McCumiskey’s The Ultimate Conspiracy arrived a few days ago and I’m ripping through it. And? It got six enthusiastic 5-star reviews on Amazon, but I’m not that wild about it. The author asks me to read through the whole thing with an open mind and virtually promises that I’ll no longer believe in the Biomedical Paradigm by the end. But an open mind, while sounding like a good thing, isn’t necessarily a critical mind. And my critical mind notices that, while McCumiskey characterises the Biomedical Paradigm as a new world religion founded by Louis Pasteur (p64), with its own set of dogmas, gospels, high priests and hierophants, his own book reads something like a new gospel according to James!
While claiming that the German New Medicine, by contrast, is purely scientific, McCumiskey’s own conversion to GNM is couched in explicitly religious terms. After reading about it for over a year, he attended a course with Harald Baumann. This is what he writes: “Evangelical Christians believe that you must be ‘born again’ in order to enter Heaven. That course had the same effect on me: after six days I knew more valuable information about medicine than any conventionally trained MD!… I felt born again. I was renewed. I felt obliged to evangelise, to spread the word about German New Medicine. Harald’s course energised and empowered me” (p14). Later in the book (p201, 205) he again likens GNM to “the good news” which needs to be spread. The biblical connotations hardly need commenting upon.
He goes on to define the concept of dogma: “An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true” (p65). Belief in dogmas is the price of membership to the circle of the faithful, and the Biomedical Paradigm, says McCumiskey, has a whole catalogue of them. But McCumiskey’s presentation of GNM suggests a new set of dogmas: they appear as early as the Legal Disclaimer before the book even starts: “The author’s fervent desire is that we discard Modern Medicine as quickly as possible and replace it with German New Medicine, which is 100% scientific and 100% medically correct.” In particular “the five Biological Laws of Nature are natural biological laws and are therefore 100% correct in each and every case of any cancer or disease.” If that’s not an authoritative belief considered absolutely true, I don’t know what is.
Another of the dogmas endlessly repeated by McCumiskey is that viruses don’t exist in plants, animals or humans, and can therefore not cause the diseases they are said to cause. Including AIDS. If that’s true then vaccines are also pointless. It might also explain why ‘medicines’ for colds and flus are largely useless, and should certainly remove any fear of a bird flu or swine flu pandemic.
The argument seems to be this:
1. Viruses exist if they are proven to exist.
2. They are proven to exist if they are isolated, photographed, and biochemically characterised, and all this published in a peer reviewed academic/scientific journal.
3. No virus has ever been thus proven to exist.
Therefore viruses don’t exist.
McCumiskey refers to the work of Dr Stefan Lanka in support of premises 2 and 3 (Chapter 23), and has whole chapters discussing HIV (Chapter 14), the bird flu myth (Chapter 15), and Dr Gerhard Buchwald’s critical work on vaccinations (Chapter 20).
The problem with the argument is that the first premise is not true. Therefore the conclusion remains unproven. It would be an interesting exercise to actually seek out the scientific papers which purportedly prove the viruses in question to exist, and if one were not able to find them, one could legitimately doubt the whole edifice of medical understanding and practice built on them. But that would not entitle someone to endlessly assert that viruses don’t exist, as does McCumiskey. That, I think, entitles me to claim dogma status for that assertion at least!
Which brings me to the rest of the book … which is a veritable compendium of information in support of the main tenets of GNM. But what this compendium most obviously lacks, in spite of its length, is the dissonant voice. It could all be true, every word of it, and I would still be suspicious, sceptical, because all the voices gathered within the pages of this compendium belong either to members of the faith or people wheeled in to support them. There is little discussion of the implausible parts, no mention of critics, and little reference to the wider scientific literature. It gives me the impression of being a hermetically sealed world unto itself, and you’re either in or you’re out.
Really, not another religion, or worse, a sect?