THE RANDLE REPORT

PREVENTION AND CURES

It’s a frequently overlooked, or perhaps intentionally neglected, fact that no external intervention, be it by surgery, medico-pharmaceutical chemicals, nutrition or chiropractic, ever cured anyone of anything.

All any external agency can ever do is to bring about circumstances in which the individual is better able to recover.

Medical cancer treatments, for example, cut out, burn or poison affected tissue, in each case causing effects equally detrimental to any healthy tissue in its proximity. Indeed, in the case of surgery, the treatment leaves the body to deal with the additional trauma of amputation.

On a purely stimulus-response basis, this may rally what’s left of the immune systems of the body and the combined threats of the illness, and the acute treatment may raise the impetus of the organism to survive. But this process has enormous variability from individual to individual on the basis of the degree of fight that the subject retains and how much more interested they are in surviving than giving up the ghost.

When we allow ourselves to think in terms of ‘being cured’, we at once abrogate responsibility and invalidate our inherent powers of maintenance and recovery. Vesting the process of ‘curing’ in some – or any – outside agency misses the point, weakens those powers and, perhaps worst of all, allows that agency to pronounce that an individual is ‘incurable’, with sufficient devolved authority and disheartening ‘certainty’ to make it so.

A faulty jet engine cannot be made to work with French chalk, puncture patches or any number of Allen keys, but it would be a very arrogant bicycle repair man who would declare the subject ‘incurable’, though he would be forced to admit that its cure was outside the limits of his own skills and expertise.

Why, we might ask ourselves, in those countries in which the medico-pharmaceutical alliance has the most influence, is it illegal for anyone to claim curative skills or properties? Such legislation in no way protects the private individual. On the contrary, it prevents the possibility of future discovery of ‘cures’ or assistances in the maintenance and increase of wellness.

It is there solely to protect the established monopoly, of course; although, by the diminution of hope it introduces, it adversely affects even that body’s success rate.

‘Where there’s life, there’s hope,’ runs the old adage. The reverse is as true if not more so.

A typical medically engendered ‘study’ recently concluded that there is no ‘statistical benefit’ in taking cranberry juice for cystitis.

What could be the purpose of such a study? Clearly numerous people have been using it with some symptomatic amelioration for decades or centuries. In the unlikely event that its benefits were the result of some kind of delusion or ‘irrational’ belief, did that make it any less beneficial? 

Pharmaceutical painkillers themselves operate by deluding the patient into believing the source of the pain no longer persists.

Once again, the only motive there can be in such a study is to keep up sales of pharmaceutical products. What possible interest are ‘statistical’ results to an individual? Why should she or he believe, or have any truck with, them?

If, as we are expected to accept on the one hand, everyone’s DNA and fingerprints are different, why should we imagine that what is true for one individual is so for all others?

How can a medico pronounce something incurable, when he is leaving out of his calculation the most vital factors of the equation – the uniqueness of the individual and his or her impulse for life? He holds neither the cure nor the keys to the future. All he is saying, in fact, is that he himself lacks the techniques, the equipment or the monetarily determined freedom to intercede further.

No one blames him for the actual situation, but such demolition of hope is completely without justification. If other healing practices do no more than give patients something to try, how can it not be worthwhile to advocate them as the ‘alternative’ they are? People do get well and survive for many years after being branded incurable. Few, or none, of them are the ones who take the doctor’s word as supreme authority.

From BLINDED WITH SCIENCE available from The Book Depository