Rav Nahman was suspicious of the medical profession. See the Conversations of Rav Nahman perek 50. So just based on that, I think it is best to not to take cures or "vaccines" if you are not sick. And even when something is wrong, one needs to be careful. At least I noticed in Uman that doctors were very careful to never try new experimental stuff. But elsewhere, I would refrain from doctors. They just have too many new toys that they are just dying to try out on us.

 The way you count days of nida [seeing blood in normal time] and ziva [seeing blood in not normal time] is a point of disagreement between the Rishonim against the Rambam. The Rishonim hold seven of nida and then if more than seven then ziva. But the Rambam has this sort of approach which seems impossible to stick to. In his approach days of nida start when the girl first sees blood and then continues according to the order 7-11,7-11, 7-11, etc. [So if she see one day and then sees on day 30. Well to the Rambam that is ziva.] So let's say you have a girl 18 years old who clearly has not been keeping track. So any blood she sees could easily be ziva. [And even if she has tried to keep track,- well so what? With five colors of blood that are unclean and five that are clean  who can tell when she actually saw something unclean?

What I think is this: the best thing is to go with the simple approach of the Rishonim (e.g. Ramban/Nahmanides) that when she sees that is the beginning of nida. Then go to a river or sea on the seventh day and then at night she is clean. [Only in the rare case of seeing for more than seven days does the issue of Ziva come into play. Then if she sees for three consecutive days that is a zava. Then she would need to count seven clean days, and find a spring. 

The Third Friesian School

 I think the ideas of Dr. Kelley Ross ought to be thought of as a third Friesian School. Not like the first of Apelt. Not like the second [called the New Friesian School] of Leonard Nelson. For his ideas are based a lot on a synthesis of thinkers from Kant, Fries, Nelson, but also Otto, Popper, and Schopenhauer.  

I mean to say that it only takes a brief look into Fries himself to see his antiquated anti-atomism or Nelson to see his fight against Special Relativity. [And that itself led to Reichenbach and the whole Berlin School going off into other directions which were even more flawed.]

{Not that I can see everything like Dr. Ross. I just can not see the critique on Hegel. Even recently the idea of Hegel's seeing the importance of individualism was brought to my attention in Cunningham's PhD thesis a century ago. {There he brings Hegel' idea that Substance and the State are the Thesis and anti Thesis while the Individualism is the Synthesis.]

And I think that Dr. Ross mainly does not like the fact that Marxists used Hegel to prop up their system. I mean to say that Dr. Ross does not like the fact that the Left are always out to get America. You can see this by the fact that they always find fault in everything that the USA stands for and has ever done. So the fact that they used Hegel implies blame on Hegel. But I think they just misused Hegel. Abusus non tollit usum. Abuse does not cancel use.

[And when it comes to internal strife, there is a sort of calming influence of Communism to get people to give up fighting and settle down to an authoritarian regime. But the trouble begins when they try to take down democratic systems.

To see hints in things is an important principle. In the LeM of Rav Nahman it is brought that God minimizes Himself to send hints to a person in things that happen to him. This might be applied wrongly, but it is a an important that can show one what he is doing wrong. You might notice, for example, that things are not going as well for you as you had thought. This is because in the very things that are going wrong, there is hidden a message. Perhaps to cease and  desist doing something you thought was a great mitzvah? 

Rav Israel Salanter about learning Musar.

 On Shabat I noticed  the chapter in Job [circa 25 or around there] that discusses the question "Where is  wisdom to be found.?" Then it goes through a long list of all the places and approaches that do not work. The depths say it is not in them. Not the sea or land or heavens. It seems clear that even all the efforts that one might expend on finding wisdom, nothing works--until finally at the very end of that chapter one (and only one) way is found. That is Fear of God.  "Fear of God is Wisdom."

So you see the idea of Rav Israel Salanter about learning Musar. I.e., the books that show how to come to authentic fear of God.   

The benefit of this is according to Job is that it brings one to true wisdom.

[If only I would merit to this!! I spent a good deal of time while at the Mir in New York (outside of the regular sedarim (sessions of learning which were five hours in the morning and four hours in the afternoon.). But still I found time to go through a lot of the basic group of Musar books. [The classical mediaeval  five or six plus some  of the achronim[authorities after Rav Joseph Karo]]. I can say that this definitely helped me in many ways. 

[So what makes sense to me is to have yeshivot that walk in the path of Musar and the Gra.]

[I might mention that Musar sessions in yeshivot are short. In my opinion it would be better to have the original time period of forty minutes after the morning session of gemara until mincha. [i.e. Gemara until 130 P.M., then musar for 40 minutes. ] Then 30 minutes before maariv [i.e. Gemara fast learning from 4 P.M. until 8P.M. the 30 minutes of Musar.]

[Job clearly hold taking Diversity Studies does not help to come to wisdom. But further than that, he is saying all the other ideas that one might think help are delusions.]

 z60 midi file

 Sandra Lehmann (a Ph.D student at Hebrew U ) once told me that, "There is something odd about the study of philosophy in that it seems to take common sense away from people." That must be the reason even brilliant people after doing philosophy come up with really odd stuff. 

However I realize that philosophy is important in terms of using reason to examine ones' beliefs. It is important to have an over view of everything.. One must have some sort of answer to the question: What is it all about? You do not get tht from the natural sciences. But in this exact area that is where philosophy and the social sciences have failed measurably. So what I think is that Kant and Hegel are important. But I would also like to mention some modern people that have some clear vision in an age when vision is gone.

Kelley Ross I think is the best , but also there is Michael Huemer.