The AEMK since 2005 seeks to carry out scientific proof of the Kovacsik Method, just as Mr. Estevam in the 1960s was already trying. Both sought public authorities, colleges and hospitals so that in partnership we could carry out the research. Unfortunately, there was never any interest from any institution to carry out the studies.
The only reason for the lack of scientific proof of the Kovacsik Method is the lack of interest from the competent organizations that could do it (but who refused), because the result, which is the most important, is what we have the most.
Despite this, the Kovacsik Method has two published monographs and we are working on making others as well. We work to generate case reports, articles and all the research formats we can.
Below you can read the two monographs.
"Dowsing as a complementary method in the
cancer treatment - MK (Kovacsik Method) "
Gilson Rogério e Silva
Colleges Montenegro - Irai RS
( Read here )
"The Kovacsik Method as an adjunct to complementary treatment
of a patient with colorectal cancer: a case study "
Duaila Ledur Bonn
Pequeno Príncipe Colleges - Curitiba PR
( Read here )
Scientific proof is a systematic verification, through various methods and protocols, that a given phenomenon is real. It must be measurable and have its procedures well explained and detailed so that it can be reproduced, tested and that it will present the same results whenever performed under the same conditions.
Case report is one of those forms of verification. From the moment we follow up on several cases, it is possible to see if a desired result is constant, ascertain and measure it, thus generating data and statistics. But how many cases with the same result do we need to make this fact an irrefutable truth? Are 50, 100, 200 cases enough? What is said is that the more, the better.
In practice, what is observed is that to consider something scientifically proven, it is not a matter of merely showing consistency in the results, but of convincing a group of people, generically known as scientists, that this knowledge is an irrefutable truth. To this end, case reports, articles, analytical research and many others are published. But in the end, every scientist, like every human being, has a different need.
Now consider that a researcher has managed to overcome these innumerable obstacles and this long journey that is scientific proof and has managed to arrive and present a truth considered irrefutable. He will then know the great irony of science, that there is no truth that is irrefutable. And its story is there to show us that. We can take the example of innumerable theories that throughout history were considered irrefutable by a large part of the scientific community at the time, but that as time went by they were unable to answer new questions that arose. And that always arise.
Science must be questioning. The new, the changes and the uncertainties are fundamental for its development, and it must be so, because there is its origin and what challenges it to continue to evolve bringing new knowledge and discoveries so important to life.
Science is fundamental to evolution, but in essence it does not know everything, and therefore, it is suspicious of those who say the opposite.
"The Kovacsik Method path to
scientific proof "
"Significant changes in the expressions of cancer
using the Kovacsik Method "