(Part 1, Part 2 see below)

Answers to Pelosi and Marks

1) In the Journal of Health Psychology issue of 22 February 2019, two articles by Anthony Pelosi and David Marks (editor of the journal) massively denounce and discriminate against Professor Hans Eysenck and Professor Grossart-Maticek. Professor Eysenck is the founder of behavioural therapy, he is the most cited psychologist in academic circles. Grossarth-Maticek is the founder of multi-causal research and preventive behavioural medicine. The cooperation of both showed high effectiveness in prediction and prevention. In the journal, Professor Grossarth is described as an untrained, isolated and vulnerable employee who allegedly has been mercilessly manipulated by Eysenck for years. Grossarth-Maticek’s studies are questioned for their enormous effectiveness. It is claimed that no other research groups were able to reproduce effects of a similar magnitude.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1359105318822045?journalCode=hpqa
Based on the allegations, editor David Marks makes a call to withdraw the publications by Grossarth-Maticek and Eysenck from the literature in order to prevent further citations and further use as a basis for therapies. An additional argument is that Eysenck’s work was allegedly funded by the tobacco industry, in order to establish an apparent link between cancer and personality.

Answer: The cooperation between Grossarth and Eysenck was equal and very creative. There was mutual inspiration between academic psychology and the multi-causal research, as a new development in psychology and epidemiology. Thus many monocausal views towards multi-causality have been corrected. The multi-causal development in psychology could only be achieved through the cooperation of two independent and highly innovative personalities. The description of the relationship between the two scientists Eysenck and Grossarth by the editor David Marks and the author Antony Pelosi speaks for itself. It is a maximum of defamation and discrimination through false presentations. Professor Eysenck died many years ago and therefore cannot defend himself against the accusations.

2) Marks and Pelosi claim that Grossarth’s research results show an effectiveness that could not be reproduced with such magnitude by any other research group.

Answer: There were no replication studies with negative results except for the very weak studies by Amelang, who had to withdraw his discriminatory statements before the Heidelberg Regional Court. There was no basis to compare the effectiveness of critical studies with the results of Grossarth’s studies. There were several replication studies with positive results, e.g. the multicentre study by Kröz et al., which demonstrated that the Grossarthian assessment of self-regulation ability is of great importance in oncology. In both articles in the journal, Grossarth’s research method, theoretical basis, and the results in this context are not presented at any point. Grossarth’s research method refers to prospective studies with randomized interventions with an external control by providing data to neutral research institutes.
Due to the external control of the data it would have been impossible to manipulate the research results obtained in this way. The data were usually given to controlling institutes before the evaluation results were known and were collected by these institutes, for example by the Institute for Statistics and Mathematical Economic Theory at the University of Karlsruhe, Professor Dr. Martin Rutsch and Professor Heller, by the Institute for Mathematical Psychology at the University of Zurich, Professor Dr. Norbert Bischof, Institute for Sociology at the University of Heidelberg, Privatdozent Dr. Hermann Vetter and six other institutes. The false accusation of data manipulation is based on complete ignorance of the most effective method of evidence in the history of psychology and epidemiology.

Among other things, David Marks has researched about cigarette smoking. In some self-competent conviction he accuses Professor Eysenck of having intended to prove to the cigarette industry that there would be an association between personality and cancer. Eysenck’s studies were never funded by the tobacco industry. The naive notion of Marks about the effects of tobacco smoking is incompatible with the complex multi-causal research, and he is obviously unable to understand it.
Here is an example from Grossarth-Eysenck research on the development of bronchial carcinoma, in which the different, context-dependent effects of cigarette smoking become apparent: Regular cigarette smoking has an effect in three different psychophysical contexts: on the one hand, it is extremely pathogenic and, on the other hand, the pathogenity varies. If smoking occurs in the context of the following factors: familial disposition to bronchial carcinoma, chronic obstructive bronchitis, pneumonia, lack of fever when acute bronchitis occurs, lung damage such as tuberculosis, contact with asbestos, then cigarette smoking causes the bronchial carcinoma at 70% compared with non-smokers where it occurs at the same exposure at 32%. Of people who do not have any of the above risk constellations, 8% of smokers develop bronchial carcinoma. Such contextual scientific research also inspired Professor Eysenck, but Pelosi’s and Marks comprehension doesn’t seem up to it. Therefore to them it seems easier to make the authoritarian demand that Grossarth and Eysenck’s entire studies be removed from the literature.

3) David Marks sends an urgent appeal to withdraw the work of Eysenck and Grossarth from specialist literature, so it won’t be cited and used as a basis of therapies any more.

Answer: Doesn’t this procedure remind us of the fascist book burning? The Nazis wanted to make disagreeable authors disappear from literature so that they could no longer be quoted.
As chance would have it, Grossarth-Maticek has carried out the world’s most comprehensive study of fascism, anti-semitism and democracy, which will be published in book form and as scientific articles in the coming months. In this study thinking and acting of former members of the SS, former Nazis in high positions and young neo-Nazis from different countries were investigated and analysed. Grossarth used a questionnaire and an observation catalogue. Based on this catalogue of observations the mentalities of Anthony Pelosi and David Marks expressed in their claims coincide, according to Grossarth’s conviction, with the extreme authoritarian radical behaviour of the fascists investigated. Also with regard to Grossarth’s radicalism research an enormous effectiveness can be proven in the comparison of radical to democratic behaviour patterns. Here are the five most important factors from the observation catalogue:
a) absolute urge to annihilate a defined opponent.
b) use of discrimination and systematic falsehoods as arguments.
c) an effort to convince the public of the social harmfulness of the opponent.
d) development of a destructive rush in which counterarguments are no longer taken into account.
e) failure of the democratic world to counteract the urge of the persons to annihilate.

4) Examples of untrue and manipulated representations in the two articles:
Grossarth has identified 34 untrue and incomplete aspects. Only one representative example will be presented here.
Grossarth’s closest colleage, an ingenious statistician Dr. Hermann Vetter without whose cooperation the extensive publications would not have taken place, is presented as a person who allegedly has distanced himself from Grossarth. One critical article against Grossarth, published by Dr. Hermann Vetter in the journal Psychological Inquiry is quoted, and they are concealing the fact, that in the same issue of the journal Vetter himself has taken back his own article, describing it as his own error due to an incorrect statistical evaluation. Therefore Vetter now published a corrected version which fully confirms Grossarth’s research results. This example shows Pelosi’s strong motivation to disparage Grossarth’s studies and his unwillingness to accept the real connections. (see: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1449072?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents und das Abstract auf der Seite der American Psychological Association: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-20381-001

5) The basic difference between monocausal and multicausal research: Monocausal research is based on the assumption that each factor of action unfolds a constant and non-variable magnitude of action. For example, cigarette smoking is always extremely harmful to health. Multi-causal research takes several factors into account in the constellations of effects and context-dependencies of other effects.
For example Grossarths results confirm that cigarette smoking is a very strong risk factor in context with other disease-causing factors, however in another context the negativ effect on survival time is also present but not to such a high degree.
The difference between mono-causal and multi-causal research concepts is similar to the difference between Newtonian mechanical physics and Heisenberg’s modern quantum physics.

6) Grossarth-Maticek is presented as an unauthorized employee of Eysenck. In reality, Grossarth-Maticek and numerous international scientists have developed the world’s largest multi-causal research program. A total of 61 people and institutes have cooperated intensively with him on individual topics and have published internationally. Here are a few examples: Under the direction of PD Dr. Gallasch, the Heidelberg University Clinic for Ophthalmology has carried out a joint cooperation project to find out whether the degree of sclerosis in the fundus of the eye is a predictor of myocardial infarction/brain stroke and whether sclerosis decreases under preventive behavioural therapy (Grossarth-Maticek, R.Eysenck, H. J.; Gallasch, G.; Vetter, H.; Frentzel-Beyme, R.: Cprobands. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29 (1991), 343-351).
Another cooperation project was carried out with Prof. Heep at the St. Josefskrankenhaus in Heidelberg with regard to the development of breast cancer. All patients of the hospital with breast cancer (1,250 persons), together with 4,060 patients from our prospective studies, were examined and evaluated using a questionnaire. The results were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Since these publications were strictly controlled by each member of staff, there could be no data manipulation. All published papers refer to multi-causal relationships with significance for preventive medicine. Professor Eysenck had taken on the role of talking to me and many cooperation partners and centrally exercising important controls. For example, he demanded the publication of 71 addresses in which all 6 people in a straight line either had a heart attack/brain attack or a certain type of cancer, in order to subsequently examine the relatives of these people together with a scientific assistant. The data of 70 persons were correct, while one showed a slight deviation (instead of 6 only 5 persons in a straight line). The original number of people with extreme stress was 93. In 22 cases the relatives could not or did not want to give information. From 32,570 persons, a selection of persons with a high genetic family burden was made.

7) Grossarth feels shocked by the lack of professional understanding of the multi-causal research and the inability to grasp it and also by the connection with untrue assertions and systematic discrimination. He finds comfort in two statements by Albert Einstein:
„Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, but I’m not quite sure about the universe yet.“ „It is easier to smash an atom than to break down prejudices.“

Dr. med. Dr. phil. Dr. h. c. Ronald Grossarth-Maticek

Part 2: An expanded and updated version.

Introduction: false allegations with the aim of completely discrediting the research program of Grossarth and Eysenck.

Pelosi repeatedly claims (e.g. in the Journal of Health Psychology, The Guardian)

• that the Grossarth research program is the greatest scientific scandal of all time and that
• Grossarth-Maticek is a fraud and manipulates his data.

This view was adopted by the editor of the journal Health Psychology, David Marks.

• Both authors attempt to prove their point of view with a large number of untrue assertions, with the clear aim of taking criminal action against Eysenck and Grossarth. Both demand the retraction of all articles by Eysenck and Grossarth from international journals.
• The critical article mentions that only one replication study by Professor Amelang exists with totally negative results.
• Both authors claim that the research results of Grossarth and Eysenck are too good, because they are better than all internationally known studies.
• The authors Pelosi and Marks list a large number of alleged critics, without differentiating whether they were positive or negative.
• Pelosi and Marks show utter contempt for the research program of Eysenck and Grossarth, e.g., by inciting a punishable act through their false assertions, e.g., the withdrawal of the largest number of publications by both authors.
• Pelosi and Marks discriminate against our multifactorial intervention for the reduction of chronic diseases and the maintenance of health. They claim that there is not the slightest positive evidence for our results and that the intervention is presented in the expert system as “self-pitying whining”.

Answers:

• The research program of Grossarth-Maticek on the subject of disease and health is the most complex and innovative interactive multicausal scientific model. The following elements have been developed and integrated in the criticized and devalued research program: Prospective intervention studies with data delivery to controlling professors and researchers even before the results were known. Recording of synergy effects in multicausal data collection. The continuation of research to examine children and grandchildren in the area of the so-called multigenerational study. The development of effective multicausal intervention strategies. This is not mentioned by Pelosi or Marks. The research program is hinted at in the further text.
• The implementation of individual steps in the research program, especially the data collection and analysis, were checked several times by different scientists and institutes, so that there was no room for data manipulation (for example, by Professor Eysenck, Professor Jan Bastiaans, Professor Helm Stierlin, Professor Norbert Bischof, Professor Wolf-Dieter Heller, Professor Peter Opalic, Professor Vogt Moykopf, Dr. Hermann Vetter). All scientists were directly involved in data collection and data control (the individual functions are described below). The claim of data manipulation by Pelosi is based on subjective statements and assertions without any evidence and without taking into account the extensive control.
• The suggestion to retract and disregard the publications of both authors is not based on proven false statistical evaluations (these are mostly highly complex multivariate approaches), but on emotional subjective claims by the critics, which they usually express without sufficient information and present false claims.
• They fail to mention that a large number of replication studies have been conducted by Grossarth’s harsh critics (e.g. Van der Ploeg, Krätz et al, Charlie Spielberger). The only study mentioned by Amelang, which allegedly

refuted Grossarth’s research program is a repeatedly recognized extremely weak study, which is not allowed to call itself a replication study and which has even been banned by court order as defamatory.

• The research results from the Grossarth/Eysenck research program must be analyzed in a complex and interactive way and not just with a calculator, taking only percentages into account.

This is where the explanation should be given as to why the results are said to be implausible from Pelosi and Marks‘ point of view.

• After data collection and the implementation of preventive therapeutic results, mortality (basic illnesses on the death certificate and the incidence of basic illnesses that had already occurred but were still living) were recorded after many years. The first presentation of the results related to mortality, which actually appeared to be much higher in the trained groups than in the randomized control groups. The solution only became apparent with the laborious but complete recording of the incidence. In the treated group, the incidence was significantly higher than in the control group, and that means that there were a much larger number of deceased persons in the control group than in the treated group. In this group, the therapy did not prevent the disease, but delayed the period of death. It was only after several years in the second follow-up examination that more people in the treated group died, resulting in a balance. This result was communicated to Professor Eysenck, Dr. Vetter and Charlie Spielberger. For Grossarth, it was a good opportunity to encrypt the data, for example, because a large number of scientific institutes were highly motivated to acquire the expert system for their own interests. Without the existing database of incidences, this step was not possible. In view of the good results of the prospective studies, e.g. the interactive psychophysical typology, positive replications were carried out in detail, but not sufficiently, which Professor Eysenck has criticized in his publications. Here, too, the criticisms of Pelosi and Marks, who are probably only satisfied with the calculator and percentages, are not sufficient. There is no reason to withdraw publications that may have been in existence for over thirty years, even if they have convinced the President of Kings College London.
• Within the cited literature, positive replication studies are lumped together with critical studies, creating the impression that all scientists are negatively disposed towards the research program. The overwhelming number of endorsements of the multi-causal research program is not mentioned at all (e.g. by Nobel Prize winner Harald zur Hausen, Professor Jan Bastiaans and another twenty professors, which were published in the book kompetent gesund (Hamburg 2015 tredition GmbH). Interestingly, the authors of this work quote and ignore the positive statements of leading international researchers.

The suggestion that the two authors should withdraw their publications and be disregarded is not based on demonstrably false statistical analyses (in most cases, these are highly complex multivariate approaches), but on the critics‘ subjective emotional assertions, which they usually make without sufficient information and which represent false assertions.

• Preventive therapeutic intervention is also part of the multicausal research, for example, to prevent cancer

1. autonomy training was used to reduce suffering in isolation and ambivalence through the method “send love, feel pain, become autonomous”.
2. Use of tricyclic antidepressants to reduce chronic depression.
3. Pleasure-oriented cigarette cessation
4. Reduction or discontinuation of sedatives
5. Partial use of Iscador, a mistletoe preparation to induce fever

The simultaneous use of several intervention measures shows synergetic effects and reduces mortality from cancer in certain periods.

Summary: The false allegations of Pelosi and Marks provide no evidence for the serious accusations of data manipulation and of the research program being the biggest scandal of all time. The systematic accusations clearly pursue the goal of discrediting the research program of Grossarth and Eysenck internationally and of inciting punishable activities before responsible organizations (e.g. by withdrawing the most important publications of both authors). Thus, the activities of both authors go far beyond the legally guaranteed freedom of expression. The authors seem to know that the false accusations do not suffice in isolation and therefore make a large number of false and misleading allegations in the hope that the sum of the false allegations will eventually lead to success. For this reason, Grossarth is forced to “go into” such arguments and take legal action to prevent false, targeted, and destructive discrimination.

Presentation of further systematic discrimination, untrue assertions, and disregard for facts as a clear pursuit of the goal of total destruction of the work of Eysenck and Grossarth

Professor Eysenck and Dr. Ronald Grossarth-Maticek worked together very closely for many years with the aim of developing and empirically proving a multi-causal research program. Before Dr. Grossarth-Maticek and Professor Eysenck met, Professor Eysenck had done a great deal of work and published extensively on the psychosocial components of cancer. Grossarth-Maticek had been working on multicausal research from an early stage. When the two met, Eysenck quickly accepted Grossarth-Maticek’s multicausal concept. Both then analyzed a large amount of monocausal data, which had previously been collected in collaboration with many leading international scientists from different fields, in order to incorporate it into multicausal concepts. The scientific world has taken note of the fact that the most cited scientist in academic psychology is working very closely with the creative researcher Grossarth-Maticek, who has developed a multi-causal basis for preventive medicine and political psychology. This has resulted in numerous joint publications, the results of which have been positively replicated internationally. For example, the results on the relevance of self-regulation through a multicenter international study (see, among others, Kröz et al: Does self-regulation and autonomic regulation have an influence on survival in breast and colon carcinoma patients? Results of a prospective outcome study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2011).

The research program of Grossarth-Maticek and Eysenck has been endorsed by more than 30 renowned scientists, including Nobel Prize winner Harald zur Hausen. The published studies have been endorsed and supported by numerous experts (see expert opinion in the book by Grossarth-Maticek “Kompetent Gesund”. tredition 2015).

The multidisciplinary research program of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek is repeatedly subjected to incompetent interference with false allegations that clearly pursue the goal of systematically and totally destroying the scientific reputation of the two researchers (see Amelang and van der Ploeg). One representative of this direction is Dr. Anthony Pelosi. For 26 years, he has been collecting arguments to prove that the research program of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek is “the biggest scandal of all time” and that Grossarth-Maticek is a “fraud” who “falsifies his data”. Grossarth-Maticek and Eysenck were financed by the cigarette industry, so that they emphasized these two psychological components of cancer development and played down cigarette smoking. In 1995, Professor Eysenck warned me about Pelosi’s activities. He was collecting a large number of arguments, none of which he could prove, and which were based on subjective statements from various people. He would need at least another 10 years for this, and in the meantime he was also looking for like-minded people to support him in his views and activities. His main goal was to discredit our cooperation. Pelosi did indeed get back in touch after many years and found a supportive ally in Dr. David Marks, the editor of the journal “Health Psychology”, who approached the President of Kings College, Professor Byrne, to have him withdraw the publications of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek. In fact, Byrne wrote to a large number of editors of journals in which the work of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek had been published, demanding that they be retracted. Professor Byrne also informed the rector of the University of Heidelberg, among others, of all relevant addresses associated with Grossarth-Maticek.

Among the publications that were published by Grossarth-Maticek and that are supposed to be retracted are the research results on self-regulation, which were replicated positively in several international studies (Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H. J.: Self-regulation and mortality from cancer, coronary heart disease, and other causes: A prospective study. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume No. 6 (1994), 781-795).

The criminal dimension of the critics of Grossarth and the Grossarthian answer:

The main critics referred to by Pelosi and Marks, e.g. Amelang, Van der Ploeg, initially have a common characteristic. They display a long-standing, obsessive and destructive criticism. They quote each other without any willingness to consider and present the weaknesses of the other critic. They are not willing to take note of the positive results or the whole research program of Grossarth. They all work with false data from the Grossarth study. Amelang, for example, changes the measuring instruments used by Grossarth by claiming that no original questionnaires written in German exist. No positive result can be expected from the incorrectly translated questionnaires and Amelang must not present the results obtained as a replication study. Van der Ploeg, who publicly denounced Professor Jan Bastiaans, one of my best friends, over a long period of time, received copies of unusable data from the head of data collection and data analysis, Ms. Bärbel Hackenberg. Although van der Ploeg knew that the studies did not exist, he published the evaluations in many international journals with the intention of proving errors. Pelosi and Marks consistently pursue the intention in their publications to discriminate against the work and collaboration of Eysenck and Grossarth by making false claims. They make false allegations with the intention of inducing scientific organizations to retract publications by both authors. After many refusals, e.g. from renowned journals and organizations such as the British Association of Psychology, Pelosi found two like-minded critics after 26 years of work. Among other things, they focus on the analysis of the results based on the expert system. Without citing the sources and without knowledge of the data analysis by Grossarth, Eysenck and Dr. Vetter, they declare the results to be implausible from their point of view, although Dr. Marks is aware that there were good reasons to code the published results. Only when the way the results are coded is known can they be analyzed objectively. The reason for the encryption was the realization by Grossarth, Eysenck and Vetter that the motivation of a destructive approach to our research program and especially to our expert system is so aligned with defamation that any interest in the expert system in the public sphere is extinguished.

No critic has contacted Grossarth to ask where, for example, the measurement instruments are that, according to Amelang, do not exist in German.

Grossarth’s answer would always have been that he is willing to support sincere replication work, but is not willing to be taken for a ride by people who declare their destructive intentions in advance.

Even false criticism due to the lack of data could still be portrayed as naivety or the critics‘ malevolence, and their extremely aggressive destructive tendency as freedom of expression in research. The claims resulting from the so-called data analyses are not only false accusations and untrue, but they all clearly pursue the radical goal of destroying the studies of Grosssarth-Maticek and his colleagues, especially Professor Eysenck, in the public eye and of inciting organizations to initiate criminal actions against Grossarth. In this respect, the activities of Dr. Pelosi and Dr. Marks play a very special role, so that Grossarth-Maticek feels compelled to take legal action against both of them and against the Journal of Health Psychology.

In this context, not only are the research results of David Marks discriminated against, but also the collaboration between Eysenck and Grossarth, by claiming, among other things, that Eysenck needed Grossarth as a supplier of data to confirm that cancer develops psychologically and that this was supported by the cigarette industry. Of course, such an assertion has nothing to do with the Multicausal Research Program of Grossarth and Eysenck, in which, among other things, it was shown that psychological factors lose their predictive function when physical factors are taken into account. At the same time, Pelosi describes the Multicausal Research Program as the greatest scientific scandal of all time, although it is unclear which calendar Pelosi is using. With such a motivational attitude, which is aimed at the total destruction of Eysenck and Grossarth, it is not surprising that Grossarth has undertaken more intelligent countermeasures, such as a well-traceable encryption of some results from the expert system. These will, of course, be fully decrypted in the scientific presentation of the expert system at the end of this year. The discrimination against Eysenck and Grossarth extends to the entire research team that worked on the Multicausal Relationships and Prevention program, according to Professor Jan Bastiaans, Professor of Psychiatry at Leiden University, Professor Duschan Kanazir, President of the Serbian Academy of Science and Art, Professor F. Solomon, one of the most famous psychoneurobiologists in the United States, and another 20 renowned scientists. Thus, the critics achieve a criminal dimension through a deliberately false representation that seeks the total destruction of the new Multicausal Research Program, a criminal and punishable dimension. Furthermore, they are energetically spreading their criticism through international newspapers, such as the Guardian, as well as through Wikipedia and other media.

Our research program, which Pelosi and his like-minded colleague, Dr. David Marks, describe as the biggest scandal of all time, is basically the largest and most meticulous multicausal program. In this program, 32 professors, including 9 full professors from the University of Heidelberg and 6 from the University of Belgrade, worked closely together. Before the goal of developing multicausal measuring instruments with predictive functions for various cancers, cardiovascular diseases, Alzheimer’s disease and health into old age could be realized, all monocausal components of the instruments had to be theoretically defined and empirically proven. Each specialist made contributions in his or her field. For example, the question was pursued with Professor Schettler, Director of the Medical University Clinic in Heidelberg, as to whether certain cholesterol values in multiple measurements are predictors for heart or cardiovascular diseases. With the great molecular biologist from the University of Belgrade, Professor D. Kanazir (President of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and honorary legionnaire of the French state) and Professor L. Rakic, intensive scientific research was carried out over many years. The molecular biological foundations of stress, which are also related to cancer in multicausal processes, were researched and published. Together with Professors Charlie Spielberger and Martin Irle, the construct of rational-antiemotional behavior was developed, which was empirically researched in collaboration with epidemiologists from the German Cancer Research Center. There was a very intensive cooperation with the Dutch professor Jan Bastiaans in the joint research between hysteria and cancer. More than 100 individual studies were thus carried out and published in about 80 international journals together with professors from all over the world. If Dr. Pelosi and Dr. Marks did not like some of the results from these collaborations, then this is no reason to denounce the entire research program. Pelosi and Marks try to create the impression that Eysenck and Grossarth are two completely isolated cooperation partners, without mentioning or acknowledging the extensive cooperation (which can be seen from the literature cited in their publications).

The false claims are listed below.

1. Pelosi claims that the research program of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek is the biggest scientific scandal of all time. However, he is not able to substantiate this claim, which he spreads in his article and in various media, in terms of content and credibility.
2. Pelosi claims that he is firmly convinced that my work is fraudulent and that I have manipulated the data (see email from Max Sanderson and Sarah Boseley dated November 6, 2019 regarding statements by Pelosi in a Guardian podcast). Pelosi is unable to prove his claim.
3. Pelosi tries to give the impression that Grossarth-Maticek and Eysenck have been influenced by donations from the cigarette industry to prove that cigarette smoking is not a cause of cancer. Pelosi cannot prove this assertion either, if only because Grossarth-Maticek, in the context of his research into multiple causes, never asserted that cigarette smoking has no relevance for cancer, but that cigarette smoking enters into synergistic relationships with other relevant risk factors, such as familial disposition to cancer, chronic bronchitis, etc.
4. Pelosi cites other studies against me that criticize my data collection and claim to have carried out specific evaluations with my data. In doing so, he conceals the information made available to him that an evaluation of my original data by other scientists never took place. The Dutch psychologist Henk van der Ploeg, who has criticized my work in many international publications, claims that he has done calculations with my original data. In fact, he never received the data and was not authorized to do so. Van der Ploeg cannot name the journal in which the study he is referring to was supposedly published; that is, such a study does not exist. The German psychologist, Prof. Manfred Amelang, who is also quoted at length by Pelosi against me, was commissioned by the German Research Foundation to conduct a replication study. The original measuring instruments were to be used. Amelang suggested that the measuring instruments did not exist in German and were only available in English, although they had been published in my book “Social Behavior and Cancer” (Beltz Verlag Weinheim), among other places. He therefore felt compelled to translate questionnaires from English into German. This was done in such a way that Grossarth-Maticek himself could no longer recognize his hypotheses. Nevertheless, Amelang and Pelosi speak of an objective replication. Pelosi does not mention that Amelang was ordered by the Heidelberg District Court to withdraw his discriminatory statements against Grossarth-Maticek, despite having been informed of this. For example, a former member of the Institute of Social Medicine at the University of Heidelberg writes: “Anyone who criticizes Grossarth-Maticek’s studies using Amelang as a reference is automatically declaring himself in error. Amelang has declared under oath in court in Heidelberg, Germany that his statements against Grossarth-Maticek’s research were false.“
5. In his article in the Journal of Health Psychology, Pelosi published a large number of false claims. For example, he claims that the former scientific director of the German cigarette industry, Franz Adlkofer, had stated that I was a charlatan. This statement is in contradiction to the fact that many years after the alleged insult, Franz Adlkofer, as the head of a large medical foundation, in cooperation with experts from the University of Heidelberg, approved 80,000 euros for Grossarth-Maticek to continue his evaluations. Dr. Lee, who carried out an evaluation of my prospective study published in the international journal “Behavior Research and Therapy”, is also quoted. He cites Lee’s statement that he is amazed at the extremely strong correlation between rational-antiemotive behavior and the development of bronchial carcinoma. Additional evaluations by Grossarth-Maticek showed that rational-antiemotional behavior is only relevant in this context if cigarette smoking and familial disposition and traumatic experiences that led to isolation were taken into account. Since Pelosi endeavors to mention individual factors without the multi-causal context, such results do not fit into his intention to discredit multi-causal research.
6. Pelosi does not mention Grossarth’s multifactorial research and intervention program at all. It is only when one becomes familiar with this new line of research that it becomes clear why many of our results are largely better than the results of the monocausal research.
7. Pelosi only cites opponents of Grossarth and does not mention the positive replication studies. For example, he mentions the positive results of rationality and anti-emotivity. However, he does not mention that there are two replication studies regarding the effectiveness of this variable, by Van der Ploeg and Charlie Spielberger (literature can be provided later).
8. In response to Pelosi’s claim that the Grossarth-Maticek research program is the “biggest scientific scandal of all time,” a brief description of the program is provided below. The program has developed a new creative method for demonstrating causal relationships, the so-called prospective intervention study with data submission to controlling institutions before the results are known. The theoretical and methodological basis is based on the assumption that a large number of relevant factors enable better prediction and more successful preventive intervention than considering only one factor. In addition, a large number of synergistic effects (super-linear effects) develop within the recorded factors. The research program is dynamic in nature, i.e. new aspects are constantly being integrated and empirically researched. Thus, the children and grandchildren of the individuals studied were and are being included in a so-called multi-generation study to examine the connection between the familial disposition of the parents for certain chronic illnesses and different effect factors of the children and grandchildren. Thus, it has already been shown in the previous evaluations that the familial disposition for certain cancers of the originally examined persons becomes effective in the children if certain risk factors are present, e.g. distress, cigarette smoking and acute febrile infections. We know from other international studies that data collection is very difficult. Based on the preliminary investigations, we have good access to children and grandchildren, so that the refusal rate does not exceed 20%. Among other things, a highly effective expert system has been developed in the research program that has shown positive results in the field of preventive medicine and in the field of prevention of radicalism. The results are shown in the current research report. 9. In 1993 Pelosi published the first article against the research of Prof. Eysenck, who died in 1997, and me. Prof. Eysenck gave a well-founded scientific answer to this publication in the British Medical Journal. In 1995, Prof. Eysenck told me that Pelosi was collecting arguments against us and intended to publish them in about ten years. Until then, he was looking for like-minded people to support him in his actions. Eysenck had the feeling that Pelosi was trying to influence him to part with his colleague Grossarth-Maticek, but he refused. There is a witness statement regarding this incident.
9. The activities of Pelosi, Marks and Byrne have been widely publicized internationally. Grossarth-Maticek is taking legal action because the activities of Pelosi and Marks consist of systematic character assassination, defamation, insults and false allegations with the aim of completely destroying the scientific reputation of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek.

I demand that Dr. Anthony Pelosi publicly and comprehensively retracts all his false claims in the Journal of Health Psychology (2019) Vol. 24 (4). I also demand that Dr. Pelosi publicly retracts his false statement (e.g. to the newspaper The Guardian) that I am a fraud who manipulates data. In view of the damages I have suffered as a result, I demand compensation.

Regarding the activities of David Marks

In his article (Journal of Health Psychology 2019), David Marks writes in the summary, “During the 1980s and 1990s, Hans J. Eysenck conducted a research program to study the causes, prevention and treatment of fatal illnesses together with one of his protégés, Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. … It is shown that this research program has led to one of the worst scientific scandals of all time.” Marks is in complete agreement with Pelosi on this claim, who also describes the Grossarth research program as the biggest scientific scandal of all time. Possibly this research program is so innovative that it could be described as the most interesting and motivating research program in the history of multi-causal and empirical psychology. Five points of the program will be mentioned here for clarification.

1. The method of reasoning with co-causal relationships as a prospective intervention study with data delivery even before the results are announced. This method does not allow the slightest data manipulation, since the data are usually controlled by independent and distinguished scientists.
2. Insights into connections through multi-causal data collection, in which a large amount of collected data and its synergy effects enable a better prediction than the mere consideration of a single-causally acting factor.
3. Multi-causal intervention, which generates synergies between the individual effective measures (e.g. autonomy training combined with antidepressants).
4. A link between ideographic and nomothetic methods, and that means an integration of the results from the examination of individual cases and the supra-individual laws. Empirical psychology has not achieved such an objective for over 100 years.
5. Achieving a differential distinction between several comparable phenomena, e.g. developing measuring instruments that differentiate between heart attack, bronchial carcinoma, Alzheimer’s disease and health into old age.

David Marks does not even consider mentioning the important innovations of the research program and speaks of one of the worst scientific scandals of all time, citing arguments that represent opinions but provide no evidence. Thus, it is defamation and character assassination. The presentation of our research program is not within the scope of freedom of expression because Marks is pursuing an agenda, namely the intention of withdrawing our scientific results.

In his article, Marks systematically cites allegedly negative voices from various authors against the work of Eysenck/Grossarth and, above all, he refers to the work of Pelosi. He calls this work “significant”, which gives the responsible authorities and journal editors the opportunity to come to terms with Eysenck’s past. Dr. Pelosi’s essay is a warning, he says, about Eysenck and Grossarth’s implausible database. “With the publication of Pelosi’s essay, we are seeking, among other things, a retraction or correction of 61 publications in journals and 10 chapters in books, as well as a formal investigation by Kings College and the British Society for Psychology”.

Eysenck is described by Marks, despite insinuating simple relationships between smoking, personality and cancer, but as a multi-causal systemic researcher. “The facts show, however, that such views are simplistic and unrealistic and that cancer and coronary heart disease are in fact the result of a large number of interacting risk factors… A realistic assessment of a very complex chain of events involving numerous different factors, as well as appropriate measures to prevent cancer and coronary heart disease, is discussed (Eysenck 2012).” Marks continues: “Or read the section where Eysenck describes his claim that psychotherapy is supposedly effective in preventing cancer.” “Or the passage where Eysenck claims that there is evidence that behavioral therapy may help to prolong life and prevent disease.” In response, Marks claims that there is no scientific evidence to support any of these statements and that Eysenck’s own words convict him of the most shameless and harmful falsehoods ever spread by a psychologist.

Dr. Marks presents himself as an omniscient scientific inquisitor and believes that he can refute the empirical results of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek’s research with mere assertions and that he is entitled to speak of “shameless untruths”.

As the editor, he is confident that Dr. Pelosi’s essay is reliable and true. Marks claims that Eysenck shamelessly exploited Grossarth-Maticek by producing results that suited him and corresponded to his basic thesis that cancer has psychological causes.

This is a completely fabricated slander. Prof. Eysenck never “shamelessly exploited” Grossarth-Maticek. Also his thesis that Grossarth-Maticek produced suitable results for Eysenck, since most of Grossarth’s results had already been published before the first meeting between Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek. The greatest slander is the claim that Eysenck’s basic thesis was ever that cancer has psychological causes and that Grossarth-Maticek produced matching results. Although Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek have scientifically demonstrated that psychosocial factors are relevant, but that they lose their carcinogenic effect when physical factors are taken into account. When psychosocial and physical risk factors interact, they develop synergistic effects. In such allegations by Marks, the real research results of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek are completely falsified. Here Marks not only acts as a high inquisitor who presumes to comment on scientific results from the point of view of definitive knowledge, but also as a conscious falsifier of the Eysenck-Grossarth results.

Marks cites a few scientists (including Amelang and Van der Ploeg) and constantly contradicts himself. He cites alleged negative statements by Prof. Adlkofer as head of the scientific department of the German Association of the Cigarette Industry, who supposedly assumes that Grossarth is a charlatan, and at the same time does not know that Prof. Adlkofer, years after this alleged statement, as president of a large foundation for health and the environment, together with experts from the University of Heidelberg, provided Grossarth-Maticek with a large sum of money to continue the Heidelberg study (specifically, to pay the research assistants).

By systematically quoting authors, Marks insinuates that they all have an extremely negative attitude towards Grossarth’s work. In reality, he lumps together positive research results with negative assessments. Even when quoting my critic Van der Ploeg, who used false data in his evaluations, he fails to mention that Van der Ploeg himself also conducted positive replication studies, for example by proving the high effectiveness of my construct of “rational-antiemotional behavior”. David Marks calls the work of Dr. Pelosi “significant” and, together with his own activities, calls on scientific authorities to commit criminal acts against Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek, even before the credibility of the data, which he doubts, has been discussed. Although Eysenck is insinuated to have shamelessly exploited Grossarth-Maticek to get results confirming the alleged Eysenck hypotheses, Marks does not take into account the fact that Grossarth’s work was carried out with a very large number of co-authors and was controlled in such a way that it was not possible to manipulate it to confirm the alleged Eysenck hypotheses. Furthermore, the study by Grossarth and his colleagues is considered to be the best and most comprehensively controlled empirical study in social research. For example, the Institute for Statistics and Mathematical Economic Theory at the University of Karlsruhe (Prof. Dr. Martin Rutsch and Priv.Doz. Dr. Wolf-Dieter Heller) carried out systematic controls on the implementation of individual research steps, the investigation of the interviewers and, finally, the recording of underlying illnesses. The institute created a large number of folders for this purpose. An additional control was carried out by Prof. Norbert Bischof (a student of Konrad Lorenz). He was given the data before the announcement of the underlying illnesses by the investigation of the institute in Karlsruhe. All of the controlled studies involved multi-causal data collection, without communicating one-sided hypotheses about alleged psychological causes of cancer.

Although there are already a large number of replication studies with positive results (e.g. Charlie Spielberger, Van der Ploeg, Kröz et al.), Marks only cites an extremely poor study, which has no right to call itself a replication study, namely the study by Amelang. Not only did Amelang falsify the original measuring instruments and make discriminatory statements about Grossarth-Maticek, but he was also not allowed to record the underlying diseases at the Heidelberg City Health Office, so he had to resort to my studies to get at least some of the underlying diseases from me.

Dr. David Marks quotes incorrectly, does not take into account the positive aspects of our research and judges in an authoritarian manner about supposedly true and untrue relationships. He describes the studies by Pelosi, which I have criticized a lot, as true and reliable and publishes them in his journal with the call to authorities from Kings College London and the British Association for Psychology to withdraw the work of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek. He is not willing to take the multicaausal research concept into account, although he acknowledges it in the above-mentioned quote from Eysenck. He describes the research results of Grossarth-Maticek as unreliable by quoting sections without the multicaausal context. He mentions the high effectiveness of Grossarth’s typology without calling for the instruments of measurement to be obtained from Grossarth and replication studies to be carried out. Replications that have already been carried out have shown a strong correlation between type I and cancer and type II and cardiovascular diseases (e.g. Opalic). If you read the interactive typology, you will see that about 40% of the questions are psychosocial in nature and 60% correspond to the most modern natural science. Marks does not mention these facts at all. Some results regarding the expert system or other therapeutic randomized studies also appear at first glance to show a very high correlation between intervention and results, e.g. in disease prevention. Marks and his like-minded colleague Pelosi do not ask themselves under which systemic conditions the results, which they present as implausible, came about. In view of the preliminary results in the expert system, we only presented the underlying diseases in the deceased from the public health department. Likewise, student assistants have also recorded the incidences in the still living persons (underlying disease, place of diagnosis) in very careful work. It showed the interesting phenomenon that the incidences for different illnesses in the group that received preventive therapy were many times more frequent than in the control group. The result was found in all groups that had undergone preventive therapy and clearly shows that the intervention significantly extends the life of high-risk individuals and thus reduces mortality. When mortality and incidence are considered simultaneously, the differences between treated and non-treated are largely equalized, so that a relatively small but highly significant preventive effect can still be demonstrated. Prof. Eysenck, Dr. Vetter, Prof. Spielberger and Prof. Bastiaans had been informed of this process in good time.

The result mentioned here in relation to the connection between mortality (underlying disease in the case of those already deceased) and morbidity (underlying disease in the case of those still living) has not yet been taken into account worldwide and it states that with successful preventive therapies, persons at high risk live longer than those in the control groups who did not receive preventive therapy. Thus, in a certain observable period of time, a relatively misleading impression arises that the treated group has significantly fewer illnesses. In later evaluations, it has also been shown that mortality in the treated groups rises sharply, since the incidences in later evaluations also come into play there. These interesting relationships will be presented in my new book (Multicausal Preventive Medicine), because they are of the utmost importance for all future experimental interventions.

Summary

1. Dr. Marks makes false assertions and shows no interest in explaining his assertions.
2. Dr. Marks is clearly pursuing the goal of publicly discrediting the research of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek.
3. Dr. Marks makes false allegations with the aim of persuading organizations (King’s College London, the British Association for Psychology and a large number of publishers) to retract articles that have already been published.
4. Dr. Marks is incapable of taking objective facts into account.
5. Dr. Marks behaves as if the decisions of the organizations he has influenced were ultimately correct, fully aware that they never addressed critical questions to us.
6. Dr. Marks insults the world-renowned Professor Eysenck in a highly aggressive manner.
7. Dr. Marks insinuates a false relationship between Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek, as if Grossarth-Maticek had been commissioned by Eysenck to produce data that would fit Eysenck’s theoretical concept.
8. Dr. Marks does not take into account the large number of scientific co-authors and collaborators and the extensive control of my studies. He ignores the positive results of the already published studies.

All of Dr. Marks‘ statements about Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek and the results of both authors are false allegations that aim to completely destroy their scientific reputation. The unproven allegations are based on quotations that have not been substantiated in discussions with Grossarth-Maticek.

I demand that Dr. Marks publicly and comprehensively retracts all his false allegations in the Journal of Health Psychology (2019) Vol. 24 (4) 421-439 and that he ceases all his activities to retract the publications of Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek. In view of the damage I have suffered as a result, I demand compensation.

Dr. med. Dr. phil. Dr. sci. Dr. h. c. Ronald Grossarth-Maticek

Center for Multicausal Research and Preventive Medicine

Ziegelhäuser Landstr. 35