Chapter 11:

Organized Medicine:
A Terminal Disease.
Collaries of
Parkinson's Law


One night I came home from work -- I had been corresponding with a number of people about the latest incident involving suppressed technology -- (in this instance, a brilliant piece of research that was going on in Utah, the application of which cures AIDS -- no, not treats; cures).
I was so upset emotionally by all the tumultuous events at Alpha Omega Labs that day that I decided to put my latest thoughts about the suppression of valuable technology "on paper". Since I "write" in raw HTML and style-sheet code, that meant yet another web page.
Well before I saw the applications of "the entropy law," or Occam's Razor to a true and valid assessment of the state of our "health care" system, I saw it clearly in managerial terms. Having been a student of business administration, this made the most sense to me at the onset.
I will not repeat the entirety of that page here, because you can read the link yourself before proceeding, in a separate window. (I authored the piece under my Alpha Omega pen and correspondence pseudonym, James Carr.) However, sufficient to say that in light of our other Unifying Principles, my "corollaries" of Parkinson's Law, which I have called "The Impossible Mandate Principles," yield even more profound insights. Chief among these is that organized medicine is not about "curing people." It is devoted to keeping them diseased and then killing them. Making money is -- above all -- the prime directive.
Fighting words? Sure, they are.
But quite accurate, and provably so.
I received a number of comments on the phone concerning our having posted just this one page. The funny thing is, however, is that I never once received a worthy attempt to try and dispute my Corollaries on the basis of argument. No polemic ever came my way that would cause me to have a second thought about what I wrote, or alter its content or tone.
It has remained essentially unchanged since I first posted it in 2001.

The Impossible Mandate Principles
Initial Tenet -- (what our arguments set out to explain) -- "Why certain fundamental principles of organizational management work to (1) ensure that the cancer research and clinical establishment NEVER COME CLOSE to providing any meaningful cancer cure, and (2) guarantee that each and every dollar donated to cancer research is unwittingly used to suppress REAL effective cancer remedies."

First Corollary: "In only the rarest of circumstances can an organization succeed if the fulfillment of a singular assigned mission means an end to the purpose which created it. If not provided with a subsequent mission, the organization will actually impede the goal(s) for which it owes its very existence."
Second Corollary: "Organizations assigned to 'finding a cure' - for anything, regardless of what it is, will always lean towards those treatments which are the most expensive, the most complicated, and least accommodating to self-administration. Only in this way can the organization justify their propensities for greater growth and funding requirements, restrict competition by raising the thresholds of specialized education and knowledge, and filter out potential rivals by setting large capital requirements as a 'sine non quo' to even participating."
Third Corollary: "The lack of a 'deadline' will always infect an organization on a mission as obscure as finding a 'cure' with structural elephantiasis. Parkinson's original law also stated 'Any project assigned without a deadline is likely never to be completed.' The fact that the organization itself, out of survival, will band with like organizations to suppress rivals who would suggest that the mission is completed and the deadline past, only puts this principle on steroids and produces yet greater obstruction to the original mission."
Fourth Corollary: "If you want to make your organization bigger (and all of them do) then you must make the problem bigger. Big budgets cannot be sustained in the presence of easy solutions. That means that survival demands that you use whatever means are at your disposal to suppress alternatives by rivals that would prove compellingly contrary. You cannot sustain an illusion in the public mind that the problem is bigger than it really is if you aren't willing to quelch those capable of undoing the big lie that forms the cornerstone of your operation. Advancing your cause requires a maximum, sustained effort to destroy those capable of providing an end to your grand 'raison d'tre' and the many growing, demanding, and expensive projects which it consequently spawns."

As powerful and as defensible as The Impossible Mandate Principles were, I never took them to the next step. Despite its obviousness, I dared not proceed to put the pieces together and present the 'final conclusion.' Perhaps I felt that I had already done my part -- going out on a limb as it was with the most detailed information on escharotics to be found anywhere on the internet (or in print). So why aggrevate the evil Power Elite even more? Besides, people would put two-and-two together and draw the ultimate conclusion for themselves anyway. Wouldn't they? I mean . . . people aren't THAT obtuse, are they?
I wrote this site to present just such a conclusion. I have nothing to lose. Federal agents have used perjurious statements and a breathtaking collage of fraudulent activities to come after me. They have confiscated nearly all my property -- going so far as to pocket whatever cash, (most of it foreign), that they were able to find in my home. I have little more to lose, but my life (which, by even optimistic calculations is roughly half over naturally anyway). And, in fact, as you read this, I will have already started serving time in Federal Prison.
If this is not a time to call a spade for what it is, there is no such time.

I remember sitting in my cell at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center in Lafayette, Louisiana, one morning last May (2004). I was in the middle of Derrick Jensen's The Culture of Make Believe and I came upon a section, where the author tells of a woman, an ecologically-minded activist, who came up to him after a lecture and said in resigned exasperation, "I'll tell you something I've never told anyone: I don't think our culture is salvageable. I think we're doomed."
In a quiet moment of reflection, as the author is remembering these words, he hears the same thought echoed from a close friend. "I don't think we're going to make it," she says.
"I've been waiting for you to say that," he replies. 2.
As I sat in my cell, reflecting on the obvious parallels to my own work and the same sick fundamental forces in my life as an herbalist that Jensen recounts as an ecologist, I wept quietly. Not for myself -- I had already exhausted my tear glands in thinking about the horrors of what had already befallen myself and my family, but for an outcome I could do nothing to prevent. I wept because in my own brief moment of self-reflection, I realized that I could no longer call myself a reformer. A reformer is someone who believes that the system can be reformed. A reformer is still someone who believes that the system is not beyond being fixed.
I have lost that faith. And I am not alone.

I could readily chid you, if, by now, you have not pieced together the elements of the Unifying Principles and applied it to where we go as a people, as a culture, and as a society.
But I'm not going to.
I will present my summation in the simplest terms I know. I do this because I have lost all reason and motivation to render pretense, literary or otherwise -- be it for self-preservation by submission, to garner friendship or alliance, to avoid criticism, or to justify a more worthy end.
We're not going to make it.
Whether or not you are well-read; whether or not you have taken the time to hear out the views and voices of a hundred noble thinkers who have spent a lifetime contemplating where we are currently headed; whether or not you are even versed in the likes of Danilevsky, Spengler, Toynbee, Kroeber, Coulborn, Gray, Ortega y Gasset, Hubbert, Weber, Tainter or, as in the example above, a more contemporary writer like Jensen, it doesn't matter. It is something you must feel; it is a knowledge that must arise from within you.

Just because I am not a reformer, doesn't mean that I don't think we have work to do. But that work must be devoted to creating systems that will work -- systems that make optimal healing possible, where those who devote themselves to the betterment of others can accomplish their ends without the rapacious interference and gleeful molestations of Federal agents.
Book III is devoted to my view as to how that can be accomplished -- how a revolution can be set into motion that is beyond the machinations of those in the old World Order.
The time has arisen to create a Meditopia. But before moving onto Book III we will examine why the current structure is unworkable and contains within itself the seeds of its autolysis.


  1. C. Northcote Parkinson, Parkinson's Law And Other Studies in Administration, Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, 1957.
  2. Derrick Jensen, The Culture of Make Believe, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White River Junction, Vermont; 2002. p. 237.
C. Northcote Parkinson - Parkinson's Law
When British historian C. Northcote Parkinson penned Parkinson's Law in 1957, it was hardly a hit. However, its insightful commentary on organizations and human nature has made it an increasingly possible favorite among students and professionals of the management sciences for over 40 years. 1.
In one sense, Parkinson is observing entropy in the human work place, but more importantly, he makes it clearly why organizations don't work the way they should -- why, more times than not, they work to defeat their own purpose (one example why the British Colonial Office had grown in number of employees as the actual number of colonies declined).
Parkinson's Law and the various related principles connected to it form the basis for the "Corollaries" that make up this chapter. I would like to think that I take Parkinson's observations to a new level. After all, in all the examples that Parkinson provides, none of them resulted in the unnecessary premature deaths of tens of millions of people.
In my examples, they do.