In Search of Perfect Research, by Dr. Omar

20150322_150101abThe Need for Knowledge Synthesis and Paradigm Reconstruction

This essay concerns educational philosophy and addresses effects arising from the shortfalls and dangers that attend the Positivist theory of existence. The premise is: “The common consensus seems to be that scientific reductionism is too flawed to act as a valid philosophical viewpoint” (Shuttleworth 2008). Utilizing cancer and Nuclear Energy as examples, the author exposes mortal and moral errors due to Positivist oversight, bias and subsequent social constructions that enable a continuum of universal harm in the wake of the reductionist paradigm. The writer references concerns, approaches and designs of Goethe and Newton towards research with a view to renew an appreciation for the moral dimensions of scientific endeavor that have been generally abandoned.

Key Words:


  • The instrumental mode of human reasoning elaborated in nineteenth century Positivism remains largely operative, whereby methods and assumptions of the physical sciences are transposed as the determinant framework for the human and social disciplines.
    FEAR OF REASON: Radical Muslim Traditionalism (The Ḥashwīyah),
    Dr. Karim Douglas Crow, IAIS , KL, Malaysia (2012).

The task of perfecting research requires knowledge synthesis. However, as we entertain something called progress, we seem to reap a harvest of perplexing harm and failure from lauded innovations that compete for attention and money rather than sustainable benefit. Do not misunderstand; progress and innovation based on reality-oriented applications that bring advantages are wonderful. Nevertheless, when we ignore experience and forget fundamental principles of existence as well as the moral and immoral aspects of human nature and its limitations, we cannot avoid ever-menacing brinks of disconcerting injury. Positivism rejects metaphysics and theism as well as the limits imposed by moral considerations and thus, invites nihilism’s harmful hegemony. An example is the corrupt but hallowed pharmaceutical monad for profit:

  • “Pharmaceutical drugs cause more overdoses and more deaths than all of the illegal drugs on the market combined; the situation is epidemic.” CDC; J. of Public Policy & Marketing (Feb 2015)
  • “The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose earlier, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 die from cancer than ever before. More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being “cured”. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are ‘winning the war against cancer’, they are using those survival rates improperly.” – Dr. J. Bailer, New England J. of Medicine (1990).
  • “We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.” – Glen Warner, M.D., Oncologist.
  • “My clinical experience is that in America, when people die from cancer, they are NOT actually dying from cancer, but instead, they are dying from the medical TREATMENT itself.”
    – Richard Shulze, N.D., M.H.
  • “Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times.” – Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Congressional Record, 09 Sep. 1987.
  • Dr. John Rengen Virapen, former Eli Lilly & Co. executive, after 35 years of service quit to speak out about the industry’s method for profit and the benefit derived by the company from symptomatic diseases that people live with for the duration of their lives, and the corruption in the industry (Waking Times 20 Apr. 2015).

The extremely lucrative cancer research and therapeutics industry has focused almost exclusively on surgery, chemo and radiotherapy but without finding a profitable cure for the disease. Expensive therapies abound in this socially constructed system of highly qualified, well-remunerated professionals and investors who steadfastly ignore and/or actively disparage viable therapeutic alternatives that are natural, less costly, and cannot be patented. After more than sixty plus years and gazillions spent to fund “perfect research” on the matter by the best scientific minds—devoted exclusively to the allopathic materialist thesis—cancer survival without their attendance is longer and more tolerable financially, psychologically and physically in many marginalized, non-Positivist medical venues.

Furthermore, despite gargantuan efforts, the incidence, prevalence and types of cancer have mushroomed during Positivist tenure and are expected to increase exponentially. Notwithstanding the best intentions of those who help construct or are caught in this web of futility, it appears that Positivist methodologies, resources and patients are being devoured by an industry that thrives on the advancing adversary it is meant to subdue.
Cancer’s cell destroying chemo-mechanics with the attendant collapse of form and function leading to human demise are well understood and elucidated in distressing detail for all medical students. Yet thriving industry professionals avoid utilizing knowledge gained from the study of what maintains pristine human physiology. Neither do they examine extant human populations that retain a healthy homeostasis that withstands cancer’s impositions. Where then is the perfection of the scientific method and model found in such reductionist neglect?

  • “If the cancer industry were really concerned about scientific progress, then it would not hide its own statistics. Truth does not fear investigation. Instead, its numbers are repeatedly covered up, and the scientific community eliminates from its ranks anyone who refuses to accept the establishment’s zealous dogma. It is not science. It is politics, and a very deadly form of it. Two to four percent of cancers respond to chemotherapy.”
    – Ralph Moss, PhD., former science writer, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
  • “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
    Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell (2009).

What these grievous indictments and the oversight just mentioned manifest, is that while certain methods of observation are perfected, man’s reasoning often goes wanting. Historically, especially in medical circles, this is because we tend to resolutely avoid challenging a political will controlled by a peer pressured consensus that has little to do with science other than ownership and dependency bias, the latter of which has everything to do with budget allocations and the power and profits gained from social constructions (PR propaganda) designed and fostered by special interest groups: “Leaving out non-intentional power mobilizes a status quo research bias and blinds us to the tacit power of the strong” (Guzzini 1993: 476). Furthermore, and even more damning, when carefully examined by revisionists such as the late and venerable Dr. Andrew M. Lobaczewski, we inevitably find bias, dissociation, denial and outright fraud at the behest of major psychopathic or otherwise pathologic personalities at the apex of too many conglomerate business and political models, which today, are equivalents. In the case of modern medical science, it happens to be all the above, but I will leave fraud and psychopathy for later essays.

As an analogy, it stands to reason that if a serial killer is on the loose (USA and Canada had 11,187 such victims in 2014), or if an arsonist is repeatedly feasting on acts of devastation, someone amongst a myriad of authorities will do their utmost to bring the villains to heel, and thus, end the cause of repeated mayhem and substantial loss. Hence, since it is established that modern lifestyles, major industries, pollutants and even immunizations are causes of cancer (USA: ~585,720 cancer deaths in 2014, American Cancer Society), why is research solely focused on limited and extremely expensive treatment regimens for growing numbers of victims without (i) addressing proven causes; (ii) taking appropriate preventative measures; (iii) and utilizing known cures that sit outside the reductionist box? I could rest my case and cause on this query alone, but will go ‘one step beyond’ to dislodge this incredibly faulty paradigm with its clear and present bias.

That professionals and scientists are humans filled with bias is a given fact of life and science. The greatest bias at present is material reductionism’s rejection of moral truth (Positivism). Goethe decried this misapplication of Newton’s astounding achievements as the very path that led to the reductio ad absurdum described above with respect to cancer. Sir Isaac Newton had the following to say on the matter of the scientific method:

  • . . . to derive two or three principles, and afterwards tell us how the properties and actions of all corporeal things follow from those principles, would be a very great step in philosophy, though the cause of those principles were not yet discovered.

Newton deliberately used the phrase ‘corporeal things’, which clearly indicates material, rather than ‘all things’. He also used the term ‘philosophy’, which, in the 17th Century context, held an ‘all-embracing’ nuance ‘indicating the love of wisdom, originally comprising all learning, distinct only from technical precepts and practical arts’ (“Philosophy”; Webster’s International Dictionary). Sir Isaac went further to amend the definition just offered. He posited that science and philosophy were a continuum with philosophy as captain. Hence, science’s duty was to aid philosophy by considering implicit realities responsible for technical precepts. Therefore, the scientific method’s true purpose is to serve philosophy. Together, like captain and ship, they discover ultimate realities responsible for material precepts via metaphysical reasoning while navigating seas of experiment, experience and contemplation propelled by the winds of knowledge synthesis.

Newton also accepted as an absolute premise that man’s ability to comprehend and discover hidden reality would be severely limited if knowledge was reduced to the examination and mere description of gross material, which is the position of material reductionism. Hence, Newton humbly submitted to what he called a “greater ocean of truth”, indicating the logically implied existence of the hidden, non-physical realities with which sub-atomic physicist now wrestle. As a result, he called his astounding achievements nothing more than ‘slave to reason’ — mere tools used by eclectic philosophers to reach far more profound and beneficial ends.

Hence, to apply Newton’s tool (scientific method) to the reactionary religion of materialist reductionism (essentially a Marxist spin on Positivism), while accepting the denial of moral realities and consequent responsibilities, insults reason because both the latter also constitute valid and essential components of existence. In essence, and to quote the renowned Dr. Helen Caldicott in reference to Nuclear Energy applications, “it is patent unscientific wickedness”.
We cannot, therefore, be utilizing a perfected scientific method when at the same time we ignore, restrict or restrain reason and application by (i) censoring academic freedom via reductionist-only peer review; or by (ii) limiting the scope of scientific observation to abstract induction and politically correct bias for profit; or by (iii) shunning the wisdom and knowledge derived from all human experience.

Goethe said:

  • Nothing occurs in nature that is not in relationship to the whole. When experience appears solely as isolated, and experiments are regarded as isolated facts, nothing within them indicates their isolation. There is only one question: “How do we find the relationship of these phenomena, of these occurrences? (Goethe, Theory of Colors. Weimar, 1810, p. 63).

Eclectic Knowledge Synthesis is the answer traditionally held within the classic Liberal Arts culture, now a purposely obscured art (see Note 11). Goethe, the consummate philosopher and scientist, never rejected the analytical procedures of hard science, yet he vehemently opposed using quantitative methodologies as the only source of inquiry into natural phenomena. He posited, “A Century that has relied solely on analysis and is almost afraid of synthesis is not on the right road” — with which I wholeheartedly agree, adding two more centuries plus a return to my opening statement.
Knowledge Synthesis begins with the ‘childlike’ manner in which Goethe examined light through a prism:

  • As I held the prism before my eyes, I expected—keeping Newtonian Theory in mind—that the entire white wall would be fradated into different colors . . . but I was quite amazed that the wall remained as white as before . . . only where there was something dark did a more or less distinct color show (Kline p. 37).

This typifies his approach to scientific inquiry in that he immediately examined the phenomenon under natural conditions, in complete contradistinction to an isolated, abstracted, unnatural experiment. All serious scientific inquiry begins in this manner and describes the point of departure between reductionism and synthesis—which are, after all, opposites. We can regard it as the archetype of a faultless scientific method that represents man’s natural curiosity. Indeed, it is an action that should never be relegated to insignificance. Reflection on this archetype allows us to imagine the reality of science in terms of humanity’s relation to the cosmos, in so far as we are childlike and seek to know the limits of our command. For Goethe, the purpose of scientific research was to describe natural events in the simplest terms possible, something that demands both ‘direct’ and ‘abstract’ (indirect) perceptions to optimize definitive cognizance.

Goethe also defined the limits of the modern scientific approach, in agreement with Sir Isaac. He claimed that mathematical methods of analyses via induction drawn from abstractions are noble instruments—nothing more than Newton’s tool—that merely enhance human perception. This is because cognition of the whole, what he termed ‘gestalt’ and what contemporaries call holistic, is paramount as it permits man’s intellect to better envelop and develop the capacity for a more inclusive synthesis imbued with moral principles that reflect relationships. When employing this construct, scientific observation fulfills its analytical purpose via reflective/contemplative genius (Nikola Tesla, for example), commonly referred to as inspiration born of intuition. Such knowledge synthesis innately allows moral and ethical considerations to sift truth from error, harm and fraud for the purpose of implementing constructs and applications for allocentric socially oriented benefit. Thus, it better allows us to avoid the harmful brinks (limits) of potential ruin that hedge humankind’s connections to the entirety of the universe.

Hence, mathematical induction and experiments removed from nature are indirect methods of observation and thus, in themselves, inadequately and incompletely describe natural events, especially when standing alone as rational explanations of truth. Absolute devotion to such limitations falls short of the moral mark and frequently gives rise to subjective theory, as was the case with Newton’s description of white light. Goethe warned against this error when he wrote the following:

  • . . . [the goal is] to trace phenomena to their sources, search out the point where they appear and exist, beyond which nothing further about them can be explained . . . don’t try to look beyond the phenomena. They themselves are the theory. Let the phenomena be very closely observed. Let the experiments be neatly performed. Let both them and their data be arranged in a definite order. Let one phenomenon be traced to. Another. Let a definite sphere of knowledge be outlined. Let views lay claim to certainty and completeness . . . Let everyone draw his own conclusion, they prove nothing, certainly no ‘isms and ‘ologies. Opinions on all things pertain to the individual, and we know only too well that conviction depends not so much on insight as on inclination, no one grasping but what is within his ken and therefore acceptable to him. In knowledge, as in action, prejudice casts the deciding vote . . . it is the spontaneous urge of our vital being toward truth as towards falsehood, toward all in which we feel in harmony. (Kline, op cit., p. 43)

It appears, therefore, that while isolated observations drawn from the current scientific method have their place, without eclectic knowledge synthesis, we inevitably succumb to malignant errors that abide in bias and immoral indulgence. This is a far cry from perfection.
Cancer advances because its known causes remain unaddressed by political will due to negligence, greed and diplomatic deference (dependence) to ‘special interest’ felons with no vested gain in financing real remedies or addressing real causes. As a result, the science, products and services they fund and generate advance counter-intuitively, much like a priesthood of magical thinkers collecting proceeds from the ignorant. The same can be said for the dependent monetized mindsets governing industry, agronomy, governance, finance, business, banking, economics, and even education (as established by the incomparable J. T. Gatto) —all of which disciplines have failed to establish and maintain sustainable homeostasis for the environment and contemporary human majority.

Nuclear Energy is a major cause of cancer and numerous other maladies of the post-modern era. Although nothing living is safe from its generation or waste products, it continues to be promoted, produced and utilized. Common sense demands a moratorium yet we collectively suspend prudence by refusing to exercise our moral capacity for reason as indicated by Goethe and Newton, among numerous others. This embarrassing impasse is primarily due to the imposition of socially constructed peer pressure that sustains those who have embraced nihilist Positivism, which is likely the chief reason Liberal Arts, Humanities and Philosophy have been de-emphasized in post-modern education venues. Hence, fear permits unethical brigades of scientific and engineering bias to march its dependents o’er brinks of encroaching ruination like so many lemmings, with Fukushima’s relentless and insuperable nemesis as a prime example of contemporary recklessness.

We adjust the moral disjunction by covering it with neo-logical norms backed by rational constructions based on reductionist perspectives that favor reigning business, scientific, educational and political concords. Examples are fractional reserve banking, Nuclear Energy, and even the iatrogenesis of immunization mania. This collective disengagement from moral and scientific appropriateness consumes us with rational innovations that construct a temporary matrix to house the maladjustments. The insinuations, in turn, form sub-networks in the name of progressive benefits. By the time society acknowledges serious dysfunction (autism for example), the morbidity is far too advanced for remedy in many cases, much like a cancer, at which point the patient (society) often lapses into abject denial of dependent responsibility in deference to the delusion of victimhood.

I refer to the ‘Metaphysical Law of Dissolution’ in other essays as the unavoidable determinant of the cancerous archetype, which is the unbridled premature dissolution of form and function that occurs when we abandon moral absolutes. I further posit that the remedies required for authentically sustainable social constructions, as per Newton and Goethe et alia, will only be realized as form and function fail on a global scale. Perhaps then, morally imbued reasoning and authentic knowledge synthesis will correct and better perfect the research methodology of those who survive.

For these several reasons the challenge remains for educators to infuse their curricula with morally imbued reasoning that commands a continuum of accountability that transcends mere preparation for employment. Education is lifelong and the winds of knowledge synthesis comprise an inviolable force that embraces material science with its mathematical inductions (statistics et al.) as partner, not tyrant. Hence, the paradigm must change.

Martyn Shuttleworth (Apr 15, 2008). Scientific Reductionism. Retrieved Apr 22, 2015 from

See Public Lecture at , Web. (21 Apr. 2015).

“Throughout the 20th century, the pharmaceutical industry has been constructed by investors, the goal being to replace effective but non-patentable natural remedies with mostly ineffective but patentable and highly profitable pharmaceutical drugs. The very nature of the pharmaceutical industry is to make money from ongoing diseases. Like other industries, the pharmaceutical industry tries to expand their market – that is to maintain ongoing diseases and to find new diseases for their drugs. Prevention and cure of diseases damages the pharmaceutical business and the eradication of common diseases threatens its very existence. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry fights the eradication of any disease at all costs.”
– Dr Matthias Rath, colleague of Linus Pauling

Suzanne Humphries, M.D. (2011). “Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice.” Web (May 2011):

Sébastien Bonnet et al. (2007). “A Mitochondria-K+ Channel Axis Is Suppressed in Cancer and Its Normalization Promotes Apoptosis and Inhibits Cancer Growth.” Cancer Cell, Vol. 11, No 1, pp. 37–51

On Cancer Survival:
“My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals.”  – Dr. Hardin B. Jones, Prof. Medical Physics and Physiology, Berkeley. Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, Vol. 6. (1956).

Dr. John Baylor, an official of the National Cancer Institute, Harvard bio-statistician, and consultant to the New England Journal of Medicine, said on the Today Show (Dec. 1984): “A lot of early lesions that are not cancer at all are being counted as cancer through early detection methods. These people will go on to lead a normal life anyway and the lesions will clear up by themselves. But they include these cases as cancer, thus, polluting the pool of real cancer patients and making it seem that survival rates have risen.”

“We’re finding that about 25 to 30 percent of some cancers stop growing at some point, that can make some treatments look good that aren’t doing anything. Until doctors figure out how to identify which patients have cancers that won’t progress, the only option is to treat everyone.”
– Dr. Otis Brawley, American Cancer Society’s Chief Medical Officer

“Success of most chemotherapies is appalling… There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer… Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland.”
– Dr. Uhlrich Abel

Boyle & Levin (2009). World Cancer Report, IARC, London: (WHO), The global cancer burden doubled in the last thirty years of the twentieth century and will double again between 2000 and 2020 and nearly triple by 2030.

For example: Hunza, Eskimos, Hopi and Navajo Indians, Abkhazians, etc. These societies all eat foods containing Vit B-17, which appears to protect them from cancer. Dr Robert McCarrison, writing in the AMA Journal (07 Jan 1922) reported, “The Hunza has no known incidence of cancer.” The traditional Hunza Diet contains over 200 times more nitriloside (Vit B17) than the average American or Australian Diet. Meanwhile, Western authorities have banned Vit B 17. “… This absence of cancer seemed to be due to the difference in nutrition of the natives compared to the Europeans….” – Dr. Albert Schweitzer

Stefano Guzzini (2000) “A Reconstruction of Constructivism International Relations, European Journal of International Relations.” 6:2; 147–182.

Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes. Grande Prairie: Red Pill Press, 2006) — one of the most significant scientific studies of human nature to date.

Petersdorf, R. G. (1986). “The pathogenesis of fraud in medical science.” Ann Intern Med, 104(2):252–4;

Charles Seife (2015). “Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Out of the Peer-Reviewed Literature.” JAMA Intern Med.,175(4):567-577;

Daniele Fanelli (2009). “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data.” PLoS ONE. 2009; 4(5): e5738;

Christian Nordqvist (2012). “Fraud In Published Scientific Papers Rises Dramatically.” Medical News Today.
Mike Aamodt (2014) Serial Killer Statistics. Radford University, Va.

David & Zimmerman (2010). “Cancer: an Old Disease, a New Disease or Something in between?” Nature Reviews Cancer, pp. 728–733.

  • Dr. Michael Zimmerman (Manchester University): ‘In an ancient society lacking surgical intervention, evidence of cancer should remain in all cases. The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity, indicating that cancer-causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialization.” Professor David said, ‘In industrialized societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare . . . extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.” (p. 729)

On Immunization

  • “Immunization programs against the flu, measles, mumps, polio, etc., actually may be seeding humans with RNA to form pro-viruses…which under proper conditions become activated and cause a variety of diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematoses, Parkinson’s disease, and cancer. Spare me this ‘medical miracle’.” – Dr. Robert Simpson, Rutgers University, 1987. (p.42)
  • “The vaccination modifies the terrain of the vaccinated, driving it towards the alkaline and oxidised terrain–the terrain of cancer. The fact can no longer be denied.” – Journal Revue de Pathologie Generale at de Physiologie Clinique, 1958 (p.111).
  • “It is necessary only to read on the dials of a physical measuring apparatus the ratings of the 3 characteristics of the blood. The pH, the rH2 and the electric resistance. The findings are that all vaccination has the effect of directing the three values of the blood into or toward the zone characteristics of cancer and leukemia…Vaccines do predispose to cancer and leukemia.” – Prof. L. C. Vincent, father of Bioelectronics.
  • “Vaccination is not necessary, not useful, does not protect. There are twice as many casualties from vaccination as from AIDS” – Dr. Gerhard Buchwald, 1988, West Germany, Internist.

Kline, H. A. (1981). History of Mathematics, Oxford University Press.

“Everyone should know that the ‘war on cancer’ is largely a fraud, and the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society are derelict in their duty to the people who support them.” – Linus Pauling

“There is not one but many cures for cancer aailable. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society and the major oncology centers.” – Dr. R. Atkins, Cardiologist.

“The cancer establishment remains myopically fixated on damage control… [allopathic] diagnosis and treatment … and basic genetic research, with, not always benign, indifference to cancer prevention… the American Cancer Society is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives.”
– Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Congressional Record, 09 Sep. 1987

Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (1992); A Different Kind of Teacher: Solving the Crisis of American Schooling (2000); The Underground History of American Education (2001); Weapons of Mass Instruction (2008).

Dr. Helen Caldicott (2007). Nuclear Power, Radiation, and Disease (pdf online) (21 Apr. 2015);

Cathy Vakil and Linda Harvey (2009). Human Health Implications of the Nuclear Energy Industry, Canadian Assoc. of Physicians for the Environment. Montreal.

Murray Rothbard, in The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar (1974), maintains that fractional reserve banking is fraudulent. Viewing it as coercive and unlawful, he argues that banks ought to be allowed to serve only as warehouses for money… Let us appreciate that the particular institutional arrangements under which we now live have not arisen under a condition of liberty to make monetary choices. We do not have monetary freedom.
– Michael S. Rozeff, Professor Emeritus Finance and Managerial Economics Department.  Education. PhD, University of Rochester MS, University of Illinois

  • “After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: “Whenever either organization [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programmed or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement.” In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA’s founding papers state: ‘The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world.'”
  • “Many are ignorant of the WHO’s subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the “anti-nuclear movement” who are “misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health.”
    Dr. Helen Caldicott
  • “Nothing but the natural ignorance of the public, countenanced by the inoculated erroneousness of the ordinary general medical practitioners, makes such a barbarism as vaccination possible…….Recent developments have shown that an inoculation made in the usual general practitioner’s light-hearted way, without previous highly skilled examination of the state of the patient’s blood, is just as likely to be a simple manslaughter as a cure or preventive. But vaccination is nothing short of attempted murder. A skilled bacteriologist would just as soon think of cutting his child’s arm and rubbing the contents of the dustpan into the wound, as vaccinating it in the same.” ― George Bernard Shaw
  • “There has never been a single vaccine in this country that has ever been submitted to a controlled scientific study. They never took a group of 100 people who were candidates for a vaccine, gave 50 of them a vaccine and left the other 50 alone, and measured the outcome. And since that has never been done, that means that if you want to be kind, you will call vaccines an unproven remedy. If you want to be accurate, you’ll call the people who give vaccines quacks.”
    Prof. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinois,
    pediatrician & gynecologist, medical columnist & best-selling author.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: