Healing is an Art


Let me begin with removing some misconceptions about healing. Healing is not a science, but an Art. Of all things Art is the governor, for it is through Art that Government works. Of all Arts, the Art of Healing is the uncrowned Emperor. Poetry may be its Minister and Painting its Culture, Theatre its Jester and Science its Priest, but above all the Art of Healing, Divine in principle and practice, is without doubt the Emperor.
We are not of the general opinion that modern science as a whole and medical science in particular, is an undivided boon to mankind. To achieve that undivided beneficial quality in medical science demands a different approach from the present. For the learned fraternity of doctors uses the principles of the art of war to achieve their goal. You would not think of applying the principles of healing, painting or poetry in warfare though. What use would syringes and band-Aids, paintbrushes or quatrains be against machineguns, hand-grenades and bombs?
Similarly, the principles of war are useless in medicine. Bombarding a diseased body with heavy drugs is the wrong way around. If they want it to be a science, then this is unscientific. Bombs always have the opposite effects of what we truly want.

“The danger of bombs is in the explosion of stupidity they provoke.” (Octave Mirabeau)

Masters & Fools

William Blake said:

“After having been a fool, a student is to amass a stock of ideas and knowing himself to be fool he is to assume the right to put other men’s ideas into his foolery. Instead of following a few great masters, he is to follow a great many fools.”

In homoeopathy, we follow some great masters – Hahnemann and Hering, Von Boenninghausen, Kent, Clarke and Burnett, to name a few. We call them masters, because their findings and the attached doctrines, uses and their results are beneficial to our health, both mental and physical.
They heal with the smallest of possible doses radically each and every disease, without the use of the knife or fire and perform the physician’s high and only mission – to cure the sick.
William Blake made some more astute remarks about masters and fools.
onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ppu6H2d4XLQ/R8a_JxKdiRI/AAAAAAAAAAw/L0Ym_klbTyg/s1600-h/hahnem02.jpg">
onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ppu6H2d4XLQ/R8a_VBKdiSI/AAAAAAAAAA4/idL2o51jLRQ/s1600-h/boenninghausen-kent-hering.jpg">

Hahnemann S. Von Boenninghausen C. Kent J.T. Hering C.

“Servile copying is the great merit of copying. Mechanical excellence is the only vehicle of genius. Execution of this copying is the chariot of genius. Copying correctly is the only school to the language of Art. Copy the few great masters and stop following a great many fools.”

That is the message. Whether the art is painting, theatre or healing, we have to follow and copy diligently the great masters and not follow any fools. Following in their footsteps in applying the rules of the art, mastery is the well-deserved and tasty fruit.

The orthodox of the Church of Medicine follow quite a few such fools, like Avogadro, Mendel and Darwin, Jenner and Pasteur or Roentgen and Curie. These they call their masters. We are admonished to use our intelligence; the capacity to discriminate between the beneficial and the detrimental, both materially and spiritually. Therefore, we call them fools, because their findings and the attached doctrines and uses as well as their results are detrimental to our development and our health, both mental and physical. How is one to develop spiritually, when the vehicle we have been given is damaged by some foolish measures under the guise of science?

For one would not unduly and undividedly praise their inventions as beneficial – Jenner’s ideas of vaccination causes untold damage, as explained by Professor Coulter PhD and by many others in their books on the subject. We add our own insight and findings to these valuable books, which expose the measure as both faulty and dangerous. The manuscript you now hold is dealing with nothing but this abominable and aberrational practise.

Roentgen and Curie discovered radiology and radioactivity. Radiology we all know causes cancer and modern so-called ‘nuclear medicine’ uses radioactive dyes and scanning machines that give you the equivalent of 10 X-rays per year over 60 years in one go! That is a massive 600 times the normal X-ray radiological dose.

Pasteur’s Gospel is also but a shot in the dark, as we shall see in the second Chapter. It leaves everything to be wished for and has generated resistance problems with diseases that are rapidly becoming insurmountable.

Mendel’s and Darwin’s work gave us the Nazi race laws and the drive for genetic knowledge to make the super race. This notwithstanding the fact that stupidity and ignorance survive, simply by their sheer numbers. Fools generally do not consider the negative uses their inventions and discoveries can be put to.

Poor Avogadro could not comprehend anything beyond the molecular level and his ‘limit’ does not take into account nanophase products and potencies, as we shall explain in the final Chapter. Hence it fails to be a limit, except in a limited, molecular sense. As such it has functioned as a wall, beyond which we thought we could not go and is therefore restrictive to creativity in concepts and their execution.
The Enemies of Progress
As Bhaktivinoda Thakur, an Indian sage of the 19th Century wrote:

‘We love to read a book which we never read before. We are anxious to gather whatever information is contained in it and with such acquirement our curiosity stops. This mode of study prevails amongst a great number of readers, who are great men in their own estimation as well as in the estimation of those who are of their own stamp. In fact, most readers are mere repositories of facts and statements made by other people. But this is not study. The student is to read the facts with a view to create and not with the object of fruitless retention. Students, like satellites, should reflect whatever light they receive from authors and teachers and not imprison the facts and thoughts just as the Magistrates imprison the convicts in the jail!.’
(Thakur Bhaktivinode. The Bhagavat)

Study is therefore more than the retention of facts. Facts alone will not satisfy the true student, as he cannot do anything with them but make lists and classify, divide, count and enumerate. Such is the occupation of bookkeepers.
If the goal is to cram as many facts into the head as possible, then study is as good as useless. Medical study means not that we shall become mere repositories of facts and figures read from a diagnostics machine, as that does not constitute either study or knowledge or science. For we will find that at some point in life these kinds of facts alone will not help us. The facts are really there to teach us connections between things and to use that knowledge for the betterment of the patient. The masters have shown us what to do with the facts and we shall slavishly copy them.

‘Begin anew!’ cry both the useless student and the shallow critic and discard all they have ‘learned’ to go back where they started. Each will find he has to again cover the ground he already covered and try to catch up with where he was.”
(Thakur Bhaktivinode. The Bhagavat)

This attitude hinders the understanding of important things and essential knowledge about disease and its cause is discarded because of it.

“There is also the shallow critic, who takes into account what suits his shallow investigation, often designed to deride different paradigms from his own. This is the very thing he deems he is supposed to do. Both the useless student and the shallow critic are the enemies of progress.”
(Thakur Bhaktivinode. The Bhagavat)

‘Progress means elimination and new acceptance,’ our Guru said, while we firmly hold on to the laws and principles. These laws and principles the useless student and the shallow critic will denounce with all their might and will attempt to replace them by their theories. From this attitude come sterile experiments and uneventful results.

‘These are shallow expressions. Progress certainly is the law of nature and there must be corrections and developments with the progress of time. But progress means going further or rising higher. Now, if we are to follow our foolish critic, we are to go back to our former terminus and make a new race, and when we have run half the race another critic of his stamp will cry out: "Begin anew, because the wrong road has been taken!" In this way our stupid critics will never allow us to go over the whole road and see what is in the other terminus. Thus the shallow critic and the fruitless reader are the two greatest enemies of progress. We must shun them.

‘The true critic, on the other hand, advises us to preserve what we have already obtained, and to adjust our race from that point where we have arrived in the heat of our progress. He will never advise us to go back to the point whence we started, as he fully knows that in that case there will be a fruitless loss of our valuable time and labour. He will direct the adjustment of the angle of the race at the point where we are. This is also the characteristic of the useful student. He will read an old author and will find out his exact position in the progress of thought. He will never propose to burn the book on the ground that it contains thoughts which are useless. No thought is useless. Thoughts are means by which we attain our objects. The reader who denounces a bad thought, does not know that a bad road is even capable of improvement and conversion into a good one. One thought is a road leading to another. Thus the reader will find that one thought which is the object today will be the means of a further object tomorrow. Thoughts will necessarily continue to be an endless series of means and objects in the progress of humanity. The great reformers will always assert that they have come out not to destroy the old law but to fulfil it.’
(Thakur Bhaktivinode. The Bhagavat)

However, medical science today has come at a point where what was valid law yesterday will be rejected today, because of some theory, subsequently to be thrown out tomorrow by another theory.
Therefore, they have to start the race each time anew, getting further and further behind where they already were. In homoeopathy we see this trend also develop and we do well to pay attention, for the last time this happened, homoeopathy was virtually destroyed in the USA. Mind you, all the so-called new trends in homoeopathy such as drainage and organ therapy, were first tried out by Hahnemann before he discovered the Law of Similars and he summarily rejected them as not good enough. We expect our colleagues to study before they make assumptions and to not succumb a second time.

‘Thought is progressive. The author's thought must have progress in the reader in the shape of correction or development. He is the best critic, who can show the further development of an old thought; but a mere denouncer is the enemy of progress and consequently of Nature. The student must hence be creative in his study, if he is to understand. And the critic therefore should have a comprehensive, good, generous, candid, impartial and a sympathetic soul.’
(Thakur Bhaktivinode. The Bhagavat)

Enthusiastic admiration of the previous masters is the first principle of knowledge and its last. The medical scientist who, on examining his own mind finds nothing of inspiration for pure and simple healing, ought not to dare to call himself, let alone attempt to be, a healer. He is a fool and a cunning knave, suited only to the purposes of evil exploitation.
This exploitation of the suffering of the patients is the result of a few events in the history of modern medicine, which find their origins in fragmentary, materialist-reductionist thinking, which we inherited from the medieval times, when Pythagoras and Plato were introduced again to Western minds.
Pythagoras was a doubter, who wanted to discover whether what he had learned from Egypt, Babylonia and India was really true and could be proven materially. As if his teachers wanted to cheat him! Such investigations lead to fragmentary thinking, since for each fact of learning, something must be invented to prove it.

Similarly in Medicine, where Hippocrates and Galenius wielded the sceptre, fragmentary, contrary thinking was the order of the day, although the Arab physicians healed by similars. Later this also changed to the teachings of Galenius and it was the Arab physicians who taught their European counterparts during the Crusades and the Renaissance.

Fragmentary thinking became therefore the order of the day and gradually reductionist-materialist thinking replaced the wholeness and implicate order of the previous ages. This trend has continued and led to such fragmentary views that when Pasteur presented his aberrational germ-theory, they were all too ready to finally have a material cause for disease, as we shall see in Chapter 1.
In the intervening years, much has changed in medicine, making it increasingly fragmentary and reductionistic-materialistic in outlook, but the biggest change came after World War II.

The Emperor’s New Clothes

After WWII, some changes took place in medicine that are extremely detrimental to your health. The first was the incorporation of the camp-doctors within the mainstream. The Allies took as many as they could find, including laboratory personnel, because they knew the procedures. We all know they took the rocket scientists and think that was it. But doctors and chemists and other life scientists were considered as important, for they had a lot to teach.
onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ppu6H2d4XLQ/R8bB1xKdiUI/AAAAAAAAABI/Ae72VlJkL4Y/s1600-h/15972196.jpg">
Next was the incorporation of those teachings within mainstream research. From the present-day progression, we can all see that Medical Fascism is gaining ground, with mandatory vaccination, mandatory medicinal intake by schoolchildren and mandatory testing at pregnancy or at least the push for such legislation by all too compliant and even willing Governments.
They would like it so that everything not forbidden is compulsory or if not, to be made so on the shortest possible notice and anything not compulsory is forbidden or if not, to also be made so on the shortest possible notice. This of course includes any alternative to their form of quasi-scientific quackery.
There was however a problem
How did they integrate a despicable form of research and treatment resulting from it, without incurring the wrath of the entire world? They instigated an enormous PR campaign in which the childhood diseases were painted in the darkest colours, from the few deaths that occurred from them among the poor and underfed.
They then began with mass vaccination and presented it as a benevolent procedure. The resulting diseases caused by side effects they must of course research to ‘understand’ them. It also gave them a tool of fear to demand compulsion. From the history of vaccination they already knew it was a superfluous procedure with its own accompanying dangers. The simultaneous increase in hygiene, better housing and food that were the real cause of reductions in diseases was kept out of the public eye and the vaccinations were claimed to have done the trick.
An increase in vaccines is the next step to make the population sick and instigate more research. These vaccines create ‘a-typical’ forms of the disease which are deadly and on that basis they demanded compulsory vaccination, which succeeded in the US, some States in Canada and Australia, but not in Europe.
When Watson and Crick announced the helical structure of DNA in 1956, medical science had prodded the biologists to further investigate the genes – more fragmentation – so they could exploit the results and piggy-back their own genetic research onto it. Mind you, this was only 10 years after WW II, which should give us pause to think. Gradually, they introduced the idea of genetic causes of disease and more research was directed towards it.
This increased the power of the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industrial Empire a great deal and fed its ambitions to megalomaniacal proportions and so it was that it became the Emperor of Sciences, rather than simply remaining the Emperor of Arts. Lobbying the Governments further strengthened their position and the Emperor grew in power, demanding compulsion for vaccination – if not possible for babies, then for the military at least, ‘to protect them against biological weapons’.
The Governments realised that universal healthcare could be achieved with the help of the industry and the socialism that took a hold of Europe and elsewhere began to implement it. This meant giving more power to the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industrial Empire, which suited them very well. With legislation backing them, they could finally install their Emperor upon the throne.
Next, they lobbied to make certain other types of treatment compulsory, which failed on a general level, but was successful at the local level in many places. Now they had another weapon in their fight for control of health, reproduction and sanity. For meanwhile they had also developed the pill, to control the population numbers. They moreover increased the number of ‘psychiatric illnesses’, which puts schoolchildren on six different drugs every day, to ‘control their behaviour’. The fact that 60% of Americans are on some form of psycho-active drugs, is telling in this respect. Any other form of medicine is labeled quackery and prosecuted, harassed and robbed of its tools, by declaring them carcinogenic or some such excuse. That is how much their Emperor has gained in power.
src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ppu6H2d4XLQ/R8bB1xKdiUI/AAAAAAAAABI/Ae72VlJkL4Y/s320/15972196.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5172034351556036930" />
onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ppu6H2d4XLQ/R8bBhhKdiTI/AAAAAAAAABA/yPbhjib5gA0/s1600-h/15973106.jpg">They present their Emperor to us as a more and more dictatorial figure, whose desires in the war on disease must be followed without so much as demurring. Dressed up in the tyranny of conformation, he demands you must submit to everyone of his procedures. From the day you were born, some form of the Emperor’s directives have been forced upon you, no matter how loud you protested. The Emperor demands that we shall be subjected to mandatory suffering.
While you will not be tortured in the literal sense of being imprisoned and subjected to thumbscrews, waterboarding and such like, the substances they subject you to can at least be classed in the same category. Most of the time it does not even leave a mark, except with pox, measles, whooping-cough and possibly polio, which may drop you dead, give you personality and brain-damage or leave you a paralysed, drooling wreck.

They say this is based on scientific evidence. However, evidence is supposed to remove all doubt. The evidence in the ‘evidence-based medicine’ presented by the orthodox brethren produces different results from their suppositions. It does not remove doubt, but reinforces it. While they have impressive arrays of machinery to show us their ‘evidence’, the conclusions derived from it are far from rational and highly doubtful by themselves, as we shall discover.
Their treatment is suppressive, forcing the disease to seek ever newer outlets, primarily because its former outlet is removed by surgery. By pushing the disease further inside, they conveniently hide its symptoms for some time, after which it will break out anew and be taken to be a different disease. They force upon the patient all kinds of haphazard measures, which he swallows, hook, line and sinker. They experiment a little here and add some guesswork there and simply wait and see and hope for the best. The boringly drab conventional cloakery in which they dress up their vague explanations fails to impress.

As William Blake said:

“The Prince's Robes & Beggars' Rags
Are Toadstools on the Miser's Bags.”

What else but miserly is modern medicine, with its attention to machines and its complete and utter disregard for the patient, the real sufferer?

Such types of clothes cannot even be designated as rags, let alone represent the Imperial robes, with all their splendour, beauty and glory. For their Emperor has no sable mantles, no pashmina shawls, no hermelin robes, no gold-embroidered silken shirts, no velvet trousers, no fine wool or cotton socks and no beautifully crafted shoes with gold-and-diamond clasps. He does not even wear an Imperial ring! Their Emperor wears consequently no clothes at all, but as in the fable, nobody dares to say anything.
We shall assume the mantle of the child and loudly proclaim that their Emperor is naked!

The Art of Healing

The Art of Healing finds its origins in charity and therefore cannot work but by empathy and sympathy. Since the law of homoeopathy is found in the oldest religious texts of the world and because it works along the same principles of empathy and sympathy, it can be easily inferred that it is the True Divine Art of Healing. Healing then, as in to make whole and Holy, cannot come out of speculation and self-reliance – it has to follow scientific principles, just like its material counterpart. It is not that anything you try should give it to you – no imaginative process will help, whether you call them ‘affirmations’ or ‘meditations’ or in a more down to earth manner call them ‘blood values’ and ‘antibody counts’ – you better be honest enough to admit that it is imagination either way.
Just as in any other art you first must learn the materials and the technique, so it is with the Art of Healing. It cannot be learned at university and no pope, emperor or king can confer this art or its qualifications upon the seeker. Just as there is but one Rembrandt and one Picasso and one Dali, so there are but few real Healers. And just as in the other arts, there are the assorted wannabees, the hangers-on and the charlatans. The Art comes through apprentice-ship and practise, practise and more practise, in following in the footsteps of the great masters – just consider the massive oeuvre Rembrandt left and his copying of previous masters, till he found his own. It comes from diligently treating and studying the sick, according to the rules set out by the masters.
onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ppu6H2d4XLQ/R8bCIxKdiVI/AAAAAAAAABQ/pMQxuUQ6HbY/s1600-h/tn_nectar.jpg">
Healing – to make whole or Holy – involves more than a cure. A cure is more than the removal of mental, emotional and physical symptoms. The doctor – of what-ever medical persuasion – generally only deals with the body, and if he is somewhat more holistic, he deals with the mind and emotions as well.
Treating disease is not only medicine and healing, it is also and foremost spiritual practise, which includes nutrition, body care, right work, proper rest and recreation. Homoeopathy is about holistic health and happiness. Although not giving specific spiritual instructions, it exhorts mankind that the spiritual path is the greatest guarantee for long life and happiness. Any good homoeopath should also be acquainted with the spiritual practises of his patients, so he can assist them in this manner as well. For as we noted above, the Art of Healing finds its origins in Divinity and hence it must be directed there, to have the greatest efficacy.
The Law of Similars is as old as the mountains and was reiterated for the first time in the Bhagavat Purana:

amayā yas ca bhūtanam yayate yena suvrata
tad eva hy āmayām dravyām na punāti cikītsitām

‘Oh good soul, does not a thing when applied therapeutically, cure a disease, which was caused by the very same thing?’
(Veda-Vyasa K.D. Bhagavat Purana 1/5/33)

The Bhagavat Purana is said to be the spotless purana because it does not contain any materialism in it. Hence every statement from that purana is spiritually pure. Therefore, the Healing Art described in it is the purest and most Divine of all.
Now, we reiterate it again, to impress upon the reader that ‘there are more ways to skin the cat’, as the saying goes. It was subsequently reiterated by Hippocrates, Paracelsus and Hahnemann – the first ignored and the latter two both ridiculed and despised for their insight and wisdom – yet modern medicine discards it as antiquated, vitalist, moon-shine medicine. However, we paraphrase Vyasa:

“This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. It is the purest knowledge and because it gives direct perception of the self by realisation, it is the perfection of healing. It is everlasting and joyfully performed.”
(Veda-Vyasa K.D.)

Homoeopathy, as the True Art of Healing, will not assimilate with the system. The mere mention of it is as nearly certainly the cause for a conventional reaction as is a glass of beer to a prohibitionist or an AA member. This reaction will be apparent from both sides, for they are wholly incompatible, having opposite principles and laws.
We quote David Bohm:

“The probability is always open that there may exist an unlimited variety of additional properties, qualities, entities, systems, levels, etc, to which apply correspondingly new kinds of laws of nature.”
(Bohm D. Wholeness and the Implicate Order)

It is of the ideals of science to know one thing from another before expressing an opinion on it. The medical scientists have neglected this and have gone from an assumption – Hiv causes Aids.
Assumptions generally leave one open to criticism, especially when the concepts on origins are hampered by tunnel vision, which is rooted in the 19th Century aberration of Pasteur, as we shall see. As Louis de Broglie once stated:

“It is premature to reduce the vital process to the quite insufficiently developed conceptions of 19th- and even 20th-Century chemistry and physics.”
(De Broglie L. La Chemie Moderne)

The theory must be repeatable by experiment to deserve to be classed as scientific. However, conjecture is the name of the game and there is no scope, nor escape for dissidence. Kent, a nineteenth century homoeopath and contemporary of Pasteur, expressed man’s preoccupation with conjecture as follows:

‘There is a state of insanity in the sciences of the present day. They put all laws aside, in order to accept for instance the germ-theory (or for that matter any theory), because they want something that in its aggregate is large enough to be felt with the fingers.’
(Kent J.T. Lesser Writings)

Since this is so, the throne of the Emperor must remain empty, till the rightful owner comes back to claim it. We cannot assume that modern medicine with its claims to health and happiness which they fail to deliver has the right to occupy any throne – let alone the throne of learning that medicine is.
You can see for yourself – and if not, we shall make you see – that in the century-and-a-half between these words and the present day nothing has changed. If we are unable to make you see the obvious you are either literally or figuratively blind. In the first case you will be forgiven. In the latter case, we suspect you belong in the class of ‘none so blind as those that refuse to see’. We admit that for those, even homeopathy is almost powerless. But only almost, since such refusal is merely a part of the symptoms and thus curable.

Medical Preoccupation

The doctors’ preoccupation with the levels of this that and the other, say for instance the blood, the liver and the kidneys, is nothing but prejudiced towards what they prefer to see. These levels have to be normal, they say. Their sense of the normal is derived from the mythological Mr Average, who is a figment of the imagination.
Do you know that athletes have lower antibody counts than an office clerk? Do you know that when you test for antibodies in the morning, you get great readings, while when testing after a hard day’s work, those readings are so lousy you would suspect Aids? So who and where is Mr Average in such cases? Is it the office clerk or the factory worker, the athlete or the party-goer?
After a party in the weekend everyone’s blood will look like the one with full-blown Aids. That is by itself of course no indication for the presence of Aids. It is merely used by some to justify their notion of direct cause. If you come a day later – after a good night’s sleep and your favourite breakfast – you would not recognise the readings as belonging to the same person.
With blood pressure it is even funnier. Each arm will give a very different and often opposite reading, even when done simultaneously. Ask your doctor, next time he takes the pressure. We have done it hundreds of times to assuage the fears of our patients when they suspected HBP and even bought a pressure meter to check. When shown that each arm was different and sometimes opposite, they stopped worrying and immediately the pressure went down on both arms.
From these examples we see that medical ‘science’ is concerned with details, without having so much interest in entirety, wholeness and completeness. Possessed by fragmentary thinking, they consider single little details to be the only things worth-while investigating. This leads inevitably to specalism, the definition of which is: knowing so much about so little that one knows nothing.
Specialism is the bane of modern medicine, because it leads further and further astray into so few details that the sight of the whole is no longer even considered. The trouble with fragmentary thinking is that it stems from pre-primary school mentality – one wants to find out how things work and thus it is taken apart and each separate part is further scrutinised in an attempt at understanding how it is made and how it works.
Evidently however, to study life, one must not investigate corpses.

Everything that is studied in isolation from its original environment must by definition give us incomplete and distorted knowledge about its nature, behaviour and relationship with its environment. Since this is both the aim and the occupation of our orthodox brethren, we must conclude they are completely ignorant about the human body, its functions and its modus operandi, notwithstanding claims to the contrary.
In the pages following in this not so small epistle, we shall provide abundant evidence of this ignorance and the wrong conclusions attached to such limited and blinkered views. From the presented facts the reader can make an educated decision about the scientific nature of modern medicine.

Nowhere in any industry is anyone allowed to work, unless he knows all the ins and outs of his particular task. A mechanic without papers may be able to work in some shoddy garage, but he will never be allowed to work for a renowned company, except possibly as an apprentice. If he arrives at his work and he declares he does not know how to fix certain things, he will not be retained for long.

A doctor on the other hand, gets his papers notwithstanding the fact that he does not know how to cure half of the diseases – we name but asthma, rheumatism, cancer, Aids and even the common cold. These are declared incurable by that same profession. In our view, if someone says that some things are impossible to do, it is generally due to ignorance on how to do it. If a mechanic says a problem is not fixable, he declares therewith his own incompetence – unless of course the thing is ruined. We see no reason why it should be any different for other professions, including medicine. Evidently, by declaring the common cold incurable, they have declared their own incompetence and ignorance.
When confronted with such cases, they tell the patient to take some aspirin, lemon juice and a stiff drink and go to bed with a hot-water bottle and ‘sick it out’. While it is the most sensible of all their ministrations because of its harmless nature, it does nothing to cure or shorten the common cold. One wonders if it is so common and been known for so long, why they have not been able to come up with a cure? After all, such an old and well-known acquaintance should be easy to conquer; it is but a common cold! Yet they declare they are unable to cure it. It reminds one of someone who wants to work in a garage and does not even know how to fix common tyres.
One shakes the head in astonishment at such callous disregard for the skills necessary to be let loose on diseased people.

Evidently, we have seen fit to include much implicit and explicit critique of the medical profession. This is not without grounds, since whom else but the doctors are responsible for the abuse of medicines we see so often these days? Even their own colleagues saw fit to loudly toll the alarm-bell and with more than good reasons.
According to them it was urgently required to look at medical practices, specifically concerning the abuse of antibiotics and other immuno-suppressors. They demanded this already 30-odd years and even much longer ago. What has changed in the mean time? Nothing at all, except for an increase, for the same and bigger problems face the physician today, in regards to the drugs and their often terrible side effects, with which he is to treat his patients.
As we write elsewhere in these pages, we do not consider doctors to want to deliberately poison their patients or to wish them any harm. We conclude they have lost their identity in the system to which they have to be subordinate, with all its rules and protocols, on which they had no influence at their formulation. Nor have they any influence to change them now. Hence we cannot hold each individual fully responsible.
The organised profession in the form of the World Medical Association and its local affiliates such as the AMA – which was set up and high-jacked by the pharma-boys and banks (Rockefeller Cs) and turned into a political lobbying association instead of a professional body – bear however a great deal of responsibility. It bullies dissidence with its censorious media. It stifles understanding with its limited and biased education. It is contemptuous to the patients with its impersonal, profit-driven conveyor-belt system and the other appendages that belong to it. Its monopolised goals do not befit an industry, which is supposed to work for the people’s benefit. In short, the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industrial Empire has much to answer for.

Vaccine-Induced Disease

Here is an exposition that demands those answers and provides some of its own. We know we have to be careful, because these powerful Pharmaceutical interests do not like their secrets revealed. They like it even less if these facts are also secrets to themselves. They will employ any spin to discredit the notions in these pages. They will certainly call it flawed, most probably declare it unscientific and, because of the comparisons and metaphors used, the work of a charlatan and so on. Moreover, because it contains enough dynamite to destroy their entire game, the deceit employed will only be greater. However;

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
(George Orwell ‘1984’)

We shall not be outraged, but rather we will be outrageous. However, the outrageous is immediately acceptable as the reasonable, if presented balanced and politely. What we propose in these pages has been hinted at by several researchers, but never been worked through. We shall deeply ponder these questions from the Vedic perspective, which is capable of giving us the insight, needed to understand this phenomenon.
We also have seen fit to be repetitious at times in regards to this proposition. We follow the adage that the pupil will only learn the lesson when it is repeated often enough. As the I Ching says:

‘To make a fool develop, it furthers one to apply discipline. The fetters should be removed. To go on in this way brings humiliation.’
(Wilhelm R. Baynes C.F. I Ching)

The discipline is in the repetition, without making it a drill. The fetters that must be removed in a fool are his ignorance. For if this ignorance remains, humiliation is the result. In the commentary, Wilhelm notes:

‘Given in addition a perseverance that never slackens until the points are mastered one by one, real success is sure to follow.’
(Wilhelm R. Baynes C.F. I Ching)

While not adhering to any of the current theories, since we consider them all in a greater or lesser degree flawed, we shall see that some researchers have investigated at least some of the effects of antibiotics on our health. Their findings have been incorporated in the thesis set forth in these pages, because they only strengthen it – they form the additional data obtained from the field and the experience of those engaged in their research.
Additionally, we have included the side effects of these drugs from the diverse pharmacopoeias. These effects form the preliminary conditions to further immuno-suppression by massive accumulation over many years in large quantities. The combined effects of large quantities and accumulation are the true cause and symptom picture of Aids.
A pharmacopoeia gives the definition and description of a drug, its source, indications and use, in rather vague terms of syndromes and disuse patterns. To them, it is something that can be described as follows: ‘A drug is something that, when given to a guinea-pig, will produce a scientific paper.’

It is conceivable, but not likely that the exposition given here may result in the inclusion in the protocol accompanying antibiotics. It is simply not likely, since we have no position in the hierarchy, nor do we have impressive titles or a series of letters before or after the name, both apparently needed to have a theory listened to, let alone be accepted.
As Dr. Colin Lessell stated:

‘Even the most lax of scientific observations and the most avant-garde propositions will be regarded as at least ‘interesting’, if the position of the presenter is sufficiently high within the hierarchy of the medical profession. Moreover, his behaviour should be appropriate to the requirements or he should have friends in high places. Otherwise, his work is poor, preposterous or even fraudulent.’
(Lessell C.B. The Infinitesimal Dose)

Professor Coulter, although answering to all the ‘right’ criteria, is the prime example of this attitude and my own humble position reflects it undiminished and most likely to a much greater degree:

‘In the event of him being not a member of the medical Orthodoxy he is a heretic, unworthy of attention and thus he is plainly ignored. They will not even apply the word charlatan.’
(Lessell C.B. The Infinitesimal Dose)

From the results produced by their owners, these titles can be classified as certificates of incompetence or simply wallpaper, as we shall see from the following exposition. Nonetheless, extensive experience, coupled to correct observation and inclusion of all data and parameters while following the scientific method to the letter, may count by themselves for more than impressive titles. After all, it is by results that everything must be judged, in the last analysis.

Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no, Except….

However, we expect it to be met with the customary silence and dissent by the orthodox and unimaginative doctors, who will condemn it for its originality. That is, if they pay any attention at all; it coming not from their own ranks, but from someone considered to be ‘on the fringe’. For that reason alone, it will not likely be considered worthy of any attention. Hence to suppose that this exposition shall be met with general, let alone universal agreement, is simply wishful thinking. However, as Blaise Pascal noted:

'With something being contradicted, it is not proven that it is untrue, just as the contradiction not being debated proves that very something to be true.'
(B. Pascal. Thoughts)

If they do pay attention, it will be to vehemently oppose the very idea and to actively dissuade everyone from believing a single word of it. However, Constant Hering, whom we met above, used to say:

“One should not accept anything to be either true or untrue, until it is studied completely, and that also entirely on its own merits.”
(Hering C. On Homoeopathy)

He wrote this after having been asked to defeat Hahnemann’s homoeopathy and insisting he study the books to enable better refutation. He then proceeded to write a glorifying piece, for he studied it entirely on its own merits.
Similarly, we shall study the existing material about Aids ‘completely and that also entirely on its own merits’ or those it claims to have.
Therefore, we consider it not only worthwhile or interesting, but also highly necessary to also enlighten the public about these findings.
Since some researchers have also investigated the abuse of antibiotics, the proposition made here will certainly find some adherents who have done their home-work. There are no real excuses for the inability to see this disease for what it really is. While ingrained habits and wrong doctrines may hold sway for the moment, we may consider the intellectual challenge of thinking outside the common parameters to occur, albeit subjected to self-censorship. It is a question of hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil, otherwise there are repercussions.

After all, if one steps out of line, he does so taking several great risks. His grant money may dry up; he may be shunned by colleagues; his avenues of publication are closed off; he will be ridiculed, vilified, excommunicated, his character will be assassinated and what have you, if he does not recant. He must be of sufficient stature to avoid or withstand such assaults on his integrity. He must also be able to refute them again and again, with sound arguments from the records available to him and also derived from their own discipline. For they hear no evil, see no evil and then think that two out of three is pretty good, when they utter unspeakable evil about the dissidents.

We are consistent with the establishment’s own written records, as we consider them much more reliable than the biased opinions of some of the present crop of orthodox doctors and internists, which are at enormous variance with these records and each other and who dismiss even these records out of hand.

They have never considered the implications.
They have never even considered the possibility.
They have never studied the medical records of the victims of vaccinosis and if they did, they denied the obvious correlations.
They have simply declared the epidemic disease the culprit, to wash their hands in innocence.

Each attempt at speaking the truth will be ignored, because to even listen is already seen as an admittance of possible failure.
An admittance of possible wrongdoing.
An admittance of unscientific procedures.
What you do not study will remain what you are in ignorance of.
When ignorant of both records and side effects, such ignorance becomes neglect. Neglect cannot be admitted, for such amounts to self-indictment. We cannot expect them to indict themselves for crimes committed by themselves. One is innocent till proven guilty and when the proof is denied as such for long enough, they might get away with it too. If we have anything to say in the matter, this will not happen so easily.
Customary silence is therefore the preferred option – it saves them answering difficult questions, because they can claim ignorance. Whether such silence will help them very much remains to be seen. It requires only one reporter who asks too many difficult questions too often and preferably when he is exposed to television Media. An inability to answer simple questions based on enduring ignorance with the facts that deal with those questions, leaves the scientist open to accusations of bias and prejudice. Not that such bothers them very much, witness the way they deal with – or rather not deal with – dissidence. To the orthodox, silence is golden.

Those Who Speak Up

Those who are satisfied with silver tongues do not have the scruples their gold-

"At the present time there are growing public and professional concerns about the safety of currently mandated childhood vaccine programs, as reflected in by a series of annual Congressional hearings in Washington DC that have taken place since 1999, sponsored by the U.S. House Government Reform Committee under the chairmanship of Congressman Dan Burton. At an annual conference of the American College for the Advancement of Medicine during April 2001, with several hundred physicians in attendance, when one of the speakers asked how many in attendance had concerns about the safety of current childhood vaccines, a large majority raised their hands. The Autism Research Institute of San Diego is now widely known as an active support group for families with autistic children and is one of the more active organizations in this field. Its founding director, Bernard Rimland, Ph.D., has provided the statistics that, in their experience, from 50 to 60% of parents with autistic children believe that their children were damaged by vaccines. In our own office we have seen many autistic children in recent years, and our own experience has been very similar, many parents reporting that deterioration of their children took place following vaccines." Dr. Buttram

Viera Scheibner, PhD - "Ever since mass vaccination of infants began, reports of serious brain, cardiovascular, metabolic and other injuries started filling pages of medical journals." In fact, pertussis vaccine has been used to induce encephalomyelitis, which is characterized by brain swelling and hemorrhaging"

Bart Classen, a Maryland physician, published data showing that diabetes rates rose significantly in New Zealand following a massive hepatitis B vaccine campaign in young children, and that diabetes rates also went up sharply in Finland after three new childhood vaccines were introduced.

The FDA admits that the 12,000 reports it receives annually on pharmacologic side effects from vaccines represent only a fraction of what actually occurs.

Russell L. Blaylock MD Neurosurgeon - "Most have at least heard about the controversy surrounding possible harmful effects of some of the vaccines. What is less well known is that even greater dangers exist than are being conveyed to the general public. Much of this information is buried in highly technical scientific journals beyond the reach and understanding of the average person. Of special concern is the relationship between vaccine policy, autism and the Gulf War Syndrome. I shall use the Gulf War Syndrome as an example of a vaccine policy gone berserk, while including discussions of other dangers as well."

Rebecca Carley, M.D - "If children receive all recommended vaccines, they will receive 2,370 times the "allowable safe limit" for mercury in the first two years of life (as if there is such a thing as a "safe" amount of a toxic poison). Yet, even after Congressional hearings instigated by Congressman Dan Burton (whose own grandchild became autistic after receiving vaccines) resulted in the FDA requesting (not ordering) vaccine manufacturers to remove this toxic heavy metal from their products, mercury is still present in many vaccines."

Congressman Dan Burton (R-Indiana) during Congressional Hearing: "You mean to tell me that since 1929, we've been using Thimerosal, and the only test that you know of is from 1929, and every one of those people had menigitis, and they all died?"

December 16, 2002 – Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said he does not plan to be inoculated with the smallpox vaccine, and he recommends that other Cabinet members not request the inoculation either.

The hours, days and months following birth are undoubtedly the most critical phases in the life of human beings. Health and medical officials long ago decided that they knew best what should be done to children and many have made fortunes and careers out of this work. It is not by chance that infants are routinely disturbed physiologically and psychologically by medical interventions administered from the first moments of life. The incidence of childhood asthma, diabetes, and autoimmune diseases has doubled during the past 20 years; Attention Deficit Disorder has tripled, Autism has increased 600%. What part have vaccines played? Stanley Monteith, M.D.

Raymond Obomsawin, M.D. - "Delay of DPT immunisation until 2 years of age in Japan has resulted in a dramatic decline in adverse side effects. In the period of 1970-1974, when DPT vaccination was begun at 3 to 5 months of age, the Japanese national compensation system paid out claims for 57 permanent severe damage vaccine cases, and 37 deaths. During the ensuing six year period 1975-1980, when DPT injections were delayed to 24 months of age, severe reactions from the vaccine were reduced to a total of eight with three deaths. This represents an 85 to 90 percent reduction in severe cases of damage and death."

with the rest of the Chorus

"Thimerosol is the preservative in immunisation shots, so anytime you get an immunisation shot you are undergoing the same procedure that in the University Lab we used to give animals auto-immune disease – give a little tiny injection of mercury. And when you get an immunisation shot you are getting a little tiny dose of mercury there. Hal Huggins DDS

"Thimerosol is commonly used as an antiseptic/preservative in vaccines in the range of 1:10,000 to 1:20,000. Welsh's and Hunter's 1940 findings, applied to current thimerosal use in vaccines, lead to the conclusion that thimerosal completely inhibits phagocytosis in blood, one of the body's most vital immune defenses!"--Jamie Murphy

"We seem to have about 50% of members who suffer from auto-immune diseases, such as diabetes, lupus, M5, rheumatoid arthritis etc, whereas the general population suffer from 5 - l0%. There is no doubt in my mind that we have significant and common on going health worries, compared to people who did not suffer from pink disease."---Heather Thiele.

Romanov, V A, et al, "Role of Auto-immune Processes in the Pathogenesis of Post-Vaccinal Lesions of the Nervous System", Oct 1977, Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol, 10:80-83.

Movsesiants, AA, et al, "Experimental Study of the Ability of Different Strains of Vaccinia Virus to Induce Auto-Antibody Formation", Vopr Virusol, May-Jun 1975; (3):297-302.

Negina, IuP, "Comparative Study of Auto-antibody Formation Following Immunization With Different Types of Typhoid Vaccines", Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol, May 1980; (5):69-72.

Eibl MM, Mannhalter JW, Zlabinger G. Abnormal T-lymphocyte subpopulations in healthy subjects after tetanus booster immunization.N Engl J Med. 1984 Jan 19;310(3):198-9. No abstract available.PMID: 6228737 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
"As reported in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine in 1984, tests of T-lymphocyte subpopulations were done on 11 healthy adults before-and-after routine tetanus booster immunizations. Tests showed a significant though temporary drop in T-helper lymphocytes (a class of white blood cells which helps govern the immune system) in all of the subjects. Special concern rests in the fact that in 4 of the subjects the T-helper cells fell to levels found in active AIDS patients. (2) If this was the result of a single vaccine in healthy adults, it is sobering to think of the consequences of the multiple vaccines (twenty-one at last count) routinely given to infants with their immature systems during the first six months of life. However, we can only speculate as to the consequences, as this test has never been repeated."--Dr Buttram MD

"Dr. H.H. Fudenberg, world-renowned immunologist with hundreds of publications to his credit, made the following comments: “One vaccine decreases cell-mediated immunity by 50%, two vaccines by 70%…all triple vaccines (MMR, DTaP) markedly impair cell-mediated immunity, which predisposes to recurrent viral infections, especially otitis media, as well as yeast and fungi infections.”

"I did not find it difficult to conclude that there is no evidence whatsoever that vaccines or any kind are effective in preventing the infectious diseases they are supposed to prevent. Further, adverse effects are amply documented and are far more significant to public health than any adverse effects of infectious diseases. Immunizations not only did not prevent any infectious diseases, they caused more suffering and more deaths than has any other human activity in the entire history of medical intervention. It will be decades before the mopping-up after the disasters caused by childhood vaccination will be completed." Dr. Viera Scheibner, PhD

Truth VS Opinion

Hence we are not alone in our condemnation of Hiv, its treatment, the accompanying ‘science’ and the propaganda in the form of media-hype. In fact, we agree with most of these 14 eminent scientists, who almost all have gained their experience in the field from practical application to the problem at hand. They are not just some dissidents from the fringe, but come from their own rank and file. They disagree with the call to close ranks on dissidence, question the ruling paradigm and call for reappraisal of the entire concept. A scientist is not supposed to be a politically correct crowd pleaser, he is supposed to find the cause of disease.

Neither are we alone in our conclusions, which are supported by the findings of many other scientists. Some may have wanted to say something different, but their findings are very useful in the establishment of the conclusions presented here.
Nonetheless, their call for the truth is a worthwhile call and of far more importance than the constant calls-to-arms on vaccination, which to date have not brought us any closer to solving this riddle of a disease. It is also far more important than the social and scientific standing of the medical establishment, for the vaccination conundrum has demolished that standing quite sufficiently already. It requires simply the removal of the rubble, with which this book is mainly concerned.

Hind-sight is always 20/20, they say. We say, hind-sight is looking the cow up the arse and will only show us the shit that has been happening. Rather than looking backward, our vision must be directed at what lies ahead, if we are to both understand and successfully treat and prevent this disease and the others that have reared their heads as a result of side effects.

Evidently, we must not commit the same mistakes committed in the past, but after having seen the contents of the cow’s behind, we should know what mistakes have been made. For those that don’t like to look the cow up its behind we have this report, which describes what exactly is the nature of the shit we found. It was not a pretty sight, but we have tried to present it as palatable as possible, without distracting an iota from any of its findings. Such a report, we considered, must be completely truthful, to deserve any attention at all. It also must be truthful if we are to be honest with ourselves and if we desire to be taken serious, by both the medical profession and the general public.

Truth is self-evident and the honest inquirer will be attracted to truth more than to opinion. Our opinions in this matter must be entirely subservient to the establishment of a truthful record. This is a necessity, if we are to understand what Aids is in the first place; how it came about and on what criteria we need to treat it.
Whoever questions the status quo is excommunicated from the ‘elite club’ that receives grants, gets to study the phenomena to death in the circular exclusivity of the vaccination establishment. All other visions are treated as suspect and anti-science.

Such narrow-minded tunnel-vision by the ‘democratic majority’ – they unanimously voted for vaccination in a no-bid contract – is incapable to see past the finger that points at the moon. When someone points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger, while the wise look at the moon. It behoves us to be wise.
Such type of ‘democracy’ we consider is suffering from democratosis, a deadly disease that forces people to believe and to follow a so-called majority and where the opposition has no say. However, as was noted in the past and is still present today as we see from the above, we give you a quote from the German philosopher, scientist and writer Schopenhauer:

"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."

Limited Hangouts

We must also mention that before any theory can be accepted, it has to be scrutinised on its own merits. In order that you do not think we wrote a piece of bunk, we will have to establish first that the other theories are false, before we dare even demand attention for our own hypothesis. Not only are they false; many of them belong in the class of ‘limited hangouts’ and hence are plain disinformation. They are also known as CoIntelPro, a term borrowed from the CIA and other three-letter-Agencies. It literally means ‘counter-intelligence propaganda’ and is a tool to sow discord, confusion and promote concentration on small parts of the truth. We must not surmise that the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industrial Empire does not have such programs. They certainly do and euphemistically call them Public Relations. Here is a nice description of the phenomenon.

“A "limited hangout" is a partial confession, a mea culpa, if you will that leaves the essence of a crime or covert reality hidden. Because it includes some small part of the truth, the limited hangout is irresistibly attractive to dissidents and political critics, whose thirst for such truth makes them jump at the dangled scraps. Once the system's watchdogs are busy chewing on the limited hangout, the guilty players can go about their illegal business for a new round of unaccountable, semi-secret mayhem.”
(Fitts C.A. From the Wilderness)

Many of the theories about the cause of vaccinosis are little more than such limited hangouts, as we shall extensively show. They belong in the class of disinformation which, also and specifically in the case of medical problems and conundrums, thrives by such limited hangouts. This phenomenon is not restricted to or even specific of the conspiracy theories, but is inherent in all the theories espoused by both the establishment and the dissidents.
Some theories admit to what is known and then use the credibility created by his limited hangout to further obscure the reality of which is what in the search for the real cause. Indeed, it was the need for a means of financing black budget operations and drugs outside the view and control of any Government. It was the mere pursuit of corporate profits that provided the political air-cover for the Pharmaceutical interests to do what they did, as their covert counterparts marketed legal and illegal drugs in Western and Third World communities alike. In the Third World, they also got rid of their excess and forbidden drugs – those past the use-by date and those forbidden due to their side effects.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."
 (Thomas Pynchon)

As Thomas Pynchon so aptly noted, ‘limited hangouts’ provide exactly the platform that entices one to deludedly ask the wrong questions. They are generated at regular intervals, when the interest in a previous one is waning or when it has been exposed as a limited hangout and thus serves no longer any purpose. Each time, another little snippet of the truth is revealed and the careful researcher is able to pick out the truthful bits, discarding the disinformation and begin to connect the dots.
Conspiracies have in common that they are of two classes – those that are true and those that are not. The first category always comes from a whistleblower, whose life is in danger from the moment he opens his mouth or publishes material to expose the scam. The Pharmaceutical Interests are doing with opposition and dissidence exactly what the Agencies do with dissidents in politics and foreign spies.

The second category is always riding the personal hobby horse and never in danger of life, for nobody is threatened by the ‘exposition’. Many are simply conduits for disinformation, especially when they claim to have or do have contacts in high places.

The true whistleblowers always have a hard time to be heard, for they are lumped with those that ride, trot or gallop their hobbyhorse. They risk all, to expose the scam from within and all their statements are backed up by sound and substantial evidence, painstakingly collected, sifted for truth value and consequently presented. Whistle-blowers often end up dead, because what they had to say was too explosive and exposed too many people in high places. There are plenty of cases known in the annals of both Corporate and Government crime. Presenting evidence of such crime – regardless whether committed intentionally or not – exposes one to the ultimate price to pay. One can be a renewer of the greatest capacity, but unless the establishment accepts and punishes the culprits and implements the recommendations, one runs but one risk.

“The pioneer can be recognised by the arrows in his back.” (Mark Twain)

And why is this so, one could ask. After all, he who tells the truth does a great service to humanity. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas warned against the tyranny of conformity and the injury it does to freedom of expression and thought. As he wrote in ‘Freedom of the Mind’:

"The curious man – the dissenter; the innovator – the one who taunts and teases or makes caricature of our prejudices is often our salvation. Yet throughout history he has been burned or booed, hanged or exiled, imprisoned or tortured, for pricking the bubble of contemporary dogma."
(Douglas W.O. Freedom of the Mind)

Even Paracelsus complained about the same attitudes in his time. We discover that 500 years ago one had to be careful with what one said. Today, in so-called more enlightened times we are in the same situation and medieval about our attitudes to dissidence. Paracelsus says the following about this:

“For good reasons did the ancient Magicians express their prophecies in images rather than writing. For who dare tell the naked truth to a king? I would rather not – my reward might be a hanging. No Magus, Astrologer or Cheiromancer should tell his sovereign the naked truth. He should use images, allegories, figures, wondrous speech or other hidden or roundabout ways.”
(Paracelsus ‘De Lapidus Philosophorum’)

Who is to say whether whistleblowers should maybe remain silent? For why would anyone for that matter allow malfeasance to go on, either scientific, financial or otherwise? It is obvious that one must make a choice guided by one’s conscience and not by one’s fears. Frank Herbert has told us what fear is and how to deal with it. In Dune he writes the following:

“Fear is the killer of intelligence. I must not give in to my fear, lest I will be destroyed by it. I must let the fear go through me and leave me. There will remain nothing but me as the indestructible spirit.” (Herbert F. Dune)

Scientific Malfeasance

One way of determining the truth of some assertions regarding this conundrum is to follow the money – qui bono, who benefits? In the case at hand, the only beneficiary is the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industrial Empire; the Sickness Industry.
Writing about that subject would be finished in one sentence: Billions of $$ in grants, billions of $$ more in sales for useless drugs and all the attention and glamour they would want.
However, this book is not so much about financial malfeasance as it is about scientific malfeasance. This is a much more serious subject than mere financial fraud of whatever magnitude, because it concerns fraud with the health of every individual on the planet. The Enron scandal with its billons lost, was mere peanuts compared to scientific health-fraud. Enron affected some very rich and many ‘poor’ shareholders, but medical scientific fraud puts everyone at risk and costs billions more in lost man-hours alone. Then we do not yet count the lives that are lost because of it.
For those accustomed to critical books, we ask for patience if they think it goes too slow. Remember that thoroughness leaves out counter-arguments. Anyone else, we advise to be prepared for a challenge to the intellect and take a cuppa for strength.
A member of the orthodox medical establishment is advised to make the sign of the crucible – or whatever the devotees of the Church of Medical Science do when meeting New Correlates.
We do not expect any of them – layman and professional alike – to accept this book’s premises without any objections.

Rather we expect nothing but opposition.
After all, as Jonathan Swift noted:

“When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign; that all the dunces are in confederacy against him.”
(Swift J.)

The industry and all those affiliated with it must confront their own faults honestly and squarely. The dissidents must equally honestly reconsider their own notions, insofar as they are but limited hangouts. As we stated above, this requires a revolution in their perceptions and thinking – a quantum leap. They must leave the limited behind, stop hanging out and open up their perception to the broader perspective of the lateral vision and the interconnectedness of past, present and future. This is more applicable to and in medicine than possibly in any other discipline, except maybe in history. Therefore, the medical history of the patient is the prime lead in all medical investigations in the development of any state of disease.

What Makes an Expert?

What we present in these pages will be considered impossible by many. Our Spiritual Master used to say that ‘impossible is a word in a fool’s dictionary’. Yet at the same time, he admonished us to not accept material science as the be-all and end-all of possible explanations of life and the universe. He told us to expose some of the claims of science as impossible – by the rules of science that is.
For the seemingly impossible also follows natural laws, if scrutinised correctly. If it does not, the entire idea behind it is an ‘impossibility’ in the scientific sense.
Evidently, we cannot have a son of a barren woman.
Impossibilities then, follow from incompatible and/or opposite entities like a barren woman and her son. Everything else remains of course entirely in the realm of the possible. Hence perception, prejudice and credulity are the next items on the menu. Confusion of perception is all too common.
We all know that what to one looks like a stick is to the other a rope and to the third a snake. In the medical science regarding Aids, they consider the stick to be a snake and are deadly afraid of it. The conspiracy theorists see the stick as a rope and most of their theories hang themselves with it, when given enough. We see the stick for what it is and will pick it up to beat some sense into the scientists and conspiracy theorists.
As to prejudice, together with credulity, we know of no limits for it. It is easy to believe that we know everything about the world and how things are. For example, sceptics often repeat that homeopathy makes no sense and therefore cannot work. To those who think the proposition made in these pages to be ‘impossible’, we invite them to take note of the primary statements of such ‘certainty’ by other ‘experts’. But then again, ‘experts’ of the greatest standing have been often proven to be wrong…..

For if we look in the history of scientific endeavour we find that many things were considered impossible and then proved to be the exact opposite. Just as the thesis set forth in these pages will be considered impossible, but when considered carefully will prove to be true. To the disbelievers and doubters, we give the following quotes to ponder and to possibly reconsider their stance.

“I categorically state that stones do not fall from the sky. Such is impossible, for how did they get up there? In my many travels with balloons I never encountered any.” Antoine Lavoisier, Scientist, Economist, Social Reformer, Balloonist, Father of modern chemistry. 1764.

“Radio has no future.” Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society 1898.

“The radio craze…will die out in time.” Thomas Edison, 1922.

“The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it today.” Dr Alfred Velpeau, surgeon professor, Paris Faculty of Medicine, 1837.

“The abdomen, the chest and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.” Sir John Eric Ericson, Surgeon to Queen Victoria, 1873.

“If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one.” Dr. W. C. Heuper, National Cancer Institute, 1954.

“X-Rays will prove to be a hoax.” Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895.

“Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” Professor Dionysus Lardner, 1830.

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1896.

“Flight by machines heavier than air is impractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1902 (One year later, the Wright brothers flew over the English Channel).

“I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existence of atoms and other such dogma.” Professor Ernst Mach (as in speed-of-sound measurement), 1913.

“There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is a completely unscientific Utopian dream, a childish bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a few fool-proof devices into the great majority of elements that constitute the bulk of the world, and they have no energy to give up in the process of disintegration.” Robert Millikan, Nobel prize-winner in physics, 1920.

“There is not the slightest indication that energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” Albert Einstein, 1932.

“The most important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplemented by new discoveries is exceedingly remote.” Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1903.

“Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to its true progress.” Sir William Siemens (on Edison’s announcement of a successful light bulb), 1880.

“With regard to the electric light, much has been said for and against it, but I think I may say without contradiction that when the Paris Exhibition closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.” Erasmus Wilson, Oxford University professor, 1878.

“Space travel is utter bilge.” Dr. Richard van der Riet Woolley, Astronomer Royal, 1956.

“Space travel is bunk.” Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal, 1957 (two weeks before the launch of Sputnik).

“Computers will never be small enough to use at home.” IBM official 1975. (two years before the presentation and successful sale of the first personal computers, the 1977 Trinity, the Apple II, the PET 2001 and the Altair 8800).

“Universal handheld portable phones will not be available for another 50 to 100 years, if at all possible.” Motorola executive. 1980. (two years before the allocation of frequencies for the first handheld portables.)


The Church of Medial Science Part 4.


We shall first investigate the prevalent idea in medicine about disease causes. It should be clear from the start that we do not necessarily agree with their ideas about the origin of diseases. They are based on a concept that is 150 years old and already so geriatric that it fails to account for many diseases. We refer here of course to the Gospel of Pasteur; that great plagiarist of the 19th Century.
If we examine the time in which he lived, we discover that homeopathy was gaining ever-wider acceptance and the orthodox efforts at disproving its tenets stood on ever-shakier grounds. Desperate for something that could be seen with the eyes and felt with the fingers, the orthodox were forever searching for the material cause of disease. The development of the microscope and the discoveries made with it gave them great hopes, but untill Pasteur presented his faulty notions to the Academie in Paris, those hopes had remained unfulfilled.
Pasteur gave in one stroke what they had been so desperate to discover and thus they all agreed in a surprising unity of voice. Surprising because science and scientists are known to generally disagree with one another over every proposal. We only need to mention the theories proposed by Einstein and Bohr to illustrate this tendency to disagreement. The further disa-greements in archeology are another case in point and the discussion that raged over Darwin’s theories before they became accepted, could fill large volumes.
Nonetheless, it serves us well to scrutinise these theoretical notions of the 19th century carefully, for they are rooted in a pattern of thought that sought to deny God and his influence over our lives. If instead they could find something that could replace the deity as a major player in health and disease, they would have made great stides in diminishing the influence of the clergy over the lives of people.
The so-called enlightened view of that time sought to establish man’s supremacy over his destiny, rather than succumbing to the Church, the clergy or God. Instead man should be so devilishly clever that he could do away with religious influence and once and for all establish his own power over nature. Pasteur seemed to have achieved this in one stroke of genius and hence he is revered to this very day. We face therefore a formidable task. We have to unsaddle a man and a theory that have been firmly in place as the main explanation of all human suffering.
A man so formidable that his theory has held sway for so long will be difficult to defeat, it seems. Nonetheless, we shall attempt to show that his theory is but a theory and one that is moreover not supported by the facts in the field. While the germ-theory seems to hold great merit, we must question its foundation, its logic, and above all its usefulness in explaining disease. Let us see whether the germ theory is all that it is cracked up to be or whether it is a reptile made out of a pile of dung.


They hold to the unreliable proposition that microscopic entities called bacilli, bacteria, vira and microbes have sufficient power to make us sick. They even go so far as to declare these creatures can kill you, regardless their infinitesimal size and that therefore they are exceedingly dangerous and must be killed themselves.
Iatrogenesis or environmental impact, except in occupational hazards with the latter, are also ignored and they never listen to the patient. They stare themselves blind on numbers from machine readings and numbers of creatures in slick microscopic slides, in which they have caught the vira and microbes, bacteria and bacilli or other germs, associated with disease. These numbers may satisfy the bookkeeper’s mentality but they do not numb the discerning intellect into blind acceptance or uncritical, slavish following.
Let me quote to you James Tyler Kent, a nineteenth century homoeopath, who pointed out what was wrong in his time and which is still the same today.

'Anything that looks away from exactitude is unscientific. The physician must be classical; everything must be methodical. Science ceases to be scientific, when disorderly application of the law is made,’
(Kent J.T. Lectures on the Philosophy)

Here is another quote, by the same Dr Kent.

'Most doctors have gone crazy over the ‘vicious microbe’ as being the cause of disease and think the little fellows exceedingly dangerous. As a matter of fact, the microbes are scavengers. I wonder if scientists reflect when they make statements about bacteria. Naturally they would say that the more bacteria the more danger, but this is not so. It is well known that shortly after death a prick from the scalpel is a serious matter. This is due to the ptomaines (sewer gasses) of the corpse; but when the cadaver has become green and filled with bacteria, it is comparatively harmless. The microbe is not the cause of disease. We should not be carried away by these idle allopathic dreams and vain imaginations, but should correct the vital force. The bacterium is an innocent fellow and if he carries disease, he carries the simple sub-stance, which causes disease, just as an elephant would.'
(Kent J.T. The Lesser Writings)

This explains also why, when a 'viral, microbial, bacterial or bacillus disease’ is around, not everyone will get the disease. Two people working next to each other will not be both sick, when the one is a happy person. His colleague will not be able to infect him. Why else does not everyone get sick during the flue season? Some people have better immunity, which protects them better, they will say.
Happiness and contentment form the best immunity. Each person who gets the flue or another disease has a mental or emotional problem, is discontent or is unhappy or makes himself so. If you go from home without sufficient clothes, you do have a mental problem, for then you are a fool. The result is that promptly you will catch a cold. A happy man is smart enough to bring a jacket on a warm day, followed by a cold night. Only those that refuse to use their brains and do not think ahead catch colds. As soon as the temperature drops, they become cold and decidedly unhappy. Unhappy people get sick – there are no bones about it.
Moreover, if viral or other microbial entities could cause disease we would be sick all the time, since they are in the air we breathe and our bodies are infested with millions of them in a large variety. We shall shortly visit ‘Slime City’, where these critters all are inhabitants. The defence system would never get a break from the constant assault of a great variety of disease 'causes.'
Factually, the term ‘immune system’ is highly misleading, since the system is not immune, but merely defensive. The defence system is already not discriminatory – letting in everything before it reacts – it would be incessantly assaulted with countless diseases. In other words, you would never leave your bed healthy from the day you were born.
This is an unrealistic scenario and an obvious indication that these so-called pathogens do not deserve that name. As a theory it is certainly not borne out by the facts and therefore unscientific.
As soon as the ease of life is gone; that is dis-ease. Where does that show itself, other than in your mind, your emotions and in your body? Not anywhere else is it found. Therefore, how can they say that disease comes from germs? Or alternatively, as they now like to fancy that disease is coming from the genes? That is the fabrication of a couple of modern myths.

A Decent Burial

Let us look at the virus or germ theory a little closer. It is but an assumption that germs cause disease. They say their evidence is presented in the fact that when they kill the bacteria or vira, the disease is soon gone as well. The vira become active from some outside trigger – generally an invasion by and of those same germs. They attack the living cells and destroy them, in the process using the cell-DNA to multiply. A virus is really nothing more than a string of mRNA cells, which need another cell’s DNA to complete them and divide. If this is allowed to continue unabated, the body will succumb under the onslaught and the victim will die.
That sounds like the correct view, is it not? After all, Pasteur already proved this more than 150 years ago, is the argument. Pasteur put medicine on the wrong foot and it has not made a single step forward since. His theory is now about to meet its maker, since we will sufficiently show that it better join Pasteur in his grave.

Pasteur made a few assumptions, which we shall scrutinise further, to discover whether they stroke with the facts or not. The first is the assumption that germs cause disease.
When a disease is full-blown, what is the picture of the blood?
A so-called ‘viral’ or bacterial disease is characterised by a high level of vira or other germs in the blood of victims of full-blown cases, known as the viral or bacterial load. This is – and we should note this well – invariably the case with all viral or other diseases caused by a bacterium, a bacillus or a microbe. Invariably this is noted in full-blown cases. If we examine the blood of any healthy person, we may find the virus or germ in some cases, but never in disproportionate amounts. In the sick, everyone has a very high count. When normally it may be one per million, in disease it is one or two per three cells.
Therefore we discover that the disease is nothing more or less than an ultimate result. We go to visit the doctor when we feel sick and not at any other time. We do not go there for a social chat, but to complain about something that bothers us, gives us pain or is otherwise uncomfortable. There is no toher reason why would go there. Infact, we try to avoid going there at all costs and postpone the visit till it is inevitable. Doctors are not on our wishlists of frequent visits or visitors. We do not like them very much for the things they have to say to us are those things we do not want at all. Therefore, we stay away from them as much as possible. Vira and germs are not on our wishlists either and we want to avaoid them also as much as we can. We do not seem to realise their importance other than as destroyers of our health.

What is important is that we must consider carefully what we observe. In a full-blown case of disease, we are looking at the disease ultimate. It is an end-result. From the moment we entered primary school, we have been taught that results are always different from causes and this is scientific.

As Hahnemann noted:

“Therefore disease, considered as a thing separate from the living whole, from the organism and its animating vital force and hidden in the interior, be it of ever so subtle a character, is an absurdity that could only be imagined by minds of the materialistic stamp.”
(Hahnemann S. Organon §13)

“The natural disease is never to be considered as a noxious material situated somewhere in the exterior or interior.”
(Hahnemann S. Organon §148)

Hahnemann then comes with the only correct definition of what is disease:

‘The unprejudiced observer takes note of nothing in every individual case of disease except the changes in health of the mind and the body. He notices only the deviations, which are felt by the patient himself, noted by those around him and observed and remarked by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent.’
(Hahnemann S. Organon §6)

Hence disease is nothing but a change in health of the mind and body, notable by signs and symptoms. This is the long and short of every disease, whether caused by drugs or natural dynamic means.

‘The irregular processes which we call disease are as a power invisible in itself and only knowable and cognisable by its visible effects on and sensations in the organism, exposed to the patient and the physician. It manifests as morbid symptoms and in no other way can it make itself known.’
(Hahnemann S. Organon §11)

We see Hahnemann did not believe in the microbe as the cause of disease. He also did not consider blood and liver value levels or biopsies, because they did not exist in his time. If he could do without, it fails to materialise why we now should put such reliance on something we cannot even experience.
He firmly established that the entire disease can be known by the changed sensations of the patient and by ob-servable changes in the physical frame. He did not see a need for invasive techniques to trace the disease in the interior and considered them futile.
He knew that disease is a change in health that can be related to the doctor and cured by a remedial agent capable of producing such a disease in the healthy. A virus in his day was nothing but a poison – the virus of the cobra for in-stance.
Jenner did his first experiments with the pox vaccine in Hahnemann’s time and the bacilli, bacteria and other germs were becoming increasingly known. Yet Hahnemann considered this nothing more than an idle allopathic dream, which did not tally with his contention that disease and cure are both dynamic processes.
Modern medicine does not consider the dynamics of either disease or medicinal action. It sees the virus or other germs as exceedingly dangerous. They think that if they do not kill them, the patient is in danger.
The germs and vira always keep on multiplying as long as the disease lasts, till death follows, says the theory. In addition, since death is the final result as they say, we must conclude that abundance of vira or other germs is also an end-result. Then how can they be the cause?


In viral diseases, they throw this scientific principle out the window and declare that cause and result is one and the same thing. This is unscientific, to say the least. It has no place in any scientific discussion, least of all medicine, where lives are dependent on thorough scientific principles and procedures. Why then does that not count for germs?
Germs are the exception to the rule, they say. That makes for many exceptions to the rule, for there are many different germs associated with disease. Several gut bacteria, such as salmonella and escheria coli, to name but a few, totalling more than 30 different ones. Homoeopaths use many of them as the bowel nosodes.
There are more than a just a hand-full of viruses, like the flue or pneumonia, quite a few bacilli, such as tuberculosis and microbes or even fungi associated with disease and then we do not even count the ones they have not yet discovered.

Together, this veritable cornucopia of creatures makes for well over 100 exceptions to the rule. That is exceptional by itself. It is therefore subsequently thoroughly unscientific.
Then how come that when they are killed, the disease apparently also is finished? Because these drugs are suppressing the disease, which will reappear soon enough; if necessary at a different spot and associated with a different germ. It is still the same disease, which has been forced to seek a new outlet.
The function of the germs is different from what Pasteur presented and that is why they cannot be exceptions to the rule and therefore do not cause disease.
If the medical scientists paid attention to what they see, they would have noticed that viruses attack only cells with receptors, to which they can react. Healthy cells do not have those markers, so the virus cannot attack them. Why else are we not constantly sick?
You all know the squatter’s movement here in Europe and especially in Amsterdam. They occupy houses and buildings that have been kept empty for more than a year, to allow real-estate speculators to drive up the prices for living or to push through a project where a useless harbour is costing a lot of money. It is a sick society that allows this.
Disease is like squatters who occupy cells on which they hang signs – ‘squatted’ – known as receptors. It is a sick body that allows this to happen, just like the speculators and the housing prices in our society.
The situation with the squatters is that the Riot Squad – part of the police force – comes by and kicks them out, often destroying the building immediately after, so it cannot be re-squatted.
The vira are the Riot Squad, which comes to kick out the disease and destroy the cells so they can no longer be used by the disease. They only destroy cells with receptors; that is, the sick cells. The fantastic story that they attack healthy cells is therefore complete hogwash.
Instead of appreciating the work the vira do, they mistake them for the squatters and send in the army to destroy the police force. Thus they create a civil war inside the body, with heavy drugs.
Generally, a civil war ruins the country. If we look at the AIDS phenomenon, it is this civil war, which destroyed the bodies of the victims. Here, as another aside, is proof the rules of warfare do not apply to healing and medicine.
Waging war on the microbe community is not only foolish, since they do not cause disease; it is detrimental to our health. It demands moreover that we accept too much collateral damage. It evidently ruins the balance in Slime City.


That microbe community is a veritable Slime City, with all kinds of inhabitants, such as merchants, workers, farmers, thieves and so on, with several types of police, as well as an army, high-risers, highways and diverse transport systems. A recent survey of over 400 different entero-bacteria collected and subsequently stored between 1917 and 1954 suggests that resistance was very uncommon in the pre-antibiotic era.
That is an impressive variety of inhabitants of some very different ‘nationalities’ and therefore a multi-cultural society that performs admirably harmonious, if left to its own devices. We carry about a kilo of the creatures in the intestinal tract alone.
Some digest food, others are scavengers. Here may be one that destroys sick and old cells – a cop – while there, another is engaged in cell construction – a builder. Some are engaged in business with each other, exchanging information and necessary protein codes, to assist each other in their mutual task. Others are kept busy stealing food from their neighbours. Another one has the capacity to digest what is indigestible to others, received from an RNA strand that picks up on the targeted substance. Some members in that community learn to digest the antibiotics and so ‘resistance’ comes about. It is not that the germ becomes resistant, but that the antibiotic never reaches them again – other germs or entities digest it first.

Even the pharmacopoeia says as much.

‘The three most important mechanisms of bacterial resistance are:
• production of an enzyme that inactivates the antibiotic or hinders it in its action, such as the β-lactamases with the β-lactam antibiotics and acetyltransferase with the aminoglycosides and chloramphenicol.
• reduction of the uptake of the antibiotic by diminishing the membrane permeability, through changes in the protein cover of the external cell membrane, due to selective pressure of the antibiotic. Herewith the β-lactam antibiotics, the chinolons, tetracyclines, trimethoprim and chloramphenicol are rendered ineffective. It may also use an active efflux, resulting from a difference in the membrane transport system, as it does with erythromycin and tetracycline.
• changes in the bacterial proteins that were points of attack from or for the antibiotic. A changed ribosomal protein is discovered with aminoglycosides. A further changed penicillin-binding protein is found with mainly β-lactam antibiotics, while a changed DNA-gyrase is associated with the chinolons. Gyrase is an enzyme, which can trigger the winding of long DNA chains around an RNA nucleus. Chinolons antagonise this enzymatic activity. On this basis, chinolons are also designated gyrase inhibitors.’

The Slime City inhabitants produce those enzymes – they do not arise spontaneously. Microbes and other germs, assisted by plasmids, trigger membrane permeability. These same bacteria also generate changes in bacterial proteins.
Thus, such ‘immunity’ or ‘resistance’ violates the orthodox parameters for treatment, which say that

‘the antibioticum must be able to reach the seat of infection’.

This is the way they paint the picture; I am quoting their pharmacopoeia.

‘There are other mechanisms by which resistance is obtained. It can occur chromosomal as well as extra-chromosomal, the latter though plasmids, which are extra-chromosomal carriers of inherited properties. These plasmids are interchangeable between organisms through conjugation, transduction or transformation.’

Since such material is freely interchangeable, it is unlikely to cause mutations, since mutations then happen all the time and therefore do not happen. Differently said, if they happen all the time, it is no longer exceptional but commonplace and therefore not mutation. This is because mutation is the appearance of the not so commonplace. We shall see in a further chapter that mutations are impossible to appear for several other reasons, making the mutation scenario not only highly unlikely, but also entirely impossible.
Adaptation is closer to the reality of the circumstances in Slime City, where harmony and balance make for a stable system. In those circumstances mutations can only increase the imbalance, which is contrary to every observation one makes in nature or the human body, where balance is al-ways maintained by all means. The proof they adapt and maintain order, is found in that they seek the means to counteract our ridiculous doses of dangerous medicine, to minimise the damage as much as possible.
We must first note that there is a great deal of difference between an adaptation to pressure and a mutation. A white person who never sees the sun and then goes out for the first time will also ‘produce alterations on the surface structure due to selective pressure’ – of the sunshine. He will turn either red or brown. This is no mutation, but an adaptation.
When such confusion of terms is used in one sentence, it is wise to take the weakest of the statements to hold the greatest merit. Multiple drug resistance is a fact. Alterations on the surface structure are also noted and thus factual.
However, someone who does not like cabbage does not mutate into someone else, once his taste changes. Similarly, the antibiotics may have tasted bad, but once the germs learned to digest them, no mutation occurred. They simply adapted to changed circumstances, just like the white person going in the sunshine to get brown or changing his taste for an article of diet.


Even if the vira and other germs look or work different, they are also not mutations, but merely differently adapted members of the incredibly large community of microbes. They have adapted to circumstances the medical profession has created with their excessive antibiotic use.
That community has been studied – in the form of single microbes in isolation. It has never been studied as a whole, an entirety. They have no idea how many different members it has or what the function of each member is within the context of the whole. They would pretend they do, from the few they studied in isolation.
We also do not know every member, but have studied it as a whole. Immunity is extended to the whole body in the context of a cooperative society, as we argue. The conclusion is obvious and denial does not make it go away. Only the totality gives you an idea of the goings on in Slime City. It shows that microbes help a virus, enzyme or bacterium or vice versa and that the one-celled have a particular function, dependent on their environment.
Gram-negative bacteria for instance have become ‘resistant’ and ‘more virulent’. Here we have a nice example of the goings-on in Slime City, where it is obvious that the gram-negative bacteria have learnt to evade or digest the antibiotics. Either another enzyme or bacterium, bacillus or microbe has learnt to digest it or the balance has been disturbed to the extent that the gram-negative bacteria are no longer checked by other members.
Balance in a healthy Slime City means nothing less than each genus or species living there, having besides his normal role also a function comparable to ‘social control’. This enables harmonious functioning of the whole. Just like in society social control has been lost, so it has similarly occurred in Slime City, where and when the antibiotic ‘gangsters’ are allowed to take over and rule the roost.
They will initially eradicate or diminish one or more of the species and so another species gets the chance to multiply beyond its balanced proportion and set up unwanted and unsuspected reactions. That these reactions are bad for your health is abundantly clear. That they can also turn out to be fatal is equally clear from the amount of victims, but nonetheless and therefore, unacceptable.
This shows that the gram-negative bacteria have learnt to digest the antibiotics – have become ‘resistant’ – and are now taken for ‘super bugs’. Whether this is so, remains to be seen, because these same ‘super bugs’ respond by disappearing under homoeopathic treatment. It also remains to be seen if these bugs respond to antibiotics in infinitesimal doses, since that never has been tried by the orthodox.
Whether antibiotics are capable of altering the chromosomes of bacteria also remains to be seen. It is merely thought to be a ‘mechanism of mutation’, whereas the behaviour of the bacteria points to adaptation to the changed circumstances, instead of a mutation. They are collectively engaged in their usual behaviour and show no unusual features in their adaptation. Their usual and normal behaviour is to adapt to circumstances that change. The unusual is never seen, simply because changes in nature are usual and nothing out of the ordinary.
Each time you eat a foodstuff you never ate before, they have to go through the same rigmarole – how to adapt and deal with it, which is their normal behaviour. This adaptation began as a baby with mother’s milk and exploded once you developed teeth and the buccal and digestive enzymes changed to the different circumstances in your saliva. You then began to eat ‘solid food’, requiring with every new grain, vegetable and protein a different adaptation of Slime City to the new circumstances.
At some time you may have added alcohol in different forms, coffee and tea and so on, each time triggering a similar commonplace response. On holidays in foreign countries your body has to adapt again to different circumstances. With the intake of antibiotics, there happened exactly the same.
We must remember: mutations are the appearance of the unusual and abnormal; the not so commonplace. So we must conclude that when anything is happening as they describe, it is adaptation and likely or it is supposedly a mutation and thus very unlikely to happen.
The ‘enzymatic inactivation of the antibiotics’ holds therefore greater merit, since enzymes are part of and produced by the population of Slime City, which we know to be able to deal with nearly all and everything we throw at them – from fast food to alcohol and drugs. Hence some of the inhabitants will be able to erect a ‘drug-permeability barrier’, so hindering the ‘drug to reach the seat of infection or hamper and destroy the germ’. Just like some recreational drugs also develop a ‘tolerance’.
There is another instance where it has been proven that Staphylococci strains have learned to digest the antibiotics and that they do this through the enzyme B-lactamase. It is not a substance that renders the bacterium resistant, but simply an enzyme that destroys or neutralises the antibiotic fungus. This happened in a hospital and since the staphylococcus has become ‘resistant’ worldwide through the mediation of those plasmids, it is now becoming ‘a real problem.’ Hence the proposition that bacteria learn to digest them through the use of enzymes is not at all far-fetched, while the mutation scenario remains doubtful.
Factually we should be glad they become resistant, at least in the sense that we still have bacteria to clan out dead cells. After the ‘antibiotic gangsters’ take over, it is another matter altogether, for then the excess of a bacterium is harmful to our health, since there is no immediate need in the form of disease. It is an out-of-balance situation.

Slime City is apparently much more important to our health as the doctors seem to think. We have already seen that disturbance of the harmonious balance in Slime City through the use of drugs – mainly pharmaceutical drugs of the antibiotics class – severely compromises our health, to the point of ruining it completely. However, we do not adhere to this ‘pressure for selection’.
The germs in Slime City do not select anything. There is nothing to select when they are bombarded with antibiotics. They have no choice but to try and deal with them. They simply react to changed circumstances and adapt themselves. If such is not possible, they will simply die.
Their death constitutes one of the ways in which the balance in Slime City is compromised. Naturally, the excessive use of antibiotics is indeed ‘environmental pollution’, but it is not a ‘pressure for selection’, leading to mutation. The antibiotics are powerful enough to kill many of one or several species of the inhabitants and thus, like gangsters, take over the rule in Slime City.
We are confronted by scare-mongering tactics rather than truth when the doctors claim the bugs have become resistant super bugs. We are always confronted with the idea that the bugs simply have become stronger, but in such a scenario, the weakening of the body’s resistance is not sufficiently stressed. Constant or regular attacks on the defence system with antibiotics do not make the bugs any stronger, but exhaust the patient’s defence system, since the drugs are strong immuno-suppressants.
Moreover, as we have explained, it is easily shown that other inhabitants of Slime City have learned to digest the antibiotics and hence the ‘vicious microbes that are out to kill us’ have not become any more vicious. They are still the same germs, now confronted by a weakened defence sys-tem and thus disturbing the ‘social balance’. All that antibiotics do is suppress the disease and cause their own side effects in the form of immuno-suppression.


Saddam Hussein suppressed the opposition and its symptoms – free press, party forming, demonstrations, you know, the lot. Yet the opposition did not disappear. Saddam's society was sick and remained so. Mind you, putting him aside has not exactly improved the situation. It also does not invalidate the comparison, but only reinforces it.
Similarly, allopathic medicines suppress the symptoms; pain, rashes, inflammations, you know, the lot. Yet the diseases do not disappear. Like the opposition in Iraq, they go underground and spread.
The body is a sick one and remains so. The spread must occur, for metastasis is the inevitable outcome of suppression. It is a law of nature and these laws cannot be violated without paying the price. Regardless which drug you use to kill the virus, it will spread.
Again the Iraqi situation is the perfect example. For similarly, the American and British armies also fail to kill the opposition and as we see in the news, the opposition only becomes stronger, for civil war is the wrong front. The medical equivalent is similar. Those powerful drugs and massive doses are bound to cause aggravation.

Disease can also be compared to a spring clean up. Disease must be eliminated from the body, to truly disappear. The doctors merely hide it, as a bad cleaning lady sweeps the dirt under the mat. Now if you have a cleaning lady that sweeps the dirt under the mat, you fire her! The doctors suffer from the bad cleaning lady syndrome and must not be retained, just because they have an impressive title.
At the clean up, the body opens an outlet from which the dirt is released, be it pus, rashes, cancerous growths, warts or purging, whatever. Their orthodox treatment closes the door, by using medicines, creams, chemotherapy, radiation or surgery, whatever takes their fancy. Hence what we do not accept from a cleaning lady, we must certainly not accept from the doctors. Just as we fire the cleaning lady, we must fire the doctor who sweeps the dirt under the mat.
Metastasis means nothing less than the body seeking a new outlet. You close the door? The body will open the windows. You also close the windows? It will, if necessary, blow off the roof. But it will never disappear till you have brought it back to its original outlet or have buried the victim.


Insofar as the germ theory could be useful, it is in the considerations of balance or imbalance of the Slime City inhabitants. As we noted, the absence of one or more germs results in the excessive rise of another, which then can impact on the person’s health. Candida albicans for instance, normally lives in everyone’s gut, performing its allotted task.
Antibiotics, being fungi, prepare fertile conditions for its explosive increase by destroying other bacteria engaged in limiting its spread to its allotted space. However, excess Candida fungus growth has assumed epidemic proportions, while orthodoxy is vainly seeking means to destroy it. In the process, the patient’s life is destroyed.
In this manner only can any of the germs living in Slime City be of any inconvenience or danger to us. When we become sick from natural causes, some will also multiply, but this is for protection, because at such times an excess is needed to clean up the dead or sick cells, possessing receptors to which these germs can react. Once the disease has been conquered, these germs automatically revert to their original density and the others destroy their redundant excess.
Much is made of the toxic nature of the bacterial process, while it is conveniently forgotten that rot begins in the mouth and that excrement is formed through a process of fermentation – all toxic processes with which the body deals admirably, even in disease. Cholera and dysentery are but fancy names for the processes of cleaning these toxins and their dead producers from the gut. They are neither the causes nor maintainers of the disease, but form the disease process itself. For this reason these processes have received their names – cholera, typhus, dysentery.


HIV is imaginary and mythological, as we shall discover. The cause of disease from germs is mythological too – albeit not fabricated by the doctors, but Pasteur. The genes causing disease is just another myth. Genes are not deterministic, however much they would like them to be so. The product is never able to influence or effect changes in the producer.
That genetic determinism is another myth, for we know that every cell in the body has the same chromosome packet with the same genes, yet they are all different cells. So how has the gene determined the healthy or diseased function, form and structure of each individual cell?
By mythological means, for it has no other possibility, being not deterministic. In reality, genes act through feedback loops, which help the cell develop according to its environment. Thus a cell becomes a blood cell, an epidermic cell or a muscle cell only because its surroundings determine the need. When a cell is diseased from the start – birth – there is a possibility that it is genetically determined, but in general it is under pressure from consciousness or the environment.

Their causes consist solely on false conjectures and fictions of the imagination. For it is a false conjecture to say the disease is in the antibodies or the viral load. Cause and result remain different eternally, regardless their insistence they are the same.
Nobody can experience the viral load as such, for he cannot even know it is there until their tests reveal it. It is a figment of the imagination to assign causal power to a concomitant and end-result of disease; the germs.
It is therefore also a fiction – another myth – that with the death of the so-called disease cause – in casu the germ – the disease has been conquered.
Furthermore, to call someone cured when he is still suffering the effects of medicine is not only self-delusion, but also deception of the patient. He seldom believes the doctor anyway, just because he still feels sick, we can guarantee you.

Disease is like a criminal and the records of medicine must therefore be similar to criminal records, with fingerprints, photograph and profile of character. In the same manner, the disease can be recognised by the symptoms produced in the patient, corresponding to the record of the matching individual medicine.
This is the dream of the allopathic brethren and can only be realised if the homeopathic system is adopted and the wild-goose-chase after the chimera of the germs is abandoned. They are stuck in the linear tunnel vision of direct cause and effect, which always fails to explain all parameters and is left with inexplicable phenomena.