Tag Archive: Cancer


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.

Advertisements

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.

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 overpopulated, globally interconnected world. Capra Turning Point [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 and the cancer establishment

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.