Field Control Therapy Support Forums

This thread is to continue discussions of this key topic of scientific bias. What do all these conclusions regarding scientific bias represent for us in terms of mercury poisoning and FCT? At least four conclusions immediately spring to mind:

(1) We are faced with a medical-scientific establishment functioning on a very different platform and which would look askance, if at all, at our propositions, and yet their own conclusions have been made on very shaky ground, pulling the wool over the public’s eyes;

(2) Enormous amounts of research funding are tragically misdirected away from toxicity issues and the terrain theory of disease, through these types of prejudices and the current “consensus science” (i.e. current superstitions);

(3) This seems to be, in part, due to the politicization and opinionation of the scientific community, who appear to be misappropriating taxpayers’ money to fund a medical industry that is booming financially, profiting from people’s suffering, with no economic incentive to find real solutions by researching what really matters, including toxicity issues and the terrain theory of disease. Their failure to find real solutions is evidenced by the high rates of cancer and other degenerative diseases, which demonstrate to my mind that despite considerable funds made available for “approved” research proposals, it is clear that they must be favouring research of the wrong type, diverting taxpayers’ money into red herring research while the topics we are raising go on being neglected. If it weren’t for the fact that most of the researchers involved are unaware of the larger picture of crimes of which they form part, and are merely caught up in the trend as in a tide, I would otherwise declare this whole situation a crime against humanity;

(4) Finally, there are also many serious questions about the way scientific research is currently conducted, and the public should demand a complete overhauling of the science industry, as taxpayers holding their money accountable, to address the issues of prejudice and scientific bias as perpetuated by the peer-review system, the lack of blind funding, and other factors.

If anyone has any thoughts to add to these, please add posts. . .

I have assembled some further quotations of interest on this key issue of scientific bias - starting with the legendary Charles Fort.

This classic New York author described the scientific establishment of his day (the early twentieth century) in the most eloquent, questioning and acerbic manner possible, with great wisdom, and his poetic and highly entertaining reflections remain as relevant today as ever: he developed a whole system of philosophy which he presented as an alternative to what he termed the “exclusionism” of “monkish science.”

In other words, he felt that we continually believe what we want to and exclude any data that contradicts our opinions. . . including if we are “scientists.” Here is a small selection of typical quotations from his wonderful and timeless literary works:

“Over and over we shall find vacancy under supposed achievements; elaborate structures that are pretensions without foundation.”

“A pregnant woman stands near Niagara Falls. There are sounds, and they are vast circumstances; but the cells of an unborn being respond, or vibrate, only as they do to disturbances in their own little environment. Horizons pour into a gulf, and thunder rolls upward: embryonic consciousness is no more than to slight perturbations of maternal indigestion. It is Exclusionism.”

“All scientists, philosophers, religionists, are today looking back, wondering what could have been the matter with their predecessors to permit them to believe what they did believe. Granted that there will be posterity, we shall be predecessors. Then what is it that is conventionally taught today that will in the future seem as imbecilic as to all present orthodoxies seem the vaporings of preceding systems?”

“But this cloistered earth, and its monkish science--shrinking from, denying, or disregarding. . . data.”

Finally, here is a longer typical example: the apparent topic is the velocity of light. However, this is not why I quote it: it is the general points he is raising, and his hilarious manner of raising them, that matter most. . .

“It is supposed that astronomic subjects and principles and methods can not be understood by the layman. I think this, myself. We shall take up some of the principles of astronomy, with the idea of expressing that of course they cannot be understood by the unhypnotized any more than the stories of Noah's Ark and Jonah and the Whale be understood, but that our understanding, if we have any, will have some material for its exercises, just the same. The velocity of light is one of these principles. A great deal in the astronomic system depends on the supposed velocity: determinations of distance, and the amount of aberration depend. It will be our expression that these are ratios of impositions to mummeries, with such clownish products that formulas turn into antics, and we shall have scruples against taking up the subject at all, because we have much hard work to do, and we have qualms against stopping so often to amuse ourselves. But, then, sometimes in a more sentimental mood, I think that the pretty story of the velocity of light, and its "determination," will some day be of legitimate service; be rhymed some day, and told to children, in future kindergartens, replacing the story of Little Bo-peep, with the tale of a planet that lost its satellites and sometimes didn't know where to find them, but that good magicians came along and formulated the indeterminable.

“It was found by Roemer, a seventeenth-century astronomer, that, at times, the moons of Jupiter did not disappear behind him, and did not emerge from behind him, when they "should." He found that as distance between this earth and Jupiter increased, the delays increased. He concluded that these delays represented times consumed by the light of the moons in traveling greater distances. He found, or supposed he found, that when this earth is farthest from Jupiter, light from a satellite is seen 22 minutes later than when nearest Jupiter. Given measurement of the distance between opposite points in the earth's supposed orbit, and times consumed in traveling this distance--there you have the velocity of light.

“I still say that it is a pretty story and should be rhymed; but we shall find that astronomers might as well try to formulate the gambols of the sheep of Little Bo-peep, as to try to formulate anything depending upon the satellites of Jupiter.”

(Source: the works of Charles Fort have been kindly made available online at the following fabulous resource: www.resologist.net).

Another apt example are the writings of Richard Milton:

“The evidence shows that many scientists are unwilling to be persuaded by experimental evidence. . . The discovery of new empirical evidence had no effect at all on their beliefs because it conflicted with those beliefs.”

(You can read the rest of this interesting article, ‘Why Alternative Science?’, at: http://www.alternativescience.com/alter ... cience.htm)

The apparently “priestly” authority of what Michael Crichton calls “consensus science” and Charles Fort described as “exclusionism” and “monkish science” is likewise described by Richard Milton in his work as a “closed form of science” and an “almost mystical belief in scientific rationalism.”

Thus various subject matters are considered unworthy of proper scientific study – subjects such as homeopathy, or anything else about which the scientific “monks” have already formulated opinions unscientifically without indulging the open-ended spirit of scientific inquiry: Milton lists many examples of these apparently “taboo” topics of research, as did Fort before him, and yet nowhere is there any rational reason why scientific research should be limited only to seeking to confirm our current prejudices, without ever straying outside the priestly fold.

The overriding problem raised by all these authors is that when “scientists” – as it appears they often do – close their minds to new data, but instead hold fast by “what they know is right,” with fixed beliefs, then this holds up the progress of knowledge and discovery. Richard Milton goes further and also analyses what has gone wrong with the very nature of the peer-review system and how scientific study is funded and carried out, all the way down to his psychological analysis of the “military” type of mind which cannot tolerate new evidence that challenges the status quo.

He points out that the scientific establishment has nearly always been composed primarily of “military” minded individuals, and that therefore most of history’s great scientific discoveries have come – not surprisingly – from outsiders to this priestly establishment. This has been so in all eras, including our own – of which he gives countless examples.

The example of the Wright brothers is one which sticks in my mind the most dramatically, since I can’t help thinking to myself: if it took the academic and public community five years to concede that yes, they were actually flying planes up into the air – FIVE YEARS!!! – during which time there were frequent live demonstrations above a field next to a well-frequented train track – then how long will it take for discoveries that are not so physically blatant and visual to sink in and be taken seriously?? Here Richard Milton recounts the story:

“Few examples are more striking than this one. For five years, from December 1903 to September 1908, two young bicycle mechanics from Ohio repeatedly claimed to have built a heavier than air flying machine and to have flown it successfully. But despite scores of public demonstrations, affidavits from local dignitaries, and photographs of themselves flying, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by Scientific American, the New York Herald, the US Army and most American scientists. Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that heavier than air flight was impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without troubling to examine the evidence. It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality. In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kittyhawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.' Powered flight, Newcomb believed, would require the discovery of some new unsuspected force in nature. Only a year earlier, Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy, wrote in the North American Review that attempting to fly was 'absurd'. It was armed with such eminent authorities as these that Scientific American and the New York Herald scoffed at the Wrights as a pair of hoaxers.”

(Source: www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm).

Footnote: Take special note of how scientists had "showed scientifically" that manned flight was "utterly impossible." I feel a sense of deja vu, but where have I heard this before? Ah, that's right, we frequently hear similar things about homeopathy, or the idea of amalgam poisoning, based not on a sound foundation but on the prevailing prejudiced "scientific" consensus opinions of our times. . . It's nothing new, it's been happening for centuries, and even happened to the Wright brothers, whose evidence was about as clear as evidence ever gets!! (FIVE YEARS!!!!??)

We are dealing with such universal truths, that we can also turn to literature, mysticism and music and find, there, similar conclusions! The essential message, from which everything else begins, is to open our minds and hearts to new possibilities and question our current assumptions and certainties. Regarding amalgam poisoning and FCT, for example, we must first become less certain in our ideas about the world even to entertain these as new ideas contrary to the mainstream thinking of our times.

This doesn't mean accepting these, either, without questioning; everything can be continually questioned, developed and improved upon, including these. Dr Yurkovsky is himself continually self-questioning and, thus, evolving FCT based on fresh observations and ideas. There will always remain infinite quantities of unknowns, and that itself should be celebrated, as the unending source of inspiration and newer, better ideas.

To take one small example, all of the available evidence to date, when considered with an open-minded scientific spirit of inquiry, is enough to convince any reasonable person that mercury from amalgam fillings has been poisoning most of the population. That's not an absolute certainty, because nothing is, but it's the most reasonable conclusion based on available evidence and observation, and far more likely than any other proposed model to explain all the facts. It would be about as equally reasonable as it would be to state that the earth revolves around the sun, which is a reasonable statement, but not an absolute certainty either, because nothing is: these, and all other statements, can and always will remain open to question and further study - let no one ever declare these, or any other statements, as beyond doubt or beyond continuing scientific inquiry.

In addition, there are usually uncertainties in plentiful supply just around the corner from every reasonable conclusion. Mysteries are never far away from even our most reasonable ideas. To give one example, we currently explain the Earth's rotation around the sun as a function of gravity, but this is a force that we can barely explain although we have given it a name and discovered various formulae (including Newton's and later Einstein's) which can predict its behaviour fairly well in normal circumstances. Or to give another example, closely related to the above, plenty of other metals also used in dentistry and other industries, and the combined toxicological effects of these various metals, including mercury and others when mixed together, is a great unknown.

In toxicology, 2 + 2 = 100. So if, for example, you have mercury, lead, cadmium, silver and aluminium all mixed together in the cells of your pancreas, how much do we know about their combined effects? Not a whole lot, except that they're pretty bad, and a whole lot worse than the known effects of each single poison acting alone.

It's like locking a gang of master criminals in a room together to compare notes. . .

Anyway, here are a last few humbling examples that touched me - on the subject of human uncertainty, the limits of our rational knowledge, and the greater mysteries of life:

(a) From popular music: excerpt from "The Whole of the Moon" (The Waterboys).

I pictured a rainbow - you held it in your hands
I had flashes - but you saw the plan
I wandered out in the world for years - you just stayed in your room
I saw the crescent - You saw the whole of the moon

I spoke about wings - you just flew
I wondered I guessed and I tried - you just knew
I sighed - but you swooned
I saw the crescent - You saw the whole of the moon

(b) From poetry: two excerpts from Emily Dickinson's verse.

[Excerpt from "Wonder -- is not precisely Knowing":]

Wonder -- is not precisely Knowing
And not precisely Knowing not --
A beautiful but bleak condition
He has not lived who has not felt –

[Full poem, "The Soul selects her own Society--":]

THE Soul selects her own Society--
Then--shuts the Door--
To her divine Majority--
Present no more—

Unmoved--she notes the Chariots--pausing--
At her low Gate--
Unmoved--an Emperor be kneeling
Upon her mat—

I've known her--from an ample nation—
Choose One--
Then--close the Valves of her attention--
Like Stone—

(c) From mysticism: Quoted from the Indian mystic Osho, for a different angle on the same topic!

Note: His sceptical comments about the concept of God as a creator of the universe, which form part of the excerpt, are not meant to offend the reader if you happen to be religious. This specifically refers to the concept of creation, and the same argument is applied, with equally undeniable logic, to the theory that the Big Bang was a beginning: the point is that the very concept of the creation of the universe out of nothing is inconceivable and illogical.

To put the passage into context, Osho has also explained elsewhere that he values what he regards as genuine "religiousness", as opposed to holding rigid beliefs about the world, be they religious, scientific or any other type of rigid belief - in other words, the same point as I have been making above as well as the various other writers quoted previously. This state of 'religiousness' would be more akin to a state of 'wonder' (Emily Dickinson) than to one of 'certainty': the word 'mysticism' itself has the same root as 'mystery,' i.e. we are not putting our cloistered beliefs and limitations onto a pedestal as false idols, but instead looking up into the sky, into the great unknown, and marvelling at the wider, wonderful world beyond ourselves, a world absolutely full of mysteries no matter which way we look at it. However could we think that we knew it all?

Interestingly, just like Charles Fort and Richard Milton, this Indian mystic is drawing very similar conclusions here regarding the basic principle of uncertainty.

You need a transformation of your consciousness. And by transformation you will not become a knower, you will become more and more of a mystic. Each and every thing in life - from the smallest grass leaf to the biggest star - it is all mysterious.

Neither do the holy scriptures have any answers for it nor does science, although they both go on proposing hypotheses.

Religion tries to propose a hypothesis of God, that He created the world. This is really pitiable - it has nothing to do with authentic religiousness; it is a childish effort to forget your ignorance. Nobody has witnessed any God creating the world, by the very nature of the fact nobody can be a witness of it, otherwise the world was already there, if somebody was there to witness it.

What was God doing for eternity? What is the secret of it, where was this fellow before? And the more basic question is where did He come from - who produced Him? Is He an orphan? With no mother and father? Who created Him? If the world needs a creator, then the God also needs a creator.

The hypothesis can satisfy only very childish minds, and can give them security, yet millions of people are in that space.

But science is not in any better position either. The world came into existence out of an explosion - but an explosion of what? They have removed God, now instead of God it is an explosion of energy. But that means the energy was there. And if the energy was there, existence was there.

Now only one thing is certain, because 300 years of science has shown it: That no theory is going to become authentic knowledge. It can only be a temporary hypothesis - then somebody with a better intelligence, with more logical acumen, with better scientific equipment, is going to demolish it.

But why do people want to know such things? There must be a universal psychological need. This is the need: safety. Knowing that God created the world, or an explosion, you feel at ease.

I am ready to accept the mystery of life. And I am against all those people, whether religious scholars or scientific researchers, who are trying to satisy your fear of insecurity by giving you hypotheses.

Even science could not control its temptation, and accept the mysteriousness of existence: that we don't know. Not even a single scientist has been so courageous to say it: that we don't know. In fact, the whole project of science is that slowly slowly the area of our knowledge is growing, and the area of our ignorance is decreasing.

A man of understanding will accept that insecurity is the very fabric of life, and that not knowing is the counterpart of an existence which is miraculous and mysterious.

We know nothing.

All that we know is very superficial, and all that we know goes on changing. What seems to be so certain today becomes uncertain tomorrow.

And then you are capable of dancing amidst all insecurity, you are capable of loving and laughing in the midst of not knowing. Not knowing is nothing but innocence, and insecurity is nothing but a constant changing panorama, always fresh and new. Nothing is repeated in existence. We are in a state of not knowing, so we can be child-like, running after butterflies, collecting seashells on the beach, or coloured stones, as if they are diamonds, and enjoying all of them.