DISCLAIMER: My reports given on this website are based on personal experience alone. A treatment which works or causes problems for one person may cause another person to respond in a different way.

My qualifications as an independent researcher on creativity, rejuvenating the mind and body, and improving health by stimulating and balancing brain activity are much greater than the qualifications of any licensed medical doctor or psychologist unless the recognized professional has himself or herself produced thousands of novel created works and also has recovered from schizophrenia without using the potent and debilitating anti-psychotic drugs prescribed by conventional doctors.

The evidence for my research is in the product, and antipsychotic drugs don't make a schizophrenic into a prodigiously productive creative person plus produce remission of symptoms of several debilitating and chronic physical disorders.

Have you heard of the "ad hominem fallacy"? In many introductory books on logic, the "ad hominem fallacy" is discussed.

In the "ad hominem fallacy" the person arguing wrongly relies upon the reputation of the man, rather than just considering the evidence, and testing the truth of the idea. For example, having studied six or more years of chemistry does not give the Ph.D. in chemistry any vast knowledge of botany, poetry, or physics. In Latin, "ad hominem" means "from the man".

It isn't logically valid to dismiss my research just because I have not studied all the subjects a medical doctor has studied. I have authority from decades of experience and from logic.

Every professional doctor is a repository of detailed factual verbal information and a trouble shooter. He diagnoses named disorders using the same brain processes the experienced entomologist uses to identify butterflies. The spectacular doctor works his brain like the brain works in an entomologist who can mentally "key out" any insect anyone in the world sends him! But that's not really creativity. That's not being being rejuvenated mentally.

It's been suggested that I should give up trying to interest anyone in my research, because I am not a recognized authority. But do you think that argument is truly based on sound reasoning, or do you think that argument is an example of using the "ad hominem fallacy"?

If you are curious to explore a controversial but interesting subject relating to human evolution, new philosophy, new psychology and new medicine, check this website out with care.

It's my desire to interest some medical doctors. Maybe at first I will interest some retired doctors, because pre-med students and working doctors are very busy learning or following the existing medical thought paradigm. A new paradigm of "equilibration" of the brain by stimulating and working certain undervalued native talents isn't something yet promoted in professional journals or in school academic programs.

If you have any suggestions or comments, send me a note.

Selected Writings

© 1998

LE FastCounter

TOP