What causes Cancer -a brief account

Note: I have started a video series on cancer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsBiTwhvbqM

I will only discuss the basics here, enough for what I need to say for the sake of this section. If you are interested in cancer and other diseases that plague modern societies, you can visit my blog at kyrani99.wordpress.com and my books at kyrani99book1.wordpress.com and at kyrani99book2.wordpress.com, all of which have further details. I will update the work here to give more specific references when I have finished posting the relevant sections. Knowing a bit about cancer and how it can be very simply remised is of immense importance in formulating a precise and thus successful prayer. Certainly it is true that if a person is able to find rest they will get well and while that can be achieved though “blind faith” in God, it is not an easy street for most people. If, however, the patient has some knowledge about the disease and what is going on within the body-mind, then they can formulate a prayer more precisely and more confidently.

The medical paradigm considers the body as a machine that acts in some sort of automatic mode and which can “just malfunction”. Thus the research concentrates on biochemical pathways. Ideas and even consciousness are taken to be brain activity of some sort so researchers look to find the biochemical pathways that originate in the brain and that may then link to or initiate bodily activity. There are huge and significant differences between the medical model and the discoveries I have made with respect to cancer and disease in general.

The first thing to appreciate in understanding any disease is that ideas animate the body and they do so because ideas cause us, as personal self, to react in some way, most image007particularly emotionally. Not all ideas lead to movements in or by the body. It is only those ideas that are upheld with confidence as being true, convincing or applicable or they may be seen as relevant either in the present of the future or significant for some reason.

All of the emotions are good examples of how ideas cause movement either by the body or in the body. The easiest examples are fear and anger.
1. When danger is perceived the body is mobilized and maintained in a mobilized state, ready for sudden, rapid or strenuous action. These changes in body function allow a person to either run away or fight, hence the medical name of fear as “the fight or flight response”. When the issue of danger is gone the idea safety arises so the body returns to rest and a feeling of relief.
2. In a healthy (i.e., a humane) person anger arises with violations or conditions of injustice. There may be a need to fight, either to defend oneself somehow or to stand against the injustice and fight for ones rights. It may be as simple as raising ones voice a little. The body moves into higher gear, though not necessarily as high as for fear but in a more active fashion than fear.

I make a special note here that this has nothing to do with psychology and the notion that “it’s all just in your head”. Emotions are significant bodily changes. The ideas that move the body with emotional reactivity are in mind and the subsequent recognition of the bodily reactivity as emotion are in mind. Certainly there is activity in the brain that sends signals to the body to effect the changes in body function but to speak about emotions as “all in image028your head” is false. It only allows doctors to side step the real causes of disease thus making disease “good business”. There is nothing here that we can call psychological, not even the actions of personal self when the truth is known. And there most certainly is no aspect that can be called “all in your head”. Ideas are simply some content and that content may be information or misinformation and the brain is involved in the awareness of them. Furthermore an idea may be either a mental or a sensory perception and not simply arising from a person’s thinking and reasoning. All of these issues are important because in formulating a prayer or mental prescription we need to consider the idea we hold in mind and understand them in the light of the bigger picture, which means taking account of the bodily reactivity.

CANCER DEFINITION.

The medical industry story is about cells make mistakes in copying genes and how those mistakes create rogue cells. The rogue cells then grow out of control and reek havoc, They create cancer masses and they if you “don’t catch them in time” they will migrate to other parts of the body and form many more cancer masses. Stage four and you’re in the trash can. What a scary story! But they neglect to mention the many thousands of spontaneous remissions and they are only those recorded. How many more are there? I found something very different from my experiences with cancer. Through my observations and the application of those observations and other discoveries as well, I was able to return my body to health. I had developed cancer once in 1993 and then many times over in a five year period from 2004 to 2009 because I was targeted many times. And the culprits were quite cheeky. In some cases some of the culprits had said enough to convey a message of triumph. Something along the lines of “oh aren’t we wonderful! Look at what we have done!” On other occasions there were those who stop me in the street or in shops facetiously asking after my health. Many of these people were strangers. How did they know me? Another bastard came to my house and suggested that “I needed some friend at a ‘time like this’. Of course I told him to get lost. Two others having come outside my house, laughed haughtily in my face but none of them counted on what happened next. I have been able to remiss the cancer that formed every time and return my body to full health, without medical help of any sort. AND that is not all. I have reached a level where I am able to prevent my body from developing cancer in the first place. I have not only taken away their laughter but finally laughed in their faces exuberantly. Now they are spitting chips. Some of them are moaning that they can’t live with the anxiety of knowing that I am alive in this world! The truth is that the BIG C.. cancer is a paper tiger.. a joke! I found that a prayer not only treats cancer but is by far the best possible treatment and it’s free.

In a nutshell I would describe cancer as stem cell mediated immunity mistakenly ignited in the body owing to false ideas that seem true. Yes, genetics are involved but not by any accident or mistakes in copying. The genetic changes are deliberate so as to purposefully produce cells of a unique character. The tumour is actually an extraordinary immune organ, of which roughly half is made up of cancer cells or what I call barrier and resistance cells and the other half of normal immune system cells. And I add here that this is not something unknown to doctors. There is plenty in the medical literature that says just that. The new organ that the body creates has two aims. One is to create a barrier or resistance shield for whatever location in the body is perceived to be under threat. The other is to generate superior combat cells to fight against different perceived threats. It is also pertinent to say that there is an upside to cancer once we understand it better because it means cells can be generated to repair organs and tissues in the body by the application of ideas. Organs can be repaired to as good as new and damage due to accidents can also be mended, without the need of doctors and surgery. The superior combat cells, which our bodies can create at will, also means that we can fight against not only microbes with unbelievable high power and rapidity but we also attack and destroy parasites too, without the need of drugs and again by the use of ideas. All of this is bad news for doctors but good news for ordinary, humane people.

The question that needs to be answered is how can a perceived threat be created in the body? The short answer is with mischief and the human and animal capacities that doctors at present deny, namely ESP. The perceived threat is created by people close to the victim/ patient, one of their toxic “loved ones” because relationship is a critical for ESP to be strong enough for ideas to be conveyed. Toxic people misuse relationship to mentally address the other person and present hateful ideas. The way it is done together with the medical misinformation causes the other person to believe that the ideas that they become aware of are their own thinking, when in fact those ideas are nothing more than mental perceptions. Ideas alone however are not enough to create belief. The ideas need to be presented under emotional conditions, most commonly fear, in order to manufacture a belief and only in an unsuspecting person. The person becomes aware of the idea and at the same time feels fear and mistakenly believes that the idea must be significant or relevant because it is causing them to fear. They don’t realize that the idea and the fear are merely coincident.

image029

And there is not only the emotion that fools them into belief but also the action of mirror neurons in the brain. The perception of a mental address is easy, but the perception of an image or video images is not so easily perceived consciously. They are perceived subliminally BUT mirror neurons are still activated, which means there may be sensations in the body that the person perceives and considers are added evidence, when once again they are only coincidental. Thus there are three different occurrences, that are really unrelated but which seem to the person all part and parcel of one problem. The problem that the person believes they face causes them to react somatically and build a shield. And in their fight to shield some tissue or organ they only generate a bigger and bigger mass of cells. And the corresponding cytotoxic attacks that may also take place, only give rise to ulcerations in healthy tissue. All of these problems in the body result from apparent threats that have no reality. They are created through mischief. Realizing what is going on leads the person to an “ah ha” experience that frees them from the game of deception. This brings a halt to the fight and hence the growth of the tumour and the cytotoxic attacks. Without any further action the body restore health but it does so at its own pace, which may take months. A prayer can significantly accelerate this healing and ward off the offenders. This second part is not the only option but it is best used anyway. Once the person becomes proficient at recognizing the very early stages of this treachery, it is possible to simply stand against the offenders without the bodily reactivity that creates cell masses and thus frustrate them by rendering all their efforts useless.

THE MISCHIEF.

There are several cards dealt out and they are dealt out by a toxic mob and not simply one or two toxic “loved ones” or toxic “best friends”. One or two people can not play this sort of game of treachery. The chief offender is always someone close to the victim/ patient and who has their own motives for their involvement. For instance they may be interested in holding power and influence over the other person, and that being the power of life and death over the other person. This would allow them to manipulate and control the other person in a relationship, be it a personal or professional relationship. It may be aimed to take revenge or punish them or to “make them go away permanently”, i.e., kill them for some reason. As for the rest of the mob, their primary purpose is the thrill that they get when they sense the pain and suffering of the person they hurt, which of course is insightful but may also be sensory if they know the victim/ patient well enough to be near them. Getting a thrill from another person’s suffering is the nature of evil or toxic people.

The cards that are dealt out have specific purposes. They are as follows.
1. An issue of danger to generate fear. The danger has also to be made to appear internal. Internal danger is used for three possible reasons, two of which are essential and present in all cancers. One is the manufacture of belief and the other is to causes the body’s immunity to be put into high gear. However it is a different immune response from that that the body makes for infections. The third, like the use of other emotions, targets specific organs. Two organs that are typically targeted using fear are the kidneys and the urinary bladder, and one body structure that is targeted using fear is the bones.
2. The manufacture of belief. Mere suggestion can on some occasion be taken up by another person and treated as real. However toxic people do not rely on chance. They look to cause the other person to believe the idea AND be plagued by the idea. Of course it can only be done to an unsuspecting person because once you know the game you can laugh at it. To make the idea a belief it is presented at the same time as the emotion of fear, so that the person mistakes the fear as evidence for the idea’s significance or relevance. The idea may be used in a number of ways. An idea, such as “toxic food”, targets the body and causes the person to believe that the danger is internal. They can only target areas, which are pointed at by beliefs and affected by emotional reactivity and reactivity owing to the action of mirror neurons. Belief is key to causing another person to react somatically as to generate a cell mass.
3. Anger to make the targeted person antagonistic. Anger is used, either consciously or subconsciously (patient is only aware of feeling hot) as it generates “our little fighter”. Here again anger itself can be used to target specific areas of the body, two for example are the oesophagus and the liver.
4. Other types of emotional reactivity depending on the type of cancer that is aimed at, eg sadness and despair are used in lung cancer and bowel cancer respectively.

Creating issues of danger.
Danger is “the possibility of harm”. It is not the actual act of causing of harm. To create an issue of danger the offenders need to have:-.
1. been given the means of gaining access to the victim, for example a copy of the key to the victim’s house may be given by the chief offender, who is commonly a toxic spouse or close relative or trusted friend of the victim/patient. But though the criminals have a key they do not use it to enter the house. They do not or need to approach the victim/ patient directly. It is the potential that is used.
2. come into the victim/patient’s vicinity on certain days or certain times, which may mean in their street or at a toxic neighbour’s house or they may move in nearby and use the time they are not at their regular job to pose danger.
3. be armed. They most commonly either own or are furnished with an illegal or registered weapon. Guns are readily available, they are held by a huge percentage of the population, in Western countries in particular.
4. been able to hold criminal intent otherwise they cannot pose a threat that is felt as a real potential Intent is a mental condition and extremely difficult to prove. And the doctors will not give the patient support if the patient speaks up about their fears. A doctor would call the patient delusional if they admitted to a fear based on their gut feeling that someone is holding criminal intent against them. And indeed in late stages of cancer when this danger becomes painfully obvious to the patient, and enough of them speak up about it, they are drugged with psychiatric drugs. The claim is that in last stages patients with cancer may become mentally ill.

A criminal merely coming into the vicinity of the victim/ patient is not enough in most cases to make danger felt but as not apparent. To get a subliminal reaction of fear in the victim/patient, which means they feel the bodily reactivity and in some cases identify it as fear but are unaware of its causes, the criminals have had to have been relationally entangled with the victim beforehand. This means they have been brought into the victim’s presence and the victim caused to notice them but only in passing and without the knowledge of their significance. The victim/ patient sees the criminals as strangers causing some sort of commotion as to attract attention. However their actions are insignificant so that they are not consciously memorable. However the victim/ patient will become unconsciously aware of them, if the four above conditions are also standing. How much the victim/ patient identifies their bodily reactivity as fear depends on ideas presented to them by someone strongly related to them. If such ideas are not presented then the victim may just feel hot because of the charged up metabolism, but it is not recognized as fear.

Having established a danger issue it then needs to be made conscious but in an illusory fashion, as an internal danger, inside the person’s body. The way this is done is through the use of belief.

Manufacturing the Belief of an Internal Danger from an External Danger.
To make the external danger appear internal, the victim /patient is presented with (or “supplied with” is the toxic jargon) an idea that indicates some internal problem. So that the victim/ patient feels the fear and becomes aware of an idea depicting harm to a part of their body at the same time, hence mistakenly associating the two. The idea also has to be upheld by the victim for a long enough time to cause the person to ignite a reaction in their body. And it needs to be accompanied by other subliminal hostile images. To achieve all this three conditions are required:-
1. The idea has to indicate some possible issue of danger. In the illustration above the woman had an idea about toxic food. As the food is eaten, if we believe it to be toxic and thus harmful, it will indicate harm to some part of the digestive system. Typically the oesophagus or stomach are likely places since these are immediately associated with swallowing and digesting the food, which take place in the oesophagus and the stomach respectively.
2. The idea has to be anchored on something that has a time consideration. For example, the idea of toxins in the food being eaten or something that has been eaten was toxic means the idea is anchored on the food. If the person has eaten something they will need to digest it, which takes a few hours. Thus the idea can be repeatedly presented for that amount of time and make the person continue to react over time.
3. The idea is also supplemented with and enhanced by subliminal images, which for most people are not conscious. So for instance images of something or someone attacking the area in the body that is being targeted, as for example in the oesophagus. Such ideas have to be insightfully perceived and as that requires strong relationship then someone very close to the victim/patient is needed. This is the role of the chief offender(s). And they will uphold ideas in a very cunning manner as to make them convincingly appear to be the targeted person’s own thinking.

Next Post: How does all this cause a person to react somatically?

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Prayer Experiment Part 2

Randomized double blind trials and Prayer.

The randomized double blind trials are also problematic with respect to prayer, for the same reasons, plus some additional ones. Experiments need to be uniquely devised in order to examine and test whatever it is that want to test, whether drugs, surgery or prayer. I suspect the big problem is that there is no will to do so by the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies and not simply because prayers don’t create profits but because prayer highlights the very fact that the patient and the patient alone has the ability to make themselves well and not even get sick in the first place. All the medicine in the world and all the doctors that money can buy doesn’t compare to one well formulated prayer. And furthermore prayer, or what I call a mental prescription, is best self-administered. Prayers are free of charge and can be used any time, especially at the very onset of any condition, which if left untreated, would lead to disease. And contrary to what Dawkins imagines, prayers do not violate the natural laws. The reality is that natural laws do allow human beings to do a lot more than what they have as yet realized.

What is prayer?

To understand what is wrong with the experiments with respect to prayer we must first investigate prayer. “What is prayer”? To answer this question let us first look to the purposes of prayer. There are four main purposes and they are• to remember God,
• to relate to God and
• to make requests of God.
• to give thanks to God, which is a form of remembrance.

All the purposes of Prayer are part and parcel of the spiritual journey. This is not a journey as we commonly understand a journey but rather an awakening. It begins with the concerns of the personal self, the ephemeral being that seems so convincingly real and important in the beginning but as obstacles on the path are overcome, the personal self becomes lessens in importance until it finally disappears. The extinction of the personal self is the open gateway to a level that can be said to be “outside of all existences” but which contains within it all existences. This is the spiritual realm and it is paradoxical but only to the logical mind. Another way the personal self can be described is as a veil that is lifted or which dissolves away with spiritual awakening. The soul is awakened by God’s Grace, brought into the Presence of God. At the highest level, prayer is far simpler and most commonly an affirmation of love for and surrender to God. At lower levels, prayer addresses health and other life issues.

The use of prayer in making requests of God is very significant for life on the physical plane and at various stages of the spiritual journey. The first is for the welfare of the body. The mind is not subject to damage, decay and death as the body is, but as ideas affect the body. Ideas, whether positive or negative, which a person considers significant, relevant or true, affect the functions of the body. And furthermore we need to realize what are mere mental perceptions and what are our own thinking and reasoning. Ideas move the body into action or inaction, both internally and externally so it is important to be careful which ideas we accept and uphold in mind and which we discharge. Prayer enables these processes to take place with more efficiency and power than otherwise. The second is to cope with and overcome the adversaries that appear on the way. These are the toxic or evil people. These people never act alone. They are a collective and not only in being associated in the physical level. They form one mindset, which is described differently in different cultures and most significantly in the different religions. In some religions the evil mindset is personified as for instance in Christianity as the devil, or it may be described in abstract terms as for instance in Buddhism as Mara, the tempter. Here also prayer is the best method to use. Prayer is a formulation for discharging of negative ideas and setting, reaffirming and upholding positive ideas. All diseases can be healed by addressing the ideas, the very source of the problems. I have heard of and read of people claiming that sometimes, especially if the disease isn’t healed by the effects of prayer and more especially by the prayer-giver’s/ healer’s efforts, then it is because the sick person has to endure the illness to help them “face their fears” or negativity or because they won’t forgive some offender or even for spiritual growth. This is a load of garbage. All humane people can be healed, regardless of their “sins” and it is simply a matter of addressing the problems correctly and/or finding another more competent healer. You certainly can gain spiritual growth when faced with an illness but you don’t need illness in your life to have spiritual growth. The patient themselves is in the best position to heal themselves and to do that they need to become skilled at prayer formulation. There are three elements involved; a person’s free choice, their faith, which is a quality of being and “Divine intervention”. The first element is the request made to a healer or prayer giver. Faith is the element which a healer or prayer giver reinforces and indeed this is the most important function of the prayer giver or healer. That faith is what helps them fight against adversaries and ward off evil people. The last is in a sense automatic because the prayer is always offered to God, whether by the patient themselves or the prayer giver/ healer.

Prayer is best demonstrated where there is some effect that can be examined and measured before and after. Thus prayer given for overcoming disease and healing shows us the most dramatic demonstration of its power. I will discuss prayer for the treatment of cancer because it is the best example for people to understand. As I mentioned above, is best done by the patient themselves. If a prayer-giver is used then they must be carefully chosen so as to be a person of integrity and of course humane. I will describe this first and then address the use of randomized double blinded trials and the problems that arise for the patient as well as for the testing of prayer. To explain how the prayer is formulated and how it works for the treatment of cancer, I will first give a brief account on how the disease arises and how it needs to be treated with prayer.

To be continued

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Prayer Experiment part1

The Science used for the Prayer Experiments

The Great Prayer Experiment is one of many studies made on prayer and one that I think was done poorly. The results were poor to negative so no doubt Dawkins saw reason to choose it for discussion instead of discussing prayer citing the whole range that have been done over the years. Prayer experiments show very mixed results. Some are positive while others are neutral and still others show a detrimental effect from prayer. I will discuss prayer experiment in general and point out reasons why I believe some do poorly and others well. Then I will discuss ethics because there are examples in the prayer experiments that show how ethics can, in part, be studies in biomedical science, given a different medical paradigm.

Dawkins says that such experiments to be done properly must use a double blind as a “standard”. And as I am talking to lay people and not scientists I will explain this first and furthermore to help people understand that the double blinded trial is seriously flawed with respect to many medical experiment, especially in testing drugs and certainly for prayer. Let’s first look at an experiment that probably everyone has done in their life at the ages of 4 or 5 years old or maybe a bit older. A child sees a hot plate on the stove top and while it is not being used goes up to it and thinks what’s that? They touch the hot plate and it feels a bit cold and smooth. Nothing happens. Sometime later when the stove top has been turned on they may again become interested but this time when they go to touch it “ouch!” It feels very hot and burns their fingers. So the child then reasons that it is best not to touch the hot plate because sometimes it’s hot and “hurts my fingers!” Touching the plate while it is switched off and cold can be thought of as the control experiment, or what is often called “the blank”. Touching the plate when it is on is the actual experiment. A comparison is made between the two conditions and as the child has done reasoning follows the result of the experiment.

image020

In the experiment that the child does with a stove we have a human experimenter and an inanimate object, which in the macro world at least, behaves in a reliable, predictable manner. If it is switched off the hot plate stays cold and if it is switched on it becomes hot. When we come to medical experiments we are dealing with human being (or animals) and human beings especially have “a mind of their own” so to speak. They will make decisions for themselves, they will uphold ideas about what is happening, which often affect their body functions and they will reason in their own way depending on their circumstances. All of this makes them unpredictable and unreliable as subjects of an experiment. One of the big problems is with what is known as the placebo effect. This was seen in randomized single blinded drug trials with respect to the drugs and not with those who had the blank or dummy drugs. The problem was that people were able to insightfully perceive what the research doctor knew, ie whether they had a drug or a blank. At least some of those that discovered they had a drug had an expectation of getting well which helped them get well. This is called a placebo effect. It was bad news for the doctors because it meant that the efficacy of the drugs could not be properly tested because they did not know how much their recovery was due to the drug and how much was due to the placebo effect. Thus they devised the randomized double blind drug trial.

With a randomized double blind study the researchers hoped to eliminate the placebo effect. So both the doctors and the participants are kept in the dark as to who gets the trial drug or surgery and who doesn’t. The real aim is to stop patients from gaining insightful information if the doctors know who gets what. However doctors do not want to accept ESP and insightfulness, after all they believe and treat the human being and animals as machines, so they cite two different reasons. One reason they say is to stop doctors from “unintentionally tipping off the participants”, which they then claim means the patients are influenced by the ‘power of suggestion’. The second reason they give is to stop the doctors from unconsciously biasing their evaluation of results, so someone uninvolved analyses the results. Both reasons are important but the first reason is the critical one because when a patient knows what they are getting a placebo effect is unavoidable.

To explain the placebo effect we can look to a doctor giving a patient pills, which contain a harmless substance with no definite pharmacological effects against the patient’s illness, in clinical practice. The pills only contain something like weak salt solution, distilled water, or sugar. They call this “fake medicine” and a placebo. This is not really fake medicine. They are calling it fake because there is no pharmaceutical product in the pills and doctors really only recognize the pharmaceutical as a valid ingredient to call the drug ‘real medicine’. They do not recognize an idea as an ingredient so as to call the dummy drug real medicine. The doctor however tells the patient that the medicine he or she is given them contains an powerful drug, so the patient thinks they are getting “real medicine”. A lot of doctors think this is being dishonest because they are not telling the patient the truth. Other doctors use this approach because they see that they are making a suggestion with the medicine given that will help the patient expect to get well. The suggestion is the all important ingredient that makes the inert substance a placebo. However it is not the suggestion of itself that has potency. The suggestion causes the patient to uphold a critical idea with confidence in mind. That idea is that they can expect to get well. In research however this is not the case. And yet doctors still want to call any inactive substance used as a control in an experiment as a placebo. It is not a placebo. It is a blank or inert substance and the patients know that. The patients who participate in a drug trial know that some will get a drug and some will get a dummy drug or blank but they don’t know who gets what. By calling the dummy drug a placebo they are deliberately skewing their results because they are telling the patients that they will get something that makes some people well. The dummy drug should not be given with any suggestion so it is wrong to call it a placebo. Doctors call the inert drug a placebo because in a double blinded trial they see that some of the patients taking the dummy drug get well. However they deny the truth of the matter. In single blinded experiments the placebo effect was not seen only with the real drug and NOT with the blank or dummy drug. People taking the blank did not get well.

image021

It is also important to say something about doctor’s belief that a placebo effect comes about owing to the power of suggestion. The word placebo is derived from a Latin word meaning “I shall be pleasing” The problem of the placebo is not merely a matter of suggestion and I doubt that the patient aims to please the doctor either. Firstly a suggestion has no power to bring about any effects and secondly the patient is not interested in pleasing the doctor but in getting well for their own sake. You can make all manner of suggestion to someone but if that person doesn’t accept the suggestion and make it a belief because it has significance for them then there is no effect. The doctor makes a suggestion in giving a patient in a clinical setting a dummy drug but only when the patient accepts the suggestion is there a placebo effect and they know this. There is plenty of evidence that points to something other than mere suggestion and a supposed patient’s desire to please being involved. In a clinical practice a doctors may find that some of his or her patients may become “addicted” to the dummy drug that they have been given. This means that the person has developed dependence to what? Distilled water or a weak saline or sugar solution! Clearly the pills are not addictive, especially if we consider the medical reasoning surrounding addiction. The patient is really a person who is suffering from stress and when they have taken the pills which they believe is strong medicine, the idea of getting well has helped them overcome the stress. However when the stress is due to toxic relationships and other people in their lives wanting to manipulate them or hurt them then such stress is ongoing. The patient believes that the pills helped but the pills did not help them directly. The pills were only an anchor for an idea. It was their own belief that helped them. Not realizing that their idea is all they need to stay well, they go back to the doctor wanting more pills to stay well. It is the belief of the patient that counts but that belief is anchored on the pills the doctor gave them. The suggestion was only that the pill would make them well and not that they need ongoing supply of the pill to stay well. That same suggestion that is made in clinical practice should not be made in a drug trial. Calling the blank as a placebo will encourage some patients to believe they will be given something that makes some people well. It further skews results that are already affected by placebo.

Other patients may even present with side effects and a few even get worse on the dummy drugs. Doctors call this a nocebo effect. Here too it is not the suggestion of the doctor, even though the patient may see the doctor as the authority. It is only when the suggestion is accepted and upheld in mind with confidence that it becomes potent and this time detrimental. The side effects and getting worse on the dummy drug or fake medicine have to do with further suggestions. They may be from insightful information about what ideas the doctor entertains and does not voice to the patient or it may be from other people in the person’s life either verbalizing or thinking that “there may be harmful effects from what they are taking” or it might had to do with the patient’s fear of medicines and drugs. Which ever it is, it is still the patient’s belief, and not the suggestions, that counts.

So are these experiments even scientific, let alone standards?
What doctors don’t want to admit to is that in a double blinded experiment all patients in the trial, both those with the drug and those with the dummy drug, are affected by placebo effect. Why is this so? We need to appreciate that the patients, who take part in drug trials, are most often desperately sick people. For many the drug trial is seen as their ticket to health where all else has failed or where there is no other drugs available for their ailment. Such a person will say to themselves “I don’t know what I’ve got but I’ve got a fifty-fifty chance that I have been given a drug. The odds are even! Yeah I believe I am one of the patients given the drug. Yeah I got a drug! I’m sure of it. I’m gonna get well!” This sort of reasoning is autosuggestion and it leads the patient to uphold what they see as an attractive idea with confidence in mind, i.e., they uphold the idea that “they can expect to get well” as a belief. This is a self-administered placebo. Indeed when we consider the matter closely we find that all placebos are self-administered because the patient needs to take the suggestion to heart and uphold it with confidence in mind to experience the placebo effect. This makes the trials worse not better because where they had one problem before they now have two problems.
1. They have no idea how many taking the drug being tested are showing a placebo effect just as they did in a single blinded trial or indeed a nocebo effect and
2. the dummy drug, which is used as a comparison, is now unreliable. Patients are now getting well with the dummy as well as with the drug, which they didn’t do in a single-blinded trial! And the researchers that call the dummy drug a placebo significantly add to this problem because that is as good as suggesting to at least some of the patients that they may get well on what they are given.

They are looking to say that the drug is “significantly better” than the dummy or what they are calling placebo. To get this “significantly better” business they do hundreds of experiments in some cases until they get the one or two in which more people with the drug got well than those with the placebo. And they discard the hundreds that they did in favour of that one or two and use those to put under the nose of the “blinded statistician”. It explains why they need the statistician blinded, otherwise how could he or she get the desired results? It is hocus-pocus. The experiments are anything but scientific. What they won’t admit is that experiments in the biomedical sciences are very imprecise, to state the matter kindly. To be brutally honest their experiments are bullshit. The drugs are used in practice to make people well and they sue people who say the drugs don’t work. The question is why do the drugs work? Do the drugs do anything or is it all due to the placebo effect? Randomized double or single or triple blinded trials as scientific experiments are imprecise at best and they are imprecise because they are dealing with human subjects. And if the truth be known even the laboratory animal studies are fraught with problems because medical scientists have no respect and no regard for life. They treat laboratory animals abominably. How can you get results if the animal’s bodies are reacting with fear and hostility or if the animals are kept restricted in spaces in which they cannot move for days and months at a time? The biology is skewed. Cruelty to laboratory animals is all that their experiments are about.

Scientists claims that humans having no free will, that their faith is a delusion and either your genes or your brain is in the driver’s seat, depending on whether you’re talking to a evolutionary biologist or a neuroscientist. Despite these claims humans do have free will and faith and can, unlike automatons make unique, deliberate and free choices and uphold beliefs that are potent enough to make them well, even from the worst diseases. All of these qualities do not make them good science subjects that behave in a predictable or consistent manner. Medical scientists have a hide to point to what they call “primitive systems” like Traditional Chinese Medicine and say the herb are not tested scientifically and thus “no good” or in a condescending fashion claim the herbs are “not as good” as their drugs. Firstly TCM, through trial and error observation methods have been tested on hundreds of millions of subjects over a five thousand year history or longer and they have been not simply been adjusted to treat particular ailments, they have been fine tune in their uses with other herbs in TCM prescriptions. Secondly it is true TCM herbs and other treatments like acupuncture haven’t passed the scrutiny of scientific testing, but if they were honest about it, neither have modern Western drugs and many types of other treatments including surgery! For example an orthopaedic surgeon in the States found in experiments with knee surgery, that the dummy surgery (punctured two holes near the knee and sticked them up) proved to be just as good as the real operation, with lasting results. The reason is the person’s belief made them well. A placebo effect here too! The use of a double blind that Dawkins points out and insists should be used, is hardly a standard. Instead of making the experiments “more scientific”, double blinding skews the results far more than the single blinding had done. What Dawkins doesn’t like is faith because faith, and worse still God, is the evidence that Darwin worried about, that once shown to be real, would destroy his theory of evolution.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The God Hypothesis

The hypothesis that Dawkins puts forward is:-
“There exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence, who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.”

It appears that this hypothesis aims to attack the “Judaeo-Christian God” and since Christians claim “their god” is the only “real god”, then I would say he is looking to prove that it is impossible for an intelligence, super-human and whatever could create the universe.

Dawkin’s alternative hypothesis is.
“Any creative intelligence of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.”

In this alternative hypothesis he is basically doing the same thing but in a different way. He aims to use Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, which lead him to atheism as he states. And of course he is confident in the theory but this is a proof regarding an intelligent being that is a part of creation. Intelligence is a quality of God but God is not simply an intelligent being and certainly not one contained within creation. This is really where the real stumbling block is because scientists only want see a material universe and nothing else. Even the nothing or nothingness that we talk about in science is essentially part of the material universe.

It is an impossible problem trying to define God. What or who is God? This is unanswerable. A large part of the problem is that we are elements within the system, while God contains the system, the creation. God is outside of the system. An element within the system cannot give a definition of what is outside of the system. Definition is difficult even in many areas where reason applies but it doesn’t have to be a stumbling block. For instance we cannot define zero, it is, like infinity, undefined. But we can prove that zero exists and we make use of it. We can prove God exists and certainly show the application of God within creation.

He first discusses polytheism and then monotheism. I do not see any polytheism. If we call Hinduism polytheistic then Christianity is also polytheistic. The only difference is that Hinduism has thousands in one and Christianity has three in one. Smaller number but so what! I see that every religion is essentially monotheistic. The differences are only conceptual. How human beings try to conceive of God from Hinduism with its thousands of gods, which are really only manifestations of Brahman, to Islam, which leaves God undefined and unknowable, but which rather describes the 99 names of God, is all just a matter of conceptualization. It is also a matter of how humans have been given knowledge. A prophet or avatar of God will always give knowledge in a form that people of a particular development can understand. It is not a matter of culture as some claim but a matter of the level of understanding that people have at particular times in world history. Furthermore it is human to try to think and reason about God, whether that is possible or not because in trying to relate to God people are driven to use mental imagery. Humans respond to certain qualities of God such as compassion. So for instance there is no essential differences between compassion represented by an incarnation of God as for example Kuan-Yin, the goddess of mercy and compassion in China and Japan, to a name of God as “The Most Compassionate” in Islam, to the Greek concept of Agape, which is Love in its highest form and which includes compassion. This was a part of Early Greek Christianity and subsequently other forms of Christianity. I would say that the person who says “our god” or “your god” or “the god of whoever” or “their gods” etc., etc., are voicing a polytheistic view, which is erroneous and nationalistic and often political.

Dawkins also points out differences in pantheism, deism and theism. I would agree that deism is watered down theism but I strongly disagree that pantheism is sexed up atheism. And furthermore people like Einstein, who have used the word God, are not pantheistic. Einstein used the word ‘god’, tongue in cheek, to mean ‘nature’ and nothing more. I read his comment as “nature doesn’t play dice” because there are the laws of nature, the laws of physics. I would say that Einstein was clearly atheist and not even an agnostic. Witchcraft and shamanism are both pantheistic and while neither clearly state a single spiritual entity or God their practices reveal that they do adhere to a position of Oneness as the source of all. So for instance when the circle of sacred space is cast in Witchcraft, within which a ceremony and rituals take place, the witch does call on goddesses of the four directions and welcomes that which is above and below, but she calls all to the central place “where all things meet as one”. This is the spiritual realm.

There is also the case of Buddhism, which many Western Buddhists claim is atheistic. All of the theologians, writers and Buddhist students and teachers that espouse this idea are openly atheistic. Most consider that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy and a way of life. Some are people rebelling against the Judaeo-Christian concept of an anthropomorphic God. However they are taking Buddha’s teachings in isolation and outside of its frame of reference, uprooted and removed from its place of birth, Hindu India. Nirvana is not about annihilation but the “utter extinction of aging and dying” (Sutta-nipata vv.1093-94). Nirvana is “the unchanging state of deathless peace”. As for it being a philosophy and a way of life, I would strongly point to the purpose of Buddhism. It is most certainly not about the study of knowledge, reality and existence, nor about lifestyle, but freedom from suffering. This purpose is fundamentally religious.

As for extra-terrestrials, no matter how superhuman and god-like they may be, they are still within the universe, i.e., they are “elements within the system”. They may be very intelligent but they are not God so I am dismissing them.

In the case of ethics though, I strongly disagree with Dawkins about science’s entitlement to advise on moral values. They are well placed in an advisory role and this can be well explained, ironically enough when we consider the Great Prayer Experiment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Introduction

I found the Dawkins book of The God Delusion seriously flawed with respect to God but also misguiding in some areas with respect to science. For these reasons I decided to critically discuss it on this blog. All that I have written is my own opinions.

To begin with I want to address two terms that Dawkins uses, which go to the heart of the matter and that is not God per se. One term is in the title of his book and the other is found in chapter one “The God Hypothesis”. In the title he uses the word “delusion”. He admits that psychiatrists want to claim the word for themselves because they use it as a medical term. The psychiatric profession consider people who are delusional are mentally ill but so do lay people. However where psychiatry is concerned there is a long history. People have been and are being considered as mentally ill on religious grounds. The persecution of witches may have started with the Catholic Church but it was soon followed by the medical profession. And the treatment of followers of the Wicca and other Pagan faiths were treated horribly, even criminally by the psychiatrists. And then there is the “it depends on cultural considerations if you believe something to be considered sane or not” argument. So if you believe in Voodoo for instance and you’re African, then you’re sane but if you believe in Voodoo and you’re an American of Anglo-Saxon extraction on the other hand then you’re insane. This is a highly prejudiced diagnosis. Furthermore some psychiatrists have even claimed that prophets or avatars of God such as Jesus Christ are mentally ill. So using the word delusional in the title next to God raises all of these matters, whether intentionally or not.

Dawkins points out that the dictionary definition of delusional is a false belief or impression. So what is being said is that a belief in God is a false belief. False on whose count, on atheist scientists? The defence that Dawkins attempts in using the Microsoft Word definition that delusion is “a false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence” is qualified by the second part of Microsoft’s definition and that is “especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder”. He wants to use the first part of the definition to apply to religion. Atheists don’t have the knowledge or the authority to make such a claim. But for all that God and religion is really the excuse. The core problem has to do with science and for a variety of reasons. This is revealed in the use of the second term in the first chapter.

Dawkins points out, by way of a quote that there is a war going on between rationalism and superstition. The word “superstition” is used where the word faith should be used. Superstition is a gullible belief in the supernatural and that is some force above nature but most people understand that it means things like ghosts. Superstition is also an unjustified idea as to the nature or effects of some things such as “don’t open an umbrella inside the house”. Such idea may have had some meaning in olden times but not today, although some people are still affected by them. None of this has to do with faith and the belief in God. It is a petty attempt to belittle and ridicule faith. The war is really between rationalism and faith. Rationalism is the use of reason to base one’s opinions and beliefs. In opposition to rationalism is faith, which is not based on reasoning but at the same time it is not without cause or justification. And I would also like to mention here, for the sake of completion that emotional response is also based on reason. A lot of people, including many doctors and many tele-evangelists as well as others see emotions as the opposite of reason but really emotions are bodily processes that result from reasoning that follows a perception or idea. Fear for instance follows the perception of danger. And while we may not reason out from first principles each time we would have, in the first instance or instances of danger, had reasoned. The reasoning we make is that owing to a possibility of harm we need to ready our body for sudden rapid action should we need to defend ourselves or flee in order to avoid that possibility. Thus the perception of danger is followed by reasoning which gives rise to fear or what doctors call “fight or flight”.

For some people and increasingly for many scientists reason alone is taken as the guiding principle of life instead of a guiding principle of life. For most scientists reason is the basis of certainty in their knowledge so reason becomes the guiding principle of their lives. In science the observations made and the experiments done are then discussed and analysed using reason and logic. This enables the scientist to arrive at a theory in some cases or to support or disprove a theory that has already been put forward by others. This takes science a step further from observation and experience. Science has been very successful despite some faults in the scientific method. We are all testimony to the benefits of science in technology. Enormous changes in technology have brought great benefits to people’s lives; For instance the development of telephones from the cumbersome handsets that only the wealthy could afford to the mobile smart phones that are within everybody’s reach and all this has been achieved in a relatively short time. These advancements in science use rationalism and certainly one can appreciate the great heights of such reasoning in considering that Einstein used his scientific knowledge and observations to do thought experiments. Then using reasoning and logic developed theories that radically changed our understanding of physics.

However there is more to life than just the material surroundings. So all of the success of science and rationalism does not discredit faith because there is religious faith and faith in other abilities that we have and that collectively we call psi. In the case of psi or psychic abilities we can see that we are capable of acquiring knowledge, which is not always conscious. Knowledge that is subliminal does not have apparent reason nor allow us to use reasoning but can still be seen to be valid belief. Religious faith is in a similar category. So before I discuss religious faith I would like to discuss an example that is commonly found in ordinary people’s lives. This example involves a woman I met in the United States at a religious convention. During the convention many people came forward to share their personal experiences. One woman’s experience had been particularly interesting to me at the time because I found a few other people’s reactions, one of them being someone who professed herself to be the woman’s friend, enigmatic and for a long time afterwards their behaviour had puzzled me.

The woman had related the incidence of a rape that she had suffered in her home town. She said she had gone to a bus stop that was situated in a very lonely place. I don’t recall if she had said whether it was day or night but I recall she said that she had walked a long way to get to the bus stop and that it was on the edge of town. There was no one else around and she sat alone on one end of the bench at the bus stop. After a time she saw in the distance the figure of a man approaching. When he reached the bench he sat at the farther side and did not interact with her. He did not look at her or speak to her and he did not act strange. She said that despite his ordinary appearance and manner she had had an extremely bad feeling about him. He showed no sign that would justify her feeling. It was purely a gut feeling that was unsupported by any physical evidence. A short time later a bus arrived and stopped. She said no one got on and no one got off and the bus left. After the bus left the man moved along on the bench and began to hassle her. He finally raped her and left. When she had finished speaking I asked her why she didn’t get on the bus. She replied that it was not going to take her where she wanted to go. It was not her bus. So I said to her “if I were you in that place and had a very bad feeling and a bus came I would have got on even if it was headed for Woop-Woop!” She looked puzzled so I said something like “surely it was an opportunity for you to get out of there safely. Why didn’t you grab the opportunity?” She had been quite emotional as she related her story. She looked nervously at the woman beside her that was supposed to be her friend and then looked at me with some anxiety but did not give me any answer. I felt that something was stopping her from being able to reply. So I rephrased my words in a way that was as supportive of her as possible. She stirred a bit and made a sound but then the woman who was seated next to her joined the conversation. She insisted that the woman had acted correctly and began a discourse about having a right to be at the bus stop. I told her that this has nothing to do with whether you have a right to be there or not and everything to do with protecting herself, to take some measure for her safety. To my shock the woman’s “friend” began to argue with me insisting that she had rights and had the right to exercise her rights as a citizen of the US. I tried to give her an example of safety over-riding rights to be somewhere, so I cited the case of people in sports stadium. What happens if a gunman appears with a semiautomatic and threatens to shoot people? I asked her “would you be concerned about exercising your rights to be there or would you forget about the ticket you’d purchased and your rights and instead scramble for the exist gate?” This “friend” then said that of course she would run away but that the gunman threatening to shoot people was evidence of danger. I reminded her that the woman sitting next to her had said “I had a very bad feeling about this guy” after he sat on the bench and before the bus had arrived. The friend looked to be very annoyed with me. I had then turned and tried to counsel the woman telling her that her gut feeling had been a strong warning and that in the future if she felt that way again she should act on it. At that point the friend, together with a few of the others began to attack me. They appeared to be enraged. They began by insisting that the woman’s gut feeling was not evidence, even in the light of the fact that she got raped because it could not be proved that the two were linked. They then launched a discussion about women’s rights to walk the streets, especially at night and be unafraid and that they had to exercise their rights. They refused to talk about her gut feeling as a warning and told me in no uncertain terms that I should keep my advice to myself and that their friend did the right thing. I was stunned by the reaction however as the woman appeared particularly distressed I let the matter rest but I was very puzzled about her friend’s behaviour and the things that were said.

Indeed this woman’s story and particularly the attitude of the “friend” and a few others that were there that day had really puzzled me for a long time. I thought about it from time to time long after I was back to Australia. Some years ago, after hearing the testimony of an evil person, I remembered something that I had not given any relevance to at the time. The information I got from the evil man about the methods employed by evil people and the recollection resolved the puzzle. The woman who was raped had made some mention that shortly before she headed off for the bus stop she had spoken to her friend. I can’t remember precisely what she said but she had mentioned that either she had just left her friend’s place or had left some other place and was headed for her friend’s place. In other words the friend knew of her whereabouts at that particular time. And from the confessions of the evil man I realized that the man who had raped her had not arrived at the bus stop by chance as I had assumed. It was a set up and again from what the evil man had told me such a set up is never done on the spur of the moment. It is planned. This information explained the friend’s angry outburst. Of course she would not want the woman acting on her gut feeling. That would have “spoilt the game”! She was a false friend and now I would say without a doubt that she was an evil person. The woman’s gut feeling was all she had but it was based on strong evidence even thought the knowledge was not conscious. Her gut feeling was all that stood between her safety and a crime committed against her. She had weighed up her gut feelings against the sensory information that she had and reasoned that she was wrong about how she felt because the man did not act out until after the bus had left. That is why she did not get on the bus. She had fallen for the medical misinformation, which a lot of offenders are quick to quote and that is that if she used her gut feeling as evidence for anything then she’s crazy because her gut feeling is irrational! The important point here is that she had no sensory information and no physical evidence but she had sufficient confidence in the subliminal knowledge she had as to have had “a very bad feeling about this guy” to quote her words. A bad feeling is none other than anxiety, the mix of fear and worry about someone or something. Thus her faith, without the benefit of reason, was her trump card. And yet she didn’t use it owing to reasoning that was based on popular and medical opinions, both of which discredit psychic abilities as irrational and thus bogus. There was no reason for her to believe that there was danger and yet her belief was spot on correct.

There are countless millions of cases of people worldwide experiencing something called stress and when we consider ESP it can be explained and indeed dealt with easily with counter ideas. There are many reasons put forward from modern living and busy lives to the wrong diet, toxins in our food and not enough exercise but none give people a solution because none of the reasons given resolve the stress. These scientific reasons are not valid or at least sufficient. In some cases a medical opinion is considered scientific reason! If we take the example above once again but this time let’s stop short of the bus’s arrival. We have the woman seated on one side of the bench and a man sitting quietly on the other side. She is distressed with “a very bad feeling”, which in medical terms is called anxiety. There is NO physical evidence to justify her anxiety. Such anxiety can be created in many and varied places without a crime to follow so as to justify the anxiety. It’s a game that evil people play for all sorts of reasons. It is the same set up no actual crime or is there? There is still a crime because the stress causes medical problem, especially for the heart. A psychiatrist though will say that there is no apparent cause.  On that basis he reasons that the fear she feels is an irrational fear. And this is called a psychiatric observation which is then used to reason! How about the gut feeling she has forewarning her of the danger which she can’t explain? The gut feeling she will be told is delusional, irrational and if she was to voice those three little letters of ESP a psychiatrist would add magical thinking to the list of symptoms. On basis of these observations and scientific reasoning she can be diagnosed as having a Generalized Anxiety Disorder and if the magical thinking comes into the diagnosis and most particularly if she insists that “someone may want to do her harm who does not appear strange or threatening”, then the psychiatrist would reason further that she is paranoid and possibly be a danger to the public. So she can ever be diagnosed as being schizophrenic. She would be prescribed drugs to take for those reasons. If the foul play that brings about this anxiety was to continue then she may have to take those drugs for the rest of her life. If she becomes enraged about her situation it will a diagnosis of having “anger issues”. This diagnosis is claimed to be based on science not because of experiments followed by reasoning but because of “psychiatric observation” and reasoning. A lot of people, and some psychiatrists as well are screaming pseudoscience but it goes on and the numbers of patients are increasing. Papers on these fabricated “mental disorders” and the drugs used to supposedly treat them are published in prestigious scientific journals. And might I add in many cases the papers are written by ghost writers because the authors do not put their names to them. When and if studies on ESP are published in these same journals many in the scientific community scream “woo woo science”. Often paper on ESP are refused publication or if published because well done experiments are involved then they are immediately followed by others claiming to repeat the experiments and not get any results. As I will discuss later the tampering is done using ESP! This is science that is based on reason. What reason? Money! Drugs, research funds aplenty, not to mention taking big sums of money to promote the drugs to the public, BUT it is a zero sum game, and the losers are millions upon millions of innocent people whose lives are ruined. If you look at the overall picture of diseases brought about by stress then the crimes of all religious zealots added together pale by comparison. And while scientists are not the cause of these diseases they are responsible for doing science with an agenda.

We tend to associate reason with the truth or the real cause of something but this is not always the case. On the other hand we tend to think that if we cannot see a reason to account for something then it must be false and yet it may be true. We can also see that reasoning and logic can be applied to find a solution but not all matter can be resolved or understood using reason and that does not make them invalid or delusional. God and religion can be reasoned about but not enough to find proofs or develop theories. However faith is not baseless either. Dawkins wants to ask scientific questions and reason about God. Is this possible? Is Dawkins’ hypothesis a good start, or any start at all?

In the next post I will discuss Dawkins God Hypothesis.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment