by Dianne Trussell, NSW, Australia.
Coming from a long career in university medical and biological research and teaching, and now being free to explore without the limits and pressures of narrowly-focused projects and the quest for funding, I am currently investigating the energetic basis of science, medicine and in fact, everything. If Einstein were around, he could confirm the pre-eminence of energy in every aspect of existence. Just because most of us may perceive everything, including medicine and healing, in purely material terms, doesn’t mean we’re right or have the whole picture. And perhaps by ignoring energy we are missing something important of key relevance to our daily lives.
Good science is always: “This is our best approximation just now, but what we don’t know is and will always be far more than what we do know, and we have to keep an open mind while we explore.” In fact, some branches of science are way ahead of current medicine. I know: I worked there, did the experiments, contributed to the publications, taught doctors, surgeons and medical students. I try to keep up with advances and sometimes communicate about them with my old colleagues, but the sheer volume of knowledge is too great for any one human or field of study to even skim, let alone understand and integrate.
As part of my investigation of energy (quantum and otherwise) and how it affects us, I have been studying and testing the work of Serge Benhayon and Universal Medicine. So far what I have seen and applied has held up, dove-tailed sensibly with modern science, and been of great benefit to me in my personal life. However recently anonymous detractors have made a stir in the media, and, behaving like Inquisition witch-hunters or Flat-Earthers, have gone on a rampage of lies and persecution against Serge Benhayon and his friends.
Everyone who has ever tried to tell the (uncomfortable) truth in our ‘civilisation’ has been murdered, decapitated, crucified or at least castigated, slandered, shut down or had their funding pulled. Everyone knows at least some examples of this; we learned about them in school and in church. When someone nowadays is treated that way, you have to wonder whether perhaps they might be telling truth that someone (or many someones) don’t want us to hear. It seems to me that it’s in the realms of health, medicine, religion and money that those who benefit most from the status quo have their biggest fear of loss (of control), and thus the most violent reactions to truth.
The media is the willing mouthpiece for those who would keep the status quo, no matter how untruthful it may be. The media looks for the smallest issue with which to attack truth-tellers, and will use bad science, medicine and theology, and even people, to invent the stories they want to broadcast. They contain so little truth and what there is, is distorted, out of context and makes me wonder about those who own the media and what their real agenda is. But they are not alone in this; the pillars of society that want to keep their big share of the world pie are fully behind the media. Sadly, even scientists, doctors and clergymen, whose commitment has traditionally been to truth and to healing, are increasingly falling under the yoke and willingly or not turning against the real needs of the people.
I have directly witnessed in prior and current occasions in a variety of contexts, the propagation by the media of smear campaigns against people I know personally. These people are telling truth (about science, medicine, environment, religion, politics, etc.), and are being harassed and threatened with disgrace, disaffiliation and or shut-down by organisations such as those which control medicine and science in Australia (and overseas). This is personally-witnessed FACT, not conspiracy theory – they don’t want us to hear truth because they don’t want us to have control over our own choices, minds and bodies, for fear that they will lose their control over us.
Note, I personally do not ‘tar with the same brush’ all scientists, doctors, clergymen or journalists, but rather the industries, organisations and governments which pressure them. However all individuals have personal responsibility for what they align to and propagate.
Here is a quote from a random web search, of a 2007 press article in the USA:
“While distorted science is used to promote synthetic chemicals that are extremely dangerous and almost universally ineffective, the same sort of distortion is used to attack anything that could compete with high-profit pharmaceuticals. Bad science is used to attack vitamins, nutrients, and all natural therapies that powerful corporations can’t patent to make real money…
…With all the scientists and all the money and all the research, we still have no cure for cancer from the world of medicine. Not only that, they have delivered no cures for Alzheimer’s, diabetes, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, heart disease, strokes, dementia, osteoporosis, or kidney disease. In fact, after decades of research and tens of billions of dollars in funding, conventional medicine has cured nothing!
…What have the scientists been doing all this time with all this money? The industry is far more interested in treating and managing disease, because that’s where the profits are found.”
On the subject of the persecution of those who bring new knowledge that challenges the status quo, here’s an excellent modern example that you may not have come across, from a court case in 1954:
Jerome Rodale, a practitioner of the time, had recommended reducing red meat and dairy intake and increasing exercise for preventing heart disease, which at the time was contra the medical profession’s dogma and evoked a violent response from them. However, Commissioner Philip Elman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wrote in his dissenting opinion that:
“It is the glory of a free society that a man can write a book contending that the earth is ﬂat, or that the moon is made of green cheese, or that God is dead, without having to ‘substantiate’ or ‘prove’ his claims to the satisfaction of some public ofﬁcial or agency. It is arrogance to presume that in any ﬁeld of knowledge, whether dealing with health or otherwise, all the answers are now in.”
And the outcome of the case?
“In the later years of the case, Rodale’s lawyers introduced new testimony from some of the same leading medical experts that the government had originally used at the initial FTC hearings almost 20 years earlier. One by one, these experts refuted their original testimony, claiming they “Didn’t know back then,” and admitted that many of Rodale’s original claims had since become established medical facts.”
THIS PATTERN IS REPEATED over and over in science and medicine – there are vast numbers of examples which follow the same course:
First, the violent rejection of the ideas and the persecution of those who bring them forward.
Then the questioning: “What if it’s true?”.
Then: “Maybe we should look at it because we’re stuck for answers”.
Then: the testing with open minds by people who actually want to find out.
Finally: the change of paradigm when the newly presented idea proves to be of value and is widely accepted.
So with this in mind, how about reserving judgement for a generation or two on those who pioneer new ideas, such as Serge Benhayon and Universal Medicine?