Platonic Fullerene Chemistry, Sir C P Snow and the Cure for Cancer

In 2008, The Times Literary Supplement included the book,’The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution’ in its list of books that most influenced Western Public Discourse since the Second World War. Sir C P Snow’s 1959 Cambridge University Rede lecture argued that unless Classical Arts theory was reunited with science, then civilisation would collapse, the reason for this being that scientists had let themselves be governed by an erroneous Einsteinian world-view, which demands that all life in the universe must eventually be destroyed. Modern science can be seen to be accelerating that destruction through entropic global economic rationalism, leading to global economic collapse and World War III.

In 1979, China’s most highly awarded physicist, Hun Huang gave the Australian Science-Art Research Centre the methodology with which to use the world’s seashell fossil record to reunite science with the ancient art-form mathematics. This was in order to prevent Einsteinian global chaos from accellerating entropic destruction.

During the 1980s, the Centre’s mathematician, Chris Illert, developed a seashell formula directly from the Classical Arts mathematics, in order to successfully generate healthy seashell bio-form growth and development simulations through thirty million years of space-time. In 1990 this discovery was reprinted by the SPIE Milestone Series,belonging to the world’s largest technological research institute, IEEE in Washington, as one of the important optical discoveries of the 20th Century.

The President of the Institute for Basic Research in the USA, Professor Ruggero Santilli, in liaison with the Centre’s mathematician, advanced the research into the realm of physics. In 1995 an international peer review of this work recognised the discovery of new physics laws governing optimum biological growth and development through space-time, as predicted by Kun Huang.

As Einsteinian mathematics can only generate deformed bio-form simulations, through space time, the Centre’s Royal Fellow of Medicine, Dr George Cockburn, together with the Centre’s director (the author of this article), considered that mainstream mathematics must be innately carcinogenic. The 1937 Nobel laureate in medicine, Szent-Gyorgyi, had also arrived at that conclusion. He considered that consciousness evolved in unison with the Einsteinian energies of chaos. Szent-Gyorgyi argued that within the human metabolism, the emotional conflict of being forced to live under an unnatural entropic yoke was interfering with the healthy evolution of human consciousness, contributing to cancer growth.

The director of the Centre’s work then focussed upon the functioning of the synergestic world-view derived by the famous American engineer, Buckminster Fuller. Fuller’s work was constructed upon the ancient art-mathematics of Plato. Both argued along similar lines to Sir C P Snow and Szent-Gyorgyi. The Science-Art Centre, drawing upon the cancer theories of Dr Cockburn, used 3-D glasses with asymmetrical electromagnetic lensing, to discover if artists over the centuries had unconsciously depicted hidden holographic images within their paintings. This subsequently proved to be correct.

The associated electromagnetic phenomenon appeared to be compatible with Szent-Gyorgyi’s electromagnetic cancer theories. Furthermore, the Centre successfully predicted that the negentropic properties of carbon signalling evolves consciousness. This occurs when the human metabolism gains pattern recognition of the Golden Mean geometrical dance of life (Buckminster Fuller’s Jitterbug). This geometrical dance depicts the process of proteins constantly enfolding in DNA (see: Theory of Carbon Signalling. Negentropy vs Entropy-Emergence of Self Propagated Biological Systems by Radoslav Bozov, Independent researcher, biology department, University of Virginia).

The Centre’s prediction was validated in 2011 when the Cornell University Library in the USA announced a quantum biological discovery by two Chinese scientists. They used mathematics to prove that proteins were continuously enfolded into geometrical patterns in DNA, in complete defiance of Einstein’s understanding of the laws of universal energy.

This article suggests that completely successful guidelines for cancer research can now only be possible when Buckminster Fuller’s balanced synergistic World Game Theory is implemented, as soon as is possible. In Fuller’s words this would ‘Make the world work, for 100% of humanity, in the shortest possible time, through spontaneous cooperation, without ecological offence or the disadvantage of anyone’. Fuller had received many awards including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, presented to him on February 23, 1983, by President Ronald Reagan.

Within a Einsteinian entropic world mindset, where Nobel Prizes are awarded for the development of a non-cooperative economic mathematical games theory, Fuller’s solution, for the betterment of the human condition is an impossible concept for the entropic mind to grasp. However, there is now enough data to program a supercomputer to instantly resolve this situation. All that is lacking is the anti-cancer medical will to implement it.

As already mentioned, Buckminster Fuller’s concept of the harnessing of universal energy to prevent Einstein’s chaos from occurring, completely echoed the ethos of C P Snow and Szent-Gyorgyi and other eminent scientists.

IBM’s chess playing computer, Deep Blue, became the world’s first computer to defeat a world chess champion. IBM’s Watson computer beat the greatest minds in America able to play the more complex game, Jeopardy. Fuller’s World Game Theory was alluding to a supercomputer to play the game of human survival, a choice between what he called ‘Utopia or Oblivion’. The idea of programming the Fullererne supercomputer must now include thousands of years of thinking related to what Einstein called mythological-mathematical intuition embracing ideas beond that of his entropic universe.

In 1957, the New York University of Science published a book, ‘Babylonian Myth to Modern Science’. In the book, Einstein was held to have derived his theory of relativity and his equation E=Mc squared from that Babylonian mythological mathematical intuition. Einstein believed that all of science was governed by a universal law of chaos that dictated the eventual destruction of all life in the universe. This is the same law that applies to the functioning of steam engines. When the heat runs out, the engine stops. Furthermore, if you wait long enough the steam engine will decay into a rusted, useless hulk. According to Einstein this decay must happen to the entire universe, causing all life in the universe to perish.

Conversely, in ancient Egypt, the mythological intuitions advocated infinite creative activity instead of extinction. The Goddess Maat’s mathematical science was held necessary to prevent the universe from reverting to chaos, in order for it to thrive within an endless evolutionary process. The Greeks developed the Egyptian ideas, in order to design a government in which the mathematics of Platonic Love prevented the extinction of life.

The Harvard University Press has published that the Great Italian Renaissance was constructed upon Marcillo Fincino’s writings, taken from ‘Plato’s Theology’. Plato’s atomistic theology was based upon fusing ethics into the theories of creation belonging to the Greek philosopher of science, Anaxagoras. He, in turn, had derived it from the mythological-mathematics belonging to the Egyptian creator-god Atum (the word atom is considered to have been derived from the creator-god’s name). The Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy transformed the mathematics into what is now recognised as being an infinite fractal expression, linking the living process to infinity. This fractal expression is diametrically opposed to the Einsteinian death sentence for humanity.

Harvard University’s Novartis Professor, Amy Edmondson, in her biography of Buckminster Fuller, gently admonished him for not explaining that he derived his balanced world-view directly from Plato’s mathematics. Fuller wrote that his world-view was about making the choice between Utopia or Oblivion. This echoed Plato’s concept that an ethical creative science could prevent civilisation from reverting to chaos. The name of the ancient 3rd Century BC Platonic Greek science was called the ‘Science for Ethical Ends’. Its sister atomistic science was called the ‘Science of Universal love’, with both embracing the physics principles of what is now referred to as Platonic Love.

In 1600, the scientist, Giordano Bruno was imprisoned and burnt alive by the Church in Rome for teaching about the science of Platonic love in England at Oxford University. Modern nanotechnology proves that the workings of the molecule of emotion, discovered in 1972 by Dr Candace Pert, functions as an infinite fractal expression, in defiance of Einstein’s world-view. Buckmister Fuller’s World Game Cooperative Theory, to guide the Platonic Fullerene medical science, is now the world’s top priority world peace concept.

It is possible to explain this situation briefly in philosophical terms. Many famous atomistic philosophers, such as Plato, Philo. Plotinus and Al Haitham, specifically warned not to use vision as the source of all knowledge. They associated that cerebral process with the definition of evil (anti-life) as a destructive property of unformed matter in the physical atom. Da Vinci, Descartes and Sir Francis Bacon thought otherwise and were the pivotal figures who ushered in the mechanical industrial age, inherited by Einstein.

Einstein’s use of vision was basic to quantum mechanics, as an act of visual observer participation, using light to view subatomic particles and in so doing altering the fabric of the universe. That concept led to E=Mc squared, atomic weapons and out of control nanotechnology, a far more serious proposition threatening civilisation than Plato predicted. The problem arises, that under the present scientific conditions it becomes impossible for mainstream science to reunite with Classical Art mathematical theories. Furthermore, the Arts cannot define any difference between aesthetically pleasing activity and the ancient ethical acquisition of scientific ‘Wisdom through Beauty’, as Sir C P Snow advocated. Although quantum biological research can measure and validate the importance of Snow’s vital bridging process, entropic economic rationalism must always remain hostile to it. Experience demonstrates that this human survival issue must become a legal-medical issue, governed by the proposed Fullerene World-Game supercomputer.

In 1986 the director of the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia, during his Artist-in residency at the University of Sydney, worked alongside a cancer research team where he added comments to a cancer research article published by the University of Sydney News. His contribution predicted the importance of the life-energy mathematics published by his Centre’s mathematician in Italy’s leading scientific journal. Furious eminent Australian scientists attempted to have his contribution removed from the article, because it dared to challenge Einstein’s world-view. In their ignorance they declared it to be a disgrace to the University of Sydney. This attack was so intensely emotional that it led to a front page article in the Sydney Morning Herald. The support that the director received from the medical world against this attack upon his Science-art theories, was such that he received the prestigious 1989 Dorothy Knox Award for Distinguished Persons, which was another Artist-in-residency at the Dumore Lang College, Macquarie University, Sydney.

In 1988 the Australian Medical Observer, published a feature article, written by its Science Writer, Dr Calvin Miller, which stated that the Science-Art article that had caused such contention, was asking the right questions and might possibly be heralding a new global Renaissance. The Centre’s book, entitled the 21st Century Renaissance was published in 2012. It was written in liaison with the University of Florence’s New Measure of Humanity Project. This project was directed by the two Italian chemists, Paolo Manzelli and Massimo Pregnolato, recipients of the 2010 Giorgio Napolitano Medal on behalf of the Republic of Rome, for their quantum biology life-energy discoveries. The 1988 Medical Observer article had correctly predicted the now internationally recognised Renaissance, pioneered in part by the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia. Australian politics is still preventing the Australian people from knowing about this, while at the same time several scientific conferences in Britain, Italy and China are celebrating the birth of the 21st Century Renaissance.

The late Royal Fellow of Medicine, London, Dr George Cockburn, the Centre’s Bio-Aesthetician, had written several books researching cancer. His work has now been found compatible to recently discovered evolutionary quantum biology systems associating carbon properties acting in defiance of Einstein’s erroneous understanding of universal energy systems. The Centre’s mathematical life-science discovery was the first, and probably the only one in the world, to prove life to be an inevitable consequence of expanding biological space, as described by cancer researchers developing the cancer theories of the Nobel laureate Szent-Gyorgyi.

Using Cockburn’s work, the Director of the Centre delivered a published Science-Art lecture at Yangzhou University in China in 2001, in which he predicted the aforementioned protein dance of life within DNA, which uses carbon signalling to provide intuitive evolutionary survival information to the mind. Later, he published the discovery that Plato’s spiritual optical engineering priciples created artistic emotion, resulting from intuitive pattern recognition of the geometrical Platonic thought forms belonging to Fuller’s dance of life.

In 2009 the Australian Director of the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia and its former mathematician were awarded Gold Medal Laureates for their Science-Art life-energy discoveries by the Telesio Galilei Academy of Science, London.

By linking mathematics to physics, in which the energies of chaos govern all of science, Einstein’s equation E = Mc squared, correctly described the functioning of the destructive potential of physical reality, which, although a political tool for power, can only accelerate humanity into a World War III chaos, linked to global economic collapse. The mathematics of Humanity, attempting to maintain healthy evolution through expanding space-time, was given an electromagnetic equation to balance E=Mc squared, by the Jesuit Priest, Tielhardt de Chardin. He was working with the scientist educator, Maria Montessori, who is listed in TIME Magazine’s ‘Century of Science’ as the greatest scientist of 1907.

The functioning of the molecule of emotion, discovered by Dr Candace Pert in 1972, behaves in a manner that Montessorri predicted, and obeys the universal laws of physics, postulated by the engineer, Buckminster Fuller. The carbon Fullerene chemistry, named after him, became the basis of the new medical science instigated by the three 1996 Nobel laureates in Chemistry. The science-Art Centre renamed the Fullerene Chemistry as Platonic Fullerene Chemistry, and together with a Dr of international Law, Michael Byrne, designed a human survival legal format for world peace that cannot be delivered within any Australia University. Although a department of the United Nations has investigated the situation and declared it valid.

Einstein would not accept Plato’s dictum that ‘all is geometry’, therefore dismissing the spiritual engineering optics of Plato, which were held to function in the act of creation leading to light and matter, arising from the dark Abyss referred to in the Old Testament. Einstein insisted that the universe was a physical phenomenon, although his protege David Bohm argued about the existence of a holographic universe. Furthermore, Sir Isaac Newton, within his unpublished Heresy Papers, was convinced that the physical universe had to be completed by a more natural and profound philosophy, based upon the physics principles of particle movement, which belonged to the once banished Platonic science (see Gregory, R. 1989, Alchemy of Mind over Matter, Nature. Vol. 342. 30 November, page 473).

As already mentioned, C P Snow delivered his 1959 Rede Lecture at Cambridge University advocating a reunification of Classical Art theory with modern science in order to save civilisation from entropic extinction. This article is about how the Australian entropic political culture treats such reasoning. It stands as a warning of how to judge the cultural integrity of governmental thinking, which seeks security by balancing budgets to provide more entropic employment to bring about an entropic environmental disaster through a lack of understanding about how to harness the negentropic properties of carbon.

If one observes the front cover of the current Third edition of Artists and Galleries of Australia, Vol. 2, it can be noted that the former Art Critic for the national newspaper ‘The Australian’ and former Chairman of the Visual Arts Board of Australia Council, Dr Elwin Lyn. AM, describes the Science-Art painting on the front cover by the artist Director of the Science-Art Research Centre. He wrote that after painstaking research, that the artist became recognised as ‘representing an unprecedented pictorial survey of most recent attitudes and consolidated values.’ Sir C P Snow called the scientists, who failed to link creative thought with science in defiance of the prevailing scientific world view, as reflecting the mentality of their neolithic cave dwelling ancestors. Surely the same thing applies to the cultural aspirations of the Australian Government.

In 1995 the Hon. Simon Crean, as the Federal Minister of Science, knew enough about the work of the Science- Art Research Centre to feel obliged to overturn a negative university assessment of the Centre’s work, by a major Australian University. Apparently, he may well have agreed with the negative scientific assessment, that while the work was not factually erroneous, it was inconceivable. He may well have thought that it could have no possible relevance to the emergence of the internationally recognised 21st Century Renaissance predicted in the 1988 issue of the eminent Australian Medical Observer. Now, as the Australian Federal Minister for The Arts, his ministry appears hostile to the Creative Physics discoveries associated with Science-Art research.

The complex issues raised in Science-Art quantum biological research may not be great thoughts of outstanding genius. However, the proposed Buckminster Fuller supercomputer will quickly sort out that minor problem in seconds. Until now all of the Australian Science-Art discoveries mentioned in this article were paid for by artists selling their paintings to help provide a sustainable future for the betterment of the human condition. Where was the federal Ministry for the Arts to offer encouragement and financial support relative to such a crucial cultural issue? The reader can contact the Australian Ministry for the Arts in order to learn that the author of this article might be considered delusional, or a person that they have never heard of. Then, one can enter the words Platonic Fullerene Chemistry on Google. By selecting any one such listing under EzineArticles, they will realise that virtually all of the other many thousands of listings can be traced to the author, or his Centre’s colleague Chris Degenhardt’s, copyright.

© Professor Robert Pope,
Advisor to the President Oceania and Australasia of the Institute for Theoretical Physics and Advanced Mathematics (IFM) Einstein-Galilei

Global Science Research and the Value of International Collaboration

Science research spending around the globe has increased by 45 percent to more than $1,000 billion (one trillion) U.S. dollars since 2002. In 2008, 218 countries generated more than 1.5 million research papers, with contributions ranging from Tuvalu’s one paper to the U.S.’ 320,000 papers. The U.S. leads the world’s production of science research, accounting for 21 percent of publications and nearly $400 billion worth of public and private science R&D. BRIC and other developing countries, including China, India, Brazil and South Korea, account for much of the increase in scientific publications.

Science Research in the BRIC Countries of China, India and Brazil

A study by the U.K.’s Royal Society points out that the BRIC countries, along with South Korea, “are often cited as rising powers in science.” From 2002 to 2007, the China, India and Brazil more than doubled their spending on science research, bringing their collective share of global spending up from 17 to 24 percent.

Engineering is a common focus of science research in China, India and Russia. Scientific fields in which China has developed a leading position include nanotechnology and rare earths. Agriculture and biosciences are two important fields of emphasis in Brazil, which is a leader in biofuels research.

In keeping with their rapid economic development and massive populations, China and India, the world’s first and second most populous countries, produce large and growing numbers of science and engineering graduates each year. In 2006, about 2.5 million students in India and 1.5 million students in China graduated with degrees in science and engineering.

International Collaboration

Today, over 35 percent of science research articles are the result of international collaborations among researchers from different countries, a 40 percent increase from 15 years ago. The number of internationally co-authored papers has more than doubled since 1990.

The U.S., U.K., France and Germany continue to be key hubs of international collaboration in science research. Researchers in other developed and developing countries actively collaborate with scientists from these countries. According to the Royal Society report, “while links between the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have been growing in recent years, they pale in comparison to the volume of collaboration between these individual countries and their partners in the G7.”

International science research often takes the form of regional collaboration. Regional political institutions, including the European Union (EU), African Union (AU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), each have their own research strategies that foster and facilitate regional collaboration in science research.

“South-South Collaboration” between developing countries is a growing form of international science research. The International Centre for South-South Cooperation in Science, Technology and Innovation was inaugurated in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2008 under the auspices of UNESCO. An initiative of India, Brazil and South Africa promotes South-South cooperation in several arenas, including science and research collaboration in fields such as nanotechnology, oceanography and Antarctic research.

Collaboration’s Benefits and Drivers

There are a number of important benefits, motivations and enabling factors that help explain the growth of international collaboration in science research, including:

1) greater impact;
2) scientific discovery;
3) scale of research projects;
4) scope and complexity of research topics and international issues;
5) capacity-building; and
6) advances in technology and communications.

Fourteen countries experienced more than a three-fold increase in their standard domestic publication impact by collaborating with one or more of 22 partner countries. Each additional international author leads to an increase in a paper’s impact, up to a tipping point of about ten authors. By collaborating with one another, scientists can access complementary skills and knowledge and stimulate new ideas.

The scale of some major science research projects is too large for most countries to undertake on their own. In such cases, international collaboration is necessary to meet extensive requirements for human, financial and other resources. The scope and complexity of certain science research topics and objectives can also drive international collaboration.

Many of the world’s most pressing social problems are international issues that call for collaboration and cooperation. Climate change, food security, public health (e.g., AIDS/HIV, malaria and tuberculosis) and sustainability are just a few of the global issues that require international collaboration and solutions.

Collaboration allows scientists in one country to build their capacity to conduct significant science research by leveraging the resources of partners in other countries. Collaboration can be particularly beneficial to partners from developing and developed countries.

Advances in technology have contributed greatly to the feasibility and appeal of international collaboration. For researchers in developing and developed countries alike, improvements in communication technologies and services have made international collaboration simpler, faster and cheaper than ever before.

Success Stories

The Royal Society study presents several encouraging examples of cases where science research and international collaboration have contributed greatly to addressing important international issues.

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) encompasses an international network of independent centers of agricultural research in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Despite operating on a modest yet significant annual budget of $550 million, every $1 invested in CGIAR is estimated to yield a very healthy return of $9 worth of additional food in developing countries.

The World Health Organization (WHO) set up FluNet in 1996 as a global tool to monitor and evaluate influenza virus strains by leveraging data from a number of national influenza laboratories around the world. When the epidemic of severe respiratory illness broke out in Hong Kong in 2003, the FluNet network contributed to a coordinated, rapid response from the international science and medical community that identified the virus and helped minimize the related public health threat and consequences.

The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization has immunized more than 200 million children and prevented over 3.4 million premature deaths since receiving a start-up grant of $750 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 1999.

Royal Society Study – Knowledge, Networks and Nations

These are some of the key findings published recently in the Royal Society’s examination of global science research entitled Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century.

The Royal Society study is based on statistics from international organizations, including the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the Society’s own analysis of data on science research articles published in roughly 25,000 separate scientific journals by the more than 7 million researchers around the world.

Science research encompasses both research and development, the “R” and “D”, respectively, of public and private R&D efforts, which range from abstract and conceptual exploration through to market-oriented development of scientific applications.

Research Findings

The Royal Society study paints an encouraging picture of growing international investment in science research. International collaboration is a highly valuable mechanism for promoting scientific discovery and maximizing the impact of science research. Publicly and privately funded science R&D has played a key role in successfully addressing key issues related to public health, food security and the environment, among others.

Corrupted Research – Exposing the Peer Review Process

When you hear about new medical breakthroughs in the news, you will only hear about peer reviewed research. Peer reviewed means that it passed some sort of basic standards for quality. It is the gold standard of research.

But is it real gold, or fool’s gold?

Medical research seems especially mystical and awe inspiring to the average person. The basic concepts of medicine, which aren’t really difficult to understand, are deliberately cloaked in Latin terminology and other confusing jargon, making medical knowledge and theory seem out of reach to the common person.

After all, every profession needs to make you think you need their services. Lawyers make the legal system so complex and confusing that the average person is completely helpless without legal assistance. Accountants help the IRS tweak the tax code to make it virtually impossible for the average person to know it all, understand it all, or follow all the changes constantly being made. Doctors have made it so you cannot request medical tests or take drugs without their prescription. You name a profession, and you can see ways it perpetuates itself by disempowering the public.

What about the medical research profession?

One of the most important things to know about medical research is that, above all else, it is a profession. Researchers make their money usually from both salaries and grants. The job of the researcher is to find a sponsor for their special type of research. The more research projects and publications they get, the more sponsors they have, and the higher their income. And if a researcher comes up with a patentable device or drug, there are intellectual property rights to throw into the compensation package.

This means that researchers do not work for free. They are mercenary. There may be very interesting and, by social standards, very important research that needs to be done that they could do. But unless, and until, they are paid to do it, the work does not get done.

This means that the funding sources of research, be it the government or private sources, determine what research is actually done. Most of the money for medical research comes from the private sector, usually drug companies, which is why drugs dominate modern medicine. Government funding is little different, since it comes from agencies that are highly lobbied by drug companies, and are run by doctors trained and paid by drug companies. Medicine is a public-private partnership, giving the pharmaceutical industry government-like power over the culture and its healthcare research.

Research into non-drug alternatives are rarely done for this reason. It is also why medicine claims it knows very little about the causes of most diseases of our time. They care much more about the treatment than the cause, since treatment is profitable for the research sponsors, while knowing the cause can lead to prevention, which translates in medical terminology into “unbillable”.

Of course, this is a pretty big scam to pull off. Consider its scope. The public is taxed and begged for donations to pay for medical research that goes into discovering drug treatments that the public will later have to pay incredibly high prices to obtain, and only after paying the doctor for an office visit to get a prescription. And if the drug gives nasty side effects it only leads to more calls for more money to find newer drugs with different side effects.

Is the public getting a good deal here? How do you know the research is scientifically valid? Where is the quality control?

Since most people have been conditioned into believing that they cannot judge medical research unless they have a Ph.D., M.D., N.D., or other license, the research is evaluated for you by other scientists in the field. This is called peer review.

Scientists doing research, as with all professions, belong to a club of like-minded researchers in the same business, promoting their services and products. They belong to the same kinds of industries, such as universities or large multinational drug corporations. They have the same education, which means they all think alike. The purpose of their organization is to provide standards of practice that are supposed to assure quality. Any research must first be somehow reviewed by the peers of this club to make sure the quality guidelines are met, before the research can be published.

Yet, despite this assurance of quality, the fact is that most of what is considered true today will be discarded as false in the future. “Ninety percent of what you learn in medical school will be out of date and considered obsolete in ten years,” we were told by the dean of students when I began medical school. This means that most of what doctors learn is wrong. It also means that the new information which will come in 10 years to replace and update current misconceptions and errors will also be considered obsolete in another ten years’ time. This is a powerful indictment of medical research, which seems to produce little more than temporary information.

It also means that the peer review process does not assure truth. It only means that current standards of practice are followed. Currently, this allows conflicts of interest, since most drug research is paid for by the companies that produce and profit from those same drugs. Even research testing drug side effect hazards is paid for by the companies standing to lose, big time, if their drugs are proven unsafe. Since drug companies have their bottom line, and not unselfish service to mankind, as their reason for existing, it is extremely unwise to trust them with research into their own products. Researchers take no oaths of honesty or integrity. They work for whoever pays them, and they are not above fudging the results to get the desired outcome.

This is not good science, of course. But it is science as practiced in a culture that has professionalized research into a profit-making enterprise. It is not, as people fantasize, the sacred trust needed for helping the sick and injured with unselfish devotion. Medical research is about making money coming up with newly patented drugs to replace the ones that have just gone off-patent and are being sold too cheaply by generic drug competitors.

Peer review does not stop the conflict of interest. Medical journals accept conflict of interest, knowing that it is the way medical research is done. Knowing what research is coming down the pike allows these insiders to get a whiff of new drug developments before the public knows, so they can change their investment portfolio mix for anticipated stock price adjustments.

Peer review also keeps out alternative theories and ways of doing research. All innovation threatens the status quo, and those who control the peer review process, like Supreme Court Justices, can decide on which cases to hear and which to ignore. They are gatekeepers of the status quo, which keeps the current powers that be in power. Since the medical peer review boards are the culture’s final authority on quality, there is no way to challenge their decisions. The quality of the research may in fact be poor, which is evident when you see how many research articles criticize other, peer reviewed research as being flawed in some way. Any researcher will tell you that lots of bad research is done that gets published. However, it’s a publish or perish world. Since researchers and their peers are all caught in this same publish or perish demand, and review one another’s work, they subtly collude to get as much research as they can funded and published. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. They argue among themselves in the journals as to the quality of their work, and for sure there is some competition among scientists as they solicit grants from the same sources to do pretty much the same thing. But there is overall an understanding that, as peers, united they stand and divided they fall.

Of course, this means that peer review is nothing more than a political arrangement for research workers, like a guild or union. It’s goal is to keep control over their field, suppress the competition, and assure continued cash flow. It has nothing to do with science, the systematic search for truth, which must not be tainted by financial motives or tempted by personal gain.

So the next time you hear a news story about some new wonder drug, look for the union label. If it is peer reviewed, there’s a ninety percent change it’s wrong.

The Scary Truth About Pesticides

Why should we be concerned with pesticides? Aren’t there plenty of checks and balances in place to make sure the public is safe from harm? With the processes companies go through with Research and Development plus registration with the government, do we really need the additional burden of further research when we have so many other things to worry about?

If the public knew the scientific history of pesticides along with the powerful political and economic battles raged surrounding them, Americans would be aghast. The truth about these toxic chemicals is shocking yet these liquid, granular and powdered poisons lurk everywhere. In the air we breathe, in the products we use and in the food we eat. Not only are these contaminants incredibly toxic but the scariest part is they are pervasive to the point that it is almost impossible to completely avoid them. And the worst part is that the motivation for all this toxicity is monetary.

First of all, a brief history of pesticides… Man has been fighting against bugs since time began in the form of personal comfort (bed bugs, mosquitoes, etc.) and for destructive capabilities (crop damage, termites, etc.). Early preventive measures against insects included using plants and herbs for repellency and began to transform once Man discovered chemicals. The greatest shift in pesticides came after the engineering and scientific explosion of information generated during World War II when nerve gas was perfected.

Most synthetic pesticides on the market today are based on post war nerve gas technology. Scientists discovered that certain chemicals affect brain function and are therefore referred to as neuro-toxins. The effects can be immediate death, targeted to specific functions like digestion or reproduction to cause eventual death, or they can be slow, long-term effects on a cellular level that manifest over a period of time.

Because these neuro-toxins are synthetic, human bodies are not able to metabolize them. These substances enter a human body either through digestion, absorption or inhalation and remain in the body just like plastic will sit for centuries in a landfill. The human body does not have the capability to excrete them as they are not a natural substance so they accumulate in our tissues, in our cells, and in our organs.

So how exactly are we exposed to these chemical toxins? In an average day, Americans are bombarded with pesticides – often unknowingly. Exterminators apply odorless, colorless pesticides in public spaces like office buildings, schools, malls, theaters, grocery stores, etc. on an ongoing basis. As an example, your child’s school could have been treated in the early morning hours to make sure there is adequate drying time and then your son or daughter sits on the floor during circle time wallowing in the odorless fumes of pesticides.

The food we eat is full of pesticides. The most recent figures show that in the United States, more than 877 billion pounds of pesticides were used on crops in 2007 which represents almost 3000 pounds of pesticide per person. These pesticides are NOT just applied to the outer skin of crops which can be washed off – they are often put in the soil which then enters plants through the roots and becomes systemic meaning the pesticide is now inherent in the structure of the plant. You cannot wash that away! Unless you buy strictly organic, you are eating these pesticides.

What is causing this madness? In a word – money.

Obviously a farmer wants to increase crop yield so using pesticides can help make that happen. In theory, there is nothing wrong with a businessman trying to increase profits and I do not fault a Farmer from doing what he or she is assured is the best solution. But here is where this changes from ‘providing for your family’ to just plain wrong…

Farmers are smart people educated in the functions of farming which takes a great deal to balance well. Soil conditions, weather patterns, planting, harvesting, pests, weeds, crop rotation, micro-nutrients, and irrigation are just a sampling of what a farmer must juggle to take a seed to harvest. Each of these areas is broad and complex and produces a multitude of consultants and experts that Farmers rely on for the latest in technology and research. When a chemical company produces the latest, greatest, strongest and most capable pesticide for less money requiring fewer applications, a Farmer will be pleased. The Farmer improves crop yield and the chemical company sells more product. Everyone is happy, right?

Not so fast… What about the long term? What does this pesticide do to the crop that absorbs these toxins through the roots to infiltrate the cells of the fruit? What happens to the soil that is infiltrated with these synthetic chemicals that may take hundreds of years to breakdown? What about the unsuspecting parents buying this fruit and feeding it to their children who then ingest the pesticides to be stored in their tiny little bodies forever?

Well the long term IS manifesting itself in the form of disease – neurological based diseases such as Autism, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s; and degenerative diseases such as Cancer, Heart Disease, and Diabetes. Birth Defects, Learning Disabilities, Depression and other Mental Health issues are all indisputably linked to pesticides. One of the most obvious cause and effect stories of pesticides and their potential damage is quite recent – the Department of Defense has admitted ‘The Gulf War illness is tied directly to the use of chemicals including pesticides’.

And now for the scariest truth about pesticides – they generate obscene profits which in turn buy enormous political influence which then protects the industry from scrutiny.

Political power for the wealthy is nothing new nor is it solely a problem in the world of chemical pesticides. However, we are dealing with the general public health which in the minds of many elevates the responsibility of government agencies to act wisely. To assume that government regulation means something is safe is incredibly naïve. Big chemical companies have enormous clout as well as extremely deep pockets to absorb any fines or fees associated with minor misdeeds like falsified data. Examples are numerous and the trend continues.

So should we be concerned about pesticides? ABSOLUTELY! And what is a Regular Joe to do about these pervasive poisons?

Get educated and demand answers. When and what do they spray at your child’s school? Is this organic or conventional produce? What are the ingredients in this product I am buying? And most of all – spread the word. An educated consumer is a powerful force to reckon with – and your future and that of your children depends on it!