The Church of Medial Science Part 4.


We shall first investigate the prevalent idea in medicine about disease causes. It should be clear from the start that we do not necessarily agree with their ideas about the origin of diseases. They are based on a concept that is 150 years old and already so geriatric that it fails to account for many diseases. We refer here of course to the Gospel of Pasteur; that great plagiarist of the 19th Century.
If we examine the time in which he lived, we discover that homeopathy was gaining ever-wider acceptance and the orthodox efforts at disproving its tenets stood on ever-shakier grounds. Desperate for something that could be seen with the eyes and felt with the fingers, the orthodox were forever searching for the material cause of disease. The development of the microscope and the discoveries made with it gave them great hopes, but untill Pasteur presented his faulty notions to the Academie in Paris, those hopes had remained unfulfilled.
Pasteur gave in one stroke what they had been so desperate to discover and thus they all agreed in a surprising unity of voice. Surprising because science and scientists are known to generally disagree with one another over every proposal. We only need to mention the theories proposed by Einstein and Bohr to illustrate this tendency to disagreement. The further disa-greements in archeology are another case in point and the discussion that raged over Darwin’s theories before they became accepted, could fill large volumes.
Nonetheless, it serves us well to scrutinise these theoretical notions of the 19th century carefully, for they are rooted in a pattern of thought that sought to deny God and his influence over our lives. If instead they could find something that could replace the deity as a major player in health and disease, they would have made great stides in diminishing the influence of the clergy over the lives of people.
The so-called enlightened view of that time sought to establish man’s supremacy over his destiny, rather than succumbing to the Church, the clergy or God. Instead man should be so devilishly clever that he could do away with religious influence and once and for all establish his own power over nature. Pasteur seemed to have achieved this in one stroke of genius and hence he is revered to this very day. We face therefore a formidable task. We have to unsaddle a man and a theory that have been firmly in place as the main explanation of all human suffering.
A man so formidable that his theory has held sway for so long will be difficult to defeat, it seems. Nonetheless, we shall attempt to show that his theory is but a theory and one that is moreover not supported by the facts in the field. While the germ-theory seems to hold great merit, we must question its foundation, its logic, and above all its usefulness in explaining disease. Let us see whether the germ theory is all that it is cracked up to be or whether it is a reptile made out of a pile of dung.


They hold to the unreliable proposition that microscopic entities called bacilli, bacteria, vira and microbes have sufficient power to make us sick. They even go so far as to declare these creatures can kill you, regardless their infinitesimal size and that therefore they are exceedingly dangerous and must be killed themselves.
Iatrogenesis or environmental impact, except in occupational hazards with the latter, are also ignored and they never listen to the patient. They stare themselves blind on numbers from machine readings and numbers of creatures in slick microscopic slides, in which they have caught the vira and microbes, bacteria and bacilli or other germs, associated with disease. These numbers may satisfy the bookkeeper’s mentality but they do not numb the discerning intellect into blind acceptance or uncritical, slavish following.
Let me quote to you 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 J.T. 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 danger, 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 (sewer gasses) 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 sub-stance, which causes disease, just as an elephant would.'
(Kent J.T. The Lesser Writings)

This explains also why, when a 'viral, microbial, bacterial or bacillus disease’ is around, not everyone will get the disease. Two people working next to each other will not be both sick, when the one is a happy person. His colleague will not be able to infect him. Why else does not everyone get sick during the flue season? Some people have better immunity, which protects them better, they will say.
Happiness and contentment form the best immunity. Each person who gets the flue or another disease has a mental or emotional problem, is discontent or is unhappy or makes himself so. If you go from home without sufficient clothes, you do have a mental problem, for then you are a fool. The result is that promptly you will catch a cold. A happy man is smart enough to bring a jacket on a warm day, followed by a cold night. Only those that refuse to use their brains and do not think ahead catch colds. As soon as the temperature drops, they become cold and decidedly unhappy. Unhappy people get sick – there are no bones about it.
Moreover, if viral or other microbial entities could cause disease we would be sick all the time, since they are in the air we breathe and our bodies are infested with millions of them in a large variety. We shall shortly visit ‘Slime City’, where these critters all are inhabitants. The defence system would never get a break from the constant assault of a great variety of disease 'causes.'
Factually, the term ‘immune system’ is highly misleading, since the system is not immune, but merely defensive. The defence system is already not discriminatory – letting in everything before it reacts – it would be incessantly assaulted with countless diseases. In other words, you would never leave your bed healthy from the day you were born.
This is an unrealistic scenario and an obvious indication that these so-called pathogens do not deserve that name. As a theory it is certainly not borne out by the facts and therefore unscientific.
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.

A Decent Burial

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 vira, the disease is soon gone as well. The vira become active from some outside trigger – generally an invasion by and 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 mRNA cells, which need another 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 put medicine on the wrong foot and it has not made a single step forward since. His theory is now about to meet its maker, since we will sufficiently show that it better join Pasteur in his grave.

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’ or bacterial disease is characterised by a high level of vira or other germs in the blood of victims of full-blown cases, known as the viral or bacterial load. This is – and we should note this well – invariably the case with all viral or other diseases caused by a bacterium, a bacillus or a microbe. Invariably this is noted in full-blown cases. If we examine the blood of any healthy person, we may find the virus or germ 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 or two per three cells.
Therefore we discover that the disease is nothing more or less than an ultimate result. We go to visit the doctor when we feel sick and not at any other time. We do not go there for a social chat, but to complain about something that bothers us, gives us pain or is otherwise uncomfortable. There is no toher reason why would go there. Infact, we try to avoid going there at all costs and postpone the visit till it is inevitable. Doctors are not on our wishlists of frequent visits or visitors. We do not like them very much for the things they have to say to us are those things we do not want at all. Therefore, we stay away from them as much as possible. Vira and germs are not on our wishlists either and we want to avaoid them also as much as we can. We do not seem to realise their importance other than as destroyers of our health.

What is important is that 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 have been taught that results are always different from causes and this is scientific.

As Hahnemann noted:

“Therefore disease, considered as a thing separate from the living whole, from the organism and its animating vital force and hidden in the interior, be it of ever so subtle a character, is an absurdity that could only be imagined by minds of the materialistic stamp.”
(Hahnemann S. Organon §13)

“The natural disease is never to be considered as a noxious material situated somewhere in the exterior or interior.”
(Hahnemann S. Organon §148)

Hahnemann then comes with the only correct definition of what is disease:

‘The unprejudiced observer takes note of nothing in every individual case of disease except the changes in health of the mind and the body. He notices only the deviations, which are felt by the patient himself, noted by those around him and observed and remarked by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent.’
(Hahnemann S. Organon §6)

Hence disease is nothing but a change in health of the mind and body, notable by signs and symptoms. This is the long and short of every disease, whether caused by drugs or natural dynamic means.

‘The irregular processes which we call disease are as a power invisible in itself and only knowable and cognisable by its visible effects on and sensations in the organism, exposed to the patient and the physician. It manifests as morbid symptoms and in no other way can it make itself known.’
(Hahnemann S. Organon §11)

We see Hahnemann did not believe in the microbe as the cause of disease. He also did not consider blood and liver value levels or biopsies, because they did not exist in his time. If he could do without, it fails to materialise why we now should put such reliance on something we cannot even experience.
He firmly established that the entire disease can be known by the changed sensations of the patient and by ob-servable changes in the physical frame. He did not see a need for invasive techniques to trace the disease in the interior and considered them futile.
He knew that disease is a change in health that can be related to the doctor and cured by a remedial agent capable of producing such a disease in the healthy. A virus in his day was nothing but a poison – the virus of the cobra for in-stance.
Jenner did his first experiments with the pox vaccine in Hahnemann’s time and the bacilli, bacteria and other germs were becoming increasingly known. Yet Hahnemann considered this nothing more than an idle allopathic dream, which did not tally with his contention that disease and cure are both dynamic processes.
Modern medicine does not consider the dynamics of either disease or medicinal action. It sees the virus or other germs as exceedingly dangerous. They think that if they do not kill them, the patient is in danger.
The germs and vira always keep on multiplying as long as the disease lasts, till death follows, says the theory. In addition, since death is the final result as they say, we must conclude that abundance of vira or other germs is also an end-result. Then how can they be the cause?


In viral diseases, they throw this scientific principle out the window and declare that cause and result is 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 30 different ones. Homoeopaths use many of them as the bowel nosodes.
There are more than a just a hand-full of viruses, like the flue or pneumonia, quite a few bacilli, such as tuberculosis and microbes or even fungi associated with disease and then we do not even count the ones they have not yet discovered.

Together, this veritable cornucopia of creatures makes for well over 100 exceptions to the rule. That is exceptional by itself. It is therefore subsequently thoroughly unscientific.
Then how come that when they are killed, the disease apparently also is finished? Because these drugs are suppressing the disease, which will reappear soon enough; if necessary at a different spot and associated with a different germ. It is still the same disease, which has been forced to seek a new outlet.
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?
You all know the squatter’s movement here in Europe and especially in Amsterdam. They occupy houses and buildings that have been kept empty for more than a year, to allow real-estate speculators to drive up the prices for living or to push through a project where a useless harbour is costing a lot of money. It is a sick society that allows this.
Disease is like squatters who occupy cells on which they hang signs – ‘squatted’ – known as receptors. It is a sick body that allows this to happen, just like the speculators and the housing prices in our society.
The situation with the squatters is that the Riot Squad – part of the police force – comes by and kicks them out, often destroying the building immediately after, so it cannot be re-squatted.
The vira are the Riot Squad, which comes to kick out the disease and destroy the cells so they can no longer be used by the disease. They only destroy cells with receptors; that is, the sick cells. The fantastic story that they attack healthy cells is therefore complete hogwash.
Instead of appreciating the work the vira do, they mistake them for the squatters and send in the army to destroy the police force. Thus they create a civil war inside the body, with heavy drugs.
Generally, a civil war ruins the country. If we look at the AIDS phenomenon, it is this civil war, which destroyed the bodies of the victims. Here, as another aside, is proof the rules of warfare do not apply to healing and medicine.
Waging war on the microbe community is not only foolish, since they do not cause disease; it is detrimental to our health. It demands moreover that we accept too much collateral damage. It evidently ruins the balance in Slime City.


That microbe community is a veritable Slime City, with all kinds of inhabitants, such as merchants, workers, farmers, thieves and so on, with several types of police, as well as an army, high-risers, highways and diverse transport systems. A recent survey of over 400 different entero-bacteria collected and subsequently stored between 1917 and 1954 suggests that resistance was very uncommon in the pre-antibiotic era.
That is an impressive variety of inhabitants of some very different ‘nationalities’ and therefore a multi-cultural society that performs admirably harmonious, if left to its own devices. We carry about a kilo of the creatures in the intestinal tract alone.
Some digest food, others are scavengers. Here may be one that destroys sick and old cells – a cop – while there, another is engaged in cell construction – a builder. Some are engaged in business with each other, exchanging information and necessary protein codes, to assist each other in their mutual task. Others are kept busy stealing food from their neighbours. Another one has the capacity to digest what is indigestible to others, received from an RNA strand that picks up on the targeted substance. Some members in that community learn to digest the antibiotics and so ‘resistance’ comes about. It is not that the germ becomes resistant, but that the antibiotic never reaches them again – other germs or entities digest it first.

Even the pharmacopoeia says as much.

‘The three most important mechanisms of bacterial resistance are:
• production of an enzyme that inactivates the antibiotic or hinders it in its action, such as the β-lactamases with the β-lactam antibiotics and acetyltransferase with the aminoglycosides and chloramphenicol.
• reduction of the uptake of the antibiotic by diminishing the membrane permeability, through changes in the protein cover of the external cell membrane, due to selective pressure of the antibiotic. Herewith the β-lactam antibiotics, the chinolons, tetracyclines, trimethoprim and chloramphenicol are rendered ineffective. It may also use an active efflux, resulting from a difference in the membrane transport system, as it does with erythromycin and tetracycline.
• changes in the bacterial proteins that were points of attack from or for the antibiotic. A changed ribosomal protein is discovered with aminoglycosides. A further changed penicillin-binding protein is found with mainly β-lactam antibiotics, while a changed DNA-gyrase is associated with the chinolons. Gyrase is an enzyme, which can trigger the winding of long DNA chains around an RNA nucleus. Chinolons antagonise this enzymatic activity. On this basis, chinolons are also designated gyrase inhibitors.’

The Slime City inhabitants produce those enzymes – they do not arise spontaneously. Microbes and other germs, assisted by plasmids, trigger membrane permeability. These same bacteria also generate changes in bacterial proteins.
Thus, such ‘immunity’ or ‘resistance’ violates the orthodox parameters for treatment, which say that

‘the antibioticum must be able to reach the seat of infection’.

This is the way they paint the picture; I am quoting their pharmacopoeia.

‘There are other mechanisms by which resistance is obtained. It can occur chromosomal as well as extra-chromosomal, the latter though plasmids, which are extra-chromosomal carriers of inherited properties. These plasmids are interchangeable between organisms through conjugation, transduction or transformation.’

Since such material is freely interchangeable, it is unlikely to cause mutations, since mutations then happen all the time and therefore do not happen. Differently said, if they happen all the time, it is no longer exceptional but commonplace and therefore not mutation. This is because mutation is the appearance of the not so commonplace. We shall see in a further chapter that mutations are impossible to appear for several other reasons, making the mutation scenario not only highly unlikely, but also entirely impossible.
Adaptation is closer to the reality of the circumstances in Slime City, where harmony and balance make for a stable system. In those circumstances mutations can only increase the imbalance, which is contrary to every observation one makes in nature or the human body, where balance is al-ways maintained by all means. The proof they adapt and maintain order, is found in that they seek the means to counteract our ridiculous doses of dangerous medicine, to minimise the damage as much as possible.
We must first note that there is a great deal of difference between an adaptation to pressure and a mutation. A white person who never sees the sun and then goes out for the first time will also ‘produce alterations on the surface structure due to selective pressure’ – of the sunshine. He will turn either red or brown. This is no mutation, but an adaptation.
When such confusion of terms is used in one sentence, it is wise to take the weakest of the statements to hold the greatest merit. Multiple drug resistance is a fact. Alterations on the surface structure are also noted and thus factual.
However, someone who does not like cabbage does not mutate into someone else, once his taste changes. Similarly, the antibiotics may have tasted bad, but once the germs learned to digest them, no mutation occurred. They simply adapted to changed circumstances, just like the white person going in the sunshine to get brown or changing his taste for an article of diet.


Even if the vira and other germs look or work different, they are also not mutations, but merely differently adapted members of the incredibly large community of microbes. They have adapted to circumstances the medical profession has created with their excessive antibiotic use.
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.
We 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 cooperative society, as we argue. 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. It shows that microbes help a virus, enzyme or bacterium or vice versa and that the one-celled have a particular function, dependent on their environment.
Gram-negative bacteria for instance have become ‘resistant’ and ‘more virulent’. Here we have a nice example of the goings-on in Slime City, where it is obvious that the gram-negative bacteria have learnt to evade or digest the antibiotics. Either another enzyme or bacterium, bacillus or microbe has learnt to digest it or the balance has been disturbed to the extent that the gram-negative bacteria are no longer checked by other members.
Balance in a healthy Slime City means nothing less than each genus or species living there, having besides his normal role also a function comparable to ‘social control’. This enables harmonious functioning of the whole. Just like in society social control has been lost, so it has similarly occurred in Slime City, where and when the antibiotic ‘gangsters’ are allowed to take over and rule the roost.
They will initially eradicate or diminish one or more of the species and so another species gets the chance to multiply beyond its balanced proportion and set up unwanted and unsuspected reactions. That these reactions are bad for your health is abundantly clear. That they can also turn out to be fatal is equally clear from the amount of victims, but nonetheless and therefore, unacceptable.
This shows that the gram-negative bacteria have learnt to digest the antibiotics – have become ‘resistant’ – and are now taken for ‘super bugs’. Whether this is so, remains to be seen, because these same ‘super bugs’ respond by disappearing under homoeopathic treatment. It also remains to be seen if these bugs respond to antibiotics in infinitesimal doses, since that never has been tried by the orthodox.
Whether antibiotics are capable of altering the chromosomes of bacteria also remains to be seen. It is merely thought to be a ‘mechanism of mutation’, whereas the behaviour of the bacteria points to adaptation to the changed circumstances, instead of a mutation. They are collectively engaged in their usual behaviour and show no unusual features in their adaptation. Their usual and normal behaviour is to adapt to circumstances that change. The unusual is never seen, simply because changes in nature are usual and nothing out of the ordinary.
Each time you eat a foodstuff you never ate before, they have to go through the same rigmarole – how to adapt and deal with it, which is their normal behaviour. This adaptation began as a baby with mother’s milk and exploded once you developed teeth and the buccal and digestive enzymes changed to the different circumstances in your saliva. You then began to eat ‘solid food’, requiring with every new grain, vegetable and protein a different adaptation of Slime City to the new circumstances.
At some time you may have added alcohol in different forms, coffee and tea and so on, each time triggering a similar commonplace response. On holidays in foreign countries your body has to adapt again to different circumstances. With the intake of antibiotics, there happened exactly the same.
We must remember: mutations are the appearance of the unusual and abnormal; the not so commonplace. So we must conclude that when anything is happening as they describe, it is adaptation and likely or it is supposedly a mutation and thus very unlikely to happen.
The ‘enzymatic inactivation of the antibiotics’ holds therefore greater merit, since enzymes are part of and produced by the population of Slime City, which we know to be able to deal with nearly all and everything we throw at them – from fast food to alcohol and drugs. Hence some of the inhabitants will be able to erect a ‘drug-permeability barrier’, so hindering the ‘drug to reach the seat of infection or hamper and destroy the germ’. Just like some recreational drugs also develop a ‘tolerance’.
There is another instance where it has been proven that Staphylococci strains have learned to digest the antibiotics and that they do this through the enzyme B-lactamase. It is not a substance that renders the bacterium resistant, but simply an enzyme that destroys or neutralises the antibiotic fungus. This happened in a hospital and since the staphylococcus has become ‘resistant’ worldwide through the mediation of those plasmids, it is now becoming ‘a real problem.’ Hence the proposition that bacteria learn to digest them through the use of enzymes is not at all far-fetched, while the mutation scenario remains doubtful.
Factually we should be glad they become resistant, at least in the sense that we still have bacteria to clan out dead cells. After the ‘antibiotic gangsters’ take over, it is another matter altogether, for then the excess of a bacterium is harmful to our health, since there is no immediate need in the form of disease. It is an out-of-balance situation.

Slime City is apparently much more important to our health as the doctors seem to think. We have already seen that disturbance of the harmonious balance in Slime City through the use of drugs – mainly pharmaceutical drugs of the antibiotics class – severely compromises our health, to the point of ruining it completely. However, we do not adhere to this ‘pressure for selection’.
The germs in Slime City do not select anything. There is nothing to select when they are bombarded with antibiotics. They have no choice but to try and deal with them. They simply react to changed circumstances and adapt themselves. If such is not possible, they will simply die.
Their death constitutes one of the ways in which the balance in Slime City is compromised. Naturally, the excessive use of antibiotics is indeed ‘environmental pollution’, but it is not a ‘pressure for selection’, leading to mutation. The antibiotics are powerful enough to kill many of one or several species of the inhabitants and thus, like gangsters, take over the rule in Slime City.
We are confronted by scare-mongering tactics rather than truth when the doctors claim the bugs have become resistant super bugs. We are always confronted with the idea that the bugs simply have become stronger, but in such a scenario, the weakening of the body’s resistance is not sufficiently stressed. Constant or regular attacks on the defence system with antibiotics do not make the bugs any stronger, but exhaust the patient’s defence system, since the drugs are strong immuno-suppressants.
Moreover, as we have explained, it is easily shown that other inhabitants of Slime City have learned to digest the antibiotics and hence the ‘vicious microbes that are out to kill us’ have not become any more vicious. They are still the same germs, now confronted by a weakened defence sys-tem and thus disturbing the ‘social balance’. All that antibiotics do is suppress the disease and cause their own side effects in the form of immuno-suppression.


Saddam Hussein suppressed the opposition and its symptoms – free press, party forming, demonstrations, you know, the lot. Yet the opposition did not disappear. Saddam's society was sick and remained so. Mind you, putting him aside has not exactly improved the situation. It also does not invalidate the comparison, but only reinforces it.
Similarly, allopathic medicines suppress the symptoms; pain, rashes, inflammations, you know, the lot. Yet the diseases do not disappear. Like the opposition in Iraq, they go underground and spread.
The body is a sick one and remains so. The spread must occur, for metastasis is the inevitable outcome of suppression. It is a law of nature and these laws cannot be violated without paying the price. Regardless which drug you use to kill the virus, it will spread.
Again the Iraqi situation is the perfect example. For similarly, the American and British armies also fail to kill the opposition and as we see in the news, the opposition only becomes stronger, for civil war is the wrong front. The medical equivalent is similar. Those powerful drugs and massive doses are bound to cause aggravation.

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! The doctors suffer from the bad cleaning lady syndrome and must not be retained, just because they have an impressive title.
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, chemotherapy, radiation or surgery, whatever takes their fancy. Hence what we do not accept from a cleaning lady, we must certainly not accept from the doctors. Just as we fire the cleaning lady, we must fire the doctor who sweeps the dirt under the mat.
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.


Insofar as the germ theory could be useful, it is in the considerations of balance or imbalance of the Slime City inhabitants. As we noted, the absence of one or more germs results in the excessive rise of another, which then can impact on the person’s health. Candida albicans for instance, normally lives in everyone’s gut, performing its allotted task.
Antibiotics, being fungi, prepare fertile conditions for its explosive increase by destroying other bacteria engaged in limiting its spread to its allotted space. However, excess Candida fungus growth has assumed epidemic proportions, while orthodoxy is vainly seeking means to destroy it. In the process, the patient’s life is destroyed.
In this manner only can any of the germs living in Slime City be of any inconvenience or danger to us. When we become sick from natural causes, some will also multiply, but this is for protection, because at such times an excess is needed to clean up the dead or sick cells, possessing receptors to which these germs can react. Once the disease has been conquered, these germs automatically revert to their original density and the others destroy their redundant excess.
Much is made of the toxic nature of the bacterial process, while it is conveniently forgotten that rot begins in the mouth and that excrement is formed through a process of fermentation – all toxic processes with which the body deals admirably, even in disease. Cholera and dysentery are but fancy names for the processes of cleaning these toxins and their dead producers from the gut. They are neither the causes nor maintainers of the disease, but form the disease process itself. For this reason these processes have received their names – cholera, typhus, dysentery.


HIV is imaginary and mythological, as we shall discover. The cause of disease from germs is mythological too – 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. The product is never able to influence or effect changes in the producer.
That genetic determinism 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 healthy or diseased function, form and structure of each individual cell?
By mythological means, for it has no other possibility, being not deterministic. In reality, genes act through feedback loops, which help the cell develop according to its environment. Thus a cell becomes a blood cell, an epidermic cell or a muscle cell only because its surroundings determine the need. When a cell is diseased from the start – birth – there is a possibility that it is genetically determined, but in general it is under pressure from consciousness or the environment.

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 therefore also a fiction – another myth – that with the death of the so-called disease cause – in casu the germ – the disease has been conquered.
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, we can guarantee you.

Disease is like a criminal and the records of medicine must therefore be similar to criminal records, with fingerprints, photograph and profile of character. In the same manner, the disease can be recognised by the symptoms produced in the patient, corresponding to the record of the matching individual medicine.
This is the dream of the allopathic brethren and can only be realised if the homeopathic system is adopted and the wild-goose-chase after the chimera of the germs is abandoned. They are stuck in the linear tunnel vision of direct cause and effect, which always fails to explain all parameters and is left with inexplicable phenomena.


The Church of Medical Science Part 3.


Where are the other symptoms that are the same as in the cause – antibiotics? They are nowhere to be found, except in the experience of the patient, confirming the information of the pharmacopoeia. They certainly do not come from a machine reading. Without that machine they would be blind about the state of his blood. With the machine they are still blind, for they don't read pharmacopoeia and the patient is one-eyed.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king!

He is king, because at least he knows exactly what he suffers from. All they say is that he suffers alright, but only from this or that low or high count of machine values. Hence, their treatment cannot be rational. Causing the very thing it is supposed to fight, is not only futile, it is plain madness.
Doctors and priests are unlike each other in some respect, but they are about equally parochial.
Their analysis is in general the blind assessing the one-eyed as to their vision.
They say they have analysed.
This word is an affront to my perceived bigotries; conventional chemists using orthodox procedures, leading to scientific delusions, which in turn provoke more coercion.
Their heavy drugs cause nothing less than drug-disease. Such treatment is a ludicrous proposal and is no argument in disease at all. There is even no argument to seek justifications for it. They may be the learned brethren, but they have learned nothing of the side effects of their own drugs. If you say you developed the side effects they will deny it, saying this happens to only one in every so many thousand. They forget that this very 'one in so many thousands' stands right before them.

They also forget that long-term use raises that figure by a factor 1000 or more. They think you can pump endless amounts of drugs in the body, without repercussions. They condemn the junkie for doing so, but engage in nothing else themselves, denying their own drugs the power to affect you even more profoundly.

All their so-called evidence is speculative and circumstantial – as I have extensively shown. They have no protocol – from any lab in the world – that describes HIV. Duesberg denies its sole existence and declares it part of series of vira and so do a host of others. I call the Aids-establishment's deception an exercise in cynical deceit. I call their belief mythological; religious in overtones.


Where they denounce the religious, they believe in an even more elusive Devil - HIV, of which they have become the self-appointed priests. Their other devils we met already – Virus and Bacterium, Bacillus and Microbe.

Being the Church of Medical Science, they perform the Black Mass, during which they slaughter their victims on the Altar of Science.

All this happens, notwithstanding the prohibition of human sacrifice. I have compared modern medicine to its medieval counterpart. I should actually consider it as belonging in further recesses of time and typify it as pre-primitive.

Moreover, the mental gymnastics they perform with their belief in the elusive, non-existent mythology of HIV is of far greater esoteric magnitude than the proven cures by our sugar pills. Of the first, they have no protocol describing it and of the second, they have records from the time I treated Aids patients. Those facts require no belief; they are self-evident. Sober scientists, they call themselves – what a joke!

They refused to believe their own machines, simply because they could not comprehend their readings, after the first few came back to them. They repeated the test six, seven times to make sure and absolutely certain they were free of HIV and Aids.
That is the result of allopathic thinking, where the syndrome must be named, rather than the patient cured. It reminds me of the following quote from Hahnemann, as an aside to his first paragraph, where he says that our first and only mission is to cure the sick.

'Our mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses, concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes. Nor do the mode in which the diseases originate in the invisible interior of the organism, whereupon so many physicians have wasted their talents and their time, have any relevance. Nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause, which must forever remain concealed in the invisible interior of the body. These explanations are wrapped in unintelligible words and inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned, in order to astonish the ignorant, whilst sick humanity cries in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries – to which the name of theoretic medicine has been given and for which special professorships have been instituted – we have had quite enough. It is now high time that all who call themselves physicians, should at length cease to talk and begin now to act; that is to heal and cure.'

We see that in the two hundred years since Hahnemann, there is no change in that approach. Theoretical medicine is now bigger than anything else in the university. Yet the patient dies at a faster rate than in Hahnemann's time.
What then, so may we ask with him, is the use of these professorships?
Nothing more than to astonish the ignorant or so it seems. For, neither all their Greek/Latin syndrome names, nor the fancy abbreviations have ever brought them any closer to a cure.


Their treatment changes from month to month, like fashion, while Hahnemann's remedies are in use unchanged and successfully to this very day.

That is evidence-based medicine.

Reliable, unchangeable, it is based on laws and principles that derive directly from nature and are thus harmonious and compatible with it.

Their medicine goes against nature and life, destroys more than it can cure, has no evidence whatsoever to base it on and follows no law or principle.
In other words, they are outlaws, who have high-jacked the saloon and are giving out adulterated drinks. That is the conclusion in an analogy.

It should be noted that our data are accepted Brahmins. By hypnosis and inertia they keep on saying the same things as Pasteur, over 150 years earlier. Our damned data are observations of doctors of the highest standing, to which all minds have to subordinate or be negligible, unheard, submerged and buried. It may seem as if my revolt against their dogmatism and pontifications were directed to a single scientist of eminence and esteem. This is only convenience, for it appears necessary to personify.

Whether something is reasonable or preposterous depends on agreement or disagreement with a standard, which by itself is a delusion. Today’s standard is tomorrow’s preposterousness and vice versa, as we have noticed.

Whatever it is; HIV or antibiotics; it is enough to make the devout of the Church of Medical Science make the sign of the crucible or whatever their devotees do in the presence of a New Correlate.

Their theories fade in the dense fog of omissions. Consequently, their practice flouts the rules of scientific investigation in an equal manner. When their premises rest on nothing but assumptions, they cannot expect otherwise than the sharp thorns of reality bursting the bubble of empty speculations.

My exposition falls outside their so revered theories and is therefore inadmissible, they argue. How can it be, when their own theory is inadmissible, because it is inaccurate, inadequate and incomplete? It is a miscalculation, based on a misconception, leading to misrepresentation and misunderstanding. There is, as we notice, too much amiss.

They have witnessed some extraordinary occurrence. Now they want to cloak it in conventionalism and the more commonplace the cloakery, the more satisfactory to them. They are segregationists and if confronted with these two possibilities – either Aids is caused by a virus or it is iatrogenic – they segregate the commonplace and conventional as the only correct explanation. They think they can explain the virus, but they have no idea how to explain the iatrogenesis. Hence they simply forget the latter and talk only of vira.


Whoever said the pen is mightier than something else overlooked the mightiest of all and that is the scissors. If I should say that disease is triggered by iatrogenic or immaterial causes, I am not more of a trimmer of circumstances than such a barber whose clips are said to be scientific. Maybe they are. Most barbers though, are artists, although some consider themselves scientists.
We have listed phenomena that appear before medical catastrophes. They clip these catastrophes from events with barbershop science. They lather events with the soap of their explanations and then shave them clean of all details, except for the whiskers of convenience, which suit their style of clipping. It is a neat and well-trimmed account. There is however a smell, which I identify as too much Old Spice.

Learned verbiage, whether cloaked in gobbledegook Greek/Latin or in abbreviations assuming a life of their own, does not hide their lack of results.
Neither in diagnostic capacity, as they admitted themselves.
When confronted by cures, they declared they must have misdiagnosed.
They invoke this also in obtaining any other result than burial.
Thereby they bury not only the victims, but also the scientific method and principles.

Stones don’t fall from the sky and if they do, they are all just meteors. Diseases don’t come from drugs and if they do, they’re only minor side effects.

We know how hypnosis works; if you insist long enough, you begin to think you are right. You imagine you may have higher perceptions what is right. The prohibitionists had this worked out very skilfully. It may be that the discovery of Australia will turn out to be less important than the discovery and meaning of HIV or so they hope.
Their punctilious discipline and ponderous dignity are but an exercise in purposeless pedantry – orthodoxy defending the citadel of ignorance.
I condemn their rote learning, with its reliance on memorising, its hair-splitting condition and its disregard for the experience of the patient.
The patients are the textbook and the sickbed is the only study.


They spend their time dividing, distinguishing and defining. They divide the first part in three, of which the first part again is split in four and so on. They will explain how God can be an ass – creating incurable disease – or a pumpkin, as fancy decides and if so, how a pumpkin can preach a sermon, work miracles and be crucified.
They, of the Church of Medical Science, are engaged in 13th century monkish work.

In dubbing Pasteur a fool and his disciples ignoramuses, I simply return compliments they gave our predecessors, like Hahnemann, Hering, Kent and others.
Their doctoring has generated the impression that all medical treatment is a fraud and a hoax.
Even most simple peasants understand more than the doctors. Is it not shameful that a GP, drawing a good income, should not be able to care for his patients, whereas others who haven’t studied their brand of medicine are?
It is ridiculous to think that medicine is powerless. Still, whether it is, depends on pharmacology or knowledge of materia medica. They deny the shepherds and phytotherapists and homoeopaths with their simple remedies. While we cure all sorts of things, they declare medicine to be powerless against Aids.
This is because we use simple specifics, while they employ generals. General Gordon is a prime example. Let me give you another quote.

‘Simple and native medicines are altogether neglected in favour of chemical mixtures. Medicines are mixed in such enormous numbers that the effect of one is cancelled or otherwise modified by the action of another. None can foresee what such an abominable mixture will achieve’.

This is a quote from Paracelsus, who complains about the same things as Hahnemann, 300 years later. It was only 1510, when he said this. It was in 1810 that Hahnemann said the same in the introduction to the Organon.
Today, almost two hundred years later, I say the same. How far have the orthodox mixopaths progressed from the 13th century? Nothing; not even a millimetre.

The discerning intellect will see through the transparent eclectic evasions of their own ignorance.
One who believes disease to be a localised phenomenon is possessed by the desire for fragmentation.
Like those who do quantum mechanics; they are so deep with their nose up the bark of a tree they fail to see even the tree, let alone being aware of the forest. Let me give you another quote, from Paracelsus.

'Doctors, what is the use of the name, title and school, unless you have the knowledge? Whom do honours, the toga and the Bull behove, but those who have the skill? When disease puts them to the test, what use is toga, title or certificate, when they are forced to admit failure?
'They blame the disease, but fail to mention their own incompetence. In their field, we have more successes than their entire industry combined – I dare them to refute me.

‘Accredited asses would not be more incompetent swindlers, than those who claim to be doctors, but declare the common cold incurable.'

End of quote. Indeed what use are stethoscope, x-ray machine and the impressive array of other high-tech machinery, unless you can cure the sick with them? When disease puts them to the test, they stand with their hands in their hair and their mouth full of abracadabra. For the common cold is still incurable, they admit.

'It is the art of healing that makes the physician',

Paracelsus said and I concur. The work itself makes the master and doctor. He said,

'no emperor, pope, faculty privilege or university can make a doctor. From them it is hidden what makes a physician.'

Here I concur again. We only need to look at their rates of cure, which are non-existent.

The Hippocratic Oath obliges them to never use cautery or the knife.
Both are their main instruments of torture, next to their hellish medicine.

They do not even consider whether I am possibly right. Their reaction is, 'how can anyone be right, who is not a doctor', at least as they understand it. Behind their Pasteurian non-system and its proclaimed authority, the privileged association of doctors shuts itself off from new foundations of experience, learning and knowledge.

The sort of knowledge they think to have monopolised is not all there is to learn or can be learned. Instead of praising their remedies – ‘this is the cure-all for this that or the other’ - the work will praise the master, for chatter does not heal the sick.

The Aids issue is characteristic of the philistine respectability and eccentric bigotry, which characterises modern Pasteur worshipers.

I am not an antagonist to science, but to the attitude in the sciences that they have realised.
It is to belief, instead of acceptance; to insufficiency, which amounts to paltriness and puerility of scientific dogmas and standards.
They are submerged in a sea of conventionality of almost impenetrable density.

I searched the internet the other day. I found only a few – even among my colleagues – who do not buy the HIV/Aids paradigm. Invariably, I saw nothing but ideas how to combat the disease, rather than listening to and treatment of the patient. I saw many claims, of people who found THE cure. They believe to have found the universal panacea. They live in Lala-land, where the energy is generated by the perpetual motion machine.

The Church of Medical Science Part 2.


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 homoeopathy is almost powerless against – deliberate ignorance.

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.
Instead, they have made it the king of moneytheistic religions – it makes more money than the Vatican.

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 Aids for instance – 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 on the basis of what they can hold between their fingers and can see with the eye. Then they have something to fight and to spend money on.
What it turns out to be, is a bookkeeping exercise.
While bookkeeping may represent the results of their buying time and selling your health down the drain, it is not a description of doing business. However, we already know the map is not the territory. While in business this is good practise, in science it has no place.
If they could, they would have a real science. Instead, the Church of Medical Science is pretty moneytheistic, if anything else.

Alas, they disregard the mind and 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 either 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.


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. So 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.’
(Whitehead. Science and the modern world)

This is a quote from Whitehead, from as long ago as 1933. 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. They like to bury me right next to the victims of Aids and the evidence it is iatrogenic – after they damned me for their deaths.

Burial and damnation or the obscurity of the conspicuous and hence, it is suspicious.

I am consistent with their written records, as I consider them much more reliable than the biased opinions of the doctors and internists, which are at enormous variance with each other and who dismiss even these records out of hand.
Truth is self-evident and the honest inquirer will be attracted to truth more than to opinion.
My opinion in this matter is entirely subservient to the establishment of a truthful record, a necessity, if we are to understand what disease is in the first place; how it came about and on what criteria we need to treat it.


I still believe doctors follow the ideal of helping the people. I like to think they all keep the benefit of mankind as the main focus of their actions. I do not want to believe antibiotics are deliberately used for wanted genocide, as the conspiracy buffs believe. Yet, at the same time, massive dumping of antibiotics in Africa does take place, either forbidden here due to their side effects or those having to be tested on humans for the first time. This results in genocidal effects and draws the attention to the suspicion it might be deliberate.

Deliberate it is, but for a different reason. Those antibiotics were not made for nothing and they want at least their invested money back. Hence they seek to find a place where this can be done without too many repercussions. Several countries in Europe have laws in place that forbid such dumping and in the third world these laws may also exist, but the goverments are often corrupt. Africa is almost the very logical place to implement their dumping plans. They also find convenient the ease with which the rules can be flouted. There may be laws in place, but the body to enforce these laws is conveniently lacking. Because the rest of the Third World does not yet get as many antibiotics as Africa, the suspicion is not entirely without grounds either.
After all, the African continent is full of all the resources the West would want to maintain its artificial living standards. Removal of the population by artificial disease is easier to hide than plain military genocide. It is also made easily acceptable if they are made the victims of some deadly germ. We can then turn on the ‘compassion-tap’ and patronise them about their supposed lack of morals and social responsibility. Meanwhile, the attention has been skilfully deflected from the real issues and the real cause, which goes on unabated.

We must however not forget that 1; the rest of the Third World is rapidly catching up and that 2; diagnostics in Africa are not of the same standard and quality as here, it is claimed. Therefore, we see many cases of tuberculosis or cholera, dysentery and even malaria, being diagnosed as Aids. Hence, although the African population is sicker than we should wish for, not every case reported as such is a case of Aids.
What is diagnosed as Aids – two viral or bacterial diseases in two years, coupled with a high viral count and low blood values – is a common occurrence, not only in Africa, where viral and bacterial diseases rule the roost and malaria medication causes side effects some of which mimick those of Aids. Misdiagnosis is as much part of the Aids hype in Africa as is the inavailability of ARV’s or anti-retroviral medicines.

This can also be deliberate, to attract more aid-money to the country. After all, when you can report 25% of the population to have Aids, you will be top dog in receiving help from the West. Several diseases are as much the killers they have always been and Africa has not yet developed such a standard of living in cleanliness, eating good food and having work that prevents diseases. Where such standars exists – among the traditional tribal people – Aids never catches on.

Nonetheless, cynical people are found in all strata of the population – the pharmaceutical industry is no exception. I can easily conceive of a cynic, who will consider it a convenient clean up. A reduction in the over-population of the planet – as claimed by some, but denied by others – is only convenient. Pity they happen to be Africans, who bear the brunt of this population reduction.


While such a scenario is happening before our very eyes, the conspiracy buffs follow the disinformation of biological warfare gone wrong, either deliberate or by accident. They have fallen hook, line and sinker for the deliberate disinformation promoted by the government and magazines like Scientific American and its antithesis Nexus Magazine. The first magazine published a bio-warfare scare article in the 1996, looking back on the first Gulf War. The latter regularly features articles on supposed deliberate infection with some artificial disease. Since we know that vira and such critters are not the cause of disease, their theory can be relegated to the realm of delusional dreams.
We can also point out that if the magazine would really disclose the truth, it would very quickly be closed down and the editors jailed. Contrarily, the magazine is still published and so we can conclude that whatever they publish, it cannot be the truth, since that would attract immediate sanctions. The fact that sanctions do not follow, shows they do not write things the government does not want us to know or is very worried about.

And in the few cases that something is true, not reacting to it saves the government’s face.
It also deflects the attention from the truth, while immediate reaction will attract the attention that something must be true. After all, Nexus is a conspiracy magazine and there are many conspiracy theories. We have already seen that one can invent an entire conspiracy to cover any story that appears in the papers. As long as most conspiracies are simply speculations, the government is not too worried by a partly correct conspiracy.
It is rather in the government’s interests that such magazines exist. Those conspiracy theories deflect the attention from the real thing, which then can go on undetected. Similarly, the different theories about the origins of Aids deflect the attention from the real thing and so it can continue without drawing undue attention. I can guarantee that the exposition delivered in these pages will attract nothing but denial and possible danger to my personal status, since I am dangerous to the complacency of the pharmaceutical industry. Exposing their scams is not without its own risks, as we shall see in the next chapter.


I gave you the statistics before – 188 kilos per person per year, makes for an average of a ton of antibiotics per person, in the next six to ten years. Imagine, swallowing over a ton of medicine in the next ten years and not necessarily because you are sick. That is generally ten to twelve times your body weight! Add the triple doses during treatment over triple periods – 'just to make sure’ – and you come to way over two tons. What is made sure of is that you get ‘side effects’. Anyone who denies this is not worth his scientific salt.

They have however never informed the patients about these reports. If they had, do you think they would have taken the medicine? I doubt it, for they may be fools in regards to medicines, but they came to the doctor because they did not want to be fools with the health of their bodies. That is neglect on the doctor’s part, no matter how you turn it. Failure to inform is also neglect, would you not agree?
If one in 25.000 dies of a disease they panic and call it an epidemic. Witness, when they discover three cases of meningitis. They immediately want to vaccinate every child. When drugs cause as many victims or in the case of Aids even more, they remain silent – like the grave. Antibiotics cause death in epidemic proportions and they do not contact the Health Department. For this means that one in every 25 will get sick of these drugs. Why do they or we for that matter, not stop using such bad stuff?

When we then also know that these are short- and long-term effects – Aids-patients being the barely living examples – we can see that the entire idea as presented here, is nothing but a logical outcome of their own records. Yet they don’t pay any attention to them.

The Garuda Purana says: ‘Reading, to a man devoid of wisdom, is like a mirror to the blind’.

Instead, they imagine they are confronted with a natural disease and call it Aids, for which they were desperate to find a material cause. HIV seemed the perfect solution at the time, but they have never isolated it. Still, they use this faulty idea to demand grants for fruitless research and think we will swallow everything they tell and give us, ad infinitum. All those doctors in the world may be against my notions, but their so-called superiority is only in their more expensive ways of deceiving themselves. You see, the problem is, they book no results and finally, the people are demanding an explanation.

Now we must ask the obvious question.
Why have they never studied the possibility of its iatrogenic origin, since they have access to their patient's medical records?
Is it ignorance or plain stupidity?
Is it desperation or the cynic’s drive for ever-more profits?
Is it unwillingness or fear to face the facts?

In my vision, it is a combination of all of these reasons, of which deliberate ignorance and stupidity are the most prominent. As an aside, we see here also the refutation of Darwinism. We see stupidity and ignorance survive – not the most knowledgeable or meritorious; in other words, the fittest.

A poor fund of knowledge, coupled with arrogance and hypothesis, seem to be the qualifications on which universities hand out titles, witness, among others, the astronomical, archaeological and anthropological departments. If any of them have a spare one lying around, I am sure they can send it to me, as they will declare the findings set out in this book to be nothing but another hypothesis, based on my arrogance and my poor fund of knowledge, exactly the qualifications I need to call myself Professor.


If they do not know, why are they pretending they do? They admit that they don’t know. Therefore, they must draw the only conclusion. They must quit their job, since they are not qualified. Their doctor’s paper is nothing but a certificate of incompetence, for they declare so many diseases to be incurable. What that really says, is that they don’t know how to cure them.
Therefore, the only conclusion we can draw is that Aids is an iatrogenic disease, which will never respond to vaccination or any other treatment that seeks to restore blood and liver levels to normal.

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. I see quicksand foundations, without law or principle and loose-straw superstructures, without rhyme or reason. That is the impression modern medicine leaves behind.

Germs and the promise of killing them with antibiotics. The germ-theory cracks like an earthquake into disappointments, into which fall expectations. They are contractions of metaphysicists, in their local search for completeness. Except for minor errors – plus or minus the elusive and mythological Mr. Average – they claim to have found completeness. Yet I can accept the super-completeness of God, but not their phenomenal completeness.

The real purposes of any experiment are observation for induction or the verification of these.
With incomparable entities, qualities and quantities, such is not possible.
These experiments therefore cannot serve this purpose.
While they generate a lot of money, they do not bring any significant addition to our knowledge about the disease or the treatment thereof.
As long as they generate money they will be conducted, while the experiments we need are never engaged in, because their cost is too high.
That cost is not monetary, but it is nonetheless the real cost – bankruptcy of the orthodox non-system.
It is time to put General Gordon before the court-martial instead, to defend his self-defeating actions. Then they can throw out those principles of war from treatment too – all in one go.

The Church of Medical Science


The efforts and effects of Modern Orthodox Medicine resemble the work of the Sorcerer’s apprentice, who has taken his chance in the laboratory, while the Master Magician is busily engaged elsewhere.

They have let loose quite a few ghosts from some bottles and are chasing to control them while the very control itself wreaks havoc with all who are touched by them – and it reaches almost everywhere.

Frantically leafing through the pages of the Book of Life for the few paragraphs they have read a few times, they do not realise the very book has all the answers they seek.

It appears only the Master Magician knows which page it exactly is.

Yet on what they know, they have let loose many a Panic’s Pox without knowing if this will provide all the answers they need.

With 4 billion possible arrangements of the four basic amino-acids, they have indeed an almost endless pool of possibilities. They combine and recombine these Magic Formulas, creating untold horrors of homunculi, like alchemists without a clue.

Equally out of their depth as their despised Alchemical fore-bears they grope in the darkness of ignorance. None of the experts is any more expert as any layman, since it is but a search for truth, which has not been reached by a long shot.
Their discoveries consist of further fragmented bits, in their drive for ever more specialisms. Fragmentation is increased and enforced by the creation of these specialisms.
Coupled to locality of disease, which is nothing but another symptom in a totality of symptoms, different drugs are prescribed in medieval mixtures called cocktails.

It sounds like a party and does not have the medieval stigma of polypharmacy.

Confronted finally with the result of this type of Black Magic, the apprentices claim the ghost from the bottle was too strong, instead of blaming their medieval treatment as the cause of both the suffering before and the actual demise of the victim.

They blame a ghost from one of the manifold bottles desig-nated germs and use impressive technology to chase it or its supposed effects. They prescribe drugs to ‘normalise’ these sup-posed effects and also kill the germ, in the process destroying the person’s health.


It is the highest time the Master Magician came home, for the House of Medicine has become haunted……

As we wait for his return, let us glance with them in the Book of Life and carefully study the paragraphs they know. We shall not be merciful, but lay it bare for all to see.

We shall begin with the definitions what medicine is and is not, based on the perceptions as taught in the Book of Life and their own interpretation of what this entails. Everything they bring for-ward as claims of the truth of their assertions shall be scrutinised on its own perceived and supposed merits. It remains to be seen what will remain standing as scientific certainty.

We shall next proceed with the necessity of turning the tide and how such can be achieved, if we are to survive the next dec-ades in reasonable health or as wrecks suffering untold drug-disease on top of the original malady.

The cynical admission that 90% of the pharmaceutical drugs have no effect on disease at all, sufficiently shows that knowl-edge about their real powers is sorely lacking and reaches no far-ther than summarily described ‘side effects’ and considered a hindering nuisance, of which 60% of the doctors knows nothing. That these effects form the true powers of those medicines seems to escape their attention completely.
In view of such ignorance, the failure to cure is more proof of the obvious conclusion that either the method is faulty or the theoretical foundation is based on quick-sand. In the worst-case scenario, both are equally missing any proper foundation in pathological reality.

It is this worst-case scenario that has become the mainstream occupation with disease.
They stare themselves blind on the details they imagine to constitute the disease.
Naturally they take the result to be the cause, notwithstanding all proof to the contrary.
Their theories are utterly devoid of scientific value and the data are interpreted to fit the theories, rather than let them speak for themselves and by their presence open the doctor’s eyes to the theoretical fallacies.

On the stairs of the Haunted House of Medicine, Homeopathy is the only step that does not squeak.
In its Kabuki-Theatre of Suppression, Homoeopathy is the only one that stimulates and takes off the masks.


Let me begin with removing some misconceptions about healing. Healing is not a science, but an Art. Of all things Art is the governor, for it is through Art that Government works. Of all Arts, the Art of Healing is the uncrowned Emperor. Poetry may be its Minister, Painting its Culture, Theatre its Jester and Science its Priest, but above all the Art of Healing, divine in principle and practice, is without doubt the Emperor.
The learned fraternity of doctors uses the principles of the art of war to achieve their goal. You would not think of applying the principles of healing, painting or poetry in warfare though. What use would syringes and band-aids, paintbrushes or quatrains be against machineguns, hand-grenades and bombs? Similarly, the principles of war are useless in medicine. Bombarding a dis-eased body with heavy drugs is the wrong way around. If they want it to be a science, this is unscientific.
Healing finds its roots and origins in charity and can therefore only work according to the principles of sympathy. This constitutes the true Art of Healing and this is the principle along which homoeoapthy works. Homoeopathy, as the true Art of Healing, will not assimilate with the system. The mere mention of it is as nearly certainly the cause for a conventional reaction as is a glass of beer to a prohibitionist or an AA member.
It is of the ideals of science to know one thing from another before expressing an opinion on it. The medical scientists have neglected this and have gone from an assumption – germs cause disease.
William Blake said:

‘After having been a fool, a student is to amass a stock of ideas and knowing himself to be fool he is to assume the right to put other men’s ideas into his foolery. Instead of following a few great masters, he is to follow a great many fools.’

In homoeopathy, we follow some great masters – Hahne-mann and Hering, Von Boenninghausen, Kent, Clarke and Burnett, to name a few.

Study is more than the retention of facts. Facts alone will not satisfy the true student, as he cannot do anything with them. If the goal is to cram as many facts into the head as possible, then study is as good as useless. Study means not that we shall be-come mere repositories of facts and figures read from a machine, as that does not constitute either study or knowledge or science. For we will find that at some point in life these kinds of facts will not help us. The facts are really there to teach us connections between things and to use that knowledge for the betterment of the patient.


‘Begin anew!’ cries the useless student and discards all he has ‘learned’ to go back where he started. He will find he has to again cover the ground he already covered and try to catch up with where he was. This attitude hinders the understanding of important things and essential knowledge about disease and its true dynamic cause is discarded because of it.
For the Law of Similars is as old as the mountains and was finally written down first 5000 years ago in the Bhagavat purana.
amaya yas ca bhūtanām
yāyate yena suvratā
tad eva hy āmayām dravyām
na punātī cīkītsitām.
‘Oh good soul, does not a thing when applied therapeutically, cure a disease, which was caused by that very same thing?’

It was subsequently reiterated by Hippocrates, Paracelsus and Hahnemann and at present before you, yet modern medicine discards it as antiquated, vitalist, moonshine medicine.

They have decided to ‘begin anew’ and consequently they are struggling to understand the diseases they must treat. It is time they and you learn to see that the ground covered so far has not been useless, but truly carries the achievement of thousands of years of veritable study. However, medical science today has come at a point where what was valid law yesterday will be rejected today, because of some theory, subsequently to be thrown out tomorrow by another theory.
Therefore, they have to start the race each time anew, getting further and further behind where they already were. In homoeopathy we see this trend also develop and we do well to pay attention, for the last time this happened, homoeopathy was virtually destroyed in the USA. Mind you, all of the so-called new trends in homoeopathy, such as organ therapy, were first tried out by Hahnemann before he discovered the law of Similars and he summarily rejected them as not good enough. I expect my colleagues to study before they make assumptions and to not succumb a second time.
There is also the shallow critic, who takes into account what suits his shallow investigation, often designed to deride different paradigms from his own. This is the very thing he deems he is supposed to do. Both the useless student and the shallow critic are the enemies of progress. Progress means elimination and new acceptance, while holding on to the laws and principles. These, the useless student and the shallow critic will denounce with all their might. From this attitude come sterile experiments and uneventful results.
Enthusiastic admiration of the previous masters is the first principle of knowledge and its last. The person, who on examining his own mind finds nothing of inspiration for pure and simple healing ought not to dare to call himself a healer. He is a fool and a cunning knave, suited only to the purposes of evil exploitation.


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. Or 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 – mathematicians, geologists and astronomers – yet 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.

You can oppose an absurdity only by another absurdity. Then again, 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.

So 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 of 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 quasi-devil Virus and his consort Bacterium are the devils worshipped by the atheistic-materialistic Church of Medical Science. Bacterium and Virus are always invoked, especially be-cause 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 Mi-crobe can be invoked whenever Virus and Bacterium don’t answer their prayers.
There is a new star in the firmament of medical devils, invoked because neither the major nor the minor devils answered the prayers. They call this devil HIV and he is the Evil One, who tries to dethrone the major deities. He appears to be gradually succeeding.
This is no wonder, for this real and veritable devil is iatrogenesis in disguise. We expect the pantheon of devils to expand much further once there are enough iatrogenic diseases demanding their appearance.

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, dressed 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 pharmaboys 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 to be classed as scientific. However, conjecture is the name of the game and there is no scope, nor escape for dissidence. Kent, a nineteenth century homoeopath, expressed man’s preoccupation with conjecture as follows:

‘There is a state of insanity in the sciences of the present day. They put all laws aside, in order to accept for instance the virus theory (or for that matter any theory), because they want something that in its aggregate is large enough to be felt with the fingers or to be seen with the eye.’
(Kent J.T. The Lesser Writings)

We see nothing has changed.
Their preoccupation with the levels of this that and the other, say for instance the blood, the liver and the kidneys, is nothing but prejudiced towards what they prefer to see. These levels have to be normal, they say.
Their sense of the normal is derived from the mythological Mr Average, who is a figment of the imagination.
He is not only similar, but also actually the twin brother to Mr Nobody, married to Mrs Ignorant, whom the learned fraternity of allopathic doctors invariably think the patients before them to be.

Do you know that athletes have lower antibody counts than an office clerk? Do you know when you test for antibodies in the morning you get great readings, while when testing after a hard day’s work those readings are so lousy you would suspect Aids? After a party in the weekend everyone’s blood will look like the one with full-blown Aids. If you come a day later – after a good night’s sleep and your favourite breakfast – you would not recognise the readings as belonging to the same person.
With blood-pressure it is even funnier. Each arm will give a very different and sometimes opposite reading, even when done simultaneously. Ask your doctor next time he takes the pressure. Then see the confusion spread over his face, like insects smashing onto a car windshield in summer time.

A false sense of security is transferred from the essence to the superficial, the external covering. The periphery is considered the be-all and end-all of our existence, while the centre is neglected.
It is for this reason alone modern medicine can never fulfill man’s needs.

In the same breath, the Church of Medical Science claims the throne of learning without the capacity to understand the facts before their eyes or the incentive to impart values, ethics or morals.
Medical scientism, being entirely materialist in outlook, falls far short of the merits for the throne, upon which it has itself so squarely planted.
This is precisely because it cannot ever deliver the goods, such as health and happiness or peace and prosperity, which it so boastfully promises. Since it fails to account for and denounces the individual, it cannot comprehend the needs of that same individual.


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 truly 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 diseases to be caused by germs.
Narrowness is an aspect of the local and wideness that of the universal.
I go on widely.

Even the most lax of scientific observations and the most avant-garde propositions will be regarded as at least ‘interesting’, if the position of the presenter is sufficiently high within the hierarchy of the medical profession. Moreover, his behaviour should be appropriate to the requirements or he should have friends in high places. Otherwise, his work is poor, preposterous or even fraudulent.
Professor Duesberg is the prime example of this attitude and my own position reflects it undiminished.

In the event of him being not a member of the medical orthodoxy, he is a heretic, unworthy of attention and thus he is plainly ignored. They will not even apply the word charlatan.
This brief review of the judgmental aspects of science is not inappropriate, as we shall see.

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 virus. It must be nothing but a virus – after all, each virus is the cause of a disease, as they say. They promptly find it in no time short –
NH1S5, or whatever takes their fancy.


Once there lived in Khartoum a young English boy who, with his nanny, visited every day a statue of General Gordon, seated on a camel. One day, the boy and his family were going to move to Cairo to live, so he came and visited the general one last time. He said: 'General, I'm not going to see you for a very long time. I'm going to move to Cairo.' Then he turned to the nanny and said: 'What do I say to the guy on General Gordon's back?'

Similarly, doctors do not reflect when they see the virus and think it to be the disease. They call it General Gordon, but they have no idea that they look at best at a camel, while the real General escapes their attention altogether. We will come across many instances of this General Gordon syndrome.
He is, as an aside, also the representative of their idea of warfare against disease.

In homoeopathic science, we consider the cause of disease to be rooted in the mental and emotional state. The physical constitution and condition play a major role, while the person's daily ac-tivities point out a great deal concerning susceptibility. Moreover, any excess of anyone substance will also cause disease.

We are all quite familiar with those excesses, known as the seven deadly sins, so-called because their indulgence kills you.
Any excess of any drug – illegally obtained or prescribed by a doctor – will also cause disease. These are the sole and true disease causes.
Regular medicine cannot have a clue about causes however, for they never listen to the patient. They stare themselves blind on machine readings and slick microscopic slides, in which they have caught the vira and microbes, bacteria and ba-cilli or other germs, associated with disease.

They satisfy the moneytheistic bookkeeper’s mentality, but do not satisfy the discerning intellect.