Why are we surprised our body becomes confused when medicine spends so much time tricking it?

This comment, in an article by Jerome Burne, touches upon something I have pondered, but in a different way
:
..............so cancer cells can find themselves disoriented when their surroundings change. Soon, they are running amok, behaving in ways they never would at home, where their neighbours help keep them grounded.

The word used here is 'disoriented.' The word I used was 'confused.' So much of Allopathic treatments, drugs and vaccines, are designed to 'trick' the body. The use of 'imposters', deception and trickery to force or encourage the body to act 'other' that it would normally and naturally do, must have some impact.

Is there a connection between this and the way cancer can also 'trick' the body, manipulate and 'make' it do what it would not or should not naturally do?

When modern medicine sets out to hoodwink the body does it create confusion in our cells which makes it easier for them to be hoodwinked or tricked in general and subject to disease?

Cancer may trick the body but most of modern medicine does the same thing much of the time. Logic suggests the two may be connected.

While science/medicine does continue to ask questions and this article is a part of that process, I can only wonder how many make a connection between ‘how cancer acts,’ and how so much of modern medicine ‘works.’

Given the ancient presence of cancer as a disease there are obviously many triggers but perhaps the massive rise in cancer today, to one in two from one in ten in 1900, is linked to the actions of science/medicine and the pharmaceutical methodology it relies upon to a very large degree. A methodology which did not exist a century ago and which was not used in the way it now is, until probably 60 years ago, must have an impact on the individual human body and its capacity to function.

In a world of mass medication for diseases people do not have and may never get and often from childhood, the question must be asked: Yes, but what does it do to the body?

Every action has an effect and subjecting the body to unnatural, artificial substances in the form of medications and processes, designed to ‘trick,’ or to use the word in this article ‘hoodwink’ the body must have an effect which involves confusion. How long does it take an immune system, and no doubt some are more robust than others, to become permanently ‘confused’ and unable to accurately identify Self and Other; Friend or Foe?

All that interventionist ‘maybe medicine,’ often in the form of experimental, synthesised drugs, may be meddling which, ultimately confuses the body and creates more disease.

‘Our bodies produce thousands of different molecular messages, and drug developers have taken advantage of this fact by synthesizing ‘imposter’ messages that mimic the chemistry and shape of our natural molecules. In fact many drugs used in medicine today achieve their results by preventing natural signals from engaging their receptors.’ From Secrets of Your Cells, Discovering Your Body’s Inner Intelligence, by Sondra Barrett, PhD.

Doctors and patients, who would be horrified to be so ‘tricked’ by those who set out to deceive and who ‘dress’ and ‘act’ and ‘talk’ in recognisable ways and yet are imposters, think nothing of ‘tricking’ their cells and their body consistently.

http://healthinsightuk.org/…/cancer-and-genes-have-we-got…/…

 

• 

  Roslyn Ross https://rosross.wordpress.com/.../you-and-your-body-are.../

  

  You and your body are in this together.....

  Research shows that people who have close relationships and supportive social structures live longer and healthier...

  ROSROSS.WORDPRESS.COM

The only issue to consider with vaccination is freedom to choose...

My position, like most who question vaccination is freedom to choose. I don't give a toss if people have every vaccination known to science and more. I do care if they seek to force their beliefs on me and others and want to sacrifice the democratic right of freedom to make personal choices in regard to health and medical treatments, simply to assuage their irrational fears.

Vaccines patently do not work as claimed, but if they make people feel better then go for it. Your health is your choice. Your choices for your children are your right. I support you absolutely. But no-one has the right to dictate to others how they should care for their health, their body, their children. No-one.

The argument so often put is that children have to be protected from their parents poor choices and yet this is a position which could be applied on so many counts.

If we were going to take into account the various health arguments for mind and body and positions taken by this group or that, we could have movements to ban vegetarianism and veganism; alcohol and consumption of fats; elective C-sections; natural birth; epidurals; drug-free births; home-births; hospital births; home-schooling; public schooling; medication for children .... on and on and on it would go, with the enormous diversity of human belief and practice being applied to the society as a whole. Madness.

The other argument so often thrown up is that everyone needs to be vaccinated so we can all sit safely in our 'herd immunity' bubble. Apart from the fact that this has only ever been theory and increasingly, in regard to vaccines, disproven theory, it would in an age of air travel be impossible to create.

There will never be 99% vaccination rates on earth, never. So, there will always be people flying around this world who have not been vaccinated. Not that it really matters as the China test-case is increasingly demonstrating.

China, as a communist state can and does force their citizens and with 99% vaccination, as high as anyone can get and supposedly providing the much touted theory of herd immunity, which even science knows only applies to naturally acquired disease and not artificially transmitted and often synthetic disease forms.

More and more outbreaks and more and more hysteria from those who believe in some vaccine fantasy of protection at the end of a needle, where an artificially constructed form of a disease is artificially administered to completely bypass the first line of immune defence in the body, the skin and mucous membranes, injected into the body where there is immediate entry to the bloodstream in a way which could never occur in nature, and in a way for which the human body has never evolved.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/…/why-china-having-measles-outb…

And then in the US - whooping cough outbreaks in groups where people are up to date on their vax schedules.

http://www.kpbs.org/…/record-number-whooping-cough-cases-…/…

When the most dangerous thing you might do is see a doctor....

The most important life-style changes, as those who embark upon this course, report is to:

a. ensure a varied diet of fresh, local where possible, organic where possible, as little processed as possible, food which is prepared at home and most importantly, enjoyed. Food is the first and best medicine.

b. avoid medications wherever possible and particularly those prescribed as part of 'maybe medicine' where you take a drug for a disease you do not have and may never get.

c. be cautious with how much toxicity and synthetic diseases you subject your body to through vaccination.

d. avoid antibiotics unless your life literally depends on them, at which point, if you are lucky, they might be the great gift to you and medicine which they were before science and medicine exploited and abused them to render them often useless and your body's immune system, less than effective.

e. as the source of the third or fourth biggest killer, approach with caution all medical professionals, particularly where prescription drugs or anything prefaced by the word prophylactic is involved.

f. explore non-allopathic medical methodologies which are highly effective in treating and curing disease and more importantly, keeping you well in the first place. None of them will kill or hospitalise you in the way your prescribed medication just might.

Beyond that, enjoy life and take your chances and, where you have questions, do your own research, across the spectrum first and listen with caution whenever science/medicine pontificates or dictates on health matters.

http://www.encognitive.com/node/10274

Remaining moderate in the face of extremism by Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and their attackers.

I believe nothing should be sacred and beyond clearly identifiable bigotry, and that is often a matter of opinion, there is nothing which should be censored. I in fact would censor nothing because I believe, like banning drugs, it just drives it underground where it becomes extreme.
In a world without censorship you will always get fanatics but most people are not fanatical and their words or images will have little impact.
As one reads more about the Charlie Hebdo tragedy it becomes very clear that the magazine waged a rather bigoted 'war' against Islam, which, while never justifying in any way the horrifying retaliatory murders, does make one question why it was allowed to be so blatantly discriminatory when, previously, one of their cartoonists was sacked for a work which was, by comparison, minor in terms of mocking Judaism.
One presumes that Muslims were well aware of this selective censorship and therefore felt more angry at being singled out as an object of ridicule, at least those few Muslims who react to such situations with anger.

Charlie Hebdo mocked everyone, savagely, and Christians, Jews and others, including Muslims were enraged. Some of them sanctioned violence against the magazine and its cartoonists so the Muslims were not alone.

My view is that if you have censorship then you apply it equally and not selectively where mockery of one religion is silenced and not of another.

I also believe that satire is best left to the truly gifted in the craft because then, anything can be said, but so cleverly that offence is more difficult to prove or take. Looking at some of the anti-Muslim Charlie Hebdo cartoons it is very clear that they were not necessarily gifted and were in fact crass and easily seen as bigotry of the worst kind.

The lesson from Charlie Hebdo is that freedom of speech, a gift for those who live in the developed world, but also a potential curse and something to be used with discretion, grace and wisdom.

Those who murdered did not do so in the name of any religion because all religions have extremists and if we were to judge all Christians on the actions of nations which profess to abide by Christian values, as the US does and as do many of its allies as they wage war, particularly against Muslim nations; or those which profess to abide by Judaic values, as Israel does,  as it maintains occupation, colonisation and apartheid in Palestine with the use of deadly military force; or those who profess to abide by Hindu values as they send suicide bombers against their enemies; or even Buddhists who use violence and murder as weapons of dissent, then we would be doing as much of a disservice by projecting this crime onto all Muslims.

Nothing happens in a vacuum and this crime is no exception. Neither can we believe all we read. Charlie Hebdo was poorly protected despite its active 'war' against religions in general and Islam in particular and the reality is that none of us have any way of knowing just who planned this series of terrorist acts, i.e. they do not have to be Muslims and various intelligence agencies have always been active in 'false flag' operations to foment agendas which serve their interests.

But what we can know is that we are all humans sharing this planet and that most Muslims like most members of all religions are moderate and that crimes like this cannot be blamed on everyone who follows the religion because that amounts to religious bigotry.

 I would just add I have absolutely no time for any religion, having studied a few of them, but retain time for what I call God. All religions contain worthwhile wisdoms, hidden beneath a great deal of human, mostly male, stupidity, misogyny, violence and bigotry. 

The biggest step toward enlightenment was the separation of 'Church' and State and the recognition that religions should play no official part in Government or society in general. Religion is a set of personal beliefs which should be kept personal and private and should never be inflicted on society in general.

The 'best' of religions, and it is always the same, because it comes from the same source, are the spiritual teachings which are innate in human consciousness and spirituality and which do not belong to any religion and have not come from any religious beliefs.

Most of the best of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, because they have the same source can be found in the much older and much more balanced Great Goddess spiritual belief system and those of countless saviour/redeemer figures scattered throughout human mythic and spiritual and religious history. 

The pompous prats who inhabit so much of science...

This article demonstrates everything I and others say about so many in science today - arrogance, ignorance, pomposity, snideness, sarcasm, patronisation and mockery.

There is no such thing as pseudoscience. It is purely a term invented by those acolytes of materialist reductionist science who so fear any other thinking that they seek to demonise and discredit.

Let us not forget that quantum physics when first mooted was regarded by many, including Einstein, as what would now be deemed pseudoscience.

When science returns to the truth of its philosophy and practice there will once again, simply be science, and it will not be crushed and distorted within a purely materialist reductionist paradigm, but will be true to the soul of science and embrace all possibilities with curiosity, professionalism and integrity.

At that point it will no longer need to seek to 'burn' at metaphorical stakes those who question and seek to investigate beyond the small material world which, for the moment, science has chosen to inhabit.

http://www.theguardian.com/…/29/pseudoscience-science-argum