In this Page, I will explain how the Institute reviews scientific evidence. We use both the National Health Institute’s approach (Section A) as well as the legal “Rules of evidence” approach (Section B) and the European scientific inquiry methodology. (Section C).
An evidence classification system has been developed by the Happiness Medicine, Advanced Cancer Research, Optimal Longevity and Holistic Medicine Law Institutes. (1)
Text under construction
This system both completes and corrects the Federal Government’s biased evidence classification system that was devised by allopathic oncologists who have no training in nutrition, hyperthermia, oxygen therapies, and 90 percent of what works in oncology. (2) Let alone do conventional oncologists have training or experience in the legal evaluation of scientific evidence. For the government’s panel on evidence experts to be People friendly and consistent to scientific rigor, the panel would need to include professors of law, representatives of th People’s folk-medicine (as heuristic sources) and especially professors of medicine who have experience with real medicine. Experience with radiation, surgery and pills should be 2 to 5 percent relevant. Yet the government that monopolizes official “truth” in oncology are only chemo, radiation and surgery oncologists, no other specialist make up the government’s evidence panel. This national evidence system is therefore at the start structurally flawed.
We therefore can not use exclusively this reductionist national evidence system, which at best is akin to what conventional medicine call “quakery”, at worse, misleading claims and health fraud. (3)
One must not forget where the allopathic medical system came from. (4). And even today, despite the weight of the evidence in favor of holistic medicine over allopathic government medicine, the Federal agencies in charge of regulation health services and products are still corrupt to the bone. (5) Not only do most FDA commissioners come from Pharmaceutical industries, (the FDA food director is vice president of Monsato), but the FDA asks the pharmaceutical industry to finance safety tests of those drugs they want to sell to the public. The Pharmaceutical industry also finances many lawmaker’s election campaigns, write legislative bills and pays professor of medicine to publish biased reports. ( ). Worse, the actually Head of the US Legal Department is now trying to remove the Obama amendment that instructed the DEA and other Federal authorities to respect the State’s decision to enact and implement medical marijunana laws, for the benefit of cancer patients as well as other patients. (6). And the Federal Government, both Democrats and Republicans, have distinguished themsevles for decades by jailing over one million medical marijuana uses (7) and depriving the People from this plant, that which cost tens of millions of serious diseases and lost lives because of what lawyers call “loss of chance”. (8).
In this above-mentioned perspective we will therefore rank the evidence according to the following criteria relative to scientific “strength”.
A. Strength of Study Design: In the Federal classification system, a numeric scale from 1 to 4 is used to indicate the statistical strength of the study design, with 1 assigned to studies having the strongest design and 4 assigned to studies having the weakest design. When appropriate, we will use this classification system.
A. Real evidence-based Holistic Medicine: Which excludes drugs, radiation and surgery. This constitutes 95 percent of genuine medicine. Because the present medical system excludes real people-friendly medicine, there is no evidnece based approach to this medicine, except calling it quakery because real medicine can not be put in the “ pill for each ill” ideological reductionist paradigm. Thus, for real medicine, the Institute the legal Rules of Evidence and the European scientific inquiry method.
B. Reductionist and Ideological-based Conventional (allopathic) Medicine: For American Conventional allopathic medicine (drugs, radiation and surgey), we will use the system approach with the following criteria. (11)
In descending order of strength:
Randomized controlled clinical trials: These trials are, for the conventional system, the “golden standard” But this excludes over 95 percent of medicine, because patients can’t be randomized with holistic medicine. Scientists can’t randomize carrot juicer from non carrot juicers, heat users (saunas and hyperthermia) from those who don’t use heat, because patients are aware of the diference, contrarily to pills. This is one of multiple reasons these randomized controlled clinical trials are bogus for real holistic medicine. And this type of medicine does not use pills, let alone synthetic drugsk as these are by nature toxic, they don’t mimic biological processes which work synergistically, patented pharmaceutical drugs only work on one biochemical pathway, that’s why the liver has to detoxify them and in the process, the liver can’t fully do its other metabolic and detoxification jobs. I will later show that most synthetic drugs are not only useless and toxic, but their first goal is to make billions of dollars, like illegal toxic drug cartels (heroin, cocaine and the like) and their second goal is to control people subserviently, psychiatric synthetic molecules are ones of the worse, all of this will be shown later, even the Bible calls pharmaceutical drugs satanical, there’s a reason for this…some prescription drugs in emergency medicine can be acceptable when nothing else is available, but in general synthetic drugs should only be just adjunctively, less than 5 percent of medicine, when today, with the Government’s medicine, it’s over 95 percent.
Studies in which participants are assigned by chance to separate groups for the comparison of different treatments. It is the patient’s choice to be in a randomized trial, but neither the researcher(s) nor the patient can choose the group in which he or she will be placed. Using chance to assign people helps to ensure that the groups will be similar and that the treatments they receive can be compared objectively. At the time of a trial, there is uncertainty about which of the treatments is best. These trials can be “double-blinded” or “nonblinded.” Double-blinded trials have a stronger study design.
i Double-blinded: Neither the patients nor the researcher(s) know which patients are receiving the therapy under study or the comparison (i.e., control) treatment.
ii Nonblinded: The researcher(s) and the patients know what treatment is being given.
3 Nonrandomized controlled clinical trials: Studies in which participants are assigned to a treatment group based on criteria that may be known to the researcher(s), such as the patient’s birth date, chart number, or day of clinic appointment. With this type of study design, there is less confidence that the group receiving the treatment under study and the control group are comparable.
4 Case series: Studies that describe results from a group or series of patients who all received the treatment that is being investigated. These studies have a weak design, due, in part, to the absence of a control group. Different types of case series, in descending order of strength, are as follows:
i Population-based, consecutive case series: The study population is well-defined and is either the entire population of interest or a representative random sample of the larger population from which it is drawn. The study subjects receive treatment in the order in which they are identified by the researcher(s).
i iConsecutive case series: Studies describing a series of patients who were not limited to a specific population and who received treatment in same order in which they were identified by the researcher(s).
iii Nonconsecutive case series: Studies describing a series of patients who were not limited to a specific population and who do not represent a consecutive series of patients identified and treated by the researcher(s).
Best Case Series: From a larger series of patients, only the cases that appear to have benefited from the treatment under study are reported. These studies have the weakest design.
In holistic medicine, the best evidence comes from anecdotes, epidemiology and prospective or outcome studies. But Conventional medicine’s experts either reject these or minimizes them.
More to come later.
The problem with Government’ medicine is likes its agribusiness and standard american food and news system, it is based on fake information, pseudo-science and greed based reductionist “truth” which are at best misleading info and at worse health frauds
For example, the Government admits that animals studies have shown that cannabinoids have antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis. ( ) There are multiple reviews that summarize the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents. ( ) Cannabinoids have been shown to kill tumor cells.These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats, while they protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor. ( )
Yet, the bishops of this governmental evidence group and their lackeys have not discouraged the financing of clinical trials to confirm this animal studies, over 10,000 of these peer reviewed animal based studies where cannabis medicine has been shown to work.
I just checked the litterature and to this day, there is still NOT ONE CLINICAL Trial on cannabis as a treatment for humans who have cancer. ( )
Yet, there are over 10,000 published studies that prove anti tumor effects (tumors shrinking and cancer markets improving ) in animals…
Just fact justifies the characterization of the Government work in this field as quackery and ideological. Worse, when Conventional medicine experts sees that millions of people are leaving Government medicine for a more integrative and holistic approach, instead of honestly evaluating althernative approach, the usual response is either in not recognizing them, making them illegal or organizing misleading studies about them ( )
This summary provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information for both health professionals, students and patients.
It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians who care for cancer patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions
Reference and Precision Notes
(11) With the system’s classification, only those reporting a therapeutic endpoint(s), such as tumor response, improvement in survival, or measured improvement in quality of life, are considered. In addition, anecdotal reports and individual case reports are not classified. The Govetrnment claims that important clinical details are often missing, that the evidence from them is generally considered weak, and there is an increased probability that similar results (either positive or negative) will not be obtained with other patients. Furthermore, reports of case series are excluded when the description of clinical findings is so incomplete as to hinder proper assessment and interpretation. This is not science based. Any and all exclusions constitute a failure to be objective. Anecdotal evidence IS the primary form of legal evidnece. IT,s called testimonial evidence. If carrot juice really worked for a cancer patient, excluding that anecdote, even if it’s real, constitute quakery, a self serving reductist attempt at promoting drugs, radiation and surgery, all very expensive and all fake medicine in that that none of these methods get to the root cause of diseases.