Table of Contents

Scientific Bias


Of all the many things I have to be thankful for, one of the big ones is that I chose not to endure the indoctrination of formal education after high school. If you want to bind your spirit in a straight jacket, then a college education is arguably the most direct route you can take. It's arguable because religious indoctrination is right up there with it.

Those are the big, one-two knockout punches that are incredibly masterful at leaving you dazed and confused regarding who you really are and what you are really doing in the here and now, all the while circumventing your conscious knowledge that you are even dazed and confused in the slightest.

Care To Squeeze Into This Box?


After you graduate, if you would further like to put your straight-jacketed spirit into a tiny box, then post graduation studies are a must. Although there are some exceptions, the greatest way of ensuring you don't think for yourself, but instead, live the rest of your life on automatic pilot, looking for evidence that everything you were taught is 100% correct and true, getting extra initials after your name is a no-brainer. You will, much more than the unwashed, non & lessor credentialed masses, steer clear of any data that goes against what you think you know to be true. 1)

The exception would be if you are a scientific minded blogger who would justify the time “wasted” reading anything that doesn't prop up your paradigm with the fact that you are going to use it as material to blog about, and “prove” how wrong the alternative assertions are. Indeed, if you consider yourself scientific minded and you are still reading this at this point, even though it's becoming apparent this is critical of the state of science – and scientists and scientific minded individuals – then chances are probably rather high that you are a blogger, already licking your chops at the thought of eviscerating my tripe.

I Do It Too

To be fair, sometimes I will also justify time spent in reading material that is counter to what I think I know, because I'm going to write a counterpart argument to it. That is usually when there are hours involved, rather than minutes. In my leisurely Net surfing, though, I often spend time on sites and pages that I have profound disagreements with, whether the realm is politics, the sciences or anything, actually.

I have found that allows me to always be learning and pick up what appears to be factual information from virtually everywhere. It's shocking how much common ground one can find with people whose belief systems you are largely opposed to. This habit of checking out perspectives contrary to your own, also helps to keep you mentally sharp.

Smugness & Denial

What I often find amusing when I'm on sites written by people who obviously pride themselves as adhering to scientific standards, is a combination of smugness and denial of bias. Either trait can be dangerous, but together, they are often deadly. There is a false belief that contemporary, so-called scientific method practices have managed to wipe out the human trait of being biased. In reality, boxing one's self into experiencing life and interpreting what is happening, only from the confines of “modern” scientific processes, probably provides the greatest guarantee of extreme bias one could ever hope for.

(At best, humans may be able to curtail their biases, but we can never get rid of them.)

Double Blind Studies


Just one example, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, is the double blind protocol. Science minded people tend to think it's about the only yard stick to establish and measure anything. In actuality, most phenomena does not lend itself to the process.

First I'll go into some amount of detail as to what the double blind protocol is and how it came about, and then I will speak to my understanding that it is hardly the end all, be all that science minded folks adamantly believe it is.

The Mind-Body Connection


The double blind protocol came about when medical researchers realized the power of belief in terms of the mind-body connection. It was no secret that many people, historically, would become ill, even though there was no physical reason for their illness. That is known as a psychosomatic disorder. Hypochondriacs are people who are always thinking they are sick, and quite often, managing to create symptoms, through the power of their minds.

Conversely, if a person believes that something is going to help them get over an illness, that belief can often be the reason their body heals their health issue, or at least brings about a cessation or reduction of symptoms, for the time being. No doubt, a lot of actual healing goes on in religious faith healing meetings, based on the mind-body connection and the power of belief. (That is not to say that spiritual healing is never involved.)

Researchers started doing blind protocols in an effort to mitigate, at least to some degree, this mind-body connection. Otherwise, if the volunteer participant was taking a drug to deal with some kind of symptoms, who is to know if the drug caused her reaction, or if her belief in the drug caused it? So the placebo protocol was created, where some patients were given a faux drug, (classically, a sugar pill), while others were given the real drug.

Elephant In The Room


By the way, a huge elephant in the drug research room is the fact that zero tests are ever done in trials to see how a certain drug effects change when a patient is on more than one drug, which definitely seems to be the norm, rather than the exception, in this day and age. Therefore, when the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) certifies a drug as being safe – which technically, is always false anyway, because they all have side effects, but nonetheless – they are only vouching for its alleged safety for patients who are not taking any other drugs. (But I digress.)

Ethical Considerations

Early on, in drug research, virtually all participants thought they were getting the drug, even though only half of them would actually get it. In time, that changed when ethical questions were raised about not only the dishonesty involved (telling people they are being given new, experimental-stage, drugs when in fact that are not getting any medicine, but it was thought to be potentially harmful to people suffering with specific health issues, hoping to get help, and then not do anything for them. Yet, even with the change, mentioned below, it still leaves half the people without getting medicine for their issue.

As a result, the protocol changed so that participants are now all informed they might get the drug and they might be the sugar pill. (That, in and of itself, probably has an effect on the outcome, because the hope that a new drug is going to help them, is curtailed by the fact that they know there's a statistically even chance that they aren't even being given the drug.)

Personally, I don't share the “ethical dilemma” to any degree whatsoever, regarding not giving suffering people experimental drugs. Some of these studies make people sick. Sometimes people die. All drugs have side effects. Some of the side effects can be serious and quite dangerous. The lucky ones are the participants who get the placebo. The ethical dilemma I have is paying people to take highly toxic substances. (But I digress.)

Single Blind Vs Double Blind

Those early blind protocol studies were single blind, not double blind, meaning, the researchers giving the drugs and placebos to the participants knew, at the time they gave the participants the drug or the placebo, what each person involved was taking. The idea was presented that, despite their best efforts not to tip off the participants as to whether they were actually taking the drug of not, they could be doing so nonetheless. There could be a change in demeanor, attitude, body language and the like, that researchers were unknowingly signaling, that might have an effect on the outcome.

When you think about those early years of drug testing when all participants believed they were getting the experimental drug, it might seem to be kind of stretching things to worry that the researchers were affecting the results. It's not as if the participants suspected anything and were trying to look for clues in the way they were being treated by the researchers to figure out which they were getting.

Does that sound a bit overboard to you? The idea is something along the lines of the possibility that the researchers could have a more friendly tone of voice, or might smile more or have a twinkle in their eyes, etc., etc., when they administer the drugs, compared to when they administer the placebos; and that such a difference might make the drug seem to work better.

Royal Rats


If that seems like it is stretching things, consider this. A study was done with rats to test this thesis. Could the knowledge of researchers pertaining to their test subjects, have an effect on the results, if the test subjects were rats? And if they could, then what are the odds that it could be even more pronounced in humans, since humans are thought to be so much more sentient and intelligent than rats?2)

The study involved training people who would administer the study. They were taught that there were two groups of rats. One were street rats, and the other were special rats, that were from the equivalent of royal lineage, dating back many thousands of years. They were basically like princess rats, king rats, prince rats and queen rats, while all the others were typical sewer rats. They were told that if there was any lineage connecting the sewer rats to the royal rats, it was so many generations ago, the amount of shared bloodline would be utterly infinitesimal, and did not count or matter in any way.

Do You See Where This Is Going?

In reality, the rats were all the same. There was no royal lineage of rats from thousands of years ago where they were inbred and kept in the same lineage, like the case is with human “royalty.” (Yes, so-called royal humans are inbred.)

Even though there was no difference between the rats, can you guess which rats scored higher and the various mazes and other tests of intelligence? Bingo. You just won a Butterball turkey. Thus, the administrators of the research were giving the rats some kind of cues – they were treating them differently – to the point of interfering with the results of the study.

If there was no interference from the administrators, then the results should have been pretty close to even, between the two groups. There would be some rats smarter or less smart than others in each group, but overall, there should not have been much of a difference in results between the two groups.

Extrapolate To Human Subjects

Now, the argument was that if administrators can affect rats like that, how much more could they affect humans. However, there is a line of reasoning that states that in rats, administrators are extremely more likely to affect results than with human subjects, because they actually hold the rats in their hands. They can physically and rather profoundly treat them differently by how rough or gentle they handle the rats.

There were other differences between this study and drug studies. For one, it wasn't about a drug reaction. It pertained to the rodent's ability to learn mazes. For another, the administrators were lied to. In human drug testing, the administrators are never duped into believing half their participants are royalty. Obviously, that was mechanism that was used to approximate how administrators might be able to unconsciously affect the outcome if they believed one group is more special that the other group – like in the case of human drug testing, the group getting the drugs would be thought of as the special ones – but who knows if it wasn't going overboard to tell create a story about a royal lineage?

Bias - Can't Live With It - Can't Live Without It

Indeed, the study seem devised to come up with the results it got, which probably speaks to bias within the scientific process in general. The point about biases is. we all have them. It's the people who pretend they are past it, or they have developed protocols to completely take bias out of the equation that you have to watch out for.

Generally, somebody has an idea about something and they come up with a study to see if evidence supports their idea. They are generally rooting for the evidence to support their thesis. Moreover, other scientists often are attracted to a theory and root for it as well. There are often competing theories, studies and ways to interpret the data from the studies.

And The Winner Is


At some point, possibly after many years of political infighting between groups of scientists, one theory may become more accepted than other theories, at which point the scientific community latches onto it as the truth. When this is done, the other theories and the data supporting them are more or less memory-holed. In time, it becomes the norm to say the other theories and interpretations have been discredited, when it truth, they just weren't as popular. We'll look into this phenomena a little later when we talk about Darwinism and forbidden archeology. (But I digress.)

My Idea For The Rat Study

In the meantime, back to the study of the fake royal rats. It seems like it would have been accurate to study a drug's efficacy upon rats that were given a particular symptom, as opposed to testing intelligence. It's quite possible that the results would have been extreme different if that had been the case. I would recommend a series of studies, some of them blind at the administration level and some of them not blind. (I'm presuming that all rat studies are blind at the participant level, so I didn't call it, blind vs. double blind.)

Instead of lying to administrators about rat lineage, have rats who are ill and have a control (placebo) group and a drug group. Let the drug be a medicine that has already been empirically proven to improve the exact symptoms the rats in question are experiencing. I know it might seem counter intuitive to bother with placebos with rats, but the drug itself is not what is being tested here.

In one set of this series of studies, have the administrators know which group is getting the drug vs the placebo, and in the other series of studies, have the admins be blind to that data. The aggregated results of those studies would probably have a greater correlation to the degree of interference administrators exert due to their lack of blindness, than by spinning yarns about royal rat bloodlines. This is especially true since the rat royalty studies were about intelligence testing as opposed to drug efficacy testing.


I tend to think that blindness, or lack thereof, on the part of administrators is not the big freekin' deal that scientists believe it is. I'm not against it, really, but in my book, it's not a huge deal either way, because the placebo blind protocol itself is not the end all/be all that scientists tend to treat it like, when it comes to the pursuit of truth.

At any rate, in an effort to circumvent the potential influences of researchers with foreknowledge of drug vs placebo, scientists decided to have administrators provide a wall of protection between them and the study participants. The administrators are given identical appearing pills, capsules or liquid, and are told to whom, and how to administer them.

Anyone For Triple Blind?

The question arises, if researchers can contaminate experiments with non verbal cues to the participants, is it possible that they can give such cues to their administrators, who then pass it on to the participants. One would think it is not very likely as long as protocols are always in play to keep any interaction between the researchers and admins to a minimum. (On the other hand, if communication is taking place in some unknown, psychic manner, or through the process of reverse speech (all of which mainstream science does not even recognize as existing), it might possibly be all but impossible not to tip off the participants at some level of their consciousness.)

So now, (at least, hopefully) if you didn't understand previously, you totally get the concept of the double blind protocol. Test subjects have no idea if they are taking a drug or not, and the people who actually give them the substance, have no idea if the drug is in the substance or not either.

It Seems To Be Bending Over Backward


You have to admit, it seems like the scientists are really going out of their way to ensure they are not influencing the results of the data. The problem is, scientists have a way of missing the forest, for the trees.

If the gods exists, as personality beings, I can't help but think they are constantly amused by the amount of focus that scientists on this planet and dimension put on the double blind protocol. Whenever the gods are feeling down, they just think about that and suddenly they feel better. (Laughter is the best medicine, after all.) They probably consider the double blind protocol along the lines of rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. Yeah, it arguably may look better, but to what end?

Most Things Can't Be Double Blind Tested

From a scientific perspective, you would think that unless something has been studied with a double blind protocol, and then the results were published in certain journals and read and rehashed by other scientists, it simply could not exist. Millions of people could be getting great results using something for health, but scientists will give it zero credence without double blind studies done by credentialed researchers.

The fact of the matter is the double blind protocol is very limited. It is conducted for testing drugs. You can have identical appearing pills or capsules that are either filled with drugs or with an inert ingredient. The patients can be unaware of what they are taking, as well as the administrators giving it to them. However, what if you were testing fruits or vegetables for the effect they have on a certain symptom?

We know that British sailors were plagued with scurvy until it was discovered that eating limes would cure and prevent it. (Indeed, that is where the nickname of limey, meaning someone from Britain, originated.)

The British navy didn't need scientific testing published in respected, peer reviewed journals to tell them that limes worked from healing and preventing scurvy. The experience of fleets of sailors told them all they needed. However, what if scientist wanted to prove it to themselves, using the scientific method, how in the world would they go about performing a double blind protocol?

They could have brought in some UK sailors who suffering from scurvy and divide them into two groups. The first group would actually consume limes, while the second group, the control group, would get the placebo. Remember, neither the participants or the study administrators can know if they are really being given limes.

Depending on the particular protocol, in fact, the control group participants might not be told that they may or may not be eating real limes. They might simply be told they definitely are eating limes, when in fact that are eating something that looks and tastes exactly like limes, but is not limes.

Oh wait - Hold the phone


The problem, of course, is there is nothing that you can give anyone to make them believe that are eating limes, other than limes. The same goes with any fruit or vegetable. Therefore, if nothing can be scientifically proven unless there is a double blind study, then according to modern science, the effects of food can never be proven, even though the rest of us normal (non scientist type) people, may know the truth of the matter.

The same is true for virtually any alternative or natural solution. How are you going to do a double blind study on acupuncture? People are either getting needles put in their skin, or they are not. How about a double blind study looking into the efficacy of massage therapy. One group will get massages and the other group will simply believe they were given massages? …And the massage therapists won't know if they actually gave them real massages of not? No wait. That can't happen.

Hoot Day It Is

That, in a nutshell, sums up one of the major problems and limitations of the scientific process. Most things that can't be examined using this scientific protocol. They don't lend themselves to the process. This very fact, instead of showing scientists the way they have boxed themselves in, is actually used by these eggheads – (that's not a pejorative epithet, by the way)3) – to disparage all non pharmaceutical health therapies. No matter how profound the results something gets, scientists will slough it off as psychosomatic since there is no way to do a placebo test.

2 Things To Keep In Mind

There are two points I want to make here. The first is that placebo testing drugs during their trial phase is no way comes close to precluding the profound placebo effect that doctors enjoy with their patients. We are downright brainwashed to almost worship doctors. They are basically considered gods in white coats bestowing gifts and ultimate wisdom and knowledge to the rest of us mere mortals. Whether they prescribed pharmaceuticals or merely instructions to wear take long walks, or, for that matter, to wear a clown mask for 3 days, there is always going to be a lot of automatic self healing going on, due to the belief that people have in the institution that is doctors.

Furthermore, in spite of belief people have in their doctors, the toxic effects of drugs harm, inure, hospitalize and kills massive numbers of people, each and every year. The other point is that mainstream science-minded people are missing the boat, in a big way, in the way they think of the placebo effect. Instead of wanting to study and harness it as a pathway to health, these people consider it a mere nuisance that muddles up their test results. If the motivation behind testing pharmaceuticals was really about helping people get and be well, their outlook would be quite different.

There are studies where the placebo outperforms the drug. Of course, those are hushed up fairly well. It's bad for business for people to know that taking nothing can work a lot better than taking medicine. The point is, the drug companies aren't interested in helping people become and be healthy. Talk about being bad for business, harnessing the mind-boggling power of the placebo effect, to help humanity attain and maintain health, is decidedly antithetical to the goals of big pharma and the medical establishment.

Science For Hire


Scientists like to talk about “science based medicine”, but they should call it, science for hire based medicine, or unconscionable profits based medicine. Scientists who are paid by drug companies to develop and test drugs should be seen as having major conflicts of interest in terms of public health. The situation is exacerbated many times over by the fact that government agencies that are supposed to be watchdogs for public health, more times than not, allow these companies to police themselves. Even with the lax policing efforts the FDA puts on the pharmaceutical industry,4) 5) 6) 7) the criminality of drug companies is so pervasive that they are fined billions of dollars for violating the public trust, bribery, falsifying test results, and the like. 8) 9) 10) 11) 12)

[Now you may wonder how I can say the government is lax on the pharmaceutical industry when they sometimes mete out multiple billion dollar fines to a single company. It's simple: Generally, the most they ever take from a company is about 10% of their profits generated on the crimes for which the fines are assigned. Sometimes it's closer to 1%. It's a slap on the wrist, basically telling them to keep on doing what they're doing. Also, the people responsible for crimes and negligence leading to many thousands, even scores of thousands of deaths,13) are never even criminally charged, let alone arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned.]

Keep All This In Mind Next Time You Read These Medical & Science Bloggers

Doesn't it strike you as bizarre the way most Muslims are reluctant to public voice outrage at the Islamic extremists, like those psycho bastards in Isis, for perverting their religion and making all Muslims look bad? A similar kind of deal is going on with all the smug ass science based medicine and evidence based medicine bloggers out there, in terms of turning a blind eye to the out of control corruption, criminality and conflict of interest in the medical establishment.

They act as if it doesn't exist, and continue to write about pharmaceutical drug manufacturing as good stewards of science. Big pharma is destroying whatever good name medical science has left. People who care about how medical science is perceived need to be railing against these criminals every time they are caught doing something despicable, and attempt to disavow the bad players from the field of legitimate science.

Just as in the case of the silent majority of Muslims, when the public does not see outrage from the loving, peaceful ones, it becomes easy to assume there aren't any of these left. When all the smug anti alternative/preventative health care bloggers almost never show their disgust at the wantonly disgraceful crimes of the medical industry, but instead endorse them as the purveyors of scientific standards, that can't possibly be good for their cause.

The fact that they do that, though, is a big clue to how blind and biased they are; and how you should not believe anything they say. That's not to suggest that nothing they say ever has merit, but clearly, they have shown that their thoughts and opinions should never be trusted prima facie. (As Bill Cosby would say, “You need to fact check.” - But in Cosby's case, it's better for him if you never, ever fact check.)

In the meantime, the medical system has been designed in such a way that in order to get government endorsement for a protocol, the studies often cost 50 to 100 million dollars. Furthermore, for a product to get through the gauntlet of the USFDA (United States Food & Drug Administration), the total expenditure can be in the 8 figure range. The corporations that have this kind of money are not interested in promoting natural remedies because they can't patent them and hold exclusive rights and make name their prices.

Claims Have Never Been Scientifically Verified

The system is set up to keep people out who have real health solutions. They don't have the money to play the game. An oft repeated claim about various natural solutions is that the claims have never once ever been scientifically verified. What that usually means is, nobody has put up the money to put it through the only officially sanctioned scientific validation process.

In many cases, that's not even true. Sometimes studies have been done and the results were positive, yet the medical powers that be, simply lie about it. Moreover, a lot of purported studies that seem to support the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals have been shown to be criminally falsified. Not only are the studies suppressed which show their ineffectiveness of suppressing symptoms – (and let's face it - the suppression of symptoms is almost all any drug that “works” actually does) – but studies which support their effectiveness are often not when they seem.

Reports routinely downplay the known risks and side effects of drugs and provide unrealistic expectations for a drug's potential to provide benefit. There are various degrees of immorality when this occurs. It might be done through exaggeration and omission, but it's often done with downright lying and criminal fraud.

Don't Believe It?

Look up the name, Dr. Reuben Scott. He used to be an imminently respected medical researcher who had dozens of studies published in the past 13 years. The only problem was that it turned out that all his studies were fake. There were no patients enrolled and no placebos administered in a double blind fashion. 13 years of research, entirely made up in his pretty little head.

Drug companies paid him close to half a million dollars (that we know about) for his assault on science. You'd have to be incredibly naive to believe nobody knew what was going on. You'd also be naive to believe his is the only case like that. Who knows how many researchers have been doing the exact same thing and are still doing it right now?

What Happened To The Peer Review?

It turns out there isn't any review to think of in peer review journals. The term makes you think that the research, even before publication is reviewed by scientific peers, all contributing the benefit of their genius and highly ethical minds to each and every study. That way, any flaws in the theory, the nitty gritty details or general extrapolations would be caught and corrected.

Then after publication, you would think there would be hundreds or thousands of scientists communicating with each other, verifying the data and thinking about the implications for future research and the betterment of the health of humanity. But evidently, that's not how it works at all.

Completely fraudulent fiction is accepted as scientific research and then once published, it becomes precedent setting, not unlike court decisions. Other scientists will use any data in a published report to refute any data that go against their belief system. It's not unlike religious zealots who say that something has to be true, otherwise it wouldn't be in the bible.

It is absolutely breath taking to think that evidently nobody provides, or asks for, any proof of the claims that are made, let alone proof that the studies were actually done. Yet, they get published in the holy scriptures of peer reviewed scientific journal, which only “woo woo” people, “wishful thinkers” and “quacks” would not hold in the highest of esteem.

Then There Are The Ghost Writers

In recent years, it's been revealed, much to the chagrin of big pharma, that it is common practice for the real authors of these allegedly scientific medical reports that are published in those “respected” peer review journals, to be different from the credentialed scientists whose names are them. The real authors, a lot of time, are not the doctor/scientist. They are ghost writers, hired by the drug company.14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) That's right. Those “scientific” reports are often written by people who don't have any degrees in science. They may have degrees in marketing though, as they are often written by the marketing departments of the drug companies.

Please understand what is going on here. When these studies are presented to the so-called scientific, peer reviewed journals, they are presented as independent research from the doctors and scientists whose names are on the papers. They are not presented as coming from the manufacturer. So, not only is it a lie in that they are like paid advertisements in there journals, masked as independent research, but the purported authors generally had very little to do with the studies at all.

The Best Science Money Can Buy

Drug companies have been fined billions of dollars for a veritable litany of crimes, but nobody ever seems to go to prison. The fines are tiny,, compared to the profits, so it's actually good business practice. Crime very much pays for the medical industry. The world of science is replete with the elephant in the room that is conflict of interest. Everybody pretends like it doesn't exist. There is a revolving door between the drug companies and the FDA. One hand is constantly washing the other while all backs are scratched, yet nobody is scratching their own.

Anecdotal Evidence

Mainstream science is constantly denying the experiences of millions of people. Of course, it hardly matters to those people. If they were healed from stage 4 cancer, they couldn't care less that “science” tells them the protocol they used is allegedly worthless. The shame is that most people may never learn of that protocol, or even if they do, they won't believe it, because they assume their doctor would have told them about it if it was for real.

The name they give for the results that millions of people could be getting, is anecdotal evidence. An anecdote is a funny story you might share at a dinner party. That is what they think of the experience of millions of human beings. Obviously, all anecdotal evidence isn't experienced by that many people, but I bring it up to show a contrast. If the masses are getting results from something, they couldn't care less if science says that it doesn't work.

It can work the other way around. As opposed to something that is good for people, It might be a matter of the masses knowing the something is bad for them. Before there was science to tell us that smoking cigarettes was bad for health, people knew it. They didn't needs lab results.

In fact, if laboratory research would have said that smoking was not bad at all, people would not have been swayed. They know what they know. You may say, “Well that's a silly thing to say, because science would never have shown that smoking isn't bad for health, but the truth is, science doesn't get everything right.

Sometimes they get it wrong for a long time and then years, decades or centuries later, they turned around and say, “Oops.” If you look at all the 'oopsees' coming from the world of science, how are you supposed to have faith that what they are saying is scientific fact right now, is going to be scientific fact next year or in 10 or 20 years from now?

Faith Based Science

Generally speaking, scientists are not religious people, yet they show a faith in science that is very much like the faith religious people have in God. When scientists admit they were wrong, – which isn't very often and it's kind of like pulling teeth – they like to quickly forget how adamant they previously had been regarding the matter. Moreover, their faith that they are right about everything else they think they know, remains sky high. You might think they would stop and question themselves, and ponder, “Gee, if we were so wrong about that, what other things could we be wrong about that we think we're right about?” – but you would be mistaken.

It wasn't that long ago that scientists said brain cells don't replicate. I didn't buy it. I knew better. Guess what? scientists are now saying I was right and they were wrong. They had their method and all their protocols and peer reviewed journals and double blind methodologies backing up what they assured everyone was scientific fact that you were born with a certain number of brain cells. You could lose them, they told us, but you could not have them replaced, like other cells that comprise the body. I, on the other hand, only had my knowingness. I could not speak eloquently on why I knew what I knew.20) I couldn't provide data. I couldn't impress anyone with any studies I published in any journals explaining why I held that position. In the end, it didn't matter.

The history of science if filled with such examples. No doubt, many fundamental scientific suppositions will eventually fall by the wayside. Just as contemporary scientists laugh at some of the beliefs of their predecessors from long ago, like how they believed the sun orbited the earth, the scientists in future generations are going to be embarrassed by the many different suppositions taken by today's scientists. It wasn't just the church who took the position that the earth was the center of the universe, It was the bought and paid for scientists who propped it up the outdated mythology, much like they do today in any number of fronts from global warming to pharmaceutical drugs.

HCG Diet

A perfect example to demonstrate how useless, modern science can be is the HCG diet. HCG stands for human chorionic gonadotropin. It's a hormone that we all make in our body, but only in tiny amounts. When women become pregnant, their bodies become a veritable HCG factory.

HCG unlocks fat cells. Massive amounts of fat get burned up. With that fat, the nutrition that was locked in the fat cells is released. That nutrition is largely what the mother to be lives on, as the nutrition from her food, goes to the placenta and then to the embryo which becomes the fetus.

The HCG hormone taken by dieters is synthesized from the hormone taken from pregnant women. When introduced, in sufficient amount, into the body of a person of either gender, who is not pregnant, their body gets tricked into “thinking” it's pregnant, so it starts generating HCG. Now, since the body is generating this hormone in large amounts, dieters are able to reduce their caloric consumption to 500 calories and not feel hungry. Their bodies burn fat to the tune of up to one or two pounds a day.

Here's What Science Tells Us About The HCG Diet

Science tells us the the only weight loss involved in the HCG diet is from the calorie reduction. I have gone 10 days, drinking only water and eating nothing. I lost 12 pounds. In the first ten days of the HCG diet, after consuming a total of 5000 more calories than I had when I fasted for 10 days, and lost only 12 pounds, I actually lost 21 pounds.

Twenty one pounds in 10 days after 5000 calories is (if my high school trigonometry still serves me) 9 pounds more than 12 pounds in 10 days with 0 calories. When I was fasting, I found it incredibly difficult to go those 10 days without eating. It took massive willpower. To say I was off my game, is putting it lightly. On the other hand, on the HCG diet, I had to force myself to eat all 500 calories a day. I felt stuffed.

It was incredibly easy to do. I was satiated, satisfied and craving free; not hungry at all (after the first two days, i.e., waiting the hormone to start pumping though my body.) There were some plateaus where I didn't lose weight for a 2 or 3 days, but when I moved past the plateaus, I lost 3 pounds a day at times and once, even four pounds.

I never had anything like that happen when I fasted. I fasted another time for 7 days and dropped 10 pounds, but in all the fasting I did, I never lost even 2 pounds in a single day, and again, I was always crazy hungry.

Science says that HCG does not burn fat and it does not cause anyone to lose pounds and inches and it does not prevent them from being hungry. Yet, my personal experience tells me that I wasn't hungry. I had to force myself to eat everything I was allowed to eat and I had one four pound, a few three pounds and lots and lots of two pounds weight drop days. In fact, the average over 3 weeks was basically 2 pounds a day. I dropped 40 pounds in 3 weeks and was never hungry after 2 days.

There is one so-called scientific study after another, published in so-called scientific journals, backed up by scientist after scientist, doctor after doctor, telling not only me, but certainly hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of people, that our experiences aren't real.

How am I supposed to have a shred of respect for the alleged scientific process when it denies what I have experienced first hand? What good is all that protocol if they can't even admit the truth of the experiences of untold numbers of people?

The overwhelming majority of everybody who have followed the HCG protocol – probably in the high 90% range – can tell you that they lost weight unlike any diet or fitness protocol they have ever been on before. The amazing thing is, the HCG protocol actually discourages you from exercising.

Kevin Trudeau popularized the HCG diet, calling it the weight loss cure they don't want you to know about. With the way “they”, the medical industry continues to deny that taking HCG in accordance with the diet is responsible for fast, easy and dramatic weight loss, Trudeau has been proven correct. They really don't want us to know about it.

The Bottom Line About The Medical Industry


There is too much money generated in keeping people unhealthy for the medical industry to be interested in helping the masses get healthy. The medical industry uses so-called modern science to prop up their system which discredits or downplays virtually everything that is good for us. In fact, it tries to keep us away from the things that are good by telling us they are dangerous. Just don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Somebody get that damn dog out of here.

For instance, millions of people around the world get tremendous results using homeopathic medicine, yet science tells us it's allegedly quackery. Royal families have used it, 11 Presidents have sworn by it, many CEOs and famous people won't live without it, but in the world of science, those people are all fools. Never mind their results, they say. The results merely demonstrate the power of the placebo effect.

The Scientific Double Standard

Of course, it people using natural health protocols get benefit, science tells us it's psychosomatic, but when people get symptom relief from mainstream allopathic medicine, then of course, its due to the validity of “science based medicine.” The argument, of course, is that the double blind studies in the drug research are designed to ameliorate the placebo effect, but of course, that means nothing in terms of the trust people put into their doctors.

We have been brainwashed to treat doctors like Gods. We will go against our better judgement because we have such belief in the women and men in their white coats. When people go to their doctor, or even call her up to get a phoned in prescription refilled, they are generating tremendous placebo power from deep within their brainwashed psyches.

Nonetheless, if you get helped with something natural, it's all in your mind, but if you get helped with something a doctor does, well then, it's good science, don't you know. Never mind, that the vast majority of what doctors do, at best, suppress symptoms and almost never deal with the cause of your health issues.

Never mind the fact that sometimes, even scientific journals admit that hundreds of thousands of people are dying and becoming injured and deathly sick to pharmaceuticals and needless or improper surgeries. 15 years ago, Barabara Starfield wrote in JAMA, (Journal of the American Medical Association) that, even back then, 106,000 people a year in the USA alone, were dying from having taken the proper dosages of prescribed medication.21)

Gee, Wally, I wonder if the true amount of damage being done is many times more than that? I mean, consider the improper dosages that people take. What about all the over the counter medications? Many thousands of people die each year from proper dosages of aspirin and other pain killers.22)

Can you imagine how many deaths are due to popping those pills, day in and day out, like they are candy? They attack the organs, especially the liver. A lot of “life-saving” surgery is done to stave off death of people who looked to medical science for help, and all they got was side effects leading to organ shut down. Then those same scientist who are trying to get us to believe that nutrition, super foods, supplements, detoxing, essential oils, homeopathy, massage therapy and many other natural protocols are either worthless or even dangerous, will tell us that science based surgeries saved all these lives.

They ignore the fact that that is was “science based” medicine that put them at death's door. They ignore the fact that surgeons, routines practice high pressure sales techniques, which brow beat patients into signing up for needless procedures, which many other doctors would advise them against, if they had the chance. Many thousands of people die from needless surgeries in the USA each year. Thousands of others deal with complications from these needless surgeries for years, and even for the rest of their lives.

That's just more science based medicine doing what it does best; making money for the medical mafia, I mean, industry. Even for the patients of these needless surgeries for whom everything goes well, there is tremendous stress, pain, fear, and inconvenience that is endured, not to mention the medical bills.

And Yet Scientist Bloggers Warn Us To Run From Natural Health Protocols

I keep running across these blogs written by scientists or maybe some of them are by wannabe scientists, but really, they say the same things. They not merely make fun of sites and individuals who focus on being proactive about health and preventing disease, but they are constantly warning about alleged dangers of buying into the message of the pro active health community.

Again, the double standard is stifling. If there are any claims of illness or death from, say , an popular herb in the natural health community, they are quick to treat it like the plaque. Yet pharmaceutical drugs can kills tens of thousands of people, and they couldn't care less.

These gals never said word one about Vioxx, while it was killing 60,000 people and never getting pulled off the market by the government. The company, Merck, finally pulled it after realizing if the continued, the lawsuits would eat about at the billions in profits the pill generated.

The bottom line is that modern science does not want you to value your own experience, or, for that matter, to think for yourself. If something is real, or important enough for you to worry your pretty little head about, they will write about it in their peer reviewed journals. In the meantime, here are a few more statistics they would rather you not think about.

More Food For Thought


Besides the fact that adverse reactions (side effects) from properly prescribed drugs is the number 3 killer behind cancer and heart disease, feast you mind on these golden nuggets (which are more than likely outdated and understated: There are 7,000 deaths each year from medication errors in hospitals. That pales in comparison to 20,000 deaths from hospital errors unrelated to medications (for instance, botched surgeries & incorrectly programmed or monitored machines). That still is dwarfed by the 80,000 deaths from hospital-caused infections. Add at least another 2,000 deaths from unnecessary surgery.23)

The Problem With Scientifically Proving Psychic Phenomena

It's difficult to prove psychic powers using science, especially when the people you are trying to prove it to are incapable of believing in it. The overwhelming majority of psi (psychic phenomena) is spontaneous. It's unconducive to lab settings and time tables.

It's akin to someone trying to study the phenomenon of laps, but it is required that everybody who will be tested has to stand. Let me try another bad analogy. It's like taking your car to the mechanic and it quits making that noise.


Telepathy And You

Have you ever come across people with whom you are so in tune in conversations, they answer your questions as soon as you formulate them in your mind, before you even have the chance to ask them? That's indicative of telepathy. I can almost guarantee you that if you set up some experiments with that person, in a lab setting with scientist observers to document the process, it's not going to happen.

How about all the times you just feel something? It's almost physically touching you. You spontaneously turn your head and you've locked eyes with someone who was staring at you. They quickly avert their eyes. How about all the times it's been the other way around, and you were the one averting your eyes, feeling sheepish for being caught staring, and wondering how the person knew to turn her head and look right at you?

These things happen spontaneously. It's highly doubtful you're going to duplicate them in a rigid lab setting when you're consciously trying to do it. You've thought of somebody you may not have thought about for a while and then they call you that day. Or, you're thinking about someone and within seconds, the phone rings and it's them.

These are common occurrences and they are part of our everyone's day to day life. We don't need scientific studies to validate them. Of course, the skeptical science answer is that it's all coincidence. Just as science tells us all the amazing positive results from alternative health protocols are merely psychosomatic, the automatic answer for everything metaphysical is, it's all coincidence.

LSD And Me

Back in my drug days, I was with a group of friends, tripping on acid. I brought up the point that I had heard of people having spontaneous psychic and unexplained experiences while they were tripping. That inspired a friend to say that at some point he was going to mentally reach out and touch me, and that I should say so as soon as I felt it.

There were several of us in the room and he was actually non even seated where I could see him. We all kept talking. I had forgotten about the test and wasn't even thinking about it when I felt something touch my shoulder from behind. I said, “Mario, now.”

He said, “What? Now what?|

I said, you touched me right before I said that. He was silent for a second, evidently not wanting to believe it, for some reason. He said, “OK, tell me where I touched you.”

I said, “my right shoulder.” He confirmed it. Most scientists would say it was a coincidence, because I couldn't do it at will. I disagree.

LSD, The Roach & Me

Another time that I was tripping I saw a roach. Those big palmetto bugs give me the heebie jeebies, but not this time, in the state of mind I was in.

It was several feet away and walking away from me. I wondered if I could telepathically connect with it, and almost as soon as I thought that, it stopped and slowly turned around. I put my hand down to the floor and it started walking again, straight for my hand.

Sure enough, it walked onto my hand. Ordinarily, I'd of freaked out like a little school girl and tossed it off of me. Instead, I put held it inches from my face and look at it. It seemed to be looking right back at me. It was an amazing experience as I just flowed appreciation the bug's way for a minute. Then I put my hand down and it stepped off and walked away.

LSD, Mike Trupp, The Angel Maroni & Me


Another time, I was with a friend in West Los Angeles across the street from the Mormon Tabernacle. I was tripping balls, as they say. There was a statue of the Mormon angel, Maroni, at the top of the tabernacle and I was exciting to be having the first real hallucination I had ever experienced.

Maroni appeared to be turning, and yet I could tell it was just my perception and that it really wasn't spinning. Then I thought that it would be wild if my friend was having the same hallucination. The second I thought that, Mike said, “Whoa. Look at the that statue. It's spinning.”

Man, that was exciting. It was a shared psychic experience. It defied what mainstream science tells us is possible and it was happening to me and a friend, right then and there. Amazing experience, but there's more.

I had noticed that it was spinning to the left, but wasn't turning around and around. It was going about 3/4 of the way and then, as if a video or film loop effect, it suddenly was back to the starting position and would turn 3/4 of the way. It just kept repeating that motion, like a never ending film loop.


So I asked Mike, “It's spinning? Which direction?

He answered, “To the left.”

“Is it spinning around and around and around?” I queried my fellow tripper.

“No it's not,” he noticed. “It's weird, it's kind of like it goes back and then turns again.”

I was in science mode, if you haven't figured that out yet. I was taking the utmost care not to tell what I was seeing, to make certain I was not talking him into seeing what I was seeing. I hadn't even admitted that it was turning for me, as well. I was interviewing him to get precisely what he was seeing.

In fact, I was actually suggesting things other than what I was seeing. I continued, “You mean it spins to the left and then it spins back to the right where it started from, and goes back and forth?”

He answered, “No, it spins around to the left, but not all the way. About three quarters of the way and then it just is back to where it started and spins back to the left again. It keeps doing that, non stop, but it's always spinning to the left and never spinning to the right.”

That was exactly what I was seeing. It's was freaking awesome, possum, yo! I said, “You make it sound like a film loop effect.”

He said, “Exactly. I've seen that kind of effect on film.”

Then I told him I was seeing the exact same thing and only acted like I wasn't because I wanted to be sure I didn't suggest it to him. (By the way, I found somebody else who tells a similar story here.)24)

Time To Get Past Mr. Newton


In the scientific, Newtonian world view, that can't happen, because things are not connected together. Everything is a closed system.

In the metaphysical literature, though, we are told that no systems are closed and that everything is connected.25) We are not physical beings but spiritual ones. Physical objects are truly physical, but are energy particles spinning at such a rate that they seem to be physical from this particular perspective of this space and time.

Not all scientists are in denial of this, but the mainstream scientists seem to be in denial regarding Einsteinian physics and beyond, including quantum physics. They are only a about a century behind the times. They are stuck in the world of Sir Isaac Newton and they don't want to budge. Newton, by the way, is said to have been no stranger to falsifying research to match his theories.26) 27) 28)

We're So Much More Than What Science Tells Us

That's just fine for the cabal that controls the vast majority of the wealth of the world. They don't want humanity knowing that we are powerful spiritual beings having human experiences. That is why they design the vast majority of the curriculum in the Universities to brainwash the students to forever stay in Newton's world. They've done an amazing job at it, judging by the state of mainstream science. Haven't they?

Mainstream scientists would simply not believe my experience. They would say I was on drugs and therefore nothing I said could be trusted. Similar to Cosby's lawyers looking for chinks in the armor of his accusers' personal lives as a way to undermine their stories, mainstream scientists would simply look to make you question my experience as having never happened.

And even if I could get together with my old friend Mike and he confirmed it, they would have you believe that we just think we recall it that way, or we're simply lying. That is the mentality of these people. Why search for the truth when you can simply run from any evidence that you might be wrong? Even if my friend and I were able and willing to trip like that again and get into such a state of mind where we experienced the same hallucination, but we did it in a laboratory setting where controls made it impossible to deny what was happening, they would fall back on their favorite rationalization, that it was an incredible display of coincidence.

B.I.L. Larry & Me Sans Drugs

I remember one Thanksgiving when I was having dinner at the step sister's, her husband and I were experimenting with our telepathic abilities. It's was the classic, pick a number from 1 to 10 experiment. We wrote the numbers down each time. We kept hitting, time after time, almost every one on the first try. A few were on the second try, which still beat the odds of chance, but the rest were on the first try.

Having written the number down was done in the name of science, because nobody had to wonder if the other guy was playing games – (a polite way to say, lying.) It was exhilarating. My step brother-in-law said that it was too easy for us and we should try something more difficult.

He said he was going to think of a number but there were no parameters from which to choose. It could be any number.

I asked, to make sure I understood, “Any number?”

He said, “Yes, that's right, any number.” I laughed and said something to the effect of, “What the hell. Let's do this.” I closed my eyes in an attempt to tune in to him, and also, so I would have no clue as to how many digits he was writing down. I took no longer than 30 seconds and I said the number that kept coming into my mind, 13. He turned over the piece of pater, revealing, 13.

He smiled. I laughed. We both agreed that was a perfect time to end the experiment. I can imagine that if a mathematician had recorded the aggregate odds of all the numbers we had successfully guessed, including the last one that could have been any number, it certainly would have been millions to one.

I also imagine that if we had gone to a science lab and done the same tests, we would not have had that kind of success, or anything close to it. Scientists reading this would likely say that it didn't happen the way I remember. There were no drugs, including alcohol involved, so they can dismiss it that way, but they simply wouldn't believe it, and in the event a rare one did believe it, she'd dismiss it as coincidence.

It's would be pretty interesting that it's the only time I ever did that test with Larry. That's kind of like the only time I did the test with Mario when he mentally touched me on the shoulder and I told him exactly when and where he touched me.

You have to laugh at all the things the scientific types presume is coincidence, not only in the lives of others, but in their own lives. They are having all kinds of psychic events in the course of their lives, but they chalk them up as coincidence each and every time. It comes down to simply not believing, so nothing is going to make it past their coincidence filter. That is how strong their belief is.

Negative Confirmation Bias

There is actually a rich history of scientific data that shows psychic phenomena, although it is always denied by skeptical scientists. In the experiments (which range from symbol guessing to remote viewing to affecting random number generators, and more), there may not be any participants who beat the odds of chance in shocking proportion. Individually, the experimenters slightly beat the odds of chance.

The thing is, the vast majority of the test subjects continuously do it, over and over, much more than they fail. In aggregate, slightly beating the odds over the course of hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of trials, is what ends up making the odds of the overall study a lot more than chance, including odds of millions to one.

However, if you're one of these close minded scientists who start with the absolute, unmovable, entrenched belief that psychic phenomena simply doesn't exist, then any evidence to the contrary, has got to be wrong. The only question is where.

Skeptics take the results of these experiments and look to pick holes in the data. The constant refrain they come up with is, “methodological inconsistencies,” even when it's not true. Then, because one person publishes such a claim, all the other skeptics pile on and claim it to be true, including most of them who never actually give the data even a cursory look. They say it enough times, they convince themselves it's true.

Click here to read an excellent post by Dean Radin on the website of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, that gives examples of what I'm talking about.29)

Adding Insult To Injury

There is a notion among some of the unmitigated 'ballsier' skeptical/debunker/mainstream scientists which says that any study of psi that is administered by people who believe in its existence, is, by definition tainted. In the special world they live in, since they don't believe in the existence of psi, that automatically proves that anyone who does believe in it, could not possibly be trusted to be objective and uphold scientific protocols. These cartoon-like characters do the same thing with homeopathy.

Of course, it never dawns on them that their lack of belief in the existence of psi could get in the way of their ability to prove its existence in more ways than one. And, they think it's perfectly reasonable to tell homeopathic scientists that their study results are tainted because they believe in the efficacy of homeopathy, but they would never dream of considering the possibility that their studies of a pharmaceutical substance aren't valid because they believe in the efficacy of pharmaceuticals. Again, it's the totally non self-aware (aka clueless) double standard by which they live their lives. (Thankfully, not all the skeptical scientists are not quite that extreme.)

Student Pilot Flunks Flight Test But Saves A Life


The vast majority of the profound psychic phenomena that occurs is to people who don't tend to put the label of being psychic upon themselves. Many may have the belief that there is something to it and that science doesn't know everything, while others may not really think about it one way of the other.

Sometimes profound psychic stuff even it happens to people who are rather skeptical about the topic. nature. It's always fun when a hardened atheist has a life changing near death experience and instantly changes her view… But I digress.

A documentary I was saw included the following true story that was vetted. Skeptics are unable to play the liar card on this, so they play the coincidence card, instead. It's a perfect example of how most these situations come out of the blue and do not lend themselves to scientific method research.

A woman who never considered herself psychic was flying her solo test to get her license. For some inexplicable reason, she did not turn back when she was supposed to. She just kept flying, seemingly aimlessly for several minutes. She knew she was flunking her test, by doing so, but she just kept going, not understanding what she was doing.

After several minutes, she saw a field and landed the small private plane. She taxied toward a road, just in time to witness an accident involving a car she recognized. The car turned over from the wreck. It as her mother driving the car. She got out, ran to the car and pulled her mother out, before it burst into flames.

Scientists are going to tell you that was a wild coincidence and not an example of anything psychic, metaphysical or telepathic. Since that daughter can not reproduce the feat of landing her plane where her mother is, at will, in the skeptical scientist's world, that means what happened was an amazing coincidence.

Metaphysical Key - We Create Our Reality

There is a saying in metaphysics that we are all co creators of the world we live in. We are constantly creating the world with our perceptions of the world and our beliefs and thoughts. Perhaps that explains why skeptical scientists have such difficulty finding evidence that psi exists and that homeopathic remedies work.

Although there are many instances where people who don't believe in homeopathy take a remedy at the insistence of a friend, only to discover that it worked for them, I would not be surprised if the power of belief (or lack of belief) makes for a lot more difference for people taking homeopathic remedies than it is for those who take pharmaceuticals. That is because homeopathy deals with subtle energy, frequencies and vibrations.

The person taking the homeopathic remedy may have much more influence over its effect than if she were taking a drug. Even skeptics can't intellectually honestly deny that the world of homeopathy is replete with impressive results of individuals responding to taking the remedies.

More Placebo Please

Of course, they say it's “just” the placebo effect, but we really don't know that much about it. What we do know tends to give us more questions than answers. If the placebo effect is a lot more profound with homeopathy, there must a reason. There must be something going on we're not understanding.30)

Instead of trying to downplay it and tell people not to get excited because it's all in their minds,31) why not see if there are ways to enhance it?

More Than Meets The Eye

I'm saying that it entails more than what we normally think of in terms of the placebo effect, and that due to the vibrational nature of homeopathy, the belief in the remedy may be much more profound than someone believing in an allopathic drug. (And, conversely, the lack of belief in homeopathy might do more to counter its efficacy, than say, someone not believing that Oxycontin is going to ease their pain and bring narcotic effects to their brain.)

Skeptical scientists often say that the reason they tend to not get the same results as homeopathic scientists is because the homeopathists do shoddy work. They say they allow their bias for homeopathy to get in the way of interpreting the test data. I'm suggesting that the psychic energy of the scientists can help or hinder the amount of positive results demonstrated in scientific trials. It's not that the skeptics are the only ones following the protocols and interpreting the data correctly. Both sides are doing it correctly, and the power of their minds is affecting their results accordingly. I believe the same phenomena often occurs between open minded and closed minded scientists who test psychic phenomena.

I should say that this is not to suggest that there are no studies showing positive results with homeopathy. Far from it. I'm saying that there could be a lot more if the belief systems of the great preponderance of medical scientists were not so overwhelmingly negative. Click here for a good article by Dana Ullman showing how Wikipedia is incredibly biased and one sided regarding homeopathy. It references a number of positive homeopathic studies. We can go back and look at the experiment regarding the bogus royal rats. We really have no idea what facilities were operating to bring about the results where the so-called royal rats scored consistently higher, overall, than the other rats. For all we know, that could have been a manifestation of psychic energy. The administrators might not have treated the regular rats any rougher than the 'royal' ones. The difference might have solely been in their thought energy.

What's Really Amazing About Randi


Magician and professional debunker, “The Amazing (James) Randi” has an alleged standing offer of one million dollars to anyone who can prove to him, the existence of psychic phenomena. Of course, he is the sole judge, so don't hold your breath waiting for him to award the prize. Even if someone did something incredible that he couldn't come up with a mundane explanation for, he would simply assume the person had a great magic act, and as such, he would not give her the money, but he would applaud her tricks.

However, a number of prolific psychics have interviewed with Randi, to do a preliminary test, that, if they passed, would allow them to go on to a more stringent and formal examination – the results of which would determine if they would get the million dollars. They have reported not having access to their usual abilities in the presence of Randi. In fact, nobody, the last I heard, has made it to actual million dollar test.

Naturally, Randi and all debunkers, take that to indicate that they simply do not have abilities, because psychic abilities do not exist. What I believe is happening is Randi's belief system is so intense, that he is able to interfere with their abilities, basically by using his own psychic powers that he is in denial of. My contention is that we all have those powers, some more than others. It's a perfect example of creating your reality with your beliefs.

Shirley MacLaine's Psychic Surgery

Shirley MacLaine knows a real psychic surgeon. That sentence would cause Randi to bristle, or laugh (or both, simultaneously.) Randi has exposed fake psychic surgeons.

If you're not familiar with the term, there are people who purport to open up the abdominal area of their patients, using only their hands. They reach into the person and pull out matter that they say is toxic and interfering with their health. There are plenty of fraudulent psychic surgeons, just as there are plenty of fraudulent psychics in general.

Randi is great at exposing frauds. He does a real service and it's fun to watch. However, he extrapolates the fact that there are frauds, to mean that every psychic surgeon is a fraud, which makes no more sense than believing doctors don't exist just because some people have been busted pretending to be doctors. (Although, I will grant you, the ratio of fakes to real McCoys is heavily weighted in favor of the fakes, to put it mildly.)

Shirley MacLaine (not pictured above, although she underwent that procedure from the same man) has written many fascinating books. In one of her later ones, Going Within she tells how this psychic surgeon is able to open up people's abdomens, in such a way anybody looking can clearly see it's not sleight of hand. You can see the video this screen capture was taken from here.32) (By the way, he is just one of three men she has first hand experience in the book, with diverse, but equally stunning metaphysical gifts, who have been vetted in multiple University studies. I cover all three in another Devtome article dealing with Randi and psychic phenomena.)33)

She had set up a demonstration for quite a few people to witness him do it to her. Before they got started, he took her aside and said that somebody is so skeptical that it would not be good for them to go ahead with the event. So she asked if anybody in the group was really feeling a lot of negative emotion due to their disbelief. There were two people. She asked if they would like to leave, and they both did.

The procedure went ahead, and the people there were stunned and shocked at what they witnessed. I tend to think that he might not have actually been able to do his work if the person whose emotions he was been feeling had chosen to stay.

Why Waste Our Time Arguing?

I would venture to say that the skeptics who left the room and did not witnesses the psychic surgery done to Ms. MacLaine could probably spend hours arguing why things like that can't happen and anyone who believes it is a fool. I have spent so much of my life butting heads with people who just don't want to learn, it makes no sense to waste my time on them.

One of the lessons I'm working on is knowing the importance of finding kindred spirits and like minded people to work, play and have fellowship, as well as to create and work on goals with. If I seem unable to totally cut out the time spent arguing with those who are not like minded, then I at least can cut down on it, drastically.

The interesting thing is that, I have some areas of like mindedness with people who don't share most of my beliefs. Also, I sometimes have areas of total reality breaks with people with whom I share most of my paradigm. If the same is true for you, in those instances, it's a great opportunity to relate to those with whom you are usually not on the page. Find ways to work with them toward your common desires. It's really special when that happens. (And conversely, appreciate the fact that you have some disagreements with those with whom you are usually like minded. It's great to not feel like you always have to agree with those you are close to.)

Forbidden Science

There are a number of fields of science that are considered forbidden. Scientists who study them are censured . There is tremendous pressure to not rock the boat, and to support the status quo of what is supposed considered the truth. In actuality, every field of science is forbidden when the status quo is not supported, but there are some fields where an active minority number of scientists published reports that go against the norm, and they almost always pay a steep price in terms of losing funding or being blacklisted from future funding. There is also a lot of name calling, taunting and ostracization. (No, that stuff doesn't end in high school.)

The official perspective is that, of course, anyone with scientific credentials who publishes reports postulating a flat earth hypothesis is going to be the subject of never ending ridicule. The problem with that is the fact that none of these maverick scientists are publishing reports about the flat earth theory, but instead they are reporting on the collection of real evidence that sheds new light on current universal scientific beliefs, that deserve to be seriously considered. However, instead of serious consideration, these brave,34) open minded scientists are penalized.

Darwinian Blasphemy

The theory of Darwinism has become accepted as fact despite the little problem that it is indeed a theory. Unlike the molecular theory which has been established as fact but still goes by the theory moniker, Darwinism is considered to be carved in granite, in spite of its actual theory status.

Some of the greatest persecution in the forbidden science phenomenon has gone out to professors who teach the theory of intelligent design in their classes. They also teach the theory of Darwinism as well. The Darwinists go crazy over this. A number of professors have lost their jobs.

Intelligent design, contrary to the fears of your average Darwinist, does not teach that the earth is only several thousand years old. It doesn't teach anything regarding anyone named Eve or Adam. It basically states that something we can't see, intelligently designed our world. Somehow, that is completely objectionable those who worship at the feet of Mr. Darwin.

Ben Stein made a great documentary about the backlash that you can expect to get if you dare bring up the concept of intelligent design in the world of academia. It's called, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.35)

The Fossil Records

It's ironic that Darwinists are constantly citing the fossil records, because the fossil records do not show species transmuting into other species. They do show species evolving within parameters of the species, but the proof of species jumping is just not there. Darwin presumed it would, in time, be discovered, but so far that isn't the case.

Part of me thinks if Darwin were alive, he'd reformulate his theory to fit the lack of evidence. It would be amusing to watch all his followers tear him a new one. Much of what is considered Darwinism has come into being in the years since his left earth, this time around.

Interestingly, there is a lot of the evidence found in the mid to late 19th century, which, at that time, was not rejected by the Darwinists, but has since been memory holed. Darwin, himself, had not put a time frame on when modern man evolved, and when some of this evidence first saw the light of day, it was not incompatible with the Darwinists. However, since that time, after some infighting, they more or less agreed that modern humans evolved 100,000 years ago. Once that was agreed upon, then the evidence of the antiquity of man has, ever since, needed to be quashed, if the paradigm is to remain protected.

Unfortunately for them, there is too much evidence pointing to the antiquity of modern humans for people with open minds to be able to forever remain in the dark. Fortunately for them, though, though don't have open minds

Forbidden Archeology

One of the main forbidden sciences is archeology. There have been numerous archeological findings that show anomalous evidence that is decidedly contrary to accepted historical perspective. They are always summarily repressed, at best. At worst, the archeologists who publish them suffer various levels of professional persecution.

All around the world there have been findings of the remains of human beings with anatomically modern bodies that, by far, predate the time frame that Darwinists have stated modern man had evolved. There are also tools and artifacts that only an intelligent species could have made, also date millions of years ago.

The evidence indicates that modern humans existed along side the apes that Darwinist believe human evolved from. When Darwinists are confronted with the evidence, you can probably imagine how they react.

One of the go to reactions is that it all a bunch of hoaxes. Of course, they won't consider the possibility that any of the evidence they say that supports Darwinism is a hoax, except for some things like the Piltdown man which was shown to be a hoax, but they'd rather not think about that.

They also like to claim that the anomalous evidence is simply wrong. After all, it goes against what they have agreed to that is real, therefore it must be false.

One of the great books on this topic is called, Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race. It's written by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson. It is highly recommended to take advantage of the free chapter (the introduction), here.

They Must Be Giants

In the event that you have yet to realize that the world is run by a global shadow government, here is your first clue. In various regions around the world, there have been discoveries of the remains of giant humanoids. What often happens in these instances is the military of the nation when the giants are discovered, come upon the scene and rope everything off. Everyone is ordered to leave, and then the evidence gets memory holed.

Fortunately, they haven't been able to quash everything. Go here to meet up with the giants.

Warning: If you have a modicum of an open mind, and then you go on to read the book or a lot of this evidence online, you are likely going to no longer be married to Mr. Darwin. I hope you can part ways amicably.

Science | Health | Medicine | Education

1) Of course, you would simply say, what you know to be true, as opposed to what you think you know, because thinking or believing you know something leaves wiggle room for being wrong, and you and/or your parents paid way too much money for that.
2) Does that way I put that make you think I don't believe humans are more sentient that rats? I certainly assume we are, but then again, I've never walked a mile in a rat's moccasins. I wouldn't even know how to go about borrowing a pair. As to which species is more intelligent, let's put it this way. Nuclear bombs were made by humans, not rats. You can draw your own conclusions. Heh.
3) Egghead is NOT a pejorative. It's a term of endearment my genius friends call each other. I would love to qualify as an egghead, as long as I could retain my independent perspective and thinking skills, that is.
20) Or, however you want to put it. Eg: …on why I thought I knew what I knew, or why I believed what I did, or why I felt what I felt, etc.
21) B. Starfield, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?,” Journal of the American Medical Association 284, no. 4 (2000): 483–85.
29) The Institute of Noetic Sciences does some incredible research. Some members in Australia did a study to test the hundredth monkey effect on humans. If you read skeptic blogs and forums, you will see the oft repeated phrase that the Hundredth Monkey phenomenon has been debunked. That just means that they don't believe it and have tried to make it go away. It's reminiscent of the so called science minded people who are still believing that the Apollo flights actually went to the moon – (Humans were probably on the moon before Apollo with top secret technology, but there is no way those flying garbage cans brought 3 people to the moon and back, even once, let alone, several times. But that's a conversation for another discussion. If you want to tackle that now, you only need to go here. Be sure to click NEXT when you get to the bottom, because that is just the first of 14 installments. It's not only enlightening, but it's one of the funniest things you will ever read in your life. The author, by the way, David McGowan, doesn't agree with me that we've ever been to the moon (at least, not the last time we communicated on the topic quite a few years ago. I told him I knew he was an atheist, which he found interesting, since he didn't think he had written anything that one could tell his stance on that, but he confirmed it. So there are a number of things he and I share divergent opinions, but the moon hoax certainly is not among them.) The Apollo moon believers like to say that every single piece of evidence that the Apollo skeptics have ever presented have been debunked over and over. Wrong. Apollo believers have presented counter arguments, but they haven't debunked them. Some things that some skeptics have said have been wrong, and so sure, those have been debunked, but the majority of the information, and the idea in general, has not been debunked, no matter how many times the true believers say it has. But I digress. The Hundredth Monkey effect deals with monkeys on islands off the coast of Japan. Researchers noticed one monkey had the habit of washing his food in the ocean before eating. They noticed that when he ate with other monkeys, they would see him doing it and they would sometimes take up the habit too. The monkeys on other islands did not do this, nor did monkeys on the mainland of Japan. At some point, most of the monkeys on that one island were doing it, and then researchers on the mainland reported that suddenly, a lot of the monkeys there were rinsing their food off, spontaneously. So now, cut to the experiment that started in Australia. There was an intricate picture that had about 100 hidden faces embedded within the artwork. When people were asked to to find the hidden faces, almost everyone could only find a few, at the most. The researchers were trying to see if the Hundredth Monkey effect might happen with people. So, after establishing the fact that people in Australia could only see a few of the hidden faces in the picture, they went to England and starting showing people the picture. The results were the same. However, in England, they took it a step further. They revealed all the hidden faces to a lot of people. Then, at some point, they discovered that people were starting to be able to find more faces, without being shown. Not only was this happening in England, but it was happening in Australia. The concept is related to Carl Jung's idea of a collective unconscious. When information gets added to this shared pool of unconscious data, after a certain point, it becomes accessible to others, beneath this conscious awareness. It has been posited that newspaper crossword puzzles become easier to do after they have been published for at least a day. As more people fill in them in, the data, evidently becomes accessible to others more easily. Testing has shown a 5 percent increase on the ability of people to complete crossword puzzles that are at least a day old.
30) I imagine, most homeopathic doctors might say they don't believe that the placebo effect is enhanced with homeopathic remedies, compared to drugs. They would say that the remedies get such great results simply because that is how effective vibrational science is. I'm certainly open to that, but I think it may be possible that it's affected by belief more than drugs. I'm not married to it, but I put it out there in pursuit of finding the Furthermore, it's a good argument to posit, because when you start to show specific examples where people being treated with homeopathy having far better results than traditional medicine, then there are two possibilities. One is that it's not related to placebo so much as it just shows the efficacy of it. The other, though, is that it interacts with the placebo effect, making it that much more powerful. Either way, it bodes well for homeopathy. What is required to serve up these two choices is publicizing the instances where the homeopathic healing is quick and/or profound. Let the skeptics says it simply shows the powerful ability of the mind. Then respond by saying that it's fascinating how common it is for these extraordinary placebo healings to take place among people who use this discipline.
31) What is up with that, anyway? Amazing healings are taking place and these stuffed shirted scientists are trying to stop people from ever experiencing it again. I wouldn't be surprised if, when these guys were kids, they were the ones who raised their hand right before the bell rang to remind the teacher she forget to assign homework.
34) OK, they might not be showing bravery in the same way a ground troop going into battle, or a police first responder going into an active school shooting scene (i.e., presuming it's a real shooting and not a made for TV hoax), but it wouldn't surprise me if these maverick scientists have the same stuff as those warriors and cops. They are brave because they are risking their careers, livelihood and credibility in pursuit of trying to discover truth. They are brave in terms of being willing to go it totally alone, if need be, and face the derision of their peers, as well as the piling-on scientific minded members of the public.

QR Code
QR Code scientific_bias (generated for current page)

Advertise with Anonymous Ads