A one-sided 'Conversation' – Professor John Dwyer in the Echo Chamber of his own prejudice

Professor John Dwyer The Conversation

On Monday 7th of May, Universal medicine reception was contacted by The Conversation for comment regarding a story.

The ‘author’ who we were later to learn was Professor John Dwyer, had not even the decency to engage Universal Medicine directly but instead sent a series of questions via a young section-editor, Alexandra Hansen.

Of Serge Benhayon’s comprehensive response to the various loaded and ridiculous questions posed by the publication, we note that not one quote made it into the article.

What results is a one-sided ‘conversation’ with Dwyer and himself, which will go down in history as one of the more blatant displays of utter denial and complete misrepresentation in regards to the evidence at hand regarding the work of Universal Medicine. So here, for the elucidation of the reader, is Serge Benhayon’s unpublished response in full.

You won’t read it in The ‘Conversation’...

----------------------

Dear Alexandra,

At Universal Medicine we trust that some truth and integrity will eventually prevail. 
In light of the ever-present opportunity I submit a reply to your pursuit. 

With love,
Serge Benhayon

-------Start Response-----
 

The author of the upcoming story points to the study in JIMR as the only research conducted on Universal Medicine's methods, are there any journal papers you would like to point us to that show an evidence base for your techniques?

There are many hundreds of clients worldwide who have reported benefits to their health and well-being through what is offered by Universal Medicine. In light of this, clearly this is something that should be studied. We welcome genuine enquiries of research interest.

I have made inquiry about the study in JMIR that you refer to and I have been advised that the JMIR article is not about Universal Medicine’s techniques. This is a clear indication that your author’s research is flawed and has not even extended to the summary paper (attachment 1). The paper is about a survey of the physical and mental health of those who visit Universal Medicine events, plus a chart about their BMI changes in Multimedia Appendix 2 of the paper.

Your author may wish to note the key findings which show that people attending Universal Medicine scored higher on general mental and physical health and vitality with lower BMI, stress and depression scores to the general population, less back pain, hypertension, sleep issues, anxiety and more. Universal Medicine attendees also have much lower rates of alcohol use and smoking. The WHO cites smoking, alcohol and diet as key health determinants and given the current rates of lifestyle associated diseases, a genuine scientific enquiry would surely seek to know how this has been achieved and whether it could be replicated elsewhere rather than making false and baseless allegations void of genuine research or evidence.

In addition, I have been told that there is a protocol paper giving further background information on Universal Medicine’s methods (attachment 2), including the results of a phase I/II study on page 3 (bottom right), showing that the intervention reduced pain in both the long (7 years) and short term. Further information about Universal Medicine and its approach can be found in attachment 3, on page 3.

For an organisation that started with a single person in 1999, the aforementioned studies provide quite substantial evidence, showing significant benefits to health and wellbeing and which certainly warrant further research by those with a genuine interest in improving public health.

 

The author of the piece says you receive large amounts of money from bequests and a steady income stream from training of practitioners, do you wish to respond to this?


I run a successful business (Universal Medicine) that has been the recipient of numerous awards. Universal Medicine delivers high quality workshops and training courses for both the general public and practitioners who choose to train in Universal Medicine Therapies. Our services are always in high demand and have been since 1999.

Bequests and donations for Educational or Training Institutions are not uncommon and neither are such occurrences newsworthy – unless key facts have been misrepresented.

As has been widely publicised, in 2015 I received a bequest from Judith McIntyre for the purpose of completing a teaching hall for her community, a task which I have undertaken. Of note Judith McIntyre's two adult children challenged her Will, even though they had been told of her intentions and both had given her their assurances they would respect her wishes. The judgement upheld Judith's legacy for her community. Further to this, both her children also received substantial bequests from Judith’s Will.

Perhaps your inquiry could consider what was said by the judge, after he had watched a video interview with Judith McIntyre in April 2014, made shortly before she died, he stated: "No one watching that video could fail to see the state of peace and serenity with which the Deceased faced her passing.”

And further, he stated:

"The strong impression I have from the evidence is that the Deceased knew exactly what she was doing when she made her Will. She appears to have weighed up the competing considerations of the need to a leave legacy to Sarah and Seth and her desire to promote the teachings of Mr Benhayon. I see no basis upon which to conclude that the decision was not her own. She foreshadowed to Sarah and Seth her plan to leave a significant part of her estate to Universal Medicine, explained her decision to them and sought their assurance that they would respect her
wishes.” McIntyre v O'Regan [2015] NSWSC 1985

For more background see: https://vimeo.com/100973601

 

The author claims former patient Ira McClure spent over A$30,000 on ineffective UM treatments, do you wish to respond to this?


Ira McClure has never spent that or any sum of money with Universal Medicine. She is not, nor has ever been a client of Universal Medicine.

The fact that this deliberate misinformation is still being repeated in the press indicates a severe lack of sound research or inquiry regarding this individual’s claims.

We are aware that Professor John Dwyer gave false and misleading information regarding this claim to a Parliamentary Inquiry.

 

It has been suggested that patients may avail themselves of Universal Medicine’s treatments instead of medical advice and care and that this could compromise their health or cause false hope. Do you wish to respond?


There is zero evidence base to support this claim. People who engage Universal Medicine’s services visit the doctor as frequently as anyone in the general population, (see Table 1 in attachment 1). In addition, there is ample anecdotal evidence that, due to Universal Medicine’s pro-Medicine stance, clients who have received complementary health support at Universal Medicine have also sought medical treatment for their conditions where, in some cases, they previously had a strong aversion to conventional medical care.

Ingrid Langenbruch describes how she had tried to treat her cancer with ‘natural methods’ until she engaged Universal Medicine’s services. “After seeing Serge Benhayon I felt supported to begin to trust the medical system again and I decided to have surgery for my breast cancer and re-engage with conventional medical interventions. I have been living with breast cancer for 16 years. I don’t feel this would have been possible without the encouragement I received to seek out appropriate medical treatment. Medicine supported me to stay alive. Universal Medicine greatly improved my quality of life. Medicine and Universal Medicine provide two very different and very valuable services that greatly complement each other."

For more on Ingrid Langenbruch see:

https://www.ingridunfolding.com/single-post/2018/01/17/From-shock-to-deep-joy-living-well-with-a-chronic-disease

 

Do you accept that Universal Medicine is a cult?


Using the label ‘cult’ to characterise a business, or anyone’s way of living, is an indictment on the person employing the term. It demonstrates an ignorance to the fact that in academic circles it has long been abandoned as a pejorative term with no substantive meaning.

It is decidedly anti-scientific to use an emotive and loaded term like ‘cult’ to sway public opinion rather than have a mature conversation about the evidence at hand.

Its usage is solely a means to attempt to create moral panic and conveniently ignore the science and the facts that continue to be established regarding our therapies and teachings on health, wellbeing and philosophy.

According to the current research based evidence, those who utilise services provided by Universal Medicine have much greater health indicators in many key areas than a sample of the general population. A genuine scientific inquiry would seek to ask why this is, and not merely employ a derogatory term as a means to attempt to discredit the irrefutable lived evidence of hundreds of people.

Please note that we will be publishing these answers in full on our website as well. If you have any other questions regarding the current media reports please do not hesitate to send them through.

Considering the high volume of misinformation that is in circulation regarding our business it is imperative that facts are checked or you risk recycling false information and enabling the harm of such error-riddled reportage to impact your publication and its readership.

---------- End Response ---------