MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

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?

250 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.

    https://scenar.com.ru/en/materials/articles-and-dissertations.html

    http://www.scenar-therapy.com/therapy/

    From 2009: Ghostwriting: The Dirty Little Secret of Medical Publishing That Just Got Bigger
    https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000156

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvGdMJdF02A

    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:
        https://www.canhealyourself.com/homeopathy/pdf/Controlled_Clinical_Trial.pdf

        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. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314867/. 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.

          • Les Rose, it might be an impressive response. I just want to point out that you have bought into the believe system of RCTs and evidence by pharma companies which we know to publish good results only.

            Why should a company which produces a SCENAR do it differently? The fact that Russia approves medical devices the same as other countries seems to get forgotten. And you cannot blame the producers of the device that Russia does not (yet) have a medical library in digital form. Because you don’t read trials done in Russia you should not say there are none.

            Of course therapists, medical or paramedical alike, use their believe system when choosing a treatment modality. Nothing wrong with that.

            SCENAR is a medical device and when used properly brings good results for pain relief. There are several mechanisms that can explain the results – some have been shown, other explanations are hypothetical.
            Whether or not it cures disease, proven by RCT which is of course the standard only for pharmaceutical products, or whether it just improves well-being to a point that the patient is feeling well without the need for medication is just nitpicking.

            As a SCENAR practitioner and a medical doctor I can tell you that the device works well even without the paperwork – better than most medication that has been proven to help by RCT …

          • ” RCTs and evidence by pharma companies which we know to publish good results only.”
            why do you post notions that are demonstrably false?

          • @Jorg Prinz

            proven by RCT which is of course the standard only for pharmaceutical products

            Sorry, but this is not correct. The RCT is merely the clinical version of the basic experiment — test vs. control — that is used in every nook and cranny of scientific investigation. The goal of every respectable experiment is to isolate a single (independent) variable under test so that its effects can be directly compared with those in a group that lacks only the independent variable.

            Imagine how you would design a test to show that a plant requires light in order to grow.

            For clinical research the complexity of biology (combined with other variables, e.g. psychological ones) makes it very difficult to isolate the effect of a single test variable, hence the need for double-blinding, placebo treatments that look and feel as near as possible to the ones under test, large test groups and complex statistical approaches to analysis of the data generated.

          • I think Dr (?) Prinz needs to go back to medical school – I worry about his patients.

          • As a SCENAR practitioner and a medical doctor

            RCT which is of course the standard only for pharmaceutical products,

            If you are a medical doctor then you know that this is not true.

  • 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 Devices.Compliance@mhra.gsi.gov.uk. 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.

    • This information is not true!
      RITM SCENAR is registered as a Pain Relief Medical device (TENS) in Russia, USA, Europe, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Korea, Israel. FDA, TGA, etc are public registers where a quick search will show complete information about the device, manufacturer, classification. RITM SCENAR also has CE Mark, ISO9001, ISO13485 and other certifications that can be downloaded from the manufacturer’s website – https://scenar.com.ru/en/company-profile/certificates.html.
      Some other facts about RITM SCENAR .. and questions:
      1. It is a 40 years old technology, invented in 1980s in Russia. RITM OKB is celebrating their 40th Anniversary next year. RITM SCENAR wouldn’t have been around for 40 years if it was a scam device.
      2. There are 12 analogues/copy-cats of RITM SCENAR devices. Who would invest money to copy a technology that doesn’t work?
      3. In USA, Europe and Russia only medical practitioners are allowed to treat patients with SCENAR. In USA SCENAR for personal use is a prescribed device. Why would some of you call these medical professionals charlatans?
      4. There are 2,230,000 pages that include the word SCENAR using google search. Charlatans too?
      5. Clinical researches about SCENAR – there are some, but most of them a poorly translated from Russian language, there are not much placebo controlled, peer reviewed, etc. https://www.scenar.com.au/scenar-research-and-publications/ True. But who is actually responsible for proving or disproving a modality with clinical trials – the manufacturer or the medical system? If doctors, hospitals, governments are so interested in finding a pain management solution for their patients/people, wouldn’t they be initiating and conducting these researches? Or they would be just sitting, waiting and criticising emerging, non-proven modalities? Clinical researches funded by the manufacturer would not be accepted too, as there would be a conflict of interest.
      6. The medical system does not offer an adequate solution for chronic pain. People are suffering for years besides the fact that they were given medicines, proven with vigorous clinical researches. At the end of the day what is more important for the patient – effective non-proven pain relief modality or ineffective and toxic proven medicine?
      7. SCENAR is a word of mouth therapy. Patients hear about it from friends, relatives, colleagues who have experienced it and have had positive results. SCENAR Practitioners are not making wild claims (at least not in the regulated countries) – they just help their patients; then they talk and recommend the therapy to others. This way SCENAR is growing organically even though it doesn’t have all the clinical trials.
      8. SCENAR is a non-invasive, portable pain relief device that requires no consumables or calibration. It is a one-off investment that can be used by the whole family for many years. I have seen an over 20 years old RITM SCENAR device which still works perfectly. Is that brilliant?

      • “who is actually responsible for proving or disproving a modality with clinical trials”
        those who make a claim need to provide the evidence.

        • Edzard,

          There is enough clinical evidence for RITM SCENAR to be manufactured and distributed under the requirements of European Directive 93/42/EEC – both for TENS and RITM SCENAR national and international researches.

          My point was about additional additional trial for doctors who are interested in providing non-invasive pain relief treatment for their patients.

          Or are you referring to the copy-cats of RITM SCENAR devices such as Sanakey, Physiokey, AVAZZIA, etc which do not have any researches for their devices but still claim therapeutic effects?

          • there is NOT enough evidence to demonstrate efficacy

          • Well Elly Tomova, you of all people should have at your fingertips all the evidence you say exists. Please post links here so that we can read it.

          • The link to SCENAR and other analogous devices research, publications, posters and case studies was given in the first post (see point 5).

            Below are links to Randomized Controlled Trials (only) for RITM SCENAR and analogous devices. Two RCT studies are in progress, results are expected end of year 2020.

            1. Jaesung Han, Inbo Han
            A Comparative Study of the Efficacy between Self-controlled Energo-Neuro-Adaptive Regulator and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Whiplash Injury
            The Nerve 2016; 2(2): 33-37
            https://www.thenerve.net/journal/view.php?number=72

            2. Tarakanov AV, Luspikayan SKh, Milyutina NP, Rozhkov AV
            Effect of artrofoon and SCENAR therapy on parameters of LPO and antioxidant system of the blood in patients with postoperative peritonitis \
            Bull Exp Biol Med. 2009 Sep;148(3):497-500
            PMID: 20396722
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20396722/

            3. Tsimmerman IaS, Kochurova IA, Vladimirskiĭ EV
            The effectiveness of SCENAR therapy in complex treatment of duodenal ulcer, and the mechanisms of its action
            Klin Med (Mosk). 2006;84(7):35-41.
            PMID: 16924799
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16924799

            4. Vitiello AL, Bonello R, Pollard H
            The effectiveness of ENAR for the treatment of chronic neck pain in Australian adults: a preliminary single-blind, randomised controlled trial
            Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2007, 15:9
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1963325/

            5. Gorodetskyi I. G., Gorodnichenko A. I. et al.
            Non-invasive interactive neurostimulation in the post-operative recovery of patients with a trochanteric fracture of the femur: a randomised, controlled trial
            J Bone Joint Surg Br, Nov 2007; 89-B: 1488 – 1494
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17998187

            6. Nigam AK, Taylor DM, Valeyeva Z
            Non-invasive interactive neurostimulation (InterX™) reduces acute pain in patients following total knee replacement surgery: a randomised, controlled trial
            J Orthop Surg Res. 2011 Aug 24;6:45
            PMID: 21864362
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21864362

            7. Gorodetskyi IG, Gorodnichenko AI, Tursin PS, Reshetnyak VK, Uskov ON
            Use of noninvasive interactive neurostimulation to improve short-term recovery in patients with surgically repaired bimalleolar ankle fractures: a prospective, randomized clinical trial
            J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010 Sep-Oct;49(5):432-7
            PMID: 20688546
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20688546

            8. Belousova Т.Е. Kholmogorova I.Е.
            Pulse electrical therapy in rehabilitation treatment of tubo-peritoneal sterility
            Clinical Medicine No.1, 2010, p.p. 35-38
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20688546

          • thanks
            which of these studies controls adequately for placebo effects, in your view?

          • Elly Tomova
            Thanks for the references. There is possibly some evidence that SCENAR is effective for pain, although without reading the full texts, which are mostly not available in English, it’s difficult to assess trial quality. I also agree that there might be a plausible mechanism for pain control, but what I am reacting against is extrapolation of these limited results to a wide range of conditions. Also I am reading lots of very fanciful ideas about how it works, eg “by stimulating the nervous system, it is able to teach the body to heal itself”. I would be interested to see any robust evidence for such a claim. There is a very big difference between a palliative effect such as pain control (for which the device is apparently licensed) and a curative effect. Here are two UK practitioners who make such claims:

            https://www.canhealyourself.com/homeopathy/scenar-therapy/

            http://www.sarahwilson.com/2012/02/how-to-heal-autoimmune-disease-the-scenar-machine/

            It never looks good for a device to be promoted in conjunction with homeopathy.

      • Elly Tomova
        I stand corrected, the device was registered by a notified body in Slovakia, but only for pain relief. That does not mean that any robust evidence for the claim was submitted or approved, because the registration process allows for a `substantially similar’ claim. This means that a device claimed to be similar to a previous one doesn’t have to provide any evidence, and the SCENAR technology is 40 years old as you say.

        As far as I can see the UK distributor only makes claims for pain relief, but practitioners are making far wider claims. These fall within the remit of marketing regulation. The claim for pain relief is not entirely implausible, but the mechanism claimed is very implausible. It really is hard to see how the device could unravel signals from the billions of neuron firings that are going on. This is not at all like the coordinated signals detected by an ECG machine.

        • Les Rose,

          I am sorry but your statement is not correct – “There is no registration of Scenar as a medical device so any diagnostic or therapeutic claims are illegal.”

          SCENAR is registered in all the countries I listed in my previous post and maybe more. It is a legitimate and legal medical device – Class IIa TENS for pain relief. The therapeutic claim is Pain Relief. Diagnostic claims cannot be made as it is not a diagnostic device.

          Most SCENAR Practitioners make only pain relief claims that are stated in the CE Mark as well FDA, TGA , etc registrations.

          Those Practitioners who make claims other then pain relief are obviously breaching their country’s advertising code which is a regulatory problem and has nothing to do with SCENAR. It is not right to make such a strong and generalized statement about SCENAR based on some misconducting Practitioners.

          • would you like to disclose that you are employed by the firm producing/marketing SCENAR?

          • Yes Edzard, I am employed in RITM Australia, the branch office for Asia-Pacific of RITM OKB ZAO. Anything wrong with it?

          • thank you.
            nothing wrong with this – but VERY important to know [and you should have disclosed it to start with]

          • Yes I should have disclosed it earlier. In fact this was my intention when I was writing my first post but then I realized the post was too long and I changed my mind.
            Anyway this doesn’t change the content or the context of my posts. I tried to be objective and stick to facts only.

          • fine, then please try to be objective and confirm that proof of efficacy is not available; alternatively, please provide it.

          • @Elly Tomova

            Sorry, but your dissembling response to EE is entirely unconvincing. You have a blatant conflict of interest in the matter of SCENAR and you thought you could get away with not declaring it.

        • Les Rose

          I will send links to full texts of some of the researches when I come back from vacation.

          As I said in my previous posts – practitioners must not make these claims. SCENAR is a TENS device registered for pain relief in USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.

          The claims made by the homeopath are not for RITM SCENAR but for another device called Cosmodic. To my knowledge Cosmodic devices are not registered or CE Marked in Europe, USA and Australia. Yes I agree this damage the reputation of RITM SCENAR.

          The second link – Sarah Wilson – she is not a practitioner but a famous Australian journalist who is sharing her personal experience with SCENAR.

          SCENAR does communicate with the nervous system. The device measures the reaction of the skin (delay in microseconds) from the electrical signal and then adjusts it’s next signal accordingly. The SCENAR impulse is high amplitude, bio-polar with very short duration, each impulse is unique and never repeats. Furthermore, the shape of the SCENAR signal is very similar to the action potential which is one of the reasons that the body does not accommodate to the SCENAR stimulation unlike the conventional TENS devices. The hypothesis about the mechanism of action of SCENAR is that the therapy stimulates the release of neuropeptides. Until this is proven, only pain relief claims can be made.

          I wish you all Merry Christmas and a Happy Year!

      • @Elly

        Great post. I have a SCENAR that I purchased and used to correct a problem I had that was recommended I have De Quervain’s release surgery for. Seeking an alternative to surgery I learned about SCENAR and decided to give it a try. After a month of daily use I saw a marked improvement in the pain I was experiencing, after 6 weeks the pain had totally disappeared.

        The doctors here don’t want to believe that a system like SCENAR has potential to treat a variety of issues.

        “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

        -Upton Sinclair

        • “After a month of daily use I saw a marked improvement in the pain I was experiencing, after 6 weeks the pain had totally disappeared.”
          guess what: this applies exactly to dozens of health problems I had – except I did not use SCENAR or any other bogus therapy.

          • @EE

            Thanks for your testimony EE, more evidence that MD’s are also participation in the healthcare scam you refer to as SCAM.

          • de Quervains tenosynovitis usually resolves with time. Of course it is good money for a surgeon to do a simple release with guaranteed patient satisfaction. Probably pays college for many american surgeon’s children. So I am not surprised our friend was recommended surgery. Instead of looking it up and learning just giving it time and rest would help, the fool bought a gimmick with blinking lights to play with while nature took its course.

        • Kenneth,

          Thank you for supporting my post.

          It is really sad that the medical system in the Western world is so conservative and there are so many interests involved.

          I am from Australia, where people are very open minded and health cautious. Natural therapies including SCENAR are thriving here because more and more people are realizing that they can take control of their health as you successfully did.

          It is a personal choice and people who what to go in this path must not be slammed with articles like this one.

          • @Elly

            Natural therapies including SCENAR are thriving here because more and more people are realizing that they can take control of their health as you successfully did.

            Characterizing a SCENAR device as “natural” (you can see one here) is about the same as characterizing a motor vehicle as “natural”.

            Please stop trying to flim-flam the readers of this blog.

  • 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:

        https://epidermolysisbullosanews.com/2017/11/21/interview-with-scientists-behind-potential-epidermolysis-bullosa-gene-therapy-and-hassan-surgeries/

        https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24487

        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.
            https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24487

            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 [http://www.microbiomeinstitute.org/blog/2016/1/20/how-many-bacterial-vs-human-cells-are-in-the-body] 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.

        • @Jashak

          This is all BS. It is true that healing can be made to be a very complex thing for doctors to isolate and treat, but the immune system when functioning properly navigates the complexity and does the heavy lifting. So, if we figure out what the body needs, nutrition, minerals, stem cells, whatever it is that makes the immune system work at peak performance, we are on a way to a cure, not a treatment.

          The latest word on genetics is epigenetics. There is a mind body component to healing that is ignored by conventional western medicine. Professors with integrity actually will leave tenured positions when they discover what they are teaching is BS and are told to continue teaching it anyway. But those with a greater need for a paycheck will gladly compromise their integrity and continue to collect their pay. This is how it works at universities. As a consumer of a University degree myself, I witnessed first hand what happens if you challenge the system. You get marginalized. This is also what happens if you leave the system to promote alternative theories backed by evidence. The education system is very slow to change due to stiff resistance.

          Making healing evermore complicated than it needs to be, the unsuspecting public will have little choice but to put its faith in the “holy” medical system as the bringer of good health. The endless propaganda and in your face advertising keeps potential patients in the fray.

  • 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Information_Center

    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 https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/news/disciplinary-hearing-for-derbyshire-based-vet-adjourned/ for more on him) is very “interesting”. A baby grew a new kidney.

  • I want to know more about scenar technology.

    Thanks

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

      • You’re an obvious protector of the status quo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=scenar

        • 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.

    • Just google it and you will find many references. Google “SCENAR near me” to find practitioners who use it.

  • 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.

    Oops!

    • 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.

      • Only an idiot would do so.

        Or a Government-funded research body such as the Medical Research Council.

        Or a charity such as Cancer Research UK.

        Not everybody working in health care and biomedical research is in it for profit.

  • 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.
    @clif_high

    “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.

            Wow.

            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 https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html. 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, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30093705 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.

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

            https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-america.html

            Fact:
            Prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents…

            https://www.crchealth.com/find-a-treatment-center/opiate-addiction-treatment-centers/additional-resources/prescription-drugs-outpace-car-accidents-leading-death/

            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.

            https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/917696

            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”.

            etc

          • 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.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

          • 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.

          https://thefreedomarticles.com/western-medicine-rockefeller-medicine/

          • 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…

      • You are correct about conventional medicine being a leading cause of death in this country. Also, we are all familiar with the “opioid crisis.” If there are benign treatments that give people relief, this is actually a benefit, as you say, avoiding surgery and pharmaceuticals, which may not be benign.
        I have a SCENAR and a COSMODIC. They are both amazing. All the dickering here means nothing to patients who just want to feel better. I agree that for patients seeking relief: caveat emptor. Do your due diligence before committing to ANY treatment. Common sense. As my mother says, “half of all doctors graduated in the lower half of their class.” But keep an open mind and don’t automatically write off something because it’s different.
        My daughter is a surgeon, and a good one. She has a SCENAR too, and uses it on herself. She would rather not have surgery if she can avoid it.

        • Kathy
          “You are correct about conventional medicine being a leading cause of death in this country.”

          Please provide evidence.

          • @Les Rose

            Death by medicine may not be the leading cause, but it’s in the top three.

            Les, the “proff” will never completely show up in the statistics. This is because there are many many deaths due to poor medicine that happen that will never be tied to medical treatments.

            That said;
            https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/

          • Oh for heaven’s sake RG, that claim was debunked some time ago:

            https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/917696

            Try to keep up.

          • RG,

            This study has already been debunked. Even the numbers themselves make no sense whatsoever as they would imply that between a third and a half of all hospital deaths are due to errors (i.e. about 10% of all deaths in the US) which is plainly nonsense. This clearly didn’t occur to the authors of the study, who were not clinicians or epidemiologists, and who were using a database designed for billing which was not validated for any other purpose. They then extrapolated to the wider US population without any consideration of whether their sample was representative or to what extent the populations were comparable.

            Looking in more detail at what constitued a death due to medical error in the study is quite edifying as any unexpected adverse event (such as an antibiotic rash) in somebody who subsequently died (for instance from terminal cancer) would fit the bill.

          • @Dr. JMK

            So Doc

            Perhaps you could supply some evidence of what you mean when you say the study was debunked.
            I searched and found only two articles that attempted to debunk the claim that medical errors contributing to a leading number of deaths. However, I was not impressed with the proof of evidence, nor the logic.

            One reason I disagree with the logic is this, even if a number of deaths are attributed wrongly to medical error, I am quite certain that an equal or greater number of deaths that ARE medical error are not counted as medical error deaths.
            I myself could have easily died from Vioxx consumption and nobody would have known suspected any issue other than my heart quit pumping.

            When the MD’s wanted to pull the plug on life support when my father in a coma, whom ended up living 20 more years. Had they done so and pulled the life support, it never would have been recorded a medical error, yet it would have been a fatal error.

          • @RG
            Did you not read what JMK said? Or did you not understand it? He explained there some of the important failures, so in fact he debunked this trope himself. It is also easy to find articles that explain clearly how the claim does not make any sense.
            We have repeatedly discussed this here.
            As I and many more have repeatedly and respectfully told you, we cannot begin to take your naive, prejudiced rants seriously when it is obvious from your contributions that you know nothing about medicine and health care and you are blinded by a resentful and paranoid anger towards health care. Your only sources seem to be repositories of falsified health information such as Mercola and NaturalNews, which make money from lies and misinformation.

          • @RG

            It really comes down to a very simple question: how do you define a medical error? (JMK’s example is a beautiful illustration of the difficulty but, as ever, you choose either not to understand the point he’s making or ignoring it for the reasons Bjorn gives.)

          • One reason I disagree with the logic is this, even if a number of deaths are attributed wrongly to medical error, I am quite certain that an equal or greater number of deaths that ARE medical error are not counted as medical error deaths.

            What do you disagree with? Logically if there are 250,000 – 400,000 deaths per year in the US from medical errors this implies that between a third and a half of all hospital deaths would be from medical errors. The logic here is very simple and is fundamental to arithmetic. I pointed out that the conclusion here is absurd, and yet you are now contending that the death rate is even higher – are you saying that ALL hospital deaths are due to mistakes?

            How can you be quite certain of something without any evidence or information to base it on? You seem to be making your mind up out of thin air. Surely you don’t expect anybody to be convinced by such an argument, and you must realise that it doesn’t reflect well on you, either.

            I myself could have easily died from Vioxx consumption and nobody would have known suspected any issue other than my heart quit pumping.

            Yes, but you didn’t. You can’t count being a member of an at-risk population as being the same as the occurrence of an event.

            When the MD’s wanted to pull the plug on life support when my father in a coma, whom ended up living 20 more years. Had they done so and pulled the life support, it never would have been recorded a medical error, yet it would have been a fatal error.

            I am glad to hear that your father had a better outcome than his doctors were expecting. However, if he had died it would not have been an avoidable death in the context that we are discussing, as it was expected. In any case, his doctors didn’t pull the plug, so it is another case of you attempting to bolster your argument by citing something that didn’t happen.

            It is good to be aware of near-misses and we can all learn from them, but they do not form part of mortality statistics.

          • @Dr. JMK Frank Odds & Bjorn

            Perhaps one such reason your inability to understand the facts is because you are reading in your own narrative. Stop attempting to make the reporting fit your own rational.
            The study is making the very point that you are attempting to refute due to the statistics. For one, the study made no claims to hospital error deaths, the claim is to medical error deaths. This would include;

            “Medical mistakes that can lead to death range from surgical complications that go unrecognized to mix-ups with the doses or types of medications patients receive.
            But no one knows the exact toll taken by medical errors. In significant part, that’s because the coding system used by CDC to record death certificate data doesn’t capture things like communication breakdowns, diagnostic errors and poor judgment that cost lives, the study says.”

            Read those above two paragraphs again for maximum impact…. please.

            “Bob Anderson, chief of the mortality statistics branch for the CDC, disputed that the agency’s coding is the problem. He said complications from medical care are listed on death certificates and that codes do capture them.

            The CDC’s published mortality statistics, however, count only the “underlying cause of death,” defined as the condition that led a person to seek treatment. As a result, even if a doctor does list medical errors on a death certificate, they aren’t included in the published totals. Only the underlying condition, such as heart disease or cancer, is counted, even when it isn’t fatal.

            The Johns Hopkins authors said the inability to capture the full impact of medical errors results in a lack of public attention and a failure to invest in research. They called for adding a new question to death certificates specifically asking if a preventable complication of care contributed.

            Anderson, however, said it’s an “uncomfortable situation” for a doctor to report that a patient died from a medical error. Adding a check box to the death certificate won’t solve that problem, he said, and a better strategy is to educate doctors about the importance of reporting errors.

            While no method of investigating and documenting preventable harm is perfect, the authors write, some form of data collection of death due to medical error is needed to address the problem.

          • On one hand we have scientists and doctors each with many decades of academic education, training and professional experience. They proudly take part in the discussion under their true identity. On the other hand we have incognito amateurs who hide behind pseudonyms and get all their knowledge and arguments from whatever dubious and fake information they find on the internet that seems to corroborate their belligerent resentment towards anything that has to do with health care and modern medicine.
            Whom shall we trust and take advice from? The true experts who have been helping people for decades and take pride in educating?
            Or shall we rather listen to the cowardly nameless trolls or belligerent wannabe’s who do not seem to have opened a a thick book in their lifetime apart from the telephone catalog, and only know how to copy-paste well known nonsense they find on the interweb?

  • 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:

      https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2349

      • 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? https://www.jpands.org/hacienda/blevins1.html

        • 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?

          https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/

          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 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30027204

          • 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.

            https://ia601302.us.archive.org/12/items/MurderByInjection.EustaceMullins/Murder%20by%20Injection.%20Eustace%20Mullins.pdf

            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. https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B01G1XU4JG
            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:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

            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. https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B01G1XU4JG

            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

          Kenneth

          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.

            Cancer
            https://youtu.be/NESE5JZtckE

            Mental Illness
            https://youtu.be/nSz2X58oLSQ

            A deep dive into vaccines
            https://youtu.be/sT25HhAVhhU

            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.

            https://www.gov.uk/government/news/notorious-noakes-10m-guernsey-gcmaf-crook-imprisoned

          • 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

            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.
            https://www.yemoos.com/blogs/yemoos-blog/how-much-kefir-should-i-drink-each-day

            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.
            http://healerswhoshare.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/P531-533-Nagalase.pdf

            Promising role for Gc-MAF in cancer immunotherapy: from bench to bedside
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15848273
            “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.
            https://livinglovecommunity.com/2017/02/06/nagalase-testing-nagalase-care/
            http://blog.renointegrative.com/2018/04/26/nagalase-gcmaf-and-cancer/

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

          • RG,

            Virtually all the research on nagalase as a useful tumour marker and GCMAF as an effective treatment for anything was done by Nobuto Yamamoto, and indeed you have linked to one of his papers.

            He was a biomedical researcher a few decades ago, but when he produced the work on nagalase and GCMAF he was well into his 80’s and long retired. He gave as his affiliation “The Socrates Institute”, which happened to be registered at his hoe address and seems to have been largely made up. Nearly all of his papers on the subject have been retracted by the journals which originally published them, and it seems that not only has nobody else been able to replicate his claims, but also there is very little evidence of any documentation of his studies that the papers were supposedly based on.

            That didn’t stop him patenting his work and then selling on the patents to Efranat, an Israeli biotech company, who are still trying to find something that GCMAF is good for.

            I’m afraid I don’t find any of this very convincing even as a line of research to pursue, much less a useful treatment for anything.

  • Les,

    On the rise in autoimmune disorders and possible link to vaccines.

    Dr. Bergman

    https://youtu.be/Nqggy05RqNY

    Dr Tent.

    https://youtu.be/ogJxitcJcJg

    And I suggest reading…

    Dr. Mary’s Monkey
    by Edward T. Haslam

  • I find it interesting how many alternative healthcare professionals wind up dead. Coincidence?

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/cancer-and-autism-mysterious-deaths-of-alternative-health-doctors-who-have-real-cures-not-approved-by-the-fda/5465809

    But oncologists are freely allowed to treat patients with immune system killing toxins and radiation as FDA approved medicine. Kill cancer cells and the patient often dies from pneumonia or some other disease the compromised immune system is to weak to fight thanks to the “approved” cancer treatment. All while the family goes bankrupt trying to continue their loved one’s treatment.

  • @ Dr. JMK

    Doc
    Nobuto Yamamoto was not a lone wolf. As you know, many MD’s were following his steps, but for some reason many if not most of them were mysteriously killed. Interesting how that plays out in time.
    If there are MD’s or therapist today following Nobuto Yamamoto therapy steps, we wouldn’t know about it as they are underground now.

    It is interesting how much of the new research from SBM cancer therapies are focusing on Immunotherapy now…. no ?

    Let me ask you something. So you doubt the value of GcMAF as a beneficial treatment for cancer. Do you also doubt the presence of Nagalase in vaccines ? And, do you disagree with the notion that Nagalase is well associated with cancer and other chronic disease ?

  • Kenneth
    Bergman eh? I have a complaint against him with the California Board of Chiropractic Regulators. Child abuse and misleading claims. They won’t do anything of course. Why on earth do you think I should regard him as an authority?

    Randy Tent? Another chiropractor with no publications in the scientific literature. If these people have made such momentous discoveries why are they unknown to the medical journals?

    Edward Haslam? As conspiracy theorists go he seems to be somewhat extreme. Are you not able to cite some real scientists?

  • You use the age old strategy. Don’t argue the topics, don’t look into the sources they present. Discredit the person because he practices a different discipline.

    Are you disputing the subject of Haslam’s book, that vaccines were cultured on monkey kidneys. And scientists found problems with the vaccines. Would you have no problem with that?

    Autoimmune diseases and cancers are skyrocketing. If we continue on the same trend line, one in two male children will be born autistic in thirty years. But hey, by all means, lets all have forced vaccines. It will suit the elites’ depopulation agenda just fine.

  • EE

    I’ve done my research already.
    You start googleing yourself if you really want to know. The evidence is plentiful.

  • EE

    I’m not playing your game

    • I KNOW! evidence is not your game.

      • EE

        RG said;
        I’ve done my research already.
        You start googleing yourself if you really want to know. The evidence is plentiful.

        The professor said;
        I see – you don’t have the evidence
        [googling is not researching]

        RG said;
        EE, I’m not playing your game

        EE said;
        I KNOW! evidence is not your game.

        RG got a blocked post to a link;
        https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/207593

        • RG,

          Have you actually read that paper you have posted to? Or have you taken the lazy approach and just looked at the abstract?

          Essentially it is about epidemiological changes that should be taken into account for the purpose of planning healthcare services. It specifically looks at the question of chronic illness in children, and focuses on a few common problems where the incidence is increasing.

          The main ones are obesity and asthma. We all know the reasons for increasing childhood obesity (bad diet and inadequate exercise). There are various ideas as to why asthma has become more common, but epidemiomlogical evidence suggests that children are less exposed to animals than they used to be – asthmas is much less common among children growing up on farms, for instance.

          They also talk about a number of mental health problems, such as ADHD, autistic spectrum disorder and depression (they dismiss the last as they don’t have evidence that it is increasing); they point out that these are problematic as the definitions have changed, which makes it very difficult to assess changes in incidence or prevalence, and with greater awareness fewer cases are going undiagnosed.

          I am not sure how any of this supports your contention that autoimmune disease and cancer are getting commoner (though as the biggest risk factor for cancer is increasing age, and people are living longer than they ever have previously, the rise is much in line with expectation).

          • @Dr. JMK

            Hello again Doc

            Dr J said;
            “Essentially it is about epidemiological changes that should be taken into account for the purpose of planning healthcare services. It specifically looks at the question of chronic illness in children, and focuses on a few common problems where the incidence is increasing.”

            This is irrelevant Doc, the fact that they are looking at the evidence to plan changes going forward or the fact that only a couple of chronic illnesses are the focus.
            The abstract clearly states… without any qualifications that you want to inject.
            “The number of children and youth in the United States with chronic health conditions has increased dramatically in the past 4 decades. The increased prevalence of chronic conditions has greatly changed the face of child health and the types of conditions observed by child health care professionals.”

            I purposefully posted a reference to childhood chronic illnesses. I knew that the professor would combat any study of chronic illness that indicated the rise of the same, using the argument of age, that people are living longer. The truth (and the evidence) is that childhood chronic illnesses incidence rates are on the rise, and have been for decades. I’ll post more links verifying my position… if need be, but do we really need to play the game ? Open your eyes !

            This is the very reason I “didn’t want to play the game” with the professor.

            You two with the help of your cronies here continually find reasons not to agree with or accept information from the opposing side.

            You continually spin the facts (as you’re done here), refute the evidence as false, refute the website as being insecure, refute the source, reject arguments falsely by charging with fallacy, use your own fallacy arguments, attack on the basis of incompetence, refute personal testimony, demand scientific evidence… etc.

            Like I said, you play the game well. It must be nice to have all that money blowing at your back to push your agendas.

          • RG
            Money? What money? That sounds like an accusation of bribery. What do you mean?

          • You continually spin the facts (as you’re done here), refute the evidence as false, refute the website as being insecure, refute the source, reject arguments falsely by charging with fallacy, use your own fallacy arguments, attack on the basis of incompetence, refute personal testimony, demand scientific evidence… etc

            I don’t think you read my post properly. The web site was secure, the paper was (as far as I can tell) sound. Personal testimony is well known to be misleading, and I don’t think it is unreasonable too demand evidence.

            However, I don’t think you have read the paper in question (other than perhaps the abstract, which in this case doesn’t go into much detail), as it doesn’t actually support your argument. Yes, the authors state that childhood chronic illness has increased and they give sound references to support this. They then go on to discuss which illnesses they are referring to and why they are increasing. The main one is obesity. The authors ascribe this to bad diet and lack of exercise. Are you saying that they are wrong and the real reason is environmental toxins, vaccination or whatever?

            And I do think that if you are presenting evidence to back up your arguments, you have a duty to understand what that evidence actually is, how it was obtained, how reliable it is and what it does and does not tell us.

        • @RG

          “The truth is that over-dosing on antioxidants can be harmful…. yes, no argument there. As in so many things, moderation is the key.”

          I agree with you. But plenty of others hold that megadosing with antioxidants like ascorbic acid is a cure-all. Linus Pauling was the originator of this and many continue to preach this line.

          https://behiveofhealing.com/more-matters-treating-illness-megadose-vitamin-c/

          Their claims are unsupported by valid evidence. But still the claims are made.

  • Good morning, gentlemen. I consider myself reasonably well educated and I am currently undertaking post graduate studies in my profession. I am also a consumer- one who contracted a very serious case of post herpetic neuropathy 3.5 years ago and stopped walking from severe pain. I had zero quality of life as I was drugged to the eyeballs. I was treated by my physio with Scenar and was able to not only get off the highest legal doses of Lyrica and Endone, along with other drugs thrown in for the cocktail. About 3 months later I started walking and rehab with Scenar therapy. I bought a Scenar then a Sanakey – the German version of Scenar. I used it according to customised protocol for pain relief from the physio. I was then ecstatic….. What my dilemma is that I have never been able to substantially eliminate the remaining pain, though I find it seems to work best as a very expensive and glorified TENS machine… For The $1300 AUD I was expecting and hoping for more, of course. I currently am visiting the UK . and have a chest infection, I am following the protocol for coughs and colds to no avail, and will have to find a UK doctor to visit. My point is, to those of you who are far more learned than myself in evidence based research and evaluating such topics as the efficacy of devices such as Scenar/ Sanakey etc is that so much energy goes into the debate – mainly discrediting each other’s arguments, I as one of billions of consumers am still left floundering in my inability to find reliable research and make informed decisions. I have very little confidence in any research or evidence based arguments on either side of the debate – my own unsubstantiated experience is that treatment through a therapist is expensive and does not always produce desired results consistently outside of short term pain relief. The hand held self operated device has been reliable in producing short term pain relief on myself, in 3.5 years. This means I have not had to rely on Lyrica and Endone have no other significant positive results. I have personally spoken to the distributors of both both Sanakey and Scenar to see if improving my knowledge and technique would improve results. That has not yet happened. Gentlemen, my final point is I am hoping for a world where consumers such as myself are able to better educate themselves on such purchases- made at some of the most vulnerable times in our lives. I am relying on academics such as yourselves to find a way to work towards developing some small patch of common ground in this argument. This would serve us all better. I cannot say whether I would have got better without Scenar therapy, of course, But my own experience with the devices had not produced any other impressive results. I remain perplexed by the whole situation. as a consumer I need better tools – I wish it was simpler. Meanwhile, I only stumbled on this thread as I was searching for more answers to whether or not my purchase was a lemon, and I am wasting my time “ treating” myself……Please excuse me, I’m off to the doctors…

    • “I am relying on academics such as yourselves to find a way to work towards developing some small patch of common ground in this argument.”
      my post summarised the published evidence; what more do you want me to do?

      • I commented as a consumer- not as an academic interested at all in this debate. I did some work on assisting clients mounting some very large high profile medical class action cases before the Australian Judiciary system. One in particular resulted in a well known multinational company being found guilty and prosecuted for all sorts of heinous crimes against the ordinary man, or, in this case, woman! I have an understandable scepticism of all evidence based research, on any side of any fence and still seek to find those in the medical field that will assist me in a human, reasonable and intelligent manner. – not as a combatative debate – I will leave it to those of you who enjoy it.

    • As long as the advertising and PR businesses remain healthy, it will be very difficult to find reliable information on prospective purchases of anything at all. Where there is money to be made, the public will be misled, whether it is food, healthcare, consumer products…

      Post-herpetic neuralgia is a difficult problem to manage, but it does usually get better of its own accord eventually (though this may take years). Of course that makes it difficult to judge whether the improvement is due to any given treatment.

      i suspect that the reason you are having trouble finding good research into the effects of SCENAR is that there isn’t any, only marketing. Though many of the claims made seem rather improbable.

      • Thank you for your gracious reply, much appreciated.

      • Carbon-60, also known as C60, buckminsterfullerene, fullerene-60 or buckyball, is likely to be the most amazing chemistry discovery of the late 20th century.

        Is the doubling of lifespan in rats an “improbable claim?” How about when it’s backed by evidence? Some “rather improbable” claims are found to be true. But why hasn’t the media and the medical propaganda begun reporting this proven claim? Is it because the test was in rats and not humans? Where do all studies begin? Rats, right? So why haven’t human trials proceeded? Lack of funds perhaps. Lack of will by those who have budgets? Is improving human life only worthwhile if huge profits can be made?

        I suggest that if the information on C60 was widely distributed to the public, the medical establishment would wind up losing revenues because of a healthier population. Less incidence of cancer due to antioxidant effects, fewer health issues caused by toxins in the cells, and less sales of anti-inflammatory meds.

        Better nutrition would also play a role in a healthier population. But instead of the population being bombarded with public service messages about how to improve health through better nutrition and exercise, we instead are bombarded with advertising for fast food and packaged food. This virtually guarantees an unhealthy population ripe for harvesting $$ by the medical industry.

        Pharmaceutical companies pay huge advertising fees to the mainstream media to hawk their wares. If any news story would appear that would threaten a pharmaceutical company’s revenue streams, do you think the media would promote it at the risk of losing advertising revenues? A simple exercise in “critical thinking” would give us the answer. Of course not.

        According to a study published Tuesday (Jan. 8, 2019) by researchers at Dartmouth College, total spending on marketing for condition awareness, health services, lab testing, and drugs ballooned from $17.7 billion annually in 1997 to almost $30 billion in 2016.

        So it seems obvious that the medical industry like all industries is all about the money. Small wonder why when we dig deep and find out it was designed and crafted by the Rockefellers.

        • “How about when it’s backed by evidence?”
          sadly, I don’t see any evidence in your comment

          • Of course you won’t do any research on C60 on your own. If you don’t see the research, you can claim it doesn’t exist right?

            Many studies have been done on C60, so they are not that hard to find. They show marked benefits without harmful side effects. I take C60 daily, and I also give it to my 10 year old Yorkshire terrier. My dog has zero grey hair and is just as energetic today as she was at age 4. I do not think that’s a coincidence.

            “Our results show that while olive oil treatment can lead to an increase of 18% of lifespan of treated rats, C60-olive oil can increase it up to 90%, as compared to controls.

            The prolongation of the lifespan of rats by repeated oral administration of [60]fullerene.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22498298

            https://www.hindawi.com/journals/omcl/2018/1261356/

          • “Of course you won’t do any research on C60 on your own.”
            of course not!
            https://edzardernst.com/2019/09/__trashed-3/

        • According to a study published Tuesday (Jan. 8, 2019) by researchers at Dartmouth College, total spending on marketing for condition awareness, health services, lab testing, and drugs ballooned from $17.7 billion annually in 1997 to almost $30 billion in 2016.

          Yes, we all know that healthcare is broken in the US. Somehow they manage to spend more on healthcare, to less effect, than any other country. Happily the rest of the world mostly has more sensible policies.

          Is the doubling of lifespan in rats an “improbable claim?” How about when it’s backed by evidence? Some “rather improbable” claims are found to be true

          The words “backed by evidence” are key here.

          But why hasn’t the media and the medical propaganda begun reporting this proven claim?

          Which proven claim? I am aware of a number of interventions publshed in the medical literature concerning lifespan increases in rats.

          Carbon-60, also known as C60, buckminsterfullerene, fullerene-60 or buckyball, is likely to be the most amazing chemistry discovery of the late 20th century.

          That is arguable. The most important discoveries in chemistry in the 20th century concern how chemistry works at a fundamental level. But I don’t see what your point is. Why are you suddenly bringing up allotropes of carbon without any context?

          I suggest that if the information on C60 was widely distributed to the public, the medical establishment would wind up losing revenues because of a healthier population. Less incidence of cancer due to antioxidant effects, fewer health issues caused by toxins in the cells, and less sales of anti-inflammatory meds.

          Again I struggle to follow what you are saying here. In any case, most of the studies looking at antioxidants suggest that they cause cancer, rather than prevent it (though the propaganda put about by the health supplement industry would have you believe the opposite). It used to be thought that reactive oxygen species, such as free radicals, might be carcinogenic by causing DNA mutations. Although this was the theory, clinical trials proved the opposite, and it now seems that antioxidants can interfere with the body’s own DNA repair mechanisms.

          • @Dr. JMK

            “Yes, we all know that healthcare is broken in the US. Somehow they manage to spend more on healthcare, to less effect, than any other country.”

            Thank you doctor, you make our case for us.

          • @Dr. JMK

            You said;
            “In any case, most of the studies looking at antioxidants suggest that they cause cancer, rather than prevent it (though the propaganda put about by the health supplement industry would have you believe the opposite).”
            “Although this was the theory, clinical trials proved the opposite, and it now seems that antioxidants can interfere with the body’s own DNA repair mechanisms.”

            Doc, there you go spinning the facts again to back you agenda.

            The truth is that over-dosing on antioxidants can be harmful…. yes, no argument there. As in so many things, moderation is the key.

            If a person is suffering from chronic disease, then one key factor COULD be insufficient antioxidants… not to say that every time that is the only factor. The best source is food, I don’t think that C60 qualifies as a food, even though it’s derived from a food, it’s still a supplement. Every persons need for anti-oxidants will vary, and it’s quite possible that if a person can’t or won’t obtain sufficient antioxidant from diet. In this case, a supplement of a antioxidant that has good bioavailability might be the solution.

          • Doc, there you go spinning the facts again to back you agenda.

            My agenda is to educate and inform, to correct misunderstanding and misinformation, and in the process perhaps I can prevent a few people from making bad decisions about their health. Which facts do you think I am spinning, and do you have evidence that can put me back on the right track?

            I don’t think that C60 qualifies as a food, even though it’s derived from a food

            Actually I think you are more likely to find it in soot.

            If a person is suffering from chronic disease, then one key factor COULD be insufficient antioxidants…

            I am not aware of any chronic disease where this is the etiology (with the possible exception of scurvey, which isn’t really a chronic disease). Do you have any evidence to back this up?

            The best source is food

            To my mind the ONLY appropriate source of antioxidants is food (unless you are treating aniline poisoning or similar), and I am all for a varied diet including plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables. I don’t mean superfoods, which are a marketing invention.

          • What I am saying is that the profit motive trumps, takes precedence over the Hippocratic Oath in medicine. It’s obvious if you research the issue. That is why we will never see a cure for cancer promoted by the FDA. After $100 Billion spent on Nixon’s war on cancer, a cure still eludes us. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/retro-report-nixon-cancer_b_4182302

            MDs are not to blame, it is the medical schools that are the problem. They have been setup to teach doctors how to prescribe pharmaceuticals. Their lack of nutritional training is not an accident.

            A sick population is a population that that is profitable for the medical industry. A healthy population, not so much. So if the medical industry practices resulted in a healthy population, it would run itself out of customers. Businesses don’t survive if they do that, so it is not considered an industry “best practice.”

            Most in the medical profession do not know where disease comes from, with the exception of lung cancer or other cancers that are caused by carcinogens, like cigarettes, chemotherapy and radiation.

            Dr Joel Wallach DVM, ND points to vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Others point to stress.

            Now regarding the aging process.

            “A large body of scientific evidence suggests that long-term oxidative stress contributes to the development in a range of chronic conditions. Such conditions include cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.”

            https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324863.php#antioxidants

            So if as has been shown, C60 fights off free radicals, it can aid in prolonging life.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26387164

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249911/

          • I always suspected you were a rat

          • A rat on the medical system to be sure. And proud of it.

          • MDs are not to blame, it is the medical schools that are the problem. They have been setup to teach doctors how to prescribe pharmaceuticals. Their lack of nutritional training is not an accident.

            This does not sound like any medical school that I know, including the one I went to (Trinity College, Cambridge, followed by Westminster Medical School, now merged into Imperial College, London).

            Most in the medical profession do not know where disease comes from, with the exception of lung cancer or other cancers that are caused by carcinogens, like cigarettes, chemotherapy and radiation.

            Well, that is a large chunk of medical knowledge dismissed in a single sentence.

            A sick population is a population that that is profitable for the medical industry. A healthy population, not so much. So if the medical industry practices resulted in a healthy population, it would run itself out of customers.

            Try telling that to anybody working in (or using) the UK National Health Service, and you would be laughed out of the room.

            I have had a look at your links. Medical News Today seems to be in the business of gathering together into one place most of the nonsense published in the popular press that is vaguely related to health. Much of it is ideas and lab-based research, and comes from press releases issued in the hope that the researchers can improve their chance of getting their grants extended when the funding review comes round. Something alone the lines of “we have had an idea / we have done this study in rats / cell cultures / a small population and had interesting results; if we are allowed to continue then we have thought of a way this could lead to a cure for cancer”. This sort of research is important, but generally it is impossible to know where it is eventually going to lead, and it is not something to base health or treatment decisions on.

            The second link takes us to an English translation (clearly not proofread by a native English speaker) of a paper in Ukranian entitled “FULLERENE C60 INHIBITED FREE RADICAL AND DESTRUCTIVE PROCESSES IN CONNECTIVE TISSUE DURING ADJUVANT ARTHRITIS IN RATS”. The final sentence of the abstract states: “Taken together, these results accentuate the perspective of future investigations of action FC60 during rheumatoid arthritis as a feasible therapeutic agent.” Obviously I can’t read the paper itself so it is very difficult to comment on the soundness of the methods and analysis used. However, the authors aren’t claiming that fullerene should be used as a treatment for anything, only that it is a line of research which should be pursued further.

            The third link is to a review article by a group of BOTANISTS in India describing and classifying antioxidants. It does not mention fullerene.

            I followed another of your links in a different post (I’m not going to wade through this thread again to try and find it). It was a paper by a group in Egypt who were looking at the effects of fullerene in rats on the toxicity of cyclophosphamide, a commonly-used cytotoxic drug. They didn’t go into very much detail in their methodology (not nearly enough for anybody wanting to replicate their experiments) though there were a few things that surprised me, such as their calculating the doses according to weight, rather than surface area, which is much better correlated with biological exposure and effect with this type of drug. It wasn’t very clear whether C60 might reduce the toxicity by inactivating the desired clinical effect.

            Fullerenes may prove in time to have a medical role, but from the very limited evidence you have been able to provide the research doesn’t seem to be anywhere near confirming this, let alone what that role might be or how they might be used.

    • Hi Suzi,

      if you haven’t discovered C60 yet I suggest you look into it. You will certainly get benefits, and hopefully it will help with your pain.

      C60, a powerful antioxidant, protects your cells from oxidative stress, reduces inflammation, and may support increased energy, performance, and endurance.

      Studies of C60 in rats found that it nearly doubled their lifespan compared to the control group.

      https://www.kurzweilai.net/fullerene-c60-administration-doubles-rat-lifespan-with-no-toxicity

      https://c60purplepower.com/about/

    • SuzinUK

      As you already testified,
      “I had zero quality of life as I was drugged to the eyeballs. I was treated by my physio with Scenar and was able to not only get off the highest legal doses of Lyrica and Endone, along with other drugs thrown in for the cocktail.”

      If the pharma drugs were not effective, then I would stay away from the meds for now and monitor the forward science, but don’t get your hopes too high. I’ve been waiting for any new and improved wonder drug for my sons schizo for 13 years, nothing yet. Trust your own analysis, why should you listen to a person that is not walking in your shoes ? I don’t car if the TENS unit is a placebo, from what you have testified, you have a better quality of life without the meds and with the electronic machine.

      You also testified;
      “I was treated by my physio with Scenar and was able to not only get off the highest legal doses of Lyrica and Endone, along with other drugs thrown in for the cocktail. About 3 months later I started walking and rehab with Scenar therapy. I bought a Scenar then a Sanakey – the German version of Scenar. I used it according to customised protocol for pain relief from the physio. I was then ecstatic….. What my dilemma is that I have never been able to substantially eliminate the remaining pain”

      If for now, the only relief is short term relief, than that is your treatment plan for now. Take what you can get, SBM offers no cure for you at this point in time.

      Suz, I’m no drug pusher, quite the contrary. However, have you ever tried any CBD or THC products…. AKA… hemp or marijuana. I can not testify for myself. However, my wife gets some relief from CBD products, she won’t try THC because she has some fears. But, I do have many friends and acquaintances that have testified good results with CBD, THC or a combination of the two, including my own daughter.

      Good to you on finding a permanent solution to you illness.

      • yes, time is often the solution!

      • I’ve been waiting for any new and improved wonder drug for my sons schizo for 13 years, nothing yet.

        I am sorry to hear about this, but don’t hold your breath. The main achievement so far of drug treatment in schizophrenia has been to stop the practice of frontal lobotomy. I am sure that you are aware that drugs can be helpful in managing the acute symptoms but they have a lot of side-effects and are of little use in the long term, although they can reduce relapses in some people (but at a cost in terms of mental functioning and sense of well-being). I think that is the nature of the condition, and I doubt if it will prove to be amenable to wonder drugs. Though I am not a psychiatrist and I am certainly not up to speed with current research.

        • @Dr. JMK

          Ohhhh yes Doc, you are correct, and I appreciate your sentiments.

          “The main achievement so far of drug treatment in schizophrenia has been to stop the practice of frontal lobotomy. I am sure that you are aware that drugs can be helpful in managing the acute symptoms but they have a lot of side-effects and are of little use in the long term, although they can reduce relapses in some people (but at a cost in terms of mental functioning and sense of well-being). I think that is the nature of the condition, and I doubt if it will prove to be amenable to wonder drugs.”

          To make a cure, or at least a treatment, you might think it would help if you knew first of all what causes the illness. Perhaps not in every case, but most of the time. Medical science still doesn’t know what causes Schizo.

          But that hasn’t stopped SBM, in particular the pharma industry from manufacturing meds… and making money in the process. Nor has it stopped State powers from mandating the use of the killer drugs on many people.

        • @EE

          I never ever in my life ever made any claim that “sCAM” as you refer to has any inclination to what causes Schizophrenia…. ever.

          What are you smokin ?

    • SuzinUK,

      Sanakey is a copy-cat and no wonder you haven’t had good results.
      If your other device is RITM SCENAR you can contact RITM OKB for support and further training – https://scenar.com.ru/en/contacts-en.html

      Or the UK distributor – https://scenarworld.co.uk/
      Or the Australian Office of RITM OKB – https://www.scenar.com.au/

  • Evidence? Yea right. This is what passes for evidence.

    Those who PAY for evidence are those who receive the evidence (and approval) they seek.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-repays-industry-by-rushing-risky-drugs-to-market

    No wonder fenbendazole (anti-cancer) has been hidden for 40+ years successfully by the FDA specifically NOT allowing it to be used on test mice in cancer trials.

    • You seem to forget Kenneth, or perhaps you didn’t really pay notice in school? The world is not all USA, it is much bigger. And there are people out there who do not even know what the FDA is. And governments and big and small pharmaceutical producers who are not ruled by the FDA.

      And there are also smart people in other parts of the world, like in Scandinavia for example. The FDA has no jurisdiction there. So if a dog-worm-drug kills cancer, how come other countries have not long since started using it for killing cancer. The people who work in the pharma industry also get cancers, and their loved one’s. How come the “secret” is not out and countries producing Fenbendazole for cancer treatment? They could earn billions every one of them, even if they were all producing the same.

      Could it be that there is something flawed with your sources of information if you believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy to hide a simple drug that could save millions if it was true that it worked?

      https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/03/24/dont-believe-the-hype-10-persistent-cancer-myths-debunked/#miracle-cure

      • Bjorn, I can’t say why other countries not subject to the FDA haven’t picked up on fenbendazole. Perhaps they were unaware of it. As far as I know it is just coming into consciousnesses because of recent anecdotal cases making it into the alternative media.

        I know many travel to Mexico for cancer treatments not available in the US.

        What I do know about Germany however is that there are boutique cancer clinics that are successful in treating cancer with methods that would not be FDA approved, and they have success because they treat the whole patient. Rather than focus on killing cancer cells, they treat the patient.
        https://docplayer.net/23202283-German-cancer-breakthrough.html

        Also, Keith Mann curecd his cancer at home. https://iamkeithmann.com/
        The most astonishing part of his story is what he traced his cancer to.

        • I can’t say why other countries not subject to the FDA haven’t picked up on fenbendazole. Perhaps they were unaware of it.

          When I was a trainee oncologist we used to use antihelminthics in combination with fluoruracil for treating bowel cancer. That was in the early 1990’s. We have much more effective drugs now.

          As far as I know it is just coming into consciousnesses because of recent anecdotal cases making it into the alternative media.

          I’m not sure that requires any comment.

          I know many travel to Mexico for cancer treatments not available in the US.

          I believe the laws in Mexico are rather lax when it comes to fake cancer cures.

          What I do know about Germany however is that there are boutique cancer clinics that are successful in treating cancer with methods that would not be FDA approved

          Yes. They are charlatans exploiting legal loopholes to defraud desperate people of their money. A few of my patients have spent all their money and precious time chasing after their empty promises.

          they have success because they treat the whole patient. Rather than focus on killing cancer cells, they treat the patient.

          As they tell you in their promotional material. However, they never publish any outcome data.

          Also, Keith Mann cured his cancer at home. https://iamkeithmann.com/

          That is a link to Mr Mann’s Web site. However, it seems that you have to pay £20 and read 452 pages to see what that is all about. Briefly googling him I see that he served 7 years in prison for conspiracy to commit arson and that he has been described as a terrorist. This doesn’t inspire me to buy his book.

          • Rather than read Keith’s book yourself, you like many choose to let others characterize him for you. So much for the so called “critical thinkers” here.

            Oncologist’s are expert at defrauding desperate people of their money too. They will put the fear of god in patients and their families. Seems charlatans exist in every profession. These charlatans have the cover of the FDA.

            I recently lost yet another friend to cancer and his chemotherapy treatment. The chemo did nothing for him but hasten his demise and bankrupt his family in the process.

            I don’t think the FDA approved cancer industry publishes records on the number of dead cancer patients leaving bankrupt families behind. This would be a good data point for patients and families to consider when deciding on a course of action for cancer. How much is it going to cost me, and how likely is it that the patient survives (more than 5 years as most patients would probably survive 5 years from diagnosis without expensive “approved” immune system compromising treatments)?

            Medical Expenses the number 1 cause of bankruptcy.

            ​​​A study done at Harvard University indicates that this is the biggest cause of bankruptcy, representing 62% of all personal bankruptcies. One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance, thus bucking the myth that medical bills affect only the uninsured. Add to this the fact that medical bills cannot be included in a bankruptcy transaction.

            Oncologists are only to happy to treat patients with chemotherapy which is a known carcinogen and known to compromise the body’s immune system. This is not in dispute. Treating cancer is among the most profitable fields in medicine for doctors to peruse. Think that might influence an oncologist’s decision when recommending a course of action for a patient?

            Defenders-of-the-status-quo are defending a corrupt and broken system. You point fingers at alternative providers and characterize them as quacks and charlatans only after your money. But MDs who do the same are glorified by the profession.

          • Kenneth

            I agree with the many things you point out about modern medicine.

            I’ve come to simplify my position on SBM with a few words.

            Over-promise and under-deliver….. and yes, the cost is another valid argument.

        • Rather than read Keith’s book yourself, you like many choose to let others characterize him for you. So much for the so called “critical thinkers” here.

          I don’t think you understand me. Reading a 452 page book is quite a commitment and there are many other things I would like to read but don’t have time for. That the author served a long sentence in Her Majesty’s Prison Servive is a matter of public record.

          Oncologist’s are expert at defrauding desperate people of their money too. They will put the fear of god in patients and their families.

          In Britain, cancer treatment is free for everybody who needs it, though the cost of the drugs are a significant burden on the National Health Service. Oncologists here are paid the same as any other specialist, though they are more likely to work beyond their contracted ours (without overtime pay).

          I don’t think the FDA approved cancer industry publishes records on the number of dead cancer patients leaving bankrupt families behind.

          We don’t have the FDA over here so I don’t know exactly what it does. However, as far as I know its main remit is to do with regulating the safety and effectiveness of drugs, and has nothing to do with approving any sort of industry. Collecting outcome or individual finance data is surely completely outside its remit.

          This would be a good data point for patients and families to consider when deciding on a course of action for cancer. How much is it going to cost me, and how likely is it that the patient survives

          Sadly in your right-wing country where the law favours businesses over the rights of the individual that would seem to be a very good idea.

          most patients would probably survive 5 years from diagnosis without expensive “approved” immune system compromising treatments

          It is the drugs that stimulate the immune system which are the expensive ones, not chemotherapy drugs, most of which are off-patent and available generically.

          It is true that many cancer patients would survive five years without treatment – particularly with screen-detected tumours. This would certainly be the case with prostate, breast and bowel cancer, which account for a lot of cancer diagnoses. However, what happens beyond five years is important. But what about germ-cell, reticuloendothelial and haematological malignacies, which are often advanced at presentation, progress rapidly but are in most cases completely curable with chemotherapy?

          Oncologists are only to happy to treat patients with chemotherapy which is a known carcinogen and known to compromise the body’s immune system. This is not in dispute.

          Some chemotherapy agents are known carcinogens (alkylating agests such as cyclophosphamide, for instance) but this needs to be balanced against the risk of not treating the cancer. Protocols are based on outcome data looking at follow-up of real patients. Many other cytotoxics are not carcinogenic, however, and in any case oncologists are moving away from chemotherapy as new treatment modalities are becoming available based on our increasing knowledge of the biology of cancer (and of the workings of the immune system). Targeted therapies and the many forms of immunotherapy are becoming standard treatment now. Not to mention the tremendous advances in radiotherapy over the past few years. Your picture of oncology is decades out of date.

          You don’t seem to be aware that cancer itself compromises the immune system (for instance my cancer has prevented me from making antibodies). The immunosuppressive effects of chemotherapy are specific and well-established, and we know how to manage them.

          Treating cancer is among the most profitable fields in medicine for doctors to peruse. Think that might influence an oncologist’s decision when recommending a course of action for a patient.

          Oncologists spend a lot of time worrying about costs and how to bring them down. Oncology treatment is vastly more expensive than most other areas of medicine, due to the high cost of drugs and also of the equipment involved (particularly building bunkers for containing radiation). The National Institute for Care Excellence (NICE) will only approve treatments that have been shown to be cost-effective.

          Treatment protocols in the private sector are generally similar to those used in the NHS – private hospitals are very much aware of medicolegal issues, and in the main they don’t want the risk of maverick doctors using their facilities. Insurers, too, are insisting that the management of oncology patients is discussed by a multidisciplinary team, as in the NHS (in practice it is usually the same team and at the same meeting). Any oncologist allowing personal gain to influence his treatment decisions is at high risk of being found out, risking his provider recognition, his admitting rights and attracting the attention of the General Medical Council, who can remove his registration and his licence to practise. There is also the matter of colleagues disapproving strongly of such practices, which is usually enough in itself to discourage them (if only out of self-interest, as a private practice is totally reliant on referrals from other doctors).

          You point fingers at alternative providers and characterize them as quacks and charlatans only after your money. But MDs who do the same are glorified by the profession

          No. Quite the reverse. No profession wants to be associated with that sort of behaviour. Most doctors work very hard, generally well over their contracted hours, and put the welfare of the patient first. The NHS runs on goodwill, an its staff do not like cheats and charlatans.

          Medical Expenses the number 1 cause of bankruptcy

          Your country could take a few lessons from the rest of the world. Bizarrely, however, this idea doesn’t seem to be very popular with voters.

          • @Dr. JMK

            “You don’t seem to be aware that cancer itself compromises the immune system (for instance my cancer has prevented me from making antibodies). The immunosuppressive effects of chemotherapy are specific and well-established, and we know how to manage them.”

            Hey Doc, can we set the record straight on that statement ?
            Cancer is the result of a weak immune system, not the cause. The lack of health is the reason for most disease.
            Furthermore, the oncologist my mother saw recommended she limit her vegetables, hmmmm …. that is what you call managing the effects of the chemo ?

            “Most doctors work very hard, generally well over their contracted hours, and put the welfare of the patient first. ”
            Not here in the USA doc. MD’s put the protocol of the AMA first ahead of patients. It’s known as CYA (cover your arse and stay out of court).

            “Your country could take a few lessons from the rest of the world. Bizarrely, however, this idea doesn’t seem to be very popular with voters.”

            The voters accepted the ACA- or at least the congress did…. with no votes to spare.

            Our country will likely accept full free medical for all eventually, we’re already half way there. The ACA (Obama-care) was a step in that direction towards a single payer system, as it was actually designed to fail (and it did fail greatly).
            Not that I look forward to any single payer medical system. Small governments function better. I’ll find my own way through the life… thank you. I don’t need a nanny state.
            Beyond the AMA FDA CDC and the pharma industry, the great problem with our US healthcare system is that it’s not a free functioning capitalistic system…. therein lies the bigger problem. Not that I’m holding my breath for any such thing to come our way in the future. Single payer will arrive later than sooner.

          • Hey Doc, can we set the record straight on that statement ?
            Cancer is the result of a weak immune system, not the cause.

            I don’t know what you do (did?) for a living but after a career spent, among other things, managing the immunosuppressive effects of cancer (and now suffering from them) I can assure you that you are completely wrong here.

            Yes of course certain kinds of immunosuppression (e.g. in transplant patients) increase the risk of particular cancers, mainly unusual ones. That is not in dispute. But cancer itself also affects the immune system adversely. Indeed a large proportion of cancer deaths are ultimately due to bone marrow failure because the marrow has been largely replaced by malignant cells (as mine has; it is a sobering thought that I will probably die from an infection that could have been prevented by somebody else remembering to wash their hands, and I live in fear of encountering somebody with measles or another serious preventable infection against which I have lost my own immunity).

            The immune system is so complex that simply describing it as strengthened or weakened is meaningless. But without bone marrow there is no immune system at all.

          • @Julian

            Your erudite comments are always a source of enlightenment and pleasure.

            Trying to tell RG he or she is wrong is like trying to wash a cat. The cat will not be cleaner but you will become wet and scratched.

            A well known analogy involving pidgeons and chess also comes to mind.
            😀

      • @Bjorn

        “Could it be that there is something flawed with your sources of information if you believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy to hide a simple drug that could save millions if it was true that it worked?”

        The globalist are not concerned with saving millions… the contrary is true.

        • @Bjorn

          Population control has long been part of the elite’s agenda. You can remain willfully ignorant of the facts, but they are there for anyone who wants to look into them.

          There is nothing wrong with my sources of information. But I find that some reject sources based on a third party’s characterization of a source, not researching the source for her or himself.

          https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/globalists-openly-admit-population-control-agenda-and-thats-bad-sign

          “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” -Attributed to George Orwell

          • Population control has long been part of the elite’s agenda. You can remain willfully ignorant of the facts, but they are there for anyone who wants to look into them.

            By the elite do you mean Hitler?

            Actually the most effective way of controlling population is by educating women. This has been shown time and time again, and has now reached the point where the birth rate worldwide has stabilised. Since the majority of people are young, the population will continue to rise as they age but if we do nothing it will reach a steady state after that (leaving aside the effects of climate change).

          • @Dr. JMK

            Really Doc ? Educating women ? …. that’s a really old cliche. What do they need further education about…. specifically ?
            That doesn’t explain very well why adult women (over 18) get unwanted pregnancies.
            How bout access to birth control, and more specifically free birth control, you think that might have something to do with it ?

            BTW- the real increase in birth rates are coming from one main area…. Africa. Beyond that you can point more specifically to one group of people …. Muslims. Muslims are producing offspring at double the rate of Christians.

            Anndddd, we’re obviously off subject
            Apologies to EE

          • That doesn’t explain very well why adult women (over 18) get unwanted pregnancies.
            How bout access to birth control, and more specifically free birth control, you think that might have something to do with it ?

            BTW- the real increase in birth rates are coming from one main area…. Africa. Beyond that you can point more specifically to one group of people …. Muslims. Muslims are producing offspring at double the rate of Christians.

            RG, you are decades out of date. It is education of women in Africa, the Indian subcontinent and other poorer parts of the world that has brought the birthrate down.

          • @RG

            Really Doc ? Educating women ? …. that’s a really old cliche. What do they need further education about…. specifically ?

            How about the need to educate women that birth control exists? That they’re free to use it, despite what their religion (and their male partner) insistently tells them? You might be surprised at the level of ignorance of methods of birth control in many countries. Not everywhere is as sophisticated as the USA — and I’m tempted to point out that, when it comes to unwanted pregnancies, even in the USA many women appear to need educating about birth control.

  • Edzard,

    I take C60 myself and I give it to my dog. People don’t believe me when I tell them my dog is almost 10 years old.

    People think I look youthful at my current age of 67 years.

    I have a friend, an amputee and his wound site was not healing. He takes C60 orally and puts it directly on his wound. His wound is healing where it didn’t heal completely before.

    Although you won’t count personal experience as research, I disagree.

    And Ken Schwartz of Purple Power C60 shares research and invites his customers to share their stories.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZBVXSU8Ciw&list=PLugmCbhVs-uobrWxBNJliKBf-v43tHl34

    • I am impressed!
      finally irrefutable evidence

      • There’s no such thing as irrefutable evidence, only degrees of probability. I know you know this, but apparently you prefer to resort to sarcasm when you have nothing intelligent to say. Rather childish don’t you think?

        Since there is a low probability of harm from trying C60 for one’s self, waiting for what you might characterize as “scientific evidence” before trying C60 is not necessary because of the low or nonexistent risks involved. If the potential for gain far exceeds the potential for harm, the logical course is to give C60 a try. Plenty are using C60 with good results. Should they stop just because you think there aren’t enough clinical studies to confirm efficacy for you?

        The same can be said for SCENAR. In either case you may risk a few dollars to try something. And you may risk ridicule from the defenders-of-the-status-quo for your efforts. But do you really care if you receive benefits? What value do you place on health?

        Many pay for medical procedures or prescriptions that fail or sometimes make matters worse. In some cases prescriptions may even cause death. The Vioxx recall is a famous case in point. Heart attack anyone?

        But no one will ridicule you for taking a drug prescribed by your physician no matter the cost or the effect. Funny how that works. The medical propaganda has effectively modified our behavior.

        It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled. -Attributed to Mark Twain

    • @Kenneth J

      People don’t believe me when I tell them my dog is almost 10 years old.

      Why not? Does he look much older, or much younger? Dogs tend to live to around 10–13 years, depending on their breed. For example, it’s not unusual for a Jack Russell terrier to survive to 16. Now, can you see why an informed reader of your remark will probably regard it as supportive of nothing whatsoever? It’s not evidence because (a) 10 years is far from unusual in a dog and (b) you don’t even tell us which breed it is: not even if it’s a large one or a small one (the latter tend to have longer life spans).

      People think I look youthful at my current age of 67 years.

      Another totally worthless remark. Which people? How many people? How youthful did they tell you you look? In what context did they tell you (most people who make that sort of comment are being politely flattering)? Now, can you see why an informed reader of your remark will probably regard it as supportive of nothing whatsoever? It’s not evidence because it’s far too lacking in detailed information for any reader to judge.

      I have a friend, an amputee and his wound site was not healing. He takes C60 orally and puts it directly on his wound. His wound is healing where it didn’t heal completely before.

      Wounds tend to change their appearance over long periods of time; sometimes quite dramatically. They may appear better, or they may get worse. How can you possibly know that the C60 was in any way the cause of the change in appearance of the wound? Was it the oral form that did the trick, or the topical form? It might have happened anyway or because of something else your friend was doing that he didn’t even imagine would help with his wound.

      Now, can you see why an informed reader of your remark will probably regard it as supportive of nothing whatsoever? It’s simply not evidence of anything. You’d need a large set of amputees grouped to be treated orally or topically with C60 or a placebo that looks exactly like the oral and topical formulations of C60. All of these people and those who judge the post-treatment appearance of their wounds should not know which form of the treatment each subject is receiving. Without these minimal controls your remark is purely hand waving.

      Although you won’t count personal experience as research, I disagree.

      Do feel free to express your disagreement. But your view is beyond wrong: in fact your entire comment is utterly worthless and reveals only that you’re ill-informed.

      And Ken Schwartz of Purple Power C60 shares research and invites his customers to share their stories.

      Ken Schwartz of Purple Power, no less?! Well, if he can make videos and invite people to share their stories I’m sure I could oblige him with “evidence” at a similar worthless level to yours.

      • “People don’t believe me when I tell them my dog is almost 10 years old.
        Why not?”
        could it be because Kenneth is not believed by most people?

      • People think I look youthful at my current age of 67 years.

        People think I look youthful, too. When I was younger I was a bit disappointed in my dead straight, brown hair. Now aged of 58 I still have it (it grew back after chemotherapy) and it is still brown. On the other hand I have widespread cancer.

        People often mistake the age of my dog, too, usually thinking that she is about a year old (she is a six-year-old springer spaniel). Am I missing something profound?

        • Using alternative reasoning, I have reached the conclusion that Fullerene C60 most probably hinders rational thought processes, blocks the acuisition of new knowledge and produces a combination of grandiose and paranoid delusions.

          • Paranoid delusions? Is that how you characterize someone aware of what is happening in the world? No need to be paranoid if you prepare.

            Have you started your garden yet @Bjorn? Northern climates where you reside are going to be particularly challenging for food cultivation.

            https://youtu.be/GaoGrU_hvkY

            Solutions? How about a FarmBot in a greenhouse? Take charge of your food security, grow your own food.

            https://youtu.be/60htrqei_U0

      • I don’t consider my health to be worthless. What is your health worth to you?

        • I think Frank was saying that the evidence that you were presenting was worthless, not your health. Health is the most valuable thing any of us have – without it we are nothing.

          • Woke up this morning with a pain in my toe. I tried stretching my toe to no avail. I grabbed my trusty SCENAR and the pain was relieved in a couple minutes.

            Seems to me the SCENAR works as presented for pain relief. If the pain relief effect is totally in my head do I really care if the pain is gone? If I’m experiencing the placebo effect that’s fine with me. And why should anyone care if I spent my own money for the device? My money, my health done my way. At least I don’t have to suffer the side effects of toxic synthetic prescription or over the counter meds. Far too many leave their health to their doctors and take no responsibility for their health. A doctor can prescribe a pill for everything. Why concern yourself with diet and exercise?

            A trip to the doctor and a trip to the pharmacy costs money too. At least it does here in the US. I think many here place too much focus on people getting “scammed” out of their money. That and the argument that the SCENAR is not tested to their satisfaction.

            Here in the US we have a serious problem with opioid addiction, often resulting in the patient’s death. Wouldn’t we be better off trying SCENAR and or acupuncture first before prescribing opioids and putting patients at risk of addiction? With SCENAR and acupuncture there are no known serious side effects. So low risk and high potential for reward.

            If a bill was proposed in congress to require trial of the alternate pain treatments prior to prescribing addictive opioids how much lobbying do you think it would get from the pharmaceutical companies to kill it? I’m sure it would go nowhere. The medical monopoly controls our healthcare paradigm. It’s big business and the profit motive trumps patient outcomes.

            The United States is projected to spend $5.96 trillion on health care in 2027, a 19.4 percent share of gross domestic product, according to a new report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. The number is high and getting higher.

            In spite of all this spending, US healthcare ranks 11th of 11 nations studied. https://interactives.commonwealthfund.org/2017/july/mirror-mirror/

          • Ghosh am I glad your toe is better!!!

          • Here in the US we have a serious problem with opioid addiction, often resulting in the patient’s death. Wouldn’t we be better off trying SCENAR and or acupuncture first before prescribing opioids and putting patients at risk of addiction?

            Personally I think the US would be better off:
            1. Not allowing pharmaceuticals to be advertised directly to the public.
            2. Training doctors in the proper use of opiates
            3. Not passing laws with the effect of suddenly cutting off the supply of opiates to patients with chronic pain who are already established on them
            4. Not using the term “prescription drugs” to refer to opoids made by back-street chemists and supplied without the involvement of any doctor, let alone prescribed by one.

            For a quick guide to managing pain, primarily aimed at junior doctors, have a look at my blog (sorry I haven’t updated it in a while):
            https://blog.money-kyrle.com/2019/06/16/what-they-dont-teach-you-in-medical-school-about-pain-killers/

          • The outermost joint in my index finger was a bit sore this morning. After I brushed my teeth with my electric toothbrush, it went away and I forgot about it until I read Mr. Hinnenkamp’s story about him using an aparatus to heal his toe with an apparatus .
            Come to think of it, this happens to me regularly. I am stiff in the joints and some of them hurt, then after I brush my teeth, it gets better. I think it must be the toothbrush sending waves of healing energy, don’t you think?
            I can’t remember the make of this magic toothbrush, but if you are very keen on trying it I think any similar electric toothbrush will work in the same way, or not??.

  • @RG, I started with digging into the healthcare issue. Found out it was Rockefeller who crafted our paradigm for oil and pharmaceutical profits. Oil for energy and oil as the carbon molecule used to fashion pharmaceutical molecules. Natural methods were shunned and their practitioners labeled quacks and heaped with ridicule by the allopaths. Med school turns MDs into arrogant narcissists. Modeled after their Rockefelleian creators. Not all to be sure, but those quick to point fingers and label alternatives quacks tend to out themselves.

    After figuring out that the medical profession in the US was mostly about money, I dug into the central banking system. Oddly enough, the Rockefellers were involved there too. Along with a number of sundry scoundrels. A checkered history much has been written about.

    We are now faced with two colliding calamities heading straight for us. If you haven’t noticed, the Fed has been injecting large amounts of liquidity into the banking system since September 16. Several times they gave projections on how much would be provided and each time they increased the projections before arriving at the given dates. Now it’s $500 billion by year end. And given their record of failing projections, it will probably be much more than that. You can bet they are not telling us the whole story. Expect turmoil in the banking system to spill over into view soon.

    The second calamity that is about to befall us has to do with global food production. If you haven’t noticed 2019 was not a good year for agriculture. 2020 is not projected to be a good year either. Late flooding and short growing seasons. Food prices are going up. And supposedly Trump just agreed to a $50 Billion agricultural trade deal with China. Much larger than previous deals. Why so much? China did not have a good harvest this year either. And the African swine flu has devastated their pork supply. And China is aware of the changing weather patterns affecting food production (hint, it has nothing to do with CO2,). Their other major supplier Australia has just become a food importer. Africa is going to be the hot new agricultural zone driven by China.

    The mainstream media propaganda machine is not getting this information out there, so most will be taken by surprise by the coming food shortages and the food price spikes that are coming.

    So a coming famine and a currency reset of some sort can be expected in the next half decade if not sooner. The UN’s Agenda 2030 and CO2 climate change depopulation agenda was to prepare for this. But since Trump defunded the UN it seems they are going bankrupt. Good riddance.

    Medicine will seem less important if people are struggling to pay for food.

  • So a coming famine and a currency reset of some sort can be expected in the next half decade if not sooner. The UN’s Agenda 2030 and CO2 climate change depopulation agenda was to prepare for this. But since Trump defunded the UN it seems they are going bankrupt. Good riddance.

    Medicine will seem less important if people are struggling to pay for food.

    I rather fear that I have to agree with you about much of this. Not to mention water shortages (which have already contributed to much of the trouble with ISIS in the Middle East).

    • @Kenneth

      DJT is attempting to push back on many of the globalist organizations. He just pushed back on the WTO with his USMCA & China trade deals. All this accounts for reasons that he has received the high amounts of negativity and resistance since he began. Trump doesn’t fit into the elitist camp, he’s not one of them.
      I won’t attempt to speak to the famine subject. I just don’t know. But as far as the currency reset, that is a BIGGY…. who knows when it will hit, but I’m convinced it will. Sometimes these things take time to play out. Look at Greece, ten years into the crisis and it’s still floating along…. of coarse with the aid of the EU.

      • is there a subject that you will not bullshit about?

      • @RG

        Trump is in my opinion aware of all things financial and agricultural. The best we can hope for is some kind of smooth transition to some kind of currency reset. He is already setting the Fed up so he can blame them for the fail. I think he is trying his best to engineer something. But the food issue is going to be big. And committing so much food to China at this juncture gives me concerns.

        This farmer has the best information I can find on agricultural issues. He is a very good business man and a great researcher. He is a good one to listen to when it comes to the general lay of the land.

        https://youtu.be/TgDOVND3wgc

        • Trump is in my opinion aware of all things financial and agricultural.

          You forgot to add “almighty” after his surname 😉

          Seeing this and then reading the above quote from our befuddled friend, I just had to share it with you all. That’s a washproof Republican defending his deity.

          Sorry professor, I couldn’t help going a little bit off topic. Mr. Hinnenkamp went first 😀

    • Water indeed is going to be a problem. Frackers here in the US have secured an exemption to the Clean Water Act thanks to Dick Cheney. Fracking fluids are toxic and the frackers pump their waste water far below ground in an attempt to convince the public that fracking waste water will not mix with fresh ground water. An increase in seismic activity may prove their theory to be incorrect.

      https://www.thebalance.com/waste-water-byproducts-of-shale-gas-drilling-and-fracking-1182597

      And then we have overuse of ground water depleting aquifers.

      https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/groundwater-decline-and-depletion?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

      • I wasn’t referring to the US, though I know your water quality as a whole isn’t very good as evidenced by the high rate of water-borne infections in the US. I believe that many Americans are rather resistant to the idea of recycling sewage into drinking water, though those of us living in London like to boast that our water is drunk seven times on its way from the Thames to the sea. Still, the UK is one of the few countries I know where the tap water is safer to drink than bottled water.

        Changes in rainfall patterns and water mismanagement are already causing droughts and this situation is only going to get worse.

  • @Edzard

    So willful ignorance it is for you then! Just as one would expect from a narcissist. 👏

    I understand. Knowing the truth can be quite disturbing when you go down the rabbit hole. Knowing truth may cause you to get off your bum and actually do something about it.

    Blissful ignorance is preferable for many to seeking truth.

  • RG
    The point is that, if you take a treatment that actually works, you get two effects, intrinsic and placebo.

    • @Les Rose

      And my point is that I am not interested in subjecting myself to the risks of the “intrinsic” result. I have for myself experienced for myself, and witnessed for my friends and family that in too many cases the benefit is not worth the reward.
      If you want to take the risks… by all means that is your choice.

      • RG
        The other point that you need to understand is the risk:benefit ratio. That is what therapeutics is all about. It’s what is assessed before a licence is granted. However because RCTs are not powered statistically to measure safety, post-marketing surveillance is usually mandatory. It’s not a perfect system, companies do sometimes game it, but overall most drugs do more good than harm. When you have your stroke will you refuse medication?

        Again please don’t come back to us with `evidence’ from the US health care system. Look at Europe where drug prices are regulated, per capita costs are about half, and health outcomes are better.

        • @Les Rose

          “The other point that you need to understand is the risk:benefit ratio. That is what therapeutics is all about. It’s what is assessed before a licence is granted.”

          And I say “wrong wrong wrong” to that statement…. Les

          First of all price does count for something. However, price is another complete issue, don’t cloud the subject of risk/benefit with price. If I get the identical surgery in England for a lower price than the US, that speaks nothing to efficacy.

          Now, you also speak to the risk/benefit being assessed before the licence is granted. SBM therapies have proved failure to many times for me to continue rehashing here. Failure Failure Failure. Les, the simple fact that there are only a handful of therapies that cure anything should wake you up from your slumber.
          I think many people like myself would rather live with a less risk/benefit ratio that what the FDA has determined is an acceptable level. Especially in light of many failures, and especially in light of over-promise and under deliver medicine.

          • thank you for yet again disclosing total ignorance

          • RG
            You really need to get treatment for this advanced Dunning-Kruger problem you have. You seem to consider yourself more knowledgeable than people with decades of education and experience in medicines R&D. Could you tell us please what scientific qualifications you have? How many publications in peer reviewed high quality journals?

            Oh I forgot, all journals are corrupt and paid by Big Pharma, as are all universities (just to save you the trouble of trotting it out again). You can say “wrong wrong wrong” as much as you like, but you had better have good evidence for saying that.

            In contrast, I am not going to claim the intellectual high ground because I am not the one making implausible claims, you are. I just ask you for evidence. That’s how science works, and if you disagree then by all means give up all the benefits of science, including the device you are using to post these comments.

          • @Les Rose

            “You really need to get treatment for this advanced Dunning-Kruger problem you have. You seem to consider yourself more knowledgeable than people with decades of education and experience in medicines R&D.

            Those people you refer to with decades of education and experience in medicine R&D have an incentive to produce their desired outcome.
            Just as did Mr. Rockefeller.

            Les, if one hundred out of one hundred people I know testify to me that hot tea helps their stomach after a meal, yet hot tea upsets my stomach after a meal …. should I continue to drink hot tea after eating ?
            I make my own conclusion where I can.

          • RG
            Sigh…. You are also suffering from the “tyranny of the discontinuous mind”. Science is not a realm of absolutes. Alt med enthusiasts such as yourself love tagging claims with the word `quantum’. It has come up in these comments. This is odd, as quantum mechanics is rooted in probabilities. You’d think that anyone citing quantum mechanics in support of an argument would know what it means (it was Kenneth actually). For example electron orbitals are plots of the probability of finding any one electron inside a 3-dimensional space. You can never be sure it’s there, you have to make an informed guess.

            To take your example, a clinical trial of tea for post-prandial gastric discomfort will not tell you that all patients will benefit, even if all 100 in the verum group did (you don’t mention a control group). It will just tell you it’s very likely. A doctor might prescribe tea because it has a very good chance of working, based on RCT evidence, but if it doesn’t work, or has more negative than positive effects, that’s what we call medicine. There are no absolutes. Even so, some things are so likely or unlikely that we can pragmatically treat them as absolutes, as almost all the time we will be right. Jumping out of an aircraft without a parachute is extremely likely to be harmful, but people have survived it. Splinting a broken limb is extremely likely to improve healing, but very rarely setting the bones will have been done wrongly. Hence we don’t bother with doing RCTs for parachutes or splints.

          • if one hundred out of one hundred people I know testify to me that hot tea helps their stomach after a meal, yet hot tea upsets my stomach after a meal …. should I continue to drink hot tea after eating ?

            Or as someone I once knew replied when they were asked an awkward question on a television interview:

            “If you asked me for a chicken, would you be satisfied with a turkey?”

  • EE

    Try a new line, this is your typical response when you have no real answer.

Leave a Reply to Les Rose Cancel 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.

Archives
Categories