I hope you won't mind if I answer your post fairly briefly.
The big problem is that you make assumptions as to the existence of entities like "mind", "soul", "soul energy", "love energy" , "laws of love" and so on. I am afraid that these are concepts which simply don't mean anything to me. I'm simply unable to write anything at all if I have to use these terms. So we're really just talking past each other's heads.
This is not to say that I am one of those hard-nosed positivists who can only believe in what can be directly perceived. Most of the universe (96%) is totally invisible to us and, so far, is of totally unknown character. For example, there's "something" that is "glueing" the space between stars so that the whole galaxy spins like a cartwheel and not like a Catherine Wheel (that is with the innermost stars spinning faster than the outermost stars). It may turn out to be ordinary matter which has been difficult to see hitherto, but it might always remain invisible. However, it has a gravitational effect and we are thus able to infer its existence. So I believe in this "something" -- whatever it is. I also believe in some other things which are totally unperceivable but which can be inferred from their effects.
However, as to your comments about the pharmaceutical industry I largely agree with you. I happen to believe that it is one that is particularly prone to corruption and bad practice of all sorts. As a chemist, I am deeply suspicious of most of their advertising. I'm sure that a huge amount of mis-prescribing and over-prescribing goes on to the benefit of doctors and the industry. The only answer to this is a gvoernmental policy of requiring increasing transparency of information from any business or profession, pharmaceutical or otherwise, which supplies products and services to the public. But such is the relationship between some lobby groups and some politicians that such transparency is very slow to become the norm. However, due to increasingly educated voluntary pressure groups, I think we are gradually getting there.
Best wishes,
Keith
At 15:12 09/06/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
When I said, leave it to the scientific mind to ask & then try to prove the obvious,
I simply meant that I'm amazed that the scientific mind demands proof of existence
of what is obvious, and will waste valuable time pursuing what cannot be realized in
terms of a physical or objective validation. Scientists are primarily focusing on finding
the mind within the brain, and I'm saying that it is mind that controls brain, so the
work would have to somehow overcome the limitations of linear thought, which the
foundation of science does not allow for. You cannot measure or seek out an energy
whose force is eternal. It requires no physical confirmation from science; it simply is.
Further to that part, I'm saying that mind is behind creativity. Brain is the machine
which carries out the needs of actual physical operations and physical communication.
Music, art, design, literature, dance, laughter, love and compassion are not measurable
and your capacity for these will never be found in a physical mechanism. Your brain is
incapable of becoming one with creativity, as was suggested by Ray in talking about art
and the artist becoming indistinguishable once involved in a piece.
The soul is what is alive, the brain is but a puppet. You just have to look at the face of
a loved one who has just died to know that that's just not who you knew.
I knew a kitten called Stuey, who stayed at the side of his ailing dog companion day and
night, until the moment his buddy died. He got up and left the dog's side at once, recognizing,
it seemed that what was his companion was no longer there. He never returned to the body.
I'm not certain whether the kitten was raised in a religious household, or whether or not his
"genes" had the programming or capacity for sensing soul energy.
Love energy is that which is the sole force of what is real. What is real is eternal. Nothing
exists that can overcome its extensions. Love is the only force that creates, and is at peace
forever in this knowledge. Love is the condition for true creativity. Power-over is not genuine
power, and its self-serving directions always stray into the avenues of destruction--of self-esteem,
society, or environment. Arriving at the "end game" of the industrial era, we can see the price.
The mind that has been taught badly can mis-create, but miscreations do not last, their basis
being founded on illusions of fear. Fear and its derivatives appear to be real, but are always
overcome by love, just as peace is the only answer to war. Peace is recognized as truth once
it is experienced. Mind weighs love against fear throughout our physical existence, but only
experiences a fruitful life by the laws of love. Again, love cannot be measured; your capacity
is eternal.
I realize that what I'm saying is not being expressed in scientific language and that it is
in opposition to it. Science's inability to consider what they cannot see or measure accounts for
its inability to make requisite progress. It has to open up to evolve. Unfortunately, where money
is involved, creativity is stifled by the need to produce publishable work--which depends on
supportable data that other scientists deem to be traditionally acceptable. This does not mean
that science is generating an accurate representation of all data, and I will use the pharmaceutical
industry as a relevant example.
In an interview about her controversial book,
"The Medical Mafia: How to Get out of it Alive and Take Back Our Health and Wealth"
Guylaine Lanctot, M.D., discusses her experiences with the medical system.
"The bottom line is that the medical systems are controlled by financiers in order to serve
financiers. Since you cannot serve people unless they get sick, the whole medical system
is designed to make people sicker and sicker."
" "Social marketing" or "social engineering" is a science that gets people to buy ideas that
make no sense, whose goal is the submission of conscious, to put consciousness to sleep
in order to influence. Medical social marketing is designed to sell sickness to people in-
stead of health!"
Dr. Lanctot cites one of countless examples of gross misconduct around the polio vaccine and
its contamination with VS-40. Since 1960, authorities have known that polio vaccine is
contaminated with VS-40, which, amongst other things, can cause brain tumours. The culture
of the vaccine is grown on monkey kidneys, and those monkeys are (were) contaminated with
VS-40. A 1989 publication by Edward Shorter called, "The Health Century", remarkably no longer
in print, proved the repressed information and that authorities knew it. Scientists were told by
researchers not to use those contaminated monkeys, but they did it anyhow, in 1960. Dr. Lanctot
has been banned for life from practicing medicine because she dared to speak out in direct conflict
with what mainstream medicine recognizes. Her excellent work prior to publication earned her a
wide following, and she is at least content that she managed to expose the system despite media
opposition.
Joel Lexchin, M.D., wrote a book called "The Real Pushers", about the incestuous relationship
between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical system. As Jim Harding,
School of Human Justice, University of Regina writes:
"Perhaps the book's most challenging conclusion is that it is the expansion of the pharma-
ceutical market by the multinational corporations, and not the advancement of pharma-
cological research per se, which explains the escalating number of prescription (and over-
the-counter drugs) to which the public is exposed. As in other commercial sectors, brand
name marketing--not fundamental innovations--is the core strategy behind the drive
toward power and profits in the pharmaceutical industry. ... ...the World Health Organization
has stated, "In recent years there has been a tremendous increase in the number of pharma- ceutical products marketed; however there has not been a proportionate improvement in health."
...As more people face the disruption of unemployment, pollution, poverty and cutbacks, it will
become even more vital to be critical of the medicalization of social problems and its role in
social control."
Lexchin states that in an effort to expand the use of drugs, the industry has even tried to create
new diseases that require drug treatment, termed "medicalization", in the examples of Valium and
Ritalin. Drug advertising encourages doctors to view social or family problems like loneliness or de-
pression due to unemployment as medical concerns, and anti-depressants are the answer. It's the
easiest solution in the ten minutes they spend with a patient.
He cites that a 1977 report by W.H.O. found that only about 230 of the many thousands of drugs
marketed at the time were really indispensable for health care. In the U.S. the F.D.A. set up
scientific panels from NAS & NRC to evaluate claims for all drugs introduced prior to 1962. Of 16,000
products' therapeutic claims, from both large and small companies, 66% of the claims could not be
scientifically substantiated.
Today, the market is off the charts, and still festering. They can't afford studies that would expose
the industry tactics. Tactics such as releasing drugs to control schizophrenia with a very low
positive response rate, but great patient manageability value in hospital settings, thereby keeping
the patient unreleasable and drugged. A popular thing to do is to change a patient's drug at Christmas
time, according to the countless patients I worked with. Sudden changes to chemical alignment
often results in devastating depression, and even suicide. All patients are introduced to the
bottom of the line drugs first, and climb the ladder every 6-12 months to a more effective one because
the government is encouraged to buy up an abundance of drugs at cheap prices, so they must use up
the surplus first, and provide costly evidence to the patient and the system to support the use of the
next level of control drug.
Dr. Lexchin goes on to quote pharmaceutical industry reps admitting that manufacturing
does not target uncommon diseases as they would not generate sufficient profits.
Another top motivator is whether or not a product can be patented. Lithium was first
discovered as effective in 1949, but the industry waited to research and manufacture it until the
late 60's, once a slow-release process was compounded. L-Dopa, has been known since the 30's,
derived from fava beans, a natural substance not patent-able. Once the drug companies could
synthesize it, Parkinson's patients were finally treated with it.
It was also revealed, by a U.S. Senate Antitrust Subcommittee classifying 176 important drugs,
that countries not issuing product patents performed substantially better than those that did. Also,
Lexchin suggests that directing research toward patentable chemical therapy results in discouraging
research in the fields of nutrition,public health, biochemistry and preventive medicine since funding
is not available. He asks, How much does the knowledge of where funding can come from influence
the kind of questions that researchers are even willing to consider?
Right from college, companies like Eli Lilly provide students with medical handbags full of medical
utensils, offer free vacation seminars to promote their company products, and continue to bombard
the graduate with extensive perks and freebies. The manipulative literature appeals to doctor's ego's,
and the influx of new products precludes the physician's time to properly investigate new products.
Advertising works subconsciously well.
I do have a lot to say about research, and the motivations behind it. Universities are known
to produce some of the best work only when the large corporations are not behind funding. In
these hard economic times, governments are telling universities to go into the business of
fund raising to carry out their programs of training minds. Pharmaceutical/petrochemical
companies account for a very broad range of smaller industries, in addition to the commonly
accepted definitions. In Canada, at Guelph University, renowned for agricultural research,
almost all funding is derived from the diverse pharmaceutical giants, and consequently most
research is now looking at their agendas of genetic modifications and better killer pesticides.
Even when government kicks in, it will very often specify the type of research to conduct because
pharmaceutical companies will have lobbied elected representatives within the responsible ministry,
or worse still, government agendas will promote research that is solely commercially viable.
From the above, you can deduce that scientists and researchers are at best nothing more than
human; some responsible and innovative, others once employed mostly not--just like most other
professions...
I never said that there were separate pathways for the different types of memories. I was
merely trying to account for the activity you described prior to response in the experiment cited.
Why are you surprised that the response seems to be almost immediate? Thought is the
fastest energy possible, but being magnetically attracted (for lack of a better analogy) to the
brain's electrical energy, it gets a bit filtered in time by our memory data.
As to, How do you know you are free to "take" decisions?--barring mind control, you are free to
think what ever thoughts you wish, just as you are free to absorb and process new information
in order to reformulate what you once believed or hypothesized. Freedom will, I must say, be a
condition that may be difficult to arrive at under certain economic and social restrictions. A child
born to a war-torn starving country may never have the opportunities of middle-class America, yet
within its sphere of existence, will still have the ability to feel one way or another about its own
experiences. I'm free to change my mind about all of the above, but reason and logic have led me to
this place, and it had nothing to do with publishable science.
Cheers,
Natalia
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
