Quantitative Medicine Censored by Google

CensoredIn a development laced with ironies, Google Adworks has declared that the Quantitative Medicine’s website violates their ad standards. To fix this, they want most of the posts substantially rewritten. We can’t. It would amount to allowing Google to redefine Quantitative Medicine. We suppose we are done with Google. This is too bad, as the ads we ran did tend to connect us to people that could use our methodologies. We would genuinely appreciate comments and suggestions here.

Curiously, Google could not definitely state the reason the site was suspended. This is the first irony, as they can provide detailed information on almost any subject. Except, apparently, their own actions.

Google’s robot “site-fixer” led down numerous cyber-bunny-holes and was of no use. However, their customer service person was helpful. Although she could not determine the actual reasons for the suspension, or why it had occurred after almost two years of operation, she did speculate that we were making medical claims and were not specifically justifying them with references to peer reviewed material. An email response from some other person stated that we couldn’t make claims at all. Here is an excerpt:

Please make sure that : 

  1. All miracle cures viz  Revering Diabetes in Adults need to be removed.
  2. All general claims need to have a disclaimer
  3. All permanent claims need to be removed 
  4. You cannot use words like “permanent” , “eliminate”, ¨rid¨ in the context of getting rid of something. Instead, use terms like “reduce” , “not temporary” 

This is as insulting as it is short sighted. Particularly the “miracle cures” comment.

Claims that We Make

It seems odd to us that Google, a disruptive technology if there ever was one, takes such a narrow, mainstream view of other disruptive technologies. This is another irony.

However, we do not make speculative claims. When we state that Quantitative Medicine can:

  • Prevent and reverse adult diabetes
  • Prevent and reverse heart disease
  • Prevent and reverse osteoporosis

We mean precisely and exactly that it can and will. Further, this is supported by a) 20 years of clinical data  and b) abundant, published, peer reviewed study of the supporting the methodologies. We do value the former over the latter as it represents reality.

Citation Wars

Google’s insistence on peer reviewed citations supporting all claims is specious—naive at best. Almost any position can be supported with peer reviewed material and we all know that. Meat good for you? Here are the published papers. Meat bad for you? Here are the published papers. We are all aware of the “diversity” of medical information available on the internet, and have a good idea of the political and financial forces driving it.

What is Medicine?

But the final irony is that Google (or their robots) view Quantitative Medicine as some alternative theory, a theory making wild, unsubstantiated claims. This is nonsense. Standard Medicine is the alternative theory. With Quantitative Medicine, the body heals itself: it is no more or less than a specific, guided approach to this. This is the most natural and most effective medicine possible. Approaches that interfere with normal processes, like artificially altering cholesterol levels with statins, are the strange medicines, and we fully believe these will someday be viewed as such, along with bloodletting and bile infusions. (We are all so used to medical meddling in natural processes that it seems perfectly normal, however, it is anything but.)

Some Benefited

In any case, thank you Google for the work done connecting those that could benefit from Quantitative Medicine to the source. A shame things have to end on such a sour note.




  2 comments for “Quantitative Medicine Censored by Google

  1. Dan
    July 21, 2016 at 10:42 am

    You might be able to make some hay out of this, publicity-wise. You or your publisher should issue a press release saying basically what you say here, and frame it in terms of free speech, empowered health, and so on.

    There’s been a lot of noise lately about the “digital gatekeepers” (Google, Twitter, etc.) taking it upon themselves to unilaterally regulate or suppress speech that they deem to be irresponsible, “hurtful,” or otherwise politically incorrect. I think some journalists might take an interest in your story — which would more than compensate for the loss of Google AdWords!

  2. Moe
    July 21, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    I believe technology is wonderful. However, those who try to control the use and distribution of technology are infringing on our rights to express our opinions.

    I do agree with Dan’s Idea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *