Tag Archive: Cancer


Free for a worldview?


“Ultimately these problems must be seen as just different facets of one single crisis, which is largely a crisis of perception. It derives from the fact that most of us, and especially our large social institutions, subscribe to the concepts of an outdated world view, a perception of reality inadequate for dealing with our overpopu lated, globally interconnected world. [p4] ”

I am going to thrash this out now, because otherwise it will be nagging me throughout. It is not the worldview that is the issue, it is power. The worldview implies within it a notion that we can choose our view of the world. Because of the egos of academia or science there is an unwritten assumption, knowledge is out there and it is only a matter of discovery that this knowledge can be found. Then a scientist has a “eureka” moment and the truth of that knowledge becomes integrated into academia per se. This is so far from the truth it is staggering that the intellectuals within these communities actually believe it.

Let us consider the process that might be called academic apprenticeship. School, we must pass exams; university, we must pass exams; if we then pass those exams we get admitted into a reserach programme where there is a rigorous method to be adhered to. You have already been inculcated by this stage – jumped through so many hoops. In research you study all previous knowledge on a subject and then extend that knowledge. Sounds reasonable until you actually examine how that knowledge is extended. Numerically is the best way I can think of conveying this. Suppose we consider that the axioms that science is based on be specified as level 0, maybe the Greeks were discussing these axioms. As academics did further work these levels increased and increased until their work had little connection with the original axioms. The academic work that a Ph D student might work on could be that s/he consider levels 95-100, and through detailed study they examine minutiae at this level, detail it and cross-reference it with existing literature, and a Ph D is awarded if the researcher has been rigorous. One of the major criteria would be a recognition of innovation, but that innovation would not be concerned with the questioning of the axioms but that at the appropriate level their work had not been seen before.

This process of meticulous minutiae is reinforced by the academic job structure. A professor is installed based on published work. If the published work is recognised as some level of quality then a university wants to be associated with that quality. Within the department the people climb the ladder the same as they do anywhere else, and their position and commensurate salary is based on how they increase the body of work associated with the professor. If a professor gathers a team of people who work together well, the work can attract funding, and this reinforces the position of the professor. The essence of academia is the reputation of the professor and the amount of research funding they can attract.

And who is there to ensure this happens? Above the professors, the people who could be innovative, are a set of bureaucrats whose ambit is not the search for knowledge but the protection of the institution. Let me elucidate what happens to the search for knowledge by considering research into treatments for cancer. Cancer is on the increase, and there is much money connected with it. Cancer is not understood but the established approach is to consider that cancer develops from the genes. Once the cancers grow from these genes, then a regime of chemicals, chemo and radiation therapy are applied usually with little success. And the typical result is death. One horrendous by-product of this process is that the cancer industry makes huge profits, and there are many people employed dependent on these profits. It is significant to understand this, many of the people involved in the cancer industry are dependent on the status quo view of cancer and its treatment.

However there are a small but significant group of people who claim alternative approaches to cancer. They claim that cancer is a lifestyle disease, and that an improved approach to life including healthy eating avoiding of chemicals etc. could lead to the healing or avoidance of cancer. People who say this follow macrobiotics or Gerson. On top of this there are people who say that B17, cannabinoids or baking soda can destroy cancer cells. I am not qualified to attest to these, but Harvard scientists are, MIT scientists are, Oxbridge scientists are. So the question is why aren’t these institutions carrying out this research. Politics and funding? Scientific research is expensive, and who has the money? The cancer industry favouring the status quo. Suppose such funding became available to a reputable scientist then the institutional protector would prevent its usage, and if it got beyond that stage influence would be applied with threats of the withdrawal of funding elsewhere being issued.

In the movie Forbidden Cures W Edward Griffin describes how the 1%, in this case Rockefeller and Carnegie, took over medical schools:-

Prior to this, in the 19th century, US medicine was both homeopathic and allopathic. Homeopathic medicine attempted to aid nature to heal the body itself, and allopathic medicine used chemical or operations. At the turn of teh 20th century the film says people did not favour either. After the financial take-over of the medical schools doctors treated with pharmaceuticals.

Quite simply academia is typically now not free in its search for knowledge.

However philosophical worldviews don’t usually directly affect the profits of the 1% so much as possible cancer cures, yet approaches to academia which could change academic direction into a more open consideration of knowledge would be discouraged by the institutional gatekeepers. When Capra says that we subscribe to an outdated world view he does not say that that world view is restricted by the influence of the 1%. Does he perceive it that way? I don’t know but for me it is important to state from the outset that science is not independent. The scientists are controlled by funding both internally and external to their particulalr institutions. The search for knowledge is completely fettered by these restrictive forces, and any discussion of the current search for knowledge cannot possibly be complete without stating this caveat as being of fundamental influence.

I want to note here that my views could be discounted for bias (see Academic Failure)

Finally I want to discuss the chicken and egg of scientific discovery. Which came first the chicken or the egg? is an amusing question. No answer. But in science which comes first theory or practice is routinely answered as theory, it is one of those scientific axioms that is unwritten yet fundamental. Which came first Free Trade or Adam Smith? Scientific ego answers Adam Smith, the non-egoic answer is that there could have been any number of Adam Smiths who could have slipped into the slot that the practice wanted. In other words the prevailing powers wanted a theory that would allow for the exploitation that became known as Free Trade. Who is Milton Friedman? He is trickle-down economist with many prizes. Jamie Johnson made him angry with insubstantive arguments about the wealth gap, Friedman is not wisdom at its highest. Friedman does not usually have to defend his position because trickle-down economics are the lies the 1% want us to believe so that governments can be free to give all kinds of money to the rich including bailout to bankers. Friedman does not appear to me to be a wise man, he was the stooge whose theory fit the capitalist need at the time. Theory and practice? A simple discussion can yield doubt.

Scientists want to believe that they are in control of scientific worldview, that is their ego, that is their claim to fame, so when you read a book on science this position has to affect your perspective.

Bruce Lipton is on a complete collision course with the cancer industry. He shows that the central dogma is a fallacy as previously discussed. I will be investigating further what the implications of this, but here is a clip from the movie “The Forbidden Cures”, a movie about cancer:-

This is the established view of where cancers come from, and Bruce completely contradicts these unsubstantiated methodologies of the cancer industry, if the genes do not control man then why is the cancer industry promoting the genome project and seeking such expensive solutions.

What about other cures?

Here is a movie on Dr Simoncini’s use of baking soda as a cure for cancer. Of the ones I have mentioned this is my least “favourite”, but what is clear is that there is sufficient evidence to warrant research. What is clear is that “acidic” conditions are conducive to cancer growth, and baking soda is a tried and tested method of alkalising the system – however drastic it might be.

Are the other cures based on disproven axioms? No. have they been proven? Equally no. But why not investigate? Pure science would investigate, 1% science controlling the cancer industry does not wish to investigate losing a potential goldmine.

Bruce, you disprove the cancer industry, you are at risk.

Mandtao so far


When I was putting the “blogs so far” online, I was not impressed, and when a friend asked me to expain what I was doing I found it hard. The stuff is not integrated, there was not a feeling of wholeness about what I am doing when I read it. I tried to convey to my friend what I was doing discussing the building blocks of science, but was getting nowhere – and this was with someone who wants to understand what I try to do. In the end I remembered she had experienced Chi Gung, and then she began to understand. How can science negate something she has exprienced?

Of course not everyone has had Chi Gung experience, so my presentation of this has to be much better. Give that time. But I do need to reflect a little before moving on. Let me begin with where I am at with science. Science has much to offer, don’t get me wrong. The most obvious examples are technology, what we can do with computers is in general greatly beneificial; the failure in computing is the political reality that governmental awareness does not include the legislation for the right to work. Computers are putting people out of work because of their efficiency, and the 1%-controlled governments are not democratic enough to perceive that its responsibility includes ensuring a self-worth that embraces the right to work.

The next that science is often lauded for is medicine, but when one considers the whole package connected with medicine there are doubts. To a certain extent one can describe the process of health as the outcome of the food and medicine we take. The quality of our foods has deteriorated since we have begun to process our foods. BigFood has determined that there are greater profits to be made from the sale of foods which contain preservatives or in which there are additives such as excitotoxins. For many the addition of these chemicals is enough to determine a strategy of never eating processed foods. Whilst mother’s milk is Nature’s ingredient and necessity for healthy babies, there are doubts that milk from cows is what Nature intended for the rest of our lives. There are sufficient people around who claim that by eating a diet of grains, legumes fruit and vegetables – preferably organic (and fish for B12 and other benefits), much of the need for medicine disappears. But if we do take allopathoic medicines, then it is questionable whether the side effects are more damaging than the healing properties of the medicine itself. When it comes to the lifestyle diseases that have come to dominate the health of many, especially the elderly, there are even stronger indications that the natural diet described above would be more beneficial than medicines offered. With regards to cancer medicine offers chemotherapy as experienced by Farrah Fawcett, yet the scientific basis for chemo is not proven. A lifestyle change as suggested in “Healing Cancer from the Inside Out” is considered by some more beneficial, but such a lifestyle involves an energetic approach such as Chi Gung or Tai Chi,, meditation to calm the mind and relieve stress and daily exercise to keep the body functioning.

But then there are other “advances”. Firstly there are concerns that vaccines that are supposed to have wiped out diseases such as tb etc are now the source of 21st century maladies such as autism and so on. Rather than assuage these concerns the US government is forcing parents who don’t want these vaccines to have their children vaccinated against their wishes. And then there is the modification of crops. As a crop wheat was altered to produce greater yields. Now we have coeliac’s disease, and more people are forced to eat gluten-free diets. If that were not enough, BigFood scientists genetically modify crops so that farmers are forced to use their pesticide and buy their seeds – a Monsanto practice. GM foods are being promoted by capitalist benefaction such as Bill Gates, yet these foods are having many deleterious results in the Third World.

On the other hand laboratory testing has helped provide indicators of health conditions. Life-saving operations have clearly helped many people, the technology for which did not exist without the advancement of science. Every time I go to the dentist I wonder what people used to do to cope with decay. From my own perspective I have healed myself of GERD and migraines through healthy eating, and having changed my lifestyle I feel much better for it. My last involvement with medicine was a trip to the doctor’s two years ago to have the wax cleaned out of my ears. But I consider myself fortunate. Those less fortunate than I are more dependent on the medical establishment but I deeply question their level of involvement.

And this is before I consider the work of Bruce Lipton. He has exposed the central dogma of biology that the genes are our command centre, exposing the fatalism surrounding hereditary diseases. He encourages people to take a more “spiritual” approach to healing.

For me “the jury is out” on medicine as a whole, but healing through change of lifestyle and eating natural foods is empowering. But what is very clear to me is that we need to regain control of the process of pharmaceutical approval. Aspartame has been approved but the approval process was very questionable. The cancer industry vetoes research into treatments whose efficacy has determined a need for research such as Gerson, Burzynski, B17 and cannabinoids. Quite simply the priority is not our health. Whilst I am inclined to believe the value of such treatments and whilst I would have no hesitation in using such treaments personally, they cannot claim truth as valid cures, not because there is evidence against their usage but quite simply because the establishment refuses to investigate. This is not science. Science is concerned with discovering knowledge, and there is no search for knowledge concerning these treatments. Yet there has been much research on chemotherapy, and the evidence is not clear as to its validity as a procedure but the medical establishment continues to push chemo – and many claim that is because of the huge profits for the cancer industry.

Science ought to be an unbiassed search for knowledge, not simply knowledge that produces technology or knowledge that leads to patent and profit, but knowledge that would come under the category of benefitting mankind.

And it is for this benefit that on a broader level I am suggesting the very framework science has established is not conducive. The methodology of sceince that restricts scientific verification to hypothesis and experiment is a restrictive methodology. Where it suits the scientific establishment quantitative research, a research process that focusses on experimental method, is expanded to qualitative research. This is particularly the case in what is called “social sciences”. I was required in my Masters in Education to write a dissertation which was based on case studies – qualitative research. Inasmuch as I was awarded an M Ed this approach was accepted by the system, and yet there is no way that it would stand up to inspection through the experimental methodology of quantitative research. Was it knowledge? I have no doubts at all that it was. Were the conclusions of my dissertation verifiable by experimental method? NO. Was it knowledge? Definitely, YES.

So what about acupuncture? Centuries dating back to the Yellow Emperor in China have added to the empirical knowledge used in this system of medicine, and yet because chi is not recognised in western medicine, a recent upstart 200 years old, acupuncture is not considered science. Do I consider it knowledge? Definitely, YES. Here is my most obvious example in personal experience. I was living in Botswana at the time, and I came down with an illness. Basically I had a recurrent flu. I would wake up fine go to work and by lunch-time (mornings were 7.00 am to 1.00 pm) I would be feeling ill only capable of going home and sleeping. I would wake up the next day and go through the same routine. The doctor tested me and told me I had the liver of an alcoholic – I had been an alcoholic and had not touched a drop for 5 years or so. He gave me pills to strengthen the liver, but this illness prevailed for two months. Eventually I went to the acupuncturist who was working in the local hospital, and after one treatment this cycle of recurrent flu disappeared. Proof for me, sufficient; proof for you, maybe; proof for science, definitely NOT.

The framework of science that is practiced is restrictive. The status quo that is encouraged by the 1% establishment is limiting the questioning that could remove these restrictions. I have already referred to Bruce Lipton’s exposure concerning the central dogma of biology. I have also mentioned the investigation of the atom that has brought into question atomic theory suggesting that sub-atomic particles need to be considered as points or waves, but cannot be considered as both at the same time. Similarly light functions as a point source or as a wave source. I have suggested a fundamental axiom that recognises this point-wave duality (I have to do much more to substantiate that suggestion).

And then we have broader religious considerations that we might consider axiomatic. Elsewhere I have discussed ONE planet. With this ONE planet approach, for me it is an axiom, not only does nature function as Gaia, but all of life including human life works together in unity. We are unity, ONE planet. Now this suggestion needs far more substantiation if it could be considered an axiom, but there are immediate social and environmental benefits of it accepted as axiomatic. We are ONE planet, so any rationale for war would not be based on the power of the hegemony but would be based around minimising the deaths of equal peoples, one Middle Eastern death is the same as one Western death. Climate change would never have happened because it would never have been necessary to exploit oil usage – we would have sought sustainability. This is one scientific axiom that can never be globally accepted because of the power of the addicted 1%. Yet it is a viable axiom. Science tends to work from building blocks when it is developing axioms. It tries for simplicity and then builds on that simple basis. But is that the correct approach to axioms? How much more knowledge would be opened up based on the axiom – ONE planet?

At this stage I am questioning the axioms that make up science. As yet I do not know where I am going with it. That is enough for now – Mandtao so far.