In Refutation of Baum and Ernst

The Church of Medical Science.

We are in a hole in time, which is the cavern of modern medicine. Walls that are dogmas from which drips ancient wisdom in a patter of slimy opinions, while outside a storm of data has gathered.

They start with the logic of Euclid. The shortest connection between two points is a straight line. What is a straight line? The shortest connection between two points. Regardless the straightness of the lines it is circular reasoning.
Then they continue with the wisdom of Newton. If there is no change in the direction of a moving body, the direction of a moving body is not changed. But if something is changed, it is changed as much as it is changed.
They are like geologists, determining the age of the rocks by the fossils. How is the age of fossils determined? By the age of the rocks.
Similarly, how is the virus determinable of disease? By the amount of vira in a disease. How is the disease determinable by the vira? By the severity of the disease compared to the amount of vira. Their statement is that when more vira can be seen, more vira will be seen. Such wisdom we shall not defile.
If a medicine does not change the numbers of the machine, the numbers on the machine are not changed. If a medicine does change the numbers on the machine, it changes them as much as they are changed.

In other words, their statement is that the medicine is either useless and the patient does not get better. Alternatively, the medicine is supposed to work and the patient gets better. Such wisdom we must defile. If you ask the patients, they tell you they are not getting better.
Hence, circular reasoning is employed in medical science today. They find themselves in an august assembly, as we noted from our examples taken from Euclid, Newton and geology. However, the popularity of a faulty piece of reasoning does not make it right. They may have gathered an impressive following, but majority vote does not count in scientific work, since science is not democratic but scientific.

Go by Slaughter or Laughter

You can oppose an absurdity only by another absurdity. Then again, medical science is established preposterousness. I say, we should not be outraged, but be outrageous. The outrageous is the reasonable, if introduced and presented politely. In the topography of intellectual comprehension and competence, I would say what they call knowledge is ignorance surrounded by laughter.
Therefore, their notions must go by way of slaughter or laughter. Hilarity will be the fitter exit. These notions must be murdered or we will have to laugh them away. There is much that can be said in favour of murder, but in their case that will be wilful waste of the stuff for laughter.
The theories get more and more fancy, to explain away ‘anomalous’ evidence, so-called, because reality encroaches upon theory and proves it wrong. The theory is in fact the ‘anomaly’, but that is not realised, admitted or tacitly forgotten. To bring this forward constitutes betrayal of the ‘scientific code’.

We know from the state of affairs in the fin-de-siècle twentieth century sciences, as well as today – in medicine in particular – that nothing has changed or if so, is becoming progressively worse. Thus, hypothesis and fantasy, speculation and imagination prove to be the foundation of what is presented as science by such staid publications as Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist, The Lancet, Time Magazine and the New York Times. These publications form the Bible of the Church of Science and their editors are the bishops.

The Worshipful Deities

The quasi-devil Virus and his consort Bacterium are the deities worshipped by the atheistic-materialistic Church of Medical Science. Bacterium and Virus are always invoked, especially because nobody seems to have the faintest idea how to explain them. Generally, they explain them away as the Cause of all causes; a position which religion reserves for the supreme deity. When these devils don’t suffice the minor devils Bacillus and Microbe can be invoked whenever Virus and Bacterium don’t answer their prayers.
It is noteworthy that whenever the Credo is challenged the Church becomes repressive, autocratic and sets up an inquisition to search and destroy the heretics with the help of the Jesuits of Science; education and the media. The Church’s high priests, in white coats, decked with ritual stethoscope and blood-pressure meter while babbling their liturgical Greek/Latin gobbledegook mixed with monotonous mantras of abbreviated abracadabra will not tolerate any other belief to enlighten the public. They claim to have the monopoly on the realisation of health.

The Isopanisad says:
‘The wise have explained that one result is obtained from the culture of knowledge and a different result is obtained from the culture of nescience.’

In regards to disease, the Medical Associations and their minions, the doctors and the internists, seem to be talking science but in fact they talk nescience or plain ignorance. They only express their beliefs, similar to any other church or religion. Yet, it is claimed that this belief is based on reason and to follow the facts of science. However, it has little or nothing to do with science, as it does not follow the scientific method. An unproved hypothesis does not follow scientifically validated facts. Moreover, I do not engage in flattery here, although it is one of the most promising of businesses; always brisk.
The theory must be repeatable by experiment to deserve classification as scientific. However, conjecture is the name of the game and there is no scope, nor escape for dissidence.

Stuffing Supine Credulities

Intelligence is generally supposed to be creditable. It may be, in the sense that it is mental activity trying to find out, but it is a confession of ignorance. The rest of us are plebeians, not yet graduated to their Nirvana. This they call instinctive and suave, as opposed to the intelligent and crude. Whether they jump or arrive at a more leisurely pace at the conclusion, they still believe disease to be caused by germs. Narrowness is an aspect of the local and wideness that of the universal. I go on widely.

With the uncanny wisdom of the stranger upon unfamiliar ground, they cast their eyes on disease and must find the usual faulty reason for it – a germ. It must be nothing but a germ – after all, each germ is the cause of a disease, as they say. They promptly find it in no time short. Their pathologists agree and, Lo! They glory in the miracle of science that they can find out a virus, microbe, bacillus or bacterium for every disease. I call it tainted agreement, for I prefer mild language. It is the situation, which repeats in the annals of medicine.
It never occurred to them by what miracle the pathologists and the physiologists agreed with this memorable and unreliable proposition. A baseless assumption that is supposed to have foundation is slipped under, wedged in or God knows how introduced or foisted upon. If everybody is so agreeable, we think that it was a matter of comfortably adjusting and being obliging all around. With certain monotony the data of conspiracy, of co-operation, continue. Instantly we think of some other extravagant claims with which the good doctors have stuffed supine credulities, such as vaccination and its supposed protection.

Notable Scientific Vaudeville

I think that Pasteur’s performance in the identification of disease caused by germs was rather notable scientific vaudeville. That is, if we acquit him of the charge of seriousness. They excommunicate beforehand any other explanation. They bury the data alive. It is as irreconcilable with the modern non-system of dogmas as once were geological strata or the vermiform appendix, to which they still have not been able to allot a function. In regards to disease, if Goldstein cannot get in as Goldstein, he will come in as Jackson.
Science, though usually thought of so specifically or in its own local terms – generally supposed to be prying into some old bones, bugs and unsavoury messes – is an expression of this one spirit. If science could absolutely exclude all data but its own present data or that which is assimilable with the present quasi-organisation it will be a real system, with positively defined outlines. Its seeming consistency, stability and system is only sustained and sustainable by damning the irreconcilable.

Hypnosis as Certainty

Lavoisier was once asked to investigate a stone, fallen from the sky. He went up in his balloon. He found no stones up there and concluded that the stone – hot to the touch after landing – had been on the ground all along and had been struck by lightning. One may have the knowledge of a Lavoisier and still not be able to analyse or even see, except conformably with the hypnosis of one’s era.
Naturally, for Lavoisier stones did not fall from the sky unless first brought up there by a volcano or a hurricane. They did not come from outer space. Yet today when stones fall from the sky they are suddenly all meteors. There are two varieties – stones with iron or with nickel. However, what about butter, fish, paper, wool and resin? They also fall from the sky, as we regularly note in several newspaper reports.

Similarly, for modern medicine, disease must come from a virus or other germ, whereas the mentality, environmental factors and iatrogenesis are ignored. If fish falls from the sky, a fishmonger did it, without any exception. Similarly, if a disease attacks man, a germ did it, also without any exception.

Science is the attempt to awaken to realness and reality. Bugs and disease and chemical messes – they are only quasi-real. Of them, there is nothing real to know, besides the reality of the suffering of the patient. Their systemisation of pseudo-data read from a machine is their closest approximation to reality and real things.
There could be real science if there were anything to be scientific about. They are inimical to all data discordant with their non-system that does not include them. Science is supposed to be inclusive, but they have turned it into an exclusive club; not to add knowledge, but to systematise. Over and over again, we see the universal delusion. Hope and despair that there can be real criteria or distinct characteristics of anything. They suffer from a disease even homeopathy is almost powerless against – deliberate ignorance.

Homeopathy is unsettling and unwelcome to their quasi-science because it destroys their attempts to compartmentalise and systematise their pseudo-data. Their attitude to the unwelcome is this – it does not exist, it is imaginary. As to homeopathy, it does not work, it is quackery and it is moonshine medicine. However, according to our understanding of therapeutics, the one that approximates the reality of the suffering of humanity closest will win. This, as with all heretical views, shall be met with the customary dissent of the orthodox and unimaginative doctors, who will condemn it for its originality.

Stretching the Imagination

Theoretical science is still a reaction against theological dogma. For it is rooted in nineteenth century thought – exclusionist. Where first God had to be excluded, now it is inimical data. If I or you were to pull out a piece of chewing gum about a meter long; that will be quite as scientific a performance as is the stretching of your imagination on accepting modern medicine – or its claims on the origin of disease – as scientific. Theirs is the attempt to assimilate all ‘verified’ phenomena under the materialist explanation. They want to formulate the rules for a final, all-inclusive system based on what they can hold between their fingers and can see with the eye. If they could, they would have a real science.

Alas, they disregard the mind, emotions and especially iatrogenesis as causes of disease and so they are stuck with the unscientific, because they exclude instead of include. They seem to think that such is real. I say they build a delusion upon a delusion and the second is as unreal as the first.
It is the reality, which we see every day in practice. Everything is between the ears and reflects on the body. It can also be the result of pharmaceutical or recreational drugs, manifested in the side effects. Nonetheless, the decision to take them is between the ears. You would not deny that grief could cause a headache, for grief is nothing but a headache – ask anyone who has grief.
You cannot deny that worry could give you stomach ulcers – ask anyone who has an ulcer, about his mental state. He will tell you about his worries and nothing else. You cannot deny that blood pressure pills give you vertigo. Ask anyone who has taken them for a long time. You cannot tell me that if you take a lot of xtc, you will not end up with a depression. You cannot tell me that long-term use of any substance, medicinal or not, does not produce its effects. Ask anyone who has taken them. They use the familiar attempt, to explain the general by means of the local.

The General & the Local

An elephant can be identified as a sunflower – both have long stems. A camel is indistinguishable from a peanut – if only the humps are considered. One schooled in logic would not be satisfied with the camel and peanut identification. You want accessory agreement – that both can live for a long time without water, for instance.
Therefore, before inquiring into the origin of a certain thing, it is essential to understand its fundamental nature. Otherwise, searching for its origin is totally ludicrous. Consequently, you must first consider all possibilities before you accept or reject any of them as the ultimate cause.

‘The certainties of science are a delusion. Scientific doctrine is controlled by the diffused metaphysical concepts of our epoch. Whenever some new mode of observational experience is obtained, the doctrines crumble in a fog of inaccuracies.’

This is a quote from Whitehead, from as long ago as 1925 (Science and the Modern World). From this sort of attestation of failure, we can see that the scientists follow Peter’s principle, where all the members in the hierarchy rise to their own level of incompetence.
In the end, we are reduced to using common sense. The problem is, that it is not so common and shockingly absent in far too many of the learned brethren on the orthodox medical side who, seeking to become erudite, succeed only in pouring emptiness into the void. Their uncompromising orthodox stand represents good as attempts, but these attempts stand for evil in their insufficiency.
Over and over they have seen our extraordinary cures. They have had no discussion; not even a comment afterwards – only burial and damnation. Burial and damnation or the obscurity of the conspicuous and hence, it is suspicious.

The Pasteurian Aberration

Similarly, the Pasteurian aberration known as the germ theory has replaced other theories on the origin of diseases, but is as faulty as the one it replaced. After all, the viruses and bacteria are noted as an end result of disease, since they are abundant in full-blown cases. Since result and cause are eternally different, it is at once clear that the germ theory is a faulty piece of reasoning.
Sufficient adulation of the substitute – that is the virus or bacterium – has become the aim of the researcher. Ignoring the existence of the real thing – or even its possibility – is as effective for practical purposes as if it was not there. That is tantamount to saying it does not exist.

Let us look at the virus or germ theory a little closer. It is but an assumption that germs cause disease. They say their evidence is presented in the fact that when they kill the bacteria or viruses, the disease is soon gone as well. The germs become active from some outside trigger – generally an invasion of those same germs. They attack the living cells and destroy them, in the process using the cell-DNA to multiply. A virus is really nothing more than a string of RNA-messenger cells, which need the cell’s DNA, to complete them and divide. If this is allowed to continue unabated, the body will succumb under the onslaught and the victim will die. That sounds like the correct view, is it not? After all, Pasteur already proved this more than 150 years ago, is the argument.

Pasteur made a few assumptions, which we shall scrutinise further, to discover whether they stroke with the facts or not. The first is the assumption that germs cause disease. When a disease is full-blown, what is the picture of the blood? A so-called ‘viral disease’ is characterised by a high level of viruses in the blood of victims of full-blown cases. This is – and we should note this well – invariably the case with all viral diseases. Invariably this is noted only in full-blown cases. If we examine the blood of any healthy person, we may find the virus in some cases, but never in disproportionate amounts. In the sick, everyone has a very high count. When normally it may be one per million, in disease it is one per three cells.

Careful Observation of the Cornucopia

What is important, we must consider carefully what we observe. In a full-blown case of disease, we are looking at the disease ultimate. It is an end-result. From the moment we entered primary school, we are taught that results are always different from causes, and this is scientific.
In viral diseases, they throw this scientific principle out the window and declare that cause and result are one and the same thing. This is unscientific, to say the least. It has no place in any scientific discussion, least of all medicine, where lives are dependent on thorough scientific principles and procedures. Why then does that not count for germs?

Germs are the exception to the rule, they say. That makes for many exceptions to the rule, for there are many different germs associated with disease. Several gut bacteria, such as salmonella and escheria coli to name but a few, totalling more than thirty different ones. Most of them are used as the bowel nosodes by homoeopaths. There is more than a just a handful of viruses, quite a few bacilli and microbes and then we do not even count the ones they have not yet discovered. Together, this veritable cornucopia of creatures makes for over 100 exceptions to the rule. That is exceptional by itself. It is therefore complete nonsense and subsequently thoroughly unscientific.
Then how come that when they are killed the disease also is finished? Because these drugs are suppressing the disease, which will reappear soon enough. The function of the germs is different from what Pasteur presented and that is why they cannot be exceptions to the rule and therefore do not cause disease. If the medical scientists paid attention to what they see they would have noticed that viruses attack only cells with receptors to which they can react. Healthy cells do not have those markers, so the virus cannot attack them. Why else are we not constantly sick?

Bad Cleaner Syndrome

Disease can also be compared to a spring clean up. Disease must be eliminated from the body, to truly disappear. The doctors merely hide it, as a bad cleaning lady sweeps the dirt under the mat. Now if you have a cleaning lady that sweeps the dirt under the mat, you fire her!
Yet they demand that doctors, who also sweep the dirt under the mat, should be kept on as bad cleaning ladies. Why should we allow them so much more leeway? What privilege or merit do we think they possess to be treated differently? Personally, I think none.

At the clean up, the body opens an outlet from which the dirt is released, be it pus, rashes, cancerous growths, warts or purging, whatever. Their orthodox treatment closes the door, by using medicines, creams, chemo-therapy, radiation or surgery, whatever takes their fancy. Metastasis means nothing less than the body seeking a new outlet. You close the door? The body will open the windows. You also close the windows? It will, if necessary, blow off the roof. But it will never disappear till you have brought it back to its original outlet or have buried the victim.

Let me quote to you again James Tyler Kent, a nineteenth century homoeopath, who pointed out what was wrong in his time and which is still the same today.

'Anything that looks away from exactitude is unscientific. The physician must be classical; everything must be methodical. Science ceases to be scientific, when disorderly application of the law is made.’
(Kent. Lectures on the philosophy)

Here is another quote, by the same Dr Kent.

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

So if we follow the reasoning that viruses cause disease, then we have to shoot all the elephants?

Mythological Premises

As soon as the ease of life is gone, that is dis-ease. Where does that show itself, other than in your mind, your emotions and in your body? Not anywhere else is it found. Therefore, how can they say that disease comes from germs? Or alternatively, as they now like to fancy that disease is coming from the genes? That is the fabrication of a couple of modern myths.
Yet they want us to believe it is a certain reality, or alternatively a real certainty, although derived from indirect signs that really point in another direction.

This naive scenario is sold to the public as factual scientific discovery and on the most clownesque story to ever come out of a scientific education institute, whole university departments gobble up gigantic sums of taxpayers' money. To explain away the anomalous, medical scientists invoke the elusive and mythological germ, especially as nobody seems to have the faintest idea what germs exactly entail. Among themselves, they have not the faintest clue and so they have to mytholo-gise the entire paradigm. This of course helps them to reinforce it again and again.

Genetics - An Interactive System

The cause of disease from germs is mythological – albeit not fabricated by the doctors, but Pasteur. The genes causing disease is just another myth. Genes are not deterministic, however much they would like them to be so. That is another myth, for we know that every cell in the body has the same chromosome packet with the same genes, yet they are all different cells. So how has the gene determined the diseased function, form and structure of each sick cell? Because the gene is an interactive phenomenon.

Genes act through feedback loops - what you put in, also comes out. Thus if the body is poisoned by vaccinations, the reaction of the genes is to express that poisoning in the development of the body. With all its concomitant faulty function and structure. How does it act?
By mythological means, for it has no other possibility, being not deterministic. In the modern understanding, myth has no basis in reality. According to the dictionary: ‘Myth, a figment; a commonly held belief that is untrue or without foundation.’ Genes act through feedback loops, which help the cell develop according to its environment. Thus a cell becomes either a blood cell, an epidermic cell or a muscle cell, because its surroundings determine the need, structure and function.

False Conjectures & Fictions of the Imagination

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

The Swine & Bird Flue Hoaxes

We only need to take the recurring swine-flue scares. We are supposed to be afraid of the virus, for it can kill humans. This is because it is a virus that does not belong in humans and therefore we have no immunity against it, say the theorists.
Although sounding plausible, it does not explain how a rela-tively harmless virus suddenly mutated into a deadly one. The theory also does not explain how the conditions of context, which forbid mutation and evolution altogether, suddenly were suspended.
As everyone with a smattering of intelligence can understand, a land tortoise cannot develop fins before it dies, when thrown in the ocean. A sea-going tortoise will not survive long enough on land alone, to develop the legs to survive there. The conditions of context forbid mutation and therefore evolution altogether.
Similarly, a virus that lives in one species cannot live in another species unless those species share sufficient characteristics of susceptibility for hosting that germ. Thus, tuberculosis is shared with birds and cows, but not with rabbits and horses. You could of course argue different. Clostridium tetani for instance, lives in the gut of horses without doing them any harm, but in our body, it causes death in a short time. However, for tetanus to kill us the bacterium does not have to mutate. It kills us as it is. Moreover, the bacterium is already connected to a disease, as many germs have something to do with disease as a concomitant factor. There is no instance known where a germ that has nothing at all to do with any disease suddenly becomes deadly, after mutating into something different in any other species. Therefore we reject this mutation scenario as vacuous nonsense.

Slime City

The microbe community is a veritable slime city, with all kinds of inhabitants, such as merchants, workers, farmers garbage collectors, expensive restaurants and so on, with several types of police, as well as an army, highrisers, highways and diverse transport systems. Some digest food, others are scavengers. Another one has the capacity to digest what is indigestible to others. Some members in that community learn to digest the antibiotics and so ‘resistance’ comes about. It is not that the virus becomes resistant, but that the antibioticum never reaches them again – other germs digest it first. Thus, it violates the orthodox parameters for treatment, which say that ‘the medicine used must be able to reach the seat of infection’. This is the way they paint the picture; I am quoting their pharmacopoeia.

Even if the viruses and other germs look different, they are also not mutations, but merely different members of the incredibly large community of microbes. That community has been studied – in the form of single microbes in isolation. It has never been studied as a whole, an entirety. They have no idea how many different members it has or what the function of each member is within the context of the whole. They would pretend they do from the few they studied in isolation.
I also do not know every member, but have studied it as a whole. Immunity is extended to the whole body in the context of a co-operative society. The conclusion is obvious and denial does not make it go away. Only the totality gives you an idea of the goings on in Slime City and that microbes or other germs help a virus or that germs have a particular function.

Circumstantial Evidence

In this day of everybody’s suspicions against circumstantial evidence, just what is not generally realised is that orthodox medicine is founded upon nothing but circumstantial evidence. Morons for the most part can be the most useful citizens, considering a great deal of the valuable work done by such mentally deficient persons. One cannot offend anybody with any statement that is interpreted as applying to everybody else. To then ridicule my findings is what I call an instance of the aforementioned usefulness.

David Bohm made the following remark about knowledge: ‘One is no longer able to describe or even think about any well defined connections between phenomena at a given time and those of an earlier time.’
Similarly, they do not see the connections between what they discover today and what they caused before. Instead, they invent an imaginary cause, which will remain the cause for as long as they like.
This is the admittance of arbitrariness as a determining factor, rather than letting the observable facts determine events. It tells us that imagination is the supreme deciding factor in the ‘understanding’ of medicine and the treatment of disease.
I begin to suspect that the trouble with me is that I am too simpleminded. My antagonists, whom I call conventionalists, are subtler than I am and prefer their views because mine are so obvious. Their standardised explanation is perforated with omissions. They see what they want to see – when they do see – and they see to it that the public sees as they see.

All science is in need of sound scientific principles, to follow fixed laws and operate with sound reasoning and logic. So far, we have seen no foundation of law and principle and thus no discernible reason and logic-following super-structure. We see quicksand foundations without law or principle and loose-straw superstructures without rhyme or reason. That is the impression modern medicine leaves behind.

Other articles in the same vein:

http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/in-refutatio...

ALEX WROTE: Why Homeopathy in the UK Needs a Mass Media Campaign
http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/why-homeopat...

Debby Wrote: U.K House of Commons Science & Technology
http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/forum/topics/uk-house-of-co...

Shashi Wrote: HOMEOPATHY IN THE UK - THREAT BY THE NEWS MEDIAhttp://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/homeopathy-in-the-uk-threat