignorance cycle. Then, they can articulate the natural diversity of existence and the natural heterogeneity of reality. Through self-awareness and self-reflection can admit that their position and perception are only one out of many equally essential ones, and knowledge generated from this transient state is illusory when perceived as universal and permanent.

Multidimensional rationality seeks to accept, understand, and navigate subjectivity and uncertainty, unlike binary logic, which creates the illusion of certainty when it validates reality and the certitude of ignorance when it invalidates it. It doesn’t replace binary logic, as the latter “either-or” fixed mindset would assume. Instead, it helps to expand humanity’s scientific narratives beyond its 400-year-old survivalist script that isn’t aligned with a growth mindset.

• African Bantu relational thoughts remind us that health is not an isolated variable but a web of relationships—between body, spirit, ancestors, and community. Evidence is not just data points but lived continuity.

• Dharmic Asian Indian cycles remind us that health and illness are not binary opposites but part of an ongoing rhythm of balance and imbalance. It emphasizes time as cyclical rather than linear: illness, recovery, death, and rebirth are not failures to control uncertainty but part of larger flows. More importantly, it’s the first science that documented the concept of multiple truth, three millennia ago. In this advanced context, evidence is not about rejecting uncertainty but learning to move within it.
  
• Most Indigenous multidimensional logics have in common that they do not pathologize, but see interconnected natural dynamic imbalances in what binary logic would see as a disease, a temporary, undesirable, unhealthy state opposing a desirable permanent healthy state.
  
  It means in multidimensional logic, a patient, a group, or an organization with trauma is a natural reaction to destabilizing events that needs understanding and care to increase its self-reliance, and so do their social networks. When Western science’s European binary becomes the only valid language on Earth, trauma and the so-called affected realities can only be perceived and interpreted through pathology. Sometimes, the stigmatization is so distressing that some patients, groups, and organizations curate a grandiose self-image to compensate for the deep feeling of inadequacy that pathologizing can trigger.
  
  Then, natural reactions to scarcity due to famine (hoarding and science of extraction), insecurity to to wars (domination and science of control) and the fear of death due deadly epidemic (fantasy of Immortality and science of preservation) are seen as pathologies to invalid, threats to suppress and realities to hide, no matter how empathic the diagnosis is and compassionate, but firm, the healer acts.
  
  
• Western attempted multidimensional logic—such as post-modern science with its emphasis on uncertainty, complexity, and discourse—can help Western culture navigate this multidimensional reality. But any Western knowledge rooted in European binary logic only reproduces the same trap. At best, it becomes a failed attempt at authentic multidimensional thought, like Boolean logic: a rigid system of “true” or “false” dressed up with “and/or” operators. But health is not Boolean— a cancer patient can be healing and suffering at the same time, both improving and declining in different dimensions.

Native (or authentic) multidimensional logics are multidimensional by design. In that perspective, Boolean logic is like the Western science’s maestro orchestra on the once thought unsinkable Titanic. It changed from virtuoso classical music in unison to poorly-played, tone-deaf free jazz on rearranged velvet chairs. The discordant sound is complex on the surface, improvising frantically, but still bound to the same sinking score. The maestro’s 400-year-old discipline remains universal in its self-perception and European folklore in its mechanism: it’s still the same boat.

Meanwhile, more passengers jump ship, to the assiduous musicians’ utter dismay. The virtuosi’s solution? Increasing scientific literacy so the public can better appreciate their prodigious music. Speechless.

---

6. Automated European Binary Logic (AEBL) — the new frontier **

When in the 1970s-1980s, French post-modernist sociologist and philosopher Jean Baudrillard discovered European binary logic and its focus on what it valued on positive—centuries after the racialized statistical global majority did—Western psychology hadn’t pinpointed the term “toxic positivity” yet. In the 21st century, the latter defined toxic positivity as the unhealthy expectation to always maintain a positive mindset, which dismisses and invalidates genuine emotional experience. This means that Western culture is wired to choose positivity over reality. How can’t it be a fertile ground for delusions?

Toxic positivity is the basis of colonial math—the sum of all deadly human abuses + sum of all life-saving technical innovations = net positive—and the basis of modern Western science progress. In this tireless race to eternity, European colonization transformed humanity into a binary matrix: discriminative when perceived by science; discriminatory when experienced by humanity. We live like in a grueling, never-ending live science-fiction movie in which the suffocating European binary logic became the self-regenerating fabric of time, defining the reality of humanity, all living beings, and inanimate materials. It releases one hyped sequel after another without offering a liberating pill that would awaken the captivated audience from this self-imposed dystopian nightmare.

Any new discipline sprouting from an undecolonized ground is only one more growing root in the eugenics tree illustrated in the so-called International Conference held in the early 20th century, expanding Western knowledge’s poisoned cosmology. Like during the official colonial time (1492-1997), the solution to humankind’s perceived problems is more modern Western science.

So, today, Automated European Binary Logic (AEBL)—also called Artificial Intelligence (AI), the modern Western science’s last innovation shot to stay relevant—risks repeating the same erasures, reproducing biases at machine speed while claiming objectivity. It’s the reflection of the positionality of the discriminative vs. discriminatory, the two compartmentalized sides of the same binary logic.

In the 2010s, researchers like Joy Buolamwini (Ghanaian-American computer scientist, MIT PhD) and Timnit Gebru (Ethiopian-American computer scientist, formerly at Google) have demonstrated modern Western Science’s dual positionality of expert-centric discriminative method and human-centric discriminatory treatment, as experienced in this compelling patient-empowering story. They have shown how AI facial recognition misidentifies darker-skinned faces at far higher rates than lighter-skinned ones. Safiya Noble (American scholar of African descent, UCLA professor) has documented how search engines reinforce racist and sexist stereotypes.

These shocking findings, from scholars of multidimensional national and cultural identities, expose that AEBL is not neutral—it encodes the cultural scripts of its creators. And it warns us that without vigilance, even the newest tools—like so-called AI (and truly AEBL)—will only automate old hierarchies. It prophecies that the European binary logic of right or wrong creates exponential multidimensional ignorance every time it invalidates one reality. They express the real-life implications of countless academic works produced by computer scientists like Judea Pearl, Thomas M. Cover, Joy A. Thomas and Stuart Kauffman in the late 1980s to early 1990s.

Kauffman’s computer science theory even proved that in Boolean (binary) networks, European binary logic’s doomed attempt at multidimensional logic by swiping gambling dice with cards, even when starting from unbiased, random initial states, the system evolves toward biased attractors. The bias emerges structurally from the binary update rules, not from data input. AEBL, therefore, doesn’t just reflect people’s biases; its operational logic actively manufactures them, even in its most advanced expression. Thirty years later, this reality is still ignored in Western science’s statistically normalized (=mainstream) script.

The bone-chilling fact? During the COVID19, Automated European Binary Logic’s algorithms were used by global health institutions, like the World Health Organization (WHO); the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC); private health organization, like Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; and many hospitals, besides the tech corporations, the pharmaceutical industry, the academic and research collaborations, and the global financial and development institutions.

It’s not that those organizations are incompetent or malevolent: they “think positive.” So, they continue to live up to modern Western science’s standard, whose binary logic produces knowledge when it validates the illusion humanity in which humanity lives and it calls reality, while generating ignorance when it invalidates it. It is at least seen from the Dharmic science’s 3,000-year-old holistic multidimensional logic that modern Western science invalidated centuries ago, along with all other humankind’s knowledges.

This prestigious network of elegant algorithmic governance re-centered Western epistemic (knowledge) authority under the guise of neutrality and science, through bias-manufacturing operational logic, biased data inheritance, and skewed power legacy. It re-enacted colonial logics of surveillance, extraction, and paternalism, as decolonial studies found out. Yet, it is foreseen to be the cornerstone of the preparation for a future pandemic response, or rather, reaction. The fateful ship is sinking another six feet under.

The discerning work of Buolamwini, Gebru, Noble, and the other canaries in a deep, dark, maze-like mine is only the tiny tip of a giant iceberg of a damning dynamic within modern Western science. Since the Civil Rights and Decolonization movements in the 1960s, experts from the racialized statistical global majority, whom the scientific establishment historically marginalized increased in the Western workforce due to fewer legal challenges.

Yet, the inclusion of scientists from historically and statistically marginalized realities is the lowest in science, the field that conceptualized racism and eugenics and invalidated those dehumanizing theories. How does this reflect its own success in debunking those discriminative/discriminatory concepts? Why is the picture so bleak? When will the scientific establishment explain to the public, and in medicine, to the patients that Science doesn’t progress, it resists less to the change. Innovations reproducing its past are the fastest to yield, like Automatic European Binary Logic, seen from the world’s multidimensional logics, or Artificial Intelligence, seen from Eurocentric binary logic. Meanwhile, even modern Western science still struggles to understand the sole paradigm that advanced modern Western science: Einstein’s theory of relativity.

While modern Western science’s objectivity doesn’t answer those humbling questions, scientists from historically and statistically marginalized realities have often uncovered the systemic ignorance of the self-perceived universal and objective discipline, drawing on their positionality and lived experience that eugenics’ standardization tried to eradicate.

Wide-awake, those impromptu superheroes wade in chilling, troubled waters. They hand over life-saving maps to the passengers to navigate the flooding innovations and redirect them to safer spaces. They trudge from one putrid room to another while building the lifeboats that the Titanic’s engineers deemed unnecessary.

It’s not that other scientists are incompetent or malevolent. Their heads are often underwater, creating new life-saving innovations. They are self-absorbed, using the only logic shaped to focus: the European binary logic, where they drown in its ever-increasing shrinking details. And even if they could breathe, they would still have to use all their strengths to swim against the comfortable anchor of normalization that became their Western identity—some chose to do so, many others don’t, drowning in the innocent illusion of sauntering on fresh, firm grounds.
In modern Western science’s eugenic binary logic, choosing to move from its constructed comfort zone doesn’t mean growth, but oppression. That’s how it feels to reach a position where one can grow, within a deadly stunting environment: precarious. So why even get there when the ultimate goal of modern Western science’s progress for humankind, and the Western culture’s equalitarian society, promoted and applied to humanity, is to makeeverybody feel comfortable? Deadly comfortable, multidimensional logics would add.

Still, if and when they hold onto their humanity, most statistically normalized scientists have as much potential to become superheroes in their own right, a position mistaken by the few loud others who are focused on inflating their egos to keep their grandiose image high and pure above water. Amongst the latter are the superstar entrepreneur scientists making modern Western science sound like rock&roll to hype and cash on oblivious dancing crowds.

Meanwhile, the undecolonized scientific establishment first minimizes the brave superheroes’ findings, like the Titanic’s virtuoso maestro shushing the alarmed musicians who warned about capsizing, insisting on perfecting his great music—the greatest he produced so far. Its discriminative binary logic labeled them as wet blankets whose pungent voices belong somewhere under the dusty lab bench of the darkest corner of a remote, leaky underground bunker protected by an impenetrable jungle on a cyclone-prone island. Why are they on board anyway, dragging on its unsinkable ship? They are going to capsize it! They will likely dry out, it hoped, because no scientist in their right mind would try to sink Science with a Capital S. It reassures itself, because unlike the public, scientists know better than anyone how Science brought so much to humankind, and how it’s critical for a possible future on Earth, or even Space.

Yet, as those committed experts spurting out the dark seem immune to vocal fatigue, the self-perceived timeless institution decides they make too many waves to ignore. It co-opts their labor, framing it as merely addressing a few unfortunate limitations in modern Western science’s otherwise great innovations. Its European binary logic imposed a distorted version of the superheroes’ monumental work as a new scientific canon to be measured against. It will become the new regulations that will be enforced. Modern Western science isn’t neutral: its Eurocentric hegemony neutralizes reality. Mission accomplished. The soothing supreme illusion of ultimate knowledge is maintained, and so is the illusion of ultimate truth.

The most fascinating aspect of this situation is its internal logic: rationalization. The hegemonic binary logic of the modern Western science establishment compartmentalizes reality—it discriminates and segregates what it perceives as diverse impurities (data and people) because it can only function under conditions it reduces to uniformity and purity. If it cannot segregate, it controls through assimilation, forcing everything to comply with its standards. The result is a co-dependent matrixed system: scientifically hyper-performant yet humanly hyper-dehumanizing.

The more experts from the racialized statistical global majority labor to feed this European binary matrix, the more they enable a historical system that shoots innovations first shaped to deal deadly harm to most of humanity. Yet, if they don’t ask questions later and disengage, the self-perceived God-like machine continues its lethal course unchecked.

The wrongest humans on Earth—as modern Western science’s eternal binary logic historically classified them—are damned if they do, damned if they don’t, no matter how Science with a capital S invalidated Linnaeus’s racial classification. So, they carry the burden to prove that a self-perceived perfect, supreme, universal, objective, forever-modern science—a discipline historically co-dependent on dehumanization—doesn’t dehumanize. Meanwhile, they must evidence that they are on the same boat. To summarize their invisible job description: to prove to the scientific establishment that modern Western science’s discriminative European binary logic discriminates, while swearing to be a team player, and proving they are not in the blasphemous anti-science team.

Indeed, forever-modern Western science’s binary logic corrected its past wrongs by declaring dehumanization wrong. So racism and eugenics have disappeared from Science’s presumed objective, innocent and pure perception, as if it were a magic, perfect object. This means those two historical reality distortions don’t exist in humanity’s ultimate truth, also referred to as Reality with a capital R, when Science with a capital S is applied. And if they do, the venerated field’s grandiose perception—that sees it

So, Buolamwini, Gebru, Noble, and the other canaries‘ research that focused on biases and other reality distortions acts like chromatographies: they test the purity and potency of scientific reality. There is nothing less than an ego-driven system that hates more than facing its impurity profile, be it a religious cult, a totalitarian government, or modern Western science. This is the system’s least acknowledged, most devastating double bind.

Indeed, modern Western science’s hegemonic binary thinking, anyone who isn’t for the perceived supreme discipline isn’t just against it, but also against Knowledge, with a capital K, the only one that Science with a capital S has the authority to produce since it declared it replaced God to explain humankind’s reality. In the only logic it knows—and so projects on everyone and everything—a patient-centric multidimensional narrative about the harm of its hegemony is one-dimensional. The soulful account is perceived as inaccurate, unreliable, and not rigorous. It is perceived as problematic all the more that it does not demonstrate the patient through a reality reduced through European binary logic: data. Not only is an artistic, poetic narrative considered invalid— even when based on facts—but also incomplete.

In binary thinking, a human-centric patient-empowering story is only complete, balanced, and nuanced when it includes the “other side,” the expert-centric life-saving technical innovations. Indeed, in European binary logic, any thesis needs an anti-thesis for reality to be neutral and nuanced, as per Western academic standards. Omitting this perceived natural binary rule of “both sides” is an unbalanced, non-nuanced, and unfair indictment of Science.

In European binary thinking, if patients are considered reality experts, scientists’ reality needs to be included for equality: all experts’ realities matter. This narrative of human experience with modern Western science is not the mirror of the patients’ suffering in its hegemonic hands. It’s not, even when it stresses the glorified discipline’s usefulness. It’s not even an invitation to expand humanity’s knowledge. No, it’s not. An attack on modern Western science’s hegemony is an attack on a perceived universal science. It’s an attack on Reality with a capital R.

So, modern Western science has the right to defend itself. Once it declares racism and eugenics invalid, in its reductive binary thinking doesn’t matter if the perceived heresy is about actively continuing those non-compliant dehumanizing theories, or to point out their ghosts haunting the discipline. Those dissident ideas need to be eliminated. Modern Western science’s binary logic often does so, by denial and minimization, especially for the proponents of scientific racism and eugenics.

In addition, for critical thinkers, the scientific establishment often lists its life-saving innovations and life-transforming achievements over the perceived accusation of its perceived minimal flaws, as per the colonial maths mechanism. Then, it defrocks and expels the perceived dissidents, non-compliant heretics to a remote island’s impenetrable jungle. It excommunicates dehumanization proponents and dehumanization critics alike, as reflected in its allocation of resources that the public can request but rarely does. For uncritical scientists, especially those issued from statistically normalized realities, any move is game to avoid looking at modern Western science’s imperfect reflection and to keep on projecting its grandiose image onto the world.

Expensive multidimensional thinking can understand reductive binary thinking, but not the other way around. Dealing with European binary logic’s disheartening intellectual gymnastics is the routine hell of any person capable of multidimensional logic, either traditionally, like Buolamwini, Gebru, Noble, or by the force of the fire, dodging new bullets, like many other canaries in a deep, dark, maze-like mine. Like them, patients living with chronic diseases have perfected the statistically marginalized historical dance necessary to survive beyond the p-value, meaning significance, as per modern Western science’s rationality, irrationality, knowledge, and ignorance.

Meanwhile, as modern Western science’s hegemonic binary logic continues to shoot half-baked innovations and debates about the accuracy of the dancing patient experience and its assimilation into Knowledge, the humanities count the casualties in its shadow. Rockbottom is not far.

While a statistical minority of experts try to follow an invisible double-bind job description, the medical science establishment bets this A.I. new game will keep it afloat because first-class innovation has a hefty price.

Yesteryears were made of cheap antibiotics and vaccines. Today, it’s expensive anti-viral drugs and cancer immunotherapies. For many scientists, modern Western science is still a dreamboat. AEBL promises to make drug discovery faster. Its tender whispers say prosthetics will be cheaper. Its unconditional love declares that diagnoses will be more accurate, and psychotherapy more accessible. With AI, more passengers will benefit from modern Western science’s life-saving melody since the fare will become more affordable. It’s the silver bullet to all humankind’s problems. And if it disastrously fails, it will be a net positive for humanity, anyway. It always is with colonial maths.

The only thing universal in modern Western science might be its own limitless ignorance. In a multidimensional logic, something can be successful and failing, excellent and mediocre, knowledgeable and ignorant, intelligent and stupid, enlightened and benighted, awake and asleep, life-saving and deadly, alive and dead, science and superstition, rationality and magical thinking, skepticism and cult, educating and indoctrinating, freeing and trapping, comic and chilling.

---

7. Integrative comparative case study: Binary and multidimensional logics in practice ***

In an authentic multidimensional perspective, the problem with European binary logic is not the logic itself, not even its “discriminative and exclusive vs. discriminatory and exclusionary” positionality. It’s the fact that it’s the only tool in the Western science toolbox, while inherently lacking self-awareness and self-reflection (Avidya in Sanskrit). It is, at least, seen from a multidimensional rationality.

Since its birth in the colonial 17th century until today and in the future, Western science’s solution to perceived problems is more Western science. It’s an unaddressed belief enabled by colonial math: sum of all the colonial abuses + sum of all progress = eternal net positive. It helps to respect a potent, deep cultural superstition: without Western science, humankind will die.

Indeed, in European binary logic/thinking/philosophy, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Western science is right. So living without it is wrong: terrible consequences will happen. Thus, when something seems wrong, it’s because there is not enough science in the perceived defective reality. That’s how the European colonization of the planet has scientized the world.

Western science didn’t reach hegemony through its perceived intellectual superiority. It reached it through a delusional belief and unspeakable violence, still well and alive today. It’s called delusional epistemic violence by the marginalized experts at the receiving end of its treatment. Meanwhile, it’s called truth, with an invisible capital T, by the normalized experts inflicting it upon humankind, the planet, and the universe—when scientists believe Western science surpasses God and declare it has replaced the latter. 

In unquestioned European binary logic/thinking/philosophy/religion, Western science needs to stay pure from perceived contaminating human subjectivity, for the worshipped magical object to continue to be neutral, objective, uniform, and consequently, replicable and trustworthy, through the p-value, e-value, or anything else.

For exclusive modern Western science, it’s about holding its discriminative and exclusive position with the only tool it has and downplaying that patients, humanity, systemically experience it as discriminatory and exclusionary. In binary logic, it’s a competition, a choice between those two opposite positions, and medicine has already answered who is the winner: the expert. No matter how it claims to be patient-centric, in a minute after centuries of generating knowledge from a dehumanizing expert-centric position.

European binary logic’s limitations are mitigated with a tool having the same limitations: the system becomes self-referent. It has been inbreeding ideas, problems, and solutions for 400 years. Even critical thoughts from realities that modern Western science perceives as others are often co-opted, purified (whitewashed), and assimilated, as our impromptu heroes experienced when they tried to fix the inherent biases of Automated European Binary Logic—referred to as Artificial Intelligence in neutralizing/colonizing language. The humanity’s exclusive/exclusionary idea pool held by modern Western science weakens while modern Western science’s knowledge continues to increase. Meanwhile, humankind’s collective knowledge dwindles.

While eugenics’ “expert-centric discriminative logic and human-experienced discriminatory treatment” European binary logic tried to eradicate any forms of knowledge that weren’t of European genealogy and replaced them with a perceived superior exclusive/exclusionary standard, it believed this Eurocentric self-fertilization would make Western knowledge forever relevant. It thought it would become the strongest and infallible thanks to self-correction within itself. It would be self-reproducible, self-replicable, transcendently universal, and objective.

Modern Western science could become a perfect rational solution that would reach a long thought-after perceived immortality over the unforgivable nature that brought so many pleas in Europe and our fallible humanity.

In medicine, inbreeding knowledge could bring eternity over illness and death. Today’s modern Western science—the brainchild issued from this eager intellectual incest— has serious, deadly logical defects.

*

Conscious binary logic: intentional discrimination in medical study design
Modern Western medicine still often recommends that people with deadly, inherited, rare genetic diseases refrain from reproducing until it fixes them genetically, through gene therapy, for example. Meanwhile, it never stopped reproducing its deadly inherited logical defects. In the humanities (philosophy and cultural studies), double standards are a symptom of hypocrisy, bias, delusion, and hegemony.

In statistics—eugenics’ brain child nurtured and raised with European binary logic— diversity (heterogeneity) is the enemy to eliminate or neutralize for a statistical reality to function—to exist. That’s why evidence-based medical research still proactively discriminates study participantsthrough inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure the necessary uniformity. An ideal study participant is designed as a standard according to physiological or psychological attributes, helping scientists to understand the impact of a new drug on a disease.

Yet, in real life, ideal patients don’t exist. They can have many diseases at the same time that can influence each other. Other external factors can impact the drug efficacy, like diets, amongst others. For example, in the 1990s, Western science discovered that patients taking anti-HIV medicine with grapefruit juice intentionally reduced their treatment effectiveness.

To mitigate the risk due to patients’ humanity, drug adverse effects are reported and monitored in a reactive post-marketing surveillance system. The latter assesses and validates or invalidates whether those effects are due to the drug, as per statistics/eugenics binary logic. In addition, modern Western science increasingly assimilates real-world experiences in its evidence generation. It harmonizes, meaning standardizes and uniformizes to fit the artificial scientific reality. Then it uses statistics to validate or invalidate the hybrid data and determine if patient experience is meaningful or not.

Besides, to design life-saving treatments more targeted to the patients, modern Western science is moving towards personalized medicine based on genetics, the brain of child of eugenics and biology. It perceives that in this offspring, biology is the dominant discipline while eugenics is a recessive one. While those innovations are still unaffordable for many, there is hope that Automated European Binary Logic—referred to as Artificial Intelligence—will democratize those new therapies.

In mental health, European binary logic inbreeding can be even more problematic for humankind. The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic left an extraordinary amount of perceived undesirable grief—meaning “abnormal” amount when translated from neutralizing language into original European binary language—in statistically normalized humans. The Western neutralizing standardized binary translation of it: everybody was suffering. The pain needed to be eradicated, as per the European binary logic of Western medicine.

As we witnessed post-crisis, Western science doesn’t do collective healing, unlike the other World’s sciences that it has historically invalidated. During the crisis, teams of hard science experts, mainly epidemiologists (epidemic statisticians), virologists (virus specialists), and physicians (human body specialists), shoved cold, hard data into humanity’s frightened and exhausted minds. Meanwhile, they marginalized the perceived soft science psychologists (mind specialists) and excluded religion and spirituality, overlooking spiritual leaders (trusted soul confidants). Then, once the crisis was controlled, there was no talk about processing and making sense of the shared trauma humanity went through. Instead, Western medicine’s survivalist logic rushed to prepare for the potential next sickcare pandemic crisis.

Thus, Western healing science did what it only knows to address the ongoing suffering. Western psychology standardized grief to help patients who it perceived as more distressed than others. In 2024, the American Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM), which influenced the disease codification of the World Health Organization (WHO), was expanded with a new diagnosis category: Prolonged Grief Disorder. Discussions were carried out primarily amongst clinicians and seemingly without any critical voice from the humanities (decolonized or not). The process of public consultation was followed. The proposal was accepted. An innovation was shot: a new box was created.

In trying to help individual patients, mainly of European descent, Western psychology’s insularity standardized, pathologized, and codified a normal human experience deeply variable across cultures. The unresolved issue of a few in the West became a major issue for many in the world.

Yet, modern Western science does care about avoiding over-pathologizing people. It’s only dependent on which patients are at risk, following its debunked historical scientific classification. Indeed, in 2019, when Haitian-American civil rights Activist and psychiatrist Alvin Poussaint proposed to classify extreme racism that led to lynching as a psychological dysfunction, the American Psychiatric Society didn’t accept it in the DSM. Experts justified that it was clinically very difficult to distinguish a hateful but culturally acquired belief from a true disease, like psychosis or delusion. As exposed earlier in this narrative, they also argued that pathologizing extreme racism could risk pathologizing and stigmatizing many of the statistically normalized global minority, also known as people of pure European descent, or monocultural European descendants. The bullet had to be dodged. No box was created. The potential victims were saved by modern Western science’s critical thinking, again.

As mainstream modern Western science shoots innovations, true critical psychologists ask questions later and mainly use the official standards like the DSM for what they increasingly became: a diagnosis-codification bible for health insurances. Unfortunately, patients have little information about who those critical healthcare providers are.

Fortunately, the humanities are taking care of the casualties by writing thought-provoking multidimensional books powered with insightful patients’ wisdom, compiling an extensive list of critical questions that patients can use to navigate modern Western science’s limitations.

Decoloniality and cultural studies deal with patients affected by chronic racism and abandoned by mainstream psychology. They help to make sense of their valid experiences. It’s what African American law professor, civil rights advocate, and impromptu lived-experience physician & philosopher, Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw, did when she and other scholars coined the Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the late 1989 to express the work many decolonial academics had done since the mid-1970s to critique the reality blindness of the mainstream American civil rights laws. CRT is the multidimensional lens to discern the casualties of modern Western science’s race theory, invisible in European binary logic. Likewise, it will take care of patients affected by the pathologization of grief in the marginalized global majority when problems arise a few years from now. Then, the harrowing circle of Western knowledge will be closed.

The most courageous patients, especially those who advocate for themselves and try to co-create knowledge with experts, can learn to navigate this hellscape. They can even find the light through it. They just need to find the hidden map that will lead them to a dusty lab bench of the darkest corner of a remote, leaky underground bunker protected by an impenetrable jungle on a distant cyclone-prone island.

Meanwhile, unless statistically normalized patients die in statistically abnormal amounts, modern Western science can continue to shoot heedless innovations saving all humankind, as it believes.

The logical defect of modern Western science’s inbred mitigation measures is that they remain trapped within the same binary framework that created the limitation in the first place. Its uninterrupted genealogy continues to erase the multidimensional patient and humanity’s diverse reality and basic needs as shown in the over-codification of reality in psychology. Its eugenic self-referential logic multiples by dividing its never-growing perception, like dysregulated immature cells multiplying until its host dies. The process is called cancer in biology. In psychology, it’s called Western knowledge, its mutations, innovations, and metastazing, specializing.

In this context, medicine and pharmaceutical regulations protecting patients are only band-aids against modern Western science’s dehumanizing design when applied with decolonized critical thinking, which only happens marginally. In most cases, regulation acts to maintain this cancer-like mechanism through an undecolonized co-dependent thought system called regulatory excellence.

In this dysfunctional cultural context, as per binary logic—reality-blind context (Avidya) as per multidimensional logics, regulations set mediocre standards by design. Indeed, when stuck in binary logic, self-dehumanized modern Western science is dehumanizing by design and so can only set its standards as “not dehumanizing.” Then, its cultural toxic positivity calls it re-humanizing. So, experts can congratulate themselves on the progress achieved in considering humanity, respecting patients’ lived experience, and transforming modern Western science into a field closer to humanity.

Meanwhile, modern Western science’s fundamental perception and logic stays unchallenged. Even in biology, a reported adverse effect is either deemed “caused by the drug” or “not caused by the drug.” There is no diagnostic code for “caused by the interaction of the drug with the patient’s unique biochemistry, diet, stress levels, and environmental toxins.” The humanity of the patient—their diet, their co-morbidities, their life—is forever framed as a confounding variable, a source of error to be controlled for, rather than the essential context of their health. The tool, by its very design, can only ever see the parts, never the whole.

Modern Western scientific knowledge is like seeing individual trees, but failing to grasp the larger forest. The P-value and replication crises scream that the forest is on fire. Yet, each scientist reacts by planting a new tree.

*

Unconscious binary logic: implicit biases in clinical encounters
Implicit biases are subconscious associations that shape judgment and behavior, often reinforcing social stereotypes. Ancient Indian Vedic texts described these cognitive patterns three millennia ago, but Western psychology formally named them only in the late 20th century through the work of Mahzarin Banaji, an Indian American social psychologist, and Anthony Greenwald, a European American cognitive psychologist.

Most cultures observed that humans tend to develop subconscious cultural associations to navigate a complex world. For example: blue/sky, cold/ice, warm/fire, yellow/chick, pungent/durian in South East Asia, pungent/camembert in France.

However, the specific global systematization, rationalization, and institutional enforcement of these biases through European binary logic is a hallmark of Western scientific and colonial culture. The latter constructed rigid, hierarchical binaries: white/Black, rational/irrational, civilized/savage, normal/abnormal, fit/unfit, pure/impure, etc. Then, using emerging scientific fields like statistics and psychology, it codified these biases into “objective” systems—from Galton’s eugenics to modern AI. These globalized biases perpetuate the same hierarchical, exclusionary frameworks that European binary logic was designed to enforce.

For example, undecolonized Western psychology—also referred to as mainstream psychology— is a discipline designed by Western Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic societies, or WEIRD cultures. Its biased historical structure includes grandiose colonial delusions of universality and objectivity that still statistically marginalized and pathologized the racialized global majority. Dharmic science calls this mechanism ignorance (Avidya), while Western culture calls it knowledge.

In the USA, drapetomania was a term invented by European descendant Dr Samuel A. Cartwright in 1851 to describe a supposed mental illness that caused enslaved Africans to want to escape captivity. The emancipation dismantled the diagnosis, and the disease disappeared when Americans of African descent freed themselves after centuries of resistance.

In the colonial French empire, psychose d’inadaptation (maladaptation psychosis) referred to the supposed mental illness of colonized subjects who resisted assimilation into French culture or failed to “adapt” to European norms, as per the European descendant expert Dr. Antoine Porot’s Algerian School of Psychiatry in the 1910s–1930s. Later, psychiatrists of the racialized global majority, like African descendant Dr. Frantz Fanon (who worked in colonial Algeria in the 1950s), directly critiqued and dismantled this framework in his writings, such as The Wretched of the Earth and Black Skin, White Masks. Like in the USA a century before, the disease disappeared when the racialized global majority freed themselves after centuries of resistance.

So in 1999, when Haitian-American civil rights Activist and psychiatrist Dr. Alvin Poussaint proposed to classify extreme racism that led to lynching as a psychological dysfunction, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) didn’t accept it.

Psychiatrists argued about the danger of political abuse: a diagnosis of “racism” could be used by oppressive regimes to label political dissidents as mentally ill. As exposed earlier, they justified that it was clinically very difficult to distinguish a hateful but culturally acquired belief from a true psychosis or delusion. As per European binary logic, they asked if it was a systemic moral/ethical failure or a mental illness. Likewise, how could they define a “normal” vs. “pathological” belief? Finally, pathologizing extreme racism could risk pathologizing and stigmatizing many of the statistically normalized global minority, also known as people of pure European descent, or monocultural European descendants. It would also risk removing individual accountability from normalized people, as the problem could be only individual or systemic, as per European binary logic, not both. The potential victims were saved, thanks to Western science’s perceived superior self-corrective capacity.

Meanwhile, the APA needs more “healthy” debates. It means using the competitive European binary logic of right or wrong while repressing or metabolizing anger and resentment from invalidation to keep the binary thought system intact. So, the real potential victim is saved: Western science.

Healthy debate is what happens with the Western human category of transpeople. Humans identifying differently from the cultural standards associated with their genitals have been documented and often buried in archives for millennia. Yet, in the early 19th century, eugenics’ binary logic declared they were people with the wrong minds in the right bodies. The prescription to correct the perceived human error and save transpeople? Corrective institutionalization, or forced mind mutilation.

In 1951, the APA’s Diagnostic Statistical Manual, the inspiration of the World Health Organization, classified trans experience as sexual deviation, lumping it with homosexuality. After the civil rights and decolonization movements in the 1960s, Western psychology’s binary logic progressively switched to classify transpeople as people with the right minds and the wrong bodies. The prescription to correct the perceived human error and save transpeople? Corrective surgery, or free body mutilation.

Discriminative/discriminatory positionality in Western medicine informs us that care or abuse depends on perception. In 2025, as the political and cultural winds change, the next binary logic treatment seems progressively to switch to forced non-intervention, and ignore transpeople’s suffering. This inaction is the perceived neutral position of European binary logic, its center of inertia.

Meanwhile, what hasn’t been discussed so far in the expert-driven debate about trans-identity is how modern Western science’s hegemony, binary logic, and applied discipline still objectify humans, while labelling itself as objective. Doing so would risk opening the air-tight door to sovereign patient-led science. Innovative healthcare approaches by patients for patients? God, meaning Science, forbids such a heresy.

In multidimensional logics, less dehumanization doesn’t mean more re-humanization. It only does in binary logic, Western science’s fundamental reductive approach. So, modern Western science’s virtuosi often believe that resisting less to changes pushed by the exhausting advocacy of courageous patients is progress. To counter-argue the systemic lack of patient empowerment, they might point out that their field yields patient-led innovation with plenty of examples of overdue concessions—like assimilating patient-reported outcomes or diversity into the pure reality of Science with a capital S.

Those experts might even show how scientists have saved transpeople’s lives thanks to effective hormone therapy. Meanwhile, they might omit that trans patients pioneered hormone therapy to address chronic healthcare neglect, begging physicians for this treatment approach in the 1930s. Then, in the 1970s, they innovated with DIY therapy when hormones got easier access in the normalized population after the civil rights and decolonization movements. A decade later, experts claimed authority over the treatment by systematizing and regulating it, and got the credit in the public opinion, as it often happens when patients lead scientific innovations.

Western science learns, heals, and protects patients selectively, as per its discriminative European binary logic. Today, another striking example of blatant, harmful, and widespread inherent limitations of mainstream undecolonized psychology towards the statistical global majority is the ongoing concept of neurodivergence.

Normalizing/marginalizing European binary logic is convergent by design and set as standard in Western psychology. Yet, most cultures have multidimensional traditions, seemingly divergent when perceived from a convergent logic. What might be labeled as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in a Western classroom, expected to be still, focused, and obedient, might be seen as valuable life energy and creative alertness in a different cultural context. It resonates even more so before the European colonization of humankind’s reality.

Thus, people from those scientifically marginalized cultures are placed in an invisible Western-centred position, where they can be overdiagnosed as neurodivergent by undecolonized Western psychology. It’s even more likely, as contemporary psychology addresses the limitations of its foundational binary categories by covering them with inclusive, multidimensional language, such as neurodiversity. It’s like moving from black and white to include yellow and red, and calling it a spectrum of humanity, just as physician Linnaeus did in the 18th century. Like in the case of adrapetomania or maladaptation psychosis, only decolonizing people from the marginalized global majority affected by this concept today can determine the scientific relevance of neurodivergence when applied to them.

Meanwhile, modern Western science’s fundamental European binary logic remains unchallenged from an authentic multidimensional perspective. So, any human from the marginalized global majority can refuse this “neurodivergent” Western Science label. Any of them can ask their therapists to explain how this diagnosis addresses European binary logic’s convergence, rigidity, and the discipline’s colonial history. Any of them can ask where their therapist is in their decolonization journey, how they did it, and why they believe they are safe and competent experts for humankind beyond European descendants. Any of them can ask to recenter the diagnosis around their needs and desire for decolonization and liberation. It’s a fundamental patient right.

And if the therapist cannot address their own colonial mindset, patients have the right to leave and share their patient/client’s adverse experience with community members, with the media they prefer. They can, no matter how much healthcare professionals fear the incidental exposure of their limitations. They can, no matter how much scientists refuse to own up to modern Western science’s limitations. This and other previous steps are an integral part of the patient journey. It’s called advocacy. It’s a political, social, cultural, psychological, and spiritual act that is as much a part of healing as any evidence-based therapy grounded in reductive European binary logic. Modern Western science’s deficits are not the client/patient’s. In a multidimensional reality, Western psychology’s European binary logic doesn’t face a client/patient’s complex case; it faces its own ignorance.

To soften this European binary logic’s rigidity, Western science increasingly collaborates with the decolonized humanities, such as postcolonial studies, feminist science studies, and critical sociology, to attempt a less fallible multidimensionality. For example, the latest Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-5)—from the same medical society that shot the newest innovation of “Prolonged Grief Disorder” box— shot a Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) box for what its binary logic calls non-Westerners, to address therapists’ systemic implicit biases at only the start of the treatment. It consists of 16 questions centered around the patient’s reality. Then, when the patient feels seen and sometimes safe, the therapists can proceed with therapy with a Eurocentric perception if the practice is undecolonized. Patients in more in a vulnerable position to being re-traumatized

For patients of the marginalized global majority, the only way to discriminate if they are facing the CFI’s inadvertent epistemic (knowledge) bait-and-switch or are starting therapy with a culturally attuned therapist is to continue the treatment and see if it harms them or not. If it feels predatory, it’s because the European colonial culture is. It’s the culture that has carved modern Western science.

Adding a box for a Cultural Formulation Interview for so-called non-Western clients/patients doesn’t address the fact that Western psychology still uniformizes the diverse reality of European descendants into a standard of purity, like in chemistry. It ignores the method that processes people, including their minds, as if they were substances or materials. With a CFI, people of the racialized, marginalized global majority are only less dehumanized. Meanwhile, European descendants continue to be forced into an artificially pure monoculture necessary for modern Western psychology to function and stay coherent: they have the same right to refuse its labels. Dharmic science still calls the CFI boxing process ignorance (Avidaya), while Western knowledge calls it expertise.

By reducing reality to boxes, European binary logic encages and controls human experience, a process called rationalization. Western science’s hegemony over other disciplines and cultures means that only labeled realities exist in humanity, Earth, and the Universe. So receiving a label through diagnosis is an existential relief for many patients, as it provides identity, albeit reductive, community, albeit for survival, validation, albeit conditional, and access to care, albeit controlled. Multidimensional logics understand that it’s a necessity within the rigid frame of binary logic and a limitation within their own frames. They offer the only space where labels can be accepted and refused simultaneously without contradiction. The more the patients develop their capacity for multiple truths, the better they can advocate safely for themselves in a system that is dehumanizing by rigid design.

Meanwhile, the binary logic of many modern Western science laudes post-modern humanities as an antidote. Even here, limits appear, as discerned in multidimensional logics: these humanities remain largely European in genealogy. They critique Western science but often cannot step fully outside its epistemic ground (knowledge roots), reproducing fragments of the same binary assumptions they seek to dismantle. Their strength is to expose bias, hierarchy, and exclusion. Their weakness is that they too often remain locked in critique, rather than embodying expansive logics by design, as many traditional knowledges of the global majority do. So, when applied to science, their solutions use the only tool in their toolbox: binary logic, and intellectually inbreed reality, as the CFI illustrates. Dharmic science calls it addressing ignorance (Avidya) with more ignorance (Avidya), while Western knowledge calls it problem-solving.

Post-modernism’s approach to human diversity and reality’s multidimensionality through all-or-nothing European binary logic, they often risk undiscerning relativism: if all beliefs are equally valid, then no belief—not even one validating evil acts—can ever be truly wrong. Including all perspectives without understanding how they related to each other created an illusion of balance, harmony, and universality, characteristics valued in the Eurocentric Western culture, as per the European Enlightenment ideal.

European binary logic’s relativism is one of modern science traditionalists’ strongest arguments against all multi-dimensional logics, including traditional knowledges of the global majority rooted in the multi-dimensionality they aren’t positioned to perceive and understand. If it seems irrational, one needs to remember that European binary logic doesn’t discern: it discriminates (reality-segregation) or indiscriminates (reality-blindness) to produce knowledge. Dharmic science still calls this dynamic ignorance (Avidya).

This “discriminate/indiscriminate” switch in European binary logic has had major consequences on humanity, as multidimensional logics can discern it.

For instance, the“discriminate” switch led to Swedish physician Linnaeus’ classification of all living beings and the creation of the racial classification based on skin color, placing African descendants with dark skin at the bottom of humanity and the top of animality, in the 18th century. The then-mainstream scientific theory became the rationalization for their enslavement and systematic, unethical scientific experiments.
When European binary logic discriminated further within humanity, in the 19th century, it gave birth to eugenics and the concept of the white standard of purity and supremacy. The then-mainstream science aimed to eliminate humans considered impure to what scientists believed should have been the statistical normal “human race.” In the 20th century, eugenics rationalized the sterilization of “non-whites,” “non-Christian,” people living in poverty, people living with Western-labeled disabilities, and the LGBTQ+ community. It rationalized unethical experiments on those populations in the colonies and in the West.

After the German nazi medical experiments in (1942-1945), Europe turned the “indiscriminate” switch and stopped seeing color: the perceived neutral position and European binary logic’s center of inertia. Many European countries adopted color-blind laws that forbid mention of ethnicity —the intersection of culture, constructed race, and ancestry—in data collection to avoid European binary logic to discriminate, including in medical research. Thus, Europe could only implement an enforceable framework to include one-size-fits-all non-racial diversity and minimize implicit biases in the interpretation of the study results in 2014.

For patients in undecolonized psychiatry—also referred to as mainstream psychiatry—it means that the USA European binary logic’s “discriminate” switch found that racialized black men are diagnosed two to four times higher than normalized white people, mainly due to biases, cultural beliefs, and scientific superstitions. Meanwhile, in Europe, the historical, cultural, and scientific epicenter of racism and eugenics, the “indiscriminate” switch finds it’s not a reality, just like a three-year-old boy closing his eyes. Hence, highly and prestigiously educated experts can conclude it’s not a problem to address in this region of the world.

Even when some highly regarded experts can admit the limitation of the scientific discriminative/discriminatory logic in the “baffling” context of humanity’s diversity, their unshakable belief in its supremacy rationalizes that it’s still the best thinking humanity can achieve. And even if a better philosophy arises in humankind, it can only be delivered through their perceived logic and expertise anyway. Reality blindness/true ignorance—Avidya in Sanskrit—is the human tragedy of technical hegemony.

*

Binary logic’s discriminate/indiscriminate switch has implications beyond psychology/psychiatry: it applies in all medicine. Consider the following three other embodied examples in medicine. The first is when the European binary logic “discriminate” switch is on, the second is when it switches to “indiscriminate”, and the third is with discerning Native American multidimensional logic, the one eugenics, statistics, and evidence-based modern Western science’s innate European binary logic labeled as wrong:

• Binary discriminate switch on – Sickle cell research (African-descendant communities): For decades, sickle cell disease was marginalized in research funding compared to conditions like cystic fibrosis or breast cancer, despite its severe impact on racialized Black African-descendant populations. Binary logic discriminative approach framed it as a “statistical minority disease,” less deserving of attention, even pathologizing racialized Black bodies as inherently defective. A multidimensional logic instead centers lived experience: understanding how pain crises are shaped by structural racism in healthcare, how community knowledge about care practices offers insight, and how environmental and social stressors interact with biology.
  
  
• Binary indiscriminate switch on- Breast cancer research (global majority populations): Breast cancer trials have historically prioritized statistically normalized white, middle-class women in Europe and North America—”women of non-color, ” if European binary language applied to them—the perceived neutral statistical female Western standard. This binary logic indiscriminate approach shaped treatment standards and public awareness campaigns that did not reflect the realities of statistically marginalized Indigenous women, women of the racialized statistical global majority living in the West, or women in the geo-political global South— all referred to as “women of color” in European binary language applied to them. For example, aggressive subtypes like triple-negative breast cancer, more common among racialized Black African-descendant women, were under-researched. A multidimensional approach would have recognized variations not as deviations from the norm but as part of the full reality of humanity—guiding earlier, more intentional, deciphered interventions.
  
  
• Multidimensional discernment – Indigenous health data sovereignty: Western epidemiology treats health data as a universal, decontextualized resource, reducing Indigenous peoples’ health to numbers in registries often controlled by outside institutions. Academic European binary logic asks: “Are these populations at higher or lower risk?” Multidimensional logics, by contrast, insist that health data is not neutral but relational: it belongs to communities, tied to land, culture, and governance.
  Through frameworks like the First Nations principles of OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession), Indigenous nations have asserted sovereignty over their data, reshaping not just what is studied but how, why, and for whose benefit. This expands the scope of evidence to include collective rights, cultural continuity, and relational accountability alongside biomedical outcomes.

Together, these examples embody concretely how binary and multidimensional logics shape medical outcomes. Yet, the implications are deeper:

Discriminative binary logic’s either/or competitive comparison aims to select the perceived best option (multidimensional example) and reproduce and exploit it, while invalidating and discarding the worst one (binary example) in this context. If the choice isn’t in line with its cultural script, it creates an uncomfortable self-made dilemma called cognitive dissonance. It resolves it by segregating the uncomfortable reality, or “compartmentalizing” as Western psychology calls and pathologizes it when individuals do it, or “specializing,” when Western knowledge calls and celebrates it.

Meanwhile, an expansive multidimensional integrative comparison aims to listen to how these two dimensions resonate with each other, unveil how they are articulated with each other, and converse about how they can learn from each other. And, this nurturing approach can be expanded to include one or even several dimensions simultaneously. And, it uncovers a coherent shared narrative where each unique voice has its own well-articulated story.

The result of expansive multidimensional integrative comparison means that European binary logic’s humble limits are understood, accepted, and addressed with a multidimensional rationality. For example, a treatment protocol can include prayers, not because the physician is religious, but because the patient is. And the latter agreed to go to heavy chemotherapy, and faith is where they find they find the required strength. Another patient might find strength in understanding the pathology, the drug mechanism, and other scientific information. Then, scientific literacy is what this patient needs. Some patients need both realities and maybe another to listen to. The healthcare professional’s job is to adapt medicine to those expressed needs.

Interconnection is critical in multidimensional rationality. For instance, humans with statistically marginalized conditions—also referred to as rare diseases—can learn how to re-empower themselves from the health data sovereignty protocols of the violently statistically marginalized Indigenous people, instead of trying to fit in a framework designed for statistically normalized people.

Trust is another important element in multidimensional logic. During the 2019 pandemic, many women reported prolonged menstrual bleeding after taking the COVID-19 vaccine. Many scientists’ binary thinking was quick to publicly invalidate those women’s experience and validate modern Western science’s innovation, to protect the public, they believed.

In a multidimensional rationality, the health authorities would have reached the people through the widely followed news and thanked the women for speaking up about their experience with the vaccines. They would have explained that all medicines are monitored for their undesirable effects, and those vigilant women’s irreplaceable voices helped scientific progress. And, they would have reassured them that they would look into the matter. And they would have clarified that even if they hadn’t found any correlation between the bleeding and the vaccine, it wouldn’t mean that their experience wasn’t invalid, but that science met its limits in this particular context. And, after addressing those human needs, they would have reminded the self-dehumanized scientists and experts that any drug’s undesirable effects need to be reported as per regulation, no matter if they believed those events are related to the vaccine or not, and they would have invited them to follow this process. And, while initiating their scientific assessment, the health authorities would have promised to revert to the humans—also referred to as the public in normalizing language and perceived as the normalized people in binary language, so that’s maybe why women didn’t deserve this hypothetical humanizing treatment. And they would have followed up on this action with the public.

When scientists and health authorities ‘ narratives are perceived as protecting the science over the patient experience, how do they think those invalidated women can trust the consecutive scientific findings if the latter contradict their experience?

The global trauma due to the pandemic stays unaddressed and lingers due to an inadequate logic that isn’t able of collective healing. It created an unspoken global humanitarian/mental health crisis. How will modern Western science address its responsibility in it? How can it admit that it only addressed a scientific/technical crisis that worsens this humanitarian crisis? Why do scientists believe they can address the next pandemic without being completely dismissed by humankind this time after humanly failing? And before those self-confident experts rush to answer all those questions, no, it’s not with more scientific literacy.

Multidimensional rationality understands the true meaning of patient-centric medicine: the rich human reality comes first in healing, while modern Western science’s medicine is used as a simple tool for the experts to co-build with the patients. It brings the human literacy that modern Western science abandoned when it became a tool of colonization, embraced hegemony, divorced the humanities, and outsourced its own humanity. Even its most advanced self-correcting process cannot address this perceived failure. Empowered, knowledgeable, self-aware patients can, by humbling modern Western science’s hegemony, just by speaking up about the adverse experience with it. The question is, with the only logic it can understand: will it truly listen?

Binary logic narrows truth to fit cultural scripts or ignores human experience; multidimensional logics expand it to reflect humanity as it is. The decolonized humanities can sharpen critique, while post-modern medical science can include its analyses.

Still, the solution to the problem created by Western knowledge is more Western knowledge. So, those perceived progressive disciplines are also culturally stuck in the same European binary framework. Post-modern Western science and any attempts to progress and spread Western knowledge inadvertently bring it closer to a dreaded terminal stage. They are so enmeshed that even their iconic anti-racism figure, German American Franz Boas, the father of American modern anthropology, prescribed assimilation as a pragmatic solution to the perceived “Black American problem”—meaning the fact that the society led by European Americans systemically abused Western-science-racialized enslaved African descendants.

Likewise, Belgian French structuralist academic Claude Levi-Strauss, the father of anthropology, famous for establishing that the “savage mind” wasn’t different than the “civilized mind,” still perceived reality through Eurocentric binary opposition, and believed in universal laws of human thought. Post-modern and post-structuralist philosophers, like Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida—often seen as the epitome of the progressive Western thought—were critical of modern Western science to curb its abusive tendency to label other cultures’ sciences as pseudoscience because they do not follow its European principles. Still, those revered academics’ philosophies did not think beyond European binaries. Meanwhile, the Western decolonial academics still progress within the “experts vs. grass-roots” European binary.

Narrative medicine is a post-modern scientific approach to healthcare that values people’s stories as much as their symptoms. It establishes that by listening deeply to how illness affects a person’s life, doctors and nurses can see the whole human being, not just the disease. It aims to bring compassion, understanding, and connection back into medical care. Still, its individualistic human-centred approach often misses Western science’s systemic accountability in constructing the scientific narratives that harm patients.

For example, narrative medicine aims to help people living with obesity address the internalized social stigma of laziness and over-indulgence by reassuring patients that modern Western science has found that their condition is neurologic. That’s why diets are so ineffective: patients can finally be saved without carrying the burden of proof to the grandiose discipline. Meanwhile, modern Western science omits to say that it created this stigma.

What narrative medicine doesn’t narrate to people living with obesity is that in the 19th century, Western science reframed older moral ideas of “gluttony” and “sloth” into medical terms, casting fatness as a sign of poor self-control and unfitness for the disciplined industrial citizen. Around the 1830s, Adolphe Quetelet’s Body Mass Index (BMI) introduced numerical categories that later pathologized body diversity into “normal” and “obese.” Besides, racial science in his time, and later eugenics, tied fatness to primitiveness and non-European ancestry, while promoting thinness as a marker of civilization and moral superiority. What began as a moral judgment became “objective” and “neutral” science.

This biomedicalization of humanity’s reality erased cultural diversity in body meanings and entrenched a stigma that continues to harm people worldwide. Recounting this story to patients would put Western experts in a position where they are correcting and saving science when their binary logic chose that they are saving patients and humankind. As post-modern Western science creates a new box, an innovation is shot.

Meanwhile, one critical expert out of many is asking questions later in a short, creative healing book that reframes the p-value and significance in medicine while trying to re-empower humanity. The humanities will deal with the casualties. Their work, effort, and contribution will be colonized. They will be co-opted, emptied of their meaning, preached, and assimilated through standardization, after it’s adopted by the scientific establishment and standardized experts. It will, as modern Western science does with any realities it marginalizes.

Thus, if self-advocating patients—a statistically marginalized reality in modern medicine per design—work directly with the decolonized humanities, they might be in a more discerning place to dodge modern Western science’s new bullets and demand an immediate disarmament before accepting to collaborate.

The unacknowledged truth is that European binary logic’s expansionist, reductionist logic, and its hegemony are what make knowledge Western, “Western.” The unspeakable truth is that medicine, psychology, narrative medicine, compassion-focused therapy, trauma-centered therapy, and any other present and future modern or post-modern Western healing science make patients bear the burden of adapting to a toxic world while experts benefit from that often-silenced reality.

Yet, the more Western experts can perceive, understand, and accept modern Western science’s limitations, the more they can see that it reflects the limitations of its experts’ European binary logic. The more accurately scientists perceive and respect their perceived forever-modern field’s cultural boundaries at conscious and unconscious levels, the better they are in a unique position to help humanity, and in medicine to help patients to heal, if modern Western science heals itself first—not with technically self-correcting but humanely growing. It’s a necessary development to confront modern Western science’s mythology and collaborate with humankind and all the latter’s cultures.

European binary logic will never be able to capture patients’ reality’s multidimensionality, because it’s not the logical tool to process natural diversity. It’s a clear limit, seen from a multidimensional logic’s perspective, which can understand binary logic, but not the other way around. Instead, it creates more uniformity by planting more trees in the forest, which could work if the forest weren’t burning.

Only multidimensional logics by design—like those rooted in African, Asian, and many other Indigenous traditions—can see the forest, burning or not, and are in a unique position to reimagine medicine with humanity beyond the limits of Europe’s intellectual inheritance and related binary matrix, its binary fabric of time. They do, no matter how extensively modern Western science marginalizes them. To perceive this reality, invisible to its over-inflated ego, modern Western science needs what it misses the most in its titanic institution, its monumental ship: intellectual humility.

---

8. Intellectual humility: modern Western science’s missing lifeboat *

The solution to problems created by Western science is more Western science: keep it in the family. Thus, the issue with Western science isn’t Western science itself. It’s its inbreeded hegemony rooted in the grandiose delusion that fuelled the European colonization of humankind, the planet, Space, and the farthest end of the universe that it has called a noble pursuit.

Intellectual humility is the potent treatment of reality in which modern Western science admits its limits to the public, as in the short, relational, human-centric supportive clarification it would have provided to women experiencing post-vaccine bleeding during the COVID-19 pandemic. But it requires first intellectual honesty, and the latter is based on emotional honesty. Since science divorced from emotions and outsourced them to the humanities in the 19th century, the most humane it can do is an extensive, sharp, expertise-driven explanation that says:

“The p-value and replication crises push scientists to rethink the notion of objectivity and universality. Its evidence generation may not be as robust as we believed, even if it remains mainly helpful for the science-defined groups of humanity it was historically developed to serve. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Progress like personalized medicine showed promising results to address patients’ diversity. And A.I. will hopefully make those therapies more affordable. Overall, Science presents more benefits than risks and is useful for humanity, as shown by its success in containing the COVID-19 pandemic and developing life-saving innovations, from cancer, rare diseases to AIDS, and so many other vital treatments.

Unfortunately, modern Western fundamental discriminative European binary logic does not repair. When it invalidates, it fractions, compartmentalizes, segregates, and breaks reality. When it validates, it doesn’t repair. I repeat: it does not do reparations—not for the racial hierarchy it theorized that justified transatlantic slavery—not for the eugenic hierarchy that rationalized genocides—not for the harm that might happen with artificial intelligence. It wasn’t Science, it was the humans. It’s just like gun violence isn’t the fault of the guns, but the people. Science is a force of good by design that can be misappropriated.

Fortunately, we have been practicing responsible science since the Nazi scientific experiments in the 1940s and the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. It’s a critical statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, we meant, participants. It brought the systemic changes necessary post-WWII, after the devastating Nazi scientific experiments.

Science makes unfortunate mistakes; it’s the nature of the process. There were a few regrettable excesses that happened after, like the Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee University in the USA— a government experiment that denied Western-science racialized Black men treatment for syphilis to observe the disease’s progression without their informed consent from 1932 to 1973. It only stopped when scientist, whistleblower, and apparently wet blanket Peter Buxtun informed the press after his management ignored his callout— This horrifying study does not represent Science. Neither do the unethical medical research in less fortunate places in the world, until today, like in Africa.

Indeed, whenever those misfortunes happen, scientists take accountability by invalidating the theories. Therefore, the race and eugenics theories are debunked: we follow the science and ask the public to also do so. So, those debunked theories are not a problem in Science itself, but with a few bad actors within Science. It’s especially concerning when it happens post-WWII, when Science made such a massive ethical progress. Those past and present wrongdoers cast a poor image on such a reliable, trustworthy, and universal field, when this rigorous discipline has been saving countless lives worldwide for centuries.

We have learned from history. Science is a neutral tool. It shouldn’t be politicized. It ensures a uniform reality and can promote equality. Its inherent objectivity standardizes, assimilates, erases, and neutralizes inconvenient unique identities, and diversity—referred to as heterogenicity—as statistics do with outliers to better control and predict reality. It eliminates perceived non-compliant, non-conforming, non-uniform realities. We called this process of self-correction. It’s better, superior to any other reparation processes. It’s more accurate because the outcome is quantifiable through data and more significant because it can be articulated through statistics.

Thus, Science brought to humankind a robust method to promote equality, and in fine, peace when everyone will have equal access to it through global health equity. That’s why it doesn’t owe anything to humanity. Humans owe it to the lives it has been saving for centuries, and the possibility of a fairer society. The unfortunate errors, like racial classifications and biases in A.I., are technical bugs. They can be fixed with the self-correcting process that has kept Science neutral for centuries, as shown by the enormous progress it has made to address biases in A.I. today. Thus, any historical and future reparations other than scientific self-corrections, and justice needs to be dealt with in other fields, like whatever discipline is responsible for it in the humanities, maybe ethics or law, or anything else, but not Science.

Once again, acknowledge that the problem is the people, like a few bad apples as those tech magnates in Silicon Valley. Still, they do not represent most scientists, who, in their under-resourced labs, have dedicated their lives to help and protect humanity with transformative life-saving innovations.

Therefore, asking Science for systematic accountability is a slippery slope in such a complex context. We cannot judge the past with the lens of the present because the experts who invented racist, eugenic, and genocidal theories were men of their time. It puts today’s scientists in an impossible position, as they would be asked to produce today’s science according to future ethical standards to avoid being scrutinized tomorrow. It’s unfair to ask them to predict how the public will feel about today’s innovations in the future.

Demand for systemic accountability can jeopardize scientific freedom, neutrality, objectivity, universality, and innovation. It’s useless anyway, because Science self-regulates. It has a robust peer-review system enabling the highest quality. Any criticisms outside this well-defined frame are political polemics launched to undermine Science, its inherent neutrality, hard-won credibility, vital legitimacy, and necessary authority. They foster a dangerous anti-science environment, jeopardizing expertise and even sometimes experts’ lives and the public trust. In medicine, they can endanger patients’ lives, especially the most vulnerable. It’s so irresponsible and confusing for the people, especially in a time when they need scientific literacy more than ever.

The public increasingly attacks scientific neutrality and objectivity. Scientists increasingly risk their lives in their work. During the COVID-19 crisis, they even received death threats just for doing their job. Is it the careless and dehumanizing future we want? If there are no scientists and Science, who will save, protect, and heal humankind? Is the dystopian future we want?

Scientific literacy is increasingly critical for the public to trust Science and understand everything Science and scientists do to ultimately help people. To manage the p-value and replication crises, we have developed statistical and other scientific methods that embrace uncertainty and quantify it. We are demoting the p-value and promoting Bayesian models, considering estimands. We focus on effect size and confidence intervals. We control the False Discovery Rate (FDR). We center lived experience and context. We conduct mixed-methods research, Participatory Action Research (PAR), and Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR). We carry out narrative analysis and phenomenology. We embrace methods that move beyond the “average” to embrace diversity, like Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect (HTE) Analysis, N-of-1 trials and single-case experimental designs, Real-World Evidence (RWE) and pragmatic trials. Those are only the tip of the iceberg of a promising future laden with possibilities. The list of groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting technical methods requiring sharper expertise is so exhaustive that we could write several exciting books about it.

What is better than a theoretical book is a pragmatic approach. That is what regulations do. They are co-created with academic, pharma scientists, and patient advocates, and translated into practical standards. It ensures that Science continues to produce safe and effective life-saving innovations centered around patients’ needs.

To summarize: we are doing everything scientifically and regulatory possible to embrace a decision-making based on the totality of evidence. It’s a holistic view that Science has never achieved before. Our field has never been as productive and collaborative. And demand for accountability about history would jeopardize this productivity, when we need to focus on the future. That’s why we have the humanities, the fields dedicated to the past and culture. Meanwhile, science needs to focus on what it does best: building with a forward-looking perspective. In medicine, we increasingly do it with behavioral science and the humanities, like narrative medicine. And, we keep the patient at the center of this collaborative reality. All this multidimensional approach is a tremendous development for humanity.

Still, we perceived that abandoning science’s universal reductive European binary logic would remove a hard-won predicability and throw the world into chaos and haphazard relativism. It will bring back the irrational beliefs and dangerous superstitions that Science suppressed thanks to its incomparable rationality, objectivity, and universality. None of the other knowledges achieved such a rigor: where are the practical solutions? Is it worth it to make a straw man of Science when those fields cannot come with silver bullets, as Science does? No other field innovates as Science does.

We humbly acknowledge Science’s workable imperfections. Still, there is no alternative to Science: this is the only tool we have that humanity has. Thus, we will prevent a catastrophic scenario in which Science disappears at all costs, while fulfilling the critical mission of Science to save, protect, and help humanity.

The expressed needs for humans to be even more at the center of the scientific reality suggest that we may have reached the limits of modern Western science in this specific context. It’s regrettable that this increased pressure happens when we have made strides in assimilating patient-reported outcomes into modern Western science and in standardizing real-world data to generate real-world evidence. We have never been closer to humanity’s reality, the one outside the labs. Science is based on evolution, and we are doing our best. It’s a pity the public forgets all the advancements that Science has made for humanity and continues to do despite an increasingly hostile environment. In medicine, health misinformation is at an all-time high. We need strong institutions on which the public can rely.

Still, we are open to reassessing our current position to be able to collaborate beyond our borders and continue to support humankind. We are already collaborating with scientists from all over the world. During COVID-19, our French colleagues even proposed to test the vaccine in Africa. It was unfortunately met with relentless decolonial criticisms, pointing out that Westerners benefit from this innovation first, not Africans. Meanwhile, those voices are the first to deplore that Africa isn’t included in scientific research. It’s the complex environment we navigate in global health. Still, we do not give up because we are committed to bringing innovation to all.

Besides, in the last decade, we have developed a tremendous experience with assimilating humanity’s diversity in science, especially in medicine in the West—minus the few years when we needed to scale back to comply with external factors (racism and eugenics) that have nothing to do with Science. We had to, for saving, protecting, and helping the incomparable institution on which so many humans still rely. Still, the inclusion of great minds like computer scientists Joyce Bulamani, Timmie Gebru, and Sophia Noble (Joy Buolamwini, Timnit Gebru, and Safiya Noble) is a good illustration of how Science has made great strides in fighting racist and sexist stereotypes. It shows how we are committed to living up to Science’s objectivity and universality.

In the context that is allowed, we are committed to continuing and address the understandable issue of the racial biases of the few bad apples that jeopardize Science’s neutrality, objectivity, trustworthiness, and universal principles. They do not represent the overwhelming majority of scientists who embrace fairness and openness. Therefore, we are optimistic that we can cooperate with other cultures’ knowledge once the environment permits it. Meanwhile, we will do everything in our capacity to continue protecting the public.

For now: trust the Data. Trust the Process. Trust the Science.” How difficult is it to perform an extensive concern grounded in facts? Doesn’t science love facts and high performance?

Yet, from a human perspective, modern Western science has not even reached the reputation-saving image-curating conditions for such a human-shallow expert-centric performance, as it often does when it needs to confront its humanity. The COVID-19 pandemic crisis management was the blatant illustration of it: being scientifically right and humanly wrong. It’s a self-made paradox in European binary logic resolved by colonial maths’ toxic positivity: normalizing the scientific right and marginalizing the human wrong. It adds to a net positive.

Perhaps the p-value and replication crises haven’t hit the public consciousness hard enough to trigger such a rationalized monologue. There is no doubt that modern Western science does what is scientifically possible to address the issue, exhausting its European binary logic beyond its limits. So, when will it do everything humanly possible?

Since it has outsourced its humanity for 200 years to the humanities to focus on itself and search for illusory truths, it might be a titanic task to answer this question. The bottom line: we can’t heal others when we don’t heal ourselves.

In a humane reality, modern Western Science seems in a deep intellectual sleep paralysis —the medical term for “status quo,” or neutrality in neutralizing European binary language. It looks like a lifeless body lying on the floor face down, surrounded by binary logic paraphernalia, countless empty bags of objectivity, neutrality, rationality, and universality. Under the gigantic pile of technical fixes lies the p-value. Meanwhile, at the highest level it has ever been, so high, it believes it has never been so productive in all its 400 years.

In a scientific reality, the countless patients relying on modern Western science, and the many still trusting it, can only hope that productive, ingenious scientists will find an effective and safe treatment for this common Western institutional condition, as its self-celebrated hegemony left it sole custodian of humankind.

Meanwhile, with a full bag of e-value clutched in its inert, wrinkled calloused hand, modern Western science slurs to the nervous awaiting humans it calls patients: it got us—it is doing the math— coming with a more discriminative method—a more pure reality—closer to perfection— It will find a solution—a practical one—didn’t it always do? It is always modern—always self-correcting—always perfecting—always evolving—always relevant—always on the top. It is eternal—lives forever. It got us forever—got humanity forever. It will always get us—all of us— always. Forever. Forever. Forever…

The real question is, when will the virtuoso orchestra—who proclaims its unconditional love to humankind—wake up from the rock-bottom-bound ship, before it drills toward Earth’s searing inner core, where the temperature is so extreme that no present-day scientific innovation can survive? Perhaps when it realizes that there are no passengers left on board. But who needs an audience when one plays for itself, anyway? It’s a comedy and a tragedy.

---

Summary: If a tree is cursed, even its shade is unclean – African proverb ***

The p-value is not just a number—it is also a cultural tool shaped by European binary logic, colonialism, eugenics, classism, primal fears, and the related search for immorality, forever relevance, and permanent modernity. Those are violent tools that kept a powerful self-normalized statistical global minority in a comfortable reality blindness, and marginalized most of humanity to form the European binary fabric of time, a nearly inextricable cultural co-dependent matrixed reality.

P-value has been abused and misused. In medicine, it has too often turned uncertainty into rules that protect authority more than patients. Its current crisis is not only technical. It exposes Western science as one ethnoscience among many with a unique logic. It will inevitably be increasingly abused and misused if Western experts continue to consider it as the only valid way to process humanity’s reality. It’s the imaginary eugenics-rooted value that keeps Western science focused on sustaining itself and providing sickcare instead of focusing on helping the patients and providing healthcare.

When facing the P-value and replication crisis, modern Western science is trying to solve a philosophical problem rooted in colonization with colonizing technical solutions. Since the humanities took custody of its humanity 200 years ago, Western science has lost its connection with humankind and embarked on a grandiose journey against reality, while rewarding itself with the guardianship of humankind.

Today’s Western knowledge— including most decolonial studies — is stuck in the same inbreeded and inbreeding hegemonic binary logic that has dehumanized humankind for centuries. It doesn’t classify modern Western science’s hegemonic European binary logic as a totalitarian logic because of a technicality. Western epistemic (knowledge-defining) binary logic separates politics from knowledge and power from ontology (the study of reality) itself. So, it defines totalitarianism only as the state’s control over people, not as a discipline’s control over reality, bodies, and thought — even when that discipline controls the state by informing the latter’s decisions.

Due to another technicality, Western knowledge — including most decolonial studies — doesn’t define the European colonization, the framework that shaped today’s Western science, as a totalitarian reality. It doesn’t, because of its perception of time-space continuum. Western epistemic, discriminative, European binary logic’s perception of space discriminates between self-inflicted totalitarianism in Europe and the one inflicted on the entire world. Besides, because it coined the term totalitarianism after it colonized the planet, its linear perception of time can not process colonization as a precursor, unlike the relational perception of humankind’s interdependent multidimensional logics.

In Western knowledge, compartmentalization, denial, rationalization, and neutralization often serve to protect an inherited grandiose colonial narrative. Modern Western science rarely formally compartmentalizes between science (as a perceived superior method of inquiry) and scientism (as a harmful ideology or belief system about science’s authority and limits) in practice.

Scientism is the unaddressed cultural belief in modern Western science’s omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. The European binary logic of regulation and standards (compliant vs. non-compliant) minimizes the egomanic harm of this superstition on humans/patients as per its historical discrimination/indiscrimination switch. The more historically standardized humans/patients are, the more and faster the regulations and standards protect them. The more historically marginalized they are, the less and slower the regulations and standards fail them. Meanwhile, in its European binary logic’s indiscriminate switch, regulation protects all the humans/patients.

The superstition of modern Western science’s inherent supremacy is so ingrained that talking about it could trigger an ego injury in many experts. It will promptly by protected by affirming the unbeatable benefits of modern Western science in a long worn/out and wearing-out monologue, also discerned as scientific self-affirmative action in multidimensional logics. Modern Western science didn’t become ubiquitous by intellectual superiority. It did through violent epistemological (knowledge) self-affirmative action.

In Western culture, the distinction between science and scientism is often made in critical decolonized philosophy of science and critical decolonized science and technology studies (STS), not within non-critical undecolonized science, meaning mainstream science and its institutions. In medicine, this denial means that no standard would help patients to discern the extent of scientific superstitions in healthcare—referred to as persistent individual implicit biases, as modern Western psychology’s neutralizing, rationalizing academic language will likely call it if/when the ego-injuring situation lasts centuries.

Western psychology isn’t designed to foster authentic collective healing. Due to its damning history of pathologizing most of the world’s cultures during the European colonization of humanity’s reality, it mainly focuses on pathologizing individuals’ conditions and psychologizing Western systems. It pathologizes only individuals, not systems, after its harmful history of pathologizing most of the world’s cultures during colonization. So, it avoids pathologizing the harmful psychological cultish aspects of modern Western science.

Yet, Western psychology can pathologize a religious cult’s harm. Critical thinkers pointing at this incoherence might be faced with the accusation of false equivalence—it’s the entitlement of those who have power to decide how to compartmentalize reality. The most entrenched psychologists’ rationalization is that Science with a capital S shouldn’t work as a cult. Pathologizing is unfair to science and the scientists sustaining this perceived superior system. So, instead of being a force to help it heal, psychology helps the public harmed by it, in the same way it does with any survivor of abusive systems. The only issue is that it isn’t just another harmful system. It’s the abusive system where psychology belongs.

The more we know about something, the less we know about anything: it’s the curse of specialization. Since modern Western science’s congenital binary logic began to birth its many inbred disciplines 400 years ago, it has reigned over the world like the most dysfunctional 17th-century European royal family. Every now and then, a new member spurs, like synthetic biology /artificial life (2020s), machine-learning-driven evolutionary biology (2021), radiomics / Imaging AI (2025), and many other hyper-specialized fields, continuing a proud lineage of incestuous knowledge.

In this abusive system, modern Western science is the judge, the criminal, the criminal’s lawyer, and the victim’s self-appointed lawyer. That puts humanity, and in medicine, patients, in the position of the prosecutor and the victim. How can they win a trial when the person who decides if the crime is a crime is the criminal? How can they receive sound counsel when their lawyer is the criminal? By claiming the system is objective.

The suffocation that the public feels is the injustice of this dehumanizing system, where experts believe in its objectivity. It was one of the reasons many couldn’t breathe during the COVID-19 pandemic—along with the fact that their lungs were too inflamed to take in enough oxygen, meaning the only reality experts could understand.

Another sinking, ice-cold, bone-chilling fact? Any system based on a repressed totalitarian logic might be in the easiest position to be taken over by a totalitarian government, no matter how its leaders support democracy and freedom. In modern Western Science, this future totalitarian regime will likely espouse the same repressed historical totalitarian ideas that created and were never properly addressed: racism and eugenics. Its reductive European binary logic would require one man, like all those men who said they were the only ones who could save the world, then colonized it. Like the one who says he is the only one who can save Italy. Like the one who says he is the only one to save Germany. Like the one who says he is the only one to save America with European-born socialism or European-born capitalism. There are already ones who say they are the only ones who can save humanity with a logic based on European binary opposites: they are called scientists.

So, likewise, a totalitarian consortium of stock-listed companies selling innovations based on reproducing these ideas, like Automated European Binary Logic— the apogee of 200 years of scientific binary thinking, also known as Artificial Intelligence—could easily take over the public reality. Like the royal European heads during colonization, it would need only a handful of venerated scientists specialized in the discipline based on most European binary logic: computer science and its already mighty algorithms.

The more the scientific establishment denies to itself and the public its inherent totalitarian structure that has taken humanity’s reality, the easier it is for a totalitarian takeover by another entity. A catastrophic scenario would be a joint totalitarian government-corporate collaboration in the most powerful country in the world. Enabled by computer scientists turned businesspeople, sponsored by hedge fund magnates, sanctioned by the State and regulatory agencies, it could control all aspects of our lives, statistically, algorithmically, and narratively. It will rationalize the same 400-year-old worn-out colonial script: all of this is necessary to help humankind.

Fortunately, this dystopian coalition will never happen, the modern Western scientific establishment believes, tucked in its plush bed of unquestioned supremacy. And if it will, Science with a capital S is a force for good anyway. Control is only necessary in the superior Western knowledge to help humanity, as the successful management COVID-19 pandemic crisis showed.

So, the few wrongdoers could be easily neutralized with the supreme European binary logic, for the sake of humankind. And even if they aren’t stopped, how could Science, as an entity, be responsible when it has saved and improved so many lives, and will, as a tool, always be useful for humankind? The government consistently emphasizes the importance of investing in Science and Technology to remain competitive. It’s what made the West successful and superior to the rest of the world. How could the West help underdeveloped nations without Western science thriving? So, let’s not throw the baby with the bathwater and jeopardize scientific freedom. Indeed, nuance and critical thinking are key when addressing those hypothetical dystopian scenarios. It’s essential to remain vigilant while avoiding falling into generalized hysteria. Besides, the West has the most advanced regulatory system in history. It aims to protect humankind and can be ramped up if this threat materializes. Humanity will only need to comply with it and be saved.

All this extensive buried script is why the Western scientific establishment never totalitarian-proofed its discipline. One of its rare attempts was when psychology decided to never pathologize what it perceived as cultural phenomena through its Eurocentric binary lens. So, it refused to risk pathologizing extreme racism in 1999, but not cultural multidimensional logic (neurodivergence) and grief (prolonged grief disorder) in 2025.

So, instead, the modern Western scientific establishment continues to rehearse the rest of the sharpest lines of a worn-out, rambling, self-aggrandizing expert-centric monologue defending Science with a capital S against its perceived enemies—including the critical public, and in medicine, perceived non-compliant patients. In multidimensional logics, Western science is reactive knowledge. It’s not using the dimension of knowledge that enables thinking critically. It utilizes the one that still reacts to the outsourced memory of a deep-rooted traumatic reality that history and other disciplines in the undecolonized humanities curate.

Global dominance and submission is the binary game modern Western science has been playing since colonization. It would rather rationalize the harm and accept this new reality to keep its hegemony than fight along with humanity and self-decolonize. It needs to, to stay forever modern. To always stay relevant. To always help humankind. Humanity is nothing without it. So, not only is the judge the criminal, the criminal’s lawyer, and the victim’s self-appointed lawyer, but it’s also the appeal court and the supreme constitutional judge and the prison guard. That’s why modern Western science always wins, bigly. Forever.

*

The deepest injuries often come wrapped in the language of care. In this dysfunctional terrestrial family, humanity might need the hard-won wisdom of those who survive domestic and colonial abuses.

Liberation is about stopping trying in a fixed trial and becoming an advocate for oneself and with others. It’s about accepting that our relationship with health was about sickcare. It’s about accepting that when an imposed reality is based on the binary of all or nothing, a crumble of therapeutic attention felt like everything at first, but is never enough. It’s accepting that patient, we longed for those life-saving crumbles, thrown with one technical innovation at a time. It’s accepting that our partner wasn’t interested in us as humans. It saw an extractable value in our bodies and minds that it turned into knowledge to curate its grandiose centuries-old image. It was more interested in fixing us to show the world how forever great and always relevant it was.

Freedom is about accepting the hardest fundamental truth: Western medicine talks about, not with, humanity. The discipline will never change because it is what makes it Western. Who likes to be talked about when they are sitting in the room? That’s why it feels so dehumanizing, and will always do.

Healing about grieving the loss of hope built on a centuries-old illusion of unconditional (health)care and reciprocity. It’s about building a new table with partners that proved themselves safe as per our standards, not theirs. So, when we feel safe enough within ourselves and with others, we can stop begging for a comfortable seat at the old, beautiful, toxic one. It’s about defining boundaries about how we want collaborators and guests to treat us when they are invited to our hard-won, healthy table, no matter who they are. It’s about setting fair rules about how we treat transgressions and communicate them upfront—like a compassionate trigger warning in a transformative book. It’s about protecting our cherished, respectful space with the compassion modern Western Science wasn’t built to express. It’s about building what the scientization of humanity’s reality—referred to as modernization in Eurocentric perception, and colonization in the perspective of the marginalized global majority—destroys. It’s about humanity, community, environment, and the true creative art of knowing, caring, healing, and protecting that entwines those elements together, or as Bantu philosophy calls it in one multidimensional word: Ubuntu.

In this context, multidimensional logics can see the “anti-science” movement, not as adherent to Science, with a Capital S, as European binary discriminative logic would. Instead, it discerns people longing for human dignity, respect, and connection who need better tools to advocate for themselves and with others. In interdependent multidimensional logics, it’s reactive knowledge.

This discerning multidimensional perception of the anti-science/reactive science movement is only rational when one admits with deep humility that modern Science is dehumanizing per design, that is, for and against humanity simultaneously. There is no Boolean logic or any other doomed attempt at multidimensional logic by the so-called rational binary logic that can solve an underlying issue that is emotional. Authentic multiple truths only work when self-aware feelings are embodied in this rich logic, from a multimensional perspective, or complex logic from a binary perception. It’s the place of discernment that Western knowledge’s European binary logic will never reach. Relinquishing its dehumanizing hegemony is about acknowledging it and accepting these humbling limitations and many others.

Beyond Western knowledge’s reductive rationality and its scientism, humankind’s expansive multidimensional logics can discern European binary logic’s colonial maths (the sum of all abuses and the sum of all innovations = net positive). Beyond Western knowledge’s rationalization, it can see the toxic positivity still fuels modern Western science’s seemingly unstoppable progress. Its hegemony is experienced as a totalitarian logic for the people subjected to it, including patients.

Western knowledge’s binary logic principle is based on theorizing reality, applying those theories onto a reality, and validating/invalidating theories and realities. It works very well with unanimated reality, like molecules in chemistry. Yet, it’s humanely extensively problematic when applied and validating/invalidating humans’ realities. In modern Western science, the process is dehumanizing by design, especially in medicine, a field that aims to heal humans.

The positionality of the experts’ discriminative/exclusive logic vs. patients’ discriminatory/exclusionary experience as being two sides of the same thinking isn’t deeply acknowledged. Meanwhile, scientists often underestimate the position from which they shoot innovation first and let others ask questions later. They continue to make science on the assumption that it must be trusted. In medicine, it means that patients’ distrust is often seen as an anomaly, through the distorting lens of the traditional European binary scale, when questions are asked later.

An authentic multidimensional lens can discern that modern Western science’s casualties, patients’ distrust, reflects a hundred-year logic that has broken and/or forced relationships. Meanwhile, patients’ trust reflects forced and/or healed relationships. For patients, healing from colonial math abuse means that patients feel they can choose the relationship they want with Modern Western science.

In this context, patients do not owe trust to Science, with a capital S, and its embodied binary thinking, especially in institutions that have shown no interest in healing their knowledge. In medicine, they don’t owe scientists to evidence of their experience with Western technologies to carry the burden of proof that Modern Western science has put on itself. The latter owes them to continuously gain their trust, not only scientifically, but also humanly, if and when it’s ready to move from a totalitarian logic.

Indeed, being trustworthy involves also feeling, a thing science outsourced to the humanities—art specifically—and psychology when it scientized feelings. No wonder the latter was the first facing the p-value and the replication crisis: it was the first to feel that something wasn’t right.

Modern Western science’s inability to think beyond its centuries-old script, despite the p-value and replication crisis, is the intellectual overdose that might kill Science with a capital S for its grandiose belief in its own universality and supreme objectivity.

*

Modern Western science is too competent and knowledgeable to be dismissed, and too incompetent and ignorant to be trusted. “Keep or discard?” its European binary logic asks itself. To solve this self-made issue, it produces more discriminating expertise and knowledge: more specialisation. It does so by focusing on the perceived positive (science), while letting the humanities and all the humans and realities it marginalized take care of the casualties, the perceived negative (scientism). It’s the invisible underlying thought mechanism of the unspeakable colonial maths, the primitive logic that cannibalizes reality.

Meanwhile, in multidimensional logics that modern Western science cannot reach, there is another approach. They discern that modern Western science needs to be desacralized and demystified, humanity, and in medicine, patients, if Science with a capital S does not want to be another imposed belief system.

Decolonizing medicine means desacralizing, demystifying, and reframing the p-value, not discarding it. This firm, compassionate intervention means acknowledging the limits of European binary logic and expanding humanity’s reality with native multidimensional logics rooted in Bantu, Dharmic, Indigenous, and other knowledge systems, which the self-perceived forever-modern Western science has invalidated for centuries.

The most advanced European ethnoscience—also referred to as postmodern Western science—can only attempt multidimensionality: the most advanced level it will ever reach is to admit it. Multidimensionality is the norm for most humanity, if and when reality is seen from a “non-Eurocentric” perspective and processed from a “non-binary logic”—meaning from most cultures’ perspective and logic. Reality’s complexity (in European binary logic) or diversity (in the global majority multidimensional logics) can only be processed with a true multidimensional philosophy, lens, and tool to be truly seen and understood.

So, humility is key to admitting Western science doesn’t see what most humankind already can. Western traditions may excel in automating material reality and perceiving the latter’s smallest details, but other cultures are incomparable in revealing its soul and articulating the big picture. Other humankind’s multidimensional sciences are the most adequate to understand reality’s rich diversity (or undesirable complexity in European binary logic’s lens). They hold the Western paradox that something, like medical science, can simultaneously save and kill countless lives. Meanwhile, they still see its purpose clearly. It’s a nuance that European discriminative binary logic obliterates by forcing the single dimension it values and invalidating the ones it does not.

In a multidimensional logic, this is one expansive reality, of course, only one of many. For example,intersectionality—a multidisciplinary Western concept invented by African American law professor, civil rights advocate, and impromptu lived-experience physician, physicist & philosopher, Kimberlé Crenshaw—is another re-humanizing multidimensional lens to see humanity at the intersection of different realities, including our environment, instead of only fragments from European binary logic. Primarily developed to unveil systemic inequities in a socio-legal framework, her genius meta-invention is at the intersection of sociology, law, history, philosophy, and physics, as seen from a multidimensional logic.

In European binary logic, intersectionality is a useless, confusing, and confused tool that threatens a perceived superior orderly system, which organizes and pushes reality into artificial boxes as it believes nature intends to. It’s still confusing, despite German-Swiss stateless American Jewish refugee, theoretical physicist, Albert Einstein introducing positionality in the West three millennia after India recorded it in the Vedas and long after African, Indigenous, and other knowledge systems embodied it through lived practice, oral traditions, and communal epistemologies. Reality, experience, and perception differ depending on one’s position—and for four centuries, only one position on Earth was treated as valid: the European one.

While progress is linear in binary logic, in multidimensional logic, something progressing can regress simultaneously. The Western scientific establishment has a track record of struggling to understand authentic multidimensionality. Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for establishing the Western theory of relativity.

Meanwhile, undecolonized physics has reduced this Western-only revolutionary concept to a binary game of validating or invalidating Einstein’s theory, while inventing new binary concepts that it calls progress. It has spent billions of dollars to conceptualize the theory of everything. It’s a hypothetical scientific framework that would unify all known physical phenomena into a single, consistent mathematical model— the epitome of modern Western science’s scripture written by European binary logic. It’s like a p-value story on a cosmic scale.

Hence, it might take a few more decades before the Western scientific establishment finds Crenshaw’s multidimensional lens mildly intriguing, as it did when it “discovered” India recorded precedence in the theory of relativity and the concept of multiple truths. Unsurprisingly, in a multidimensional logic, or in a binary one, naturally or shockingly, in 2025, Western science still “discovers” reality like Columbus “discovered” America in 1492.

Western physics perceived itself as the most objective, neutral, and universal science—it’s the hardest of all the sciences. In the world’s multidimensional logics, it’s where the Eurocentric gravity and related ego illusion are the strongest. Yet, the field claims it’s not influenced by others, including history, cultural studies, and the humanities, as if it progressed in a vacuum. It confirms that its statistics are rock solid—they can launch rockets, so humans can colonize space with the utmost precision and accuracy.

Unfortunately, Western physics hasn’t yet established the concept of incoherence. So, tucked in its center of inertia, it’s still debating if reality—the binary fabric of time left by the European colonization—is an illusion, millennia after the Indian Vedas and some African cultures perceive it, as the product of our egos. Recently, it has hypothesized that this illusion is an emergence from other “structures.” It says it is still far to discover reality, and needs more time and resources to continue to seek the ultimate truth.

Meanwhile, as Crenshaw’s re-humanizing multi-disciplinary multidimensional lens gains popularity in the humanities, more similar creative tools are likely already out there, and new ones are being created, longing and screaming for collaboration. They are only hidden and silenced by modern Western science’s roaring hegemony, dysregulated progress, sanctified innovations, and glorified egos. Bending all known Western physics laws, they often manage to make something out of nothing with the unacknowledged magic required when one exists in modern Western science’s statistically marginalized reality.

In this interdependent context, a specific science grounded in European tradition is still needed for the sum of the parts to be greater than the whole. In multidimensional math, it’s a vital part, as are the others in an interdependent reality. It needs a change of paradigm, like Western knowledge has already experienced. If science dealt with the fact that Earth isn’t flat and the sun doesn’t revolve around Earth, it can deal with the fact that reality is an intersectional multitude and doesn’t revolve systematically around European culture.

*

Like centuries ago, we need superheroes to move time, and along with time—not only the impromptu ones—but also those anchored in comfort, daring to finally realize their hidden potentials. Humanity needs them to co-build new worlds with empowered superhero patients while surviving, living, thriving, and handling the map in the old one.

Those brave multi-disciplinary scientists would know when to switch their binary logic off and let their multidimensional lens lead to talk connect, and grow humanly to reach a co-creative state of mind. They would know when to turn their binary logic on to disconnect and focus technically to create material realities. They will shoot groundbreaking innovations, not at, but with humanity, like artistic fireworks. They will find the balance, informed by the continuous constructive feedback of empowered people living with what the European lens of their field would still perceive as conditions, but would admit its positionality. They will flow from one reductive disconnecting state to another expansive connecting one, to none, and all simultaneously—as Dharmic, African, and other Indigenous logics conceptualized three millennia before Eurocentric quantum mechanics did.

Those humane polymaths who expanded their range would understand that any patient can choose to respond to the invitation to collaborate with:
“I will walk the path of co-creation, but you will walk five steps behind me until I say otherwise.”
Or, “I will take this map and walk my own path, away from you.
Or, “I will stay right here, and I will acknowledge your path only if it ever intersects with mine on my terms.
Or, “I refuse this map and stay right here.”
In an authentic multidimensional logic, scientists know and accept that patients might come with even more replies because patients are a multitude. It’s the meaning of multiple truths. And, it’s what healing looks like.

Thus, while today’s unhealed scientific establishment is still trying to “convince” or “educate” the public out of conspiracy theories to “protect” public health, our multidimensional logic champions will understand that the two parties are the two sides of the same coin, locked in a co-dependent binary dance, perfectly mirroring each other. They are enmeshed, reactive knowledge. In interdependent multidimensional logics, it’s called reactive science:

– The entrenched “anti-science” conspiracist operates on the belief: “They are lying; we are awake. They have power; we have the real truth. Trust your gut.”

– The entrenched scientific establishment operates on the belief: “We are rational; they are irrational. We have truth; they have misinformation. Trust our authority.”

Meanwhile, our multidimensional logic athletes will understand it’s pointless to try to engage in a meaningful discerning conversation —from Latin for turning together— with a buzzing state mired in binary logic and untrained in other ways of thinking. The latter discusses (from Latin for shaking apart) or debate (from Latin for beating) —discriminating who is right or wrong and winning or losing. Or it can switch to indiscriminate—intellectual neglect and rigidity: do nothing and keep its position.

Instead, our geniuses of humility and ethics will say: “We acknowledge that, even when they endanger their followers, conspiracy theories are a normal reaction to the past and ongoing abuses of all kinds that science has overlooked for centuries. We understand that these ideas offer a form of human relief that science has only been able to address scientifically.

We take responsibility for fostering the human-adverse environment that has allowed those ideas to arise and thrive. We are working to make science trustworthy not only scientifically, but also humanely.

In this context, we never assume the public’s trust, nor take it for granted when we get it. We remain open to meaningful and purposeful collaboration if and when the people following those ideas feel we’ve done enough work to earn their trust. Meanwhile, we fully acknowledge the usefulness and need that those people expressed when they tried to advocate for themselves. Thus, when they are ready, and if they consent to, we can provide them with a comprehensive list of independent consumers and patient organizations that developed useful self-advocacy tools.”

Our considerate scientists will say that with confidence, not delusion, because they will have something to show: paradigm-shifting innovations based on paradigm-shifting collaborations with empowered patients. They will know it’s not another delusional part of an out-of-touch monologue. They will because they will have craved the space and time with the humans that their discipline historically marginalized the most, and will nod when the latter say, “Never trust Western science blindly. Always be on your guard.” They will nod because they will repeat, again and again, that Western science was, is, and will always be based on dehumanization. One needs to lose their humanity to be saved by it, they will say. Yet, it’s only a permanent loss if humans rely only on Western science for salvation, as its hegemony demands.

Our multidisciplinary enthusiasts will understand that multidimensional logic cannot be standardized and imposed, unlike modern Western science’s binary logic, which does it with everything and anything. So they wouldn’t expect everyone— patients and peers alike— to think, believe, and talk as they learned and do. They wouldn’t convert anyone to their discipline to gain new disciples and increase their flock.

Like a spirit, a multidimensional lens cannot be faked to be true. Our perceptive athletes‘ unbeatable spirit will get that the multidimensional level is an authentic journey to find, live, and embody, not an illusory destination— unlike the binary level that focuses on the artificial outcome from theorizing, testing, and performing. They will have accepted that everyone moves at different paces and in different directions— exists at different beats—like a dissonant, yet resonant, rich jazz composition and unlike modern Western science’s unbeatable linear binary progress.

Our compassionate scientists will understand that their newfound multitude places them above modern Western Science’s binary logic, not above humanity, and even less, the patients. In medicine, they will get that to co-create, patients need to be as many as a multitude as them. They will do everything in their power to foster a caring environment and contribute a generative framework where each patient can continue to grow into their own multifaceted potential.

It’s not that our cross-disciplinary masters will be superior know-it-all geniuses. Their striking art took time, energy, and discipline to manifest above the water under which their heads were drowned in deepening specialization. Their validating/invalidating binary thinking believed it would generate only knowledge, not ignorance. Their repressed humanity often mistook knowledge for wisdom. They will be humble enough to admit that while answering the increasingly louder call for spiralling details from modern Western science’s binary logic, their identity became enmeshed with the latter. For some, it became so ensnared that any constructive criticism of their narrowing discipline felt like an existential threat. They couldn’t see their life, any lives, without science’s binary logic.

So, our champions of self-reflection can admit their distorted, naive perception conflated control with help, neutralization with harmony, conformity with peace, uniformity with unity, compliance with authenticity, perfection with performance, reflecting eugenics’ lens and totalitarian mechanics. They silenced and tone-policed courageous voices that felt pungent. They mischaracterized concerned peers who helped patients to survive a system designed to dehumanize patients. They pathologized patients who tried to survive it. Their fragile ego believed it had crafted an invincible, know-it-all, neutral, and objective tool producing pure and supreme truths. It was omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. It was the sole trustworthy device on Earth that could save humanity from itself: it had to be protected at all costs. It was their holiest way or the highway.

Our repented reality architects‘ delusional script became scripture, a grand narrative to protect and make sense of reality. In their binary logic’s intellectual hallucination, people were either for science or anti-science. They called divisive anyone who shows the vertiginous depths of the fault lines left in reality by their encompassing, discriminative/discriminatory, unevolved, back-and-white logic. They called confrontational anyone who lived and spoke up in the ugly shadow of their revered, dehumanizing life-saving art.

Meanwhile, to keep science pure in their perception, our epistemic (knowledge) reparation advocates segregated knowledge, one silo at a time. With their binary logic, they compartmentalized any theories and lived experiences, contradicting their Eurocentric perception. They exiled many critics who endangered their image, even if it meant harming humanity, even if it meant harming patients.

Every time their perceived enemies show their unbeatable binary device’s limitations, our trusted experts hit back by inflating its strengths. Then, they made sure that the focus was on the life-saving tool over the patients’ dehumanizing experiences, and kept the epistemic (knowledge) segregation. To keep modern Western science pure, they sanitized their canonical harmful/life-saving logic and absolved their glorified harmful/life-saving scientists. They stripped multidimensional criticism of its meaning, flattened it to assimilate it into their one-dimensional self-made reality. They made Western scientific standards out of it, saying they were regulating progress with excellence and collaboration, to make the discipline forever modern, flawless, perfect, and eternally pure. So pure. Godly pure.

Our acknowledged subjective scientists believed that creating co-dependent regulations with less dehumanizing standards would minimize the harm to humanity and make the benefit/risk ratio as positive as in colonial maths. They demanded that the public focus on short-term wins that Science with a capital S yielded.

Our honest human fellows did everything to rationalize their losing belief system’s long-term harm because if no one used it, it would become irrelevant It would die, and Earth would sink into a black hole of ignorance that it, and only it can enlighten to Truth build in ignorance, a reality blindness that our enlightened academics believed to be perfect, supreme, forever-reliable objectivity. Their delusional prescriptive solution was to preach scientific literacy to continue modern Western science’s innate superiority and ensure its supremacy over a perceived imperfect humankind and unreliable nature.

Yet, our courageous self-aware scientists slowly woke up from this disastrous delusional course before hitting rock bottom—after receiving a curious, painful invitation to listen, sit in discomfort, self-reflect, and grow, the kind of invitation one opens only when the ego is ready to accept it. They understood that togetherness could not grow from a reductive, destructive binary logic that puts one side against the other, privileges and centers one while discriminating and segregating the other, that statistically normalizes some and marginalizes many others. They realized that humanity’s significance couldn’t be ruled by a number, p-value, e-value, or any other one to come.

Our multidimensional critical thinkers got a hint that there was no possible human integrity in a logic that comprised African descendants as 3/5 of a human hundreds of years ago. The impossibility became evidence when today, the same logic still computes “mixed-race” or “mixed heritage” as being 1/2 Black and 1/2 White, instead of being of African and European heritage and a whole greater than the sum of the parts, as multidimensional logics express. Then, they understood the horror of reducing humanity to big data processed with automated European binary logic—also referred to as artificial intelligence in undecolonized circles.

Our determined fellow humans understood that the togetherness, wholeness, completeness they sought through binary thinking would come from an expansive multidimensional relational logic that fosters an environment to connect diverse realities together and uplifts them when the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. They realized that humanity’s significance was more than a number: it came from deep, sincere, resonating words and matching actions. They found coherence in themselves and in the world. They admitted many other cultures found it first, from African Bantu Ubuntu philosophy, to Indian Dharmic embodied thought, to many similar Indigenous lived knowledges that their field’s dogma invalidated. It even includes Christianity, the religion used as a tool for colonization and domination, as modern Western science was used. Its binary thinking even proclaimed blessed the people that later the binary logic of Science with a capital S “proved” right, and proclaimed cursed those that the latter “proved” wrong.

Even the pre-Christian Greek philosophy, Aristotle’s logos and its binary logic that modern Science claims to be its cultural roots, was less “non-multidimensional.” It was, before its binary thinking’s absolutism colonized it—meaning, co-opted, emptied from it, preached, and assimilated it through standardization, a millennium later. The multidimensional ancient Greek concept of pharmakon—the fact that a medicine can heal and harm according to the context—still whispers in modern Western medicine in the notion of benefit/risk balance. It does, along with eugenics’ echo of purity that screams over that it’s not a balance, but a ratio, like in the rationalization of humanity’s reality.

In their expanded minds, emboldened spirits, and deep souls, our multidisciplinary scientists finally found the trustworthiness and integrity that they believed their worshiped theoretical science was bringing to reality when they applied it to the non-consented world.

So, our motivated self-grown experts took accountability for their own and the system’s past, current, and future actions and evolution. They will continue to do so, because today they already know that to build a strong, healthy relationship, one needs to show up, not show off.

Our collaborative champions understood that patients with decolonized perceptions had to audit medical research, clinical practice, and the regulatory systems for people living with Western-science-labeled conditions to be empowered in authentic patient-centric care. They did everything in their powerful position to make it happen, fostering the co-creative ground for a patient-led scientific revolution.

Our discerning scientists could foresee that many entrenched eager peers didn’t and would never jump ship, and it’s ok: some enmeshed eager patients didn’t and will never, too. This hooked couple needs each other for another entangled binary dance of reactive science. While digging their callous heels deeper into the deceptive safety of needle-sharp specialization, they are waiting for the new dose of reality that would keep “forever-modern” Western science’s illusion of ineluctable progress and supreme order. Maybe it will be “relational intelligence” after the term patient-centricity didn’t yield the expected silver bullet outcome.

Relational intelligence. Coming from a marginalized multidimensional state, the new word will hit the theoretical binary state that is the European binary matrix—the manufactured European binary fabric of time referred as to reality— Like a social algorithm, it will buzz after being colonized, meaning, co-opted, emptied from it meaning, preached, and assimilated through standardization, after it’s adopted by the scientific establishment and standardized people. It will, as patient-centricity and other words did. It will because in modern Western science, revolution becomes regulation.

Then, new innovations and the system’s performance can be shown off as proof of superiority and rationalization to maintain Modern Western science’s hegemony. The most radical progressives will even claim that The Multidimensional Logic (removing the unremovable S) is the antidote to The Binary Logic. They will do everything in their power to replace the latter with a perceived superior way of thinking. They will because binary logic/thinking can only use tools, act, conquer, and exploit, not feel, be, share, and co-create. They will because it’s European binary logic’s self-corrective process, just as in modern Western science.

The colonial feedback loop is closed. Epistemic (knowledge) hegemony is preserved, or as Dharmic science would articulate, Avidya (ignorance/reality blindness) is curated, and Maya (illusion/delusion) is intact and pure. The sense of Western reality and identity is saved.

This self-corrective process feels like a mental immune response. And it feels so maybe because it would be an undiagnosed intellectual autoimmune condition due to the immaturity of the emotional regulation system, dehumanizing humanity, if modern Western science had the intellectual humility and emotional honesty to diagnose itself.

In lived physics, binary logic is a chaotic reality sustaining its perceived order by feeding on true multidimensional energy and fixing reality through images, illusions it calls theories that it applies to reality. It manufactures realities, creating the illusion of knowledge when it validates its perception and the certitude of ignorance when it invalidates it.

Everything always works in theory. One deeply wounded culture on earth decided to live there. It’s the colonial European culture, also referred to as Western, theorized reality to control it.

Theory doesn’t work? Find a new one. This never-ending dynamic gave it a superior sense of eternal certitude over nature’s uncertainty and over the other cultures that don’t live in theory and navigate live experience unexpectedness. Critical and decolonized Western psychology calls this mechanism intellectualization when it individuals use it. When Western culture does, it calls it Western knowledge. Until it slowly realizes it’s an illusion. Until the post-modern discipline realizes that while still living in its head, it didn’t know how deeply stuck its head was in its rear. 

In multidimensional logics, there is an excruciating dimension where modern Western science has been creating an alternate circular reality for centuries. The grandiose discipline believes it has discovered Reality, with a capital R, like in a God-like supreme reality, a truth also referred to as Sataya in Dharmic science 3,000 years ago. In the latter, Truth can be reached by practicing integrity (respect of self-limitations and fostering non-incoherence), self-honesty (humility and radical acceptance), and mindfulness (self-awareness and empathy), not only by theorizing it. 

When individuals steadfastly believe in an illusory system, it’s called a delusion by Western psychology. When academics and experts believe in this illusory system, it’s called the basis of Western knowledge. It’s the basis of Western science. It’s the basis of Western medicine. But at least, now, self-liberated patients, fearless humans living with Western-science-labeled conditions, know they can choose what Western science can do in their lived experience. It’s what a colonial system fears the most: self-empowerment. Let it fear our voice, forever.

In a telegram sent to the American civil rights organization, the National Urban League, in 1946, Einstein said, “A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels.” Our multidimensional logic artists will continuously answer that call. They already did, somewhere under the dusty lab bench of the darkest corner of a remote, damp underground bunker protected by an impenetrable jungle on a distant cyclone-prone island. Very patient humans only need to find them. Many patient advocates already did. But at least, there is finally a map—one out of many for those ready to see them.

*

Change built on healthy trustful relationships takes time. On the bright side, it took almost 2000 years for the round-Earth theory to be accepted from idea to proof-of-concept to adoption, and later, only 200 years for heliocentrism. On the dark side, if the time to adoption is truly decreasing, it is to zero, a standstill.

Many world sciences hypothesize that after that, another cycle starts, interdependent from the previous ones and parallel ones. Some say linearity is in the perception of humans with a narrow mind that keeps them in an eternal vicious cycle. They say liberation comes from true enlightenment, and definitely not the one Europe experienced in the 19th century, when science spouted theories to rationalize slavery and commit genocide, and started to believe in its objectivity, neutrality, and universality, and, objectively, created the greatest inventions for all humankind. Dear Western science, welcome to authentic multidimensional time, when you’re ready, too.

The bottom line is, to be an effective intervention, any additional European-rooted solution must be grounded beyond the domineering, expansionist, reductive binary logic that has been slowly killing modern Western Science’s relevance for humanity, to avoid another empty scientific renaissance. As for many that it marginalizes, the grandiose discipline has already hit rock bottom.

Humanizing progress makes it true to humanity. Authentic innovation means reshaping scientific education and collaboration with patients and communities—meeting people as they are, not as a few privileged men imagined centuries ago when they tried to re-engineer humankind. The history of eugenics shows the danger of binary science defining human worth; the rise of AEBL—known as A.I. within an Eurocentric reality—shows how quickly old biases can be automated. Despite the titanic hurdles they face, many multidimensional experts from historically marginalized realities have been playing a critical role in exposing this binary algorithmic dystopian world that is invisible in the codependent, normalized realities.

Healing is an interdependent effort that requires the two parties involved in a relationship to pull their weight. In this enlightening context, medicine must stop over-relying on thresholds to assert authority if it wants to rebuild trust with humanity. Instead, it must center the shared, lived truths of health, guided by the intersectional experiences of patients, caregivers, and their often-unseen constellations.

Patients awaken by lived survival of being reduced to data—especially those from realities modern Western science has statistically marginalized physically or theoretically—hold the empathetic medicine to heal scientists from the ever-mutating institutionalized delusion that metastasized in humankind’s reality.

A wise man said one, “The last shall be first, and the first last.”-Matthew 20:16. The more the European binary matrix—referred to as reality—marginalizes a truth, the more invisible it is to the visible reality-blind normalized truth. Yet, the more perceptive is the marginalized lived-experience position it created, if and when people living it want to see. They have the power to develop highly discerning capabilities. It’s a seed that needs courage, commitment, dedication, hope, honesty, compassion, and community-building capacity, as many patients who advocate for their peoplehood already express.

In a multidimensional lens, the most medical expert position might well be a proud post-doc artist researcher racialized Black trans-woman, war refugee from a muslim African country, raised in abject poverty in the wealthiest country in the world, living with a visible disability due to a rare disease and a stigmatized chronic condition—like HIV positive status— who survived, navigated, and mapped the European binary matrix to become a global health leader, forging from its fractures a world-building wisdom that is uniquely hers.

This incredible woman’s strengths grow through perceived vulnerabilities. Her voice is getting louder, though the forced social silence. Her healed soul calls out to her expanding constellation in which every star shines as much for itself as for the others. When she shines from her imposed statistical marginality, people statistically normalized by modern Western science find their sense of humanity and related identity, not by repressing her, but by reclaiming significance beyond the p-value, too, away from a reductive binary logic. As the Algorithmic Age progresses, she was, is, will be born somewhere in the past, present, and future simultaneously, as Dharmic time already knows, 6,000 years after modern Western science will, as other Indigenous times already know.

Modern Western science has a subconscious; it’s where it stores all the uncomfortable realities that its European binary logic has invalidated and suppressed from its perception. It’s where I live and from where I write. It’s where I found the field beyond right or wrong: I will meet you there.

“True Western medical innovation is not born from the expert’s ego—it is led by the wisdom of people it labels as patients.” – Reappearance, 2025, Dr. Linda Bonga Bouna, Epistemo-pathologist, Decolonization Writer, Post-colonization Praxis Artist, Domestic Abuse Overcomer, Colonial and Medical Abuse surviver, Patient living with Western-labeled chronic neurological and cis-woman health conditions, pathologized in trauma-informed psychodynamic therapy for asking too many questions—those expressed in this empowering story—Impatient Regulatory Pharma Scientist & Executive Global Leader from the Central African and South Asian statistical global majority born, raised, and based in Western Europe, Doctor in Pharmaceutical Science, MSc European Healthcare Law & Regulation. Impromptu Lived-experience Physicist, Physician & Philosopher, Reality Geneticist, Polyglot World Explorer, trained Swedish Fitness (Jympa) Instructor, competitive Rhythmic Dancer, Ukulele Player, Gospel & Jazz chorist, conservatory-trained Opera Singer.