The Church of Medical Science Part 3.


Where are the other symptoms that are the same as in the cause – antibiotics? They are nowhere to be found, except in the experience of the patient, confirming the information of the pharmacopoeia. They certainly do not come from a machine reading. Without that machine they would be blind about the state of his blood. With the machine they are still blind, for they don't read pharmacopoeia and the patient is one-eyed.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king!

He is king, because at least he knows exactly what he suffers from. All they say is that he suffers alright, but only from this or that low or high count of machine values. Hence, their treatment cannot be rational. Causing the very thing it is supposed to fight, is not only futile, it is plain madness.
Doctors and priests are unlike each other in some respect, but they are about equally parochial.
Their analysis is in general the blind assessing the one-eyed as to their vision.
They say they have analysed.
This word is an affront to my perceived bigotries; conventional chemists using orthodox procedures, leading to scientific delusions, which in turn provoke more coercion.
Their heavy drugs cause nothing less than drug-disease. Such treatment is a ludicrous proposal and is no argument in disease at all. There is even no argument to seek justifications for it. They may be the learned brethren, but they have learned nothing of the side effects of their own drugs. If you say you developed the side effects they will deny it, saying this happens to only one in every so many thousand. They forget that this very 'one in so many thousands' stands right before them.

They also forget that long-term use raises that figure by a factor 1000 or more. They think you can pump endless amounts of drugs in the body, without repercussions. They condemn the junkie for doing so, but engage in nothing else themselves, denying their own drugs the power to affect you even more profoundly.

All their so-called evidence is speculative and circumstantial – as I have extensively shown. They have no protocol – from any lab in the world – that describes HIV. Duesberg denies its sole existence and declares it part of series of vira and so do a host of others. I call the Aids-establishment's deception an exercise in cynical deceit. I call their belief mythological; religious in overtones.


Where they denounce the religious, they believe in an even more elusive Devil - HIV, of which they have become the self-appointed priests. Their other devils we met already – Virus and Bacterium, Bacillus and Microbe.

Being the Church of Medical Science, they perform the Black Mass, during which they slaughter their victims on the Altar of Science.

All this happens, notwithstanding the prohibition of human sacrifice. I have compared modern medicine to its medieval counterpart. I should actually consider it as belonging in further recesses of time and typify it as pre-primitive.

Moreover, the mental gymnastics they perform with their belief in the elusive, non-existent mythology of HIV is of far greater esoteric magnitude than the proven cures by our sugar pills. Of the first, they have no protocol describing it and of the second, they have records from the time I treated Aids patients. Those facts require no belief; they are self-evident. Sober scientists, they call themselves – what a joke!

They refused to believe their own machines, simply because they could not comprehend their readings, after the first few came back to them. They repeated the test six, seven times to make sure and absolutely certain they were free of HIV and Aids.
That is the result of allopathic thinking, where the syndrome must be named, rather than the patient cured. It reminds me of the following quote from Hahnemann, as an aside to his first paragraph, where he says that our first and only mission is to cure the sick.

'Our mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses, concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes. Nor do the mode in which the diseases originate in the invisible interior of the organism, whereupon so many physicians have wasted their talents and their time, have any relevance. Nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause, which must forever remain concealed in the invisible interior of the body. These explanations are wrapped in unintelligible words and inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned, in order to astonish the ignorant, whilst sick humanity cries in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries – to which the name of theoretic medicine has been given and for which special professorships have been instituted – we have had quite enough. It is now high time that all who call themselves physicians, should at length cease to talk and begin now to act; that is to heal and cure.'

We see that in the two hundred years since Hahnemann, there is no change in that approach. Theoretical medicine is now bigger than anything else in the university. Yet the patient dies at a faster rate than in Hahnemann's time.
What then, so may we ask with him, is the use of these professorships?
Nothing more than to astonish the ignorant or so it seems. For, neither all their Greek/Latin syndrome names, nor the fancy abbreviations have ever brought them any closer to a cure.


Their treatment changes from month to month, like fashion, while Hahnemann's remedies are in use unchanged and successfully to this very day.

That is evidence-based medicine.

Reliable, unchangeable, it is based on laws and principles that derive directly from nature and are thus harmonious and compatible with it.

Their medicine goes against nature and life, destroys more than it can cure, has no evidence whatsoever to base it on and follows no law or principle.
In other words, they are outlaws, who have high-jacked the saloon and are giving out adulterated drinks. That is the conclusion in an analogy.

It should be noted that our data are accepted Brahmins. By hypnosis and inertia they keep on saying the same things as Pasteur, over 150 years earlier. Our damned data are observations of doctors of the highest standing, to which all minds have to subordinate or be negligible, unheard, submerged and buried. It may seem as if my revolt against their dogmatism and pontifications were directed to a single scientist of eminence and esteem. This is only convenience, for it appears necessary to personify.

Whether something is reasonable or preposterous depends on agreement or disagreement with a standard, which by itself is a delusion. Today’s standard is tomorrow’s preposterousness and vice versa, as we have noticed.

Whatever it is; HIV or antibiotics; it is enough to make the devout of the Church of Medical Science make the sign of the crucible or whatever their devotees do in the presence of a New Correlate.

Their theories fade in the dense fog of omissions. Consequently, their practice flouts the rules of scientific investigation in an equal manner. When their premises rest on nothing but assumptions, they cannot expect otherwise than the sharp thorns of reality bursting the bubble of empty speculations.

My exposition falls outside their so revered theories and is therefore inadmissible, they argue. How can it be, when their own theory is inadmissible, because it is inaccurate, inadequate and incomplete? It is a miscalculation, based on a misconception, leading to misrepresentation and misunderstanding. There is, as we notice, too much amiss.

They have witnessed some extraordinary occurrence. Now they want to cloak it in conventionalism and the more commonplace the cloakery, the more satisfactory to them. They are segregationists and if confronted with these two possibilities – either Aids is caused by a virus or it is iatrogenic – they segregate the commonplace and conventional as the only correct explanation. They think they can explain the virus, but they have no idea how to explain the iatrogenesis. Hence they simply forget the latter and talk only of vira.


Whoever said the pen is mightier than something else overlooked the mightiest of all and that is the scissors. If I should say that disease is triggered by iatrogenic or immaterial causes, I am not more of a trimmer of circumstances than such a barber whose clips are said to be scientific. Maybe they are. Most barbers though, are artists, although some consider themselves scientists.
We have listed phenomena that appear before medical catastrophes. They clip these catastrophes from events with barbershop science. They lather events with the soap of their explanations and then shave them clean of all details, except for the whiskers of convenience, which suit their style of clipping. It is a neat and well-trimmed account. There is however a smell, which I identify as too much Old Spice.

Learned verbiage, whether cloaked in gobbledegook Greek/Latin or in abbreviations assuming a life of their own, does not hide their lack of results.
Neither in diagnostic capacity, as they admitted themselves.
When confronted by cures, they declared they must have misdiagnosed.
They invoke this also in obtaining any other result than burial.
Thereby they bury not only the victims, but also the scientific method and principles.

Stones don’t fall from the sky and if they do, they are all just meteors. Diseases don’t come from drugs and if they do, they’re only minor side effects.

We know how hypnosis works; if you insist long enough, you begin to think you are right. You imagine you may have higher perceptions what is right. The prohibitionists had this worked out very skilfully. It may be that the discovery of Australia will turn out to be less important than the discovery and meaning of HIV or so they hope.
Their punctilious discipline and ponderous dignity are but an exercise in purposeless pedantry – orthodoxy defending the citadel of ignorance.
I condemn their rote learning, with its reliance on memorising, its hair-splitting condition and its disregard for the experience of the patient.
The patients are the textbook and the sickbed is the only study.


They spend their time dividing, distinguishing and defining. They divide the first part in three, of which the first part again is split in four and so on. They will explain how God can be an ass – creating incurable disease – or a pumpkin, as fancy decides and if so, how a pumpkin can preach a sermon, work miracles and be crucified.
They, of the Church of Medical Science, are engaged in 13th century monkish work.

In dubbing Pasteur a fool and his disciples ignoramuses, I simply return compliments they gave our predecessors, like Hahnemann, Hering, Kent and others.
Their doctoring has generated the impression that all medical treatment is a fraud and a hoax.
Even most simple peasants understand more than the doctors. Is it not shameful that a GP, drawing a good income, should not be able to care for his patients, whereas others who haven’t studied their brand of medicine are?
It is ridiculous to think that medicine is powerless. Still, whether it is, depends on pharmacology or knowledge of materia medica. They deny the shepherds and phytotherapists and homoeopaths with their simple remedies. While we cure all sorts of things, they declare medicine to be powerless against Aids.
This is because we use simple specifics, while they employ generals. General Gordon is a prime example. Let me give you another quote.

‘Simple and native medicines are altogether neglected in favour of chemical mixtures. Medicines are mixed in such enormous numbers that the effect of one is cancelled or otherwise modified by the action of another. None can foresee what such an abominable mixture will achieve’.

This is a quote from Paracelsus, who complains about the same things as Hahnemann, 300 years later. It was only 1510, when he said this. It was in 1810 that Hahnemann said the same in the introduction to the Organon.
Today, almost two hundred years later, I say the same. How far have the orthodox mixopaths progressed from the 13th century? Nothing; not even a millimetre.

The discerning intellect will see through the transparent eclectic evasions of their own ignorance.
One who believes disease to be a localised phenomenon is possessed by the desire for fragmentation.
Like those who do quantum mechanics; they are so deep with their nose up the bark of a tree they fail to see even the tree, let alone being aware of the forest. Let me give you another quote, from Paracelsus.

'Doctors, what is the use of the name, title and school, unless you have the knowledge? Whom do honours, the toga and the Bull behove, but those who have the skill? When disease puts them to the test, what use is toga, title or certificate, when they are forced to admit failure?
'They blame the disease, but fail to mention their own incompetence. In their field, we have more successes than their entire industry combined – I dare them to refute me.

‘Accredited asses would not be more incompetent swindlers, than those who claim to be doctors, but declare the common cold incurable.'

End of quote. Indeed what use are stethoscope, x-ray machine and the impressive array of other high-tech machinery, unless you can cure the sick with them? When disease puts them to the test, they stand with their hands in their hair and their mouth full of abracadabra. For the common cold is still incurable, they admit.

'It is the art of healing that makes the physician',

Paracelsus said and I concur. The work itself makes the master and doctor. He said,

'no emperor, pope, faculty privilege or university can make a doctor. From them it is hidden what makes a physician.'

Here I concur again. We only need to look at their rates of cure, which are non-existent.

The Hippocratic Oath obliges them to never use cautery or the knife.
Both are their main instruments of torture, next to their hellish medicine.

They do not even consider whether I am possibly right. Their reaction is, 'how can anyone be right, who is not a doctor', at least as they understand it. Behind their Pasteurian non-system and its proclaimed authority, the privileged association of doctors shuts itself off from new foundations of experience, learning and knowledge.

The sort of knowledge they think to have monopolised is not all there is to learn or can be learned. Instead of praising their remedies – ‘this is the cure-all for this that or the other’ - the work will praise the master, for chatter does not heal the sick.

The Aids issue is characteristic of the philistine respectability and eccentric bigotry, which characterises modern Pasteur worshipers.

I am not an antagonist to science, but to the attitude in the sciences that they have realised.
It is to belief, instead of acceptance; to insufficiency, which amounts to paltriness and puerility of scientific dogmas and standards.
They are submerged in a sea of conventionality of almost impenetrable density.

I searched the internet the other day. I found only a few – even among my colleagues – who do not buy the HIV/Aids paradigm. Invariably, I saw nothing but ideas how to combat the disease, rather than listening to and treatment of the patient. I saw many claims, of people who found THE cure. They believe to have found the universal panacea. They live in Lala-land, where the energy is generated by the perpetual motion machine.

No comments: