A Revolutionary Healing Science - the laws of pain - Exposes Hypocrisies

in Religion, Science, and Government

by Raymond Lane

Throughout history, society has been ruled by three primary influences: religion, science, and government. Today they still influence our beliefs, thinking, and actions via preachings, research, and laws respectively. These organisations provide valuable services for people, including treatment for health and behavioural problems. And they have all contributed excellent achievements to the fabric of society, especially in improving education, physical health, and working conditions respectively. But such achievements were not arrived at smoothly – often necessitating revolutionary movements to bring them about against repressive social regimes within each discipline. Additionally, they are all yesterday's achievements, and they have only resolved the most prominent aspects of human suffering – like illiteracy, major diseases, and poverty. The current crop of human health problems – like headaches, migraines, autism, epilepsy, and mental illnesses; and behavioural problems, like alcoholism, violence, and drug addiction – are not being healed, only managed or coped with.

Now, however, a revolutionary new development – the laws of pain, which resolves past traumas – can point out hypocrisies in this current ruling system, provide a new direction for more effective healing, and make further improvements to human life. But ruling organisations do not always take kindly to new developments. In this case, they generally accept that bad experiences in early years can negatively affect people as adults. But they do not believe that "past traumas" are still active inside of us, or are an ongoing source of suffering, or that they could be reaccessed and their negative effects resolved. They either claim that the "past trauma" paradigm does not exist, or they try to ignore it – and, hence, also try to ignore the laws of pain. This article is about how religion, science, and government (which supports the former two) are using information related to those laws to try to help promote their own, older explanations for human suffering, that goes counter to their claims. (Internet images are included in this article for informational purposes.) 

The laws of pain (LOP)

The laws of pain system (also known as Superpsychology) is a science concerning human suffering, human evolution, and the nature of the universe. The three laws of pain (or LOP) can be summed up as follows:
  1. Individuals suffer from a history of unresolved psychoemotional traumas (to varying degrees).
  2. The human species suffers from a history of unresolved social traumas – that caused it to develop into a superorganism structure.
  3. The universe is a superstructured entity – that is, it displays the same characteristics as a superorganism (or hologram, or fractal).
The laws of pain can be used separately, or together – whereupon they form a formula that underpins organic structures in nature. In essence, what applies to one law, also applies to any of the other laws. This formula can be summed up as follows: large structures in the universe reflect small structures, and vice versa.

Religion, Science, and Government have already partially recognised the effects of past traumas

Unresolved past traumas are a constant presence in those affected, and cause them to act out and also develop niggling health and behavioural problems. So it is not surprising that religion, science, and government have, from time-to-time, already noted the effects that past traumas have on people (but without fully understanding the phenomenon). Below are some examples.

Science has recognised the effects of past traumas in People

The development of drugs that work on the brain has been instrumental in uncovering past trauma.
Medical personnel used drugs to treat WWII soldiers suffering from shell shock – or battle fatigue. They noted that some of the soldiers reported that they were reexperencing their births.
In medical literature there is a reference to a sensation of a tight band around the head accompanying tension headaches. This, again, is related to birth trauma - specifically crowning pain. 
“An episodic tension headache may be described as a mild to moderate constant band-like pain, tightness, or pressure around the forehead or back of the head and neck...The pain is usually throbbing... About 30%-80% of the adult U.S. population suffers from occasional tension headaches...” [1]
Medical researchers have recently noted that 80% of first-time mothers who have previously experienced (adult) rape, have greater difficulty with births compared to first-time mothers who never experienced rape:
"The study shows that women who have been raped stop having strong contractions towards the end of the delivery process. It appears that common medical techniques and procedures that are used during childbirth may reawaken the trauma of rape. The trauma may be reactivated when the woman is on her back and is undressed. She is surrounded by strangers who are 'having their way' with her body. 'It is not hard to imagine that this can awaken memories of the assault,'... Those who have been abused are more vulnerable. 'Their experiences have been suppressed, but come forward during the birth,'..." [2]
Religion has noted the symptoms of tension in their followers

Religious people who feel that they are suffering go to their church for help.
In the 2002 National Geographic documentary, Inside the Vatican, the Pope's exorcist stated that most people that come to him for help are not possessed by the devil but are suffering from tension. So he advises them to seek counseling. [3]  
Government has noted the effects of severe trauma in people

Since governments represent the people, they do notice some degree of psychoemotional suffering in the populace.
There is a government department dedicated to providing care for children at risk in troubled homes (such as from malnutrition, violence, sexual abuse, or death). And, globally, they recognise oppressive regimes that cause undue suffering to their peoples. They also recognise basic human rights such as freedoms in speech, travel, and religious belief.

Such examples of suffering recognition are patchy, however, and do not normally relate to everyday life. They only relate to an effect of one trauma, or a general symptom of suffering, or (in the government's case) only the most prominent (physical) traumas. Additionally, they are seen as traumas occurring to people from an adult's perspective, in an adult-orientated world. There is no recognition of psychoemotional suffering accumulating throughout upbringing – from birth and infancy, to childhood, then to schoolyears, and on to early adulthood – that can occur within seemingly innocuous institutions like the average family home, school, university, or workplace. There is also no recognition that trauma-related health and behavioural problems can be passed on from generation to generation.

Scientific Studies supporting adverse effects of past traumas

A search of any science archive can bring up numerous research studies showing the long-term adverse effects that early life traumas have on people. Early traumas have been linked to later onset of obesity, arthritis, migraines, schizophrenia, PTSD, and bullying. Even adverse birth presentations have been linked to later health problems. Recently, the focus has moved to life in the womb and its effects on later health and behavioural problems. So why hasn't religion, science, and government acted upon these findings to provide a social environment dedicated to the healing of past traumas? Nothing has been done because the purpose of most research studies – especially in the field of health care – is to establish whether an effect exists or not. So they are typically shallow – with studies in the same research areas often producing conflicting results. Take obesity for example; research studies have also shown that it is linked to sugar, TV watching, snacking, and to a “fat gene”. So any past trauma-supporting research tends to get drowned out by other findings. Additionally, research results are interpreted via a convoluted "worldview" involving the genetics theory of suffering. That is, that early life traumas lead to genetic faults (or, now, epigenetic faults) – which then lead to later health and behavioural problems, which then require new pharmaceutical drugs to treat.

Birth Trauma

One of the main discoveries of the (first two) laws of pain is that pain to the head caused to babies at birth is the biggest source of health and behavioural problems in the human species. This is not a convolution – it is a psychotherapeutic discovery – made by directly reaccessing and resolving birth trauma – and which can also be supported by evolutionary evidence.

Crowning images: [1] [2]

Due to our species' evolution – involving an infection of unresolved trauma, followed by meat eating, technological development, and language – the human skull has become oversized in relation to body size (neotenisation). Consequently, the most difficult part of birth is the passage of the large foetal skull through the narrow canal. The result is a lot of pressure and pain caused to the baby's head. Part of this experience is commonly known as crowning (above images).

Crushing images: [1] [2]

During birth passage the baby's head is compressed and molded. It can even be partially crushed, with the skull plates held together by cartilage (above images). The end result of birthing is that the skull becomes elongated (but assumes the normal ovaloid shape a couple of days later).

So how is it possible to know that birth is painful? After a number of years of reaccessing and resolving past traumas (known as exfeeling in LOP) one takes a journey deeper and deeper into the past, and, correspondingly, deeper and deeper into evolutionary brain structures. Eventually, some strong pains start emerging – stronger than the pains of later years. One of those pains involves sensations of a tight band around the head. This is unmistakably pain from crowning at birth. As this pain resurfaces it also produces strong psychological symptoms: a nagging, buzzing sensation in the head, an obsession with doing one thing or taking one course of action, and an inability to perform multiple tasks – as too much mental input becomes overwhelming. These are unmistakably symptoms of autism. But when this pain is fully resolved the individual is able to function more normally once again – able to do multiple tasks, and suffers less intense and less frequent tension headaches. What does this tell us about crowning at birth? Intense or prolonged crowning pain is the cause of tension headaches, neurosis that makes some children backward or hypertense, as well as the multiple shades of autism (Autism Spectrum Disorder) that retards some children's mental development.

The laws of pain view is that the totality of pains caused to the head during birth is not only the source of the above problems, but also others, like migraines, epilepsy, and brain damage. And such unresolved head trauma is also implicated in health problems of later years, including stroke, heart attack, Dementia, and others.

Psychology, psychiatry, and other forms of psychotherapy cannot heal these kinds of obscure health problems (in socially functioning people), because of their genetics and cognitive bias. They incorrectly believe that voluntary changes in thinking or behavioural patterns will resolve deep-set psychoemotional problems. Although there are some therapies that have had success at getting a small number of children out of a stuck autistic state – they usually work by extensive educational stimulus (i.e., to make them more cognitively-functional).

In order to debunk the growing claims of being able to heal suffering by reaccessing past traumas, science has employed research showing that people can be implanted with false memories, known as “False Memory Syndrome”. And they also like to highlight cases of patient abuse due to poor practitioning (by fad therapists, who do not care to follow any laws or proper treatment guidelines). So in light of these vehement objections, one must ask: what is a birth trauma-like image doing on the front cover of a recent issue of a prominent science publication?

Before getting to that image, it needs to be put into context by going back to the subject of our reigning social organisations: religion, science, and government. They do not believe that babies suffer from any type of pain at birth. They say that there is no research evidence for this. But, then, they also do not even consider evidence from human evolution. And when we look back in time we can see not only a history of head trauma in the general populace (as I have shown in other articles), but also a history in each of these three social organisations – the ones that are supposed to be responsible for treating human suffering.

Historical Evidence of Birth Trauma in Ruling Organisations

With regard to the denouncers of the efficacy of past traumas, there is one thing that they have all forgotten to take into account. And that is that past traumas generate symbolism that oozes out of us, and mixes in with our current life struggles – even in the lives of clerics, scientists, and politicians. Below I have included key images for each of these fields to demonstrate a history and influence of unresolved birth (head) trauma.

History of Birth Trauma in Government

With the rise of crowning pain at birth – during the Upper Palaeolithic (from about 50,000 or more years ago) – primitive humans began to develop a focus of attention on the head – specifically, surrounding it with paraphernalia. This was largely unconsciously done to try to help contain the pain and tension in that area, give them symbolic meaning, and therefore limit the outbreaks of recurring headaches and migraines. There was a progression in this paraphernalia, from face painting, to tattoos, to scarification, then to headbands, and onwards. These phenomena were at first decorative items, part of ritual dress, or to build fighting mood. But then headbands took on an increasingly important symbolic role. They began to signify rank, occupation, and social leadership (i.e., governorship), culminating in diadems and bejeweled crowns.


The image above is that of a royal's helmet from the city of Ur, dating to about 4,500 years ago. It shows the typical royal (kingly) headware
of the time, with a braided band and diadem wrapped around the head at temple height. What one gets from this image is how thick the band was, and how constrictive it must have been to wear.


The Saudi Arabian people still wear traditional dress, with males – including royal rulers – preferring a band around the head to secure their headcloths. Historically, such headbands have been symbols related to painful restriction around the head at birth. And this rulership is, interestingly enough, also known for being socially restrictive. It is a male-dominated society with pre-teen brides, polygamy, religious police, and women required by law to wear whole-body-covering clothing in public. [4] This demonstrates how unconscious, unresolved past traumas can be at work behind the scenes of a skewed social system. 

History of Birth Trauma in Science

Science is the specialist area of study that tries to find cures for aspects of human suffering. But in this quest, it, too, displays a history of birth trauma affecting (intruding into) its work. In some treatments for head-based problems we can see a continuation from primitive times. For example, calming people down with electroshock therapy has much the same thinking behind it as primitive blows to the head to "knock some sense into people". And brain surgery to quieten an overactive brain (as for Multiple Sclerosis), is a progression from primitive trepanation, that was used to free "demons" from inside the head. But also in science there are familiar symbols of unresolved crowning pain.

discover brain

The above image is the cover of the 2011 special edition of Discover magazine, entitled "The Brain". [5] It shows a head with its skull removed from temple height upwards, to expose the brain within (as this issue's subject of study). (A similar image – with both skull and brain cut off at temple height – can also be found illustrating science articles.) In essence, in its study of the brain and mind, science is employing imagery that is reminiscent of imagery that is thousands of years old (e.g., the Ur helmet above). This begs the question of how up-to-date is science's research into mental health problems.

sciam brain

Now we come to the science magazine's birth trauma-like image mentioned earlier. On the cover of the March 2011 issue of Scientific American (Sciam) magazine, there was an image representing how the troubles of daily life affect people. [6] The image was composed of a brain circumvented by a reddish tube (at temple height), with lightening bolts jarring between the two. It was designed to convey how modern problems impact on our brains, and cause us worries and concerns and tensions. But what it really (inadvertently) showed was how modern problems act to trigger deeper, unresolved pains such as birth trauma – specifically, in this case, the sensation of a tight band around the head due to crowning pain at birth. (And note the remarkable similarity of this image to the actual photos of crowning above.) The image was associated with the lead article about how we recover from adverse situations, entitled, "How Minds Bounce Back: where we get the strength to go on". But the article made no mention of birth trauma at all, and did not even refer to the cover image. Its discussion of overcoming traumas referred only to one “recent trauma” for each person (going back a few years at most), and not to past traumas (i.e., going back to teenagehood, childhood, and birth).

cross hands

Another representation of suffering appeared in the 28 May issue of New Scientist magazine. It was in an article entitled "Cross your arms to relieve pain". [7] It described an experiment in which people were given a painful stimulus to one hand under two situations: while the arms (and hands) were outstretched on a desk; and then while the arms were crossed on the desk. Those people who had their hands crossed over to the other side of the body reported a lower sensation of pain compared to those with hands straight out. But New Scientist did not accompany this article with an image of crossed hands on a desk; instead, it showed an image of a man, standing with bald head bowed forward, arms crossed in front, and with the hand edges – fingers spread – pressed against the temples. The image conveyed a sense of torment. It was, in fact, a symbolic crowning posture – that was largely unrelated to the article itself.

History of Birth Trauma in Religion

Just as social leaders have a history of birth trauma-related headwear to signify their status, and science has a history of birth trauma-related head treatments and imagery, so, too, the religious fraternity has its own equivalent history.

crown of thorns

Undoubtedly the most prominent symbol of birth trauma is the Crown-of-Thorns. This was a form of ancient punishment, whose torturous effect came from being able to trigger deeper head trauma from birth. It seems tame to us today, but back then there were fewer mental outlets for people, no headache tablets, or plentiful alcohol, so the Crown-of-Thorns was able to do an effective torture job. It was also used as a punishment for Jesus, who people claimed had promoted himself as the “King of the Jews”. Religious people could have chosen any portrait of Jesus to follow, but they particularly like to follow this type of a suffering portrait.


A traditional practice employed by numerous religions has been to cut off part or all of the hair. This is known as a tonsure. It is a mark of servitude and piety, which are deemed necessary qualities for dedicated clerics. One tonsure example is the type that is bald at the top with a ring of hair at temple height, which forms a type of crown (similar to that of the Crown-of-Thorns). It is also directly symbolic of unresolved crowning pain from birth.

Evidence of Birth Trauma in Other Areas of Life

When society cannot resolve problems – like amorphous suffering about the head – those problems tend to be expressed through various outlets: ranging from violence to creativity. Two examples are shown below.


When it comes to warfare,
guerrilla, and terrorist groupswho normally do not have uniformsoften go back to basics (and back to human evolution) and don a standardised headband as their insignia. Such a symbol unconsciously taps into unresolved birth trauma to give added weight to their struggle.

venus fly trap

In the entertainment industry, unresolved traumas in the public can be played-upon by film creators to provide a "safe fright". For example, the horror movie franchise, Saw, has a victim trap that is symbolic of birth struggle. It is the "Venus Fly Trap", that can snap shut around the victim's head should they fail to escape from it in time. This trap has a familiar theme of tortuous imagery: first, above, we had science's restrictive tube around the brain with lightening bolts, then religion's faux crown with a row of thorns, and now we have entertainment's split, snap-shut, venus fly trap, with a row of nails at temple height. (These examples demonstrate the variety of applications employed for birth trauma symbolism: to help explain suffering, be a means of torture, or exploited to entertain suffering people.)

All of the images shown here from different fields target that unconscious band of pain around the head circumference. Note that because birth trauma is an unconscious problem, that few people are ever shown escaping from these head traps: the Saudis continue to be stuck in a restrictive culture; “overcoming” traumas – as the Sciam article promoted – doesn't really work that well; Jesus didn't get free from his predicament; Guerrillas and terrorists often end up dying for their cause; and the guy in the venus fly trap inevitably met a gruesome end. The only people fortunate enough to truly escape from such head-trauma related restrictions are those who have reaccessed and resolved birth trauma. The rest must endure a lifetime of trying to avoid suffering – via bouts of frustration and rage, consumption of headache tablets, or use of drugs and alcohol. Notice also how prevalent birth trauma (symbolism) is in our society, and has been for tens of thousands of years. Yet our ruling organisations never talk about it, never treat it, and even reject claims concerning it. This is precisely why human suffering continues in our speciesbecause our ruling organisations choose to ignore one of its main sources.

Representations of the Superorganism, Fractal, or Hologram

A further image – relevant to the laws of pain – appeared on the cover of the May 2011 issue of Discover magazine. [8]

discover fractal

This image was of a human skull made up of many smaller skulls. This is a typical way of representing a hologram – or a fractal, or a superorganism. It was associated with an article entitled, "Homo Sapiens, Meet Your New Astounding Family", which presented several theories concerning a new family tree for our genus. But, as with the Sciam birth-like cover image and non-related article above, there was no discussion within this article of our species as a superorganism, nor even as a hologram, or fractal-like entity – not even a mention of the terms. In this case the public is getting a mixed message from science: the cover image says “human superorganism, hologram, or fractal” while the article says “human family tree”. So is the human species a superorganism – with a hologram, or fractal-like structure? Or is it not a superorganism? If it is, then where is the article describing it as such? If it isn't, then why is this magazine visually portraying the species as such?

To use birth trauma and superorganism-related imagery to spice-up magazine articles – that do not refer to such images – means that there are grounds for charges of false advertising, or misleading content against science publications. Suffering people could see such images and think that the magazines have new, pertinent information to help them with deep, inexplicable, complex problems, only to find that the associated content is just the usual theories – or small updates of such – that do not further elucidate the human condition. Furthermore, to use such imagery when mainstream science publicly denies the existence of birth trauma – or that the human species is a superorganism – is sheer hypocrisy.

Genetics-based Research

When it comes to genetics-based science, there was an interesting study done on this in 2010. It was the tenth anniversary of the genome project, and Nature magazine conducted a survey of life scientists on its value. (Note: this magazine is owned by Nature Publishing – recognised as the most prestigious science publisher; and, interestingly, it also owns Scientific American – the magazine that had the birth-trauma-like cover image explained above.) This is part of the poll's finding:
''With this profound new knowledge, humankind is on the verge of gaining immense, new power to heal. It will revolutionize the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of most, if not all, human diseases.' So declared then US President Bill Clinton in the East Room of the White House on 26 June 2000...Ten years on, the hoped-for revolution against human disease has not arrived — and Nature's poll of more than 1,000 life scientists shows that most don't anticipate that it will for decades to come...Although nearly 60% of those polled said they thought that basic biological science had benefited significantly from human genome sequences, only about 20% felt the same was true for clinical medicine.' [9]
Medical research – including genetics, genomics, and now epigenetics – costs a lot of money to fund. It produces valuable information, has had some successes, but produces little in terms of substantial, sustained healing. Most projects end with a statement of expected beneficial treatments 5, 10, 20 or more years into the future – but rarely today. Scientific research follows the principle of peer review – which means that submitted papers are reviewed by similarly qualified scientists before being accepted for publishing. This works well when research follows accepted laws, principles, and methodology; but it fails to question any overarching "worldviews" – that is, the way that nature may be perceived to work. For example, Nature's survey acted as a peer review of the genetics theory (or worldview) of health and behavioural problemsand it failed dismally. Nature should then have reassessed its attitude towards this type of research, and reduced its publishing of it accordingly. It should also have begun looking for other laws or theories (worldviews) to publish health articles on. But it didn't. Nature, and all the other science publications, just continued to publish articles on genetics-based research, as if it was the only hope of investigating and treating health and behavioural problems. This is an hypocrisy that sees peer review as being mandatory on one level, but being ignored on another level. 

Cancer Treatment

Cancer is a prevalent disease – for which most forms have no cure – that will strike many people at some point in their lives. Although there are various disciplines involved in its study – like cell biology and biochemistry – it, again, is mostly researched from the perspective of genetic or epigenetic faults. And, again, medical science has failed to find a solution to its problems – only prospects of cures in the future (except for the cervical cancer vaccine, which has been a rare success).

The laws of pain system, however, provides a new perspective on cancer. According to it, the behavior of tumors is similar to the behaviour of superorganisms. Cancerous cells firstly increase their population. Clumps of cells then break off from the original tumor site and travel through the body's (blood and lymphatic) transport systems to establish colonies. There they wait dormantly until a chemical signal starts them invading tissue, hijacking blood vessels, and taking nutrients away from the host to feed themselves (metastases). This process is similar to superorganism behaviour, whereby a large empire is created, scouts go off to establish colonies, and those colonies then invade the local environment for food and raw materials. It is also similar to how terrorist groups operate: utilising transport routes to establish colonies (or terrorist “cells”); then wait for a command to attack major targets; and generally cause mayhem and destruction to their host society. And how does one stop a rampaging superorganism? The method most commonly used in warfare is to “cut off its head”, by killing its most prominent figures. The now leaderless superorganism tends to lose its malevolent motivation, and disintegrates. LOP discussion of superorganism behaviour also extends to other species, like bees. In this case, showing that specialised roles – like queen bee and worker bee – are created by pain-laden behaviour, thus disproving the traditional view that the roles are genetically-determined.

From this new perspective, once again we can see science taking cues from the laws of pain (either directly or through the grapevine) and applying them back to traditional approaches. It has been known for some time that stem cells are a driving force in some cancers. One new theory has expanded on this phenomenon, by stating that cancer metasteses are similar in kind to that of the queen bee and hive relationship. A queen bee builds up a hive from daughter offspring and exerts control over them. Kill the queen bee and a hive can disintegrate. Likewise, a colony of cancer cells is believed to develop from a stem cell (AKA queen bee) and its daughter cells – since cancer cell staining has shown that most come from the same parent stem cell. So, kill the cancer stem cell/s and the cancer should likewise disintegrate. [10] This theory is similar to LOP's above – that cancers are superorganism-like growths.

LOP discussion has also involved sugar craving. When a person resolves a lot of past pain, they're need for sweet foods diminishes, and they begin to notice the large amount of sugar contained in human foods, like soft drinks, flavoured milks, and cereals. This tells us that there is a widespread degree of unresolved psychoemotional pain in our species – leading to a mass sugar craving that is plied by food manufacturers. Coincidentally, a number of science teams have described cancer cells as having a “sweet tooth”, in that they like to feed off sugar (sucrose). If you take the sucrose away from them they will die. [11] This is similar to the suffering of unresolved pain in the human species – except that if you take sugar away from people they will suffer increased irritability and tension, rather than dying.

Most of the discussion in LOP concerns resolving tension. Unresolved pain is accompanied by anxiety and tension, so resolving past pain also reduces these symptoms and produces a calmer, more relaxed disposition. Again, coincidentally, a number of science teams have found that a prevalence of tension (or stress) in mice increases the occurrence, and malignancy, of cancer. [12] The latest study has shown that regular intake of painkillers over the years significantly reduces the incidence of (skin) cancer in the mice. So reducing tension and "killing pain" can both reduce the occurrence or severity of cancer.

Finally, with the laws of pain it is noted that most health problems that we suffer from are autoimmune-related. The view here is that the internal pressure and rerouting of pain-laden tension skews the functioning of the body, weakens the immune system, and causes any of a variety of ailments. Conversely, resolving past pain strengthens the immune system, because it gradually heals ailments, like headaches, migraines, ulcers, and acne, for example. Again, coincidentally, studies have shown that the anti-inflammatory and painkiller, aspirin (asylicitic acid) – which calms the autoimmune response and subdues the sensation of pain – can reduce tumors. So it is being recommended for use to treat a range of (autoimmune) symptoms, like high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease, and cancer. [13]

So here we have four scientific studies that describe cancer as possessing the exact same attributes – superorganism behaviour, sugar addiction, tension, and inflamed immune response – that the laws of pain automatically heals in suffering people, by resolving past traumas. What does this tell us about the nature of cancer? It tells us that the characteristic behaviour of cancer cells is similar to the characteristic behaviour of humans who suffer from unresolved trauma. Furthermore, that unresolved trauma can fuel cancer – just like uncleared undergrowth can fuel a forest fire. And, in conclusion, that resolving past trauma can take away fuel from potential cancerous growth – just like clearing away undergrowth can take away fuel from a potential fire. And if such healed people do happen to get cancer, it is more likely to be of the less virulent type, that will give them a better chance at survival.

It is good that science performs detailed studies to try to find drug solutions for health problems. But note, also, that studies like those above are isolated efforts – there is no coherent knowledge that pulls all the findings together; and that there are no effective cures attained as yet for the problems studied. (Most cancer drugs are good at reducing tumor size, but not at healing them.) Their most readily-available solution so far – that of the painkiller aspirin – only has a temporary effect, so one has to keep taking it to reduce symptoms and continue to survive. Yet, all those same study findings were already present in a law-based solution – the LOP – showing that it is indeed a science that has an underlying unifying nature, and an effective healing substrate. So the best scenario for cancer sufferers would be to have a hybrid approach of treatment – so that both ends of the spectrum are covered: the LOP to take fuel away from potential cancer growth; and medical science to treat the cancer cells directly once people have got them.

Counter Treatments, Articles, Theories, and Policies

In order to address the emergence of laws of pain material on the Internet, religion, science, and government have all begun promoting "counter" treatments, articles, theories, and policies. Some examples follow.

After writing about exorcism being a practice similar to that used in LOP treatment (but using the wrong knowledge behind it), its practice – as well as belief in evil – has since been reaffirmed by religion. And, a new documentary, The Exorcist in the 21st Century, was released to the public, as if to counter the LOP criticism that the practice is out of date in the Twenty-first Century.

Numerous medical and psychological services are now making counter claims to those discovered with the laws of pain. They include being able to "rewire the brain", or "increase ambidexterity", or to locate brain sites responsible for one's social outlook. Although they may be able to achieve these things in various ways, such results are not attained naturally, as a result of healing the affliction (unresolved pain) that caused those respective distortions in the first place.

Whenever an LOP article is posted on this site, it is often the case that a science publication will publish a “counter article” to it. This is an article on the same subject but from a traditional perspective. For example, after I published the article about “The Rosetta Stone of Postures...” an online science publication posted an article about the real Rosetta Stone to counter it.

Whenever an LOP blog is posted on this site, it is also often the case that the government will introduce a new policy or treatment program to counter it. For example, when I blogged about school shootings and the fact that government couldn't even resolve school bullying, the government introduced an anti-bullying program for schools. When I blogged about Michael Jackson's death being similar to other famous people – who were given prescription medications to treat mental health problems – the government immediately introduced a treatment program for prescription drug addiction.

There are numerous articles, books, and documentaries that laws of pain science has influenced, largely dealing with human evolution, history, society, or entomology. They often present a “new perspective” on human nature, or involve a renewed interest in superorganisms or in systems science. But although such material does indeed present new findings, the underlying worldview (involving human evolution, social behaviour, and what makes us such a troubled species) has largely remained unchanged.  

One documentary in particular is a case-in-point. Origins of Us (2011) employs the latest knowledge to try to explain the reasons for our species' evolution. [14] And it actually mentions some developmental factors from the laws of pain. However, behind these factors the LOP provides a single generating source for human evolution: unresolved psychoemotional pain, that repressed our natural ape qualities, and drove our species to develop technologically. But this documentary did not provide a generating source for human evolution – just a string of factors: standing in trees to reach high food sources and walking upright on land; meat-eating; tool-making; running to hunt down prey; and extended post-birth learning. And instead of discussing pain endured by babies at birth – as the LOP does – the documentary, instead, discussed the pain that a mother endures during labour and delivery. It is good that scientists are finally recognising the effects of pain, but in this case it is referenced to the wrong person. Adults have physical and psychological strength to withstand pain – but babies do not, and so their pain is stronger, more damaging, and has had a greater impact on human evolution. The fact that traditional science cannot recognise any pain that a baby might endure at birth – but can only substitute adult pain instead – perfectly illustrates how unconscious our species is of very early trauma. And one must ask, if the mother experiences great pain at birth – largely due to the oversized foetal skull emerging – wouldn't the baby also suffer great pain from pressure to its soft skull?

These counter treatments, articles, theories, and policies are attempts by religion, science, and government to try to quash the laws of pain. They are attempts to draw public attention away from them – as a new approach to resolving human problems – and to keep their attention focused on traditional knowledge and practices.

Options for Action

Psychotherapeutic and evolutionary evidence shows that birth trauma places a lot of pressure on babies, and the partial crushing of the skull can lead to a range of health and behavioural problems. As this article has demonstrated, religion, science, and government are aware of how a law-based system explains human suffering. This author has also made two approaches to government. In the mid 2000s, government was informed of the problems that ensue from pain caused to the head of babies at birth. This was dismissed after referral to a medical body. In 2012, a new category of medicinecomposed of the LOP and two other innovative treatments from other fieldswas proposed. This would not only improve healing options for the public, but also potentially create many new jobs. But this, too, was rejected.

Since religion, science, and government are aware of a major source of health and behavioural problems (in birth trauma) – but have chosen to reject or ignore itthat now raises the question of liability for damage caused to people as a result of not addressing that source. This liability includes failure to foster information to the public about the problem, failure to foster information that could assist parents to properly care (post-birth) for at-risk babies, failure to support an effective healing service for people who have been so affected, and continuing to maintain an unfeeling-based culture. People could pursue the following means of action. 

A New Human Right to address Psychoemotional Suffering

Every social revolution brings with it a legal framework to help guide society in the new direction from which it will benefit. The LOP's legal framework is based on respecting a new human right, as described below. 
It is an inherent human right that suffering be healed no matter how or where it may occur – and to employ the most effective knowledge and practices to do so. In line with this, people have the right to live a life free of psychoemotional suffering. Such suffering occurs from traumas accumulated throughout upbringing: from pain at birth; poor parenting that lacks love, affection, and interest; schooling that can have a bullying environment; and a workplace that can have a dominant-subordinate management style. This type of suffering can proliferate within an unfeeling culture that is overseen by religion, science, and government (by maintaining inaccurate or out-of-date doctrines, policies, laws, or actions/s).
Countries, or social groups, that have significant rates of health problems and/or distorted human behaviours (like violence, fanaticism, drug addiction, alcoholism, and sex abuse) would be considered to have failed to meet this human right. Such a failing can be a serious problem because it is akin to allowing for crimes against humanity to be perpetrated by psychoemotionally distorted individuals, and so it should be a failing that attracts measures that would encourage change.

Questions that Religion, Science, and Government need to Answer

Our ruling organisations are engaged in trying to suppress a new science and practice – that of the laws of pain – that can heal the current crop of symptoms of human suffering. They are doing this – not in a malicious way – but in a way so as to prolong the prominence of traditional knowledge and practices. Both religion and science have a history of not questioning their prevailing worldviews, as well as carrying on practices for thousands of years past their use-by-date. For example, Demonology and exorcism, and the humors and bloodletting respectively. Meanwhile, government supports both religion and science as authoritative organisations, supports them financially – in terms of tax breaks and grants respectively – and recognises their roles in treating suffering in society. But since the treatment of current health and behavioural problems has been below par, and stuck firmly in the past, these three organisations now need to answer some pertinent questions.

Why do religion, science, and government employ laws of pain material to give a boost to their own work, help explain their own views on suffering, or to develop health care policies respectively, when they publicly ignore or refuse to accept that past traumas exist and can be reaccessed and resolved?

Why does the government waste public funds on grants for needless, shallow scientific research into psychoemotional illnesses? Especially when they are conducted by bodies that openly state that science does not exactly know what causes such illnesses (i.e., whether they are genetic, environmental, biochemical, or a mix of each). Wouldn't it be more appropriate to cut back the research projects, and start financially supporting a law-based solution that has already discovered what causes such illnesses?

Why do government and science only allow cancer victims to be treated from a limited range of scientific knowledge – mostly genetics-based? And why, when those limited treatment approaches fail, do they expect patients to just go home and wait to die? Why don't they offer cancer victims the fullest range of knowledge available to tackle cancer, and include a science on past pain resolution and superorganism behaviour – especially when cancerous growths, themselves, behave like superorganisms?

Regarding genetics-based research, why are we giving so much support to a (medical) science that studies a part of our being that has changed from our ape cousins by only about 6 percent in 6 million years (the time when hominins split from chimpanzees)? And it is not providing solutions to current problems – only promises of cures in the future. In contrast, laws of pain science studies the brainthe one part of our being that has changed the most from our ape cousinsby about 300 percent in 3 million years (the time when hominins left the ape evolutionary path). It is the brain that is bulging with suffering, not the DNA code. And it is the brain that has an in-built healing mechanismthat is currently being blocked from usenot the DNA code. The laws of pain already embodies this healing mechanism (exfeeling) and can produce cures now – not at some speculative future time. We are wasting time and money – and people's lives – giving such extensive support to a science that is looking in the wrong place.

Why do religion, science, and government all recognise that accident victims with partially crushed skulls must be suffering great pain, and will need health care to treat resultant headaches, migraines, epilepsy, psychological problems, and/or outbursts of rage; yet, when they witness partially crushed skulls in babies during birth, they believe that it is perfectly natural, not painful, and that they do not need any special health care? And then later on, they try to explain the same list of head trauma-related symptoms in ordinary people (those who have never had any head accidents) to be due to “evil demons”, “genetic faults”, or (in terms of rage) “lack of education and discipline” respectively? Isn't it more likely to be true that those same range of symptoms are a result of head trauma occurring to ordinary people when their skulls were partially crushed at birth?

And in finality, why do religion, science, and government just not want babies to be able to free themselves from a lifetime of suffering – as a result of symptoms generated by pain that they endured at birth?

In the psychoemotionally ill, we have a potential bounty of healed, rewired, and re-energised brains that could tackle and find solutions for the worst of our current social problems – such as overpopulation, global warming, rising salt table, overfishing, deforestation, and water shortages. But what are religion, science, and government doing? They are lost in a morass of shallow treatments that they all claim to work, yet the continued state of human suffering clearly shows that they do not. Times change. New challenges emerge. And our ruling organisations need to adapt and change accordingly. Currently they are not. When it comes to inexplicable symptoms of human suffering – which mostly relate to mental health issues – we are not fully living in a sleek, modern Twenty-first Century. Instead, we are still bound hand-and-foot to knowledge and practices that were typical of the Stone Age.


[1] WebMD, (online), WebMD, LLC., (accessed 27 Feb 2011),

[2] The University of Tromsø, "Birth can reawaken the trauma of rape", ScienceNordic.com, (online), ScienceNordic, Copenhagen, April 9, 2012, (accessed 25 Nov 2012),

[3] Inside the Vatican, National Geographic, (video), National Geographic Society, 2002,

[4] "Saudi Arabia", Wikipedia, (online), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., (accessed 18 Feb 2013)

[5] "The Brain", 2011, Discover, (special issue), Kalmbach Publishing Co., (accessed 30-03-12), 

[6] "Scientific American Magazine", March 2011 issue, Scientific American, (online), Scientific American, Inc., (accessed 20 Feb 2013),

[7] "Cross your arms to relieve pain", NewScientist, (online), Reed Business Information Ltd., 29 May 2011, (accessed 30-03-12), 

[8] "You are not Human", Discover May 2011, (online), Kalmbach Publishing Co., (accessed 30-03-12), 
Jill Neimark, "Homo Sapiens, Meet Your New Astounding Family", Discover May 2011, (online), Kalmbach Publishing Co., Thursday, July 28, 2011, (accessed 30-03-12),

[9] "Human genome at ten: Science after the sequence", Nature, (online), Nature Publishing Group, 23 June 2010 | Nature 465, 1000-1001 (2010) | doi:10.1038/4651000a, (accessed 1 Feb 2011),

[10] Safia Danovi, "The queen in the hive – scientists find more evidence for cancer stem cells", Science Update Blog, (online), Cancer Research UK, August 3, 2012, (accessed 20 Feb 2013),

[11] "Cancers' Sweet Tooth May Be Weakness", ScienceDaily, (online), ScienceDaily LLC, Nov. 18, 2009, (accessed 20 Feb 2013),

"Cancer's Sweet Tooth May Be Its Weak Link", ScienceDaily, (online), ScienceDaily LLC, Nov. 17, 2011, (accessed 20 Feb 2013),

Cancer’s Lack of Sweet Tooth Points to Therapeutic Target, GEN magazine, (online), Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, Aug 24, 2012, (accessed 5 Feb 2013),

Judith Montminy or Misia Landau, "Attacking Cancer's Sweet Tooth Is Effective Strategy Against Tumors", News Releases Harvard Medical School Office of Public Affairs, (online), Harvard Medical School, (accessed 20 Feb 2013),

[12] Stephanie Pappas, "Anxious Mice Face Higher Cancer Risk", LiveScience, (online), TechMediaNetwork.com, 25 April 2012, (accessed 12 Feb 2013),

Vanessa Wasta, Stressed Mice Quicker To Get Skin Cancer, Johns Hopkins Medicine, (online), The Johns Hopkins University, December 8, 2004, (accessed 12 Feb 2013),

[13] Aspirin: New Evidence Is Helping Explain Additional Health Benefits and Open Potential for New Uses, ScienceDaily, (online), ScienceDaily LLC, Apr. 19, 2012, (accessed 28 Jan 2013),

[14] Origins of Us, (video), BBC2, BBC, Wed 19 Oct 2011, (broadcast on SBS Australia 2012),

Febuary 2013
Text and/or pictures / images / sound / video
copyright Lane, R., 1997-present
Superpsychology LOP
All rights reserved