Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Why should science not be accountable?

Any article which begins with the term ‘anti-science’ movement is demonstrating high levels of subjectivity and bias which one would have thought, had no place in the realms of supposedly objective and rigorous science.
The label ‘anti-science’ is as silly as calling someone anti-Australian or anti-American simply because they challenge orthodox beliefs and do not simply fall into line with mass thinking.
In reality, many of history’s greatest scientists should be called ‘anti-science’ because they dared to think out of the box. Quantum Physics could only have arisen because some scientists challenged conventional thinking in Classical Physics and were, for their time, what is now called ‘anti-science.’
The author also completely overlooks the fact that many of those who question conventional, orthodox scientific dogma, theory or practice, are perfectly aware that basic chemistry ‘facts’ are elementary, they simply take the view that classical chemistry, as was shown in regard to classical physics, is one way of ‘thinking’ and theorising but not the only way.
Yes, these chemistry facts are fundamental, but not so much to science in any general or true sense, but simply to classical chemistry as it is now understood and materialist-reductionist science as it now functions.
What on earth is an ‘anti-scientist’ position? Is that like an ‘anti-priest’ or ‘anti-religious’ position where because you don’t follow like a brainwashed sheep, but ask questions and make up your own mind you are vilified?
How does asking questions and demanding accountability of a system constitute wilful ignorance?
And what is a science denier? Is that like a religious denier? It sounds very similar which is why many now perceive the debasement of science into Scientism, or rather, the religion of science where dissenters are burned at metaphorical stakes for challenging. Well, those within science can be more literally ‘burned’ in terms of losing jobs, professional prestige, peer approval and profits.
Then again, more within the world of science are speaking out about the terrible and dangerous flaws within science as a system.
Are they ‘science-deniers?’
Quote: Slay peer review ‘sacred cow’, says former BMJ chief
Richard Smith, who edited the BMJ between 1991 and 2004, told the Royal Society’s Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication conference on 20 April that there was no evidence that pre-publication peer review improved papers or detected errors or fraud.
Referring to John Ioannidis’ famous 2005 paper “Why most published research findings are false”, Dr Smith said “most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense”. He added that an experiment carried out during his time at the BMJ had seen eight errors introduced into a 600-word paper that was sent out to 300 reviewers.
Quote: The1960 Nobel laureate in physiology or medicine, Peter Medawar, famously remarked in 1983: “In terms of fulfilment of declared intentions, science is incomparably the most successful enterprise that human beings have ever engaged upon.”
Compare Medawar’s sentiment with the 2009 statement made by Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and quoted in PLOS Medicine in October 2010: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.”
And okay, everything is made of chemicals but not all chemicals are equal. There are naturally occurring chemicals in the natural world and in our body and then there are synthesized chemicals produced in a laboratory.
There are chemicals which occur in our food and our body which we either ingest or produce and then there are chemicals which are injected into our bodies through vaccination or synthesized chemicals ingested in medication.
And why is it that research has never been done into the COMBINED effect of various chemicals in vaccines? Sure, each has been looked at in isolation and deemed safe but what about together? More to the point, what about the completely artificial process of not just having such a collection of chemicals received by the body, but having it received in a way impossible in nature, i.e. injected for quick uptake by the bloodstream, thereby bypassing the first lines of immune defence?
We eat salt on our food but would we inject it into the body of a baby? Probably not.
No-one is talking about a chemical-free lifestyle but the sensible people are talking about chemical-reduced and chemical-minimal lifestyles.
Beyond the arrogant and patronising nature of the article to all those ‘non-scientific’ sorts, the fact is that human beings in general are generally smarter than some might suppose and some of the most stupid people have a string of academic degrees a mile long and PhD’s in plenty.
And yes, there are only toxic doses, but, where you inject a myriad of chemicals at non-toxic levels in ways utterly impossible in nature, surely someone should be wondering just what the cocktail effect might be doing?
And sure,
...."everyone reading this currently has mercury, arsenic, cyanide, formaldehyde, aluminum, lead, and a host of other “toxic” chemicals in your body right now."
but, the interesting study would be on the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated where the former only have levels which can be acquired naturally and which are in natural form and the latter have levels which are acquired unnaturally, in unnatural (synthesized form) and which have been injected into small babies and children in ways for which the human body has never evolved.
And no, those chemicals are not normally in the environment because what is normally in the environment has not been concocted in a laboratory. This is where science gets disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
And yes, our body does produce formaldehyde but it does not produce synthetic formaldehyde and neither does it inject it into the body of a baby or small child along with (comments in brackets are mine):
Live and dead, synthesized and 'natural' DISEASE in bacterial and viral form;
ALUMINIUM (linked to dementia and Alzheimers);
MERCURY thimerosal( and yes still used in some vaccines);
SORBITOL a stabiliser (used in food which is not meant to be injected because it is a cardiac toxin and diabetes exacerbater )
EMULSIFIERS,( the sort of thing which holds processed mayonnaise together and which has links to obesity);
FORMALDYHYDE(a chemical linked to cancer and used to preserve corpses);
ACIDITY REGULATORS (another food additive);
3). There is no difference between “natural” and “synthetic” versions of a chemical
That is the conventional or orthodox view but it is the view which suits the pharmaceutical industry which pays for most research and which makes the most profits. It’s a bit like the difference between the original Mona Lisa and a copy – they look the same but they are not the same. They have not been created in the same way and they are not applied in the same way.
Herbal medicines offer chemical treatments in natural combination. Allopathic medicines offer synthetic chemical treatments, unnaturally created and delivered in unnatural form.
But not all agree there is no difference:
Quote: Herbs are medicinal plants (also called phytomedicinals) that can be administered as the whole plant or plant parts or by extracting one or more ingredients with solvents to yield tinctures, tea or other extracts. Synthetic drugs (what the drug industry calls "pharmaceuticals") are synthesized chemically in the laboratory to produce drugs not found in nature. One quarter of these drugs used in the U.S. are derived from plants (i.e., opiates, digitalis, Taxol) by extracting the active ingredient from a plant, replicating its structure in the lab and mass-producing it.
Herbal drugs are considered less potent than prescribed medicines. The latter usually contain one highly concentrated active ingredient, while herbs may have several active ingredients that are chemically similar. Herbal ingredients work synergistically to contribute to, or detract from, the therapeutic effect of each individual ingredient.
You said: Further, if given a vial of pure water, there isn’t a chemist anywhere in the world who could tell you how that water was produced because it would be completely identical to all of the other water everywhere on the planet.
Well, no, there is no proof it is completely identical but yes, no chemist at this point in scientific knowledge and history could tell you how or where it was produced but that does not mean that there are no differences. It just means science is not advanced enough to detect them in the same way that bacteria existed long before science developed enough to identify its existence and then to see it.
There is not a shred of proof that all water is the same. There is only proof that using current knowledge and technology it all appears to be the same.
4). “Natural” chemicals are not automatically good and “artificial” chemicals are not automatically bad.
That is not what people are saying. Your so-called ‘science-deniers’ are saying that the body has evolved to work with natural chemicals, in natural form but it has not evolved to deal with synthetic chemicals delivered in unnatural forms. Ergo, erring on the side of caution would be wise.
The point is not whether a natural chemical at certain doses is dangerous as is a synthetic chemical, but that natural chemicals found in nature or produced by the human body are different to synthetic chemicals contrived in a laboratory and ingested or injected into the body in ways impossible and unknown in nature and for which the body has not evolved. Not yet anyway.
Your patronising tone indicates high levels of either ignorance or prejudice in regard to the mental capacity and knowledge base of many if not most of those who question science in this regard.
The point is not that nature has produced the best the point is that which nature has produced is better than what scientists concoct in laboratories, in the same way that butter is vastly better than the chemical concoction called margarine.
5). A chemical’s properties are determined by the other chemicals that it is bound to...
Which validates my point that it is the combination of chemicals, experimental combination I might add, in vaccines which is questionable and which should be thoroughly tested and has not been.
As to your explanation of why mercury is not dangerous in vaccines, it fails to address the issue that the body receives the mercury in ways impossible in nature and it does so while a human organism is a baby or small child, before viable immune function has been reached. Full immune function arrives around the age of fourteen.
Not only that, babies and small children receive the mercury in an ‘eye of newt and toe of toad’ brew which few of us would drink if it were offered and yet which science/medicine considers appropriate to introduction to a baby’s bloodstream.
Particularly in the US which does everything to excess, including vaccination, a baby within hours of birth and through the next five years may have 40 or 50 vaccinations. Overkill don’t you think – and perhaps literally given that forty years ago children survived and thrived on three or four and given at much older ages?
And given the fact that the US has the worst infant mortality rate of any developed nation and worse than some Third World nations, logic suggests some pondering on the vax-max approach might be wise.
If one runs the terrible risk of being called ‘anti-science’ by questioning such theory and practice then logic and common sense suggest it is a risk worth running.
By the way, would you inject sodium into a baby’s body?

One of the most ludicrous things about the anti-science movement is the enormous number of...

Monday, June 22, 2015

Something is rotten in the world of science.

While many still hold blind faith in science as a system and its pontifications, there are also many who have long been aware of the deep and dangerous flaws in science, particularly where medicine is involved, and who have been asking questions and demanding accountability.
It is therefore heartening to see increasingly, medical and scientific professionals saying the same thing and validating those who have little or no faith in science as a system and who perceive its increasing danger to human health and the natural world.
Science has become the same sort of 'monster' it decries religion for being where dogma and what amounts to theological belief drive the system in the name of profit - financial, professional and in terms of power and at a cost to humanity, particularly where it is applied to medicine.
Quote: nor any other participant must be revealed.
Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet, attended the meeting and wrote a memorable account in the journal (April 11th), illustrated by the following quote: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, ‘poor methods get results’ . . .
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication . . . and individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.”

The modern world depends on science, but as much as half of the literature may not be fit for purpose

Monday, June 08, 2015

The only importance of history in regard to Israel's occupation of Palestine is that if Israel had not been forcibly imposed on Palestine, there woud have been no history and no violence and no terrible colonial injustice for the Palestinians.

First of all, no ‘war’ is properly understood without understanding the background or circumstances which lead to it. And no war is resolved without then putting those facts aside and dealing with now.
The core reason for the Six Day War was the Zionist invasion and occupation and colonisation of Palestine, i.e. the existence of Israel.
If Israel had not been imposed on Palestine in 1947 there would never have been a Six Day War. Ergo, the source of that war and all wars and violence since 1947 was the colonial enterprise which founded an Israeli state in Palestine. All violence is the result of a colonial war waged by Europeans against the indigenous Palestinians.
One could argue that probably from the sixties when it became pretty clear, worldwide, that occupation and colonisation were wrongs, that violence following this point was and is sourced in the Zionist/Israeli Jewish religious bigotry, i.e. that Jews are superior to everyone else and particularly superior to the Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general whom they regard as sub-human.
Without this bigotry one could presume that the colonial enterprise of Israel would either have created one state with equal rights for all as the US, Canada, Australia etc., did and by the early Sixties so yet again, no Six Day War.
All wars and violence, and responsibility for them rests on the shoulders of those who forced the Israeli State on Palestine and those who wanted it to be a theocratic, i.e. religious State where members of Judaism had superior rights to non-Jews and full control ongoing.
The fact that there was no State of Palestine in 1967 is utterly irrelevant. The concept of a nation-state is historically recent. There was no State of Germany until the early 1900’s but no historian and in fact only a deluded fool would seek to argue there was no Germany or country called Germany for thousands of years prior to Statehood.
Ditto for Palestine, thousands of years old and very much a country and nation even if it had not gained Statehood owing to successive waves of occupiers – Turks, British and then Europeans in the form of Zionists. 
As to Jews being denied access to their holiest places, so what? Many religions are denied access to holy places but that does not give the religion any rights to the land. If it did the Catholics could take back Istanbul which they founded as Constantinople.
And while Gaza may have been under Egyptian control, the simple reality is that Gaza was a refugee camp, filled with Palestinians driven out of their land and from their homes by Zionist forces. Their homes and land, places like Sderot etc., were taken by Zionist armies and handed over to colonial settlers. 
Zionist forces destroyed around 600 Palestinian villages, reduced them to rubble and built over them. Unfortunately for Israeli propaganda the old British colonial maps remain and so the position of all those villages, is known. As is the extent of genocide by Zionist armies.
And since Israel is the occupier and has been for decades the fact that the Egyptians controlled the Gaza refugee camp for a time means nothing. Under UN Resolutions, the Geneva Convention and international law it is the occupier who is responsible for the wellbeing of the occupied people and that occupier is Israel.
The Golan Heights are Syrian. End of story. Israel keeps stealing land under the pretense that it is for security measures. Theft is theft. There would be no need for security if Zionist Israelis had not colonized Palestine in the first place and then refused justice to the indigenous Palestinians. Israel’s security issues are self-created. Then again, why not, opportunities for more theft abound.
The article then waffles on about the Arabs doing this or doing that but the core principle remains – no Zionist State of Israel imposed on Palestine and no Arabs involved. The Arabs were allies of the Palestinians. Why would they not be? In the two world wars Americans and others went to fight alongside their allies. It’s a no-brainer that Palestine had allies.
American Indian tribes allied to fight their colonial invaders. Why on earth is it surprising that the Palestinians sought the same kind of support. Israel pushes this delusion that somehow the Palestinians are being unreasonable when they are doing what every other occupied people in history have done. They are defending themselves against a brutal coloniser.
The article is pure apologist propaganda. Even more relevant is the fact that sure, take the article as a given and as an explanation but it resolves nothing because the core issue remains that what matters most is not the history of how it happened or might have happened, but the simple fact that Israel is a colonial venture and had no more right to colonise Palestine than the English had to colonise the Americas. We can accept it exists but we cannot accept it had any right to colonise someone else's country.
In a civilized world Israel needs to say sorry, admit to the wrongs inherent in its foundation and provide justice and freedom to the indigenous people whose land it has stolen. Even more relevant is that Israel has maintained a murderous military occupation for nearly seven decades and set up an apartheid State and that will not be allowed to continue.
Whether you believe that religions have rights, they don’t but even if you believe they should; whether one accepts that sure, as a coloniser Israel exists and has a right to exist; whether you also believe Jews are superior to everyone else and Palestinians are sub-human, or whatever concoction of belief fuels support for Israel, there is absolutely no getting away from the fact that in a modern, democratic, enlightened world, Occupation, Colonisation and Apartheid are wrong and so Israel is wrong, wrong, wrong and occupation, colonisation and apartheid will end.
If Israel will not end it then Israel will be forced to end it as South Africa was with a crippled economy which makes survival impossible without justice being done. 
A one-state solution is now the only outcome. Israel cannot kill or drive out the nearly six million Palestinians it holds under occupation. It is impossible. It could not even kill the two million Palestinians imprisoned in the Gaza concentration camp, although 2,000, a quarter of them children, shredded for resisting occupation was horrendous enough, so how could it kill the nearly four million held in bantustans in occupied Palestine which is criss-crossed with Jew-only roads to Jew-only settlements? It could not without killing many of those illegal Jewish settlers unless the Israeli Government sought to move them out first which would give the game away.
World outrage at the two murderous attacks on the Gaza prison was enormous and if Israel tries to kill or drive out the Palestinians the rage would be so great even the US would have to become involved in imposing a one-state solution immediately.
Trying to justify the Six Day War, or rather, cast Israel as an innocent or victim nearly half a century on, is akin to the Germans trying to justify the bombing of Britain because as an ally it was trying to end occupation by the Nazis in Europe.
The Blitz was the result of German aggression - the Six Day War was the result of Zionist/Israeli aggression. 
So, given the stark realities the article is in the scheme of life superfluous and meaningless as all propaganda becomes in the face of justice and reason.

Forty-eight years ago this week, the Six-Day War broke out. While some wars fade into obscurity, this one remains as relevant today as in 1967. Many of its core issues remain unresolved and in the news.

Science like the fox giving advice on how to keep chickens safe.

These are the cowboys who are giving health advice and telling us what to eat and that vaccines are safe and why everyone should be on this medication or that medication.
It's a bit like taking advice from the fox about keeping the chickens safe.
Quote: In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.
Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)
This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more.

In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the…

Thursday, June 04, 2015

If the brain is linked to the immune system then why not question the part vaccination miht play in rising rates of brain cancer in children?

Michael Leunig's recent cartoon defending the right of freedom of speech and freedom of choice in health matters in regard to vaccination has brought much-needed debate, unfortunately some of it hysterical on the pro-vaccination side, but important all the same.
While Leunig has received death threats and so have members of his family and that is truly shocking and disgraceful in a developed nation, the fact is that the controversy does get more of a chance to be talked about than it would otherwise and having worked with him many years ago, I know he has inner steel behind the gentleness and he would know that and accept the price demanded of him for his commitment to integrity.
Vaccination does need to be discussed and without rancour and hysteria because it stands as probably the greatest medical experiment in human history. As with any experiment, particularly one which has long been driven by profit and power motivations, any downsides need to be thoroughly explored.
Those parents opting to limit or reject vaccination for their children have in the main done far more comprehensive research into the issue than the average GP. And that is understandable because the life and/or health of their child or children is at stake and most parents care desperately about their kids and will do whatever they need to do to protect them.
Which is what makes the petty, nasty legislation by the Government to force financially vulnerable parents to vaccinate, so evil. I would have less of an issue if legislation had been passed which punished anyone who did not comply with recommended vaccination schedules but we all know that would have been political disaster.
A Government bent on playing politics with a fear-driven, if not paranoid public makes for base actions and playing nasty games with a few vulnerable parents is the end result. If there had been any principle involved, let alone reason if the goal had been optimal vaccination rates, then the Government would have legislated to punish everyone and pensions would have been docked for the aged, disabled, indigenous and wage-earners would have been taxed at higher rates for not complying with recommended vaccination. The entire exercise has been and is a nasty farce which punishes the most vulnerable few.
But, that aside, there is no doubt that questions are being asked and more questions are being asked and even the scientific system must ask questions and begin to make connections which will lead to more questions and which cannot be ignored or hidden by vested interests.
This issue has become important to me for a variety of reasons but mostly my position is freedom of speech, freedom of choice in regard to health and concern for the high and rising rates of poor health and disease in our children. A recent development may play a huge part in bringing answers in regard to the negative effects of vaccination and that is researchers finding what they call a missing link between the brain and immune system, but which to holistic medicine, even if not fully understood, has always been recognised.
Vaccination is devised to work on the immune system and so, if there is a link between the brain and immune system, why is it not logical to ask questions in regard to brain disease and dysfunction in our now heavily vaccinated children?
I am not blaming all this on vaccination. I reject vaccination for myself based on what I know combined with reason, common sense and experience, but I have no problem with others doing whatever they choose.
I certainly do have misgivings about the theory and practice but can only assume that people do their own comprehensive research and weigh up the risks and make their choice accordingly.
I have also said, more than once, that in an age when people are sicker, not healthier, particularly our children with new and terrible epidemics of mental and physical disease, that we need to question everything and that includes vaccines.
Those who support vaccination in the main seem to feel that vaccination cannot be questioned and logic suggests, if not responsibility to our children, that we question anything and everything which is different in their lives in the past half century as epidemics of cancer, autism, asthma, allergies, diabetes, obesity, behavioural and learning difficulties, SIDS etc., have taken hold.
These disease rates follow a timeline as vaccination increased, given at earlier ages, more often, in more experimental form, in multiple form and in greater quantities. That is a fact which anyone who researches thoroughly knows.
Sure, elective C-section, pushed in recent decades by doctors, which brings compromised gut function which means compromised immune function and which affects brain function; overuse of antibiotics which brings compromised gut function etc.; chemicals and preservatives in the food chain; drugs in the food chain; increased use of medications on babies and children; increased exposure to electro-magnetism with electronic equipment, games etc., often in bedrooms where children sleep; wi-fi hotspots; less physical activity etc., can all play a part but vaccines stand out as being a factor, if not a major factor.
Much damage is done by science/medicine because it takes a materialist/reductionist view and sees the body as a machine and because it knows far less than it thinks it does. It might have vastly greater material and mechanical knowledge of the body than we had a century ago but that does not mean it understands the human body or health and disease.
Vaccination is sourced in the belief that the body can be treated like a piece of mechanical equipment or bag of chemicals and that is not only deluded it is dangerous.
Science keeps changing its mind because yes, it keeps researching, but it does a lot of damage in the meantime. Recent research has made a link between the brain and the immune system which to modern science/medicine is somehow shocking and yet has stood as a given in non-allopathic medical modalities for thousands of years.
Common sense dictates that the increased rates of autism and learning and behaviour difficulties which relate to brain function and the vastly increased rates of brain cancer in children, are likely to have links with immune function. Well, it did to many before and now will do so to science/medicine because it has established this link.
So, if vaccination works with and on the immune system and, quote: ' the brain is directly connected to the immune system by vessels previously thought not to exist' and that this is significant in terms of the " effects it could have on the study and treatment of neurological diseases ranging from autism to Alzheimer’s disease to multiple sclerosis." then logically, why might there not be a part played by vaccines in autism, brain cancer and behavioural and learning difficulties?
Surely for the sake of our children as we inject them with a mix of disease and toxins and animal and human cell material, we should study vaccines and their possible deleterious effects in minute detail.
Quote:Brain cancer kills more children than any other disease in Australia. It also kills more people under 40 in Australia than any other cancer.

Here is something for the pro-vaccinators to ponder. I am sure that everyone wants the best for themselves and their children in terms of health and protection from disease.

I am sure that many are also aware that modern medicine is now one of the top three or four killers, iatrogenic, in the developed world and logic suggests we need to hold science and medicine accountable, rigorously, particularly where our children are involved.

So, in terms of establishing the safety and any effects of vaccination once and for all, what do we need? In the spirit of the much-famed although increasingly flawed RCT 'gold standard' we need a group of unvaccinated large enough to be credible. That does not have to be a huge group in any country, just large enough for thorough research to be done.

And since we have a large enough group of unvaccinated who would, I am sure, be more than happy to participate in studies to ascertain the health of their children compared to the vaccinated, and to know themselves if vaccination does more harm than good or more good than harm, then surely it makes sense to applaud them and to make use of them.

After all, if the unvaccinated are at risk in the way the vaccinated believe they are then they need to know once and for all and if vaccination is the risk those who opt to limit or reject vaccination believe, then surely we all need to know once and for all. 

So, instead of raging against the unvaccinated, why don't we all work together and call for a moratorium while science studies the health of the unvaccinated alongside that of the vaccinated?

For all of the scientific and medical claims that vaccination is safe and a benefit to health, what has never been done is a rigorous study of the health of unvaccinated children compared to vaccinated. Sure, there are some studies out there but not any major study in each country which particularly looks at health comparisons between the two groups.

Surely, as part of a rigorous approach from science and medicine that is what all of us should be demanding.

Tuesday, June 02, 2015

Modern medicine is still selling snake oil

It is human nature to need to trust our healers, our doctors and it has ever been thus. Because of the nature of disease and medicine, the profession has always been an industry and one prone to the 'snake oil' approach simply because disease and desperation so often go hand in hand.
Huge profits have always been made by the best doctors and purveyors of medicine and that, in the modern age, has just increased to realms beyond imagining. But the amounts spent on health and medicine do not translate into outcomes that we would expect.
We have more disease and less good health and we have the system itself responsible for the hospitalisation and death of many millions. The warning signs are there and for all sorts of easily identifiable reasons.
Modern medicine, Allopathic medicine, is trapped in the materialist reductionist mindset of science where the body is seen as a machine and/or bag of chemicals and the only tools the medical industry has are knives and drugs.
When Allopathy can take a holistic view of the human body, disease and healing, then there will still be a place for the knife and no doubt, on occasion the drug or chemical medication, but many other non-harmful and healing modalities will be utilised. Homeopathy, Herbal, Nutritional medicine as well as Acupuncture and various treatments which support the body in healing such as Reiki, can contribute a path of healing which does not carry an added risk of worse disease or death.
More people die of chemotherapy than the disease and it is easy to see how many who are 'cleared' after treatment, then have a return of the disease, often in more malignant and prevalent form, within a year or two.
Not only that, a medical process which is expected to cure, involves such ghastly suffering that it amounts for many, to torture. With cancer rates now at one in two as opposed to one in ten and more a century ago and higher rates in children than adults, surely there has to be a better way?
If chemotherapy has such a shocking failure rate how can anyone justify subjecting children, who have no say, to such pointless suffering?
No other 'product' would ever remain on the market or be used as chemotherapy is, with the same sort of failure rate. It is retained because doctors 'have nothing else beyond the knife; the medical industry is dominated if not controlled by the drug industry which makes and sells it; Allopathic medicine at this point refuses to consider other non-harmful but effective medical modalities and people are desperate and prepared to do what they are told.
And even those who have done the research and who are aware of this shocking failure rate, public and doctors alike, are more likely to say little or nothing in order not to create a lack of faith in those who are undergoing the treatment. But I would be prepared to bet, most of them, at least the adults, know very well what the truth is and would also say that denying realities or truths is in no-one's interests.
As long as we have disease we will need answers and we will need healing modalities which support the body as it strives to regain optimal health. Spending billions on the lie that chemotherapy is effective, or can cure cancer is not in anyone's interests. After all this time, if it was going to work it would have worked.
More importantly, surely those billions need to be spent on why in such an age of medicine, there is so much more chronic and serious disease? We should be healthier and we are not. Our children are less healthy than they have ever been and the biggest killer of them and young people is brain cancer!
Anything can cure but those who come through the other side from chemotherapy are no doubt so robust that if they can survive the 'nuclear war' approach of chemotherapy, they probably would have been healed of the disease anyway.
At the end of the day people must be free to choose their medical options and healing paths, but doctors must start to open their minds to other medical modalities which are not so destructive and which can trigger cure.
Removing the stranglehold which the pharmaceutical companies have over the medical industry is crucial. And removing the stranglehold which the materialist/reductionist mindset imposes on science/medicine is also crucial.
Only a fool keeps doing the same thing and expecting a different result, goes the maxim.
With iatrogenic, doctor or medical induced, the third biggest killer and most of it from medications, surely it is time for the medical profession itself to start asking questions. If millions of people were dying from any other medical system there would be outrage.
If Homeopathy or Acupuncture were the third biggest killers they would have been banned long ago. It is a disgrace that Allopathic medicine is not called to account, and given the claims the industry makes in regard to health and healing, it is not only a disgrace, it is criminal.