|Demonstrating the principles of modern medical science.|
Alternative medicine is often criticized for its use of time tested methods of observable cause and effect relationships, such as the observation that those who get vaccines can often regress within a short time period, and are disproportionately diagnosed with autism. A recent fan-mail from an insider commented about our "anecdotal, unfounded, unscientific gobbledygook". He noticed that we are not "scientific" like the people he considers to be "experts", who by the way, cannot seem to even cure their way out of a runny nose, much less any real disease. On the other hand, the list of people we have helped to cure is ever growing.
Most people have been taught to expect only thoroughly-tested, scientific methodology from mainstream medicine. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The Office of Technology Assessment Health Program was asked by the U.S. Senate Committee on Human Resources to evaluate standard medical procedures in 1978. They produced the stunning report, Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies which is being hosted at Princeton University. It exposed some alarming statistics, which most people will resist believing. We have archived a copy of the document in case it disappears, as is common for such documents after we cover their story.
"It has been estimated that only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial."
The word "procedures" above is likely confusing. The report writers did not merely cite surgical and in-patient procedures in the document, as many readers will assume. For instance, this official congressional report also mentioned hypertension medications and antibiotics alongside other standard medications. Therefore, the use of the term procedures was broadly used as a blanket term describing all methodologies of modern medicine, including pharmaceutical medications.
The report was written by an independent, 3rd-party, which had to be honest in lieu of potential Contempt of Congress charges. Honesty becomes an appealing policy whenever the alternative is long-term prison incarceration, so we can place some faith in their reporting. They actually reported that only 10% of modern medicine was scientifically demonstrated to be safe and effective. What about the other 90% of orthodox medicine that is unsafe and ineffective? Would not science dictate that alternatives be used if the standards failed 90% of the time? Real science is supposed to honestly appraise legitimate and reproducible cause and effect relationships, instead of flatly ignoring them for financial and political reasons. Thus, there is no connection whatsoever between science and what we call modern "medicine".
Even willow bark is more scientifically tested and verified than the establishment's big money-makers like chemotherapy, because willow bark contains the active component of aspirin, which actually has proven its merit in repeated studies. There are hundreds of independent, 3rd party, peer-reviewed studies proving the safety and effectiveness of aspirin (eg. willow bark), but not a single one proving the safety and effectiveness of chemotherapy and radiation. We challenge the disbelievers among us to find any credible studies supporting the use of chemotherapy and radiation. We would like our opponents to consider this as a personal dare. Just remember the help-to-harm ratio, because all treatments that kill more than they save are neither safe nor effective. Modern cancer patients rarely die from their cancers, in other words. It is the "science" that gets them in the end — if you know what I mean. In fact, untreated cancer patients live longer, and with a much better quality of life than those who get orthodox medicine, so science is hardly our enemy. True science is the best ally that alternative medicine has. For this reason, we would love to debate the facts and statistics of modern medicine versus what we do, with our hate-filled detractor, but such people tend to be afraid of us, and for very good reason.
What does modern medicine use to test its 'treatments'? Most often, we are the test subjects. When studies are done on pharmaceuticals, they are done by the very corporations who stand to profit from positive results, and they are allowed to cherry-pick the results that are publicly shared. The approval process is a major funding component of the F.D.A., if not their largest source of funding. You thought it was your tax money, right?
Alternative practitioners employ a variety of methods. Some alternative methods are verified by modern scientific studies, while others have been used for so long that formal verification would be as ridiculous as testing water to determine if it effectively cures dehydration. Take for instance, that we have known since before the time of Christ that herbs (ie. spices) help to safely and effectively improve health, even when they are only acting as digestive aids to improve our uptake of nutrients. We have reached a point of civilization where we do not require a multi-million dollar study to prove these things to us, but the same cannot be said about poisonous chemical compounds like Vioxx. Of course, there are scammers in the alternative neighborhood too, but it has less of them overall, and most of its methods have been proven for thousands of years. The families of the 20,000 people murdered by Vioxx can explain which type of medicine is more scientific. Anyone want to guess at how many people were killed by cayenne pepper last year? Cayenne's known ability to regulate blood pressure and dramatically halt ongoing heart attacks has probably saved quite a few lives, but cayenne pepper will never be "scientific" enough for our adversaries to officially study, because it cannot be controlled or monopolized. Science, to our adversaries, is synonymous with money, power, and politics. It does not resemble science at all.
Most medical treatments that exist today have been practiced for less than a century, and are a part of a system which openly calls itself "experimental medicine", as if that were a good thing. The actual experimenting is on us, of course. Its procedures are rarely scrutinized with modern scientific methodologies. The F.D.A. approval process is actually one in which literally-invested experts take a vote on how much profit they will make that year. Despite the hypercritical insults they throw at their competition, in actuality, a large portion of their own supposedly scientific evidence is merely anecdotal hearsay between peers.
"They also found that 20 percent of examinations were done for 'trivial injury' and that another 34 percent were done to protect against possible malpractice suits."
So, when doctors are out there "saving lives", as we are repeatedly told to believe, they are actually charging us to bolster their own legal defenses during a large percentage of their time. That is not so heart-warming, is it? The threat of lawsuits are a primary reason for many surgeries and examinations, despite their potential to cause harm. The amount of accidental medical deaths is in large part due to such unnecessary treatments that are given to protect the doctors, at the expense of trusting patients.
"Lusted and his coworkers found that about 16 percent of skull X-rays were ordered even when the physician reported certainty about the diagnosis... Less than 1 percent of skull X-rays were positive and 19 percent were ordered for medico-legal reasons."
With 1% success being good enough for typical doctors to justify radiation exposure to their patients' brains, it would be wiser to seek placebos and witch doctors for medical care. Literally, it would actually be more scientifically prudent. At least witch doctors do not expose patients to radiation poisoning, bankrupt them, and then amazingly congratulate themselves with heroic public posturing afterwards about how society should worship them. That alone is enough to make us sick.
Skull X-rays are known to be especially dangerous, yet they are sometimes performed for the sole purpose of protecting doctors. These not only cause patients to incur more bills than are necessary, but these also greatly increase their chance of getting virtually-always fatal brain tumors, and other so-called "complications" later in life. You see, minor issues like brain cancers are just "complications" when they happen to other people's families. After all, the cancers are being caused by smoking and "bad" genes, right? This overall behavior should be judged alongside the fact that medical fees are the cause of 60 percent of bankruptcies in the United States.
"Prior to the modern bypass operation, five different operations were developed and advocated enthusiastically. Although all five operations were ultimately abandoned as of no value, initially they were alleged to be efficacious, with reports in the medical literature claiming 'objective' evidence of benefit.
"Yet the benefits of coronary bypass surgery have not been clearly demonstrated. Claims that the operation prevents [early] death remain largely unproven."
The congressional report makes an obvious connection: coronary bypass is yet another surgery that proposes massive risks, with little or no benefit, particularly in the long term. We have written before about how the entire heart industry is based on one scam built upon another. From cholesterol to aspirin, stress tests, and unnecessary surgeries, the entire corrupt industry is riddled with deadly disinformation.
"Despite the high percentage of patients who are treated, the overall 5-year survival rate for lung cancer (8 percent of males and 10 percent for females) did not change between 1950 and 1970."
Bear in mind that the treatments for lung cancer have not changed between 1970 and today. Chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy (suppression of the immune system) and surgery were the only options then, and are still the only options. This is by design to maximize profits. These methods do little to extend life, but patients try them anyway in the hope that it will bring them a longer life-span. Unfortunately, their faith is misplaced.
"For extensive lung cancer, certain types of chemotherapy increase survival approximately 2 months over a placebo-treated group."
Be advised that these results were the best cherry-picked results from the pharmaceutical manufacturers' approval studies. Let us pause for a moment to consider what kind of people would give those who are dying from cancer a placebo, and the nature of our adversaries should become clear. Minutely longer lifespans, such as these, are the best that they can offer in their ideal cases, and it is unusual for such statistics to be made public. The quality of life for orthodox cancer patients is abysmal, and it would be more humane for them to die from the cancers, a fate that is rare nowadays. Instead, most people die from their treatments. It is important to remember that doctors, when surveyed, overwhelmingly proclaim that they would never take chemotherapy themselves, if they ever had cancer. Nevertheless, is okay for you and your family.
"The validity of published information also has been questioned. Two studies of research reports in leading medical journals found nearly 75 percent of the publications analyzed to have invalid or unsupportable conclusions as a result of statistical problems alone."
Despite the dependence on medical journals and peer-reviewed studies, a massive portion of these are flawed in conclusion, simply due to mathematical errors. This does not include those who faked data in order to receive funding from pharmaceutical companies, or those who made other errors in the way that they conducted their trials.
We have stated before that those who are sick must choose who they wish to place their faith in. People must choose to place their faith in medicine that was used for countless centuries, or in experimental chemical medicine that society has come to embrace since the Rockefeller's bought-out the medical schools, in the early part of the 20th Century. At the very root of it, people must choose between God's natural medicines or sorcery. Our science ought to lead us via provable cause and effect relationships, and our faith ought to guide us by observing the fruit that each system bears. Will you choose the natural apple or the poisoned one?