Scouring the health news from mainstream sources can be very disturbing, and even confusing when they use doublespeak, as was written about in the book, 1984. Doublespeak is the act of promoting two completely contradictory beliefs as true to sow confusion and foster manipulation. It is a way of negating unwanted concepts.
War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
For instance, the New York Times tells its readers to spend wisely on vitamins, because vitamins are ineffective and have not been thoroughly tested. Technically, water was never thoroughly tested either, for those who are interested in such word games. According to The Times, only U.S.P. (U.S. Pharmacopoeia) vitamins are even worthwhile. Yes, this is the very same Pharmacopoeia that once suggested patients drink mercury and arsenic compounds for therapeutic effects. The Times' behavior hearkens back to the dark days when chiropractors were imprisoned for making 'unapproved medical claims', like for instance, their claim that vitamin C was beneficial to the immune system.
Real Vitamins
The Times recommended U.S.P. vitamins, which are the ones made in huge chemical factories, usually by Big Pharma, with such noteworthy ingredients as industrial iron melted in sulfuric acid -- to make all natural iron supplements. By the way, this is exactly why most iron supplements are so fatally poisonous upon an overdose. U.S.P. vitamins are the very synthetic vitamins that the body cannot properly process or digest because they are so foreign to it, and they are actually somewhat toxic because of this. Claiming that the food-based, natural vitamins, and competing supplements do not work (i.e. real nutrition), while claiming that the U.S.P. vitamins do is like saying that smoking cigarettes is the only good method of treating lung congestion. This is a surprisingly appropriate analogy, since smoking cigarettes was once a popular orthodox medical treatment too, and it is little wonder why the establishment is repeatedly so forgetful about its own history. Back then, the Times was on the tobacco cash cow, so things never really change, at least in regard to their journalistic ethics.
No Independent Studies or 3rd Party Proof is Required for Big Pharma Drugs
On the same day, The New York Times remarkably exposed the new chemotherapy drug, Folotyn, for the sham that it is. The new drug costs $30,000 every month, which is around three times the cost of other orthodox treatments, even though it has not even been shown to extend life. In fact, there have been no double-blind studies on it at all, but somehow it was F.D.A. approved nevertheless. Funny how that works. The drug's manufacturer, Allos Therapeutics, conveniently did their own study, which did not even include a placebo. Even in their biased study, the drug did not extend life; it merely shrank the tumors before death.
"When a patient is found to have a tumor, the only thing the doctor discusses with that patient is what he intends to do about the tumor. If a patient with a tumor is receiving radiation or chemotherapy, the only question that is asked is, 'How is the tumor doing?' No one ever asks how the patient is doing. In my medical training, I remember well seeing patients who were getting radiation and/or chemotherapy. The tumor would get smaller and smaller, but the patient would be getting sicker and sicker. At autopsy we would hear, 'Isn't that marvelous! The tumor is gone!' Yes, it was, but so was the patient. How many millions of times are we going to have to repeat these scenarios before we realize that we are treating the wrong thing?"
-- Philip E. Binzel, Jr., M.D.
Four Percent, the 5-Year Rule, and the Magic of Using Doublespeak About "Success Rates"
When cancer patients hear about cure and success rates, they are sometimes pleased. However, the word 'cure' and 'success' have been redefined by the medical establishment to cook the numbers. The methodology would have made George Orwell smile. A patient is now "cured" of "cancer" (referencing the tumor symptoms only) if he merely lives without tumors for 5 years, and a treatment regimen is called "successful" whenever tumors shrink, regardless of how aggressively real cancer (acidosis fermentation decay and mutations) spreads. Tumors are just a symptom of latter stage cancers, and the cancers themselves never get treated. The cancers are actually helped by the so-called treatments in virtually every case. The real permanent cure rate, when the numbers are not cooked, is approximately 4%. So, what does this whole 5-year thing mean to you as an orthodox cancer patient? It means that they are going to kill you while fleecing you for a period of no less than 5 years, if possible, and then they'll pat themselves on the back for their "successful treatments" even as you are being buried. Welcome to the cancer industry -- the one that kills a greater percentage of people than the percentage of those who die from no treatments at all.
So You Want Some Proof?
Their cure rates are highest for Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, but children who have been "successfully" treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times (1,800%) more likely to later develop secondary malignant tumors -- that are caused by the former treatments. It is what we call a renewable business model, but it is probably more aptly called evil. Perhaps doctors should just go back to recommending particular brands of cigarettes, and thereby be a little more honest about what they are doing.
A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times (1,400%) more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times (600%) more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy. Worse cancers were caused by the former cancer treatments themselves, in other words. These are just a small portion of the statistics that patients are conveniently never told. The cancer-inducing effects of radiation and the chemical poisons that they use are so thoroughly documented that there is little justification for their use except for ensuring repeat business. The same goes for radioactive mammograms.
"Critics, including many oncologists, say that patients and the health system cannot afford to pay huge prices for drugs that, on average, provide only a few extra months of life at best."
At least they were honest about this last thing. Trust your life with the mainstream news and the medical establishment at your own risk, but remember that you were warned.
Radiation Is Healthful
5 Years Is A Lifetime
Food Vitamins Are Ineffective
Sources
Breast Cancer and Other Second Neoplasms after Childhood Hodgkin's Disease, New England Journal of Medicine
Second Cancer Risk Up to 40 Years after Treatment for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, New England Journal of Medicine