2020 Health Submission 1267 (Doc Holliday)

Scepticism was used to protect a seventeenth century English mindset influenced by puritanical deist, Calvinistic beliefs that saw nature as evil. Any science oriented towards herbalism and vibrational medicines was attacked as SPAGYRIST ALCHEMY while mineral alchemy (turning base metals into gold) was elevated as the nobler pursuit, and consequently became mineral-technology-money economy. The foundation of material chemistry RETARDED biological science significantly by deferring all living sciences to physics. Biochemical research which includes genetics, bioengineering, is only decades old and its success due to chaos theory and investigations into hyperincusive anticipatory systems or radical recursion.’

The scientific method remains, probably, the only way by which we can arrive at a truthful understanding of the universe around us. The principle that every idea is only as good as its ability to predict, is a cornerstone of the scientific method. And we must protect it.

So it is very serious matter when one part of the scientific community (biological sciences, especially those focusing on alternative therapies), should levy against another (non-biological chemistry). It is not clear how deal with a conspiracy: do we launch a multibillion dollar (and clearly, the world largest) class action with the ACCC? Who do you sue? Were prices set or just people excluded from doing business?

How can there be a conspiracy? How could one branch of science come to deny another opportunities to inquire and investigate the universe around us? Will anyone initiate new research knowing that there is a risk of class action hanging over their head?

A conspiracy is very difficult to maintain over several hundred years between members who don’t know each other. A simpler explanation is that the culprit is the very non-conspiratorial invisible hand. The economy, like any complex organism, comprises a large number of individuals making intimate, personal decisions. The failure of alternative therapies to succeed in the market is because they were unable to stand up to scientific scrutiny and to demonstrate their economic effectiveness.

The extent to which alternative therapies based on biological chemistry will become widespread will depend upon how they can stand up to scrutiny in the laboratory and in the marketplace.

Back of the envelope

• Cost: $20 Billion law suit
• Expected impact on average earnings: None
• Expected impact on economic growth: Negative
• Impact on incentives: reduced independent research
• Impact on government spending: $20 Billion defecit to fund
• Impact on taxation: $20 Billion to fund defence fund
• Winners: Lawyers
• Losers: Rest of Australia