Background: The COVID-19 period highlights a huge problem that has been developing for decades, the control of science by industry. In the 1950s, the tobacco industry set the example, which the pharmaceutical industry followed. Since then, the latter has been regularly condemned for illegal marketing, misrepresentation of experimental results, dissimulation of information about the dangers of drugs, and considered as criminal. Therefore, this study was conducted to show that knowledge is powerfully manipulated by harmful corporations, whose goals are: 1/financial; 2/to suppress our ability to make choices to acquire global control of public health.
Methods: Pharmaceutical industry techniques for manipulating science and COVID-19 reporting were reviewed. Several sources of official documents were used: PubMed; National Institutes of Health resources; pharmaceutical companies; policy documents; national newspapers and news agencies; and books by prominent professionals (scientific and legal). A few studies have not been published in peer-reviewed journals; however, they have been conducted by reputable scientists in their respective fields.
Results: Since the beginning of COVID-19, we can list the following methods of information manipulation which have been used: falsified clinical trials and inaccessible data; fake or conflict-of-interest studies; concealment of vaccines’ short-term side effects and total lack of knowledge of the long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccination; doubtful composition of vaccines; inadequate testing methods; governments and international organizations under conflicts of interest; bribed physicians; the denigration of renowned scientists; the banning of all alternative effective treatments; unscientific and liberticidal social methods; government use of behavior modification and social engineering techniques to impose confinements, masks, and vaccine acceptance; scientific censorship by the media.
Conclusion: By supporting and selecting only the one side of science information while suppressing alternative viewpoints, and with obvious conflicts of interest revealed by this study, governments and the media constantly disinform the public. Consequently, the unscientifically validated vaccination laws, originating from industry-controlled medical science, led to the adoption of social measures for the supposed protection of the public but which became serious threats to the health and freedoms of the population.
Keywords: Behavior modification; COVID-19; Conflicts of interest; Scientific censorship; Side effects; Vaccination.
Do medicines cure? Can medicine cure? Recently I reported that Webster’s New World Medical Dictionary does not contain the words “cure”, “cured”, “cures”, nor “incurable”. I thought it was an exception. I was wrong. It’s not an exception, it’s the rule.
I’ve done some further checking. The words “cure” and “incurable” do not appear in The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary, Ninth Edition, 2015. They do not appear in The Bantam Medical Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 2009. “Cure” does not appear in Barron’s Dictionary of Medical Terms, Sixth Edition, 2013, although “incurable” is defined as “being such that a cure is impossible within the realm of known medical practice”. Medical Terminology for Dummies, Second Edition, does not contain the word “cure”.*
Further, “cure” is not defined and not in the index of most, if not all major medical references, including: Merck’s Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, Harrison’s Guide to Internal Medicine, and Lange’s Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment. In consistent fashion the DSM 5, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not contain the word “cure” in the index. Cured is not defined for mental illness.
Today’s medical practice has serious challenges with the word ‘cure’. There are cures, of course, and reference books like Merck’s Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy occasionally refer to them as cures. But much of the use of the word cure in Merck, and other references, is inconsistent. “Cure” is not well defined in medicine. A large number of the uses of the word ‘cure’ in Merck are actually ‘incurable’ or ‘cannot be cured’. And yet, it is not scientifically possible to prove that a disease cannot be cured. I have traced these references back through many editions of Merck; and even in the 1950s, “cure” hardly appeared in Merck, was not defined, and was not used consistently. I do not have resources dating farther back, except the original version of Merck, where cures were commonly suggested, but as near as I can determine, never correctly. If you do have access to earlier versions of Merck’s editions, I would appreciate your assistance to study this question.
It is interesting to take a simple illness: scurvy, for which the cure appears to be well known. Merck, Harrison’s, and Lange’s each contain entries for scurvy. But all recommend treatments – and do not use the word cure. Only one, Merck, actually provides a cure – Harrison’s and Lange’s recommend a treatment that does not cure. According to the U.S. FDA, you cannot claim a nutritional cure, for scurvy, or beriberi, unless you also “say how widespread such a disease is in the United States”. Cures are not defined by science, instead, they are “not defined” by politics.
One common use of cure, in the current edition of Merck, and in many medical reference texts is the phrase ‘cure-rate’. But, what is cure rate if not ‘cure-wait’? A cure-wait is defined by waiting a specified period of time. If you wait 5 years, and the patient is still alive, and the patient is cannot be diagnosed with cancer, then we have established a ‘five year cure-wait’. Calling it a ‘cure-rate’ is unapologetic nonsense.
Most of the organizations that raise funds to ‘fight’ illness also avoid the word ‘cure’. The American Cancer Society’s mission statement does not contain the word ‘cure’. When cure is used, it is seldom defined, and perhaps most important, cures are not defined and not counted. If you do cure your illness, whether it be a cancer, a depression, or even something as simple as obesity, the cure is not recognized, and cannot be counted. Obesity cannot be cured, because the cure is ‘not something’ and ‘not something’ cannot be a cure in today’s medical science.
Cures cannot be counted, because there are no tests for cured, because cured is not defined. Therefore: cures do not exist. There are remissions, and spontaneous remissions, but there are few cures.
One problem presented by modern medicine is this: cure is generally defined as a substance that cures. That’s why there is “no cure for the common cold”, even though every healthy person cures their own, and healthier people cure it faster. Cures accomplished by health, not medicine, are not recognized by the field of medicine. As a result, there are many invisible cures.
Can any illnesses be cured with medicine? Of course. Illnesses caused by parasites, infections, pneumonia, etc. are cured by antibiotics. Illnesses caused by fungal infections are cured by anti-fungal medications. There are well defined tests to ensure that the cure is complete. So, why does cure not appear in most medical dictionaries.
There are many illnesses that can be cured, but not by medicines. Any illness caused by a lack of healthiness – from arthritis, to depression, to heart disease and hypertension, and even obesity – cannot be cured by medicines. They are not caused by a parasite that can be killed. They can only be cured with health. All illnesses caused by deficiencies, whether it be scurvy, caused by a nutritional deficiency, or bedsores, caused by a deficiency of movement, a deficiency of physical stress – can only be cured by addressing the cause. No medicine can cure these conditions. Any illness caused by toxicity, by toxic chemicals, or even toxic social environments, cannot be cured by medicines. These can only be cured by addressing the cause.
Cure and cause are linked. But not, apparently, in modern medicine. Medicines treat symptoms, and ignore cause. As a result, cure is disappearing from our medical systems, our medical texts, our medical dictionaries, and the science and technology of medicine.
Every cause of an illness can also be viewed as a lack of healthiness, even parasitic illnesses. We don’t get an infection ‘because’ of the infecting bacteria, we get an infection because of a cut, or sometimes because of a weakness in our immune system – that would normally defend us. All illnesses are best viewed as caused by a lack of healthiness. The best medicines are those that work by improving healthiness.
But today’s medicines do not produce healthiness. Many of them actually harm healthiness, in hope that the illness will be harmed more. Today’s medicines cannot improve healthiness. So these medicines cannot cure illnesses. So cure is not in the medical dictionaries. How can we cure, if cure is not in the medical dictionary?
We need to define cure, from a scientific perspective, not from a medical perspective. We need a definition, or definitions, such that cures and be tested and found true. We need to define cure for every illness and work to improve our general and specific definitions of cure, and cured. This is the way of science. Until we do this, medicine will always be a practice of superstition, depressing symptoms, and patients and even their families, while never actually curing any illness, never claiming to cure any illness. There is a myth that medicines are intended to cure. But it is only a myth.
Can we define ‘cure’? Can we define ‘cured’? Yes.
(Note: To cure an illness is to successfully address a cause. Only a specific case, only an illness, can be cured. No disease, no general class of illness, can be cured. Every cure is an anecdote.)
An illness is cured when the cause is successfully addressed. We need to cure illnesses, one at a time. A patient might have many illnesses, and many of them might be invisible until we aim to cure, until the most visible illness is cured. When we begin to study cures, we will see these patterns, and be able to predict them and treat them more effectively.
Today’s medicine is stuck on ‘symptoms’, working to treat symptoms. When we work to treat symptoms, we have a problem. A symptom, even in a single patient, whether it be a cough, or depression, or a cancer, can have many individual causes.
It is possible to be infected with TWO colds and a flu. If one is cured, it has been cured, but the patient is not yet completely cured. It is a valid, important cure – even though it doesn’t look like a cure, and many doctors, and many patients might not consider it a cure. But when we develop a science of cures, we will learn that we must cure one illness at a time.
It is also possible, and commonplace for a patient to be suffering from two or three illnesses of depressio, to be two depressed, not too depressed. There might be a depression illness caused by a nutritional deficiency. There might be a different depression illness caused by consuming toxic substances. And there might be a third depression illness caused by lack of sleep due to a stressful job, relationship, etc. Modern medicine makes no attempt to cure depression – although if you go back 50 years, most cases of depression were cured.
An illness consists of the cause and the symptoms. Every illness, every single illness, is a link between CAUSE and SYMPTOMS. Every unique link between cause and symptoms is a unique illness – even if the symptoms are very similar or even identical. Therefore, the illness is an invisible concept that cannot be addressed by treating symptoms alone.
A disease is commonly diagnosed by symptoms, not by cause. As a result, any diagnosis of a disease might actually be several cases of illness. This makes the ‘disease’ very difficult, seemingly impossible to cure. Every illness can be cured. No disease can be cured. But today, when a disease is cured, it’s considered a miracle, not a medicine.
Once we come to this basic understanding, we can begin to cure. We can build a science of cures. We have the technology, but it is not a technology of medicine, it can only begin with a technology of language. We can put ‘cure’, cures, and cured, back into the dictionary – and work to remove ‘incurable’.
*Author’s note: The new, 2016 edition of Webster’s Medical Dictionary, does contain the word “cure”. However, the definitions provided are simplistic pap, food for babies, not for scientists. It offers “to make or become sound, healthy, or normal again” and “a course or period of treatment, esp: one designed to interrupt an addiction or compulsive habit or to improve general health”. “Incurable” also appears in this new edition, but unfortunately it is defined as “impossible to cure”, which sits in contradiction with Barron’s definition, and in contradiction with science and common sense. It is simply not possible to prove that any illness cannot be cured without trying every possible treatment – which is not possible.
But we can hardly fault Webster’s, or Merck’s, or Harrison’s, or Lange’s, or Barron’s or Bantam for not publishing the word cure, or not providing a scientific definition. The fault lies in the science, or the non-science, of today’s medical practices.
10 Reasons You Should Prepare For An Economic Collapse
March 28, 2016 | By Gaye Levy
It was not that long ago that the country of Greece suffered a devastating collapse of their economy. At the time, there was a lot of blame game going on but, at the end of the day, it was years of irresponsible and unrestrained spending that took them down. That, coupled with questionable accounting practices and misstated economic indicators left the Greek citizens befuddled and angry when the reality of a depression hit.
Could the same thing happen here? Not to be depressing but in going through my own thoughts as I answer the question “What am I least prepared for?”, I realized that it was time for a wake-up call and time to re-evaluate my own preps within the context of an economic collapse.
Looking back at what happened during or our own Great Depression, I have come to realize that an economic collapse, if it were to happen, would have the compound effect of combining all woes we so diligently prepare for into one huge mess – a mess that may take decades to resolve.
I worry about this, because, as prepared as I may be, I find it difficult to wrap my head around a mega collapse that will result in food and water shortages, power outages, civil disobedience, medical anarchy, and worse.
A global economic collapse, unlike a natural disaster which, as tragic as it may be, is a short term event, will change our lives forever.
At the time, being a prepper in the United States typically branded you as an nut job. Now that preparedness has become more mainstream, I feel that we should review those lessons and take another look at the ramifications of an economic collapse.
Here are the 10 lessons along with my own thoughts as they might apply to an economic collapse in 2015 and beyond.
10 Reasons Why We Need to Prepare for an Economic Collapse
1. Food Shortages Can Actually Happen
Most people assume that they will always be able to run out to their local supermarket or warehouse club. Those of us that prepare, know better. It is those folks that do not prepare that we need to worry about.
2. Medicine Is One Of The First Things That Becomes Scarce During An Economic Collapse
When credit systems and distribution channels are compromised, medical supplies will not make their way to the local pharmacy. Any medicines and supplies that are available will likely be diverted for use by the power elite. Sorry to be such a cynic but we all know that there are privileged classes that have the power and the means to get whatever they want, even if it means denying the rest of the population with their fair share.
3. When An Economy Collapses, So Might The Power Grid
No money to pay workers and no fuel to fire the grid translates into no grid at all. Going without power for a week or two is one thing but going off grid for months or even years? We are a soft society accustomed to our comforts. Without the grid, our lives will be quite different than the life we live today.
4. During An Economic Collapse You Cannot Even Take Water For Granted
When the grid goes down, so goes the water treatment facilities that ensure that clean water flows from our faucets. I survived 12 days without running water. Do-able yes. Fun? Hardly, but I knew the water would come back on eventually. What if the water never came back on?
5. During An Economic Crisis Your Credit Cards And Debit Cards May Stop Working
Same thing. If the grid is down, our banking system will basically be down too. This means that credit cards and debit cards will be useless to transact business and make purchases.
6. Crime, Rioting And Looting Become Commonplace During An Economic Collapse
This is not a maybe. The haves will need to defend their property from the have-not’s. I also suspect that the “haves” (aka preppers) may have to defend themselves from government looters. It will be every man or woman on their own; defending what is theirs.
The young and healthy might be able to handle this but what about the elderly, the sick, and the disabled? Even if they prep, how will they defend themselves?
7. During A Financial Meltdown Many Average Citizens Will Start Bartering
Without credit cards, debit cards, and quite possibly currency, a barter economy will emerge. By the way, the best description I have read relative to how such an economy will work was is James Wesley Rawles book, Patriots.
Things will definitely fall apart during an economic collapse. Having supplies and especially skills to barter with not be an option.
8. Suicides Spike During An Economic Collapse
This happened in the 30s and it will happen again. When people no longer have hope, they feel that life is not worth living. My guess is people will start jumping out of buildings and may take family members with them in a suicide pact.
9. Your Currency May Rapidly Lose Value During An Economic Crisis
Let me take this one step further. Your currency WILL lose value during an economic collapse. It happened in Germany during the Weimar Republic and it has happened more recently elsewhere around the globe. We are not immune to runaway inflation coupled with devaluation of our currency.
10. When Things Hit The Fan The Government Will Not Save You
If you think that the government will come to the rescue of those that are suffering think again. Remember the aftermath of Katrina? Remember Super Storm Sandy?
It is foolhardy to believe that government assistance of any type will become available following a collapse. History has demonstrated over and over again that governments cannot be counted on when things hit the fan. You will be on your own so you better be ready mentally to accept that reality and the tough times that will ensue.
The Final Word
If you have made it this far you might be thinking “Gaye, we know all of that. That is why we prep.”.
Agreed; I am preaching the choir. But, that being said, the overwhelming ramification of having all of these things happen at once will be a blow to the psyche that is of greater magnitude than anything you can imagine.
Think about it. To prevail following a collapse you will still need to get up in the morning, go about your chores, and go about the business of living. This is going to take a level of fortitude that I can not fathom. Heck, there are some days, during these modern, comfortable times, that I can barely face the day and all of its challenges.
So where do we go from here? What solutions are there to get you through to that mental place you know you will need to go to?
Three things you need to remember are:
1. Only you can be counted on to take care of yourself and your family.
2. Leaning coping skills during times of calm will give you a heads up on coping during times of crisis.
3. Give yourself permission to worry, to be concerned, and to be a bit afraid. This will keep you alert and on your toes at all time.
At the end of the day, those that prepare will be in it for the ride. The real question is whether we have the mental fortitude to get there without losing are path along the way.
Enjoy your next adventure through common sense and thoughtful preparation!
Homeopathy is here to stay. Despite relentless criticism from skeptics and fundamentalists, homeopathy has withstood the test of time.
“…and this little piggy cried, woo woo woo, all the way home.”
Since its inception over 200 years ago, homeopathy has been the target of almost constant antipathy from the prevailing school of orthodox medicine. Given so much organized resistance from the mainstream, one would think that if homeopathy were much ado about nothing it would not have endured. It would have withered on the vine a long time ago. And yet it has persisted. No, it thrives—all across the globe—for a number of very good reasons.
When a German physician named Samuel Hahnemann discovered that a miniscule dose of a medicinal substance designed to mimic the symptom pattern of a sick person could paradoxically provoke a healing response in that same person, a medical revolution was set in motion. Dr. Hahnemann referred to this surprising phenomenon as the law of similars. As opposed to the conventional medical approach, which uses opposites to combat symptoms (antidepressants, anti-inflammatories, antihistamines, anticonvulsants, etc.), homeopathy represents a different approach to healing, one that uses “likes to cure likes.”
The standard treatment for a bee sting or a case of poison ivy might involve the use of an antihistamine to suppress the inflammatory swelling, redness, and itching. A homeopathic practitioner, on the other hand, might recommend a highly diluted dose of a medicine made from the honeybee in the former case, and a similar dose of a medicine made from the poison ivy plant in the latter. It’s a little bit like the use of anti-venoms to treat snakebites, only the doses used in homeopathy are much smaller.
The homeopathic principle of similars can be used to treat not just physical illness, but also mental and emotional issues. For example, in my own practice I have used homeopathic doses of a plant called Stramonium to successfully help hundreds of children who had suffered from nightmares, were afraid of the dark, and were unwilling to be alone at night. Ingesting Stramonium in its crude form can induce a type of delirium characterized by severe agitation and a tremendous state of fear. In its homeopathically diluted form, it is the antidote to similar states of fear and agitation. It can be a lifesaver for these kids and their families.
In its heyday in the latter half of the nineteenth century, there were more than 100 homeopathic hospitals in the United States, 22 homeopathic medical schools, 700 homeopathic physicians in New York State, and thousands more across the country. Homeopathy in the U.S. experienced a decline in the early 1900s, largely due to increased regulatory pressure from orthodox medicine. The same lack of vision regarding the future of health care is not necessarily true of other countries. Today, there are well over 200,000 homeopathic practitioners in India alone. Is it possible that so many doctors and patients could be wrong about a medical therapy that they rely upon for their own personal health and well-being? I think not.
Criticism of homeopathy
In spite of the remarkable growth of homeopathy and the testimony of millions of satisfied patients who swear by its effectiveness, critics insist upon spreading a number of unsubstantiated falsehoods regarding this unique healing modality. The worst offenders are the ones who call themselves scientific “skeptics.” Although they claim to speak for science, their willful refusal to consider the facts exposes them as anti-scientific defenders of scientistic dogma. Their pathological disbelief in all things holistic and unconventional is a violation of the open-minded spirit of genuine scientific inquiry.
Let me be clear; for those who seek to discredit homeopathy purely out of bias there should be no obligation on the part of homeopathy to defend itself. It is a waste of energy to quarrel with a relatively small band of medical fundamentalists who wish to argue their case using disingenuous tactics. The truth of homeopathy stands on its own merit for any open-minded individual to examine for him or herself.
Nevertheless, I will venture to answer skeptic’s criticisms for the benefit of innocent bystanders, many of whom are puzzled by the Salem Witch Trial-like atmosphere that surrounds homeopathy. Let’s examine these objections to homeopathy one by one and see how they stand up to scrutiny.
Objection 1. The principle of similars is not logical. It does not make scientific sense.
Some object to homeopathy on the grounds that treating an illness with a substance that can cause symptoms similar to that illness just doesn’t make sense. They fail to grasp that this is essentially the same idea behind many allopathic therapies including allergy shots and vaccines. The same principle applies to stimulant drugs used to treat hyperactive children. Amphetamine analogs like Ritalin and Adderall are known to have a paradoxical calming effect on the nervous systems of children with ADHD. The difference is that while these conventional treatments involve crude and potentially toxic doses that are administered uniformly to all individuals, homeopathy tailors its treatment to each individual with doses that are far smaller and, therefore, far safer.
Skeptics tend to dismiss homeopathy due to its so-called “implausibility.” This is a fancy way of saying that, given our current understanding of biology, it is not plausible to assign a cause-and-effect relationship between homeopathic doses and their observed effects. This is really just a tautological argument—a bogus use of logic—employed by skeptics to deny the validity of a phenomenon that medical science cannot explain in conventional medical terms. In essence, the claim is that, since homeopathy cannot be explained, it therefore cannot be possible. If we were to adopt this attitude toward all new unexplained medical phenomena, then medicine would remain forever static and impervious to change. The implausibility argument amounts to nothing more than a ridiculous self-fulfilling defense of conventional medical dogma.
Objection 2. Homeopathic doses are too small to have any effect. They are nothing more than placebos.
Homeopathy-hating skeptics love to mockingly claim that homeopathic medicines are nothing but water. After all, they surmise, if these medicines are diluted to the extent that homeopaths claim, then they must be devoid of all medicinal properties. Any observed effects are assumed, therefore, to be placebo effects.
Now, this might be true if homeopathic medicines were just another class of conventional drugs. Drugs are pharmaceutical grade chemicals that act on a biochemical level to alter or arrest physiologic processes. Although homeopathic remedies are regulated by the FDA as if they are drugs, no homeopath believes that they act in the same manner as conventional drugs.
Unlike drugs, which must often be taken on a regular basis to maintain their suppressive effects, homeopathic remedies act as bioenergetic catalysts designed to provoke a healing response from the life force. Dr. Hahnemann, himself, attributed all genuine healing to the innate wisdom of the “vital force.” Homeopathy is based upon a stimulus-response model of treatment. An effective prescription acts as a stimulus that initiates a self-healing reaction from the bioenergetic field of the human organism. Once a healing response has begun, there is no need to repeat the stimulus unless its effect begins to wear off.
Although analysis reveals the presence of material nanoparticles in homeopathic medicines, their impact on the life force is a bioenergetic one, not a material one. The bioenergetic strength of a remedy is not something that can be measured in quantitative terms. It is an energetic property that is gauged by the intensity, depth, and duration of effect that it has upon the living organism. As an energetic phenomenon, the mechanism of action of homeopathy is best studied by medical professionals with backgrounds in physics.
Chemical drugs have a reputation for the side effects that they can produce. As chemicals, their sphere of action and the extent to which they can influence biological systems is limited. Homeopathic remedies, on the other hand, can have a powerful and far-reaching energetic effect on the entire system. Those who insist that homeopathic medicines are placebos because there is “nothing there” make the mistake of applying a biochemical model to a bioenergetic therapy. They simply do not know what they are taking about.
Objection 3. Homeopathy is not scientific.
It’s not hard to see how someone who thinks that all medicinal agents must act on a biochemical basis, according to the tenets of mechanistic medicine, would automatically assume that homeopathy is unscientific. But this would be a naïve conclusion based on lack of information. When critics who have already made up their minds hear that homeopathy is really a form of energy medicine, their eyes start to glaze over and they begin to chant that familiar mantra, “woo woo, woo woo.”
The great irony is that most diagnostic imaging is energy-based. MRIs, CT scans, ultrasound testing, and thermography all involve energetics. They are made possible thanks to physics. I don’t hear critics crying, woo woo, over MRIs and CT scans. Even a treatment like radioactive iodine therapy, used to destroy the thyroid gland in cases of hyperthyroidism, is an energetic intervention. While radioactive iodine is an example of the destructive use of energy, homeopathy represents the cutting edge of the constructive use of bioenergetics designed to improve health and promote healing. Those who claim that homeopathy is unscientific because it is based upon bioenergetic principles demonstrate their lack of scientific understanding.
Homeopathic methodology itself is the very definition of scientific method. Medicinal substances are gathered and their capacity to cause symptoms in the human organism is studied. These substances are administered in diluted form to volunteers who are not told what they are receiving. The symptoms reported by these study subjects are then recorded in great detail. The symptomatic profile of each medicine is developed and documented in reference texts called materia medicas. Highly diluted doses of these medicines are then given to sick persons who exhibit similar symptom profiles. The responses are noted and used to confirm the symptom profiles of these substances and to expand the database of information regarding their uses.
In this sense, homeopathy is the most empirically reliable medical methodology ever devised. It is based upon direct experience and real time, real life clinical outcomes and patient feedback. Just because the mechanism of action of homeopathy is as of yet undetermined does not mean that it does not qualify as a science. No scientist in his or her right mind dismisses an unusual phenomenon simply because it cannot be explained. Homeopathy utilizes a sound scientific methodology that can yield remarkable results.
Objection 4. There is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy.
This particular objection to homeopathy is perhaps the most egregious of all. It is simply untrue. By any objective standard, it is a flat out falsehood. There is a growing mountain of research that demonstrates the positive benefits of homeopathy. Nevertheless, diehard skeptics who show no interest in factual evidence continue to spread lies to the contrary. When you hear the statement that there is no scientific evidence in support of homeopathy, you know you are dealing with someone who is either uninformed, willfully ignorant, a scientific zealot, or a mercenary for PhRMA.
Many who insist that there is no evidence are usually just parroting propaganda that they’ve heard elsewhere. At best, a skeptic will acknowledge the existence of a particular homeopathic study, only to then nitpick over the supposed flaws in that study. This is a common tactic employed by fundamentalist devotees of scientism. In any event, the studies are there to examine for all who are genuinely interested. A small sampling of homeopathic research references is provided at the end of this article.
When it comes to medical research, there are some real issues worth discussing. One such issue is the increasing unreliability of scientific studies, which are often funded and conducted by vested interests. When drugs approved by the FDA are taken off the market with such regularity, then the research that justified their approval in the first place must be called into question.
Another problem is the way in which we define scientific evidence itself. Modern scientists have convinced themselves that experiential evidence is not real evidence. Patient’s reports of their own experiences and physician’s firsthand observations of the patients that they treat have somehow become second-class forms of evidence. Skeptics tell us that this type of evidence is merely “anecdotal.” We are supposed to believe that direct firsthand experience is inferior to the abstract statistical data produced by modern research trials. A belief like this can only come from armchair quarterbacks who are out of touch with patient reality. As far as I am concerned, I glean far more practical information from individual patient case studies than from artificially homogenized trials involving large groups of patients.
It appears that the Emperor of Research is wearing no clothes. Society as a whole is dazzled by quantitative data—and seems to have lost its capacity for common sense and sound judgment. We have been bamboozled into believing that our own experiences cannot be trusted. This, to me, is the true crisis engendered by modern medicine. Its misguided beliefs regarding experiential evidence have had a dehumanizing and disempowering effect on doctors and patients alike.
This issue is particularly important to homeopathy because it is an empirical science. In other words, it places a great deal of emphasis on patient experience. Homeopathic evaluations are heavily influenced by the subjective information provided by patients regarding their own perceptions of their illnesses. The standards of evidence used by homeopathy are much broader than those of conventional medicine. Homeopathy is more inclusive because, in addition to research findings and objective diagnostic information, it respects the value of subjective patient input.
Conventional medicine places much higher value on objective factors like lab results and imaging tests. It shows little interest in the subjective evidence that is so important to homeopathy. However, none of this mitigates the fact that there are numerous conventionally designed clinical trials that point to the benefits of homeopathy.
Objection 5. Homeopathic treatment is dangerous because it prevents patients from obtaining the “real” medical care that they need.
This objection is just another red herring. Homeopathic treatment is known for its lack of side effects and unparalleled safety record. When compared side-by-side, allopathic medicine is far more prone to iatrogenic dangers including allergic reactions, side effects, adverse events, and complications.
Furthermore, the course of illness is not always predictable. Even a well-chosen antibiotic, for example, may not work, during which time the patient’s condition can worsen. A doctor may diagnose indigestion in a patient who later turns out to have appendicitis. These types of events occur all the time. And they can happen to practitioners of all stripes; allopathic, homeopathic, and otherwise. All practitioners have patients who take turns for the worse, and who get sick in spite of their best efforts. To argue that this is unique to homeopaths is ludicrous.
The reverse is also true. I have seen my share of patients who, in my medical opinion, could have avoided the side effects and complications from various drugs or surgical interventions had they chosen to consult me for homeopathic care in the first place. In fact, homeopathic physicians have an advantage in the sense that they have training in both conventional and homeopathic approaches. As it turns out, “real” medical care is not the exclusive province of orthodox medicine.
Homeopathy is here to stay
In spite of relentless opposition, homeopathy has withstood the test of time. It continues to endure deliberate misinformation campaigns designed to undermine its good reputation. Hard core skeptical ideologues hurl epithets like “junk science” and “pseudoscience.” Much of the rhetoric coming from these anti-homeopathy mercenaries amounts to defamation of character. They need to be identified for who they are and held accountable for their libel and slander. These self-proclaimed defenders of science are the most unscientific hucksters of all.
Homeopathic remedies are manufactured by legitimate pharmacies, regulated by the FDA, and in popular demand among consumers. But few U.S. physicians show any interest in learning about how homeopathy can help their patients. Furthermore, the corporate medical establishment views homeopathy as competition. PhRMA can’t own homeopathic medicines exclusively because they cannot be patented. You can draw your own conclusions about the motivating reasons behind FDA and FTC’s recent scrutiny of the marketing of homeopathic products.
Homeopathic medicines are exceptionally safe precisely because the material quantities involved are so minute. As such, the likelihood of an allergic reaction or adverse event is virtually nil. One can quibble over whether homeopathic medicines act as bioenergetic catalysts or whether the life force is a real thing or not. It doesn’t really matter, because the final results are what count. Millions of doctors and patients around the globe can attest to the positive benefits of homeopathic treatment.
As bioenergetic catalysts, homeopathic remedies have broad and all-encompassing effects on human health. Homeopathy is truly holistic because it acts on the whole person. Because homeopathic remedies have such deep effects, they are capable of getting to the root of chronic health problems. When a homeopathic remedy gets to the root of a problem, the life force ceases to generate symptoms because there is no further need to call attention to the problem.
Homeopathy is safe, inexpensive, and effective. It represents the cutting-edge of Space Age futuristic medicine precisely because it transcends the pitfalls of material medicine. In the immortal words of Bones McCoy, “I’m a doctor, Jim, not a car mechanic!”
In a perfect world, science would have unlimited funding, free from corporations or special interest groups, where all studies would be truly objective and unbiased. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Financing by private companies, or those who have a vested interest in the outcome of the research, often leads to biased conclusions which favor the sponsor of the study.
Take for example a pharmaceutical company paying for a new drug to treat depression. When the track record of such research is examined, we find studies backed by the pharmaceutical industry tend to show partiality toward the drug under consideration, whereas research sponsored by government grants or charitable organizations is prone to draw more objective conclusions.¹
In a similar fashion, research financed by the food industry often favors the food under investigation compared to inquiries that are independently sponsored.²
Bad science
“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.”³ ~ Linus Pauling, PhD, and two-time Nobel Prize winner.
Dr. Marcia Angell, physician and longtime editor in chief of the New England Medical Journal, feels that objective research has taken a turn for the worse:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
And John P.A. loannidis, a professor in disease prevention at Standford University School of Medicine, writes that most published research findings are false, due to several criteria — including “greater financial and other interest and prejudice.” He also states that “for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
Another critique of our current scientific method is found with Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet, who states, “much of scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue,” in the April 15th, 2015 edition of the journal. He lists a a variety of reasons for this failure: studies with small sample sizes, flagrant conflicts of interest and an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance. Horton adds, “as one participant put it, “poor methods get results.”’
Moreover, ScienceDaily reports that a study at the University of Michigan found that nearly one-third of cancer research published in high-profile journals have conflicts of interest. The research team examined 1,534 cancer studies published in well-respected journals.The most frequent type of conflict is with industry funding (17% of the papers). Twelve percent of the papers were in conflict because the author was an industry employee. And randomized trials were more likely to have positive findings when conflicts of interest were present.
Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., and author of the University of Michigan study, feels that “merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough. It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties.”
Jagsi believes that research has become corrupted by designing industry-funded studies in such a manner that’s likely to yield favorable results. Researchers may also be more inclined to publish positive outcomes while overlooking negative results.
“In light of these findings, we as a society may wish to rethink how we want our research efforts to be funded and directed. It has been very hard to secure research funding, especially in recent years, so it’s been only natural for researchers to turn to industry. If we wish to minimize the potential for bias, we need to increase other sources of support. Medical research is ultimately a common endeavor that benefits all of society, so it seems only appropriate that we should be funding it through general revenues rather than expecting the market to provide,” Jagsi says.
When all is said and done, we may question whether privately funded research should be dismissed altogether. Most likely, no. But we can consider the advice presented in Understanding Science by the University of California at Berkeley:
“Ultimately, misleading results will be corrected as science proceeds; however, this process takes time. Meanwhile, it pays to scrutinize studies funded by industry or special interest groups with extra care. So don’t, for example, brush off a study of cell phone safety just because it was funded by a cell phone manufacturer — but do ask some careful questions about the research before jumping on the bandwagon. Are the results consistent with other independently funded studies? Does the study seem fairly designed? What do other scientists have to say about this research? A little scrutiny can go a long way towards identifying bias associated with funding source.”
Article sources:
¹Als-nielson, B., W. Chen, C. Gluud, and L.L. Kjaergard. 2003. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trails: A reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? Journal of the American Medical Association 290:921-928
²This research focused on studies of soft drinks, juice, and milk. Lesser, L.I., C.B. Ebbeling, M. Goozner, D. Wypij, and D.S. Ludwig. 2007. Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. Public Library of Science Medicine 4:41-46.
Reshma Jagsi, Nathan Sheets, Aleksandra Jankovic, Amy R. Motomura, Sudha Amarnath, and Peter A. Ubel. Frequency, nature, effects, and correlates of conflicts of interest in published clinical cancer research. Cancer, Online May 11, 2009; Print Issue Date: June 15, 2009
The breast cancer industry’s holy grail (that mammography is the primary weapon in the war against breast cancer) has been disproved. In fact, mammography appears to have CREATED 1.3 million cases of breast cancer in the U.S. population that were not there.
A disturbing new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine is bringing mainstream attention to the possibility that mammography has caused far more harm than good in the millions of women who have employed it over the past 30 years as their primary strategy in the fight against breast cancer.[i]
Titled “Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence,” researchers estimated that among women younger than 40 years of age, breast cancer was overdiagnosed, i.e. “tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms,” in 1.3 million U.S. women over the past 30 years. In 2008, alone, “breast cancer was overdiagnosed in more than 70,000 women; this accounted for 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed
As we revealed in a previous article,[ii] the primary form of mammography-detected breast cancer is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), also known as ‘stage zero’ or ‘non-invasive breast cancer.’ Unlike truly invasive cancer, which expands outward like the crab after which it was named (Greek: Cancer = Crab), ductal carcinoma is in situ, i.e. situated, non-moving – an obvious contradiction in terms.
Also, DCIS presents without symptoms in the majority of women within which it is detected, and if left untreated will (usually) not progress to cause harm to women. Indeed, without x-ray diagnostic technologies, many if not most of the women diagnosed with it would never have known they had it in the first place. The journal Lancet Oncology, in fact, published a cohort study last year finding that even clinically verified “invasive” cancers appear to regress with time if left untreated:
[We] believe many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress.[iii]
The new study authors point out “The introduction of screening mammography in the United States has been associated with a doubling in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer that are detected each year.” And yet, they noted, only 6.5% of these early-stage breast cancer cases were expected to progress to advanced disease. DCIS and related ‘abnormal breast findings,’ in other words, may represent natural, benign variations in breast morphology. Preemptive treatment strategies, however, are still employed today as the standard of care, with mastectomy rates actually increasing since 2004.[iv]
The adverse health effects associated with overdiagnosis and overtreatment with lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy and hormone-suppressive treatments cannot be underestimated, especially when one considers the profound psychological trauma that follows each stage of diagnosis and treatment, and the additional physiological burdens such psychic injuries lead to, including up-regulation of multidrug resistance genes within cancer as a result of the increased adrenaline associated with the ‘flight-or-fight’ stress response.[v]
Also, it is now coming to light that chemotherapy and radiation actually increase the proportion of the highly malignant cancer stem cells to the relatively non-malignant daughter cells within the tumor colony. Much in the same way that conventional antibiotic agents will drive multidrug resistance within the subpopulation of surviving post-antibiotic bacteria, ensuring recurrence, conventional treatments also drive the surviving stem-cell enriched tumor populations into greater resistance and metastatic potential when it does inevitably recur. Or worse, radiation therapy may actually increase the ‘stemness’ of breast cancer cells making them 30 times more malignant (capable of forming new tumors).
If it is indeed true that DCIS, other abnormal breast findings, as well as clinically confirmed invasive breast cancer, either remain benign or regress when left untreated, the entire breast cancer industry, which is already deeply mired in cause-marketing conflicts of interest, must radically reform itself, or face massive financial and ethical liabilities vis-à-vis outdated and no longer “evidence-based” practices.
Another serious problem with mammography (and there are dozens of them) not addressed in this latest research finding concerns the unique carcinogenicity of the x-rays the technology employs. We now know that the 30 kVp radiation, colloquially known as “low energy” x-rays, are between 300-400% more carcinogenic than the “higher energy” radiation given off by atomic bomb blasts (200 kVp or higher).[vi] Present day radiation risk models used to assess the known breast cancer risk associated with mammography against the purported benefits do not take into this profound discrepancy. In fact, these models were developed before DNA was even discovered.
Also, considering that breast cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1/BRCA2, interfere with the DNA self-repair mechanisms needed to reduce the carcinogenicity associated with radiation exposure within those who carry these genetic variations, the harms associated with mammography may be exponentially higher than the conventional medical community presently understands and communicates to their patients. Indeed, it is likely that x-ray based mammography screenings have been planting the seeds of future radiation-induced breast cancer within exposed populations.
With top-tier biomedical journals now publishing research diametrically opposed to the policies and recommendations of both governmental, non-governmental and industry-sponsored health organizations, the time is ripe for us to critically evaluate conventional medicine’s conventional standard of care and to educate ourselves further to the true causes of cancer, and how to go about preventing and/or removing them.
Traditional Doctors, Alternative Treatments: An Intersection?
Sometimes it can seem as though complementary/alternative treatments and traditional medicine live in two silos — never the twain shall meet, as the saying goes. We go to the doctor when we’re sick or for regular wellness checks. And we go to the yoga studio or a meditation class. Yet we don’t talk to our doctors about how one can support the other.
But the tide may be turning — a recent study in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine has found that three percent of people seeking out mind/body treatments, such as yoga, meditation, tai chi, deep breathing and progressive muscle relaxation, are doing so based on a referral from a medical provider.
And while that number may not seem to be particularly high, consider a yoga or meditation class, of say, 30 people — on average, one of them is there because their provider told them to be, explains lead author and HuffPost blogger Aditi Nerurkar, M.D., M.P.H, a physician and integrative medicine fellow at Harvard Medical school and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “We weren’t expecting it to be that high,” she says. “Forty-one million Americans are using mind-body therapies. Of those, 6.4 million are using mind-body therapies because they were recommended to by their provider.”
Looking at a nationally representative sample size of 23,000 survey participants, the researchers found that the most commonly prescribed treatments were deep breathing exercises (84 percent of the respondents), meditation (49 percent), yoga (23 percent), progressive muscle relaxation (20 percent) and guided imagery (14 percent). These numbers were similar to those who sought out the treatments on their own.
“For years and years this has been a patient-driven phenomenon,” Nerurkar says. As people discover what works best for themselves and loved ones, yoga studios, for instance, have popped up to fill a need that patients haven’t always discussed with their doctors.
So why are some physicians ready to hand out an Rx for a little “Om” time?
One reason may be the relatively recent body of research on how various mind-body treatments can be helpful, healthy additions to traditional treatment programs for certain conditions, including anxiety and depression, headaches, chronic pain, cardiac disease, insomnia and treatment-related symptoms of cancer, Nerurkar says.
The researchers also found that the patients who were seeking out mind-body treatments at the recommendation of a medical provider were those who typically had more diagnosed conditions and used the health-care system more often. Nerurkar says one reason that may be is that providers are referring their more complex patients once other treatments have failed — and this concept may lead to future research studies about what would happen if these complementary programs were offered earlier on in the treatment process.
Of course, not all complementary and alternative treatments have evidence behind them, Nerurkar points out. But when the research that is out there is coupled with patients’ success stories, some providers are opening up to the possibilities. “Ultimately you just want your patients to feel better,” she says. “At the end of the day, if my patients are using these therapies and they’re feeling good, I encourage them to do it.”
Here are some starting points for each of the mind-body treatments most commonly suggested by the medical community:
Deep breathing: Regular deep breathing — taking slow breaths in and out — has been linked to regulation of the cardiovascular and nervous systems and easing symptoms of anxiety, among other benefits. To start out a deep breathing exercise, focus on your breath coming in and out as it would normally and then begin deeper breaths, spending longer on inhalations and exhalations, according to the University of Rochester:
Breathe deeply and slowly, focusing all of your attention on each breath. Don’t rush it or breathe quickly. As you exhale naturally, allow any tension to leave you with the breath. Imagine the tension draining from your body and mind as you exhale. Notice the feeling of calm and relaxation that comes with exhalation.
Meditation: Studies have linked regular meditation to, among many other benefits, a decrease in fatigue and depression in multiple sclerosis patients, boosts in cellular health and a reduction in the severity of various mental and physical side effects from certain types of cancer treatment. Check out this primer for do-it-yourself meditation from the Mayo Clinic, or find a class near you.
Yoga: Of the many potential benefits of yoga, certain forms have been associated with improving recovery from breast cancer, lessening anxiety and counteracting fibromyalgia. Yoga has many different forms — you can practice poses alone, attend a local class or even do a yoga video at home.
Progressive muscle relaxation: This technique has been found to benefit people with Alzheimer’s disease, patients in the midst of cancer treatment, older people suffering from chronic pain and insomnia sufferers. The basic theory is to focus on groups of muscles in the body, often tensing them up, as you breathe in and then slowly relaxing them as you breathe out.
Guided imagery: Guided imagery has been associated with increased immunity and reduced feelings of depression. This process helps you to relax by taking you through a series of visualizations and direct suggestions, according to the Academy For Guided Imagery. You can find a certified instructor through the academy, practice guided imagery with a therapist or buy a tape to try the technique at home.
The following is excerpted from The Basic Code of the Universe: The Science of the Invisible in Physics, Medicine and Spirituality,published by Inner Traditions.
Mechanistic thought conceptualized solid particles moving in a vacuum. Then came field physics, and prevailing notions were shattered once again. In the mid-nineteenth century, Michael Faraday introduced the idea of a field as “a space around a source of electromagnetic energy.” Opposing the concept of “full and void” from atomism, Faraday suggested the idea of “matter and force diffused in space,” according to precise lines of force. His was a nonmaterial vision of physical phenomena! It is with Faraday that fields became defined as physical dimensions in zones of temporal space. In the following century, Einstein extended the field principle with the inclusion of gravity: the universe is thus considered held in a single gravitational field that curves in proximity to matter.
Of the four elements of Pannaria, the field is the least studied but the most interesting. Mass could be matter combined with energy, which is an expression of the field. In that case mass would be the formation through which the senses perceive the field, the reality that the “veil of Maya” hides, as some insightful sages of India, along with some Western philosophers, have put it. Plato contrasted the truth (alètheia) with fiction, opinion, illusion(doxa). The senses fall under the category of doxa,projection, the shadow of the alètheia. The senses enable us to perceive only impressions, while the truth of the universe is unknowable. “Nature loves to hide” (ϕύσις κρύπτεσθαι φιλεῖ), writes Heraclitus of Ephesus.* But a philosopher must try to reach it somehow, because truth is very sublime.
Plato used the “myth of the cave,” in which he describes a scene of slaves chained in a cave, who are forced to watch a strange “film” of speaking shadows on a wall. They believe what they see is real until one slave escapes and discovers an unexpected world: what the prisoners think are people are only the shadows of statues of humans and animals being carried on the shoulders of real men and women passing by; the slaves were hearing only their voices.5 The freed slave met the other side of things. Centuries later, the neo-Platonist Giordano Bruno of the Renaissance wrote De Umbris Idearum (The Shadows of Ideas), and indeed Platonic thought has also been revalued by some quantum physicists. The physical bodies that we can touch, see, and hear are only the shadows in the cave. Their fields, though they elude our senses, are in fact the true reality of the bodies. A researcher has to leave the cave in order to explore the other side of things.
Every physical body can be seen as an event that is constantly changing on the world stage, and the director of the changes is precisely the field, which the ancient sages identified with fire, a great natural alchemist. The quantum field is everywhere. The particles are not corpuscular, but local condensations of the field. Solid? No. They are quanta, but they are packets of energy of the field’s vibrations. The protons are vibrations in the field of the protons, electrons in that of the electrons, and so on. It is revolutionary in the history of human thinking to imagine that the world is not built with solid bricks, but rather with vibration, energy. Matter is a particular vibration of its own field, which overturns everything so far studied in school.
Since our childhood we have wanted to humanize the world, and we imagine even the microscopic driving energies of life as solid objects. But things are not like that. The Italian doctor and physicist Massimo Corbucci writes that the atom is an abyss filled with electrons and the particles of the nucleus.6 The harder you search the abyss, the more you realize that mass itself does not exist. What exists is a game of attraction and repulsion (therefore a balance) between different polarities of charge, between “breathing emptiness.”
The field is pulsation in the emptiness, that is, vibrating emptiness, a pulsating vacuum. The particles that make up mass might actually be disturbances of the field, ripples in the vacuum. We are not far from the discourse of the strings. Now consider that the first description of matter, as being like “the crest of a wave, curling like the sea,” was written as early as the hermetic treatises of the second century C.E.! It is only these disturbances that are perceived by the senses, which then turn them into perceptions-visual, tactile, auditory-namely feelings from forms, bodies, heat, sound, light.
What appear to us as particles are probably field fluctuations, in which some of a field’s regions oppose one another (for example, the protons and the electrons). In physics’ “double slit” experiment, an electron sent toward a plate with two parallel slits close to each other passes through both simultaneously, suggesting that the electron is traveling more like a wave than a particle. Actually, an electron can be in either wave or particle form, a variation of field fluctuation.
During our journey, we will discover further that the fields of physical bodies have extraordinary properties, that they are “organized masses” and that to date nobody has been able to uncover what organizes them and how. The physical, chemical, and biological sciences continue to largely ignore these questions. In fact, the field may not only be the result of what happens to mass, but rather the director of what happens to mass. To begin to understand how this can be, we are aided by the concept of morphogeneticfields, which offer us insight into fields with organizing disposition.
