Science is a game
...with only one winner
Most of us are aware that those who use "science" as a weapon to discredit the natural medicine movement, have only commercial interests at heart. As we know, the bribery of academic influencers by big business, is rife in all walks of life, and especially medicine.
These powerful influencers have given the game known as "scientific proof" such narrow rules, that just about any non-pharmaceutical treatment can be discredited, resulting in only a very few doctors ever considering it.
Hard to believe, I know, so let's look at how the game actually works.
The following example is a real exchange of correspondence which took place between myself (LL) and a professor representing conventional medicine and nutrition (PROF). The latter had stated in a national newspaper that there was "no evidence" that vitamin B6 supplements could help women with premenstrual syndrome.
LL: There are in fact at least six research studies suggesting that vitamin B6 supplements are effective for a significant proportion of PMS sufferers.
PROF: Yes, but they cannot be taken into account since they were not double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.1
LL: That is not correct. Two of them were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. I enclose copies of these research papers for you to read.
PROF: I see that I am still right. Too many of the women taking the vitamin B6 supplements stated that they felt better when they took them, therefore they knew that they had not been given the placebo (the dummy vitamin). This meant that the trial was not properly blind and was therefore scientifically invalid.
LL: So you are saying scientific procedure dictates that if a nutritional supplement works then that research must be ignored?
PROF: No comment.
Even worse than this, is deliberate obfuscation, in the form of producing "cooked up" research, which sets out fraudulently to disprove a natural therapy. I invite you to read the Tandem IQ story.
You would think, wouldn't you, that instead of comparing the effectiveness of a drug against the use of nothing at all, researchers who really want to help humanity would test it against promising alternative treatments? But that is almost never done. That's why there are so very few medical cures for anything at all. As long as it's a pharmaceutical medicine, it's ok provided it's better than nothing.
Despite all this, in the naive hope of recruiting the medical world to be more accepting of natural medicine, certain natural medicine leaders join in the condemnation of anything considered "unscientific". Many naturopathy or functional medicine schools now teach little more than which commercial vitamin or herbal pill works better than the last one. I once had a client who was prescribed so many of these pills (70 in total) that he had to put them all in a blender. There was no discussion of the harm done by the average diet, which results in so many deficiency conditions.
Integrity
It is not just naive but also detrimental to those we are trying to help, to sacrifice our integrity in the hope of appeasing or converting opponents with an immovable agenda. As you can see from the above example, the orthodox world will continue to marginalize us no matter what evidence we provide. They will always find something wrong with it.
In the nutrition field, I am aware of only one academic professor who was not corrupt. This was John Yudkin, founding Professor of the Department of Nutrition at Queen Elizabeth College, London. His landmark book Pure, White and Deadly, first published in 1972, was about the harm to health caused by excess sugar consumption. Despite considerable research showing the dangers of sugar, and only trumped up research for the fat/cholesterol theory of heart disease, Yudkin was utterly gaslighted by other academics, and never managed to get sugar warnings inserted in public health policy. Instead we got 30 years of official health advice consisting of "Enjoy your food and eat less fat".
A sign that corrupt officials are now being gradually removed, is a very recent development within the American Heart Association, which no longer blames dietary fat for heart disease, and now advises us to consume no more than six teaspoons of sugar per day.
Double-blind means that neither the researcher nor the patient knows who is getting the active or the dummy treatment. Randomized means that a computer decides at random which patients get the active or the dummy treatment. A placebo is a dummy treatment. Placebo-controlled means that patients are divided into an active treatment group and a control (comparison) group. The control group is the one that receives the dummy treatment.
This message needs to be presented to anyone raising money for a disease foundation. All the money raised goes to developing a patentable drug. None of it is used to find cure.