Main
| December 2006 »
by Dan Schultz, DC
Let's give credit where credit is due; the practice of medicine saves many, many lives. They, along with general improvements in sanitation, hygiene, food supply, nutrition and standards of living, have increased human life expectancy in many countries. If you have had a heart attack, broken bones, wounds or severe infection, you should feel fortunate that the medical profession is well equipped to save your life. They've done a lot of good in this way.
It is a stark realization, however, to realize that there is absolutely nothing that the allopathic (medical) paradigm can offer to improve your health. Most of what people call "health care" is, in fact, disease care. Think about it.
Drugs to reduce fever doesn't make you healthier; drugs for headaches don't; drugs to lower blood pressure don't; drugs for cancer don't; surgery, therapy, treatment and more drugs don't do anything to improve enhance vitality. But in the vast majority of cases, they weaken the body. The allopathic model, in the wrong place at the wrong time, has killed, poisoned, altered, damaged and maimed billions of people on the planet. It's almost unbelievable that we could have done that to ourselves, but it's true.
LE Magazine August 2006
Gary Null, PhD Death by Medicine
New media explorer
Mercola.com
To illustrate the claim, Gary Null, PhD., et al produced an excellent analysis of deaths caused in the United States. It shows, conclusively, that the medical profession has been the number one cause of death.
Mercola.com
Journal American Medical Association July 26, 2000;284(4):483-5
Officially, the medical profession admits to being having been the number three cause of death, just behind heart disease and cancer. But these admissions have been found to be lacking.
However, this admission did not account for the significant incidence of underreporting or misreporting. Often, when a human being has died on the operating table from bypass surgery, the cause of death was recorded as heart disease. When a child has died hours after vaccination, the cause of death was recorded as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Moreover, death is just one of the obvious signs of what’s gone wrong. It's easily tabulated with just a little investigation, but once you get a feel for this cause and effect, one can see more readily the needless suffering that occurs for those that survive.
When humanity begins to proactively foster health in our lives (before disease/crisis occurs), wake up from this medical model nightmare, and see a different way of going about the business of health care, it will be the beginning of the end of our suffering.
by Dan Schultz, DC
Let's lay out some facts, because the facts show a preponderance of evidence that the flu vaccine is extremely suspect. For the discerning seekers of truth out there who want to ferret-out reality from news, propaganda, pseudoscience, and marketing hype, I will set forth a series of arguments, facts, and information from various sources.
The three necessary considerations are this:
Is the flu vaccine effective?
Is the flu vaccine safe?
Is the flu vaccine necessary?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/333/7574/912?ehom=
Just last week this interesting study surfaced to shed some much needed light on the flu vaccine’s efficacy. Tom Jefferson, coordinator of the vaccines field at the Cochrane Collaboration, which independently reviews healthcare provision, called for an urgent re-evaluation of flu vaccine campaigns. Dr. Jefferson urged scientists to study the precise effects of vaccines, and described most studies as being of poor quality.
In this report, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Jefferson’s team of researchers concluded said the effectiveness of flu vaccines are compromised by the fact that influenza viruses mutated and varied from year to year.
"The reasons for this situation are not clear, and may be complex. The starting point is the potential confusion between influenza and influenza-like illness, when any case of illness resembling influenza is seen as real influenza, especially during peak periods of activity.
"This confusion leads to a gross overestimation of the impact of influenza, unrealistic expectations of the performance of vaccines and spurious certainty of our ability to predict viral circulation and impact."
Overall, Jefferson concluded, influenza vaccines have little or no effect on many influenza campaign objectives, such as hospital stay, time off work, or death from influenza and its complications. "I looked at the evidence described by systematic reviews and confronted it with policy and I found that there is a massive gap," Jefferson said. "Almost none of the benefits that these policy documents list are actually given by inactivated vaccines or, if they are, they are given in slighter measure."
He wrote: "The large gap between policy and what the data tell us (when rigorously assembled and evaluated) is surprising. Policy makers, "in their efforts to deal with, or be seen to deal with" a situation, favored action with what was available: flu vaccines.
In addition, evidence from their systematic reviews showed that “Little comparative evidence exists on the safety of these vaccines -- which will be the emphasis on my next log entry.
by Dan Schultz, DC
The germ and vaccine theories caught on quickly because really healthy ideas are never big sellers. Health is rarely a valued commodity in western culture, and usually only in those who have lost it. Health doesn’t sell because no one profits from health. Breastfeeding is a good example.
As probably the single most beneficial gift to an infant’s health, it’s 100% safe and absolutely free. Yet it falls in an out of favor with American mothers like fad clothing and doctors certainly don’t strain themselves to emphasize it.
If breast milk were something corporations could mass produce and profit from, surely there would be studies aplenty and massive marketing campaigns. The legislature would be lobbied for subsidies and mandates and the government would likely succumb. There would be pressure to create breastfeeding registries and social services would probably remove children from non-breastfeeding homes. Formula use might be outlawed or restricted. Profitability, it seems, generates more popularity than truth.
The primary selling point? Fear. Marketing advisors know this all too well. Fear sells -- even better than sex. People stop thinking when fear enters the mind. Reason, science and truth are non-issues. Fear consumes them.
My question for you: Do life-decisions made out of fear usually turn out well?
by Dan Schultz, DC
The vaccine theory is an idea that one can circumvent contracting a "disease" by stimulating the immune system in an indirect way. When one is evaluating the importance or validity of medical interventions like vaccines, it may be wise to first evaluate the merit of its fundamental principles.
History tells us that vaccine theory developed soon after Pasteur popularized germs and the germ theory of disease, of course. If germ theory is inappropriate to explain illness or health, then the foundation of vaccine interventions may be a poor one indeed. It could be predicted, then, that such a house of cards might soon fall, and from my study of this subject, I believe that this is the case. We will see the end of the vaccine era in my lifetime.
The classic argument against the simple idea of germs causing disease is one that Bechamp and Bernard, Pasteur’s contemporaries and philosophical rivals vigorously promoted. Unlike Pasteur, they claimed that changes in the soil, or internal environment, were responsible for illness, not the seed (germs). It can be effectively argued that if the internal environment is strong, clean and functionally up to the task, no germ can take hold – and there is ample evidence to support this. In short, truly healthy people don’t get sick. Even today, scientific minds proclaim that “if the germ theory of disease were true, there would be no one left to tell about it.”
But before examining the science -- or lack of science – in respect to this topic there is great value in understanding why Pasteur succeeded in winning over his contemporaries and how vaccination became accepted so quickly then and so readily today.
First and foremost, it's simple. The germ theory of disease is easy to understand. It necessitates a specific germ is responsible for each specific disease. Is it too simple?
Promulgating health -- executing a balanced, harmonious lifestyle -- can be confusingly complex. It’s an inward journey and all journeys take time and effort. There can be numerous factors to consider like designing and following healthful dietary regimens, managing mental and emotional stresses, avoidance of toxicity, and maintaining structural integrity. It’s much easier to believe that microscopic germ cause disease. This seems to make perfect sense because technology has allowed us to see the germs, and they’re almost always present with disease. It’s simplistic thinking that requires little thought. Flies, crows and buzzards are present at every road kill, but they’re not the cause of death. It’s easy to accept that illness is caused as a single entity outside oneself -- and it’s convenient, too.
If one has been so unfortunate as to find himself or herself on a path of overindulgence, dysfunction, or illness it's difficult to make changes. Change is hard. The simple explanation of why one might be sick absolves responsibility. Human beings tend to dislike admissions of fault. Being unwittingly misled or unwisely unaware is embarrassing. Blaming it on an invisible, single-celled, brainless, faceless organism of which there are countless numbers to spread the blame is easy.
Yet simplistic thinking often misses. This doesn't mean that one may be dim or unintelligent at all. Descartes was a brilliant man of knowledge and science, yet he concluded that body heat must be produced from man's central cardiovascular center, the heart. He was completely incorrect, but the idea held favor for quite sometime. Simplistic thinking may be wrong most of the time.
|
