My friend Roger, the homeopath, alerted me to the ‘Self-Controlled Energo Neuro Adaptive Regulation‘ (SCENAR). He uses it in his practice and explains:

The scenar uses biofeedback; by stimulating the nervous system, it is able to teach the body to heal itself. The device sends out a series of signals through the skin and measures the response. Each signal is only sent out when a change, in response to the previous signal, is recorded in the electrical properties of the skin. Visible responses include reddening of the skin, numbness, stickiness (the device will have the feeling of being magnetically dragged), a change in the numerical readout and an increase in the electronic clattering of the device.

The C-fibres, which comprise 85% of all nerves in the body, react most readily to the electro-stimulation and are responsible for the production of neuropeptides and other regulatory peptides. A TENS unit will only stimulate the A & B-fibres for temporary relief.

The body can get accustomed to a stable pathological state, which may have been caused by injury, disease or toxicity. The Scenar catalyses the process to produce regulatory peptides for the body to use where necessary, by stimulation of C-fibres  . It is these neuropeptides that in turn reestablish the body’s natural physiological state and are responsible for the healing process. As these peptides last up to several hours, the healing process will continue long after the treatment is over. The large quantity of neuropeptides and C-fibres in the Central Nervous System can also result in the treatment on one area aiding with other general regulatory processes, like chemical imbalances, correcting sleeplessness, appetite and behavioral problems.

Sounds like science fiction?

Or perhaps more like BS?

But, as always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Roger explains:

What conditions can Scenar treat?
In the UK, the devices are licensed by the British Standards Institute for pain relief only. Likewise the FDA has approved the Scenar for pain relief. However, because of the nature of the device, viz., stimulating the nervous system, the Russian experience is that Scenar affects all the body systems in a curative manner.

The Russian experience suggests that it can be effective for a very broad range of diseases, including diseases of the digestive, cardio-vascular, respiratory, musculo-skeletal, urinary, reproductive and nervous systems. It is also useful for managing ENT diseases, eye diseases, skin conditions and dental problems. It has also been found beneficial in burns, fractures, insect bites, allergic reactions, diseases of the blood and disorders involving immune mechanisms; endocrine, nutritional and metabolic disorders; stress and mental depression, etc.

It is known to give real relief from many types of pain. It does so because it stimulates the body to heal the underlying disease causing the pain!

Another SCENAR therapist is much more specific. He tells us that SCENAR is effective for:

  • Sports and other injuries
  • Musculoskeletal problems
  • Issues with circulation
  • Respiratory diseases
  • Digestive disorders
  • Certain infections
  • Immune dysfunctions

Perhaps I was a bit hasty; perhaps the SCENAR does work after all. It is certainly offered by many therapists like Roger. They cannot all be charlatans, or can they?

Time to do a proper Medline search and find out about the clinical trials that have been done with the SCENAR. Disappointingly, I only found three relevant papers; here they are:

Study No 1

A new technique of low-frequency modulated electric current therapy, SCENAR therapy, was used in treatment of 103 patients with duodenal ulcer (DU). The influence of SCENAR therapy on the main clinical and functional indices of a DU relapse was studied. It was shown that SCENAR therapy, which influences disturbed mechanisms of adaptive regulation and self-regulation, led to positive changes in most of the parameters under study. Addition of SCENAR therapy to the complex conventional pharmacotherapy fastened ulcer healing, increased the effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication, and improved the condition of the gastroduodenal mucosa.

Study No 2

Administration of artrofoon in combination with SCENAR therapy to patients with localized suppurative peritonitis in the postoperative period considerably reduced plasma MDA level, stabilized ceruloplasmin activity, and increased catalase activity in erythrocytes compared to the corresponding parameters in patients receiving standard treatment in combination with SCENAR therapy.

Study No 3

The author recommends a self-control energoneuroadaptive regulator (SCENAR) as effective in the treatment of neurogenic dysfunction of the bladder in children with nocturnal enuresis. This regulator operates according to the principles of Chinese medicine and may be used in sanatoria and at home by the children’s parents specially trained by physiotherapist.


While the quantity of the ‘studies’ is lamentable, their quality seems quite simply unacceptable.

We are thus left with two possibilities: either the SCENAR is more or less what its proponents promise and the science has for some strange reason not caught up with this reality; or the reality is that SCENAR is a bogus treatment used by charlatans who exploit the gullible public.

I know which possibility I favour – how about you?

95 Responses to SCENAR, effective for a very broad range of diseases or merely a means for quacks to exploit the public?

  • I love it the way some people read a couple studies and they are instant experts on a subject with no experience of it. If its not stamped “AMA” it must be bad. But of course EBM (Evidently Baseless Medicine) has all its bases covered.

    From 2009: Ghostwriting: The Dirty Little Secret of Medical Publishing That Just Got Bigger

    Who’s preying on gullibility to kill more people? I know which one I favor – how about you?

    • To same us the time, can you point to any robust randomised controlled trials in peer-reviewed journals? I could not find any. What has ghost-writing to do with this? Don’t you know that tu quoque is a logical fallacy?

      • Randomised Controlled trials are not the only valid source for identifying effective healing modalities. Most conventional treatments have not undergone trials. They are used based on clinical experience. In fact the RCT is very flawed on many levels. Read Harris Coulter’s dissection of the RCT here:

        Clinical experience is equally valid for determining good treatments.

        When ignorantly being accused of preying on gullibility, an ad hominum attack is being made, which is also a logical fallacy. So I think it is valid to respond that The Pot is Calling the Kettle…

        • Roger

          RCTs are not the only source of evidence, but they are an essential stage. Without a rigorous and fair test we would not know if there is any intrinsic effect of the treatment. If an RCT is positive, then we can do other studies to see whether the effect is clinically useful and generalisable. Quacks love to skip this essential step and denigrate RCTs, because they usually generate inconvenient truths.

          It is not true that “Most conventional treatments have not undergone trials”. In general practice about 80% of decisions are based on good evidence, ie fair trials. Tu quoque again. EBM is a work in progress and of course there are ways to go, but that doesn’t invalidate it.

          In stark contrast the quacks resist all attempts to improve their evidence base. For them evidence is not a work in progress, it’s a problem to be overcome.

          Come on now, the manufacturers of these machines are viable businesses making profits. Are you really telling me that they can’t afford to do ANY proper research? They get away with it because the regulators are pretty toothless and under-resourced. It’s down to the savvy consumer to challenge them and ask for evidence. It’s interesting that the manufacturers only make claims for pain, but practitioners make far wider claims. The manufacturers train the practitioners, so where do the latter get all these other claims? I have my suspicions.

          There is a very odd logical flaw that the alt med community perpetuates. You said that “[in western medicine] …you have to have a specific protocol for each and every set of symptoms that a few doctors elect to call a disease”. For a start this is not really true. Symptoms are signposts, and validated tests are routinely used to clarify what they mean. Also signs are not the same as symptoms – these are part of the diagnosis. A cough is a symptom, a chest rattle heard with a stethoscope is a sign. Yet alt med is obsessed with symptoms. A homeopathic materia medica is based on symptoms not test results. Most of these symptoms are quite unconnected with the medical condition. For example it is ludicrous to think that tearfulness caused by onion has anything to do with the common cold, yet onion is a homeopathic remedy for a cold. Homeopaths make not the slightest attempt to look beyond symptoms, yet claim to treat the cause of disease.

          It is also ludicrous to say that a disease is defined by a few doctors. Your wild claim without evidence, that “conventional medicine had identified 250,000 different diseases (they think they can cure maybe 1,000 of those), I won’t even dignify with a rebuttal.

          I should point out that I don’t for a moment expect to change your mind, because you have bought into a belief system that has the happy side effect of making you money. I will just say that I have nothing to gain from spending my time writing this, and only hope that other readers who are wavering will understand the difference between evidence and opinion.

          • @ Les Rose: Very impressive response!

          • RCT are not a rigorous and fair test as Coulter shows.

            Who are the supposed quacks that resist all attempts to improve their evidence base? There are lots of studies done on Scenar & homeopathy, not acceptable to the mainstream but they are being done. Organizations are devoted to the research. I dont think any study could possibly convince a “skeptic” because they dont want to be convinced. It doesnt fit their paradigm.

            Did you follow the links I gave for scenar papers?

            Homeopaths and Scenar therapists are for the most part physicians who look at all the signs and symptoms that any other doctor looks at. Go and sit in on the clinic of a busy homeopathic MD in India, for example Dr Farokh Master in Mumbai (who’s clinic I observed) who sees 50-60 patients daily and does all the testing that conventional docs do.

            I am sure there are many estimates. A simple search found someone estimating 100k diseases. Still the same order of magnitude. How many chronic diseases can we point to for actual cure by CM?

            Such bs about making money. Yeah, we are all in it for nothing but the money. Another baseless ad hominum attack. Come have a treatment sometime and then assess whether i am doing this for money and whether it works or not. Ask around and see what other practitioners are making. But if the treatment wasnt getting results people wouldnt come back.

          • @Roger

            “I dont think any study could possibly convince a “skeptic” because they dont want to be convinced. It doesnt fit their paradigm.”

            What would it take to convince you that homeopathy is not an effective medical therapy? You certainly seem to be stuck in a paradigm yourself.

  • There is no registration of Scenar as a medical device so any diagnostic or therapeutic claims are illegal. I’ll notify MHRA Devices Compliance. Their email is More complaints would put pressure on them to act.

    • The OKB Ritm company has 2 or 3 Scenar devices that are registered with the FDA in the same manner as the TENS devices for pain control. Scenar does much more than mere pain control but that would require a lot of expense and complication for registration. Other companies produce similar Scenar devices but cant afford the registration expenses. Scenar technology has been around and popular in Europe since the 70’s. It was developed for the Soviet Space program since its not feasible to bring a doctor and pharmacy into space. In the USA we get the benefits of the opioid epidemic instead.

  • And of course innumerable chiroquackers have added this space-age (25 y/o) cutting-edge non-sense into their practices-of-deception. With all it’s sciency gobbledygook, non-specific effects and myriad conditions-treated it’s perfect for scamming the gullible out of a few extra bucks.

    • In the western medical paradigm we have been brain washed into thinking that you cant have a general purpose approach to healing, basically stimulating the body’s own healing response. In other words you have to have a specific protocol for each and every set of symptoms that a few doctors elect to call a disease. One estimate I saw said that conventional medicine had identified 250,000 different diseases (they think they an cure maybe 1,000 of those)! You can buy into that horse-sh!t if you want to. I would guess that flawed paradigm has scammed more gullible people out of a lot of extra bucks, by many many orders of magnitude, than all the “complementary/alternative” medical approaches put together.

      • Dear Roger,
        I am not a medical scientist. But as a plant molecular biologist, I will offer you some information that may help to explain why it is very rational to conclude that many different causes for diseases exist, which each will require individual treatments, and why idea that “self-healing” via “general purpose approach” is a very naïve concept.

        I try to keep this post simple and am well aware that the following statements are simplified and the by no means complete. Still, I hope that my point gets across to you, Roger. I should mention that the following statements are beased on scientific evidence, not on belief.

        First, I want to distinguish between diseases from “external” causes and diseases from “internal” causes (I know, Dr. Money-Kyrle… I am aware that these certainly are not medical categories 😉 ).

        External causes could e.g. be of biological nature. It should be obvious that a disease caused by bacteria (e.g. a bacterial sepsis) should be treated very differently than a disease caused by a virus (e.g. Aids). One reason is that antibiotics can kill bacteria, but not virus particles. Since many infectious diseases exists, many individual treatments of these are necessary.

        With “Internal causes”, I refer to causes that, for example, are related to the genes.
        As far as I can tell, you are not very informed about biology, so I give you a very brief refreshment about the biological basics (disclaimer: my apologies, but to keep it simple, I have to leave out MANY more aspects, such as regulatory RNA, splicing variants of genes, post-transcriptional and post-translational regulation, ect.pp.).

        All living beings have genetic information in their cells, humans e.g. have double stranded DNA.
        The DNA is the template for the production of proteins (see disclaimer above). Proteins perform most of the functions in the body, and estimated 19,000-20,000 proteins are encoded in the human DNA. It can be assumed that pretty much every single one of these proteins is of some importance for a “healthy” human, because maintenance of the genes in the human genome and production of the protein demands energy. For this reason, genes/proteins that are defect or not important for optimal reproduction tend to get lost over time (which is the basis for evolution).

        DNA is a very long chemical molecule, and mutations can occur, e.g. during the replication or induced by certain chemicals or UV radiation. Sometimes (but by no means always), such a mutation leads to production of proteins that have altered function, e.g. loss-of-function or de-regulated activity. Such mutations can then cause diseases, e.g. genetic disorders, cancer, etc.

        Scientific studies have elucidated MANY examples. Just a few selected examples are:
        *mutation of the dystrophin gene leading to Duchenne muscular dystrophy
        *mutation of the BRCA1 gene promotes different forms of cancer
        *mutation of the LAMB3 gene causes the skin disease Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa
        * Irregular length of the HTT gene causes Huntington’s disease

        The more we learn about the functions of individual proteins and the networks that these proteins act in, the more connections to diseases are elucidated.

        Although the human “body’s own healing response” (e.g. via the immune system) CAN be very powerful fighting off certain types of infections, it is NOT able to fight such diseases.
        If you want to get an idea how difficult it is to treat such gene-related diseases, you might want to follow these links:

        I hope that these examples illustrate that the human body is very complicated and why simple answers for treatment of very different conditions, as suggested by many SCAM proponents, is so ridiculous.

        • A nice post, Jashak. I’m pleased you gave infectious diseases as an example of the complex and quite different nature of your class of ‘externally caused’ diseases.

          @Roger. Jashak gave the example of bacterial sepsis vs. HIV infections where entirely different antimicrobial agents are used for treatment. But it goes further than that. Different bacteria and viruses require entirely different antimicrobial agents to inhibit their growth and provide effective treatments, because even these tiny agents of disease differ enough in their DNA to be susceptible only to particular antimicrobials. They’re also specialized at infecting different parts of the body.

          I’ll give just two examples of this specialism. One is the bacterium Neisseria gonnorrhoeae, the cause of gonorrhoea, whose genes encode specialized surface ‘hairs’ that specifically attach the bugs to mucosal epithelial cells, thus explaining why gonorrhoea affects mainly urinary and genital mucosa. The second example is the bacterium Clostridium tetani which gets into wounds from soil, does little local damage, but whose genes encode a secreted protein neurotoxin that finds its way into the bloodstream and travels to cause prolonged, convulsive contractions of muscle that are often fatal.

          Of course, the human body has evolved an immune system to deal with infectious microbes, but this is necessarily incredibly complex. Many people don’t begin to understand just how complex immunity is: to get a taste, please look here (Fig. 1) and here. The complexity exists to cope with the enormous diversity of microbial ‘virulence factors’ and the ‘system’ is not perfect: it can turn on its human host to cause autoimmune diseases, or even damage tissues in its efforts to eradicate microbes (e.g. in tuberculosis).

          I hope you’re beginning to understand why Jashak says (and I agree with him totally) “…simple answers for treatment of very different conditions, as suggested by many SCAM proponents, is so ridiculous.”

        • I disagree that different infectious diseases necessarily means that different treatments are required. That is 19th century thinking. From what we now know about the microbiome, there are 10 non-human cells for every human cell in the body. I read where 5% of the population has plague germs in their body. We haven’t seen plague epidemics in a long time. When an epidemic sweeps through a population, most of the population resists it. The small percentage that is seriously effected has a weakened susceptibility. A generalized treatment can strengthen the immune system and reduce the susceptibility. A better model of disease than the germ theory is to consider the germ and the susceptibility. The germ theory has relied on killing the germs to solve disease and that approach is reaching a dead end, or at least it should as we realize how important the microbiome is.

          Most of the serious diseases that conventional medicine claims to have abated, were mostly reduced due to better air, water, food and living conditions. That means our body’s own immune systems handled the disease assaults because they were less susceptible.

          Genetic causes of diseases account for a tiny subset of chronic disease. And we are finding that many of the genetic disease have environmental and epigenetic factors that mediate their expression. Gene therapies were going to revolutionize medicine. They have gone nowhere except a few instances.

          • I don’t think any of us expected you to agree. BTW it’s `affected’ not `effected’ in that context.

          • We can with confidence strike infections and microbiology from the short list of things “Roger” knows something about.

          • Dear Roger,
            regarding your 1st paragraph (“I disagree” (…) “how important the microbiome is.”):
            Sorry, you have lost me, I have no f-king clue what you are talking about. Sounds like complete gibberish to me.

            Regarding your 2nd paragraph (“Most of the serious“ (…) “were less susceptible”):
            Such nonsense! Have you ever heard about vaccination?! Just google smallpox or poliomyelitis.

            Regarding your 3rd paragraph (“Genetic cause (…)”):
            I don’t think that you understand what epigenetics means. You might want to refrain from using terms that sound scientific to you, but which you obviously don´t understand.
            You are, however, correct that establishing gene therapy has proven to be more difficult than anticipated early on by some scientists (one example is the tragic case of Jesse Gelsinger). Since gene therapy is a very young research field, I am optimistic that progress will be made in the future to cure many currently untreatable forms of devastating diseases.

            I would like to point out that I find it repugnant that you downplay the successes of gene therapy by saying “They have gone nowhere except a few instances.”
            You might want to have a look at Figure 1 of this paper.

            Why don´t you ask the boy what he thinks of gene therapy?

          • “I disagree that different infectious diseases necessarily means that different treatments are required.”
            You may disagree but that doesn’t make it so. Have you any experience treating serious infectious diseases?

            “That is 19th century thinking”
            What on earth do you mean by that?

            “I read where 5% of the population has plague germs in their body”
            I’m not sure I understand that sentence, either. You read that there is a place where 5% of the population is carrying plague? Where is that place and where did you read it? It doesn’t seem very likely to me.

            “We haven’t seen plague epidemics in a long time”
            I think the last epidemic was during the Vietnam war. The CDC states that the last urban outbreak in the US was in Los Angeles in 1924-1925. There are still many thousands of cases reported annually, mostly in Africa, but plague responds to antibiotics and modern supportive therapy so the prognosis is much better than it once was.

            “When an epidemic sweeps through a population, most of the population resists it.”
            Isn’t that sentence contradicting itself?

            “The small percentage that is seriously effected has a weakened susceptibility.”
            That applies to sporadic infections, not epidemics. Though I think you mean that the susceptibility is increased, not weakened.

            ” A generalized treatment can strengthen the immune system and reduce the susceptibility”
            I am really getting fed up with these daft claims that over-simplify the immune system as if it were something that either works or it doesn’t. The immune system is the most complex system in the body with many thousands of components dealing with different kinds of infections and interacting with each other in order to regulate responses. There is no generalised treatment for the immune system, any more than there is a generalised solution for a car that doesn’t go properly.

            ” A better model of disease than the germ theory is to consider the germ and the susceptibility. ”
            Well yes, of course. Any doctor can tell you that.

            “The germ theory has relied on killing the germs to solve disease and that approach is reaching a dead end”
            Actually it has mostly relied on hand-washing.

            “we realize how important the microbiome is”
            We know it is important, but it is another very complex system which hasn’t been worked out yet.

            “Most of the serious diseases that conventional medicine claims to have abated, were mostly reduced due to better air, water, food and living conditions”
            You forgot to mention vaccines.

            “That means our body’s own immune systems handled the disease assaults because they were less susceptible. ”
            Actually it meant that our bodies were less likely to be exposed to pathogens. Though nobody would disagree that poor nutrition and the presence of co-morbidities will increase the susceptibility to and impact of infectious diseases.

            “Genetic causes of diseases account for a tiny subset of chronic disease”
            That is certainly not the case. Leaving aside diseases with a clear Mendelian inheritance (Huntington’s, cystic fibrosis), family history is a major risk factor in common problems such as coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer… With DNA analysis now cheap, easy and quick the constellations of genes responsible for these risks are beginning to be identified.

            “many of the genetic disease have environmental and epigenetic factors that mediate their expression.”
            Again you are stating the obvious. Genes are expressed in relation to environment.

            “Gene therapies were going to revolutionize medicine.”
            Don’t believe all the hype. It takes a long time to go from an idea to an established treatment, despite what you read in the media.

          • @Roger

            I couldn’t face taking the time to respond point by point to your profound misunderstandings of medical microbiology. Thanks to Julian I don’t need to.

            Roger, you seem to have an uncanny knack for grasping the wrong end of every stick that floats into your field of vision. You seem to be entirely unaware of the deep foundation of scientific research that underpins the study of infectious diseases. You talk about ‘germ theory’ almost in the “it’s only a theory” manner used by fundamentalists about evolution. You clearly imagine you are a level-headed, rational person but boy, you’re not even at novice level when it comes to infection and immunity. You should try thoroughly reading a textbook of medical microbiology, not just surfing websites for quotes that support your weird views about ‘strengthening the immune system’ and the like.

            I’ll respond only to one point from your muddled post. “From what we now know about the microbiome, there are 10 non-human cells for every human cell in the body.” We already knew there were huge numbers of microbial cells in the body decades before the term ‘microbiome’ was invented. The 10:1 ratio originates from a 1972 article by Luckey (Am J Clin Nutr 25:1292–1294) which used then available estimates of gut microbial flora (10^14) vs. then available estimates of numbers of human cells in the body (10^13). Savage (Ann Rev Microbiol, 1977;31:107–133) discusses the topic in more detail.

            So your numbers don’t come from ‘what we now know about the microbiome’ at all. In fact, people who study the microbiome are now challenging the 10:1 ratio [] and suggesting the numbers of microbial and human cells in the body are about equal (1.3:1). Whatever the truth, it’s pretty indisputable that around 2 kg of the average human body weight is comprised of gut microbes: and we’ve known that for very many years. That datum is usually trotted out in the first lecture of microbiology 101.

  • This device is recommended on some Scoliosis facebook sites – claiming that it can straighten a scoliosis. In this circumstance it is preying on the very vulnerable and desperate who have a condition for which for many there is no real solution or cure.

    Can I post this thread on facebook to back up my challenge ?

  • Roger

    Yes I did follow your links for Scenar papers. I could not find any rigorous studies in quality journals. That’s why I asked you to cite one. You conveniently say that RCTs are not fair tests. Special pleading if ever I saw it. Harris Coulter is a well known vaccine critic and frankly a danger to public health:

    So with the efficacy of vaccines robustly shown by RCTs, Coulter writes that RCTs are not fair tests. How convenient! And not even peer reviewed or published in a journal.

    I think you need to realise that the randomised controlled trial is not the preserve of the health care sector. It is the basic tool of the whole of science. If you deny its utility, you deny most of what we know about the universe. You can live in that fantasy if you like, nothing I can do about that, other than try to stop your thought processes from propagating.

  • SCENAR is said by some to be the product of a secret Soviet space programme or the like.

    This audio from vet Roger Meacock at a radionics (see for more on him) is very “interesting”. A baby grew a new kidney.

  • I want to know more about scenar technology.


    • It isn’t technology, it is fakery, so there is nothing useful to know.

      • You’re an obvious protector of the status quo.

        • Kenneth, I looked at the 5 citations on your PubMed link. Only one is claimed to be a randomised controlled trial. It is a translation from Russian and hardly intelligible, and there is only the first page online, but even so I can see several methodological flaws. For example there are no baseline data for the treatment groups – we don’t know if they were balanced. The study was not blinded. There is nothing about the laboratory quality control. I’m not a statistician, but only using Student’s (Fisher’s) t-test seems a bit rudimentary for quite complex data, eg 3 treatment groups plus normal controls. It is not an outcome study so could not support claims for efficacy in humans. Judging by the reference, it looks like a journal supplement devoted to homeopathy. Is this the best you can do? No regulator would accept such evidence – well maybe they do in Russia.

          Odd that you denigrate RCTs but then cite one in support.

      • My father was an electrical engineer and went to work for a company called Stimulation Technologies or StimTech for short. They made tens units for pain control. While he was there J&J purchased the company and took the product off the market. Apparently StimTech was a threat to J&J pain pharmaceuticals revenues.

        Anyone stuck thinking within the box will miss out on much in life. But it is what our indoctrination (education) has prepared us for. Critical thinking is a skill lacking in the uneducated public. Even in those with impressive sounding sheep skins.

  • I have a Scenar Pro Plus and used it on my wrist to heal an injury often treated by a surgery called
    De Quervain’s Release. I had the surgery on my right wrist 10 years ago and then needed the same on my left wrist. I decided to try a non-surgical approach using a Scenar that I purchased and delightedly found it healed my condition totally after around a month or so of regular use.

    Sometimes double blind studies are not conducted on certain therapies because of the cost/benefit analysis. If pharmaceutical companies cannot make huge profits, studies are not done, especially on therapies that cannot be patented. No huge profit potential, no incentive to engage in expensive studies. So anecdotal evidence may be all there is to indicate whether a therapy is effective. Of course anecdotal studies are not considered proof of anything. So no matter how effective a therapy is, if it is not patent-able, no expensive studies. How convenient for the pharmaceutical companies. They can claim no FDA approval because of no double blind studies and doctors will spread FUD about a competitive therapy not in their practice.

    The author of this article is obviously not familiar with Pubmed as when I search it for Scenar studies 5 come up with positive findings for Scenar.

  • Kenneth J Hinnenkamp said:

    Sometimes double blind studies are not conducted on certain therapies because of the cost/benefit analysis.

    Did you really just say that… without even a hint of irony?

    …especially on therapies that cannot be patented.


    • So, would you invest millions into investigating a natural substance as a treatment if the payoff potential was nil?

      Only an idiot would do so. But of course defenders of the status quo will promote FUD without a hint of irony.

      • Nice try. But ultimately a complete fail.

      • @Kenneth J Hinnenkamp

        So, would you invest millions into investigating a natural substance as a treatment if the payoff potential was nil?

        It depends how you’ve established that payoff potential. There’s a whole subdiscipline of pharmacy called pharmacognosy devoted to the investigation of pharmacologically active molecules that originate from natural sources. It’s been very successful: many, if not most of the drugs we commonly use have come down this route.

        Meanwhile, I’d be interested in your view of this “instant pain relief” product. Please click the link on that page to the report of the clinical trial of the device and suggest why the trial has not been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

  • Anyone using the term “Quack” in their analysis is obviously biased, a staunch defender of the status quo.

    Bias trumps objectivity. How can it be otherwise?

  • Of course. But in this case I had it from a very good source that the product was effective in healing pain, so I ordered one. If you didn’t read my post above you may have missed that fact that I have a Scenar and used it to heal a condition that I was considering surgery to correct called De Quervain’s Release. So, I have first hand experience.

    Avoiding surgery is a very good thing considering the risks involved in going under the knife. I know someone who had a routine colonoscopy at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN and contracted a staff infection that threatened his life. He survived fortunately, but some don’t.

    The author of this blog is biased as are many of the readers who comment here.

    You are wrong on this issue. You’re obviously biased and your role with the Nightingale Collaboration leads me to believe that you are more interested in defending allopathic medicine than trying to discover truth. I can guess where your funding comes from.

    • @kenneth J Hinnenkamp

      The author of this blog is biased as are many of the readers who comment here.

      But you’re not biased, no siree. I see.

  • Kenneth J Hinnenkamp said:

    I had it from a very good source that the product was effective in healing pain,

    Please feel free to tell us where we can find this ‘very good source’.

    The author of this blog is biased as are many of the readers who comment here.

    If only you could back up your accusation…

    Again, I’ll implore you to start using logic and rational, critical thinking. You may find it quite refreshing once you try it.

    • You want me to back up what is clearly obvious to any critical thinker? OK, I get it. You have been brainwashed by your indoctrination, or what you might call education. I can recommend a couple books to you to help with your own critical thinking. Start with The Trigger by David Icke. You will get an excursion in critical thinking that you will not get elsewhere. If you reject the book because of what someone else says about the author, you are not a critical thinker.
      So read the book yourself and tell me who is the critical thinker.

      • Instead of books, how about posting some, you know, actual evidence that this device is effective in healing pain? Then we can discuss it and compare critical thinking skills.

      • David Icke believes some very, very strange things, Kenneth.

        Much of the theory’s popularity comes from Icke’s interpretations of Gnostic texts such as the Nag Hammadi, as well as biblical Apocrypha like the Dead Sea Scrolls. He says he believes these texts contain evidence that certain higher vibrational beings of frequency, known as Archons, appear on Earth as humans, masking their true reptilian form.

        These “Archontic” forces are undoubtedly evil, intent on enslaving humanity for their own selfish reasons. Icke says these forces are like a computer virus that manifested itself in elite bloodlines throughout mankind’s history. Also known to use their most infamous arm of clandestine influence, the Illuminati, these famous Reptilian shapeshifters form a psychopathic ruling class that pulls the strings in all of the world’s financial and political power structures.

        Would you suggest that these are the conclusions of a chap fully acquainted with the concept of critical thinking, or the deranged, delusional, unevidenced and paranoiac ramblings of someone in the grip of chronic mental illness?

        Or are you standing alongside David with his battle against the shape-shifters?

        • I know David’s critics like to point out the Reptilian angle as proof David is kaka. But in his latest book he makes a very well documented and convincing case that the Sabatean Frankists have corrupted the Jewish faith and infiltrated major governments in Europe and America. Icke calls these usurpers Ultra-Zionists. They own the 6 largest media corporations, Hollywood, the major banks and have scores of well funded and effective lobbies dedicated to influencing governments. They are the social engineers.

          Just because Icke’s ideas seem strange to you means nothing. Your background and bias will determine how you characterize someone’s ideas. And in this case someone’s opinion on Icke might give you an excuse not to read his texts for yourself.

          And regarding your comment.

          “Would you suggest that these are the conclusions of a chap fully acquainted with the concept of critical thinking, or the deranged, delusional, unevidenced and paranoiac ramblings of someone in the grip of chronic mental illness?”

          If you simply make assertions without doing your own due diligence, like reading Icke’s books, perhaps it is you who lacks critical thinking.

          • Kenneth

            I have never carried out any in-depth research on magic carpets, flat earthism, fairies or rain dancing but I know all to be utter nonsense. The deranged ramblings of David Icke can be similarly dimissed.

  • My source on Scenar has now posted this on Twitter.

    “Don’t be fooled. Literature proves Big Pharma has known about fenbendazole for > 40yrs.
    Mice given the drug are explicitly excluded from cancer trials of any kind as they won’t develop cancers.
    Search the med lit yourself. Prove me wrong.”

      • Not just any tweet. If you don’t know the author you are indeed clueless. His software development skills are legendary. He has worked for many large companies, and is revered by many of his peers. He is sought after for his ability to gather data using his web bot invention and filter it down to reportable data. If Clif tweets, it is advantageous to listen.

        But it is best to ignore him if your intention is to preserve the status quo at any cost.

        • LOL! I stand corrected: a Tweet from a software developer…

          • Not just a software developer. One with extraordinary search skills, and an extraordinary intellect.
            He recently had life saving cancer surgery. Following surgery he was referred to an oncologist where he wanted to develop a game plan to prevent his cancer from returning. That’s not what oncologists do, rather they told him that they would periodically test him to see if his cancer markers returned. A passive strategy virtually guaranteeing his cancer’s return. Oncologists don’t make money suggesting cancer prevention.

            Instead he fired his oncologist and decided to use his remarkable skills to find out what he could do to prevent his cancer from returning. He identified heavy doses of liposomal vitamin C, certain mushrooms, GCMAF, and other vitamins and nutrients that will help insure his cancer won’t return.
            So his tweet about fenbendazole is prescient. If it was a scam, Clif would know it.

            Defenders of the status quo here on this blog are not critical thinkers, but they would have you believe it is you who can’t think critically. A form of projection often used in political theater.

            Clif also brought to our attention the molecule Carbon 60. Studies in rats have shown that C60 doubles their lifespan. In another study researchers divided mice into three groups. A control group, a group that received olive oil only and a group that received C60 mixed in olive oil. After some time in the study, a liver toxin was introduced to all three groups to see what would happen. The control group died in the first day, the olive oil group died after one full day had passed, and the C60 group fully recovered. A quick search of Pubmed returns 186 C60 studies.

            The science suggests that C60 helps to facilitate biochemical reactions that your body is designed to do naturally and makes them work better. Donating an electron where needed or collecting an electron if necessary.

            So you are welcome to LOL whenever someone presents you with new information. That is what defenders of the status quo do. They don’t employ critical thinking, don’t bother to do real investigations, and try to influence people not to do their own investigations by laughing things off and calling it quackery or pseudoscience. I’m sure it works with many a casual researcher.

          • Kenneth J Hinnenkamp said:

            Not just a software developer. One with extraordinary search skills, and an extraordinary intellect.


            Still no citations, though.

    • Kenneth

      “prove me wrong”

      Your source should know that this is not the way science works.

      He is making the claim. It is up to him to prove it.

      That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

      • Science is constructed so as to maintain the status quo. Funding what you would call “evidence” is a barrier to doing scientific studies. If there is no profit from patenting something, there is no incentive to spend large amounts of money on studies. In fact it has been demonstrated over and over again that studies that don’t favor an outcome that the funder wants to prove get their funding pulled.

        And let’s talk about vaccine studies for safety and efficacy. They don’t exist. The US government handled that by making vaccine manufacturers immune from prosecution. The government has set aside billions to pay claims for vaccine harms Is science employed when the population is merely guinea pigs for vaccine experimentation? I think it’s pseudoscience. Sham science. What excuse do you put forth for the abominable state of affairs?

        Vaccines are pointed to as potential causes of SIDS, autism, auto immune diseases, cancers, etc. So don’t tell me about how science is done. I’m well aware of what goes on in the scientific community and how it gets funded.

        Science will never present a cure for cancer, but foundations will happily collect money for research pushing the meme that a cure is just around the corner. Nonsense. The cancer industry is far to lucrative for there ever to be a cure. So if your so called “science” will not produce a cure, we are left to our own devices. How convenient for you to claim that is not how science is done. Bravo, your defense of the status quo deserves you a medal from the allopathic medical community.

        How convenient for everyone here to claim there’s no proof. That is not an accident but an intention of the scientific community. See how easy it is to think critically when you know the facts?

        • yes, a persecution complex can be very difficult to treat.

        • Kenneth
          Ah, I get it – how could I have missed it? Your tactic is to distract us with a deluge of every possible anti-science trope, while avoiding the central issue of this discussion, which is: Is there robust evidence for SCENAR? Unless you can come up with that this debate is useless.

          • OK fine. Don’t use SCENAR yourself and go ahead and denigrate anyone who uses it and claims to benefit.

            The body has a mechanism to heal itself, it is called the immune system. In scientific trials often there are some in the placebo group that appear to get relief from the palcebo, but don’t have to suffer through test drug’s inevitable side effects.

            So, how much is invested in determining the effectiveness of placebo? Sounds silly right, but if patients in the placebo group benefit, what did their immune system produce to provide the benefits? What nutrition was needed to provide the immune system with what it needed to do the job? How did the patients’ emotional states effect the study?

            My expose of the medical system is not an anti-science trope, but it reveals how science works effectively to deceive the uninformed. I am a believer in science. But I’m not a believer in how science is conducted today with funding that comes with strings attached. That’s not conjecture, but reality. I’m not anti-science, but I’m anti corrupt-science which is what we have today due to how science gets funded.

            If no studies are funded to study SCENAR, does that mean the technology is not effective, or just that there is no money available to prove it. If it’s the latter, it is very convenient to allege there are no studies. I doubt that the SCENAR technology would have existed this long if no benefits are experienced by their users. But of course that does not meet your narrow definition of proof. Thousands of happy patients and professionals using the technology is evidence of nothing. All anecdotal, placebo effect. Useless information.

            Here is an example for you, a study indicating that fenbendazole may be effective in treating cancer.

            When do you think the double blind studies will come out with human trials? Is curing cancer worth perusing with a cheap K-9 dewormer? Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath.

            So I have logically proven that expensive studies are not performed unless incentives are there to reap profits. If this is not obvious to everyone, it can be attributed to your indoctrination, err education. Another author to help you understand how this works is John Taylor Gatto. He was a 30 year school teacher, five time Teacher of the Year in NY, who has written several works criticizing how education is performed in the West and its goal of dumbing down the population. You are products of this education system as I am. However I have evaluated my education and broken free of the mind control mechanism called public education. Until you question and evaluate your own education you cannot consider yourself a critical thinker.

          • “I have evaluated my education and broken free of the mind control mechanism called public education.”
            only to become a complete moron?

          • Here’s an exercise in critical thinking.

            Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in America…


            Prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents…


            I’m unable to find one incidence of death or injury caused by SCENAR. But some including myself have reported success relieving pain using SCENAR.

            So let me pose a question.

            Should a pain patient try a SCENAR knowing prescription opiates in many cases lead to addiction and possible death?

            How about trying SCENAR before surgery if as in my case it may relieve the inflammation and solve the problem, allowing me to avoid surgery with its associated risks?

            Now granted, on my left wrist would be covered by insurance as was the surgery on my right wrist.

            For many, what insurance will cover determines the course of action a patient is likely to follow. Its a no brainier decision for most. People pay for insurance and want the insurance benefit. How convenient for the medical monopoly.

            Critical thinking is fun. You guys should try it sometime…

          • have you heard about the concept of risk/benefit balance?

          • Allopathy is a term used to denote MDs from the rest of the medical community. Many med school grads might call every medical practitioner that’s not an MD a Quack. I’m guessing it is a term promoted in medical school to make MDs feel good about themselves as having chosen a noble profession.

            My wife attended nursing school and after her first nutrition class she was informed by her instructor that she now had as much nutritional training as MDs get. As a result MDs don’t put any focus on nutrition as a way to get healthy.

            We have a society that is very unhealthy and consumes unhealthy food pushed on us through TV advertising. Just look at how many Americans are obese as a result of being on the SAD or standard American diet. This is great for Big Pharma as doctors trained not in nutrition but in what pharmaceuticals to prescribe write scripts for: diabetes meds, cholesterol meds, blood pressure meds, the list goes on.

            The fast and packaged food industries provide an endless stream of patients for the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry, not to mention the lab testing industry. If you eat crap, no problem, your doctor has a pill for everything.

          • You should be a politician Kenneth. Chuntering on at length without answering the question.

          • Tu quoque again Kenneth, and not even true.


            It was only a matter of time before you trotted this one out. The hole appeared before you and you carried on walking. You will of course find a way of dismissing it. Let me guess:

            “Medscape is paid by Big Pharma.”
            “All doctors are paid by Big Pharma”.
            “Medical journals are run by reptiles from space”.


          • If you can fit it in between all your reading, look up Dunning-Kruger Effect. I’ll save you some time:

            “In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”


          • Kenneth, you also need to understand a bit more about the placebo effect. You think it’s mediated only by the immune system. Where is the evidence for that? Have you heard of expectation effects? Do you know the difference between intrinsic effect and contextual effect? Regression to the mean?

            You really should not interpret reasonable questions as denigration. All we are asking for is evidence that a rational person can believe. You haven’t provided any, and you expect us to agree with you on the basis of your personal experience, and incredible claims by strange people like David Icke. Meanwhile you distract us with one unrelated wild claim after another. At least try to keep on-topic.

  • @kenneth J Hinnenkamp

    The author of this blog is biased as are many of the readers who comment here.

    But you’re not biased, no siree; I see.

    • Sure I’m biased. When I discovered how the allopathic community operates, bias was unavoidable. If you read the Flexner report and investigate who funded the report and what has happened since the report was published, you get a more accurate view of how we got to where we are in Western Medicine.

      There are plenty of books out there to educate the public about the reality we live in and how we got here. I suggest reading Eustice Mullins, Murder by Injection. Eustice connects the dots for us regarding the people and the corporations involved in delivering healthcare to the masses.

      I’m not saying that all medicine is bad Trauma care has reached a very high standard and ER doctors and EMIs deserve much praise for what they are able to do to save lives. Thank god they are out there when we need them.

      However big pharma is about profits for shareholders first. Life long pharmaceutical consumers who treat their symptoms without getting cured provide huge revenue streams for corporations. Nice gig if you can get it, right?

      • so you have not even understood the Flexner report?

        • I know it marked a dividing point between allopathic and empirical medicine through the process of education funding.

          We have an allopathic system designed by Rockefeller who was reported to have never used allopathic medicine himself.

          • Kenneth, by using the word `allopathic’ you expose your own bias. The word was coined by Hahnemann to apply to any medicine that was not homeopathy. It had some meaning in those days, when doctors could only diagnose on the basis of symptoms, which they tried to oppose. The term is totally meaningless today. Hahnemann did not have access to medical imaging, clinical laboratories etc. So I suggest you stop using it, as it degrades your credibility.

          • Les Rose, you should spread the word about the term ‘allopathic’. Maybe the AMA will stop using it.

          • jm
            Indeed, I object strongly to real physicians pandering to charlatans by using their terminology. The BMA does it as well.

          • “The BMA does it as well.”

            …as do medical colleges, MDs, clinics, surgery centers, Merriam-Webster, Edzard, the National Cancer Institute, sites like MedicineNet, WHO…looks like you’ve got your work cut out for you. Good luck, Les.

          • jm
            Widespread misuse of a term doesn’t change the fact that it is meaningless in a modern context.

          • I hear you, Les. Some of my favorite examples are qi, meridian, and “individualized medicine”. What can you do…

  • Nonsence, the term allopathic is still used to denote the difference between M.D.s and D.O.s.

    Where do you come up with this BS?

    • The word “allopathic” comes from the Greek “allos” — meaning “opposite” — and “pathos” — meaning “to suffer.”
      This word was coined by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in the 1800s. It roughly refers to treating a symptom with its opposite, as is often done in mainstream medicine.

    • Look Kenneth, you can rewrite history if you like but those are the facts. Words are used by various people with various intended meanings, but they may not always be right.

    • @kenneth

      I’ve said this before and I think you’ve earned an “I’ll say it again”. If you think you’re good (or know better) you’re almost certainly comparing yourself with the wrong people.

  • One thing we do know, the human immune system is the body’s way of curing disease. Pharmaceuticals treat symptoms, but do not cure disease. Which is better, treating symptoms or curing disease? If the immune system needs certain nutrition to do its job, would it be better to find and provide the missing nutrition, or prescribe a drug that masks the symptoms and is taken for life? I think we in America and the western medical culture take the easy way out. Prescribe meds that mask the symptoms and provide an endless revenue stream for the pharmaceutical companies. This is the western model of healthcare. Who is served better by the culture of pill for everything prescription meds, patients or pharmaceutical companies?

    Eastern medicine has been around for centuries and has had success treating many human conditions. Take Acupuncture for example. It is a form of energy healing.

    From the NIH website…
    “Acupuncture is a technique in which practitioners stimulate specific points on the body, usually by inserting thin needles through the skin. Studies suggest that acupuncture stimulates the release of the body’s natural painkillers and affects areas in the brain involved in processing pain; however, some trials suggest that real acupuncture and sham acupuncture are equally effective, indicating a placebo effect. Results from a number of studies, however, suggest real acupuncture may help ease types of pain that are often chronic, such as low-back pain, neck pain, osteoarthritis/knee pain, and carpal tunnel syndrome. It also may help reduce the frequency of tension headaches and prevent migraine headaches.”

    My wife, the same person that attended nursing school mentioned above, had double knee replacement in January 2011. After her release from the hospital she sought an alternative to prescription pain medications. She discovered an acupuncturist that helped her completely get off of pain meds.

    The barrier to entry in western medicine is the process put in place by the FDA. In order to get FDA approval, expensive rigorous testing must be performed. No FDA approval and MDs can point to that as a means of claiming an alternative treatment has no efficacy. There’s no proof, no matter how many patients claim their condition has improved due to a treatment.

    Big Pharma makes big money and can afford to engage in drug trials. Conveniently pharmaceutical companies provide their test results to the FDA for drug evaluation and approval. No chance of fraud there right? How many drugs have had to be recalled after they have been approved and released on the public only to be found to cause harm or even death to patients? In some cases these drugs are pulled from the US market only to show up in Africa or some third world country that has no FDA equivalent. How convenient for the pharmaceutical companies. Markets for their tainted drugs.

    • Kenneth, are you ever going to answer a question directly? For example:

      “Pharmaceuticals treat symptoms, but do not cure disease”. I have to emphasise my question: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

      “Take Acupuncture for example. It is a form of energy healing”. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS “ENERGY”?

      “Eastern medicine has been around for centuries and has had success treating many human conditions”. Despite intensive health care reforms, China still ranks about 60th in the world for infant mortality and life expectancy:

      • If pharmaceuticals cured disease, there would be no need to continue taking them. Take diabetes or high blood pressure for example. Treatments are designed to be taken for life. Take the pills, get lab results. Repeat. If your numbers are good, keep taking the pills. If not, adjust the pharmaceuticals. Experience side effects? We have a pill for that. More pills that cure nothing but keep you on the Big Pharma merry-go-round. Deductive reasoning in the absence of so called “proof.”

        Many seniors I know take multiple medications with no hope of getting cured. Some even will likely die if they stop taking their meds. Is this the best Big Pharma can do? I guess it is if the objective is making money. Curing patients, not a lot of evidence of that.

        Diet and lifestyle and the immune system may cure disease, but it is clear that is not the role of pharmaceuticals. The exception is antibiotics. Unfortunately they are abused and the “bugs” are becoming antibiotic resistant.

        Energy is all around us. Life is energy. Quantum physics has proven it. The material world we experience is rendered by what Tesla described as energy, frequency and vibration. Energy is the source of what we perceive as matter. Einstein said “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”

        Michael Talbot proposed the idea of a Holographic Universe. It’s a theory, but to me it makes far more sense than the “accepted” Big Bang theory, of which there also is no proof.

        Now back to SCENAR. It is a Russian invention. There are several competitors out there with their own versions.
        SCENAR is FDA cleared but not FDA approved, which everyone here is hung up on as it means there is in their opinion no proof. However there is indirect evidence of efficacy in the fact that many devices are sold and many practices now offer the SCENAR treatment. Patients like myself have received benefits. TENS units have been sold for a long time and still persist in the market. Both SCENAR and TENS work on the principal of electronic stimulus, but SCENAR has the added feature of a Bio-Feedback mechanism.

        The FDA approves treatments, but the FDA does not approve “cures.” At least none that I’m aware of. In fact if you claim a treatment is a cure for something, you are likely to be thrown in jail. Please provide information on any cures for disease you are aware of that are FDA approved.

        How many Russian inventions get FDA approval? I can find one product from Russia in preclinical trials for an Ebola vaccine. I’m not seeing any others. I’m guessing that Russian scientists haven’t wanted to bother with the expensive and cumbersome FDA approval process in the past, though that may be changing. I guess we’ll see.

        Therefore “official approval” must come through the somewhat limited, very expensive procedure of FDA trials. No matter how effective nutrition may be, it will never get the FDA stamp of approval to cure disease. No one would invest millions to prove an effective treatment or cure unless the potential for monetary benefits exceed the costs. With so much market penetration to date, I doubt the manufactures will see any benefit to going through the FDA approval process. Perhaps they would if you were willing to fund it. Not interested? Imagine that!

        Therefore all we have for SCENAR is anecdotal evidence, which is the same as zero evidence in the inside-the-box thinking of the medical profession. You all ridicule me as someone who does not understand the process, when in fact I understand it very well. It is a process designed for and is very effective at preserving the status quo. It creates a high barrier to entry due to the high expense. If large profits are not available, no incentive to invest large sums of money for proof. This much I understand. I passed Accounting 101.

        The FDA is a corrupt organization. They will stop at nothing to keep an alternate treatment from becoming mainstream. The example of Dr Burzynski is a case in point. He has been treating cancer patients in Houston for a decade or so. His patients were receiving benefits and found his clinic when searching for alternatives to the approved cut, poison and burn treatments. The FDA sued him to shut him down. After failing that, they attacked him in the press. Few if any patients complained, so what was the problem?

        • Kenneth, you crossed one line by citing David Icke, and you have now crossed another one by extolling Burzynski. Do you have no concern for the desperate people who relied on him and are now dead? And who he still claims were successes? And who bankrupted their families for the privilege?

          You still refuse to provide evidence for your claims when asked. It’s not for me to provide evidence, I’m not the one making claims you are. You clearly don’t understand hypertension. Most patients have what’s called `essential’ hypertension, which means simply that there is no clear cause. There are other types such as renal, but most of it can only be treated empirically. The key point here is that essential hypertension is asymptomatic. This is why doctors routinely measure blood pressure. Patients do not come to the doctor with symptoms of high blood pressure, they come for other reasons or for regular screening. So how can antihypertensive drugs be “only treating the symptoms”? There aren’t any! Before these drugs appeared in the 1950s there was nothing to do for these patients but restrict dietary salt and wait for them to get a stroke, renal failure, or heart failure. No the drugs do not `cure’ hypertension, but they do `cure’ the consequences.

          Oh do stop wittering on about `energy’. You have absorbed all the twaddle from certain people who love words like `quantum’, without the slightest understanding of what it means. Energy is the capacity to do work – but don’t rely on me, go back to the physics textbooks. You claimed that acupuncture is an energy treatment. Where is this energy? Please don’t insult my intelligence with fictitious ideas like `qi’ and `meridians’. They have never been demonstrated to exist.

          Back to SCENAR indeed. In Europe it is absurdly easy to get marketing approval for a medical device – far too easy in my opinion. TENS is different, it is a validated method of pain control with a plausible mechanism. Medical devices are very profitable, and in a poorly regulated marketplace it is beyond belief that a device that does what SCENAR is claimed to do would not be worth researching properly.

          The reason I spend precious time on countering your nonsense is that it does real harm. There is a view that crazy ideas about health are to be ignored as silly but harmless. They are not harmless, they attract sick patients away from effective treatment. See

          • I crossed a line with David Icke? Really? And with Stanislaw Burzinski? Really? Of course a defender of the status quo would object to truth being spoke here.

            Let me suggest a book for you. Like David Icke’s books it is well researched and well documented.


            A nerve impulse is a wave of electrical activity that passes from one end of a neuron to the other. Electrical activity is energy.

            I use my SCENAR to effectively control and heal painful injuries in my body. You accept TENS, but question that another type of energy healing device can be effective. Let’s just say that if people purchase SCENAR and use them themselves, they will complain in their reviews if they get no benefit. If they share their positive experiences with the devices, it is up to those they share them with whether to try them or not. SCENARs are now available for $320 on Amazon.
            The people reviewing the Diadens PCM6 seem to be happy with results. Most prefer to use it over taking prescription or over the counter pain meds. Once someone has purchased a device, they may try it for various other conditions. If it works, they can save themselves a trip to the physician. If not, they can always go to see a physician if they feel the need.

            I read a review by a purchaser that complained that he needed training to use it. This is understandable as there are many menu options which can be confusing. I have found some excellent videos on YouTube to get me started. I see there is a training seminar in Miami this February. The more people get trained, the better adoption will be. Maybe people will find it a welcome alternative to addictive and deadly prescription opioids. How good would that be?

            Your opinion of what can be approved for marketing in Europe is exactly what I would expect from a defender of the status quo.

          • Kenneth, you seem obsessed with the `status quo’. Science does not defend the status quo, it is constantly advancing as new facts are uncovered by new methods. What I think you mean by it is that you object to the scientific method, which has been developed over centuries to minimise bias in observations. What you seem to want to do is to rely on anecdotal evidence, and not worry about bias. You keep telling me to read various things. I have looked at some of them and I’m not impressed. Will you reciprocate please and learn about science? You can start here:


            Now I fully expect you to dismiss this as `the status quo’. You are entitled to do that, but if you do you dismiss the very basis of modern life. You dismiss the science that underpins the device you use right now to attack science.

            You keep telling us to open our minds. We do just that, we look at the evidence you provide (when you do – most such questions remain unanswered), and we ask ourselves “could this be the result of regression to the mean, observer bias, expectation etc?”. You however believe that you know more than Nobel laureates in science such as Feynmann and Crick. Try a bit of humility, you might like it.

          • A nerve impulse is a wave of electrical activity that passes from one end of a neuron to the other. Electrical activity is energy.

            Electrical activity is not energy.

            The nerve impulse requires energy in order to propagate. This ultimately comes from burning glucose, which is used to power an ion pump in the cell membrane moving sodium and potassium ions across the membrane against their concentration gradients. This means that the inside of the cell contains mainly potassium and is slighty negatively charged compared with the outside which is mainly sodium. There are also ion channels which open and close in response to changes in the voltage across the membrane which allow sodium in and potassium out; this also changes the voltage, opening the channels further on, and so the impulse propagates rather like a Mexican wave. It is quite different from an electrical current in a circuit.

            y. You accept TENS, but question that another type of energy healing device can be effective. Let’s just say that if people purchase SCENAR and use them themselves, they will complain in their reviews if they get no benefit. If they share their positive experiences with the devices, it is up to those they share them with whether to try them or not. SCENARs are now available for $320 on Amazon.

            Fake reviews on Amazon are big business, and there are companies offering a fake review service in order to place products high up in the searches.

            In any case people tend not to complain about this sort of thing, partly because if they have paid for something they tend to believe in it rather than admit to themselves that they were mistaken, partly because of the placebo effect, partly because most things get better anyway and partly because of the phenomenon of regression to the mean.

        • @Kenneth J Hinnenkamp


          I think very similar to you with regard to medicine, and particularly US Western Medicine.
          I am not as able to express my thoughts are clearly and accurately as you do. I enjoy and enjoy reading your posts.
          I appreciate your ideas on modern day medicine, thanks for expressing your thoughts and opinions.

          • Thanks RG. Getting any fresh ideas across to the “defenders of the status quo” is a waste of time. I was hoping to get through to at least one like minded individual like yourself. Hopefully others will benefit by the discussion.

            My wife was a victim of Western Medicine. She had a condition called scleroderma which went undiagnosed for years. When she was finally diagnosed, she had been on multiple prescriptions to alleviate her various symptoms. They had only one procedure left to treat her following her correct diagnosis. They inserted a balloon in her esophagus to expand it so she could get food down. This only worked for a couple of days and then she could not get food down until her next procedure, which were only allowed six weeks apart. She starved to death slowly and passed in 2017.

            I had discovered a researcher that attributed the rise in autoimmune diseases (of which scleroderma is one) to the vaccine program. There is a tight correlation between onset and growth of the vaccine program and the rise in autoimmune disorders. The researcher I found helped patients by recommending specific nutrition and mineral protocols. Unfortunately I discovered this information too late to do my wife any good.

            I have now discovered another potential treatment for autoimmune disorders that you can pass along if you know anyone. It is called GCMAF. It’s a natural human protein that the immune system uses in its fight against disease. The concept is that because of the standard American diet SAD, the immune system does not make enough of the protein to perform its tasks, but with the addition of GCMAF the immune system is helped along to do what it is designed to do. Heal the body and cure disease. Of course it is not available from any manufactures in the US. But it is available in Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland and the UK. Again, since it is natural, made from Bravo Yogurt, no patent is possible and very expensive studies do not meet any finance department’s cost benefit analysis for investment in studies.

            This insistence on proof is what protects the medical community from challenges to their profit model. They can point to evidence in studies that they offer as “proof.” It’s not really proof, but they can conveniently claim that certain very expensive studies provide better than average percentages for a given outcome. If they can patent the drug, the door is open for obscene profits.

            There are some very good documentaries on how the AMA works to root out competition to the Rockefeller designed allopathic model.


            Mental Illness

            A deep dive into vaccines

            I know that there are marvelous things that trained physicians can do to save lives. Especially with trauma care, heart surgery, organ transplant and other life saving procedures. Thank god for EMTs. But in my opinion the good gives cover to the bad.

          • Kenneth
            I am very sorry to hear about your painful experience. Please tell us the name of the “researcher that attributed the rise in autoimmune diseases to the vaccine program”. Even better, please direct us to their published research.

          • GcMAF? Is there any tinpot nonsense quack nostrum that you won’t latch on to, Kenneth?

            GcMAF is charlatanry marketed at tinfoil hat-wearing delusional fools by brass-necked criminal snake-oil vendors.


          • GCMAF. It’s a natural human protein that the immune system uses in its fight against disease. The concept is that because of the standard American diet SAD, the immune system does not make enough of the protein to perform its tasks, but with the addition of GCMAF the immune system is helped along to do what it is designed to do. Heal the body and cure disease.

            Deglycosylated vitamin-D binding protein-derived macrophage-activating factor (you can see why it is abbreviated to GCMAF) is one of many hundreds or possibly thousands of lymphokines, which are chemicals the body uses to regulate the activity of various parts of the immune system. The immune system is hugely complex and the many interacting feedback mechanisms that control it are only gradually being worked out. In the process many new drug targets are being identified and drugs developed to act on them. I, for one, owe my life to immunomodulatory drugs (such as pomalidamide, daratumumab, bortezumib and filgrastim).

            GCMAF is a protein, which means that it has to be administered parenterally (medical speak for “not via the gut”) in order to get into the system. Proteins which are swallowed are digested and broken down into their constituent amino acids. Proteins produced lower down in the gut (e.g. by Bravo Yoghurt) are too large to be absorbed. So they have to be injected.

            There is not a lot of evidence that it is helpful for anything. There have been some clinical trials which were discredited, and also criminal convictions of people involved in making and selling it.

            Again, since it is natural, made from Bravo Yogurt, no patent is possible and very expensive studies do not meet any finance department’s cost benefit analysis for investment in studies.

            That is nonsense. You might as well claim that it isn’t profitable for pharmaceutical companies to make insulin. You can certainly patent a process for synthesising or extracting natural compounds (though the standard way is to use genetically-modified bacteria), and you can patent the final pharmaceutical-grade product, which in any case has to be licensed before it can be sold. Most of these “natural products” bring huge profits. Look up the price of filgrastim, lenograstim, erythropoietin, interferon… to name a few that are widely used. And then look at the prices of some of the newer biological agents, which can be $thousands per dose.

            Actually, look at the price of insulin in the US, which puts it almost out of reach for many insulin-dependent diabetics who would die without it, a shocking indictment of the US healthcare system (by comparison, in the UK all prescriptions – not just insulin – are free to diabetics, and the NHS doesn’t pay anything close to the US price for insulin).

          • @Kenneth

            I’m terribly sorry to hear about your wife…. wow. I feel your pain.

            First of all, you are correct, probably nobody here at this forum is switching their opinions to the other side of the fence. I have no evidence of seeing that happen yet…. wither direction.

            Yes, disease diagnosis is one of the issues that plagues the industry, in spite of modern advancements. Not to say that CAM or Homeopathy have all the answers either.

            However, I have a friend the went through an issue just a couple years ago.
            He was ill for many months and saw many MD’s, in fact many specialist that ran lab test after test, but could not diagnose his condition. Therefore they could not treat his problem.
            He was loosing weight and feeling terrible, in fact no energy at all. It is likely that there were more symptoms that I don’t recall.

            My friend finally gave up with the MD”s and went to see a Naturopath. The Naturopath was able to identify the problem in short order and rectify the problem. He was eating a diet that Kefir drink was part of his daily consumption. Little did he know that for HIS body, he was throwing off the correct of bacteria/yeast/fungi from the daily dose of Kefir drink. It became an unhealthy ratio and made him ill.

            So in the end, it was a simple dietary issue. This is one example of why all of us should be close attention to our diets. Most people… including MD’s don’t regard diet as a major reason for chronic illness, nor do most of them have much dietary training. If they did, you would think they did tone down the pill prescribing and find a way to convince people how to eat better.

            I mention this anecdote to reinforce the fact that therapeutic mediums outside of SBM can be beneficial. Also to warn you about potential over-consumption of the yogurt…. EVEN THOUGH GcMAF should be a good thing for most peoples immune system.

            I think the claims of GcMAF are well founded. The claims are also quite simple and at the same time interesting. I have done much reading on the subject and I think the potential benefit (especially from making your own GcMAF) is worth the time and trouble. I almost began making my own yogurt a couple years ago…. but never got there. I do know some (elderly) people that are in good health, and they swear by it.

            I’m not sure the correlation is the causation or the result between Nagalase and disease. I don’t think that has been verified… yet. I think there is a possibility that Nagalase could be a result of disease rather than the culprit. However, there is good evidence that Nagalase is present with viruses, so in my view that leans towards causation.

            Promising role for Gc-MAF in cancer immunotherapy: from bench to bedside
            “Although Gc-MAF was successfully used for immunotherapy of cancer patients, their aspect should be considered for future research.
            In conclusion activation and contribution of cells (NK and T helper lymphocytes) and factors relating to immunotherapy are more complicated and costly than using Gc-MAF therapy. Moreover, these cells and factors have shown about 10-fold lower potent activity than the naturally activated (inflammation-primed) macrophages. There is a need to design further studies to directly compare the efficacy of routine cancer immunotherapy using activating NK versus Gc-MAF therapy.
            The question must also be posed as to why this medication has not yet been approved by the FDA. Despite the doubts raised as results of some clinical studies, the efficacy of this drug has been endorsed in several studies. It appears that there are non-scientific reasons that prevent FDA approval”

            With what is known about Nagalase testing, you might think that SBM would be ramping up the testing of diseased patients.

            You are spot on correct about FDA & AMA, acute care, big pharma etc… I agree with you with a whole heart.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

If you want to be able to edit your comment for five minutes after you first submit it, you will need to tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.