Disruptive Discoveries: Flaws in Foundation of Medicine:
-
Chronic diseases are still known as incurable diseases, and we suspect that the medical research model is unfit for characterizing chronic diseases. In this study, we examined accuracy and reliability required for characterizing chronic diseases, reviewed implied presumptions in clinical trials and assumptions used in statistical analysis, examined sources of variances normally encountered in clinical trials, and conducted numeric simulations by using hypothetical data for several theoretical and hypothetical models. We found that the sources of variances attributable to personal differences in clinical trials can distort hypothesis test outcomes, that clinical trials introduce too many errors and too biger inaccuracies that tend to hide weak and slow-delivering effects of weak treatments, and that the means of treatments used in statistical analysis have little or no relevance to specific patients. We further found that a large number of uncontrolled co-causal or interfering factors normally seen in human subjects can greatly enlarge the means and the variances of the experimental errors, and the use of high rejection criteria (e.g., low p values) further raises the chances of failing to find treatment effects. As a whole, we concluded that the research model using clinical trials is wrong on multiple grounds, under any of our realistic theoretical and hypothetical models, and that misuse of statistical analysis is most probably responsible for failure to identify treatment effects for chronic diseases and to detect harmful effects of toxic substances in the environment. We proposed alternative experimental models involving the use of single-person or mini optimization trials for studying low-risk weak treatments.
[Download the article]
-
We finally found Why medicine fails.
Medicine adopted several presumptions when it evolved from ancient experienced-based mind-body medicine to its current art. To understand its failure in finding cures for chronic diseases, we examined the presumptions, and found that statistical population of health properties does not exist for most research purposes, mathematical models are misused to model intensive properties, synthetic drugs are inherently more dangerous than nature-made medicines under their respective application conditions, binary disease classification introduced excessive errors, and reductionist treatments are inferior and inherently dangerous. We found that clinical trials are valid only for research where treatment effect is much stronger than the total effects of all interfering or co-causal factors or where errors introduced by misused mathematical models can be tolerated. In all other situations, clinical trials introduce excessive errors and fail to detect treatment effects, or produce biased, incorrect or wrong results. We further found that chronic diseases are manifestation of small departures in multiple processes attributes in distinctive personal metabolic pathways networks, that medicine lacks required accuracy for accurately characterizing chronic diseases, and that reductionist treatments are good at controlling symptoms and safe only for short-term uses. For all stated reasons, as long as medicine continues relying on the flawed presumptions, it can never find predictable cures for chronic diseases. By implication, predictable cures to chronic diseases are adjustments to lifestyle, dietary, emotional, and environmental factors to slowly correct departures in process attributes responsible for chronic diseases. [Download the published article] -
Our compresentive study refutes cancer drugs benefits.
Medicine fails to find predictable cures for cancer in more than a century, and we explored the feasibility of controlling cancer growth speed by using lifestyle factors. After conducting an extensive literature review, we conducted simulations for cancer growth courses to see the feasibility of controlling cancer growth speeds. We found that (1) medical treatments are often accompanied by three to four lethal factors: treatment side-effects, emotional distress, and chronic stress, reduced exercises and physical inactivity, and excessive nutrition in some cases; (2) clinical trial exaggerates treatments short-term benefits and underestimates the slow-delivering adverse side effects as a result of statistical averaging, interfering effects of personal lifestyle factors and insufficient follow-up times; (3) the benefits of medical treatments are limited by chain comparisons, where surgery may work as a negative standard relative to the best alternatives for resolving cancer; (4) the strategy of destroying the tumor or killing all cancer cells is unworkable; (5) medical treatments can turn natural cancer growth curve into approximately doubly exponential curve;(6) multiple-factor non-medical measures are potentially much more powerful than medical treatments in controlling cancer growth and metastasis speeds; and (7) cancer early diagnosis and over treatments are unwise strategies in light of discoveries. Based on huge increases in cancer growth rate constants, substantial loss of vital organ functional capacity, and severe systemic aging-like cellular damages, we concluded that medical treatments may promote cancer growth and metastasis speeds and shorten patient lives in most situations, and the claimed benefits are caused by triple biases of clinical trials. By using the same method to explore how several lifestyle factors affect cancer growth rates, we concluded that the better strategy for ending the global cancer epidemic in the future is changing caner treatment strategy from killing cancer cells to slowing down cancer growth rates by using various lifestyle factors in combination. This study in part explains why cancer can self-resolve.
The finding is based on very strong evidence. No such a comprehensive study was done before. It was generally assumed in medicine that surgery is good because it can cut off tumors. A dozen of known facts and several newly discovered evidence from 2017 to 2018 have not been considered in the past research. Two additional problems are flaws in determining causes of death and recently discovered huge side effects of cancer treatments on the lifespans or aging process of cancer survivors. In addition, we also consider the irrefutable fact that cancer can self resolve (except that virtually no study has explored its mechanisms). As a whole, conclusion is irrefutable and beyond disputes.
Why does medicine miss such an obvious problem? This has a lot to do with the medical research and practicing culture: each research project only focuses on the findings from its own experimental data; systematic review is limited to the same or similar subjects; and perspective or opinion articles are limited to narrow subjects. The medical culture which comprises peer review and publisher's control of articles strongly discourage reearchers from conducting any study utilizing the all relevant findings in multiple fields. In each prior article, researchers made only a comment or warning or suggested how to avoid a noted problem. Despite gross risks of such observed facts, few researchers never follow up. For example, the effect of chemotherapy on cancer apparent rate constant was known in 1988 and 1989 and there is no dispute on its effects. Even though, that is a game-ending risk to patients, we could not find any article that has seriously discussed this issue. When all critical facts are combined, our conclusions are beyond disputes. The only justification for use of chemotherapy is that some patients are under imminent risks of deaths or such a trade is worthwhile.
[Download the published article] -
CNS plays a big role in cancer.
We examined special roles of the Central Nervous System (CNS) in an attempt to resolve the puzzle that chronic diseases cannot be cured by medicine. By exploring a skill-learning model, we found that the CNS is able to remember certain information reflecting biochemical and cellular (B&C) processes in the body. From the skill using ability, we found that the CNS is able to control basic B&C processes that drive and power the skill. From the ability to adjust forces and force direction of a physical act, we found that the CNS is able to adjust B&C processes that drive the physical act. From this adjustment capability, we further inferred that the CNS must also store information on the baseline B&C processes. As a whole, we found that the CNS can maintain information on baseline B&C processes, up-regulate or down-regulate the processes, and make comparisons in performing its regulatory functions. We found that chronic diseases are the results of deviated baseline B&C processes. Per the proved hypothesis, the CNS maintains deviated baseline B&C processes, and thus protects the body states of fully developed diseases. We then used the three CNS roles to explain that cancer progresses with increasing malignancy, cancer quickly returns after a surgery, cancer cells repopulate after chemotherapy and radiotherapy, cancer develops drug resistance inevitably, immune cells rebound after suppression, generally poor benefits of cancer drugs such as beta-blockers, etc. We further showed that long-term exercises generally push most, if not all, baseline B&C processes in diametrical opposing directions against the diseased B&C processes, implying that exercises play unique roles in reversing chronic diseases. Finally, we proposed several strategical approaches to resetting the CNS’ state memory as the essential condition for curing chronic diseases. [Download the published article] -
I have discovered several root reasons that medicine is unable to find cures for chronic diseases, cancer and is unable to extend human lives to the potential limits. We have proved that Randomized Controlled Trial is invalid for developing medical treatment for chronic diseases, conclusions are greatly inaccurate or invalid, and real risks from using medical treatments are grossly underestimated or simply ignored over decades [Each point is discussed in length in the original article] and true benefits are exaggerated. Only good health care wisdom can protect individual persons.
[Download the article]
How can medicine make such a mistake?
Three reasons for making such big mistake in medicine. First, nearly all life factors such as emotion, nutrition, environmental factors were not known when most of the medical treatments were developed. It is natural to use a large number of wrong treatments. Second, medicine lacks a mechanism for conducting whole field analysis. but each researcher group only focuses on issues that are relevant to their research interests. Third, medical journals do not like researchers to work on what are based on combination of a large number of study findings except for review.
The Evidence Ignored in Medicine:
- The general warning against surgery before 1908 (This remains to be right).
- Lack proof that surgery can actually have real benefits for cancer patients. So-called benefits were presumed with zero proof or just the perceived false impression that patients can survive for one year or so.
- The effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy on cancer growth rate constants were well known even before 1988, but IGNORED and patients are not told about it as a matter of course.
- Randomized Controlled Trials are INVALID for studying chronic diseases because such a trial involves indiscriminate application of treatments, lacks capability to address interfering factors and enlarges the variances of the error term. This single finding is enough to invalidate all population-based treatment protocols for chronic diseases and cancer.
- NIH seems to lack interest in funding research projects on the roles of inflammation on cancer as reflected in the comment in a 2018 article. Inflammation is a central issue even through it seems to unrelated to cancer.
- Latest findings on surgical roles on cancer metastasis is very strong evidence against use of surgery (Krall et al, 2018).
- The finding that cancer survivors suffer accelerated aging and premature death (Cupit-Link et al, 2017) indicates that the long-term adverse impacts of cancer drugs are serious.
- Inaccuracies in medical treatment data are also caused by the binary disease classification method. Also, great inaccuracies are introduced in analysis of death causes. What controls death is USABLE Organ Capacity but not organ's biological functional reserve. While many drugs can directly cause death, they must be a contributory factor in all deaths even if patients appear to die from cancer (Wu and Zha, 2019). When cancer burden depresses the usable organ capacity, any other factors that further depresses the usable organ capacity must be viewed as a contributory cause of death. It is indisputable that most cancer drugs are very toxic and can ruin health of even healthy people.
- Medicine has consistently ignored the irrefutable fact that cancer can heal, self-resolve or be held in check. There are hundreds of well documented cancer self-resolution cases and millions of undocumented cases. I noted many reported cases where cancer resolved. That is strong evidence that killing cancer cells is not a good strategy in most cases.
- The side effects of cancer drugs as well as other drugs were grossly under reported, not reported, or simply ignored due to the binary classification system and poor reporting system. The binary system only accepts extremely bad drug adverse effects as cause of death. To be qualified as a cause of death, the side effect has to be very strong or like a poison that can cause death. Reporting system problems were discussed in a study (Golder et al, 2007). The study found that reviewers usually had a priori hypothesis when conducting the review and that the detection of new unrecognized adverse effects was not their focus. Forty-nine of the 106 reviews used existing quality assessment instruments, mostly, to assess randomized controlled trials (which are not capable of finding truth). The study found that the lack of a defined and empirically tested quality assessment tool is a major problem. That study could not pay attention to the problems caused by the binary scale. Based on patient reports and personal observations, I estimated that over 90% of obvious side effects in clinical settings could not be reported. The seriousness of unreported drug side effects are contrasted by increasing prevalence of autoimmune diseases, kidney failure and increased cancer incidences. More studies need to be done by using completely different methods.
- Four lethal factors in causing cancer deaths are systemic inflammation, emotional distress and chronic stress, inactivity and lack of exercise, and excessive calories. Three of them are associated with cancer diagnosis and treatments in medicine.
- Well observed progression times of cancer are shortened from more than 10 years for a primary natural cancer to about 1.5 years on a second eruption, and further to several months on a third eruption. Cancer cells can almost grow freely on additional eruptions. This change is irrefutable: a large number of the patient-reported cases reflect this pattern. Even many cancer patients know this pattern.
- The NOMINAL performance of medical treatments are extremely poor even rated by flawed and biased research methods. IF the performance data is adjusted to correct the three biases caused by randomized controlled trials and serious under reported incidences of drugs side effects, there is no reason to believe that surgery, chemotherapy and radiation can deliver real benefits except by accidents as compared with non-medical methods of fighting cancer correctly. Even 2.1% to 2.3% contribution of chemotherapy to 5-years survivals must be questioned and will be finally rejected.
- Several surveys show that a majority (75%) of doctors would not consider using chemotherapy on themselves if they had cancers, implying that their perceived drug risks-and-benefits are not same as what are disclosed in medical literature. Based on patient self reported data, I have found that those who took medical treatments the most died sooner than those who took less treatments or no treatments as long as they do more in changing lifestyles or fighting cancer. This riddle is finally solved in the study by Wu and Zha.
Irrefutable Findings Anyone Can Make:
- Medicine could not find an extremely-obvious conclusion because it uses the reductionist research model with flaws in all four key presumptions. Per medical research culture, researchers look at one factor a time. In doing so, they use the binary scale: if each factor does not pass the binary threshold, it is viewed as having no effect. They could not evaluate all tens to hundreds of factors together. Each study ends with a harmless warning or suggestion, as if the problem would not affect human life. The above itemized evidence is critical to cancer outcomes if they are combined. All items support each other under the rate balance theory under the holistic health model. Those treatments can raise apparent cancer growth rate constants by one to several orders of magnitude. That is a game-ending outcome. On the rate balance model, cancer may be controlled much more easily than the unrealistic attempt of killing all cancer cells.
- The cost of the failed medicine is very high. I estimated conservatively that about two third of cancer patients (e.g., 400,000 in U.S., about 2 million in China, and about 6 million in the world) die prematurely each year from over treatments or improper treatments. The last two pieces of evidence are conclusive. I have communicated with the NIH. FDA, HHS, other federal agencies, the U.S. House, Selected senators, the White House, and many media concerning the serious flaws in medicine. Cancer panic is an unintended result of failed and flawed medicine.
-
We examined statistical life expectancy, actual causes of death, and problems of statistical models, and found that statistical life expectancy is irrelevant to specific persons and has little utilities for estimating and extending lifespans and health spans for specific persons. To provide a model for extending human lifespans and health spans, we propose “usable organ capacity” for individual persons as a measure of lifespans and health spans. We show that personal lifespans and health spans depend on organ’s biological potential, maximum usable organ capacity, decline rate of usable organ capacities, fluctuations in usable organ capacities, sizes of life stressors, and thresholds of death. We used a model to estimate lifespans for human beings and extrapolated survival times to potential lifespans. We show that hundreds of factors affect lifespans and health spans, but current research methods are unable to determine the benefits of single weak factor. The flawed research methods have provided strong incentives to explore strong fixes but ignore the great utilities of multiple factors in extending lifespans. We explored how personal health care wisdom, medical practice culture, drug adverse interactions, and human propensity in favoring short-term benefits over long-term risks might have severely shortened personal lives and create the observed compressed survival curve..
[Download the preprint article]
-
In this article, we will review the history of medical model development, examine the quality and reliability of medical knowledge existing when the functional approach was legally adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act, enacted in 1938 and amended, and further indirectly promoted by U.S. patent law. This functional approach plays an important role in the formation of the population-based medical model (“the deduction model”). Deductionist model was primarily based on reductionism and dualism. Reductionism views the entire systems in terms of their individual, constituent parts and their interactions, and dualism views mind and body as two separate entities. Every medical study can be done by following deduction logic reasoning. After examining medical knowledge and later advances, we found that the validity of dualism and reductionism, as applied to chronic diseases, has been refuted by recent discoveries in neuron-sciences and cancer research. We examine common research tools used in the deductionist model including the population-based approach, randomization, double blinds experimental design, variable controlling method, statistical analysis, binary disease definitions, categorization method, etc. in light of the optimization approach used in the competing holistic model. On the basis of multiple ways analysis, we concluded that the deduction model is good only for studying strong and fast health properties or treatments, but introduces massive errors and inaccuracies making it unfit for studying weak and slow health properties or treatment effects. It tends to systematically fail to recognize weak and slow treatment benefits. We further find that the deduction model is primarily responsible for the inability to find cure for chronic diseases and cancer. We urge medical researchers to consider the holistic model as the primary model for conquering chronic diseases and cancer. We also urge the U.S. Congress to amend the FD&C, patent law, tax law, and health regulations, and leaders of all nations to steer medical research to a right track. To find cure for chronic diseases, the holistic model with mind being included as an essential component for treating chronic and life-threading health problems must be used.
[Download the preprint ]
-
Per daulism, mind and body can be separated. This is another flaw in the foundation of medicine. However, this theory has been rejected long time ago by massive evidence. Unfortunately, it is stilll used in the medical treatment model. In drug trials, one necessary thing is to avoid the influences of subjective feeling. This is why double-blind randomized trials are used. However, this results in another problem: preventing mind participation in the trial. However, we have shown that no chronic diseases can be cured without mind participation. The following evidence can be found in support of a finding that dualism is wrong.
1. Dualism was rejected in all ancient medical systems. Holistic health model always stresses the role of mind in healing diseases.
2. Dualism was never proved to be valid as far as it is referenced in personalized medicine.
3. Dualism was rejected by tens of thousands of medical studies concerning emotion, chronic stress, etc. published after 1980 [some studies were cited in article 4]. This line of evidence is conclusive.
4. Emotional roles such as chronic stress are recognized as cause factors of virtually all chronic diseases. This is found even in medical texts and medical research articles.
5. It is common sense that emotional distress can instantly ruin personal health, and emotional counseling can be a better healer for some mental diseases.
6. Dualism was further rejected by the theory on the roles of Central Nervous System on chronic diseases (Wu and Zha). This theory implies that chronic diseases cannot be cured without active mind participation. A cure is also a retaining the memory of the Central Nervous System.
7. The roles of mind and emotional health are recognized by a large number of famous health quotes such as those of Deepak Chopra, Buddha, Philip Stanhope, Naomi Judd, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Naval Ravikant, William Penn, Dalai Lama, Marcus Tullius Cicero, James H. West, Joseph Addison, etc. Their points of views are based on personal experiences or observations that are accepted by population. Their probative values are much higher than conclusions from randomized controlled trials, which can produce false and misleading findings due to indiscriminate application of treatments, inability to address interfering factors, inflation of error variances, plus misuse of statistical analysis.
Dualism was correct only in the sense that mind of a person does not affect the health of other persons. However, it is obviously wrong if mind is concerned with the same person. Although mountains of evidence is available to refute this obsolete theory, we will collect and store evidence in the database.
-
All four main presumptions: population-based approach, dualism, reductionism, and binary disease classification in medicine were wrong. That is why medicine could not find cures for any of chronic diseases and will never succeed in finding cures. I will briefly produce following evidence (note each point will be backed up by a huge nummber of published studies in the database under development):
- Randomized controlled trials are developed based on a wrong life model that fails to recongize life phenomena. massive organ reserve functions, slow deliverying of effects, personal differnces, existence of a large number of interfering factors, age and daily phrases, emotional and mind's role. They may not be used to study weak and slow-delivering drug side effects. Health Optimization Engineering can beat medicine by tens to thousands times. As long as the reductionist medical model is used, medicine will never find cures.
- Mind is an absolutely essential component for curing chronic diseases. Whenever the body part changes, the mind changes accordingly. In response to changes in the body, neural signals from the brain for regulating the body are changed. To cure a disease, both parts must be changed at the same time. A treatment model without mind participation must fail. By focusing on only the body part, medicine will not find cure. Tens of thousands of studies concerning mind, emotion, chronic stress is enough to prove that medicine must fail.
- The reductionist model also turns medicine into junk science. Reduction is possible for simple physical devices. Even for moderate complex system, repairing is not possible. For any chronic disease such as heart disease, cancer, and autoimmune diseases, tens to thousands of factors affect disease outcomes. Any attempt to promote health by focusing on one single factor is like a dream that will never come true. The failure of medicine in its long history is enough to abandon this unworkable model.
- The binary diseases model introduces additional errors and inaccuracies. The real health condition is defined by a large number of factors, each of which make only a small amount of contributions to the diseases. However, when a disease is defined by the binary scale, the effects of most cause factors except those extremely strong cause factors are below the thresholds of the binary diseases. However, they are collectively responsible for the disease. Thus, such an approach together with the flawed randomized controlled trials always fail to recognize each of the weak cause factors. For the same reason, each drug is found to have no side effects when it is evaluated by the yes-and-no scale. In reality, each drug can cause progressive damages to the body in long runs or when many drugs and other toxic substances work together.
- Al flaws in the foundation of medicine cannot be fixed without disrupting the whole medicine. This is why no body will come to defend those flaws. NIH, FDA, HHS, NAS, the U.S. House, The U.S.Senate, federal agencies will not take actions. Medical journals will avoid such challenges. Those flaws plus many other problems uniquely presented in the reductionist science makes medicine unfit for treating chronic diseases.
- In sum, the RCTs can make research meaningless; treatments based on a dualism model cannot cure diseases except by accident; treatments developed by the reductionist model cannot cure diseases; and treatment protocols and drugs developed by using the binary disease classifications introduce too bigger and too bigger inaccuracies that have the effects of hiding most drug side effects and distorting benefit-risk ratios. They collectively turn medicine into junk medicine that can only control symptoms, stop pains, and treat acute diseases. Such medicine can be easily used by interest groups to get maximum profits and extract maximum pain from patients. In the past, medicine has consistently used population studies findings as evidence to prove its scientific validity. When all four presumptions are proved wrong, all arguments on its scientific merit fall. Now, performance data in treating chronic diseases, cancer, autoimmune diseases become the most powerful evidence that medicine is in fact a failed science.
- Medicine affects everyone's life journeys, lifespans, and deaths. We should not maintain medical status simply because it has influenced the world and appears to work well in the past. Many bad medical practices that once controlled the world for thousands of years were eventually replaced by better medical practices. We must view medicine as an incremental science, which must improve itself when flaws and errors are found. Unfortunately and sadly, medicine has be hijacked by interest groups to become a system for promoting commercial interests and lack a self-improving capability. I will tell eventually how Nature, Science, Lancet, government agencies, etc. do what they can to suppress the most obvious and irrefutable findings. How did they do? They cannot question our findings or scientific merit, but told me that they could not do anything, the subject is outside the scope or their authority, ask me to find a better places, all kinds of disgusting lame excuses. I identified those foundation flaws almost two decades ago. The lack of responses from medical establishment is indirectly responsible for estimated half a billion premature deaths. Maintaining such a seriously flawed medical model is like creating, accepting, and passing death spells for the mankind and must be viewed as the worst crime against humanity and a crime against every human being dying from chronic diseases and cancer. If those four presumptions are not corrected, we can only forever make the last wish and die without cures. I urge you to make your voices heard whether you are political leaders, governmental officials, scientists, doctors, lawyers, social workers, employers, retirees, teachers, reporters, etc. Access to cures is a fundamental right of each human being and this right must trump all other interests as a whole. If your job is to protect your employer's business, you should still do your own part to have the system fixed.
- This article is backed by massive references to serious research articles and any other forms of evidence. Such point will be followed by a searchable database so that a reader can find all references. One can search for supporting articles, opinions, reports, etc. right after each point of this article. The number of published medical studies is estimated in the order of more than a million. Opinions, cases reports, great observations, etc. will be collected and stored in the same searchable database. Since I have zero fund support, it will need several weeks to deploy this searchable database and may take years or decades to fill the database.
Double Research Productivity at Half Time
This website embodies a new research paradigm: collecting information only once and developing any solution once, but making them available for use forever. It thus eliminates endless reinventing the wheel (e. g., searching information, reinventing solutions and tools, rediscovering things, relearning concepts, etc.). This website embodies two-lines of smart technologies: a versatile web-based database management system and a searchable and expandable computing system which is capable of solving everything that could be solved. Those technologies can dramatically raise overall productivity in research, product designs, production optimization, system optimization, and education. The first line of technology changes traditional model that information is collected, stored, processed, and shared managed through online access. The second line of technology changes how problems are solved. It allows anyone to create solutions on a server-based computing system that hosts millions to billion of application problems so that any authorized users can use them to solve any mathematical, numerical/ empirical, theoretical, modeling, statistical, designing problems in the shortest time possible. With this system being deployed, researchers can spare 90% time that would be used to repeat same tasks that have been done thousands to millions of times. The technologies are reflected in the following U.S. patent numbers: US9105005; US9977669; US10069892 B2, a newly allowed U.S. patent and several issued foreign patents. Both technologies are available for licensing with all start-up programs being free.
The technologies implemented in this website (but not the content) is available for licensing with all original programs.
In addition, we have other patents:
US9361464: A Versatile Log System
US9342505: A Translation Protocol
US8972845B2: Document Review System
US10,430,903 B2: Document Review System
US8935266B2: Name Search Algorithm
Introduction to Our Books
(click here to open page)
To end the era without cure and the panics caused by failed medicine, we have written books on longevity, heart diseases and cancer (many will follow), all being based on health optimization principles in personalized medicine. The treatments for curing chronic diseases are characterized by the features of multiple factors, holistic rate balance, and long-term effects. All treatments are based on ancient healing principles that once were used in all medical systems for thousands of years AND millions of medical discoveries that have been published in the last half a century. Our HOE model is contrary to the medical model and is intended to complete and eventually replace medical treatment methods in a long run. However, before the laws are changed, our research activities are not eligible for receiving federal, state, and public funds. Strangely, all private organizations volunteer to recognize only medicine built on flawed foundation. Due to influences of U.S. tax laws, the nation recognizes and promotes only this flawed medicine. The great number of invisible legal fibers have the effect of promoting the flawed and harmful reductionist, population-based, disease-based and drug-based medicine which can cure no chronic diseases, but excluding, forbidding, banning, and discrediting real science-based medicine or health art that can cure chronic diseases. Our findings on randomized controlled trials [See article 1 on the left] and the brutal roles of cancer treatments [articles 2, 5 on the left] can never come from the medical model. Unfortunately, what we have disclosed is only a drop of water in a sea. We have massive works to be done for your benefits and the benefits of the mankind. The fact that medicine labels every chronic disease as incurable reveals its problems in the foundation. You are kindly asked to think what is wrong, and how to fix the medical system. You can do your part to support our cause to end the incurable era for your future benefits.To see the full page, click here
(click here to open page)
Our Books on Longevity
Search Databases
Campaign
Articles and Analysis for Ending the Incurable Era
Articles and Analysis for Ending the Incurable Era
Cancer
Artilces on Cancer
Artilces on Cancer
Wonder Cures
Explore Healing Wonders that were used from ancient times and explore their mechansim in real-science framework.
Explore Healing Wonders that were used from ancient times and explore their mechansim in real-science framework.
Failure of Medicine
Research articles, opinions, observations to show why reductionish science fails in medicine.
Research articles, opinions, observations to show why reductionish science fails in medicine.
Health Optimization Engineering
Research articles, opinions, observations to sbow why HOE is true-science based future medicine.
Research articles, opinions, observations to sbow why HOE is true-science based future medicine.
Symptom Registry
Colecting symptoms for various chronic diseases so that the information will enable people to estimate risks for various kinds of imbalances or chronic diseases.
Colecting symptoms for various chronic diseases so that the information will enable people to estimate risks for various kinds of imbalances or chronic diseases.
Chinese Articles
Foreign Langauges articles that can be downloaded or read.
Foreign Langauges articles that can be downloaded or read.
Common Law Vasteges
Collection of all studies on the influences of common law on the foundation of science.
Collection of all studies on the influences of common law on the foundation of science.