CureZone   Log On   Join
Medicine's true dark ages - Facts and greed versus (science) fiction
Dquixote1217 Views: 4,550
Published: 14 years ago
Status:       R [Message recommended by a moderator!]
This is a reply to # 1,022,842

Medicine's true dark ages - Facts and greed versus (science) fiction

"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 ( ) - 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 (



Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021

15.953 sec, (7)