Regulation,
Research & Science – Part 1
|
|
March 2004 “If you can measure it, you can regulate it; if you can regulate it, you can control it; if you can control it, you can tax it” So the powers that be –
governments, vested interests and opposing parties clamour together to
force the world of natural healing – a very circular world – into the
very mechanistic, square world of the modern scientific culture.
And those powers that be will receive their dividends in the form
of increased fees and insurances, more ‘jobs for the boys’ in order to
regulate the regulator, and puffed up egos because the public at large is
now protected from the dangerous and subversive world of herbalists,
bodyworkers and healers of all flavours! Back in the past the
Cathars had a saying: “No one person should
be the loser” Unfortunately in our
current society, this does not apply.
There is always a loser and generally the losers belong to the
parts of society outside of the vested interests, governments and
multi-national conglomerates. Regulation
of natural medicine will certainly not benefit the healer.
At least not the true healer. There
are many so-called healers who clamour to put their therapy on the map,
who clamour for racks of certificates on their walls, high-falutin letters
after their names; the prestige of the glossy brass plaque, the pristine
clinic; those who in effect crave being a ‘doctor’.
The world of the The true healer works
from deep within; from the heart, the soul, the mind and the intuition.
With wisdom and compassion. The
healer leaves the brain out of healing and for them it is not always
important to analyse the process or outcome, just record them.
The true healer is not a climber of career ladders.
Their healing is their living practice.
Their reward is the deep inner satisfaction of watching the
sometimes slow, unfurling healing process in an individual; of seeing the
sparkle return to the eyes; the strength to the voice.
The career healer can never understand that this can be enough. In the end I believe that
true healing can never be regulated. How
can what happens at soul-level, with the mind and intuition be regulated
when it cannot even be measured? As
a reflexology tutor I have seen the great increase in the number of boxes
I have to tick to ensure that a student comes up to ‘measure’ and can
qualify. I can tick that they
can file their case studies in a prescribed way; that they can dress in an
appropriate manner; carry out ‘acceptable’ reflexology techniques
(acceptable to whom and prescribed as acceptable by whom?); satisfactorily
complete their case study forms. But
there are no boxes which question whether healing took place; whether the
student ‘sensed’ or ‘intuited’ the needs of the client correctly
and subsequently managed them appropriately; whether the student can
‘manage’ their healing abilities; whether the student adapted their
techniques/skills to meet the needs of the client.
In fact the latter will not be possible under the proposed new
reflexology curriculum due to the limit being imposed on ‘acceptable’
techniques. Some students can
pass all their exams and practical assessments, but in fact should not be
allowed to practice because they are personally too imbalanced.
But there is no box to check for this. To
me, the potential path looks something like this:
True healing is to be regulated out of existence.
Those who operate as a Ultimately,
the general public, if it chooses, will be the loser.
Take the art out of healing and you are left with a mechanized form
of bodywork. A form which has
been so manipulated, so contrived to fit the medical paradigm it never
brings its full benefits to the individual.
A second rate practice which will only ever have second rate
results – as much due to the fact that whatever ‘healing’ is left
will be so overwhelmed by the chemical toxicity of the drugged individual,
it will not be able to even begin to seem to work.
Along this path, it is entirely possible that healing will be
‘proved’ to have no true therapeutic value.
Which after all, will be the ultimate, unseen goal of regulation.
But remaining But
I don’t believe this is the whole story.
Wherever a wall is built – in this case the wall of regulation
– people will always find a way around, under or over it.
The healers will continue to practice.
You only have to see what happened when osteopaths were regulated
in the Osteopathic Act. Large
numbers left their formal regulatory bodies and are finding ways round
continuing to practice. Similarly,
numbers of cranio-sacral workers have left their official body because of
the driven path to regulation being taken.
This will happen in reflexology – I already know of people
finding their way out of the ‘system’ – myself included - as they
are in all other therapies. In
the end there will be the official, regulated And
in the final analysis, the choice of the public will be the
determining factor – and in many cases they will choose the latter.
For many reasons people are moving away from medicine to more
natural based therapies – a desire to move away from a medical system
which controls; from the toxicity of drugs which only treat(?)/suppress
symptoms and not the ‘whole’. As
Further
evidence of the lack of trust or interest in the regulatory process can be
seen in the development of my reflexology school.
Students have signed up for a course when they know I am moving
away from the regulated national curriculum process – and I have a
waiting list of people with the same information.
Common comments include: “thank
goodness for that”, “that’s
fine by me”, “previous
heavy academic courses left me with lots of knowledge but no confidence to
go out and practice”, “I
don’t want to be a clinical ….., I want to be a healer”.
Lots of knowledge but no healing wisdom. The fact is that
regulation does not protect the public.
It doesn’t protect against the Harold Shipman’s of this world,
or the heart consultant who does operations on in-growing toe-nails as a
‘hobby’ – but very badly; or the 1000’s that are killed or
disabled every year by medical interventions or chemical drugs.
What regulation actually does is to provide a screen behind which
people can hide – and literally get away with murder on occasion.
The general public is usually the loser despite regulation in
whatever area of life you might wish to consider – medicine, consumer
issues, food quality, etc, etc. In fact those therapists
who practice outside any official body are very often those who are taking
full responsibility for who they are and for their actions.
There are therapists who practice without any form of insurance –
a stance usually described as complete madness in the current culture of
legal actions. These often
have the greatest courage. In the end ‘Healing’
cannot be measured. Even as
the healer, we do not always know what has happened, but very often both
client and practitioner know very well that something did.
And in the end, what
cannot be measured cannot be controlled. |
Back to Articles Home
Page
A Passionate Plea for Reflexology Regulation, Research and Science Subfertility, Reflexology and Thyroid Function Subfertility, Reflexology and the Adrenal Link
|
Regulation,
Research & Science – Part 2
|
|
July 2004 Research ~ “careful study and investigation, especially in order to discover new facts or
information.” The
Oxford
Paperback Dictionary 1983 “Research”
has become the great byword upon which the acceptance or not of In
November 2000, the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on
Science and Technology into “that
CAM practitioners and researchers should attempt to build up an evidence
base with the same rigour as is required of conventional medicine, using
both RTC’s and where appropriate other research designs.” It goes on to recommend
that bodies such as the NHS R&D (Research and Development) directorate and the MRC (Medical
Research Council) “pump-prime” this area with dedicated research
funding. These bodies are
saturated in a drug-based, doctoring philosophy, hardly an ‘unbiased’
group to be leading research into the area of natural pharmacy, especially
when it is well known that these bodies are largely “pump-primed” by
the large drug company cartels. Whether
consciously or not, researchers will work in the areas that attract
funding and will often unconsciously avoid conclusions that are
unacceptable to the funders. How
accurate does this make the research? The key aspect of this
recommendation is the use of RCTs (random control trials), where
treatments are administered in a standardized and controlled manner to all
patients, with no acknowledgement of individual difference.
The RCT is regarded as the most powerful tool for evaluating
medicine – the gold standard against which all other research paradigms
are measured. And yet the
whole basis of the RCT is fundamentally flawed.
“No acknowledgement of
individual differences” – modern medicine is based on the lie of
the absolute truth – we are all VERY different.
But research chooses to ignore those factors that would not allow
their results to fit. Some years ago I remember
catching a Channel 4 TV documentary on CAMs.
The particular episode that sticks in my mind was devoted to
reporting an RCT study carried out into the use of creative visualization
as a tool in the treatment of cancer.
In other words, certain groups of cancer patients were taught to
‘think’ their cancer better. The
results were, apparently, staggering and proved beyond doubt that those in
the ‘thinking’ group survived longer, better, etc, etc.
But because they couldn’t believe their own science, they were
going to repeat the study, which would undoubtedly mean that more cancer
patients within the ‘control’ groups would die, as they had in the
first study. The complete
immorality of the whole process was to my mind totally unforgivable.
People were dying while researchers were ‘investigating’, and
then dying again because they couldn’t believe their own results.
People’s lives became a game of chance as to whether they were
chosen for the control or visualization group.
Researchers carrying out RCTs play god with human (and non-human)
life - and quality of life – although I was angrily reminded by one
person with whom I discussed this issue that it was a computer that chose
the individuals for the group. How’s
that for denying responsibility? The long-term benefits of
the many through sacrificing the one is often claimed in these
circumstances. I wonder how
the researchers/doctors themselves would feel if they found themselves to
be the ‘one’ with no personal choice as to their outcome. Not one single death of
any being is acceptable in the act of healing. Remember the Hippocratic
Oath: “First Do No Harm The health AND LIFE of my
patient will be my FIRST consideration” (my capitals) Many of the drugs tested
under so-called RCTs are not tested on the intended market in the first
place. Most ‘testers’ are
young, fit and healthy, often medical students keen to earn some extra
pocket-money. The vast
majority of drugs are taken by the elderly, who, on average, can be taking
at least three different chemicals every day.
These elderly people are VERY different from the ‘testers’ –
slower metabolisms, chronic health problems, weaker body systems.
Can you imagine the hue and cry if chemicals were tested on
pregnant women, children or the elderly?
(Although I have seen adverts looking to recruit individuals within
the latter category for researching drugs).
In any event, I would suspect that ‘side-effects’ would show up
very rapidly in any research carried out within this group – and drug
companies don’t want to find ‘side-effects’. Drug combinations are not
tested, neither are they tested for continuous use over many years.
Who can say what is long enough?
One generation? Two?
Are the effects of chemicals being researched on our gene pool?
Our chemicalised bodies are producing already chemicalised and
chemical-dependent babies; it is a well-known fact that the babies of
‘drug’ addicts have to be weaned off the psychotic drugs.
Who is researching the long-term hereditary effect of aspirin for
example – supposedly the safest chemical medicine in the world? Remember that doctoring
is not just about drugs. It is
also about surgery, operations, procedures.
It is stated that 75% of all surgical procedures are not tested, so
next time you go into hospital for an op, remember you may be a
guinea-pig! Nonetheless, let’s
ignore all the bad news for the moment.
RCTs, the gold standard, the most powerful tool for evaluating
medicine, must therefore produce safe drugs and protect patients from
hazardous practices. These
most powerfully tested drugs must be reaping massive rewards as far as the
health of the nation is concerned. Diseases
and disorders must be disappearing into the myths of time and hospitals
must be closing down due to lack of patients. The
facts, of course, are quite different.
Doctors and hospitals can’t keep pace with the bulging queues of
people waiting for treatment. “In
the Children’s Health
Scandal Exposed Polly Hall MAR Journal of the
Association of Reflexologists March 2004 “An
article in “What Doctors Don’t Tell you (January 2004 Vol 14 No 10)
reveals the shocking findings related to medication prescribed to children
for depression. It states that
last year ‘ A later edition of the
newsletter continues the story with the following comments: “By 1994 this
unauthorized usage had increased by 400 per cent, and by which time a
worrying pattern of suicides among children was being established.
This was quickly picked up by researchers, and 20 studies all
confirmed everyone’s worst fears that eight popular antidepressants were
indeed being prescribed to kids, and that an alarming number of children
were committing suicide or were developing suicidal thoughts while taking
one of the drugs.” WDDTRY E-News Broadcast
No 92 – 22 July 20004 (If you aren’t aware of
it, suicide or suicidal thoughts are often stated as potential
side-effects of some anti-depressant medication)
Of course, unproven
natural healing methods are being legislated out of existence by the EU as
being unsafe and a risk to the public!
Unproven drug use seemingly continues without question. And then the powers that
be want the world of natural pharmacy to join in the lies and deceit of
conventional medicine. To give
it its due (even if it did later still recommend their use), the HOL
report acknowledged the potential difficulties of carrying out RCTs within
the world of natural pharmacy. A
world where each person’s individuality is acknowledged – and
honoured. A world where the
health of the whole is greater than the treatment of the part (symptom).
A world where the individual is never treat in exactly the same way
at each treatment. A world
where only natural substances should be used – synthetic, chemical
toxins are inherently damaging to the natural form.
How can double-blind trials be carried out in this world?
Whether I apply reflexology or a simple stroking, there is always
an interaction. It is
impossible for ‘nothing’ to happen.
I cannot switch off my ‘healing’.
I could simply sit in a room with a patient; not touching, not even
thinking of them. Just quiet
and relaxed – there would still be an interaction.
I don’t even need to be in the room with my patient, but simply
think ‘healing thoughts’ and again there would be an interaction,
potentially over many miles (and possibly even many lifetimes, but that
would stretch the boundaries of modern science way too far!)
The power of prayer and distance healing is well documented, but
again ignored so as not to upset the required outcomes. The fact is that there is
no one definitive answer to anything.
There is a subjective, emotive, spiritual dimension to every
possible enquiry, although these aspects are ignored as best they can be.
Every investigation requires some degree of interpretation and
therefore opinion, both from the eyes and mind of the researcher, but also
based on the premised assumptions of the investigation and how that
investigation can be incorporated into the real world.
Change the researcher, or the assumptions, and the results will
change. But there is no doubt
that within the world of natural pharmacy we need to do research.
Each treatment I give is given with an air of enquiry,
investigation and exploration. Who
is this person today? Right
now? What does s/he need right
now? What can I bring to this
process to help bring healing? I don’t look to fix the
person. I don’t set out with
intentions of creating particular changes – I have no right to do that
in the first place. There are
so many possible permutations in each session that it is virtually
impossible to record everything. But
we must do our best. It is
vital to gather information on what works, when, where, etc.
But it is critical that we gather that information following the
fundamental philosophies of natural pharmacy, not those of the biomedical
model. And that we as the
healer follow the Hippocratic Oath: First Do No Harm! |
Regulation,
Research & Science – Part 3
|
|
October 2004 “Science
~ a branch of knowledge requiring systematic study and method,
especially one of those dealing with substances, animal and vegetable
life, and natural laws.” The
Oxford
Paperback Dictionary 1983 The
human brain has two hemispheres – the left brain:
logical, analytical, language, science,
mathematics, categorizing;
the “trying” brain,
usually associated with ‘male-type’ characteristics.
The right hemisphere is more usually associated with what are
considered to be female characteristics: spontaneity, intuition,
subjective, emotive, art,
music, dance, dreaming – a “reflex-action” brain.
In our modern, patriarchal society, these latter ‘female’
characteristics are generally considered to be of second value to the
male, logical type of thinking.
Now, while it may be considered that the world no longer has a
place for the
dreamer, intuitive, emotive responses of the brain, the human being
has evolved with these two aspects
for a reason. Use
of the right-brain has been pushed aside in the mistaken belief that only
left brain,
tech-mech thinking will ensure our survival.
Consequently the ability and necessity to use these right-brain
aspects has largely been dismissed, and aspects of our ‘self’, along
with the ability to use our intuition, have been forgotten.
Using
the definition as given above, science is purely a left-brain aspect.
Objective, analytical, methodical, knowledge-based.
Constantly searching for cause and effect.
Science is the hunt for knowledge – and in the process of the
chase - and
in order to achieve its own requirements according to its own paradigm, it
does this to the absolute exclusion of all subjectivity; of all
right-brain aspects. Any
aspect of ‘right-brain’ characteristics would dissolve the scientific
paradigm. So science is completely
dominated by ‘male-brain’ factors.
And society is now completely dominated by science – and its
results. Creating and
supporting the patriarchal society that exists throughout the world.
Perhaps a chicken and egg state, each perpetuating the other.
But
science is a ‘fix’.
Scientists cancel out unknown factors or create false scenarios to
make the facts fit. For
example, at the far end of scientific research there is a theory that
there is a point of so-called ‘zero-point energy’ – the emptiest
possible state of space at the lowest possible energy, out of which no
more energy could be removed; supposedly the closest that the motion of
subatomic energy ever gets to zero.
So firstly, a ‘false’ scenario is created – that there is a
point of zero energy - because
the scientists can
still measure fluctuations in energy at this point, but don’t know what
they are or how they can possibly exist at this level.
They assume
there must be an ultimate point of ‘nothing’, because that is what
they need to find. So
they simply ‘cancel out’ or ignore these unknown factors.
They further ‘cancel-out’ zero-point energy in physics
equations, when scientists discount this ZPE because it is ever-present
and therefore cannot possibly change anything and more, can’t possibly
count. They call
this process ‘renormalization’.
Throughout the earlier articles, examples have been given from the
world of medical science: of drugs being tested on young people when they
are designed for the elderly; of no acknowledgement of individual
difference, therefore building the premise of medication on a false
scenario. A
second aspect of the ‘fixing’ of science is seen in the fact that the
production of this ‘knowledge’, this ‘science’ is influenced by
various vested interests, both directly and indirectly.
Governments and huge conglomerates fund most scientific research,
and research is most likely to be done in those areas which
are funded, and therefore, conversely, research is unlikely to be
carried out in areas not supported by these bodies.
A step down the line also shows that researchers will avoid
producing ‘evidence’ that would not be welcomed by these bodies,
whether consciously or unconsciously.
The researcher/scientist is not very likely to sever himself from
the hand that feeds him (or her).
An
example of this can be seen in the research into the ‘benefits’ of
fluoridation. Once
the US Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation and began to pour
millions of dollars into promoting and researching it, most bodies were
only interested in looking for the benefits to support the move by the
officials. Very
few bodies had the courage to look into its potential risks.
One aspect of this ‘funded’ science which ought to provide
it’s own positive outcome of the benefits of science, is that vast
amounts of information are produced.
In the example of fluoridation, thousands of pages of
‘scientific’ papers have been produced – and are still being
produced. If
science worked, all this information should prove beyond any measure of
doubt that fluoridation works to the benefit of mankind.
But even with this amount of science channeled into one area, with
a huge range of information on both the benefits and risks, the issue has
not been resolved and
the debate is still open.
There has been no ‘proven’ ultimate right or wrong. Even
where funding is not being provided by large-scale organizations or
government bodies, scientists often become very one-track and
career-minded. They
become psychologically attached, perhaps ‘addicted’, to their own
personal reputations and theories.
Scientific results can easily be influenced by this fervour –
this zealousness. Any
‘scientist’ deemed to step outside the created or fixed norm, outside
established ‘laws’,
is usually dealt with swiftly and severely, like criminals without trial.
Their ideas and theories are censured and they are often blocked
from carrying out any further work in their area of research.
Professors are sacked from universities.
Access to important media publications, to laboratories, is denied.
In extreme cases, scientists have been known to disappear.
For example, Dr Jacques Benveniste (who recently died on 3 October
2004) was attacked and persecuted for his research into the capacity of
water to ‘hold’ a memory of solutions that had been diluted –
whether antibiotics or natural substances.
This is the basic premise which underlies the effectiveness of
homoeopathic dilutions.
It was ‘recommended’ to him that he stopped his research work
into high dilutions – ‘recommended’ to such an extent that, for a
time, no laboratory would allow him to carry out his research.
Any discovery or theory that is at odds with the dictated dogmatism
is rejected and its authors are often dismissed as heretics, something
which has happened since time began.
Galileo, Einstein, Pythagoras.
All had their theories dismissed in their own times.
Entire areas of research, as well as promising new lines of
approach, are thus disqualified. Science
ultimately looks for the one, single, causative factor.
In science, It is just not possible that many factors can come together to
create an outcome. For
example, a scientist called Fritz-Alberto Popp is conducting experiments
to try and establish that the cells of the body emit light rays – what
he is calling ‘biophoton emissions’.
Popp believes that these biophoton emissions answer the question of
how cells communicate and co-ordinate their activities “which only could
occur in a holistic system, with one central orchestra”. (1)
How can a ‘holistic’ system have one central orchestra?
Holism means ‘whole’ – that all things work together.
Cells communicate through light, radiation, electricity, magnetism,
chemicals, hormones, enzymes, and perhaps other ways that we don’t yet
‘know’ of. It’s not just
one of these that is the overriding control – they all work
together, in different ways, carrying different messages.
This
obsession for the ‘one’ is another aspect which over-rides any common
sense in the world of science (but then common sense is seemingly a
right-brain aspect!) The
search for the single equation that holds the key to eternal life.
Science has taken upon itself the role of ‘saviour’.
It has become a messiah – a new religion.
In the name of public health, the general good of all and the
survival of the planet and universe, science will continue to fix its own
outcomes to ensure its own survival. And
like all good religions, science has a set of very single-minded
characteristics:
Science
is no longer full of ‘theories’ (“a set of ideas formulated by
reasoning from known facts”
– my italics), but theologies (“a system of religion”).
Anything which does not submit to the theology is either
manipulated to fit (like forcing natural pharmacy through RCTs), dismissed
or destroyed. For example, in
a report in The Saturday Times, “Every
year, 1.17 million British people – a population the size of The
shocking truth is that 80% of most of the treatments we take for granted
– cholesterol lowering, heart surgery, even treatments for everyday
conditions like arthritis or asthma – have never been scientifically
proven to work, let alone be safe. In
many instances modern medicine’s ‘cure’ is far worse than the
disease” This
single-minded determination means that the constant regression of health,
the ‘facts’ that antibiotics, vaccines and many other medicines are
clearly not working, is being ignored.
Subsumed to the greater propaganda of the infallibility of science.
And like all dying religions, science will find itself clinging
harder and harder to its own propaganda, demanding and enforcing total
obedience – using laws where necessary – in order to continue its own
superiority. In the end
though, and again like all other dying religions, it will be hoisted by
its own petards – its untruths, its fixes.
Lies and deceit can never be enduring. Over
and above all else, though, is the fact that science has brought harm.
All living organisms are being pillaged and poisoned – humans,
animals, our water, our planet, the universe. “In
the
“Every year, 1.17 million British people –
a population the size of Anything
which lives, breathes or moves is open to what can only be classed as
torture – euphemistically called ‘experimentation’.
The animal kingdom in particular has been subjected to untold pain.
In “hydras, the tiny
aquatic animal possessing up to twelve heads capable of regenerating, An
interesting aspect when watching cultural change at a deep level is to see
what happens with the language. Science
– medical science in particular – has started to use words such as
‘holistic’, ‘spiritual’ and ‘healing’.
It has been recognized that these words have become important to
the general public and they are therefore being adopted in an attempt to
‘appear’ to be integrating a different paradigm.
However, as seen in the example above of Popp’s experiments, they
are used incorrectly and without full understanding, and gradually the
true meaning will be over-ridden and changed to suit science. Equally,
within the world of ‘CAM’, ‘scientific’ words are being
incorporated into the world of natural pharmacy – ‘clinical’
reflexology, ‘clinical’ aromatherapy, ‘medical’ herbalism, again
with the same aim - to be recognized
as acceptable to the accepted scientific, biomedic paradigm.
Natural pharmacy is not scientific and never can be.
From David St George – “Research and Development in Herbal
Medicine: Biomedical Research or new paradigm?” “The
reason why complementary medicine must not take the road of submission to
the biomedical paradigm relates to the limitations of orthodoxy itself.
Many scientists acknowledge that we have already reached the limits
of the scientific materialistic paradigm (the parent of biomedicine).
This is particularly so for physics, and since the 1930’s many
great names in physics (for example, Heisenberg), have given clear
warnings to the other sciences about the dangers of building their
theories upon the now shaky foundations of classical physics.
Biomedical science has its roots in the nineteenth century, and the
changes which have taken place in twentieth-century physics have had
little impact on orthodox medical science.
The limits of modern medicine itself have also been discussed and
debated over the past twenty years, within medicine as well as outside of
it. The ability of medicine to
achieve its goal of conquering disease through external biomechanical
engineering has been questioned at a fundamental level, even by medical
scientists themselves.” (Dr
David St George is a consultant in Public Health Medicine and Senior
Lecturer in Clinical Epidemiology at the Royal Free Hospital, In
other words, science itself has been self-criticizing for the last 70
years or so, at least! As I stated at the beginning of this article, we have two hemispheres of our brain. Despite the view that our right-brain will become obsolete as it no longer has a place in the modern, scientific culture – we were designed to operate with both halves of the brain in balance. Too much emphasis on any one part of the brain creates imbalance, dis-ease and dis-order. This can be seen in the constant push for our society to be more knowledge based – an aspect I personally see increasingly in the teaching and practice of reflexology. As our brains are being used in an imbalanced way creating damage to the individual, so that imbalance is reflected in society as a whole: a patriarchal society based almost entirely on the works of science and knowledge; a society which largely dismisses and ignores the wisdom, the intuition, the spirit; the creative force of the more right-brain, female aspects. T |
