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.
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: und das Abstract auf der Seite der American Psychological Association:

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