Religion & Spirituality

Radical Remissions From Cancer: 9 Key Factors

Dr Kelly Turner has extensively researched the factors involved in radical remissions of cancer (typically called "spontaneous remissions" or "spontaneous regressions" in the medical literature) and found there are 9 factors that are common to all such cases. They are

• Radically changing your diet
• Taking control of your health
• Following your intuition
• Using herbs and supplements
• Releasing suppressed emotions
• Increasing positive emotions
• Embracing social support
• Deepening your spiritual connection
• Having strong reasons for living

As Dr Turner explains "It is important to note that these are not listed in any kind of ranking order. There is no clear “winner” among these factors. Rather, all nine were mentioned just as frequently in my interviews.”

Dr Kelly Turner, "Radical Remission: Surviving Cancer Against All Odds" (


Giving God some giddy-up

I was communicating (emailing) back and forth with someone who I suspect is a fundamentalist Christian.

So I thought to use the Reciprocal Test, as previously explained in "The power of the Reciprocal Test", which basically turns belief-systems upside down to show their 'naughty bits' -- the bits that have hairs on them, and/or have holes in them :)

By doing so, the Reciprocal Test (aka The Paradox Rule) shows just how much we, as a childish culture, are subservient to, and frightened of perceived "higher authorities", which as explained in "Consider some stuff", are only there by dint of our cooperation and blessing.


If you are not shocked ...

Some years ago I read that Nobel Laurette and physicist Niels Bohr reportedly remarked that "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it".

In more recent times Prof. David Albert of Columbia University similarly explained that

There's something really indescribably strange about the picture that we're presented with of ourselves by -- especially by fundamental physics. And it's a picture that we just don't know how to fully take in. And I think it's very, very, very disturbing.


Does God Exist?

In response to the question "Does God exist?" on a forum in LinkedIn, I drafted the following, which seems to be sufficiently well-formed to be posted here, prior to posting there as well:


There is no "God" in a purely objective, independent sense for that would require weird, nonsensical disconnects (within any holodynamic systems, or indeed any reasonable rational context).

The idea of an independent creator was an idea developed during the childhood of humanity:

Bishop John Shelby Spong:

"Religion ... was for most of human history, always childlike and by definition authoritarian. It was, to be specific, a primary activity of the childhood of our humanity as a species."1


Consider some stuff

I often hear of, or run across people who espouse all sorts of ... well, quite frankly, incoherent, silly ideas and beliefs.

Here's a few ideas that might reset standard thinking.


Consider some "stuff" of which the entirety of existence is composed. Not physical, not even necessarily spiritual. Let's just call it "stuff".

Now, this "stuff" is, by definition, literally everywhere, in everything, everyone one, every thought, God, Evil ... it's literally everywhere. In fact there is no place it is not. Given its ubiquity, we can say it is "one-stuff"1.

If we want to believe that some spiritual beings or others are not composed of this one-stuff, we need ask of what they are made. Whatever that is, it will ultimately need to be made of said "one-stuff" in that said one-stuff is the ground stuff of all existence. No exceptions.

Now it gets interesting.


Making God small. Not good.

The white-bearded guy in the skyWhile at a social function recently I got chatting with some religious people who started to talk about how we're all 'fallen', sinners in need of saving, and how we're all needing His forgiveness, and so on.

Now, from a systems perspective this all makes no sense.1

So I asked, "if God is infinite, isn't all necessarily WITHIN God? After all," I added, "if we and all else, including evil is not of God, then we're outside and beyond the infinite — and that would make us and evil bigger than God. That would make God small relative to us, and relative to evil."

"Best not do that," I said.

"Think of it this way," I explained "God is infinite ... literally that means "He" has no limits — he's everywhere, and in everything, everyone, every spirit, including Evil. In other words, everything and everyone is of God.  It's His energy that's behind all the muck-ups, and the beautiful wonderful things, and ..."

If all — including Evil — is not God's creation then that means "He" has limits to where His creative energy goes. That makes Him small. Best not do that.

If it's not His energy, then it's someone else's, but that again means He has limits to where His energy goes.2

Pretty straight-forward, I would think, to understand all this.


Right or wrong?

I've just had a vigorous discussion with some friends, and what was most interesting to observe is the extent to which people (including myself) engage either-or thinking.

My friend (let's call him 'George') quoted Anthony De Mello, along the lines of "what you have to realise is that you're asleep, and that you need to wake up". Which in effect meant that I? wasn't in the least "awake" -- aware, considerate, conscious, enlightened or good. No sir, not at all, not even a skerrick of enlightened awareness. None. Ziltch.

That's either-or thinking. None or all, right or wrong. One or the other, but certainly not ever BOTH at once.

I shared my view that people are variously "awake" and "asleep", aware and ignorant, considerate and selfish at the same time. I explained the inherent reality of the paradoxical nature of life and that all qualities and potentials are co-existent. It's just that some get accentuated more than others at various times and at various junctions in our evolution.

My friend countered, "but most people can't understand the complexity of paradoxes ..."


Lost wonderment

There has been an at-times vigorous debate on various Internet forums1 over an age-old problem that has persisted for over 2,400 years.

It's a problem that was, in a metaphorical sense, wonderfully illustrated by the "Somebody Else's Problem" scenario in the Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers to the Galaxy series.

Basically the problem has been so enormous, so extraordinarily magnificent, and profound that the vast majority (particularly scientists, and especially mathematicians) have ignored it. And yet it if were to be seriously and wholeheartedly investigated, our entire culture would radically change ... for the better.


At it again

Recently I was reading an interesting book, and it advised one to wake early one morning (in the dead of night, around the 3.30am mark) and quietly ask what is really important in one's life. As was explained in my Letting go post, I've drifted in recent years, not exactly sure how I can best be of benefit and service to people.

Anyway, I did as the author suggested, waking early this morning around 3.00 am-ish, and the immediate and easy answer or strong natural sense of purpose was my work to uncover and 'mend' the old-paradigm thinking and beliefs that beset and bedevil our world — in other words, and for want of a better description — to be a good Belief Doctor. As I've explained elsewhere1, the old-paradigm is rooted in 'either-or' thinking: right or wrong, pure or impure, good or bad, us versus them. It's the basis of tribalism, which within the context of the emerging need for great collaboration on a planetary scale, makes such beliefs a danger to the survival of our race.2