"A
Contrarian
Perspective:
Why
Self-Education
is
the
Supreme
Path
to
Understanding
and
How
Conventional
Higher
Education
Commonly
Impedes,
Rather
than
Facilitates,
Discernment
of
Truth,"
by
Rob
Faigin.
ROB'S ANSWER:
|
Your boyfriend is certainly not alone
in his slavish veneration of conventional credentials. Nor is he alone
in his failure to appreciate Dr. Michael Colgan's keen observation that,
"Science is a system of evidence that owes no allegiance to title
or position." The 1700 pinpoint scientific references cited to
support every statement in Natural Hormonal Enhancement is the
evidence that trumps title or position. But to the extent that title and
position are important, consider the titles and positions of those who
have reviewed NHE and endorsed it in the most laudatory terms.
Your boyfriend is not entirely to
blame for his less-than-broad-minded view. The fact of the matter is
that, in any field, those who are members of the orthodoxy bring great
effort and resources to bear to convince the public that those
individuals bereft of the intellectual pedigree to which they themselves
lay claim, are unworthy of being heeded or followed regardless of the merits of his/her work.
This is called "protecting one's turf," and it reflects a conspiracy of two
human imperfections: ego and avarice.
|
|
"Science is a system of evidence that owes no allegiance to title
or position." The 1700 pinpoint scientific references cited to support every
statement in Natural Hormonal Enhancement is the evidence that trumps title or
position. But to the extent that title and position are important, consider the titles and
positions of those who have reviewed NHE and endorsed it in the most laudatory
terms. |
|
| Not only do internal inconsistencies belie the
intellectual superiority of the health establishment, but so does the repeatedly mistaken
information disseminated by its many spokespersons. |
|
You might ask your boyfriend why, if the doctors and
conventionally credentialed scientists have a monopoly on truth, do they consistently
disagree with each other? Every month a new book or article comes out written by the
category of person whom your boyfriend holds in high esteem, which contradicts assertions
made by another member of the category of person whom your boyfriend holds in high esteem.
Not only do internal inconsistencies belie the
intellectual superiority of the health establishment, but so does the repeatedly mistaken
information disseminated by its many spokespersons.
|
It was the mainstream doctors and scientists who told us the
following:
They said: "Dietary cholesterol causes heart disease."
WRONG - In fact, dietary cholesterol has little bearing upon
blood cholesterol.
They said: "A high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet will reduce
bodyfat"
WRONG - In fact, this dietary prescription raises insulin
levels, which blocks the burning of fat and is partly responsible for the increase in
obesity during the last decade.
They said: "The RDA is all the nutrition a person needs to
achieve optimal health."
WRONG - In fact, there is a wide gulf between the amount of
nutrition necessary to stave-off deficiency as compared with promoting optimal health.
They said: "Weight training has few health benefits and is
useful only for building big muscles."
WRONG - In fact, weight training affords health benefits too
numerous to list here, discussed in my book.
They said: "Redux is a safe and effective treatment for
obesity."
WRONG - In fact, Redux is causes adverse side effects the most
unwelcome of which is death.
They said: "Homocysteine is not significantly related to
heart disease."
WRONG - In fact, homocysteine is a potent cardiovascular risk
factor, which, fortunately, is highly amenable to modification through
diet/supplementation. But, unfortunately, the health establishment still refuses to accept
and act appropriately in response to scientific evidence suggesting that anti-homocysteine
vitamin treatment is more effective at treating atherosclerosis (but infinitely less
profitable), than any drug developed to date.
They said: "Chemotherapy is an effective course of treatment
for all the types of cancer for which it is regularly administered."
WRONG - Chemotherapeutic drugs, derivatives of mustard gas
that have made billions of dollars for doctors and pharmaceutical companies, inflict
horrific suffering on cancer patients while not improving survivability, except modestly
when used to treat Hodgkin's Disease, testicular cancer, and childhood leukemia, all three
of these partial successes comprising less than 2% of new cancer cases each year.
They said: "AZT is an effective treatment for AIDS."
WRONG - AZT is a rejected form of chemotherapy, and although
phenomenally profitable for the pharmaceutical industry, it is so destructive to white
blood cells - and all other dividing cells - that a growing number of researchers now
believe that AZT promotes AIDS and that many patients who succumb to AIDS are in
fact poisoned to death by AZT and other costly, toxic, anti-viral drugs.
They said: "AIDS would spread through developed nations and
would pose a major health threat to healthy, non-drug-using heterosexuals."
WRONG - The mathematics of exponential progression indicates
that if AIDS were readily transmissible through sexual contact between healthy
heterosexuals, then a large percentage of the human race would have been wiped-out during
the last 20 years. To the contrary, the percentage of healthy (this obviously excludes the
poor, malnourished folks in Africa, where AIDS is a burgeoning public health catastrophe)
heterosexuals afflicted with AIDS has been stuck at 5% in the U.S. despite the continuing
popularity of sexual intercourse. HIV may be sexually transmissible, and is unquestionably
associated with AIDS, but the theory that HIV is the sole and sufficient cause of
AIDS is less plausible, in light of the scientific evidence, than either of the following
two theories: 1) the combination of various immunosuppressive factors (i.e., nutritional
deficiency, poor sleep habits, chronic recreational drug use, promiscuity, etc.) possibly
along
with HIV, cause AIDS, or 2) immunosuppressive lifestyle factors, particularly
long-term recreational drug use, cause AIDS, and HIV is one of many opportunistic viruses
that afflicts immune-compromised individuals (under the second theory, HIV infection would
be an effect rather than a cause of AIDS).
They said: "an effective treatment for cancer would be
developed by 1980. . . then 1990. . . then 2000."
WRONG in 1980, WRONG again in 1990,
WRONG again
in 2000, after billions of dollars spent on. . .
1) Flawed experimental models - Cells derived from tumors and
harvested in petri dishes, called "cell lines," are the subject of
much
cancer
research and "these unnatural cells. . . give incorrect and clinically useless
information about cancer."1
Why are cell lines used? Because this model
yields a large volume of data (albeit largely invalid) and therefore lends itself to
extensive research paper production, which is crucial for scientists operating in the
prevailing "publish or perish" research environment in which it is said only
half-jokingly that published papers are "counted not read."
2) Misguided drug-testing procedures - "Of the leading causes
of mortality in this country, cancer has arguably the most inadequate predictive model
systems for preclinical drug development."2
And, "for every toxic
drug, there are at least three other medications that are used to counteract the
devastating side effects. . . cancer may indeed be the plague of the twentieth century,
but it has been a profitable plague indeed."3
In the words of one cancer
researcher who spoke-out (and was consequently blackballed by the cancer establishment),
"the public is being taken not to the cleaners. . . but to the mortuary."4
The 30-year failure to develop effective treatments for cancer
contrasts sharply with the fact the "the cancer establishment and major
pharmaceutical companies have repeatedly made extravagant and unfounded claims for
dramatic advances in the treatment and cure of cancer."5
If your boyfriend were a student of history, he would understand
that some of the greatest ideas and advances have resulted from the efforts of individuals
whose education, training, and life experience were unconventional. For example, the
Wright Brothers, who set the human race aflight with their development of "flying
machines," worked as bicycle repairmen but nonetheless accomplished in their spare
time what thousands of full-time university scientists could not. Likewise, the
educational resume of Walt Whitman, perhaps America's greatest poet, did not extend beyond
elementary school.
Benjamin Franklin had even less formal education
than Walt Whitman, and went to work at age 10 as an apprentice candlemaker in his father's
shop. Ben was the 15th of 17 impoverished children born to immigrant parents.
Franklin educated himself by reading every book he could find on every subject, by the
light of crooked candles for these could not be sold. He went on to become one of the most
influential figures of the 18th century, and one of America's most respected
citizens. Franklin achieved high distinction as a statesman (America's leading diplomat and co-author of both the Declaration of
Independence and the U.S. Constitution),
meteorologist (published the first weather reports), inventor
(bifocals, stove, lightning rod, urinary catheter), writer
(self-help books, newspaper articles, treaties, governing documents),
businessman (printer),
scientist (performed
experiments that vastly enhanced mankind's understanding of electricity and how to harness
it), philosopher (expounded the vision of America and the virtues of thrift, moderation, humility,
and industry), musician (played the violin,
harp, guitar, and created the glass armonica).
|
Albert Einstein wrote his Theory of Relativity
while employed as an office worker in the Swiss patent office. Professors of physics at
the finest academic institutions the world-over failed to discern what Einstein did. More
telling is the fact that Einstein, reflecting on his Theory of Relativity years later,
expressed doubt as to whether he would have been able to develop his Theory of Relativity
had he been holding a university professorship (which he had eagerly sought, but was
rejected as a "troublemaker" because as a student he questioned prevailing
doctrine and challenged the academic orthodoxy). Einstein, like so many others, observed
that
when knowledge is institutionalized in financially driven, status-conscious, research
bureaucracies, extraneous factors come into play that favor the status quo and tend to
stifle new, "radical" ideas. |
| ... when knowledge is institutionalized in financially driven, status-conscious, research
bureaucracies, extraneous factors come into play that favor the status quo and tend to
stifle new, "radical" ideas. |
|
| In the same way that the religion/science establishment
tenaciously clung to the geocentric world-view despite the arguments and evidence of
Copernicus and later Galileo, the medicine/science establishment today tenaciously clings
to its equally erroneous, but infinitely more destructive, pet theories. |
|
For example, if you were a professor who taught
and published books expounding the Ptolemaic geocentric model (which prevailed for 1500
years and held that the Earth is the center of the universe) and a young upstart with far
less impressive credentials than you - let's say his name was Copernicus - began arguing
for the acceptance of a completely different model, one in which the Earth revolves around
the sun, would you be openly receptive or a tad resistant? Before answering, consider that
acceptance of the Copernican Theory would alter your status from a respected authority to
an ignoramus, in many peoples' minds. Years of hard work (writing books and articles about
Ptolemaic theory) would be invalidated overnight, and your professional reputation - your
very livelihood and source of self-identity and self-pride - would be severely tarnished.
In the same way that the religion/science establishment
tenaciously clung to the geocentric world-view despite the arguments and evidence of
Copernicus and later Galileo, the medicine/science establishment today tenaciously clings
to its equally erroneous, but infinitely more destructive, pet theories.
|
With few exceptions, in the world of science, in order to achieve
career advancement, one must "play the game" - in other words, accept (or at
least not publicly denounce) the prevailing doctrine of the establishment. The chief goal
of most scientists, just like other professionals, is a successful career. Being an
aggressive maverick was conducive to career advancement in the Wild West, but does not
play well in the conservative, hierarchically stratified world of science. Because, in the
words of syndicated columnist Alston Chase, "science is a political institution. . .
and like any political institution, it is driven not by debate, but by power, money, and
public opinion." And the greater one's conventional scientific credentials, the
greater are the opportunities to acquire profitable and prestigious alliances that curtail
objectivity and independence.
For example, let's say you published 30 papers discussing the
results of experiments using the cell line model (see above) to test "ZHZX
immunotherapeutic anti-cancer factor." As a result of your outstanding professional
success (as measured by how many papers you published) you are offered a faculty position
at a medical school; and from there you attain membership on the Board of Directors of a
biotechnology company, "Sell-Short Biotech," that develops and markets
immunotherapeutic drugs for treating cancer. Now let's say your career is advancing
rapidly, you're on the verge of becoming very wealthy, and evidence begins to emerge
indicating that the company's most promising drug (ZHZX immunotherapeutic anti-cancer
factor) doesn't work nearly as well as preliminary studies (conducted by you) had
suggested and may have serious adverse side effects. Question: do you think that (with
your reputation and millions of dollars hinging on the FDA's approval of this drug) you
would be able to evaluate the evidence bearing on the efficacy of ZHZX with 100%
objectivity? If so, you are a rare individual. But the scenario I just presented is not
rare, but all-too-common.
|
In summary, while conventional education and training confer a significant measure of
valuable knowledge, they can also confer inaccurate information cloaked in the presumed
infallibility of ivory-tower consensus. And it can breed
intellectual arrogance and a self-limiting, intellectually suffocating sense of loyalty to
prevailing dogma. In the words of Thomas Edison, "all progress, all success, springs
from thinking." |
| ... while conventional education and training confer a significant measure of
valuable knowledge, they can also confer inaccurate information cloaked in the presumed
infallibility of ivory-tower consensus. |
|
|
... thinking, in the pure sense in which
Edison refers to it, is inhibited by institutions that dictate truth rather than encourage
its discovery. |
|
And thinking, in the pure sense in which
Edison refers to it, is inhibited by institutions that dictate truth rather than encourage
its discovery.
Incidentally, Thomas Edison, the most prolific
inventor in the history of Western civilization, was self-taught. The man who executed
1093 patents
(pertaining to wide-ranging
subjects, including: motion pictures, telegraphy, cement, phonography, fruit preservation,
mining, batteries, electric light, glassmaking, and typewriting)
worked
early in life as a trainboy, peddling peanuts and candy to railway customers, while other
kids his age were in school.
|
Edison educated himself at the Detroit Public Library,
between train departures. As you can see from the foregoing discussion, those who opt for
the absolute freedom of thought and unfettered pursuit of truth that only self-education
can afford are emulating Walt Whitman, The Wright Brothers, Albert Einstein, Benjamin
Franklin, and Thomas Edison. Not a bad group with which to associate oneself.
1. Dr. Gerald B. Dermer,
The Immortal Cell, Avery
Publishing, 1994, p. x (Preface).
2. Weisental L. Journal of the National Cancer Institute,
1992;84,466.
3. See, supra, note 1 at 130.
4. Id at 114.
5. Id. at 3 (citing Media Advisory, Fenton Communications, Feb 4,
1992, Washington D.C.).
ADDENDUM
After
I
mailed
this
response,
I
realized
that
I
had
overlooked
another
historical
figure
who
supports
my
thesis
that
self-education
is
the
supreme
path
to
understanding:
Abraham
Lincoln.
My
realization
of
this
glaring
omission
was
prompted
by
my
reading
of
David
Donald's
stellar
biography
of
the
16th
U.S.
president,
entitled
Lincoln.
Abraham
Lincoln's
formal
schooling
amounted
to
one
year.
As
a
young
man,
Lincoln
worked
for
years
as
an
unskilled
day
laborer
and
later
a
store
clerk.
How
could
someone
with
such
a
minuscule
amount
of
formal
education
go
on
to
become
an
exceptional
writer,
orator,
lawyer,
political
philosopher,
and
one
of
America's
most
revered
presidents?
|
Like
the
other
self-educated
historical
figures
discussed
above,
Lincoln
possessed
considerable
innate
ability.
But
his
phenomenal
contribution
to
society,
his
wisdom,
his
vision,
and
his
professional
success
were
owed
at
least
equally
to
his
rigorous
self-education.
With
only
one
year
of
formal
education,
Lincoln
had
an
enormous
amount
of
ground
to
make
up.
He
was
acutely
aware
of
this
fact,
and
desperately
longed
to
avoid
being
like
his
father,
Thomas
Lincoln,
an
illiterate
farmer
who
could
barely
write
his
own
name.
Toward
this
end,
in
his
early
twenties
Abraham
Lincoln
walked
six
miles
to
get
a
copy
of
Samuel
Kirkham's
English
Grammar
from
a
farmer
named
John
C.
Vance
whom
Lincoln
learned
had
it.
Fortunately,
the
general
store
Lincoln
co-owned
had
few
customers,
which
afforded
him
time
to
"set
himself
systematically
to
master
this
detailed
text,
committing
large
segments
to
memory."
(The
store
eventually
went
out
of
business,
the
first
of
a
string
of
failures
that
would
mark
Lincoln's
adult
life
up
until
his
perseverance
finally
landed
him
in
the
White
House.
A
few
years
before
he
became
president,
Lincoln,
reflecting
on
his
career,
noted
painfully,
I
have
"been
a
failure
-
a
flat
failure.")
|
Lincoln
in
1857.
(Photograph
by
Alexander
Hesler,
CHS,
ICHi-11376) |
|
Lincoln
applied
himself
with
relentless
determination
to
the
task
of
educating
himself,
devouring
texts
on
mathematics,
history,
poetry,
and
law.
He
was
also
a
voracious
reader
of
newspapers.
He
spent
every
free
moment
"reading,
scribbling,
writing,
ciphering,"
recalls
Dennis
Hanks,
Lincoln's
boyhood
friend.
"He
would
carry
a
book
with
him
when
he
went
to
work
[in
the
fields],
and
read
when
he
rested."
When
young
Abraham
Lincoln
returned
to
the
house
from
his
6-dollar-per-month
manual
labor
job,
"he
would
go
to
the
cupboard,
snatch
a
piece
of
corn
bread.
.
.sit
down
in
a
chair,
cock
his
legs
up
as
high
as
his
head,
and
read."
Another
friend
observed
that
Lincoln
"read
so
much,
was
so
studious
.
.
.
was
so
laborious
in
his
studies
that.
.
.
his
best
friends
were
afraid
he
would
craze
himself."
When
Lincoln's
presidency
began,
the
Charleston
Mercury
announced
contemptuously
that
there's
an
"orangutan
at
the
White
House"
-
undoubtedly
referring
to
his
beard,
his
long
arms
and
legs,
but
also
his
unpretentious
manner,
his
humble
upbringing,
and
his
lack
of
formal
education.
As
an
American,
I
feel
indebted
to
Abraham
Lincoln,
who
in
terms
of
conventional
standards
was,
according
to
Donald,
"one
of
the
least
experienced
and
most
poorly
prepared
men
ever
elected
to
high
office"
-
and
also
America's
greatest
and
most
self-educated
president.
(And,
I
might
add,
the
best-looking
orangutan
ever
to
grace
the
front
of
a
five-dollar
bill.)
(All
passages
quoted
above
are
from
Lincoln
by
David
Donald
1995,
Simon
and
Schuster,
NY.
For
other
recommended
books
about
Lincoln,
go
to
www.liqua.com/lincoln.
This
site
is
operated
by
a
fifth-grade
teacher
and
amateur
Lincoln
scholar
named
Archie
Lintz,
who
was
kind
enough
to
answer
a
question
I
sent
him.)
Return
to
Index
READ
MORE
