Category: Health


Natural sleep


Sleep is natural, it is nature’s way of “recharging the batteries”. This is simplistic and appears to say little, but apply the converse:-

“Not sleeping shows there is something unnatural going on.”

It is this that is worth investigating if we are to understand sleep and why some people cannot sleep. There is something unnatural going on.

For a while I will consider whether we live naturally rather than what affects sleep. That means going back to basics, and for me that means Buddhadasa. To understand what could be unnatural we have in some way to understand nature. Ajaan Buddhadasa has a very interesting stance on this but because it is Buddhadasa the meaning is buried in language – in this case the Pali words he uses. He describes the Buddhist’s God as Idappaccayata, and he further “languagises” the issue by saying this one God is idappaccayatapaticcasamuppado, and he gives details of what is paticcasamuppada – dependent origination [Idappaccayata pdf p1]. God is a bit shorter, I could use the word nature but I prefer Gaia; let me explain why. At one stage I was calling this ONE planet. Buddhism amongst other religions talks of unity – ONE thing. We are not a collection of individuals, a collection of separate species etc., we are just one life that appears as separation yet we should consider as one – ONE. James Lovelock when he talks of gaia describes an ecology that is interweaved, separate life forms that connect. He describes this inter-connectedness as gaia, but as far as I understand it he sees man as separate. This is why I capitalise gaia, Gaia is the ONE life that comprises of all life on this planet. Because of this Unity Gaia is a more apt word than nature, and because of this Unity it is more applicable than a separate omnipotent God.

“The law of ‘conditionality’ is the highest of laws, the law that makes everything work, and this we call idappaccayata. …. Beasts, people, plants, trees, they’re all formed from atoms grouping together, and in every atom will dwell the law of idappaccayatā. …. the law of nature, idappaccayatā, pre-exists all things in the universe and is the reason for the existence of the universe itself” [Idappaccayata p3].

I think this law of nature is observable and I accept it, but if you like it is the only aspect of faith that I believe in. This faith consists of belief in the law of conditionality, that this law is in every atom, and that it pre-exists all things in the universe. I trust in Gaia – nature, but not what man has done to it.

Buddhadasa gave the law of idappaccayata as :-

“when there is this thing, then there is this thing too; because this arises, this can arise also; when this thing isn’t, then this thing isn’t either; when this quenches, then this quenches too. [p3].

Just a brief point on sleep, it follows this law. “when there is this thing, then there is this thing too”. When we are natural, sleep follows. And “when this thing isn’t, then this thing isn’t either”, when we aren’t natural, we don’t sleep.

It is also worth flagging that this law is causal and therefore fundamentally scientific. However science is based on defined axioms – axioms defined by science. Whereas idappaccayata is just based on causality and conditionality, a conditionality which I will look into later, yet a conditionality that is based on empirical observation. One such observation is that sleep is natural, a conditionality that is based on what we observe in a loose sense – everyday “wisdom”. A more contentious empirical observation is that TCM and acupuncture heals. This can be empirically observed by observing treatments and seeing patients recover but is rejected by some scientists who are given respect by some.

The Buddha took refuge in the Dhamma, saw the Dhamma as his God “In the end he made up his mind that he’d revere the Dhamma he’d awakened to: he’d ‘enter into and dwell within it,’ that is, he’d take it as his refuge.” [p1]. For this use of the word Dhamma you could replace Gaia as I have described it above, either way we are trying to understand “natural”. Buddhadasa describes 4 natural laws:-

“Dhamma (here with the meaning of the ultimate truth – the way things really are – hence it’s spelt with a capital ‘D’) has four meanings: nature itself; the law of nature [BZ – Idappaccayata]; the duty to be done according to the law of nature; and the fruit, or result arising from doing or not doing that duty” [p6].

In describing these laws Buddhadasa said “Essentially, it’s the duty of any human being to maintain life correctly. If they don’t then they must – in accordance with the law of idappaccayatā – experience the result, the punishment: suffering, ranging from being unable to sleep, to nervous disease, to deadly pain” [p11]. Subconsciously I might have remembered this but I was surprised at the relevance to sleep when I read this.

Now we come to the other half of the Buddhadasa “languagised” God – idappaccayatapaticcasamuppado. Paticcasamuppada, also known as dependent origination or dependent co-arising, is described by Buddhadasa as what the Buddha struggled with under the Bodhi tree “It was during the night of his awakening that he sought thus: What does suffering come from? Then he realized that it came from jāti, from birth. Jāti, ‘birth,’ what does birth come from? ‘Birth’ comes from bhava, from becoming. Becoming arises from upādāna, from clinging. Clinging comes from taņhā, from craving, from desire. Craving, comes from the vedanā, from feeling. Feeling comes from phassa, from contact. Contact comes from the āyatana, from the senses. The senses come from nāmarūpa, from name and form. Name and form comes from viññāna, from consciousness. Consciousness comes from sankhāra, from the power of concocting. The power of concocting comes from avijjā, from ignorance” [p1]. I have previously discussed this in relation to mindfulness meditation in education. This could be partly summarised as suffering arising from conditions that our desire allows and that we cling to. Through mindfulness at contact we are able to avoid suffering.

I also wish to consider this summary of Buddhadasa’s teaching that I call his meme:-

There are the 5 khandas that make up the body, psyche and consciousness. Under conditionality we attach to these khandas especially when young as we operate through instinct. As we get older we gain the maturity that enables us to be aware of conditionality and if mindful can avoid detachment. With increasing maturity we do not create new attachments and we detach from the selves that we have already made – through instinct. In the end ideally we are not attached to the khandas and have detached from all the selves that previous attachment has created leading to our being free of all conditioning. In this freedom there is just sunnata, unity functioning.

Somewhere within all our conditioning suffering through affected sleep occurs. Meditation can help as it can be used to remove detachments and avoid attachments.

I am not however offering this as an understanding as to how to deal with sleep issues but sleep is natural and the above discussion of nature, its laws and understanding of the development of suffering has some connection. In the next blog I will connect this conditioning to the path.

<– Previous Post “Conative” Next Post –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Advertisements

Cumulative Toxic Load


We live in a toxic environment. We go out on the street and there are fumes from cars. Our ecology is damaged by toxicity from factories and cars. In our food there are toxins primarily caused by factory-produced foods which are preserved in order to sell and make a profit, and to grow more food – not quality food – we use pesticides (chemical poisons). Particularly post-second world war we have increasingly ingested foods with toxins especially those people who eat fast foods. All of this could be called our toxic load.

Nature has given us the liver to cope with toxic load, but especially for those who drink the toxic load becomes too much, the liver packs in and dies – a simplistic model!

BigFood has food scientists, and they look at how to preserve the food in order to help with profits. How safe the food then is we don’t know although there are some food regulations. However it is industry standard to accept carcinogens such as MSG and aspartame.

I think it reasonable to say that vaccines add to this toxic environment but before I go on I want to reiterate that with regards to epidemic vaccines this toxic environment is minimal compared to the benefits. Have the people who advocate changes to vaccines limited their own personal toxic load elsewhere first? Do they drive electric cars? As with all things the toxic load must be reduced, and as vaccines are compulsory scientists ought to be more circumspect about the toxic load. But to then suggest that the toxic load in vaccines is enough to warrant a choice not to be vaccinated is in my view preposterous.

However in general it is my view that science does NOT take enough care with toxins in our food and toxins in our medicines; profits in BigFood and BigPharma come first. Because of this I understand the questioning about vaccines but that questioning needs to be kept within the scientific community and not used as a divisive political weapon.

I will not take flu vaccines as in my view the vaccine adds to my toxic load. I have always had doubts about mercury in vaccines – thimerosal. With regards to epidemic vaccines I accept the thimerosal risk but with flu vaccines I don’t. I note this woolly argument in John Oliver’s good piece on vaccines. I have not observed BigPharma as having a policy that they respond to public clamour just to ease those fears, thimerosal in my view has some toxicity. Not enough to refuse to take epidemic vaccines – removed or not.

I have a completely different view about flu and the use of flu vaccines. I don’t take the toxicity of vaccine slightly, and don’t choose to take vaccines unnecessarily. For me the flu is an unnecessary vaccine. Who is concerned about flu? The employer. For many people the only time they have off work is for colds or flu, and the employers begrudge that. I believe some employers insist on flu vaccine for employees – disgraceful, that is a freedom of choice that should be fought. Come on libertarians – attack your paymasters. People have been sacked in the US at TriHealth and Essentia for not taking flu vaccines. If you are in health situations where you are in close contact with vulnerable people, I think the flu shot is reasonable. But in the case of Essentia they did not negotiate with the nurses; that is suspicious. But to be clear the flu virus is not known to be effective – CDC only 40-60% effective. Given the toxic load of the vaccine, I have to question the use of a flu vaccine and its imposition. Hence my proviso about the vulnerable.

I was a teacher and flu was a big problem but it should be noted that such absences were not simply flus but also colds; much time was lost because of these colds and flus. A flu will go round the school downing teachers and students alike. Students come back to school too quickly because parents have issues with care. Teachers are always under pressure to teach at whatever the personal cost, so during the cold and flu season the classroom is a cauldron; I know I always went back too early yet I resisted returning to work more than most teachers I think because I believed I should only be at work if I was capable of doing the job and when I was not a possible source of infection. I wonder whether 40-60% effectiveness would dent this problem.

I have no doubts at all that it is the “cauldron” nature of the classroom that makes the situation far worse. Rather than treating the classroom as child-care provision, if it was seen as a place of education where teachers and students had to be feeling competent to learn, then I suspect flus would be less of a problem.

On a personal level I have always considered colds and flus as a measure of stress, it was not so much the contagion in the cauldron but whether my immune system was strong enough to cope. As a retired person I do not pick up that many flus – this was not true at one stage because of andropause, if it happens I take vit c and sleep it off – watching favourite movies. I don’t see myself in a “CDC-vulnerable” group, and am not willing to fill myself with the additional toxins for a dubious benefit.

But that is me. Dr Mercola is against flu shots – look at this. He is concerned about the toxins present in the vaccines – similar to Vaccines Revealed, but he did not join their team whose integrity is compromised. He goes into more details as why specifically he is against the flu vaccine as opposed to epidemic vaccines. Here, Scientific American describes how they make up the vaccine. Dr Mercola describes the process similarly but he notes that even though it is flu season it is not one (or the most popular three) that we necessarily get for that season, we could get a different flu. His view, the flu vaccine is not very effective. So why take a flu vaccine that is not effective? And because absence might well be colds rather than flu, it would seem to be an ineffective imposition.

I don’t like it but if you are working with vulnerable old people flu might not give you a problem but could well hurt the vulnerable. I understand why nurses want to refuse, and that is why I think it should be discussed with nurses’ organisations. If the research and understanding is good why didn’t Essentia negotiate? That is heavy-handed oppression, and to me indicates something else.

Within this issue of toxic environment there appears to be a weakness in the science – as far as I know. I am prepared to accept that when food scientists investigate the toxicity of their products, the side effects are within acceptable limits. However, how much investigation goes into cumulative toxic load in humans? The problem is not the effect of the individual toxic product but the cumulative effect of all the toxins in all products as well as dealing with environmental toxins.

The issue is not even that simple. I give you a case study I know well – me. When I was teaching I did not care about toxicity. When I was young I drank. Once I stopped drinking I did not care about diet too much – although I was mainly vegetarian for health reasons. All my life I had migraines; I retired early at 54 – not for health reasons – with stomach issues – reflux migraines and so on. I had hoped that my health would improve because I was not being stressed by the job, but it did not. After a year I was diagnosed with GERD, detoxed and went on a plant-based diet. Gradually my health improved. I consider stress was an important factor in my poor health in the job when I was older, but after retirement the cause was toxins. I had to remove the cumulative toxic load before I could be healthy.

To me it seems that one individual toxic cause such as vaccines is not the problem, it is the cumulative effect. Baby products tend to have stricter food regulations so there is limited cumulative effect there. But the baby gains its health from the mother, how much toxic accumulation does the mother have? Cigarettes and alcohol are discouraged in mothers, why? Toxic effect. Mothers are encouraged to eat healthy diets. Why? Toxic effects. So if there are toxic effects that can affect babies, can they also not affect adults?

Dr Mercola has his own system for detoxing and building up immunity – as described in the flu-shot article. In my view everyone should examine their own diets and attempt to reduce the cumulative toxic effect. Science also needs to do more about this cumulative effect. But to recommend a reduction with epidemic vaccine shots is completely irresponsible. With regards to flu vaccines I think the situation is different (except when in contact with the vulnerable and their weakened immune systems) as the benefits are nowhere near as clear. But the issue is not an individual toxic source but the cumulative effect, no one source can be blamed so the problem continues. What can we do about the control of the food science by BigFood and BigPharma? Nothing. But we can control the toxins we take in with our foods. One obvious method – a macrobiotic diet. But detoxing and reducing toxic intake can help. It can never be 100% but then Nature gave us livers. Do the best you can but at least try to reduce toxic intake – reduce the cumulative toxic load.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.


This is the perfect example of libertarian stupidity. Unlike European libertarian history in the US Libertarians are right-wing, their politics is right-wing although based on principle. What they are is freedom, freedom and more freedom. This sounds good until you look at how they apply it, and then their intelligence is seen as woefully short; it also explains why they get so much right-wing funding. Their freedom means no regulations. Sounds good. Who wants to be bound by regulations? I am a considerate and compassionate person so I don’t need telling what to do.

Are all people this way? If not, educate them. All sounds good.

But then look at reality. We live in a 1%-system. The 1% accumulate huge amounts of money through real and imaginary trading and trade manipulations, and hive the money off into offshore accounts. This is the system we live in. The greed of these people is a sickness because of the global harmful implications of what they do. They are mentally ill, they are in charge, and the only thing that limits them are a few ineffective regulations. When the system is run by mentally ill people, then giving those people greater freedom is blind stupidity. That is libertarianism in the US.

So now we come to freedom of choice in vaccines. Now any sensible person looks at this and says you cannot have freedom of choice with vaccines, everyone has to be vaccinated against epidemic diseases otherwise they could start up again. To argue for freedom of choice is just plain stupid. It is the same blind stupidity shown with regards to regulations. (And government for that matter.) Principle before common sense.

That does not put an end to questioning, there has to be questioning. When science is dominated by the 1%-system of BigPharma and BigFood, there has to be questioning. But if that questioning does not produce a change, then vaccines have to be accepted. Not freedom of choice. Nobody should be promoting freedom of choice with regards to vaccines. It is good there is questioning, there is no problem with doubt, but there can be no freedom of choice with vaccines. One person choosing not to be vaccinated can cause deaths amongst many. There cannot be libertarian principle here. That is just plain stupid.

Yet in this video in general that is exactly what Vaccines Revealed are doing promoting freedom of choice. This is the height of irresponsibility, and again I question the integrity of any scientist who is prepared to add their name to a list who supports an organisation (the film-makers) who are promoting freedom of choice. In my school doctrinaire freedom of choice was intentionally disruptive, in the case of epidemic vaccines it is criminally stupid.

Then we have the ludicrous concept of informed consent (see this clip) that again appeals to intellectual arrogance. How can there be consent with regards to vaccines? If one person refuses to vaccinate then it potentially risks everyone. That is the only consent issue.

The people who make the informed decision about vaccines ought to be the scientific community independent of any business or social pressure of any kind. Vaccines are a scientific decision, if the science says vaccinate then we vaccinate. Most of the questioning within this video belongs within the scientific community, the scientists must decide – there are good questions but science must decide. End of story, no consent – informed or otherwise.

But how informed can people be about such a decision – even if consent were on the table. How much information can a lay person understand about this issue? Science investigated this, that or the other and came to this conclusion. Is that informed? Maybe, but meaninglessly so. The intellect likes to believe it can understand everything, it is arrogant. Informed consent just appeals to this arrogance, it is another aspect of right-wing egotism as is freedom of choice. Informed consent is concerned with individual choice such as “choosing chemo”, vaccines cannot be an individual decision – that decision must be based on scientific evidence. Unlike cancer I don’t believe there is the evidence with regards to vaccines, I think it is just part of the funded, designed confusion strategy.

Basically this video just creates fear. The makers of the movie might believe they are doing a public service but creating fear only adds to the confusion and benefits the 1% only. That’s why they got their funding.

In conclusion I think the makers of this video are irresponsible, and the video casts more doubts on the scientific team who supported the video than they do on the issues of vaccines.

But flu vaccines ….

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Vaccines

I have never looked into vaccines so unlike the cancer issue I have no understanding. A couple of weeks ago a scientist friend commented on a vaccine thread. His position was total science claiming there was no dubious practice from the scientific establishment. My approach was to say that even if there was BigPharma would not listen – he got me. In that same thread I was vilified by a vaxxer!!

When I looked at this thread my friend had pointed out that Andrew Wakefield’s study had been completely debunked scientifically. I remember John Oliver talking about vaccines, and quoted him as evidence. Is John Oliver scientific evidence? I would tend to argue yes. John’s humour is often based on deeper analyses of current events showing the inconsistencies and hypocrisies that depth can show – some depth. His appeal is to the Liberal media and Liberal establishment so you don’t see pieces about their establishment support of war or wage-slavery – the usual neo-liberal blindspots. I surmise that his research is sufficiently sound because Liberals like to believe they are not part of “fake news”.

The Liberal establishment is a factor when considering vaccines. Their unquestioning position concerning intellectuals, science and vaccines is characteristic of such liberalism. They might voice against the 1%, but their analysis of 1%-influence is laughable in its ignorance especially considering their level of education – or maybe because of their level of education. Because the Liberal establishment is a factor, right-wing establishment will take the opposite position. Therefore if there is questioning of vaccines right-wing populism will automatically join the affray against the Liberals leading to Liberal bleating and counter-vitriol.

The issue is further hyped because for vaccines to work it has to be 100%. Liberals know this as do scientists so when vaccines are questioned it is not a matter of individual choice as it needs to be 100%. That is enough for the mental proliferations (sankhara) of some individualists to go off the charts talking about liberties etc. So right-wing creation of confusion is worse than being the usual tool for political division and propagation of the 1%, it is dangerous.

Mostly the issue of vaccines does not affect me. If I get the flu I sleep it off, preferring a week at home to a needle of chemicals. That is not because of vaccines per se but because of my fear of chemical poisons that might be contained in vaccines. Without any sound knowledge to the contrary, I would always recommend to parents they vaccinate children, and if the community I live in were legally required to take a vaccine I would take it without question – out of a community duty to the 100%.

But I have doubts about vaccines because so many have claimed that vaccines have caused problems. For that reason alone I question vaccines. But that questioning has to be based on far more than the above collection of ideas, hence this investigation.

Vaccines Revealed have produced a video (series of videos?) on vaccines. It is called “Truth about Vaccines” was fronted by Ty Bollinger and it had a similar approach to the cancer series so it seemed appropriate. But before I start any examination of vaccines I have to point out, as I did with cancer, that the only basis for evidence can be scientific. My concern for chemicals in the flu vaccine is not based on science, it is based on a general fear of our toxic environment and how that toxic environment has affected my health. It is a loose rationale (sufficient for me) but I am retired – taking a week off school because of the flu would not have been an option and might well have led me to have a flu-shot. I took anti-biotics when forced, and I do now if I have an infection in a cut – but I avoid them. My position is not informed, it is not sound.

At the website there is a teaser video, it was hype – maybe it has to be for advertising. There appeared limited science in the video, just a collection of fears. More importantly there is a team of scientific supporters who include Andrew Wakefield whose supposed science connecting MMR and autism was considered fraudulent. He published in The Lancet, a respectable journal, suggesting a link whilst at the same time holding a press conference to promote his own interests with far more self-acclaiming assertions. In my view the integrity of the Lancet was used (long discussion on this here), and the Wakefield article was later retracted. Here is a bmj article on the issue, and this quote sums it up “Furthermore, Wakefield has been given ample opportunity either to replicate the paper’s findings, or to say he was mistaken. He has declined to do either. He refused to join 10 of his coauthors in retracting the paper’s interpretation in 2004, and has repeatedly denied doing anything wrong at all. Instead, although now disgraced and stripped of his clinical and academic credentials, he continues to push his views.” Wakefield committed fraudulent science, was stripped of his credentials, and yet Vaccines Revealed allowed him on their team. Here is some more info on the fraud. This fraudulence brings the other members of the team into question, I personally would not want to be academically connected to a fraud. This makes all that is in this video questionable.

Of course the video still adds to the confusion, adds to the division, and yet does not affect the status quo of BigPharma profits. So it is right-wing funded!!

Here is the video. It begins with stating that a person who questions vaccines is not taking sides – a good point. Given that vaccines have been questioned it would help to get rid of the confusion – leading to the funding question.

On reflection overnight I have closed the question for me. To begin with we have to recognise that vaccine science has wiped out epidemic diseases. This is a biggie. If vaccines are to be brought into question then there needs to be a huge bank of evidence that vaccines have serious collateral damage; to me this appears not to be the case.

This questioning is mostly coming from the right-wing in which rabid individualism overrides the needs of the population. Here is a case in which individual rights have to take second place. A vaccine only works if everyone takes it, therefore the rights of the richer few individualists have to be questioned.

My main reason for avoiding BigPharma medicines is the side effects, I subscribe to the belief that there are sufficient cases where side effects are much worse than the healing power of the drug. This brings me to the regulatory bodies. I believe the regulatory bodies are in the pockets of BigPharma and do not have enough teeth. I feel they accept R&D made by the companies themselves quite simply because they do not have the resources to test themselves and are not powerful enough to stand against BigPharma.

However with regards to vaccines I don’t think there is strong evidence that BigPharma has forced the regulatory bodies into playing down the individual cases that arise from vaccines.

A big factor in my belittling of “Vaccines Revealed” is the lack of professional integrity. Professional integrity demands that all associated with what you are doing is above board. A professional does not allow themselves to be associated with anything dubious. Andrew Wakefield is a fraud, yet he is part of the Vaccines Revealed team. As a sceptic asking questions about vaccines I am tainted by being associated with Andrew Wakefield, and in this situation I am not a professional. As a professional teacher I have sufficient understanding of the meaning of professionalism to say that all of that team are compromised. Perhaps their questioning has some relevance, as a sceptic all questioning has relevance, but to go on a public platform to undermine the scientific community when that platform has Wakefield on it shows a lack of professionalism.

There are professional scientific mechanisms in place to deal with the individual cases, to examine other aspects of science associated with vaccines, and there is only conjecture that such mechanisms are not sufficient. Many are answered in this lay informed blog although I don’t totally agree with her approach. John Oliver who has a research team produced this lay synopsis which also answers many questions.

I have spent my life questioning the establishment, both politically and scientifically. I believe that scepticism is the way one should function normally – never accept what they tell you. For this reason I have asked about vaccines. But from what I can tell science is asking those questions and science has it covered. There is no doubt that if vaccines were harmful BigPharma would try to cover it up because they would lose profits, but there is no evidence this is happening. When you examine the cancer industry there is a huge amount of evidence and verifiable anecdotal evidence that cut burn and poison is not sound and that alternatives are not being investigated, but with vaccines there is no such evidence.

So that brings us to politics and the 1%-tactic of confusion. There is no doubt in my mind that there is funding around on the right-wing for questioning vaccines. There is no doubt in my mind that there are profits such as Bob Sears’ book (John Oliver’s clip) for some. Confusion is around, and this instability benefits the 1% generally without affecting the profits of BigPharma. If Trump is sowing seeds then we know it is 1%-confusion.

Scepticism is important but at some point science must be trusted. In the case of vaccines there appears to be absolutely no evidence at the moment that science cannot be trusted. There is strong evidence that there is right-wing funding to create confusion. Typically Andrew Wakefield had sponsors for making the film “Vaxxed” after he had been struck off.

In the case of vaccines questioning outside of science is not constructive. Keep the scepticism within science, vaccines at the moment is not an issue ordinary parents should be concerned about, but scepticism should be watchful in the future in case things change. There is a danger we are crying wolf now, and maybe later ….

But flu vaccines ….

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Confusion – the new Divide-and-Rule

Yesterday I spent a long time considering the “Truth about Cancer” even though I only used half of one of the videos. There is a very clear conclusion – confusion. Why?

There is a well-known left-wing adage – divide-and-rule colonialism. Typically the hegemony would find an existing division usually religious or tribal, and favour one group – protestants in Ireland, land deals in Zimbabwe, Obote’s minority rule in Uganda.

Since Occupy in 2011 the ruling 1% have been concerned about a different Unity – the 99%. So they have been funding the internet to prevent Unity of the 99%. And the purpose of that funding is confusion that allows the status quo to remain – the status quo which accumulates profits for the 1%.

So let us examine the cancer issue through this confusion paradigm. There are two issues about which there are sound questions:-

Do the established treatments work?
Do the alternative treatments work?

When you begin to examine these questions with genuine scepticism you are unable to get an answer because the only people who can give you proper answers are independently-funded medical research scientists. The methodology of this research would have to be agreed by all parties so that conclusions could be generally accepted. This cannot happen because the major player, BigPharma, will not work with the other players, alternative treatments. Why? Because it would expose weakness in their established treatments – the cut/burn and poison of operation, radiation and chemotherapy. Without scientific evidence there is sufficient doubt for the established regimen of treatments to continue to be used. The people who now benefit from the established treatments, BigPharma and BigFinance, continue to do so.

What became very clear to me yesterday is that there is sufficient scientifically-verified data to warrant genuine scientific enquiry about both the above questions. Oncologists are apologists for their treatments, but they do not control research. It would require the whole of the cancer profession to stand up and demand appropriate research on these established treatments but there are too many vested interests for this to happen. So the confusion and status quo remains.

I did not investigate any of the alternative treatments yesterday but I have previously. There are strong cases that merit consideration. I am no expert, I do not believe there is a “cure”, but if I had cancer and I had money I would go Gerson. As I don’t have money I would improve the quality of my diet – it is good anyway, I would go to acupuncture as often as I could and do Chi Gung daily, exercise, try to find medical cannabis and meditate. I would listen to but not trust the advice of oncologists, and would never trust chemo unless I could be assured it would be part of the 2.1% successes in 5 years. But that is me and I am no expert so my recommendation means nothing.

And there again is the confusion. There could be clarity. If sufficient mainstream research were done I believe Gerson could be scientifically proven to work, and could then be funded by medical insurance or the NHS. But this is not scientifically known, and in my view will never be scientifically knowable because BigPharma will never allow it. Confusion. The same might also apply to other alternative treatments.

Whilst we live in a 1%-system there will always be confusion, whilst the profits of BigPharma, BigFinance and BigFood are all dependent on the status quo it will never change from confusion. Treatments will remain the same. Ordinary people will be subjected to cut, burn and poison perhaps unnecessarily. There will be some benefits so that there will be some reason to accept the establishment. Some people will go to alternative treatments, and there will be talk of cures as can be found widely on the net. But nothing will be resolved, there will be confusion and that suits the 1% of BigPharma.

This issue of confusion also explains the funding for alternatives. Mainstream science will continue to produce some studies about the established treatments, studies questioning the status quo will never be universally accepted. There will be funding for some of the alternative treatments because individuals benefit – the rich need to know where to go. There will be funding for sceptics who decry the mainstream as well as for those who decry alternatives. Why? Because it all creates confusion and that confusion benefits the 1%.

And then there is the laughable position of the supposed scientists at SBM discussing acupuncture. “This is important to the understanding of the acupuncture literature, as many of the positive studies are coming out of China. The unrealistically high percentage of positive studies makes the Chinese body of clinical literature very suspect.” Even when there is no doubt they appeal to racism, infer the Chinese scientists “liars”, and create confusion.

If you have cancer what do you do? Don’t trust anyone – including me. Don’t trust the oncologists but try to determine what the state of scientific research is with regards to your cancer, treatment and the longevity of the treatment. Change your lifestyle. Eat healthy organic food, watch what you drink and drink healthily. Do aerobic exercise. Find some form of exercise that promotes the chi, Chi Gung, Tai Chi or others, and good breathing – prana. And meditate. With all of this you will probably fill your days!!! . These are recommendations, changing lifestyle is not necessarily a cure but there is nothing there that can hurt – all these lifestyle choices are beneficial.

I refer back to Occupy and the 99%. At that time there was no confusion, apathy but no confusion. The message was growing that the 1% were the source of all the problems. Since then the 1% have increasingly funded the power of confusion.

Brexit cannot be resolved – confusion. Huge money was invested in Brexit and is still invested so there is no resolution as evidenced by Tories fighting amongst each other. There will be at least 4 years of this confusion whilst the 1% exploit behind the scenes.

Trump is just about division and confusion. Try to define what he is about, and you only come up with a political and power-hungry ego. He decries the 1% yet he is one of them. He talks about helping white people but gives tax breaks to the superrich. Everything he says, the way he tweets is just to cause confusion, and whilst there is confusion his special people can work behind the scenes for the 1%.

The new Divide-and-Rule colonialism is 1%-confusion.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Investigating cancer


I am going to start investigating two internet series produced by similar groups – one on vaccines and one on cancer.

Before I examine these series I must point out the following:-

These are medical matters. Unbiassed medicine and science can be the only sources of truth on these matters. But that is not the same as saying if medicine and science say it it is true. What makes one scientist say one thing etc., and the answer is quite simply bias due to funding.

In this day and age medical and scientific research costs a huge amount of money. When it comes to cancer there are huge profits earned by BigPharma through chemotherapy. BigPharma pays for their own research to find drugs but they also exert pressure on government funding agencies who might want to investigate alternative therapies. A sensible compromise for me would be BigPharma invests their money in drug research, and the public contributions to cancer research examine alternatives such as Gerson and so on.

Here is a story given to me by a person who has faith in science. In Holland there was a famous singer who was diagnosed with breast cancer. She chose to ignore medical advice which said at that stage her cancer was curable, and went to a faith healer. She died and the medical establishment (of one form or another) sued the faith healer. This was supposed to persuade me against alternatives. Firstly I do not dismiss faith healing but it was not this that I ask funding for scientific investigation – I wonder if faith healing can be investigated scientifically. Although I am a Buddhist I do not believe in Buddhism, I require experience of any Buddhist dogma before I say it is true. But why was the faith healer sued? Because the medical established backed by BigPharma profits were trying to deter people from going to alternatives. Can we sue BigPharma if we die from cancer? Maybe but the legal system is so biassed against ordinary people because they are financed out of court. BigPharma pays a huge amount for a legal department to make such cases go away.

When investigating cancer we have to be unbiassed. Science is not neutral in this because science is based on funding. This does not mean that science is lying, it means that science can only tell the truth of what it has investigated. What is very clear is that science has not investigated all avenues concerning cancer.

Some would argue that doctors and oncologists should be current on all the scientific research, I do not accept this. It is quite reasonable for hard-working doctors and oncologists to accept what medical schools and professional conferences say about cancer. Their job is to treat patients and not do medical research. However they are also the people with the medical knowledge of how treatment is working so as a resource base their knowledge needs to be evaluated. I question whether this is done – but I do not know.

In this blog I questioned cancer research and asked “With regards to the existing practices I have many questions, and these revolve around the current cancer treatment practices. I have the feeling that many oncologists accept chemotherapy because there is nothing better. But what about research into this decision? Are the side effects more harmful than the benefits of the treatment?

As far as I know there are different chemotherapy drugs used for different types of cancer, are these known and established? Is it known that such a drug will work on such a cancer for all the various stages? When does such a drug not work?

Are there cancers in which there is no treatment?”

Again in Holland I was advised that if you visited a doctor and were diagnosed with cancer you would be told what success rates different doctors have had in different locations with different types of cancer. This appears to answer my questions, and I don’t take that lightly. But if that is the case why are the scientists who work on alternative therapies so critical of the chemo treatments. “They have a vested interest” would be the system response – and they do have. But BigPharma medicine is also biassed. So the issue comes down to trust.

And that trust is primarily based on the system ignoring evidence that appears to have been scientifically gathered that some alternative therapies such as Gerson work on cancer. As a sceptic I want them investigated before I can trust a treatment that tells me that I have to destroy healthy tissue in order to destroy unhealthy tissue. I also cannot trust a system that says Farrah Fawcett’s death is the only way to go for some people. If her oncologists were telling her that had to happen, then why weren’t they recommending healthy eating and therapy that would at least have made her dying more comfortable?

None of this makes sense to me as a sceptic, and as a person who has some understanding of the control and power of 1%-influence in our political system I am deeply suspicious.

So I am going to consider two internet series “The Truth About Cancer” and “The Quest for the Cure”. From what I know I am sympathetic to their objectives but the level of independent funding they have makes me highly suspicious. I am sceptical of their purpose.

People like the Health Ranger, Mike Adams, have dismissed MSM (as in many cases I do). They dismiss them as having liberal bias as I do – the Republican/Trump division of “Fake News”, and they seek solutions on the right through politics such as libertarianism. In the US this is just promotion of the 1% because it promotes Republicanism. If Trump is not a demonstration of such misguided politics, then I don’t know what is.

When I see politics on the right wing I again have doubts. However the funding reaches these alternative advocates, why does money want to support their analyses? I believe there is a conspiracy – the 1%-system. The 1%-system is that wealth accumulates to the 1%, that they control governments, and war and wage-slavery are their main means of profit-making and control.

But right-wing conspiracies muddy the waters as they primarily attack government as the source of the problem, and then attack collectivisation as well because they are fiercely individualistic. The internet has fostered this fierce individualism through right-wing funding because the intended consequence, as illustrated by Trump, creates confusion. These individualists often support libertarianism, and libertarianism asks many good questions, but libertarianism supports a free and unregulated market but ignores the consequence that such a market will be controlled by cartels and other regulated mechanisms in the interest of the 1%. So whilst libertarians do not support the 1% their platform does and this is why they continue to receive funding – directly or indirectly from the 1%.

I have just started listening to the cancer stuff and it is full of these right-wing undertones – hence their funding. I have no doubts at all that these people are genuine (OK some minor doubts) – I do not believe they are in it because they are paid puppets, they believe what they say.

Just because they are right-wing does not make them wrong – or right. Just because I am left-wing does not make me right but I have a good start – my concerns start with compassion for all – not compassion for the individual.

For example one of the key underlying themes is that BigPharma makes huge profits from the cancer industry. This is an indisputable fact. Does BigPharma control government? In my view this is equally true although not so easily proveable. Equally BigFood is a significant player in this because of the way these right-wing individualists see cancer, and BigFood has a vested interest in maintaining the current mainstream understanding. This is equally evident.

Before examining the materials let us be clear about perceptions of these apparent conspiracies. When I first learned my Marxism we were expected to analyse. We could never analyse based on all the facts because governments don’t give you all the facts since those governments are puppets of the bourgeoisie (1%). How do we know such analyses are true? We don’t. So we took such analyses to the comrades and we analysed together. Together, did it make sense? Do we know the analysis is true? Of course not. Do we know that what we are told is true? Definitely false, but where? False if the truth does not benefit the 1%. We sought comrades globally whose understanding was like-minded and that is where our knowledge came from. What we did was correct but is also the problem with the alt-right now, we only listened to our comrades. So do they but their comrades are Breitbart, 1%-funded propaganda to confuse and divide. There are right-wingers who criticise collectivisation, why? Collectivisation just means for all the people. This is their individualism, their problem as individualists, they feel they have rights over the collective. It is my view that the collective needs to be tolerant and helpful towards individual needs but compassion for all people comes first – there has to be a balance.

In summary a conspiracy must not be dismissed simply because it is a conspiracy, it could be sound analysis. And soundness is the benchmark – not conspiracy.

Before I start I return to science. Science is not appropriately sceptical because through analysis I see a pattern that much scepticism is one-way and supports BigPharma (indirectly for funding purposes). However sound science must be the benchmark. Andrew Wakefield’s studies on the vaccine link to autism has been scientifically debunked (I trust John Oliver’s research as he would lose too much credibility if his researchers were wrong). So to my mind Wakefield’s name should be eschewed, and yet Vaccines Revealed touts Wakefield as one of its teams of experts (scroll down). This makes me extremely sceptical of anything that is said about vaccines, and by association about cancer – as the two series appear connected (Ty Bollinger).

There is a human side to all of this – fear. There is a culture and climate of fear that is especially used to gear up support on the right. Amongst the right there is an unspoken understanding of Marxism, the system is fundamentally corrupt, that the economy is built on confidence, and can be toppled through a breaking of that confidence. They will personally lose, so middle-class whites vote for self-protection and conservatism (Republicanism). Of course they turn their back on war and wage-slavery, ignore the repeated revelations concerning the wealthy and offshore accounts (Panama and Paradise), and are unable to give any deep analysis. Right wing populism appeals to that fear, does not have to have a deep analysis so long as fear is enhanced, and must be questioned because that fear benefits the 1%. But it cannot be ignored

I have determined there is a chronology on these cancer videos, Quest for Cures, Quest for Cures Continues (1 and 2), Truth About (1 and 2) even though there are supposed to be 9 (more?). That is the order I will try to work through, but my benchmark is legitimate scepticism and not scientific rigour so I might not review the lot if it is repetitive.

In the first clip we can hear G Edward Griffin, listen to this. Isn’t this simply holistic medicine? Seeking the root cause of the problem and dealing with it? As opposed to cutting, burning or poisoning a symptom? The clip then interviews a mainstream doctor who expertly describes the mainstream view of cancer in line with G Edward Griffin’s description. What Griffin is saying has sufficient scientific plausibility to be answered – not dismissed as conspiratorial lunacy? For me dismissal out-of-hand of what is described here condemns mainstream medicine as ignorant – as closed because it is not willing to investigate, but …. BUT there is no formal scientific evidence to satisfactorily support G Edward Griffin; he does say that the “statistics show cancer comes back”, that needs investigation. Can G Edward Griffin be faulted on that and other statements? This legitimate doubt is what needs to be remedied – either way, analysis and research based on the consequences of what G Edward Griffin and others say needs to be carried out. But that requires funding, and who controls the funding?

Consider my questions on cancer above, the cancer is not cured if a lump is removed and later comes back. Holistically the underlying conditions of the cause have not been dealt with, so the cure is not a cure. Cut burn and poison might be appropriate, but when? Should more be done such as diet and lifestyle after cut burn and poison? If there are natural treatments (as touted in this series of clips) that have any possible legitimacy, then they should be researched. In all of this I am appealing to science, I am asking that respected scientific methodology be applied in toto as a genuine search for knowledge. G Edward Griffin makes a strong case that I am saying interprets it as not searching, and it fits with an understanding of the power and influence of the 1% as Big Pharma and BigFood.

Perhaps the most telling issue that needs to be examined with regards to cancer is historical change (discussed in the clip here). Science argues that allopathic medical treatments (drugs) have cured disease yet cancer is on the increase. Isn’t there a question to be asked scientifically, why is it on the increase? There could be sound reasons for this increase; curing other diseases only leaves degenerative diseases – cancer, diabetes and heart disease. This explanation might be appropriate but then lifestyle changes, stress, lack of exercise and poor diet, could also legitimately explain. Why isn’t there an answer to this question?

Then there is an interview with a homeopath Dr Bell (who should be euthanised for his political views ). He describes the way in which medical education has been hijacked by BigPharma through Rockefeller (oil-based patented medicines) and Carnegie Foundation; it should be noted that as a right-winger he attacks the government as FDA rather than attacking the 1% who manipulate government. Place this hijack in context. When do doctors decide on how they will treat cancer? At medical school. Once they are in practice, they do not have the time to research how they are treating patients. Perhaps they attend medical conferences that support their treatment approaches, but they do not have the time to question what they learned in medical college. Why should they? In one sense they shouldn’t, but given the control that BigPharma has upon their medical practice there ought to be more healthy scepticism. Listen to this BigPharma sales rep discuss her job. If you control the education and the drugs the doctors prescribe, what else is there?

Dr Bell also describes, in a very Eurocentric manner, the breadth of medicine at the turn of the 20th century as homeopathy, naturopathy and eclectic herbal medicine, being replaced by allopathy (the drugs of BigPharma) he describes as poisons. In my view it is no coincidence that these non-allopathic treatments are attacked by SBM (science-based medicine) – along with acupuncture.

This approach is promoting privatised medicine. Dr Ball became a homeopath – private practice, for most of my life I have sought solutions through privatised medicine – primarily acupuncture. This was not by choice because outside of Botswana, China and Thailand it was very expensive. I would have been much happier if homeopathy, naturopathy, herbal medicine and acupuncture were part of the NHS, and I would have sought solutions there. I don’t understand in the US why the 1% would promote private practice because state hospitals are controlled by the finance industry. In the UK however it is different, and support of alternative (natural) treatments would effectively be an attack on the NHS. So it is important to note that this scepticism is contributing to right-wing culture through privatisation, if I understood the US medical culture better I might understand more why there is such abundant funding.

What about this question? Does it have validity? Here is the same question posed with some different details.

This doctor describes an Australian study (University of Sydney) which according to her demonstrates cutting burning and poisoning an already-sick body is not working. Is this scientifically-sound evidence? If so, why is it ignored?

Webster Kehr “5-year cure rate for chemo is 2.1%”. Is this understood and accepted? When chemo cure rates are recorded such as described above for Holland, is this 2.1% part of the patient’s information? “Most of the major kinds of cancer do not respond to chemotherapy well” Webster Kehr, is this true? Webster Kehr is the founder of the Cancer Tutor promoting alternative treatments so there is bias although scientific studies are quoted – including for the 2.1% figure. It is part of the “Independent Cancer Research Foundation”. So their research is supposedly scientific, does mainstream science accept their results? You can find natural alternative treatments through cancer tutor. I knew that Gerson had a clinic in Mexico, when I searched Mexico I found 2 clinics run by Dr Antonio Jiminez. There is an article about the Gerson therapy, maybe Jiminez’s Hope4Cancer and Gerson are connected. This possible anomaly concerns me. Cancer Tutor definitely has money, appears professional, but that is not enough.

I am about to give up because I have reached an impasse. I am saying nothing new, and all these people have spent far more time looking into the problem. There is money in “natural treatment” as well as in BigPharma’s cancer industry. From what little I know Gerson is well worth $6000 a week – far above my income bracket. Big money. Probably far less than medical insurance payouts but of course insurance will not pay for Gerson. Why is there an impasse? My scepticism demands appropriate research but the will is not there. I want a magic tool that says science and alternative treatments work together to establish a bank of knowledge that is independent verifiable and scientific. I am at an impasse because I conclude this cannot happen, it matters not the effectiveness of treatments nor the scientific evidence already available. In my view the failure to establish this independent scientific research is because of the mainstream, but that is only an opinion. The questions asked in this clip and the scientific evidence they quote is enough to demand that an unbiassed desire for knowledge would be asking the questions I have posed, but the situation has its bias. BigPharma and BigFood, and their control of government.

And of course there is the blind acceptance of what conditioning dishes out in terms of reverence for mainstream science and whatever else in the mainstream backs it up. The world is educated for blindness and people respond that way even when confronted with evidence. They prefer to call people liars than examine their own conditioning.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Natural Law

Buddhadasa calls Natural Law Idappaccayata (first talk of 8), this is really what I am talking about – idappaccayata. It becomes a feeling, a sense, an understanding of what is natural. He then goes on to talk about paticcasamuppada as natural law, and again I don’t have a problem with that. Whilst natural law is objective it almost feels as if it is a subjective thing. And this of course is a problem.

Let me try to be clearer by contrasting natural law with science. To my mind natural law and science ought to be the same. I discussed Bacon’s dichotomy for taxonomy that later turned into science and religion. Prior to Bacon what was considered natural law was also seen as knowledge.

Now the divisions between science and religion have been cemented by business. It suits BigPharma not to have various “natural cures” as healing because such healing cannot be patented and therefore cannot be profited from. Why are those natural cures “natural law”? Basically paticcasamuppada is about causes and conditions. Let’s examine a cause and condition. The chi is blocked on a meridian and unblocking that meridian with an acupuncture needle leads to healing. Now the evidence (see quote below) supports this causes and conditions approach to healing through acupuncture. I suggest this healing follows a natural law that science does not accept because it cannot measure chi.

Homeopathy I know much less about but its basic principle if to give a little of what you don’t want and the body builds up an immunity. Again I am limited on this but isn’t that what vaccines are about? Science supports them against an internet-based movement. What is the difference between homeopathy and vaccines? BigPharma.

It is my understanding that Ayurveda is a natural-based medicine – follows natural laws. I think naturopathy and Ayurveda are connected, so I suggest naturopathy follows natural law.

Apart from acupuncture none of the above can I give serious commitment to as I just don’t know. What I am seeking is an understanding of natural law in a context other than spiritual. As yet I don’t have one.

This has not really gone anywhere – apart from the usual acupuncture. Idappaccayata is natural law based on causes and conditions. I am seeking an understanding of the conditioning point so it must be connected. But this blogpost has little more than contention.

Below:- In the study of acupuncture trials, 252 of 1085 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR. In studies that examined interventions other than acupuncture, 405 of 1100 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Of trials published in England, 75% gave the test treatment as superior to control. The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective. From here. Note the one-way sceptic conclusion that the evidence is so overwhelming it must be biassed – without consideration of their own bias.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Is Acupuncture Medical Knowledge?


I would have preferred to have as a title “Is Acupuncture Applied Science?” because medicine tends to be recognised as applied science, but if I use that title the answer is prejudiced by such as the one-way sceptics at Science-Based Medicine.

I therefore have changed the blog title although I will return to the issue. First and foremost when you ask if medicine works who is it you ask? The patient. If a patient is cured, then that means the treatment probably works but needs to be verified. In China especially patients have been cured and they repeatedly go back for treatment. This tends to suggest a valid treatment, strong evidence.

However as a sceptic this is not proof. To investigate we start with patients. And here is the problem with science measuring the success of acupuncture, their western machines cannot measure the chi. As a reminder acupuncture sees itself as a chi-based system in which the chi should be balanced. The chi also runs along meridians and if those meridians are blocked disease arises. If your machines cannot measure chi, yet it is a chi-based system then science that does not believe in chi cannot measure. To determine whether acupuncture works, it is not good to use a system that does not believe in the structural framework.

So before we can answer the question “Is Acupuncture Medical Knowledge?”, we have to either determine whether the chi exists or we need to find an alternative methodology; science-based medicine has not attempted to do that.

As a statistician I would try to design an experiment in which similar symptoms and disease has been treated by acupuncture. If various combination of needle placements are supposed to fix a disease, then I would try to find patients with those symptoms and then apply the treatment. I don’t know that science-based medicine has done that.

I have previously argued that there is 3000 years of evidence regarding the efficacy of acupuncture. Here is a paragraph from the one-way sceptics that describes that evidence:-

“In the study of acupuncture trials, 252 of 1085 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR. In studies that examined interventions other than acupuncture, 405 of 1100 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Of trials published in England, 75% gave the test treatment as superior to control. The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective.” from here.

Now this looks like good evidence that acupuncture works. In fact the figures might well be too good. As a sceptic I would try to find whether the investigations have been manipulated. But until I found such I would have to say the evidence is good that acupuncture works.

Here is what science-based medicine said “This is important to the understanding of the acupuncture literature, as many of the positive studies are coming out of China. The unrealistically high percentage of positive studies makes the Chinese body of clinical literature very suspect.” from here. Suspect, maybe, but given the wealth of evidence in favour of acupuncture a scientist needs to accept the conclusions. Surely if there is such a preponderance of suspect literature, it would be easy to find dubious “studies”. But science-based medicine does not accept the conclusions, has found no dubious studies, and continues to attack acupuncture treatments. This is not sound science. As a sceptic I would also consider such numbers high, but I would need far more evidence than statistical scepticism to imply such a body of evidence is “lies”. And when you consider the level of influence BigPharma has on western medicine the source of the conclusions is more likely to be funding pressure than scientific veracity.

Let me push at the personal boundaries here. Undoubtedly there is Chinese national pride in acupuncture so as a sceptic I must question. However western science also demonstrates its own pride feeling that its own academia is the best in the world – more than likely true. But making a statement that implies that because the figures are high they must be rigged is simply disguised racism. This is supposed to be science-based medicine so the metier of criticism is science. I am sure that the studies in China and elsewhere were published in journals, and I am equally sure such journals had some sort of academic rigour prior to publication. Examine that rigour, point out erroneous assumptions, question experimental methodology. Without applying this sort of criteria and drawing the conclusion they have done has meant that SBM is little more than western pride and disguised racism.

Why does consideration of acupuncture fit in with mindfulness methodology? What is the conditioning point? That is the question. SBM dismisses China’s evidence yet at the same time they do not recognise their own vested interest in supporting a system that is funded by BigPharma – nor do they recognise their own institutional academic pride. Their scepticism is one-way. As a sceptic I would question the evidence in China but I could not dismiss it based simply on scepticism as the evidence is too strong.

This would mean that there would need to be appropriately-funded research. The design of the experiment would have to be extremely robust in terms of:-

a) Effectively measuring the functioning of acupuncture within its environment.
b) Allowing such sceptics as SBM to have unbiassed access to the design.
c) Not requiring western-based machines that cannot measure chi to be part of the design
d) Having a design that could test success or failure without needing to accept the chi framework.

I doubt whether BigPharma would be willing to fund such an experiment, and given the plethora of evidence in China why should the onus of funding be on them. UNESCO might be a way forward but their ties are western and BigPharma influence might be too strong.

BigPharma’s business strategy cannot realistically be access to the Chinese market, however it can be limiting western acceptance of acupuncture. Appealing to racism that dismisses Chinese science would fit in with such a strategy.

“Is Acupuncture Applied Medical Science?” ought to be the title of this blogpost but science dismisses the existence of chi without appropriate scientific investigation. The reasons for this are not scientifically clear given the high proportion of people on earth who accept the existence of chi and prana. As patents cannot be taken out on “nature” and as there can therefore be no profits to BigPharma, my scepticism indicates BigPharma influence as to why science is not currently investigating the chi.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Investigating cancer research


As a sceptic I wish to investigate cancer and cancer research, if ever there was an area of medicine in which sound scepticism and ensuing investigation with unbiased integrity was needed it is cancer research.

On the one hand there is radiation treatment and chemotherapy. Doctors who use such treatments claim that the science supports them. However the results of such treatments produce such tremendously awful side effects, many people question whether the treatments are worth it. These treatments kill healthy and cancer cells, and the doctors who use the treatments are apologetic but say there is nothing else.

Here is the problem there are people who claim there is something else. There is a huge bank of anecdotal evidence that various treatments have worked. Such treatments include

Macrobiotics
Gerson
Burszynski
Cannabis
Laetrile
Simoncini and Sodium Bicarbonate

and more ….

Not only this but some of these treatments especially Gerson and Burszynski claim they have carefully documented scientific evidence to support their treatments. Yet despite people donating huge amounts of money to cancer research charities these alternative treatments are not investigated.

As a sceptic I do not accept any conditioned conclusions. With regards to the existing practices I have many questions, and these revolve around the current cancer treatment practices. I have the feeling that many oncologists accept chemotherapy because there is nothing better. But what about research into this decision? Are the side effects more harmful than the benefits of the treatment?

As far as I know there are different chemotherapy drugs used for different types of cancer, are these known and established? Is it known that such a drug will work on such a cancer for all the various stages? When does such a drug not work?

Are there cancers in which there is no treatment?

What appears to be happening to me is that mainstream medicine does not have any choices and chooses chemo. This is not a scientific approach unless there is evidence to support the chemicals in all situations.

The real problem that exists with evaluation of existing cancer treatments is the control of the research process that BigPharma has. As a sceptic it seems reasonable to ask the above questions, and from a neutral perspective all humans would like verified answers. Critics of the situation claim that BigPharma inhibits any research that would reduce the use of their drugs. As a sceptic I want those questions answered. I do not see sceptics such as the SBM even asking the questions. It should also be noted here the control that medical insurance has on the choice of treatment, chemo is accepted by insurance; here BigPharma and the finance industry are hand-in-hand.

From a different perspective what about the alternative treatments? SBM and similar science sceptics dismiss them as not even worth investigating. Yet there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence where claims that each of these treatments has “cured cancer”. As a sceptic I want such anecdotes investigated. It is not sufficient to dismiss such evidence because it does not fit the existing recovery model – which appear to many simply to be chemo or not.

As a sceptic I want such “evidence” investigated in an unbiassed way. There is a “huge” amount of anecdotal evidence that could contribute to legitimate scientific knowledge. To me this is what a sceptic should be asking for not taking a partisan side that only supports the status quo. Especially as such a status quo has got to be influenced by the power and influence of BigFood, BigPharma and finance.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.