unpublished trading systems

A Brief History of Fooling & Manipulating The Masses (Part 1)

Effect of Aspirin, Journal Science, Heart disease & Cancer Treatments

On The Length & Quality of Your Life

Background (to the more entertaining sections)

A popular misconception is a "cure" means something that works all the time or in all people. Accepted, "approved" "cures" and treatments can be 5% - 50% effective or under and frequently are.

Approved drugs are called "effective" & "scientifically proven" if they're only 2%-3% better than placebo. The average placebo is widely claimed to be 35% effective (actually it's not, and only a limited segment of conditions are known to be placebo-responsive - if you trust journal medicine. (Full explanation in the MP.) However, even the 2-3% effective supposedly proven drugs have their own negative side effects and toxicity.

Much more can be said on placebos; the point is the standards for effectiveness used in the MP are much higher than the 2-3% popularly used. MP standards start with effect on terminal disease and fundamental mechanisms (previously unknown) which work in a uniform manner across a wide a variety of animal species.

Problems Start For Journal Medicine

One very minor problem with Journal Medicine: it's scientifically impossible for a condition to be said to be placebo-responsive - unless the placebo is "controlled". But aren't placebos automatically "controlled" in journal medicine before it claims placebo effects or publishes / conducts studies claiming to measure them?? You must be kidding! Journal Medicine would like you to think they were! However...

... Only by comparing the placebo group to an otherwise identical group receiving nothing (no placebo, no treatment) can it be determined if the so-called placebo response was due to placebo or really just due to the condition getting better on its own independent of either studied treatment or placebo. Improvement could be due to treatments taken behind the doctors backs, treatments doctors don't want to record when they become aware of them (as has happened), the disease (which no one in journal medicine knows the actual cause of) running its course, spontaneous remissions, diet fluctuations, emotional changes, and other variables.

Despite this scientific fact, doctors and journals responsible to know better widely claim the placebo effect is simply the difference between 1) the "control" - which they then turn around and improperly define as the placebo (fake treatment) group - and 2) the treatment group. They claim this because to admit otherwise would be to admit to the unscientific nature (on this one count) of approx. 96% of all published "controlled clinical trials". To claim that non-reality - that placebos were shown to be effective or have their own effects - requires the following disclaimer: "in the study only; not necessarily representative of the outside world since no effort, valid or invalid, was made to compare anything in this study to what transpires in the outside world; this study calls itself controlled but that translates into 'because we say it is'. ("Best and overly generous case" for journal medicine.) How many of those disclaimers do you see attached to study results?

"But isn't measuring the placebo (almost) as good or better than measuring nothing at all?" Journal Medicine would like you to think it is! However...

The placebo group (and/or treatment group) can be better or worse than doing nothing at all. The only way to know (or be scientific) is to have a no treatment group of equal numbers and all other conditions to the other two groups. Up to 80% of non-serious, non-terminal disease gets better on its own without medical treatment. People typically go to their medical doctor before its self-limiting nature runs its course - before it gets better. They then naturally credit the medical treatment.

The multiple errors should be self-evident. Disease getting better on its own is not the placebo effect. People at doctors' offices aren't prescribed sugar pills. In approx. 96% of all published studies everyone could be getting better (or worse) on their own and it's credited to the drug or placebo. This is one of multiple reasons why Journal Medicine's trials of non-terminal conditions are unscientific and can be notoriously unreliable. They need a no treatment group and valid definitions. They lack both. Even terminal conditions have to be defined as "terminal without treatment" and not be based on toxic controls which make them appear terminal. All this makes it impossible to actually tell the cause of any measured improvement or even know if a claimed improvement "is" an improvement.

That's nothing compared what else is revealed in the MP. There are even more fundamental problems built into journal medicine's trial designs. Plucking any number of studies out of the journals and thinking they prove x works or doesn't work, especially placebos, repeating the authors conclusions, is the ultimate fools game. Example is just below (aspirin - without getting into the more damaging material in the MP).

Yet plucking known improperly performed studies out of journals in this ultimate fools game is a very profitable over-simplification and over-generalization. Marketers of the treatments and their funders (often hidden) use these over-simplifications to manipulate trusting readers. Terminal or hopeless conditions don't get better on their own. The next time someone tries to tell you, placebos did x and or placebos were more effective than treatment in any number of studies, make sure they know you know placebos have to be compared to a similar group receiving nothing, sham or real. The group receiving nothing has to be identical in all possible regards to the other groups; they can't be ignored and have to be given any attention possible since that may convey placebo-type effects. Otherwise, there can be no honest claims made placebos had any significant effects.

Aspirin is what you get for following popular opinion and mass-marketing in contrast to objective honesty. Aspirin should be the example of the dangers of trusting those who without knowing or caring what they're writing or talking about over-promote themselves by parroting journals and other written material. Even in aspirin's case, that danger is far from limited to ingestion of its chemical substances. The people who do this in public "lack the mentality to properly analyze their own data" in the words of one scientist referenced in the MP. Aspirin should be the prime example of how the masses have been fooled and led astray by those in which they placed their trust.

The full quote of the previously mentioned scientist (see MP for discussion and references) reads: "[those members of the scientific & academic community who pluck these studies out and call them evidence] lack the mentality to properly analyze their data and to realize that more than one interpretation can be placed on them. They display the peculiar mental process that is common in the world of academic science. It is known as reasoning in a circle. They start out with an assumption which they consider an incontrovertible fact which is treated as such in their subsequent analysis. By following this trend of thought they arrive at a final conclusion which is the same assumption with which they started!"

He means of course below the requisite level of scientific-sounding appearances and rhetoric. Scientists, especially in medicine and physics, as a group are unfortunately among the most biased professions. They spend their time fixating on minimizing biases only to magnify them (see MP). They are not paid to get results and most would not last applying their know-how on their own in a competitive environment like business where they had to be right or else. They are paid to "study" and have quotas. Pressure is put on them to do so which has the effect of breading mediocrity in the profession. Pay is low, and they're forced to quickly produce (conform) or lose their jobs.

This leads to the "academic straight-jacket" - the ability to grasp only the most immediately understood surface logic. Or "dogmatic 'scientific'-sounding double-talk" as he puts it. Lost on them is how to get to the essence of a problem. Too many over-popularized academic or journal scientists are in reality wandering around in a stupor reciting their own definitions yet failing to grasp what their definitions mean or what they have just said. The quality of academic & journal science thus suffers. Many are aware of the problem but incapable of fixing it.

The appalling quality of journal and academic science, as proven citing their own journals where they virtually say the same, will not improve substantially until fundamental changes are made in the over-specialized non-integrated working environment which breeds the problem. There is no sign of that on the horizon. Rational self-guidance is needed before accepting anything journal or academic science states as fact (email your bet now). In journal or academic science one succeeds by two things: 1. "sounding good" and 2. agreeing with previous things that "sound good". Publishers and writers suffer from the same problem - popular media and otherwise.

I'm beginning to suspect the only time academic / journal science finds what it doesn't expect - is when it has already made up its mind it should find the unexpected (to be believable to itself)... when it decides beforehand "it's time".

Aspirin: The Perfect Example

Aspirin is one of the most popular drugs in existence. It's also one claimed to be the most scientifically studied and proven with known benefits. Some claim it's the most successful drug in the history of medicine. Medical doctors, writers, & publishers, especially Internet variety, are jumping on the aspirin bandwagon daily in droves to ride its popularity.

If you believe Harvard medical doctors and their latest 88,000 patient study, "the wonder drug" aspirin now leads to up to 86% increased risk of pancreatic cancer - one of the worst where journal medicine has an under 4% 5 year survival rate. Not merely 58% as widely "understated" to soften this blow to the so-called "most successful drug in history". This is only the latest in a long line of blows yet the "wonder drug" keeps coming back for more.

We shall see the following: actually, Journal Medicine has little else better to do than keep aspirin coming back in its attempt to ride its popularity for as long as it possibly can. The fact there is no overall objective evidence for its worthwhile benefits doesn't stop Journal Medicine via the media proclaiming it as a "breakthrough". Nor does the evidence of its toxicity. As we shall see repeatedly, as long as a falsity is properly wrapped, academic & journal science and the publishers / writers who foolishly parrot it swallow the falsity whole and repeat it - as long as they perceive it benefits them to do so. This translates into "they can use it to ride popular opinion". This is where grants, funding, taxes, and your money goes - and the money you pay such sources.

Why the Harvard study should be taken more seriously than those trumpeting aspirin would like to see it taken - "why" according to journal medicine's own standards:

It was the longest aspirin study ever at 18 years.

It was the largest "aspirin" study ever.

It was the "latest".

It was done by Harvard.

Those involved including doctors "thought" it should protect against pancreatic cancer. They expected the opposite effect. (Their ability to analyze their own data is a separate issue.)

The more aspirin used, the more pancreatic cancer increased. Averaging only 2 or more aspirin a day coincided with the 86% increase.

For the type of study it was, peer-reviewed published major medical journal medicine seldom has much better. If you're going to downplay this, you need to downplay many other studies the same people who want you to downplay this do not downplay and do not want you to downplay.

The "patients" weren't really patients at all and were "under their own care"; they were one group who makes their living off aspirin - its "distributors" so the speak. They were nurses, and they "filled out surveys" which were then accepted as fact on which the study is entirely based. It was really a study of a "poll"'s results despite how scientists and media portray it.

In this study's favor is that it didn't claim to be "controlled" - unlike those that do but really are not for multiple reasons only one of which in this footnote. If this study invalidates itself, by journal and organized medicine standards over 99% of all published studies and consensus opinion among doctors instantly invalidate themselves... for failure to define their terms. But surely peer-reviewed published journal medicine defines its terms when claiming to make studies that are then claimed to prove x did or didn't happen?? Again, you must be kidding (!) - and journal medicine would certainly like you to think it does!.

As in other studies what constitutes "aspirin" wasn't even defined. It couldn't be. How could you define all the brands and types of aspirin nurses used over 18 years - even if the poll "claims" to know? But how can peer-reviewed journal medicine, fail to even define what the "breakthrough" aspirin is or what they've been studying all this time?!

Short answer (full one a few paragraphs down): In aspirin's case, its benefits seem to depend entirely on what the drug company (or the user) adds to buffer its acidity and what other drugs are taken simultaneously even when effects are attributed to aspirin alone. And journal medicine displays contempt for death rates versus "disease occurrence" rates. It claims success if there are less heart attacks, etc. - even when there are equal or more deaths in the aspirin group. In pancreatic cancer since journal medicine's survival rate is so low just the incidence of cancer is almost as good as death rates. The short answer to "how" peer-reviewed journal medicine can "ever" fail to define what it's studying the last 150 years it has spent on aspirin is "with extreme lack of care about what it's doing" - with the same type of lack of care - even contempt for care - it displays in nearly all other facets! You're right if you think this sounds ridiculous. It does, and it is!

In the Harvard "poll", you don't know how much they took, when they took it, what they took it with, what form they took, and what else they took or did because of taking it. You are completely trusting their own unmonitored estimates and judging them to be accurate "because nurses say so" and "Harvard" attaches its name to it. Worse you're trusting these estimations to be accurate for an 18 year period.

On the other hand, when properly read, this study only applies to nurses - and only the average nurse (in the study). Are you the average nurse (even outside the study)? Nurses lead a different lifestyle than you do and are exposed to a different work environment. They're also probably on more drugs than you are. You didn't think the nurses stopped all their other medical treatments for 18 years just so this study could take place, did you? Whose health is better - yours or the average nurse? Whose stress level increases steadily and is much worse over an 18 year period - yours or the average nurse? (It's not worse for those properly using the MP and extricating themselves from nurse-type work situations over which they have no direct or rational control.)

If you're beginning to see things wrong with this study, there are many more of much greater magnitude with published major medical journal double-blind and controlled clinical trials. (Far from the solution they purport to be, they magnify the real problem in 99-100% of cases: email with your bet now.)

This study was valuable - in showing what not to do... including take aspirin if one is said to be relying on the scientific method. Conveniently, studies that have shown aspirin benefits heart disease, stroke & cancer have used magnesium and calcium to buffer the so-called aspirin. And nurses like other highly stressed professions are known to throw down still more calcium or magnesium antacids to buffer gastric upset associated with aspirin. There is no way any of this can be controlled over 18 years or 18 weeks. If someone has a stomach ache or is afraid of getting one which might interrupt their work as nurse or their pay check or simply knows what "aspirin" does, there is no way they are going to detail what they're taking either "in" the "aspirin" or sometime throughout the days they do take aspirin. If they weren't taking the aspirin, they'd have less need for neutralizing its gastric effects.

Magnesium is known stronger than aspirin and inversely correlated with heart disease and stroke risk. Calcium is similar with more emphasis on cancer. By Journal Medicine's own standards, those and other simple nutrients are shown to be much more effective against heart attack and stroke than aspirin including in it's own double blind trials measuring survival rates. (See later report on Heart Disease Remissions.)

We'll return to the recent Harvard study after discussing other aspirin studies.

At various times in the past when aspirin was being heralded as the breakthrough, more studies showed no benefit or worse than supposedly showed a benefit. Equally convenient, those studies that showed no benefit contained no magnesium / calcium for the exact same conditions against which aspirin is or was claimed a breakthrough - by medical doctors, journals, and supposed scientists, not merely the media who then naturally repeated it. When "straight" aspirin was taken, the benefits disappeared for the same conditions.

Do those foolishly or worse trumpeting the aspirin misdirection want you to suffer an unnecessary heart disease / cancer, or don't they? Do they want to define their terms or don't they?

More Problems Needed - and Created

In the original 25 study 1990 meta-analysis in Science (249:476) used to herald in "humble" aspirin as a breakthrough against heart disease, 80% of aspirin studies failed to show a positive benefit for aspirin - by journal science standards - using it's own definition of "confidence levels". Yet because completely different studies under completely different conditions not bothered to be defined or controlled were "called controlled", they were improperly deemed to be a of equal relevance as those 80% of all studies that failed to show benefit. Because the 20% of studies that showed a benefit boosted the overall so-called "confidence level" / had more claimed difference between treatment and "uncontrolled" placebo than the 80% that did not, when improperly thrown together, aspirin became the "breakthrough" the masses know it as today.

This standard statistical "trick" is called "meta-analysis. It has some use, but has been greatly over-promoted and exaggerated like "the placebo effect". If these academic "scientists" are to be believed, they fail to realize, among other much more damaging material only gotten into in the MP, for the study to first be combined with other studies each one has to define its terms. Blatantly improper definitions are judged here the same as avoiding the issue entirely which most studies do.

But surely journal or organized medicine considers its own failed studies on equal ground as its claimed "successful" studies - before heralding new "breakthroughs" and recommending "everyone" in certain groups take aspirin??

You should know better (by now) than to ask! Journal medicine would like you to think it did! In the above case, its most heralded breakthrough of the last 25 years of "study", aspirin failed in 80% or more of its own studies - admitted by its own standard. But due to failing to define its terms and other tricks, it ignored and rationalized away its real 80+% failure rate. And it failed to include all the damaging studies in its various meta-analysis' then used to promote the "breakthrough". Thus, the most widespread breakthrough it has to show for itself over the last quarter century is by its own standards something that worked 20% of the time at best and when it did work showed very minimal highly questionable benefits more likely due to magnesium, calcium, diet, other treatments, hardness of water (magnesium, etc. content) and other untracked variables. Survival rates were ignored in favor of "disease occurrence" rates. Aspirin has also been linked to increased emphysema & asthma in the two most prestigious journals NEJM & Lancet.

That's aside from the side effects of strokes, ulcers, hemorrhages (including fatal), and deaths. It may inhibit mineral absorption as well and if the work of one Nobel Prize winner is right, diabetics may be in for a particularly bad time on aspirin. Aspirin interferes with D-6-D which Bengt Sammuelson says is in insufficient quantity in diabetics: this could lead to increased heart disease, cancer, circulatory problems, limb loss, & blindness. Many following the popular advice may not even know they're diabetic. Current under-estimates are aspirin poisoning kills tens of thousands of people every year. Not to be outdone, up to 5 times increased cataract risk was claimed for those popping more than one aspirin a week, over the long-term, for over a decade.

But it gets worse for the 25 study Science meta-analysis widely reported as consisting of 80% failed studies. It originally came from 1988's "Secondary Prevention of Vascular Disease by Prolonged Antiplatelet Treatment" in the BMJ. Review of that paper clearly shows: a) Only 12 of the studies even used aspirin alone. The other 13 used "Antiplatelet Treatment" - drugs other than aspirin and 6 of the 25 didn’t even use aspirin at all. There weren't 25 studies on aspirin despite how it was reported. Here, not only were magnesium and calcium called aspirin, other drugs were widely reported as being aspirin. Organized Medicine was in desperate need of a breakthrough indeed. b) Of the 12 studies that did trial aspirin alone, only 3 were successful (75% failure) - real statistical significance is dwindling. c) everyone in this analysis had already suffered heart or vascular disease. It was a "breakthrough" that did not apply whatsoever to those without heart or vascular disease despite being over-promoted as preventive for the general population.

How was this reported by even those using all the 25 studies as "aspirin" studies? Taking aspirin was said to reduce heart attacks by less than 1%. You read right: less than "one" percent. The public wasn't told these figures: they were told it was "scientifically proven" (far from the case) and it was a "breakthrough". The real breakthrough was that journal medicine was discovering a new toy in meta-analysis which rivaled only its previous scenario that took place around the discovery of x-rays. The real breakthrough was its use of meta-analysis. Again, we see the study was the real breakthrough - not the study's results - just the fact it was "studied" (the real results of which had to be over-promoted in the media for the public to accept at all). But surely professional scientists know better than to over-promote 1-3% differences?? They'd like you to think they do! Another example makes it easy to see:

Tamoxifen is aspirin's equivalent in cancer. It has been called the most popular anti-cancer and breast cancer drug in the world. It's also been extremely over-promoted as being the most successful in history and even the main reason supposed cancer rates have been "slashed" (they haven't). With all the claims behind it this milder form of "chemotherapy for the masses" - who have been told to take it even though they do not yet have cancer - must be something special... if you believe Organized Medicine!

Tamoxifen was over-promoted to claim it "slashes breast cancer risk by 50% in the general population" in the US's NCI study. How did they get 50%? It was the 1% difference between 2% and 3%. What were these %'s? In the NCI study, the Tamoxifen group developed breast cancer at under 2% (how's that for statistical significance). It so happened in this one study, under 3% got breast cancer on the sugar pill.

An intelligent person would think "big deal" and dismiss these figures on that reason alone. But not Organized Medicine: it turns it into the most successful anti-cancer drug in history. There may have been 50% less breast cancer in the drug group, but they left out how irrelevant the figures really were (aside from other major problems with the study). Organized Medicine found it better to claim the difference as "50% improvement" than to explain the difference as only 1%. This one "Breast Cancer Prevention" Trial was given a budget of $70 million.

I can hear what you're saying: "But surely, there was a scientific reason for conducting this trial? Surely, most previous trials had shown Tamoxifen effective?" You should know better than to ask!

Like aspirin, Tamoxifen suffered the "80% failed trial syndrome": only 1 of 8 previous Tamoxifen trials showed positive results in pre-menopausal women.

How "confident" would you be of these statistics (if you were choosing your own treatments, knowing the real aspirin and Tamoxifen figures and not relying on your doctor's and popular advice? Remember, you're talking about chemotherapy and the very drug said to increase your cancer risk of "other" cancers by over 4 times when it gives you this so-called 50% reduction in breast cancer.)

Especially in aspirin's case, in the midst of failing to define their terms and lacking proper controls, the "professionals" playing these "confidence games" seem oblivious to the fact of what their statistical "confidence levels" and probability are if they "somehow misinterpret" data or data is "incorrect" for just 1, 2, or a small % of patients in some of these studies. On an individual study basis, with their inadequate numbers of patients studied and non-terminal conditions, this can lead to one thing: "Domino-Effect Collapse" due to the false assumptions used. This happens much more than journal medicine would like you to think it does. It's only "valid" as long as Journal Science pretends it is. The second it stops believing as Mendelsohn put it below is the second Organized Medicine's "House of Cards Comes Tumbling Down". Organized Medicine thus does all it can to simply pretend it isn't happening. But it is:

Other studies heralded as proof of aspirin's benefits have shown fewer heart attacks, etc. But they need read in the context of deaths from all causes. Despite reducing some kinds of heart attacks - and only a subset despite the blanket recommendations given for its use, when the real outcome of death from all causes is examined, those in the aspirin group have shown no significant benefit over placebo. In the much heralded PHS [Physicians Health Study, NEJM, 1989 - more on how it was actually conducted later], aspirin was credited with a 50-70% reduction in heart attacks in 22,000 patients over 5 years. It used Bufferin (magnesium and some calcium). Yet death rates in both aspirin & so-called placebo groups were as good as identical. Deaths from "other causes" including "sudden deaths" and strokes dramatically increased in the aspirin group to make up for the 50-70% reduction. In the end, there were 81 total cardiovascular deaths on aspirin vs. 83 on placebo.

We see here Journal Medicine's fascination with a couple of percent benefit. However, it wants us to believe a mere 81 and 83 deaths are statistically significant because the overall sample size can be 20-50 some thousand people. A mere 80-some deaths however are the sample size to use and not significant especially given the undefined nature. Deaths from all causes were only 217 for aspirin versus 227 for placebo. Acute myocardial infarction is where aspirin showed its "real" benefits (in the study - not necessarily representative of the outside world): only "10" for aspirin vs. 28 for placebo - "10" vs. "28". Let's not also forget aspirin had 22 "sudden deaths" vs. 12 for placebo. Those were the real relevant sample sizes - not 20 or more thousand, and they're such a small % of the whole.

To put this in perspective, if I had a trading system with between 10 and 80-some trades showing it "worked" - but in order to get those 10 to 80-some trades, I had to pass 20-50 some thousand other trades, and someone suggested I should trade the system, it would fall under the category of "bullshit".
Straight to the rubbish bin it would go for simple statistical insignificance and out the person would go who suggested I trade it. I would think one of 2 things: a) the person suggesting I should trade the system were a complete incompetent posing as otherwise, and/or b) I were being conned. The market conditions that coincided during those 10 to 80-some or even 200-some trades might never re-occur exactly the same in the next ten 20-50 thousand possible trades. Journal medicine however throws it into a meta-analysis with other studies and calls it a "breakthrough".

As of a few years ago this statistically insignificant study was the best evidence aspirin worked for heart disease. I haven't checked recently: I give journal & organized medicine about 150 years to study a "breakthrough", then their time's up. They've had since 1853, and it's time to move on to even possibly productive treatments. (It took them until the 1970's to figure out how it worked. Despite not knowing how it worked, they widely used it for over 120 years.)

Of course, the placebo group was not controlled. There were no death rates in a no treatment group even claimed to be similar. Thus we are left with no idea how many deaths "naturally occurred".

What are the chances Journal Medicine actually wants a real breakthrough? Or wanted aspirin to be one? Use of the data is worse than meaningless if it's not analyzed properly. But how can you analyze data properly if you don't know how it was collected? Medicine does it with aspirin and many other things. Physics does it with Einstein and relativity (see later "Laugh File" along side links).

"[The PHS study that yielded the "statistically repugnant" results just above] was so flawed that you can't help but wonder if the [humble] aspirin industry financed it. The subjects were white, male, mostly non-smoking [here it comes:] doctors who were not monitored, and who reported their condition by letter - post office research. [This is what peer-reviewed published journal medicine refers to as double-blind placebo controlled trials of breakthrough treatments]. The study used an extremely healthy group with only 1/8th the death rate of the general population. [Again, it lacked a "no treatment" group or a valid control group. When medical doctors or nurses are studied, they are allowed to conduct unmonitored "post office research" then trumpeted as the "gold-standard" and pinnacle of medical research - the "double-blind placebo-controlled trial". I'm sure they were at least "randomized" - for all the good that does!]": William Campbell Douglass, M.D., "Bad Medicine", pg. 34 [my comments in brackets; consider the absurdity of then quoting "confidence rates" and probabilities to make studies sound statistically significant and "scientific" - when those doing so can neither define nor know what they're placing their confidence in. See MP.]

PHS is quoted by many organizations as evidence of aspirins benefit. When you see this happen, you've just seen someone who either hasn't read or doesn't know how to read journal studies. But surely these well-known organizations and their medical doctors know how to read their own journals which they spend inordinate amounts of their time referencing and discussing?? They'd like you to think they do! Of course they do - somewhat: they simply refuse to see the meaning of the words and accept other people's interpretation of even the English language content.

What they're doing is looking at the stars and seeing constellations. Or looking at the clouds and seeing the face of Jesus - only dressed up in dogmatic scientific-sounding double-talk and statistical window-dressing / mumbo-jumbo. This makes them feel better and look important. They're using over-dependence on their own studies and statistics as drugs: as one type of "automatic pre-packaged external-guidance" to replace their previous automatic external-guidance: over-dependence on authority and words (anecdotal evidence which has burned them in the past due to improper interpretation in that area as well: it's not hard for rational people to see how a genuinely terminal case alive & well 15 yrs later is worthy of investigation by those who really want a solution to the disease, now is it). Now authority figures (people, god) don't tell them what to do: they can now "figure" it out for themselves. Statistics are their god-substitute and "tell" them what to do now. And now they can ignore "words".

Use of statistics is not bad in itself (if they'd use them properly). However, fresh from their over-dependence on their previous external-authority, they're now inventing a new one - abuse of statistics, study, interpretation of both, and seemingly head-burying play dumb routines and general selected complete ignorance of simple and easy to grasp words and concepts. They're greatly over-compensating for previous decades and centuries of apparent total lack of statistics and study. Statistics and study like x-rays when first introduced are their new toy.

Doctors had to learn the hard way that x-rays cause cancer. They're definitely learning the hard way with statistics. They burned themselves by not using them before. They're burning themselves by abusing them now. The words that the statistics allow them to ignore present a problem: they're unable to properly read their own journal's words. 99% or more are looking at these words right now and not seeing what they mean. I'm intentionally holding it back too (think MP).

The scientists falling into this trap appear unable to read literally or objectively (scientifically). Whatever the prevailing opinion is ends up being seen at least 90% of the time that it's in any way possible to see it. Similar ratios exist for whatever benefits the funder of the published studies you do get to see. The same happened when people thought the earth was flat. They use the supposed science of the day to see what they've already made up their minds they want to see. And, they're simply parroting the official line about the study.

Among many other studies and irrefutable points made here, they're ignoring the equivalent British study a year earlier which used no magnesium and had no preventive benefit of any kind in doctors who hadn't had a heart attack (BMJ vol 296, 1988). They fail to realize that they don't need 20 or 100 thousand people. They also fail to realize they don't need to find the 10 or 210 out of the 20 or more thousand that die. Even if they want to find a preventive, the best preventive is one that also reverses the condition. And they've yet to realize if useful results are desired, all that's necessary for is to study 5, 10 or 20 terminal or hopeless patients (this "start" would in itself provide better evidence than their multiple 20 or 80 thousand patient "studies"). However unlike drugs (including biotech) they'd have to first choose a treatment a) not thought to be even potentially toxic, and b) even thought it "may" work a high percentage of the time unlike aspirin. In other words, they'd have to want it to work: they'd have to choose something that even may work and then they'd have to study it properly. And they couldn't study doctors, nurses, pharmacists, or hospital or drug company employees, distributors, or sales people - if they wanted to be scientific. Problem is, if the wanted to be scientific, since these professions have proven themselves so biased, another profession would even have to perform the studies! Doctors could consult and be employed where needed.)

It's hard to improperly study terminal or hopeless conditions. Unless you use "toxic controls", the patients are either alive or dead and either the disease can be found or it can't. Aspirin studies in heart by-pass surgery make use of a "toxic control": there is no valid reason for 90+% of by-pass surgeries in the first place. They're used as profitable play-dumb routines when Rational Medicine is ignored. Not only do such surgeries need compared to a no treatment group, they need compared to a rational treatment group. See the MP and Heart Disease Report. Charles McGee, M.D., calls heart surgery "a 35 billion dollar a year waste" in his aptly named book "Heart Frauds: The Misapplication of High Technology", 1993. In the future, heart surgery will be seen as the present-day version of blood-letting.

"There is no scientific justification for the use of angioplasty, balloon angioplasty and bypass surgery to treat most cardiovascular disease. Several studies over the past two decades, involving over 6000 patients with heart disease, have shown that patients funneled into surgical procedures do significantly worse than those treated with non-invasive techniques... frankly, if we took all of the bypass surgeons and catheter-pushing cardiologists, tied their thumbs together and locked them in a closet, we would save close to 30,000 lives and over $50 billion every year" - Julian Whitaker, M.D., Sept. 98 Health and Healing.

It's far more than 30,000 a year who can be saved from medical mysticism surrounding the "official" number one cause of death. One example is a large-scale 17 year study by cardiologist Timo Strandberg (Helsinki). The usual toxic heart therapies were effective at all only for the first 7 years. Conventionally treated patients over the next 10 years faired worse than those receiving no treatment.

But meta-analysis' and unnecessary complication involving aspirin weren't over yet. Small trials of genuinely terminal or hopeless conditions were ignored, and improperly performed studies of improper conditions were favored to prop up aspirin. 8 Jan 94 BMJ threw together 174 trials and 110,000 patients. The confusing conclusions were one type of death in one type of patients were reduced by 17%. Low-risk patients had the number of heart attacks cut by 33% but doing so increased their "non-fatal strokes" by 21%. There was no benefit however as a preventive for "low risk" patients without cardiovascular disease. Again, what was being studied wasn't defined and we are left to guess how people did on their own without the "intervention".

Back to the latest Harvard study:

If you're beginning to think the recent 88,000 nurse Harvard study did not do what the triad of journal and organized medicine and those over-promoting themselves by "playing its fools game" claim it did - "show a link between aspirin and cancer rates" or hint that aspirin does or may cause pancreatic cancer, which it didn't do (pancreatic cancer is not limited to nurses, etc), then you'll have to also conclude the same about journal medicine's studies showing aspirin does have a benefit. How did they possibly prove blanket statements like "aspirin protects against disease X"? Did they? Or, do those who over-promote themselves by citing such studies want you to think they have? (Most have never even seen the real studies and only look at the "abstracts" which are all that's typically online. Like media reports these are totally inadequate.) See Einstein's comment later in the "Laugh File". Aspirin like so many other popular treatments is nothing more than a misdirection. It's over-promoted to misdirect you and distract you from "the" worthwhile treatments.

If the Harvard study proved anything, it proved nurses eat too much "hospital food" (in and out of the hospital), are around too much sickness, take too many drugs, are around too many medical treatments including x-rays and radiation, are taken in by too many unnecessary problem-causing treatments, despite their best intentions, having to do what they're told, agreeing with it or not (or see their pay check disappear) turn around and cause more problems administering same, and are too "stressed". (Stress comes from failure and unnecessary problem-creation; in this case, it's the nature of the job which manifests over 18 years but is less apparent over short periods.) Or, aspirin's or other drug's real negative effects manifest over these longer periods since they're foreign substances, blanketly or improperly prescribed which disrupt homeostasis. Or, inadequate tests were used to determine what is actually going on in each individual's case and inadequate adjustments were made. Or, the more they took aspirin, up to 2 or more daily for 18 years, the more intolerant or allergic they became to it. Aspirin should not be taken every day for 18 years because there's no reason to take it: why were they taking it other than to produce a study - because they had an "aspirin deficiency" and their bodies were unable to produce sufficient "value-producing" quantities of it themselves?

"Drug deficiencies" do not exist, and the very act of fixating even for study purposes on drugs is unscientific. It's comparable to astrology which Journal Science calls pseudoscience: one matches a drug to a symptom, the other matches characteristics to astral alignments. The difference is only superficial and in the degree of surface-logic and current believability. The cause is not being addressed, unraveled, or even studied. There is no results-oriented reason to study drugs in the first place. There are so many more effective and/or safer treatments than accepted drugs that it cannot honestly be said a "cure" is even desired in this misdirection.

If studies showing aspirin's benefit prove anything, they prove magnesium and calcium are more potent than aspirin's supposed active ingredient, those showing the benefits where studied for inadequate lengths of time in inadequate numbers with inadequate disclaimers as to defined terms and relation to the outside world, those studied "thought" they should get better (and probably deteriorated afterwards like heralded antibiotic trials), as did the doctors, or when it works some of the time to provide its mediocre benefits other treatments work, disease gets better on its own (when sufficiently left alone), the people happened to be less "stressed", weren't around as much sickness, didn't take as many drugs or subject themselves to as much "medical intervention" (in the healing or disease process), and/or less outbreaks of "junk food" occurred for nano and other bacteria to then go after or even try to clean up. The same and worse can be said of major medical journal double blind and controlled clinical trials (email now with your bet).

Best case scenario for aspirin: it works "some of the time". When is some of the time? In the right conditions unique to the studies in which it worked. What are the right conditions? Those that happened to exist in studies that found it successful - in those study conditions. What are those study conditions? It all grinds to a halt right there, and not just for aspirin. Study conditions, not merely the definition of aspirin, cannot possibly be replicated except by chance (or other "undefined" manners) since the conditions of 99-100% of journal trials are undefined (proof & references in the MP; see two paragraph's down). As the Peer-Reviewer put it, things like aspirin "work some of the time", and "what we are seeing is that that is the answer". Claiming the conditions are known under which standard low percentage successful treatments are known to work is however a huge over-generalizing leap and unscientific statement. (This presumes they work at all; in aspirin's case that it wasn't the magnesium and/or calcium used to buffer it or other factors used.)

Problems like these are why the MP avoids low success rate treatments at all costs. Consider the ridiculousness of claiming drugs that are just barely effective or that fail in 80%+ of studies like aspirin are worthwhile even for scientific study let alone suitable for inclusion in the Ultimate Protocol. They are a profitable misdirection for those not making money off treatments like those in the MP. In no way can even Aspirin's pain relieving effects be compared to those of the MP.

But surely, enough conditions, albeit general ones, exist to replicate Journal Medicine's studies?! Journal medicine would like you to think they do! However...

Replicating the conditions in which a previous study reportedly achieved its results is far different to performing new studies claimed to replicate them and/or getting similar results. Results are different to conditions.

But if later studies independently achieve similar results without even replicating the earlier study conditions, via different conditions, isn't that good enough??
Surely, we can just forget about defining the conditions if later studies achieve the same result when they follow the same general procedure??

Now you really must be kidding! And: Journal medicine would certainly like you to think it can ... you see, it wants you to think repeating the same errors thousands of times works and does not make the situation worse!

However... Later finds, even in the 20-30% of the same general result, are nothing more than later findings of the same general result. This is only to be expected when the same fundamental mistakes are repeated. Repetition is only valid if it is independent of the same problem and independent replication is no excuse for failing to follow scientific procedures in the first place. The cause of these problems are too fundamental to go away on their own. It doesn't matter how many times others "arrive" with the same result: this only proves the extent of the problem. There is still no evidence of a link or cause when simple things are done wrong and the scientific method blatantly violated.

"Agreeing" studies, like popular opinion, are just as invalid or valid as the first study or opinion when they rest on the same fundamental assumptions. In this case and not just for aspirin, they're resting on unaddressed, unquestioned assumptions that later turn out to be proven wrong - and have. A couple things are at work here: toxic controls everyone studied has in common that when removed paint quite a different statistical picture. What's being considered as the whole data is also just a subset. The data obtained no many how times it agrees with previous is only valid within that subset coinciding with the false assumptions used. When the assumptions are identified and removed, then you see even the treatments that appeared to work are of little or no value outside the toxic controls.

Scientists creating these duplicate results, frequently only "duplicated" by meta-analysis abuse and other tricks, are not getting to the cause or essence; in fact, they're avoiding it to further that and future studies. Or, (1) they're simply seeing what they want to see. Or (2) they're seeing within the subset of their own assumptions and toxic controls; thus it may be right - but only in the study and those like it, not compared to the outside world. Or (3) they're seeing things happen by "random chance". It's more a combination of all 3. There's also much more to it, and there's a whole other angle from which to view it. But that's all I'm presently prepared to get into outside the MP.

Journal medicine is set up to measure small differences in effectiveness but not define the actual cause of those differences or what the differences mean. Despite propaganda to the contrary, this is its whole reason for double-blind and controlled clinical trials: measurements of small differences and treatments that work a low percentage of the time. What happens when high percentage treatments are used in double blind studies journal medicine doesn't want you to know (see MP).

Journal Medicine is also set up to study one thing: drugs. A popular misconception is drugs are safe (or what can objectively be called effective). In the words of someone who taught and licensed other MD's, "There is no safe drug. Eli Lilly himself once said a drug without toxic effects is no drug at all. Every drug has to be approached with suspicion... That includes aspirin.", Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., pg. 39, "Confessions of a Medical Heretic". Journal Medicine is multiple leagues removed from meeting the standards of safety for inclusion in the MP.

MP devices and therapies have been much safer than municipal tap water in 1st world countries and incredibly safer than aspirin. If you believe the official US statistics, in 1997 aspirin and similar drugs killed virtually the same number of people as AIDS [NEJM, 17 June 1999]. This is more than a valid comparison when you realize despite journal & media propaganda what constitutes "AIDS" is even less defined than what constitutes aspirin.

Tap, filtered and distilled water, especially USA, is also widely contaminated with agricultural runoffs, gasoline byproducts and newer gasoline additives like MTBE which cannot be removed by any widely available means. Distillation will not remove it. And there are many other problems with tap water. There is no valid reason to view the MP components as you would drugs or even of the toxicity of municipal water. Some MP parts may be more experimental than others, but they cannot be honestly compared to the negative side effects or toxicity of widely accepted therapies or drugs. If they could be compared to drug toxicity, they wouldn’t be part of the Ultimate Protocol. Even if you do understand the dangers of mere exposure to shower vapor, there still is no valid reason to view the MP as you would drugs or shower vapor.

The monumental fallacies of excess water and high fiber diets - poisonous laxatives - will be fully dealt with after aspirin. Since relevant to aspirin, a few small points will be made here on water.

Those who want to breathe, ingest and massage "gasoline water" into their pores, now find it easy. All they have to do is follow the non-integrated problem-creating advice of those who act like they want to make readers ill for their own profit - those who spin the yarn municipal tap water in 1st world countries is "bacteria"-free and "perfectly safe" contradicting even Nobel Prize winners in making their claims.

If you refuse to be made into a fool (or sick) by "fully-integrated foolishness", you can convert your house to rain water or second choice well water. Aerial spraying & air pollution necessitates adequate tests of both. A move out of the city and a self-sufficient water supply may be the only answers.

(1) heart attack deaths have been inversely correlated with the hardness of water (and hardness of water is not water consumption; 23/4/89 JAMA among others). Chemists know tap water contains magnesium and calcium which make it "hard". (2) the same finding has been made with magnesium supplements alone. Similar effects on heart attacks and cancer are likely due to calcium. It does not take a genius to figure out since the magnesium makes the water "hard", and the magnesium & calcium have these effects without the water, then it is foolish indeed to pretend it is the excess water needed to consume that much magnesium / calcium that has the effects of the magnesium and calcium.

It's amusing how those over-promoting 64(+) oz/ day water diets including municipal water claimed to save you from heart attacks ignore these two key findings. These are the same people who take journal science seriously when it quotes things that support their self-promotion campaigns. It is especially amusing when you consider that much water, aside from containing what even Professors of Chemistry, Medicine, & Physics, a past head the American Medical Association, and Nobel Prize winners call deadly poisons, has a more pronounced laxative effect than the magnesium in it.

What better manipulation of 'toxic controls' is there than to tell people to consume 64(+) ounce's a day of tap water, while claiming it to be "perfectly safe" and "bacteria -free"... when the minerals that make the water hard have the same or better benefit against heart disease and cancer! There are even more important factors which will show excess water intake as both unnecessary and undesirable (currently found only in the MP).

Chemists call water "the universal solvent". To see the effects of "universal solvents" on signs of skin aging is easy (case histories). Compare facial pictures of those over-promoting water's benefits. Look for current pictures versus pictures taken a decade or years prior of the same author. Look for book photos then current photos from videos, books or recent appearances. This is revealing and covers the period when they were following their own water advice. The results I've seen do not look good for "solvent" over-promoters. In fact, it looks like they're "dissolving themselves". I've also noticed that in others who have mistakenly followed their advice - and we've all been surprised to see the extent of it.

Perhaps we should not have not been surprised: the "universal solvent" dissolves things. It cannot discriminate between what is good and bad to dissolve. In some cases, it may dissolve cancers (there is no indication that it approaches the effectiveness of various MP components) or other undesirable things (highly influenced by the calcium, magnesium in it). In other cases identified in the MP, it may dissolve what you don't want dissolved.

Water also neutralizes stomach acidity and helps to relieve stomach ulcers (it also contains the minerals used as antacids). Naturally, one would suspect it to neutralize & wash out causes of excess acidity: that doesn't mean there's any reason for the general population to consume it in quantities over-promoted.

It's not just studies of the hardness of water that excess water over-promoters ignore. The electrical characteristics of public water were found to be perhaps the greatest predictor of human health. These were extremely extensive studies over a period of 40 years. (Current explanation in the MP; to be discussed in future web pages.)

It's much more the quality and ingredients of water that matter than the quantity. Extreme over-simplifications by water over-promoters have turned comical. They go so far as to claim it's not the chemical substances that have the effect attributed to them or that matter but the medium that carries them that is responsible for the effects (water). This makes it easy to rationalize consumption of deadly poisons. Of course, their authors never try to prove the accuracy of their speculative and unproven claims (like dissolving cyanide or a bottle of aspirin in their excess water consumption).

Like non-integrated aspirin, you must demand much better than water over-promotion for heart disease and cancer treatment. What you see in excess water & fiber cereal diets are those therapies that failed to make the first cut for inclusion in the Ultimate Protocol. What you're seeing there are what was rejected here for their unnecessary, unproven nature years before book writers, publishers, & the media latched onto them and attempted to ride their popularity.

Among other laughable claims made by principle water over-promoters is that water is even the probable cause of the placebo effect... "because it's taken at the same time as the pills". A small child can easily see the farce of this "logic": how does the person making the claim know water was consumed with the pills or amount thereof was significant? These are the same people who claim you have to drink 64 ounces of nothing but water every day to get these benefits. How many trials do you think forced the patients to drink half that amount with their pills when they wouldn't have if they were not taking them?

The people claiming water as the cause of the placebo effect erroneously fall for Journal Science's tricks while failing to identify the fundamental problem with it (see MP). Thus, along with other reasons mostly understandable via simple "common sense", a single trial showing placebo effect in which those studied did not take water with their pills can almost disprove this fallacy itself - by the standards the water over-promoters use themselves.

The people claiming water is even the probable cause of the placebo effect also claim the water in tea, juice, cola, etc. does no good and it has to be plain water to have the benefits! Few people take their pills at home with nothing but water - especially 10-20 years ago when most of these aspirin studies were done. (And excess water consumption coinciding with pill intake is equally unlikely in aspirin's double-blind at-home "post office research" passed off as the placebo-controlled PHS trial above - cited as the best evidence of aspirin's benefit in heart disease).

More importantly, those making this claim fail to explain JAMA references crediting placebo surgery as having the highest rates of placebo effects recorded. They do this at the same time they accept journal medicine's extreme exaggeration of the placebo effect in drug studies. Simply opening patients up and sewing them back together has resulted in considerably higher placebo effect claims than for taking pills with any liquid.

What little real placebo effect exists is clearly due to the beliefs of the subject. If you believe journal medicine, it can be changed just by modifying the subjects' attitudes, using different tones of voice or looking at them the wrong way. This is not 64(+) ounce a day plain water intake.

The "placebo" effect due to the water taken with pills farce is disproven by at least one part of the MP: it removes the "negative placebo" effect identified and applied in the clinical context thus causing conditions to disappear - without changes in water ingestion. Without any water at all. One highly respected medical doctor reports around 90% long-term success rate in certain conditions otherwise treated by surgery, drugs, and all manner of reinforcement of the "negative placebo effect" - many of the same conditions excess water diets erroneously blame on dehydration and even turn into entire books. (The need for excess water intake also disappears when reading and applying the MP.) He does it solely by changing the person's beliefs. If the "water causes the placebo effect" farce held water on its own, this wouldn't occur. It does, and people not seeing this doctor report the same effect.

Over-promoters and doctors trying to take credit for placebo effects - claiming they are due to water taken along with the pills - are confusing what the placebo effect is with what the effects are of other treatments & untracked variables just the same as journal medicine confuses the two. On the one hand journal medicine credits the sugar pill with the effects of other treatments and variables due to lack of real controls (no treatment groups; sugar is also one of the most highly allergic substances creating a toxic control). On the other hand, over-promoters of excess water diets use the journals' lack of controls to justify wild claims about their own treatments (excess water) being responsible for the difference between the placebo and treatment groups (idle speculation).

The farcical nature of propaganda-based claims made by both sides is self-evident especially when water over-promoters name-call Journal Medicine "ignorance based junk science" - yet fail to identify or know what that is themselves. Their writing over more than a decade prove they possess no valid understanding of placebos or the fundamental problem of Journal Medicine identified here (and seen no where else). Further, they make no effort seen to attempt to isolate water from its "additives" or from effect of removing problem-causing, probably unnecessary drugs.

Is it any wonder then that those in official organizations fail to respond to letters by those claiming "the water taken with the pill" is even the probable cause of the placebo effect? Such non-integrated surface logic can in no way compare to what the MP reveals about trials or placebos. Among other things in the MP these topics are what the previously quoted Peer-Reviewer was referencing. Before the MP, no one has identified Journal Medicine's fundamental problem properly and accurately in mass-marketed writing - or given a suitable solution. (See Peer-Reviewer's expanded comments in the MP.)

Length and quality of your life are determined by 3 complicating factors here. (1) The sad state of Journal Medicine. (2) Your doctors so-called "knowledge base" irreparably contaminated with false and misleading data. (3) Over-promoters pretending to "come to the rescue" by getting people off the "toxic controls" - problem-causing drugs - while equally failing to measure anything they do against a no treatment group, failing to even cite or define success rates amidst numerous references to their clinical experience showing x (who cares about low or inferior success rates?), and failing to address genuinely terminal conditions with a reasonable success rate.

All this has led journal surveys like those in Australian Doctor to show at least half of all medical doctors would not get into medicine if they had to do it over again. This half however are only the ones who bothered to respond at all. The most disturbed, distressed & offended by the sad state of organized medicine would likely consider responding a waste of what little time they had or the survey's question rhetorical. They also said they would get out of medicine if they knew how. In other words, organized medicine is not what its own and the media's propaganda makes it appear to be. These doctors consider themselves trapped and stuck in something that both does not work and is unscientific by their own standards. If they understood years prior how unscientific it really was, they would have never involved themselves in it.

If aspirin is the best example of popular opinion pandering masquerading as science, organized cancer treatment is the most profitable. It is also the easiest to see as unscientific by journal medicine's own standards. This led among many others the President of The German Society Of Oncology, Head Physician at the Institute of Medical Microbiology & Hygiene, University of Cologne, Professor Josef Beuth, M.D. to say at the 3rd World Congress On Cancer (1997) that radiation, surgery, chemotherapy and similar approaches failed to show any worthwhile benefits over the previous ten years - even though their use escalated greatly. Multiple Nobel Prize winners have used stronger language negatively describing organized medicine's treatment of major diseases calling it much more than "unscientific" (email your bets now).

Other surveys have shown medical doctors would not accept their own treatments (chemotherapy, radiation) if they had cancer. The reasons are in the MP. One doctor admitted he would be kicked out of the hospital if he acted scientifically. (Hints found in Townsend Letter for Doctors, Jan 1998 and other MP references). When you see them professionally, they are working for the hospital and have to follow hospital protocol.

I sympathize with doctors. They're being used as distributors and dispensers of drugs, unnecessary hospital procedures and other sales propaganda. They should be used as consultants.

One doctor who has been talking to MP users reports the following. He was diagnosed 15 years ago as having terminal cancer by hospital M.D.'s who said he should be dead by now.

Today he's alive and well 15+ years later with no sign of disease - complete reversal. He used only one of the MP's devices, among other things, but didn't even need half the MP.

He's a doctor who knew too much to give in to hospital protocol. He refused chemotherapy, radiation, etc. Others report similar using the same device.

Journal Medicine does not know what it thinks it knows. This explains its results. It is in fact the only thing that explains - or can explain - Organized Medicine's results. Yet at least 99% of medical doctors are blind to the real cause of Journal Medicine's fundamental problems. Without realizing, they like the masses have been led astray and unknowingly perpetuate the fundamental problems. It's no wonder they want out.

In contrast to the current problems & traps of journal & organized medicine, since 1998 (to 2001*) the MP has represented the integration of the work of winners of at least 5 Nobel Prizes (physics aside), 16 Nobel Prize nominations, and 5 Inventor Expo Awards: MP parts are directly based on the work of scientists who received these honors. There should be more Nobel prize's for the work of those comparatively unrecognized geniuses integrated in the MP. The MP goes far beyond their own work however.

(*Work of all these Nobel Prize & Inventor Expo Award winners has been central to the MP since 1998. In early 2001, the work of a highly respected multiple-time Nobel Nominee was integrated which substantially boosted the total up to at least 16 nominations. Neither the MP nor myself endorse - we integrate. To remain objective, I stay totally independent of and do not involve or affiliate myself with the sale, manufacture, or distribution of any MP component. I derive no such income from any MP component. Whatever happens to make it in the MP does so because it deserves to be there and represents the best available in its own context. This is independent "research" that can be objective and independent research only.)

You can use information sources who do all they can to manipulate you into taking aspirin, mustard gas (chemo injections), ionizing radiation, etc. Or you can have the MP. You have the above non-integrated fiasco's and outrages and call them science, or you can have objective honesty and integration. Which do you choose when the length and quality of your life is at stake? Return

Site under renovation. Return soon for more.

Not affiliated with and no income derived from Neo-Tech Publishing Co., Frank Wallace, Mark Hamilton, Ayn Rand, any book writer, or any of their related publishing companies.

© Copyright 2003 Alexander Moss, All Rights Reserved