The false gods of scientific medicin... 
Dquixote1217
17 y
5,975
† Cross †
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenr...
Advertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
http://www.newstarget.com/021922.html
Originally published July 2 2007The false gods of scientific medicine revealed: It's a cult, not a science
by Mike Adams
Promoters of conventional medicine claim that all the drug marketing, FDA approvals, surgical procedures, chemotherapy and all other treatments are based on "hard science." The term "science" is invoked with hilarious frequency: Science journals, science-based medicine, proven medical science and so on. As you might have guessed, however, there's surprisingly little genuine science to be found in the common practice of conventional medicine. Rather, what passes for "science" today is a collection of health myths, half-truths, intellectual dishonesty, self delusion, fraudulent reporting and wishful thinking.
Take clinical trials, for example. These are supposed to be the "gold standard" of scientific study, and yet it has been well demonstrated that these studies almost always produce results beneficial to the organization providing the funding. The wishes of the study sponsors, not true scientific methods, determine the study outcomes. This is accomplished through an elaborate system of fraudulent trial design, selective reporting, dismissing study subjects who don't produce the desired outcome, statistical distortions and the application of career pressure to the researchers who carry out such studies. (Researchers who don't produce the desired results get blackballed by the industry.)
The end result is that today's so-called "scientific medicine" has almost no resemblance to genuine science at all. The word "science" is simply used as a cover story for what's really going on behind the scenes -- a massive campaign of pro-drug propaganda, arm-twisting, public brainwashing, media control and regulatory failures that all add up to one thing: A system of medicine that is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the American people.
Where is the skepticism about conventional medicine?
Conventional medicine is almost entirely justified by truly bad science. And yet so-called skeptics, who are supposed to exercise clear thinking about all subjects, never seem to question the fraudulent science behind prescription drugs. The mass drugging of children for fictitious diseases, for example, seems to be okay with such skeptics, who are too busy bashing homeopathy and acupuncture to take an honest, critical look at the junk science behind prescription drugs, it seems.
Ultimately, these so-called quack-busting skeptics only question certain selected topics. All drugs get an automatic thumbs up, no matter how ludicrous the underlying science, while all natural therapies are automatically and routinely criticized by skeptics who equate their own lack of understanding with proof that something mysterious can't possibly work. They say homeopathy can't work, for example, simply because they can't find any mechanism to explain how it could work. That's tantamount to saying that nothing new will ever be discovered because skeptics already know everything there is to know about the way the universe works.
Let's face it: Neither conventional medicine, nor its promoters, has attained any real membership in the club of genuine scientists. Real scientists are people like Richard Feynman, a legendary author, lecturer and infinitely curious individual who never allowed his own ego to cloud his open mind about the laws of the universe. If Feynman were alive today and observing the so-called "science" backing conventional medicine, he'd probably laugh out loud at the utter lack of scientific merit found in the drug studies published in so-called "scientific journals."
The Church of Medical Truth
While defenders of conventional medicine don't have membership in the club of genuine science, they are card-carrying members of another organization: The Church of Medical Truth (similar to the Ministry of Truth from 1984). In this Church, the beliefs of members (doctors, FDA bureaucrats, media reporters, etc.) are handed down from the high priests, and those beliefs -- that all drugs are good, all vitamins are bad, etc. -- are blindly followed by the faithful, who dare not question those beliefs on any genuine scientific basis.
This is how doctors have come to believe the incredible: That food has nothing to do with health, that antioxidants will kill you, that herbs interfere with drugs, and that only drugs can treat or cure disease. It's a cult-like belief system handed down by the high priests of conventional medicine, and if this intricate web of false beliefs was actually subjected to genuine scientific scrutiny, it would crumble into a thousand pieces of junk science and marketing propaganda.
Conventional medicine, as practiced and promoted today, has nothing whatsoever to do with good science, but everything to do with promoting a particular cult-like worldview that says only doctors can treat or cure disease, not patients, or nature, or nutrition. And its proponents and practitioners are not scientists, but rather part of the congregation of the Church of Medical Truth. Mainstream media stories that parrot the cult-like beliefs of conventional medicine are the singing of the church choir, and the altar boys getting sodomized in the back room by high priests are like the public being chemically assaulted by pharmaceuticals. (A kind of "medical violence" perpetrated against the general public.)
This is not intended to say anything bad about churches. I believe in Freedom of Religion just as I do Freedom of Speech. But I don't believe in giving a group of doctors and drug pushers the exclusive right to claim their particular beliefs are the one true "science," to the exclusion of all else, especially when their so-called science is really just another competing system of beliefs founded on circular logic ("Drugs are safe because they are subjected to scientific scrutiny in studies specifically designed to show that drugs are safe.")
What skeptics should really be considering
Consider these facts about modern medicine:
• There is currently no requirement whatsoever that surgical procedures be scientifically proven as either safe or effective before being widely performed on the public.
• Chemotherapy has been scientifically proven to be worthless at curing cancer, enhancing quality of life or protecting the health of the patient. In fact, chemotherapy kills patients, and even the ones who survive it are left with permanent damage to their brain ("chemo brain"), kidneys, liver and other organs. Chemotherapy is a medical hoax with absolutely no scientific validity. The size of a tumor is not a measure of the degree of cancer that exists on a patient's body, and shrinking a tumor is not a meaningful measure of a cancer treatment's success.
• The rapid rise in depression, ADHD and other mental or "behavioral" disorders is so large that it can only be explained by either an infectious epidemic (in which case the CDC should be involved) or rampant disease mongering where drug companies invent diseases and push them onto children and adults in order to sell more drugs. Anyone who believes that ADHD is a real disease that has inexplicably stricken 1000% more children over the last twenty years is kidding themselves. This "disease" is pure fiction, and there is absolutely no blood test, no MRI, no lab test, nothing to diagnose ADHD other than the opinion of someone who most likely earns kickbacks from Big Pharma.
• Nearly all pharmaceuticals receiving FDA approval today have been tested on only a few thousand people for a very short period of time (as little as six weeks in some cases). Yet, from such limited testing, the FDA declares the drugs to be safe for everyone, even for long-term use, without a shred of evidence that such long-term use is safe.
• No scientific testing whatsoever has been done to fully document the toxic effects of combinations of medications. Deadly drug interactions are simply noted after the fact. Consumers who take multiple prescription drugs are literally serving as Big Pharma's guinea pigs.
• There is currently no requirement whatsoever that drug side effects noticed by doctors be reported to the FDA. The entire system of reporting is purely voluntary.
• The entire paradigm of pharmaceutical medicine makes no sense. Chemicals are used to treat "biomarkers" or measurable biochemical states, yet disease and dysfunction is complex and always involved more than a single measurable number. Cholesterol drugs, for example, may artificially lower cholesterol numbers, but they completely ignore the root cause of elevated cholesterol. This is why cholesterol drugs have been scientifically proven worthless in preventing heart attacks or other fatal cardiovascular events.
• Most drugs don't work on most people. Claims of benefits are highly exaggerated by reporting their relative percentage rather than absolute percentage of efficacy. For example, if two people out of 100 normally get breast cancer, and a drug causes that number to be reduced to one person out of 100, the drug company will claim a "50% reduction in breast cancer!" when, in reality, it's a 1% reduction across the population. Yet the drug will be marketed to everyone as a breast cancer "prevention" strategy. And yet 99% of the people who take it will experience no benefits from it. Most drugs are useless. A drug only has to work on about 5% of test subjects to receive FDA approval.
Someday, future medicine may actually be based on open-minded curiosity about the laws of nature and how human beings may attain a higher state of health. But until then, we're living in the Dark Ages of medicine, where the power of the Church of Medical Truth seems absolute, and its own modern-day Inquisition conducts routine search-and-destroy missions on any health practitioner who dares to question the power of the Church.
Real science is about the search for truth and an understanding of the laws of nature, but modern medical science (conventional medicine) is little more than a search for profits at the expense of public health. It has nothing whatsoever to do with genuine science. And as the public wises up to this, the future of conventional medicine doesn't have a prayer.
After the collapse of Western medicine, real health care will inevitably end up returning to its roots: The healing power of nature.
- Re: The false gods of scientific med... traderdrew
17 y
5,092
This is a reply to # 929,511
• The entire paradigm of pharmaceutical medicine makes no sense. Chemicals are used to treat "biomarkers" or measurable biochemical states, yet disease and dysfunction is complex and always involved more than a single measurable number. Cholesterol drugs, for example, may artificially lower cholesterol numbers, but they completely ignore the root cause of elevated cholesterol. This is why cholesterol drugs have been scientifically proven worthless in preventing heart attacks or other fatal cardiovascular events.
I know this is off the cancer topic. I was listening to Jay Foster the other day and I think he said, "Whenever you hear about someone who died from congestive heart failure, find out if they were taking any staten drugs."
If you never heard his show on cholesterol and staten drugs, I highly recommend listening to it. It was really good.
I have heard a couple of versions of it. He quoted studies from the pharmaceutical companies. How in the world do you test a staten drug on lab animals such as rats, monkeys and rabbits when they don't have high cholesterol in the first place? They had to find a way to induce hyperlipidemia (I believe his is high cholesterol) in these animals. Fattening foods such as eggs and butter didn't do it.!!!....and the pharmaceutical people in the labs started to become frusterated. Finally they found what causes high cholesterol.
- Re: The false gods of scientific med... Dquixote1217
17 y
5,092
This is a reply to # 929,630Advertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
I am a bit confused as to the point of your post, but I can say that the answer to high cholesterol is not to put statens in our bodies which do nothing to address the underlying causes (typical of mainstream medicine's approach) and artifically force our livers to produce less cholesterol!
DQ
- Re: The false gods of scientific med... traderdrew
17 y
5,122
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
New lower prices!
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 929,675I agree absolutely. I guess I should have put more information into my post but I think some of you should listen to the show but I will fill you in.
My point is to try to provide documentation to prove my points. Corinthian has basically asked us, "Where are the scientific studies in alternative medicine?" He also asks us to prove that alternative medicine works. This is an example.
If you have high cholesterol your MD will prescribe a staten drug. Jay says that one MD scribbled (low fat diet) on the prescription paper to one of his clients who was taking the body chem program at the same time he was seeing an MD. Jay told his client that he could eat all the eggs he wanted to. Thirty days later the client retested his cholesterol and it went down to normal.
According to Jay, MDs are not being told about what really causes high cholesterol. They think that a high fat diet causes high cholesterol.
""Think about what else they are not being told about.""
The pharmaceutical companies know how to induce high cholesterol in lab rats. They don't feed them lobster dipped in butter or feed them eggs. They feed them milk and dextrose. Casein in milk spikes up the LDL in your body. Other types of refined sugars probably induce hyperlipidemia as well. Jay gave documentation right out of the pharmaceutical companies on his radio show. If I remember correctly, staten drugs grossed 19 billion dollars in the year 2000. See the conspiracy?
- Re: The false gods of scientific med... traderdrew
17 y
5,122
- Re: The false gods of scientific med... Dquixote1217
17 y
5,092
- Observation Dquixote1217
17 y
5,007
MoreThis is a reply to # 929,511
From the earliest days of mankind, we have worshipped the unknown as gods: The sun, planets and stars. Fire. Thunder. Lightning. Birds, serpents and other forms of life unlike man. When science came along, giving us explanations (or at least theories) for the things we did not understand, many began to worship science. Yet science changes constantly and what was accepted as scientific fact yesterday is often disproven or cast into disfavor tomorrow. Thus having faith that the science of today provides all the answers and will be able to solve all problems is the same as worshipping false gods. Nuclear waste, synthetic drugs and modern cancer therapy are three good examples of where science has been far less than godlike.
DQ
“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.Advertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
- Re: Observation Corinthian
17 y
5,005
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Parasites Cleanse
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 960,162Anyone who bemoans the fact that science changes does not understand science. The very strength and power of science comes from the fact that it changes with the available evidence. There is no other logical alternative other than to change your ideas and have them evolve as the facts are revealed; the alternative - to believe willu-nilly because you just believe - is madness.
There are no greater liars in the world than quacks——except for their patients.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
- Very true Dquixote1217
17 y
5,107
This is a reply to # 960,197
You are quite right, and I would expect true science to change due to it's very nature. I have been a great fan and student of true science all of my life and remain so to this day. Which is one reason that it dismays me so when I see science misused by special interests to create faulty studies and dangerous drugs and chemicals that cause needless harm.
What I was referring to was those who believe that science is omnipotent - that whatever is put forth as science today is inviolate and that science can conquer any problem. And that, in the case of our bodies, science can do so better than nature.
As I have previously posted, I believe that the synthetic drugs created entirely in the laboratories of man, the synthetic versions of compounds found in nature, and the natural compounds isolated unnaturally in the labs are seldom compatible with our bodies, because none of them are found in that form in nature. In the synthetic versions, we have substances that our bodies have not naturally adapted to or encountered - no matter how close it may be in molecular structure to a natural compound. In the isolated compound taken directly from a natural plant or other organic form, we have a single compound without all the synergistic components that accompany it in the natural form which we encounter in nature.
Nature works synergistically, just like the human body itself, where the total organism is much greater than the sum of the parts. Remove one key supporting compound and you have changed the effectiveness and compatibility of the entire substance. Similarly, a deficiency in one vital nutrient among a great many can cause other nutrients to be less effectively utilized in the human body, just as an impairment in one organ or system in the body can cause impairments in others and lead to poor overall health for the entire body.
Big Pharma either fails to realize that, or else just doesn't care because only the unnatural synthetics and isolates are patentable and profitable. Which is no doubt why over 95% of all FDA approved drugs have side effects. And which fits right in with the great failing of mainstream medicine itself - treating the body as a collection of parts and too often only treating the part where a symptom manifests itself instead of treating the underlying causes and the whole body.True science would, imho, endeavor to find out what works best in nature and how to use it in it's most natural and compatible harm to prevent and cure disease and illness - instead of try to find patentable ways to make alernatives and isolates that places a greater emphasis on profit than it does on humanity.
When man plays God, or when profit becomes God, mankind invariably suffers.
OT - I have enjoyed reading some of your recent posts and am encouraged by their contributions, even to the point of casting a positive vote or two.
DQ
“God heals and the doctor takes the fee.”
- Benjamin Franklin"He's the best physician who knows the worthlessness of most medicines."
- Benjamin FranklinAdvertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
- Re: Very true, so VERY true DQ. chrisb1
17 y
6,011
This is a reply to # 960,214A good example........
Contrary to popular belief, Bayer did not "invent" Aspirin: Mother Nature did. And Bears (not the Chicago Bears but the big furry ones you find in the woods) discovered it.
Thousands of years ago, humans witnessed injured bears gnawing on the bark of white willow trees. Someone assumed that this was done to relieve pain where they made a tea from the bark and tried it for themselves. Instantly, the pain was gone. So others followed:.....
Around 200 B.C Greek physician Hippocrates apparently heard about the tea and prescribed willow bark to his patients to reduce pain and fever. Eventually, Big Pharma got their greedy hands into the mix, which laid the groundwork for the eventual synthesis of a molecule known as salicin – one of many ingredients found in white willow bark.
To the distress of Big Pharma, they could not market salicin as their own because it is a natural ingredient. In order to have a monopoly, they had to alter it a bit. Chemist Carl R. Gerhardt was the first to do so in 1853 by synthesizing acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). Bayer trademarked the anti-platelet drug as Aspirin in 1889 and it is now used in place of white willow bark. But it isn’t nearly as safe. The small molecular change made for big dangers.
Aspirin depletes the body of life-saving nutrients. These nutrients include folic acid, iron, potassium, sodium and vitamin C. Symptoms associated with such depletion include: anemia, birth defects, elevated homocysteine (a risk factor for heart disease), headache, depression, fatigue, hair loss, insomnia, diarrhea, shortness of breath, pale skin and suppression of the immune system. Internal bleeding is also a real and present danger.
The side effects of Aspirin are so severe that they can cause a higher death rate relative to the populations who do not take it.(1) Each year, a grossly underestimated 7600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations occur in the United States from use of Aspirin and other NSAIDS like Motrin, Aleve, and Celebrex. Only about 10% of deaths caused by NSAIDS are reported. Death by drugs is usually attributed to the patient being either too damn sick or too damn old.
Aspirin use is yet another example of how marketing hype, can supersede science.
Fortunately, the pain relieving ability, as well as any purported cardiovascular benefits, of Aspirin can be procured without risk. Simply use the forgotten tea white willow bark, ginger, high dose MSM, cayenne, or certain types of grape seed extracts. The track records of these natural products are impeccable. They can be used with great success for broken bones and the rare hangover.
By Shane Ellison, M.Sc.
Author Health Myths Exposed and Hidden Truth about Cholesterol Lowering Drugs
Organic Chemist
http://www.thepeopleschemist.com
References
1. Kauffman, Joel. Should You Take Aspirin to Prevent Heart Attack? Journal of Scientific Exploration. 2000;14(4):623-641.
2.
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/anti-flammatory-000196.htm
3.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/6/429
- Re: Very true Corinthian
17 y
5,032
MoreThis is a reply to # 960,214Franklin wrote so much, that we could have him agree with almost anything.
I agree with you in that there is a false perception that sciences is the end all to all answers and problems in society. The problem I see with many is the tendency to lump science, industry and policy all under one umbrella. Most times the people doing have little influence over how their work is used or what policies are implemented.
You are correct in admonishing those who promote science as inviolate, those that do are wrong. Though this view is just as wrong as the naturalistic idea that everything that is natural is good. It is not just drugs from companies that have side effects all drugs do, including the natural ones. There is no getting around that fact, by their very nature drugs (natural and synthetic) will have side effects, otherwise they would not be drugs.
I have often said here and other places that the true breakthrough in health will come when we figure out how to get people to live healthy lives and avoid bad choices. Clearly making them aware of the dangers (smoking, obesity, trans-fats etc.) is not enough to compel action - information is not enough. Who ever can figure out what will compel people to live healthy lives will safe; to alter behavior as to promote healthy choices will be making one of the greatest contributions to humanity.
Advertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
-
Re: Very true Dquixote1217
17 y
5,145
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Parasites Cleanse
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 960,568Good post. And another agree. You are starting to worry me here . . .
Quotes, like studies and statisitics, are so numerous that we can surely find one or more to support just about anything. I have collected many of them. For some odd reason, I tend to collect and keep the ones that agree with me. lol
Right you are about not all things in nature being safe. And I agree that drugs of any kind usually do have side effects. I do not consider natural plants and supplements to be drugs for the most part, and many of those do not have any negative side effects, other than those caused by toxins from man they have absorbed through the air, water and soil. If only manmade drugs and synthetics could match nature in the number and severity of side effects . . . .
How to make people aware of the costs of their unhealthy lifestyles and nutrition is indeed the big question. It would help if those who value profits more than lives and whose only market place is our bodies would not spend so many billions of dollars trying to suppress such information. But it would be a total copout to say that is the only problem. All we have to do is look in the mirror, after all.
Or at things like these two charts on my website:
The prevalence of obesity midway down on this page: http://www.tbyil.com/diets.htm
and the World Clock at the top of this one: http://www.tbyil.com/healthnews.htm
DQ
-
- Re: Very true, so VERY true DQ. chrisb1
17 y
6,011
- Very true Dquixote1217
17 y
5,107
- Re: Observation chris10
16 y
4,529
This is a reply to # 960,162
I have studied biochemistry , physics , calculus ,molecular biology, organic chemistry , physical chemistry and more and any chances tend to be minor , in the second decimal place ,metaphorically speaking.- Re: Observation chrisb1
16 y
4,606
- Re: Observation Dquixote1217
16 y
4,875
This is a reply to # 1,120,699
If only you had included English 101 . . . .
OK - I am just ribbing you here and I like what I have read in some of your posts, but I must be missing the point of this one.
DQ
- Re: Observation chrisb1
16 y
4,606
- Re: Observation Corinthian
17 y
5,005
- Re: The false gods of scientific med... traderdrew
17 y
5,092
