- Be your own doctor by rudenski
18 y
4,148 2 Messages Shown
Blog: The Gathering Place
On Conventional Medicine
Primum nihil nocere (above all, do no harm).
Hippocratic physician’s oath
150,000 to 300,000 Americans are injured or killed each year because of medical negligence (i.e., mistreated diseases, surgeries, drug reactions, misprescribed drugs.)
Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13, 1993
About 90% of the patients who visit doctors have conditions that will either improve on their own or that are out of reach of modern medicine's ability to solve.
New England J. of Medicine, Feb 7, 1991
"What you must understand, Mr. Gearin-Tosh, is that we know so little about how the body works."
Sir David Weatherall, Regius professor of medicine at Oxford University and head of the Institute of Molecular Medicine, to a Stanford University professor who healed himself of one of the most lethal cancers known using natural means.
[S]ometimes there is no substitute for a doctor. Think for a moment of the injuries you might suffer in an automobile accident. No herb or vitamin could help you in the same way that a good doctor can. In terms of surgical technique (the cutting apart and repair of the human body) modern medicine has made remarkable advances. In terms of identifying many of the germs that play a role in causing many diseases and improving sanitation to prevent those diseases, once again modern medicine has made remarkable advances. In terms of burns, trauma, and ER's, modern medicine is nothing short of miraculous. But in terms of treating and preventing most disease, particularly the major scourges of the modern era (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and Alzheimer’s) modern medicine stands an abject failure. Despite all of the games played with statistics, the numbers are undeniable.
Jon Barron "Why Your Doctors Do You Like They Do"
According to scientific criteria, [Dr. Hamer’s] New Medicine has to be declared as true according to the present state of Science and to the best of our current knowlege. Whereas orthodox (conventional) medicine, scientifically speaking, is an amorphous mush, which cannot even be falsified, let alone verified due to its being based on fundamentally misunderstood (alleged) facts. According to scientific criteria, conventional medicine can only be called a hotchpotch of hypotheses, hence unscientific and to the best of human judgment false.
Prof. Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz assessing the scientific validity of Dr. Hamer’s “New Medicine versus conventional medicine
Iatrogenic diseases, generally defined as diseases that result from a physician's action or in response to a drug, are believed to be a major problem in terms of morbidity and hospital expense.
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Dec. 12, 1980
Over a million patients are injured in hospitals each year, and approximately 180,000 die annually as a result of these injuries. Therefore, the iatrogenic injury rate dwarfs the annual automobile accident mortality of 45,000 and accounts for more deaths than all other accidents combined.
JAMA, July 5, 1995, 274:29-34
As a retired physician, I can honestly say that unless you are in a serious accident, YOUR BEST CHANCE OF LIVING TO A RIPE OLD AGE IS TO AVOID DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS AND LEARN NUTRITION, HERBAL MEDICINE AND OTHER FORMS OF NATURAL MEDICINE. Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and not to cure anyone. Most surgery is unnecessary. In short, our mainstream medical system is hopelessly inept and/or corrupt. THE TREATMENT OF CANCER AND DEGENERATIVE DISEASES IS A NATIONAL SCANDAL. The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be.
Dr. Allan Greenberg on 12/24/2002
Deadly medical mistakes are number one US killer
...The results of seven years of research reviewing thousands of studies conducted by the Nutrition Institute of America show for the first time that medical errors are the number one cause of death and injury in the United States. According to the NIA's report, over 784,000 people die annually due to medical mistakes. Comparatively, the 2001 annual death rate for heart disease was 699,697 and the annual death rate for cancer was 553,251. Over 2.2 million people are injured every year by prescription drugs alone and over 20 million unnecessary prescriptions for antibiotics are prescribed annually for viral infections.
The report also shows that 7.5 million unnecessary medical and surgical procedures are performed every year and 8.9 million people are needlessly hospitalised annually. Based on the results of NIA's report, it is evident that there is a pressing need for an overhaul of the entire American medical system.
The findings, described as a "revelation" by Martin Feldman, MD, ... are the product of the first comprehensive studies on iatrogenic incidents (those caused by the treatment or drug itself). Never before has any study uncovered such a massive amount of information about the degree and effect of iatrogenesis. Historically, only small individual partial studies have been performed in this area.
Carolyn Dean, MD, a physician and author..., "I was completely shocked, amazed, and dismayed when I first added up all the statistics on medical death and saw how much allopathic medicine has betrayed us."
Full article see http://www.icmedicine.co.uk/journal/nov03/005.htm
Fewer than one-fourth of doctors surveyed routinely ask their patients about their dietary habits.
Natural Health, Sept/Oct 1993
Current research suggests that 36% of physician visits are unnecessary; 36% of hospital admissions are caused by side-effects from other medical treatments; 53% of surgeries are unnecessary; and half of all time spent in hospitals isn't medically indicated.
Let's Live, Feb. 1995
Errors in judgement or technique concerning either the anesthesia or the surgery, or a combination of the two, contribute to close to 50% of the mortality in the operating room.
Dr. Arthur James Mannis
In 1976 in Bogota, Colombia, doctors went on strike during a 52-day period. The death rate went down 35% during that time. In Los Angeles in 1976, doctors went on strike to protest increasing costs of malpractice insurance. The death rate decreased by 18%. When the strike ended, the death rate returned to prestrike proportions. In Israel in 1973, during a month-long strike, the death rate dropped 50%. The last time the death rate had been that low was when there was a doctors's strike 20 years before.
Confessions of a Medical Heretic, Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.
Our figures show approximately four and one half million hospital admissions annually due to the adverse reactions to drugs. Further, the average hospital patient has as much as thirty percent chance, depending how long he is in, of doubling his stay due to adverse drug reactions.
Milton Silverman, M.D. (Professor of Pharmacology, University of California)
If you thumb through a Physician's Desk Reference, which is a very thick volume that details all the thousands and thousands of pharmaceuticals sold and prescribed by MD's, you will find that over and over and over again under the heading, "Mechanism of Action" it reads "UNKNOWN." In other words, MD's do NOT KNOW WHY OR HOW a very great percentage of the pharmaceuticals they prescribe work!
One scarcely ever hears of the client of an MD requesting that his or her doctor tell them how a particular drug the doctor is prescribing works. But somehow, when it comes to things alternative, things non-prescription, everyone wants to know how they work and what the mechanism of action is!
Also, the FDA is completely two-faced when it comes to approving pharmaceuticals versus approving non-pharmaceuticals. As I have already mentioned, the Physician's Desk Reference contains tremendous numbers of pharmaceuticals for which there is NO known mechanism of action---NO ONE can say how they work. But when Dr. ________(can't remember his name) tried to get his bovine cartilage approved by the FDA, the FDA turned him down because he could not provide them with the mechanism of action!
Personally, I do not need to know just how an alternative treatment works, provided I can find people I trust who reliably tell me it works, and provided I know that if it does not work for me, it will not hurt or kill me or my savings account.
Elliot Yudenfriend
Number of physicians in the U.S.: 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171
Number of gun owners in the U.S.: 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188
Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Taken from the Benton County NewsTribune on November 17, 1999,
contributed by David Icke
The American Medical Association style of medicine (a philosophy I will henceforth call allopathic) has a model that explains the causes of illness. It suggests that anyone who is sick is a victim. Either they were attacked by a "bad" organism--virus, bacteria, yeast, pollen, cancer cell, etc.--or they have a "bad" organ--liver, kidney, gall bladder, even brain. Or, the victim may also have been cursed by "bad" genes. In any case, the cause of the disease is not the person and the person is neither responsible for creating their own complaint nor capable of making it go away without medical intervention. This institutionalized irresponsibility seems useful for both parties to the illness, doctor and patient. The patient is not required to do anything about their complaint except pay (a lot) and obediently follow the instructions of the doctor, submitting unquestioningly to their drugs and surgeries. The physician then acquires a role of being considered vital to the survival of others and thus obtains great status, prestige, authority, and financial remuneration.
Perhaps because the sick person is seen to have been victimized, and it is logically impossible to consider a victimizer as anything but something evil, the physician's cure is often violent, confrontational. Powerful poisons are used to rejigger body chemistry or to arrest the multiplication of disease bacteria or to suppress symptoms; if it is possible to sustain life without them, "bad," poorly-functioning organs are cut out. . . . .
Hygienists usually inform the patient quite clearly and directly that the practitioner has no ability to heal them or cure their condition and that no doctor of any type actually is able to heal. Only the body can heal itself, something it is eager and usually very able to do if only given the chance. One pithy old saying among hygienists goes, "if the body can't heal itself, nothing can heal it." The primary job of the hygienic practitioner is to reeducate the patient by conducting them through their first natural healing process. If this is done well the sick person learns how to get out of their own body's way and permit its native healing power to manifest. Unless later the victim of severe traumatic injury, never again will that person need obscenely expensive medical procedures. Hygienists rarely make six figure incomes from regular, repeat business.
This aspect of hygienic medicine makes it different than almost all the others, even most other holistic methods. Hygiene is the only system that does not interpose the assumed healing power of a doctor between the patient and wellness. When I was younger and less experienced I thought that the main reason traditional medical practice did not stress the body's own healing power and represented the doctor as a necessary intervention was for profit. But after practicing for over twenty years I now understand that the last thing most people want to hear is that their own habits, especially their eating patterns and food choices, are responsible for their disease and that their cure is to only be accomplished through dietary reform, which means unremittingly applied self-discipline.
One of the hardest things to ask of a person is to change a habit. The reason that AMA doctors have most of the patients is they're giving the patients exactly what they want, which is to be allowed to continue in their unconscious irresponsibility.
Isabelle Moser MD in How And When To Be Your Own Doctor.
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/why_alternatives3.html
|
|
|
rudenski
|
|
- Thinking out of the box. www.dinogermani.com R by #67586
18 y
1,523
THINKING OUT OF THE BOX IS MUCH NEEDED.
http://www.dinogermani.com
THE NATURE OF NATURE:
Molecular Level Intelligence and Nature’s Balance
Copyright 1998
It is generally accepted that the survival and reproduction of all of the many life forms which inhabit the earth can be optimally assured by not disturbing Nature’s balance.
This writing is concerned primarily with the adverse effects to the human body which result when a person consumes foods or beverages which are perceived by the body itself as being incompatible with the maintenance of that balance of Nature which best safeguards the survival and reproductive capacity of the human race, and the concomitant survival and/or reproductive capacity of other life forms as well. I speak of the perception of the human body because I do not refer what we know or might think, but rather to the intelligence which was acquired by our bodies over time, on a molecular level, to work in concert with the laws regarding the balance of Nature as they were evolving. It is my belief that, on a molecular level, the human body has been evolutionarily endowed with the intelligence to react to the food that we consume in a way that insures “compliance” with the laws which were designed to preserve Nature’s balance even if compliance with these laws deleteriously affects the body itself. Indeed, in my opinion, this molecular level intelligence (MLI) is an integral part of the laws which govern Nature’s balance.
Some examples of the human body reacting adversely to itself when we consume food in a manner which the body’s molecular level intelligence perceives as leading to the destabilization of that balance, follow. Each time a person drinks the milk of a cow (or consumes other dairy products) the human body discerns (with its MLI) that the milk it has consumed is the milk of another species. The body’s MLI views the consumption of such milk on a regular basis as events which represent the deprivation of sustenance essential to the health of members belonging to another species, and thus, as events which seriously compromise their chances of surviving or maturing satisfactorily. In instances in which calves don’t survive or mature adequately, reproductive chains are interrupted and this leads to disturbances in balance; for example, in the natural state carnivores might not have enough to eat. The degree of destabilization of balance that a human body perceives is commensurate with the amount of cow’s milk consumed, the frequency of its consumption and other factors which will be noted later.
It is said that Nature abhors a vacuum. I think that Nature also so abhors any destabilization of its equilibrium that it instituted the laws referred to here to assist it in the maintenance of that equilibrium.
In the case of humans who on a regular basis consume the milk of another species Nature maintains balance by afflicting the body with ailments (sometimes cancer and cardiovascular diseases) that curtail the length of time that the body exists to engage in behavior that upsets balance! The speed at which the MLI of the human body acts to initiate the process of adversely affecting itself is commensurate with the amount of disturbance to balance that it perceives that the body is engaged in.
Some of the reactions of the human body to cow’s milk have been long understood. For instance it has been known for a very long time that cow’s milk contains many nutrients which the human body needs to maintain good health. What hasn’t been generally known up until recently (perhaps because it was not widely suspected) is that the consumption of dairy products can be both nutritional and at the same time conducive to poor health. Is this a contradiction of Nature? I think not. Cow’s milk would, of course, contain much that is of nutritive value to the human body because cow’s milk is, like all other milk, designed by Nature to sustain life. It is also at the same time harmful to the human body because it was designed to sustain the life of calves not humans, a fact which the human body, on a molecular level, is aware of. Because of the way we have been conditioned (and part of that conditioning is the fact that nowadays most of us obtain our dairy products neatly packaged at the supermarket), it may be difficult for some to accept that our bodies were programmed by Nature to view the consumption of dairy products as a disturbance of balance and that repeated disturbances of this type will cause the body to act to redress Nature’s balance by, in effect, initiating a self- destruct process. I am certain, however, that this balance of Nature/MLI hypothesis is the logical explanation of why the regular consumption by humans of dairy products, even though they are nutritional, often fosters life-shortening diseases while the consumption of nutritionally appropriate food, appropriate from a balance of Nature perspective, that is, not only nourishes the body but also assists it to ward off disease. Furthermore, I do not believe that Man can circumvent or invalidate the balance of Nature laws referred to here by manipulating the reproductive process of animals or by controlling their feeding patterns because these laws are of necessity immutable. The MLI of the human body, which is a component of these laws, is also of necessity immutable. Therefore, the fact that we know, that the milk that we drink comes from cows on a dairy farm, and the calves it was meant for are veal chops at some market, would, of course, not undo the molecular level programming human bodies have been endowed with; mind over matter does not apply here.
It may be reasonably asked if the fact that the consumption of skim milk (which is milk the composition of which has been altered in an attempt to mitigate the harm the consumption of whole milk does to the human body while taking advantage of milk’s high nutritional value) may not be harmful, or not as harmful, to the human body invalidates the balance of Nature/MLI hypothesis. The answer is no. The fact that the consumption of skim milk may not be harmful (or not as harmful) as whole milk is probably due to the fact that the body’s MLI either does not recognize skim milk as being milk, or if it does, perceives skim milk to be less milk, as indeed it is in a sense. It is even possible that the body’s MLI view’s skim milk as deficient and coming from an unhealthy cow that is unable to adequately nourish its offspring. Regardless of the way the body chooses to perceive the consumption of skim milk, the body’s conclusion is the same: Nature’s balance will not be as disturbed (or not disturbed at all) by the consumption of skim milk and therefore the need to shorten the amount of time the human body can upset balance is not as urgent, or perhaps no need exists to curtail the body’s ability to upset balance, so the body’s MLI does not initiate the process of inflicting a degenerative disease on itself, or if it does, does so much more slowly.
Very early in their lives humans stop consuming their mothers’ milk. If human milk is appropriate only for an infant, then by what logic would milk or milk products of another species be appropriate for humans throughout their lives? It would seem that the health interests of humans would be better served if we consumed the milk or milk products of another species only when foods of comparable nutritional value, and appropriate for Man from a balance of Nature perspective, are not available.
Another example of the human body reacting in a manner which ensures that Nature’s balance is not disturbed is the body’s negative (life shortening) response to the copious consumption of eggs. This negative response is due to the fact that eggs represent future generations of fowl, their consumption therefore, except perhaps in limited amounts, is viewed by the body’s MLI as threatening the reproduction of fowl in numbers sufficient to maintain balance.
The laws originally imparted to our bodies regarding balance apply to everything we consume. For instance, the regular consumption of leaner meat is less harmful (or not harmful) to humans than is the regular consumption of meat containing more fat. Is this so just by chance or is this a provision of Nature’s law regarding balance? I think this is due to a provision of Nature’s balance law and this is why: the human body’s MLI sees leaner meat as coming from a scrawny (perhaps sickly, old or poorly nourished), less reproductively capable animal while it sees meat containing more fat as coming from a healthy and more reproductively capable animal. The regular consumption of healthy, reproductively able animals is deemed by the MLI of the human body to be a threat to Nature’s balance while the regular consumption of scrawny animals either isn’t deemed to be a threat to balance or is viewed as less of a threat. This is so because the consumption of high reproductive capacity animals is viewed by the body’s MLI as a threat to the continued existence of the species being consumed in numbers sufficient to maintain balance. Therefore, Nature strives to maintain its balance by afflicting the human who on a regular basis consumes animals which the body’s MLI perceives to be best able to survive and reproduce with diseases that hasten that person’s demise. As previously noted, the laws regarding balance and the human body’s MLI on not alterable; therefore, the fact that the meat we consume might come from a fatty steer raised on a cattle ranch and the fact that one’s mind may be aware of this, does not undo the originally endowed reaction of the body to what it perceives to be threats to Nature’s balance. Thus, to avoid the negative consequences to the human body which ensue when the balance of Nature laws are ignored, fatty meat should be eaten by humans only if plant foods or animals suitable for human consumption (plants and animals suitable for human consumption from a balance of Nature perspective that is) of comparable nutritional value are not available.
A profusion of green leaves characterizes most plants and abundant plant life is found throughout much of the earth. It would seem, therefore, that if humans satisfied a very substantial portion of their dietary needs by the adequate consumption of nutritious leafy greens that it would not only foster good health, but that such consumption would also not be unfavorably viewed by the body’s MLI because such consumption would not be interpreted by the body’s MLI as a threat to Nature’s balance. However, since the seeds of plants (grains) represent future generations of plant life the prodigal consumption of the seeds (or seed based foods) would be viewed unfavorably by the body’s MLI because the body’s MLI interprets the excessive consumption of seeds as a threat to future generations of plant life. It seems, therefore, that we should consume more leafy greens than seed based foods. Here again, the evolutionarily endowed reaction of the human body to what its MLI perceives to be threatening to Nature’s balance is not affected by the fact that future generations of certain plants (like corn or wheat) are not threatened because their future reproduction is assured by man’s agricultural practices.
When wolves (or similar predators) hunt they often kill sickly or old (scrawnier) animals. Whether this is so because they are impelled by instinct (which could be driven by the MLI of their bodies) or because such are easier to hunt than are healthy animals at their prime, is not relevant. What is relevant is that were they to kill only healthy and high reproductive capability prey, Nature’s balance would be disturbed because the animals they prey upon would steadily diminish in number. In this hypothetical scenario (hypothetical because wolves do not kill only healthy animals in their prime), more wolves would then starve to death and the balance of Nature would then redress itself. The same process as just described would occur if too many wolves hunted in the same area. It would appear that one of Nature’s laws is that creatures, whether human or animal, which repeatedly behave (intentionally or not) in a manner which is harmful to Nature’s balance are circumstantially or molecularly impeded by Nature itself from continuing such behavior on a sustained basis.
As is generally known, a person who consumes fatty meat and dairy products and that engages in regular aerobic exercise (running, walking, bicycling, etc.), other factors being equal, does not as readily fall victim to degenerative illnesses as does a comparable individual who consumes the same amount of fatty meat and dairy products but fails to exercise aerobically. As a matter of fact, an individual who engages in regular aerobic activity could even consume more fatty meat and milk products than does an individual who is similar in all other respects but does not exercise aerobically and remain disease free longer than the non-exercising person. Does this circumstance in any way invalidate the MLI /Nature’s balance hypothesis? It would seem at first that it does. But such is not the case. Indeed, this circumstance appears to confirm the validity of this hypothesis. This is the reason why I think this circumstance is supportive: When a person runs or walks around a track, through a field or on a treadmill, and does so on a regular basis, or systematically engages in any other activity that is aerobic, the body’s MLI interprets such activity as travel for the purpose of obtaining food. (This is due to the fact that when the laws of balance were evolving, most of the traveling done by our ancestors was to obtain food). Thus, today, more aerobic exercise is viewed by the body’s MLI as more distance traveled while little and/or infrequent aerobic activity is viewed by the body’s MLI as minimal travel. (Incidentally, since the body’s MLI equates aerobic activity with travel for the purpose of obtaining food, and thus relieving feelings of hunger, one can see why a sense of well-being and diminished anxiety is experienced after one exercises aerobically).Distance traveled is viewed as the amount of territory covered by the body’s MLI (more travel represents more area covered). As Nature’s laws of balance were evolving, Nature concluded that the consumption by one of our very active ancestors of three healthy animals in a given period of time was less upsetting to balance than, say, the consumption of two comparable animals in the same amount of time by one of our more sedentary ancestors and the MLI of our bodies evolved accordingly. This is because the destruction of three such animals in an area of, say, twelve square miles (by the traveling ancestor) was seen by his body’s MLI as less upsetting to balance than was seen by the destruction of two animals in, say, three square miles by the MLI of the sedentary ancestor’s body. Thus, the MLI of the traveling ancestor did not initiate its self-destruct program as readily (if at all) as did the MLI of the less active ancestor.
As is well known, over-eating is harmful to one’s health (it shortens life). This further confirms the hypothesis here proposed because the MLI of the over-eater’s body interprets over-eating, even if the over-eater consumes food which protects the body from disease, as upsetting balance. The reason is obvious: if one over-eats plant food, the body views this phenomenon as leading to the deprivation of plant food necessary to the well-being of other plant eating beings. If one over-eats animals, the human body’s MLI views this as leading to the deprivation of prey necessary to the well-being of other animal eating beings. The more one over-eats, the greater the disturbance to balance the human body’s MLI perceives; if one over-eats animals the disturbance to balance is greater (generally) than if one over-eats a comparable amount of plants. The human body’s MLI recognizes these facts and commensurately inflicts diseases on the body which curtail the length of time that it can upset balance.
Human beings can best serve their own health interests (and, no doubt, the interests of other creatures) by, to the greatest extent possible, consuming plants and animals that are nutritional (in the correct proportions) and that are suitable for human consumption from a balance of Nature perspective. A “balanced” diet is really one which is perceived by the body’s MLI as not disturbing Nature’s balance!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CureZone