"For most of these 6000 years disease was blamef (sic) on spirits, demons, magic or gods."
For much of the past 6000 years mankind attibuted virtually everything they could not explain to "spirits, demons, magic or gods". I am not one of those who presumes that the past handful of decades have made us imminently superior to what man and nature have been for all of the thousands of years preceding them. God and nature have remained the same. Mankind is still far from perfect or all knowing. And the false gods of science are disproven on a regular basis as today's scientific facts turn into tomorrow's discredited fictions.
Thanks to mainstream medicine, we now know who to blame most MODERN disease on - them!
“Most diseases are the result of medication that has been applied to relieve and take away a beneficient and warning symptom on the part of Nature."
- Elbert Hubbard
I assure you that, should mankind somehow succeed in not poisoning itself off the planet, generations from now history will record today as medicine's true dark ages - when nature was ignored and doctors attempted to barbarically cut, burn or poison away symptoms of illness and disease instead of treating the overall body to cure and prevent illness.
Regardless of what may have been believed in the past, mankind, especially in the orient, spent 6000 years learning how to utilize nature to treat the whole body. Then mainstream medicine came along and decided that ignoring the whole body, nature, nutrition, diet, lifestyle, etc., and instead treating the symptoms of illness with lab created, side effect laden drugs was the way to go.
While mainstream medicine scored some early successes with antibiotics, they have been given far too much credit for today's longer lifespans which are actually the result of improved hygeine, doctors washing their own hands and sterilizing their medical instruments, better access to trauma care, and better nutrition (although that is being reversed thanks to modern man processing the nutrtion out of food and adding dangerous additives, along with depleted soils and pollution of the air, water and land).
Today we see the result of the failed approach of modern medicine. Over 95% of all FDA approved medications have side effects. By the time an average male in the United States reaches 65, he takes a combined total of 15 medications daily and it all started out with one or two conditions that could have been treated naturally. (Jon Barron)
You say I have blinders? I once did, just like you apparently do now. I began my search into healing believing that only doctor-prescribed and FDA-approved medicine was real medicine. Unlike some here who continue to preach the mainstream party line, I did not keep my blinders on and thus I learned the real truth in thousands and thousands of hours of research and learning - and I submit that it is not I who is totally unaware. I have done MY research into the history of drugs and mainstream medicine and I do in fact base my opinions on their proven past and present. I would highly suggest that others do the same, instead of merely quoting mainstream doctrine and propaganda and trying to present medicine as some kind of caring and compassionate practice which it should be but is anything but. Here are two examples of what true caring and compassionate people came to realize about medicine:
“I have endeavored to show that there is no real service of humanity in the profession [of medicine] and that it is injurious to mankind.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
"Instead of wishing to see more doctors made by women joining what there are, I wish to see as few doctors, either male or female, as possible."
- Florence Nightingale
There are a great many caring and compassionate doctors, but it is not they who decide what information they are provided, what is withheld from them and what misinformation they are given. Neither do they set the agenda or approved drugs and treatments they are not only allowed but forced to use if they want to keep their licenses. Just like there are a lot of hardworking employees in the FDA and other agencies who believe what they are told from the top down and are largely unaware of the truth or of the corruption that sets the agenda for such agencies.
The fact is, and I challenge anyone to dispute it, mainstream medicine and the world pharmaceutical empire is a business, a huge business. Another indisputable fact is that big business is all about protecting and increasing market share and profits. Mainstream medicine, in the form of bodies like the AMA and the IG Farben drug cartel, has a proven history of suppressing competition in their only marketplace: our bodies. What do you suppose would happen if they admitted safer, less expensive and often more effective natural competition into the market place? And what praytell would it do to their their profits if they actually start curing anything?
The only ways to increase business profits is to continue to avoid competition, increase demand, sell more products and increase prices. And I cannot think of a better model to do all of the above when it comes to drugs and mainstream medicine than one which treats only symptoms and manages illness instead of curing it. suppresses competition, inundates us with a constant barrage of advertisements to "ask your doctor" about the latest miracle drug with glowingly healthy actors while the side effects roll by in small print, has one sales rep with glowing reports and incentives aplenty for every 1.5 physicians, serves up a half century or more constant stream of announcements of new miracle drugs, promises immeninent breakthroughs and cures that never materialize, and, as the cneterpiece of the whole strategy, does so with side effect laden drugs that lead to more conditions that require still more drugs in a never ending pattern that is great for profits and abhorrent for humanity.
Nuremburg and the IG Farben cartel managers imprisonment for crimes against humanity was a stark example of how compassionate those who run mainstream medicine are. It was they who were largely responsible for putting Hitler in power and who enjoyed immense power and influence in Nazi Germany. It was they who used the same slave labor that built the most infamous death camp in modern history to also build their own huge sister medical facility bearing the same name - IG Auschwitz. And it was they who then proceeded to conduct ghastly experiments on the same prisoners.
One might ask, how is that relevant to modern medicine? Because the same managers who were imprisoned were later released at the behest of former business partner and then Secretary of State Nelson Rockefeller, after which they resumed their roles in industry in the same companies that still control much of the world pharmaceutical trade and who continue to ruthlessly exploit humanity for the sake of their profits.
If you want to say that is ancient history, I would say that it is easily demonstrable that they have carried on in the same tradition. One has but to look at the proven recent history of of hiding evidence of problems with their drugs, of leaving drugs on the market for far too long as body counts mount up, and of cruelly fighting tooth and nail to keep from paying damages for all the lives of irreplaceable lost loved ones and breadwinners. Yes, Vioxx is the example most quoted, but their are many others on that dishonor roll. And if you think it is unfair to pick out drugs that have been belatedly taken off the market, there are new scandals up to bat that will soon achieve their own hall of shame statistics: Gardasil, Fosamax, Avandia . . .
Yes, as you see in that last sentence, I do indeed have very much passion which I display in my "rhetoric" about the issues of suppressing nature and being told that we do not have the basic freedom to determine for ourselves how to address our own private health issues - two issues you evidently prefer to ignore. You try to use my passion in an attempt to say that I am short on facts and large on emotion and rhetoric - although I have stated the facts time and again here in these forums and have not seen you around to dispute them.
You and you point to the NEJM study as an example. OK, fine - let's agree to accept the NEJM study as valid. Let me repeat again some unemotional facts that I posted earlier ( http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1022798#i ) - apost you failed to respond to and instead dropped down here to debate my "rhetoric" and "emotion" and such:
"Let's take a real good look at the latest study promoting flu shots for the elderly - the one just published in the NEJM and which is being used to dispute the one in the Lancet. It claims a whopping 27% reduction in hospitialiaztion for those who are vaccinated with flu shots and an even larger 48% reduction in deaths for those who are hospitialized. Now look at how the mainstream magicians worked their magic:
"The per-season hospitalization rates for unvaccinated and vaccinated people were 0.7% and 0.6%, and the corresponding death rates were 1.6% and 1.0%. The figures translated into a 27% reduction in hospitalization rate for pneumonia and flu among the vaccinated (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.77) and a 48% reduction in mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.55)."
So what they have done is take the difference between .0.7 and 0.6 percent and get a 27% reduction for hospitializations and take the difference betwee 1.6% and 1.0% and get a 48% reduction in death rates - which is true in and of itself
But look at what the figures really mean: you have a 99.3% chance of not being hospitalized without having a flu shot and risking all of it's possible side effects and a 99.4% chance of not being hospitialized if you do take the shot. A difference of 1/10th of 1 percent. And if you ARE hospitalized for the flu you have a 98.4% chance of not dying if you have not been vaccinated versus a 99% chance of not dying if you do. A difference of 4/10th of 1 percent.
The chemical cocktail that makes up the flu vaccines began life as collected mucous from sick people in three cities (this year those are Wellington, New Caledonia and Shanghia) and then was propagated in chicken eggs that may or may not have been screened for avian leucosis (bird leukemia), and then ultimately came to include mercury, formaldehyde, a spermicide from Union Carbide and anti-freeze (Polyethylene Glycol).
Is it worth subjecting yourself to that for an actual benefit of between 0.1 and 0.4%? I think not!"
DQ (aka Tony Isaacs, natural health researcher and author)
BTW, regarding the beliefs of earlier man:
“Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic.”
- Thomas Szasz, M.D.
and regarding "modern medicine":
"Modern medicine" may well be defined as "the experimental study of what happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human bodies."
- A. Saul, Contributing Editor, Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (http://www.orthomed.org)
I took the time to read your whole rant waiting for you to present some facts. Instead all I got was more wild proclamations about Nuremberg (Goodwin Award Winner), conspiracies, illogical arguments and emotional appeals. You worship at the false gods of paranoia and ignorance. There are no gods in science, and a single field of science has learned more about nature in the past 100 years than the sum of all knowledge in the previous 5900 years. The reason your ancient beliefs do not change (in this they are much like a religion) is that there is no research done on them and any research; like the NEJM study; that contradicts is quickly ignored.
It is funny that you bring Medicine of the Dark ages, a time when hanging worms around your neck cured colds, ingesting mercury was a common treatments, so was bleeding, trepanning, astrology was often blamed, magic spells, and the four humors were all the rage. Islamic, Chinese medicine of the time wasn't much better. Maybe you should bother reading up on these things before you start worshiping them.
It is difficult to follow your arguments because you go from subject to subject like a Kangaroo hopped up on speed. Try to stick to a single subject and avoid your emotional pleas, though if you did that your post would have been only a few sentences long. I guess you need the filler. You are so busy trying to evoke emotion with statements like "The chemical cocktail that makes up the flu vaccines began life as collected mucous from sick people in three cities" , It is no wonder people can't think rationally. It is well known that emotions prevent people from using reason and this is seen in the posts of people supporting your cause. They all rely on the old bogey-man to support their claims.
As to your poor understanding of math. You do a nice job of massaging the math to make the differences seem trivial, when in fact they are quite marked and distinct. I suggest you find your old stats book and redo the problem.
I consider the advantage of reducing my Grandparents chance of being hospitalized by the flu by 27% to be worth it
I consider reducing their chance of dying from the flu by 48% worth it.
Maybe I just value the elderly more than you do.
More of the same - if you cannot do better than that you are wasting my time and everyone else's on this forum.
The problem here is that you are unable to dispute facts and so you ignore them, try to discredit them or deflect them - such as your continued harping on the Goodwin Award winner bit. As you know, that refers to using the term Nazi in analogies to incite emotions. However, what I cited was historical fact and you cannot dispute it or hide it with a jingoistic term:
Now, are you going to tell us that the IG Farben group was not Hitler's largest backer? That they did not use prison labor to build IG Auschwitz? Of that they were not tried and convicted at Nuremberg? Or that they were not subsequenly released by their former business partner and then Secretary of State Nelson Rockefeller? No, because you CAN'T dispute what is indisputable. Just as you could not dispute a post full of facts, and your milquetoast attempt to pass them off is pathetic.
If YOU cared for the elderly as much as I do and had a partner who volunteers her time caring for the elderly every week you would not have them risk all the side effects of the flu shots for difference of 1/10th of 1 percent to 4/10th of one percent.
Furthermore, you would not keep pepetuating mainstream lies about the flu. You like the term lie? Well here is a stellar example:
Mainstream medicine is warning us that an average of 36,000 people die each year from the flu. However, when you examine the CDC figures, an entierly different story emerges. You see, the CDC lumps influenza and pneumonia into one category and then uses the total deaths to scare people into getting flu shots.
For example, according to the CDC’s most recent death statistics located on their Web site, influenza and pneumonia killed 62,034 people in 2001. That means, in light of the current statistic, that just over half of those deaths should have resulted from the flu. This, however, is far from true.
Upon further investigation of the Web site, you will find that the actual number of deaths caused by the flu came to 257, with pneumonia accounting for the remaining number of deaths.
Here are the REAL flu death figures as reported by the CDC, who publishes them every other year (one can only wonder why there have been no updates sincd 2002):
Don't believe me, facts man? You can download the file containing the figures HERE and go to page 9 and voila! There they are - The Big Lie!
And more is the shame on those who perpetuate and defend it!
Are you truly that blind or are you one of their stooges? Either way, I have nothing further to debate with you - you had your chances and then some and you blew it.
Now, I suggest you take your worthless apologist information and go where someone might be gullible enough to believe it. This is not the place. Or carry on, if your prefer, it is a free forum, within limits. Good luck on the reception you are going to get if you continue.
At least you are consistent with your misinformation, I guess you save a lot of time repeating the sos rather than actually looking up facts and studies that support your position… your collection of pithy quotes notwithstanding. What we have here is nothing more than bad arguments based on false accusations and the old Nazi specter. Why don’t you just shut your eyes and scream “Nazi, Nazi, Nazi” it seems to be the root of your argument. Apparently scientists who come out with studies supporting vaccination are Nazis or working for the Nazis – way to be such a pillar or irrationality.
The feeble excuses you posit in no way contradict all of the hundreds of studies that overwhelmingly conclude that vaccines in general and the flu vaccine specifically save lives. That is the essence of this discussion, not your obsession with the Rothchilds, or Rockefellers, or Illuminati or what ever other group you irrationally fear. It is the studies that support vaccination in the majority and the few that don’t. Overall any reasonable person would conclude that the studies suggest vaccinations save lives. An irrational person would ignore the majority of studies that support vaccination and exaggerate the importance of the few that contradict them. This is what you are doing.
Because I care for the elderly I want to reduce their chances of dying by 48% and reduce their hospitalizations by 27% - this is why I recommend vaccinations for the elderly. Given the success of the flu vaccination programs we see relatively fewer deaths from flu and its complications like pneumonia. In fact it is still a problem since according to JAMA there are in excess of 20000 hospitalizations associated with influenza.
It is shameful that people like you spread misinformation that would result in so many hospitalizations and deaths, all because you have a philosophical opposition against vaccinations. Your beliefs are not worth the deaths of so many.
I believe you likely possess the intelligence to see the truth, but you are emotionally blocked. As a result, you selectively dismiss valid information, you believe in conspiracy stories and tales of the big bad Nazis coming to get you. Until you get past this emotional block, you will never learn anything of value. All you will be capable of accepting is things you already believe in.
This is why you don’t respond with studies or facts about the efficacy of vaccinations and instead give me a tired lecture about Nazis, Nuremberg …. Blah. Blah. Blah……..
Have at him folks - he's all yours. This is no longer debate, it is farce.
He reminds me of the Monthy Python and Holy Grail Black Knight character who will listen to no reason and, despite having all of his arms and legs chopped off and spouting blood in all directions, keeps insisting he isn't beaten.
I have better things to do than debate a defenseless and witless Black Knight.
You lack the intellectual wherewithal to discuss this topic rationally. Besides obvious falsehoods, irrationality, paranoia and irrelevant tangents into unrelated topics you offer nothing of consequence.
Go roll in the filth of your lies. I cannot help you if you are not willing to learn.
Should you ever acquire the ability to discuss the facts of the matter (ie. studies about flu vaccine) please come back and try again.
I think our new Trollette is trying our for the Junior Corinthian league - and failing miserably.
Wanna see a real hoot? Check out the posting history. Nine posts in 50 days, and eight of them have been here "enlightening" us on mainstream flu propaganda. The other one, made 50 days ago, similarly enlightened us on Christianity:
"it is intelligent faith the Catholic Church seeks, not the drone like faith expounded in other Christian sects"
Ya think he is campaigning for Mister CureZone? So far I have yet to find a single positive vote . . .