AND HOW MAY THIS BE LINKED TO STEVE JOBS DEATH?

I had no intention of researching Brandon Bays on what on initial deliberation did seem dramatically spurious claims—that she cured terminal cancer by positive thinking and a vegan diet. That is until I noticed that the search words “Brandon Bays Satanist” had been used to access my manuscript – Scourge: The Demise of Critical Thinking in the age of “The Secret” –  that only had a very fleeting reference to her. My initial thought was that someone had a serious religious gripe against this woman. However at more or less the same time my wife Fiona had been diagnosed with colon cancer (a familial disease in her case), and had to have an emergency colostomy (the complete removal of the colon).

On this news a family member started spewing (at least that is how it felt) how Brandon Bays miraculously cured her cancer through positive thought and that Fiona can do the same. I found this highly offensive as I was certain, given the prognosis, that nothing else but aggressive medical action was going to save Fiona’s life, albeit that a positive attitude would surely help the process. I then decided to do more research on Bays. And based on which I decided either one of the following three scenarios could be the reality regarding her assertions.

Firstly, that Bays did cure herself of cancer as she claims. However it is apparent that no medical doctor or medical institution had indicated that she indeed had cancer of any type although she did refer to this in her book. For verification of such an audacious claim and the medical implications it could have it would be reasonable to expect Bays to indeed provide such definitive evidence. Though, since medical records are private, it cannot be proved to the contrary by an outside investigator either. On the other hand the very absence of such clear and easily obtainable proof which would readily put aside very serious question marks about the claim, in itself should cast significant doubt on the truthfulness of her claims. The evidence provided suggest that a naturopath of some sort was the supposed medical person who made the diagnosis. No offense to naturopaths intended as I think they can be of great benefit in preventative health in particular and as a complimentary regimen in recover, but that the qualified person to make such a definitive assertion should be a relevant medical specialist. That is someone who is a trained pathologist who actually examines the affected tissues, not someone who merely looks into one’s eyes or makes some or other superficial diagnosis. Notwithstanding the veracity of the claim, assuming that she had a miraculous recovery, this should not mean that hers now become an accepted protocol for curing all disease. Thus that all disease somehow is a consequence of embedded “cellular memories” which now has to be remedied by some or other “spiritual correction”—in Bays case, the process of Journeying.

The second is that Bays had some other condition which was misdiagnosed by the alternative therapists she had sought. In that case the tumour in all likelihood would have been imminently curable. The following response on a Skeptical Community blog discussing this matter is useful to consider in this regard.

The third is that Bays is an outright fraud, and thus that she had maliciously set out to fabricate medical claims for financial gain. If indeed so the problem is that it is as clear a medical fraud as Bays did not fabricate her credentials claiming that she was a medical doctor or some or other medical expert. She also had not provided a physical substance which could be examined that she claimed as being the potential cure. In her case it merely is the claim that she had cured cancer by her own means. Importantly, suggesting that any doubt or thoughts that diverted the full belief in the process would negate its efficacy. On all accounts a very difficult prospect to prosecute in the conventional way, and it certainly appears that legislation as it currently stands is ill-prepared to do so unless there is a direct death as was the case with James Arthur Ray.

From my limited investigation I cannot definitively conclude any of the three, but that either two or three is the likely answer—that is given the absence of Bays medical records. And even if she indeed had cancer, it is not helpful — and it is indeed very dangerous — to infer that all cancers can now be cured this supposed full-proof protocol. The problem here is directly linked to that discussed in The Pathology of Hope, and that such fabrications and equivocation of facts do well up a sense of hopefulness that the any disease can be cured. Moreover, without the negative side-effects of what an actual cure may acquire—and as in Fiona’s case, the rather unpleasant prospect of having to live without a very important organ. The reality is that it indeed is depressing. As iterated many times in the book, being depressed when confronted by a bleak or undesirable future reality is not being negative. In fact it is the very opposite as the one’s depression signals a willingness to accept the negative prospect and thus to make the required adjustment. Notwithstanding this, not letting the depressing reality get the better of one and therefore to drown in depression is the far greater challenge, and indeed, the true challenge which will increase one’s odds of survival.

It is important to understand that it is not ignorant or unintelligent individuals who fall for this type of contrived suggestion. For instance Apple Founder and late CEO Steve Jobs delayed his cancer treatment for nine months to seek alternative therapies, including spiritual therapy. Alarmingly what is evident from media articles is that his rare imminently pancreatic cancer had been detected at a very curable stage, but in his delay to undergo aggressive treatment had progressed to a form which significantly minimized his odds for survival. John Travolta’s son Jett too may well have died as a consequence of his belief in Scientology, and that he therefore did not explore the full range of medical help which may have been at his disposal. A colleague in my faculty – an eminent professor – had made a similar decision and also subsequently succumbed to cancer because of it.

Why Jobs circumstances is critical to consider in the context of this book  is that he more than the vast majority were best equipped to take advantage of such “cures”. That is particularly as far as financial means is concerned, but moreover, that he is a particularly positive “can do” individual. But instead his hesitation to deal directly with the reality of his disease, had allowed it to progress from imminently curable to terminal in that nine month period. By this I do not want to be critical of Jobs and his decision, one that his biographer indicated he came to regret, but that I merely am doing it to put forward the lesson. It is that even he – one of the most rational inspirational minds in the world – may have become vulnerable to the likes of Bays “spiritual” innuendo.

I am also not disputing that “miracle remission” of disease does from time-to-time occur. The reality, however, is that they are exceedingly rare, and that the few are normally quickly and dramatically brought to our collective attention. Furthermore, at least when one considers the religious definition of miracles – the receiving God’s grace – that to wait in expectation of a miracle more than likely is the surest way not to have it occur. What however is apparent is that most miracles come about in very ordinary ways, such as detecting the disease early, or finding a particularly good medical doctor who is very versed with the associated pathology.

What seems to be common with these “ordinary miracles” is that they appear to be serendipitous. Serendipity being defined as “the gift of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for”. “Things not sought for” appearing to be at the heart of the definition. Though, because they were not sought for to begin with, these extraordinary “coincidences” more-often-than-not are not noticed.

This serendipity conundrum, then, is the real dilemma that those enamored by likes of Byrne and Bays ultimately are faced with. And its eventual conclusion may very well be deadly.