Engineering disease

[sharpstuff]

[Admin notice by SCS on October 11, 2018]:

Dear CluesForum members and readers,

Due to the need (and indeed demand) for such a “topic,” I have carefully thought through and considered the issue of just how to deal with the long unanswered question pertaining to the relationship between health and nutrition, and the mission of exposing mass deception.

Because it is an ongoing issue of importance, and at times is without a doubt directly related to mass deception, I do think there is a place on this forum for such discussions (provided the usual and customary decorum is maintained).

On the other hand, these issues tend to bring out some of the most unhealthy exchanges between members. This has been observed and noted before by both me and Simon, much to our chagrin.

My hope is that this thread will be a place (at the appropriate time) whereby our members may go to post about health, nutrition, and disease, especially as it relates to mass deception.

Also, I wish to say a special thank you to our member aa5 for a suggestion he made that got me thinking along these lines.

I must apologize for this “post” coming in the form of an edit.

Sincerely,

SCS]



No apologies for sounding didactic or the length of this post.

Correctly or incorrectly, I am voicing my observations and opinions within my experience and readings over many years.

So-called ‘modern medicine’ (allopathic medicine) is every much a hoax/scam/entrepreneurial exercise as are all the other scams this forum (in my view, correctly) demonises. Why quote others (regarding my views) about whom I know nothing and who might agree or disagree with what I am saying. I am not asking anyone to agree with my input here, merely to discuss it in a (hopefully) agreeable manner.

The word ‘cancer’, for example, must surely be one of the most hyped words in a medical dictionary.

Ralph Moss has written a book called: The Cancer Industry of which the title explains all.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Cancer-Indust ... 1881025098

I am singling out this fake ‘disease’ (‘cancer’) because it encompasses everything from what is assumed a ‘common cold’, to ‘influenza’ which just makes the ‘germ’ perpetrator a ‘virus’ (or unseen and ever a less-able-to-be-seen ‘enemy’).

The pronouncement of a ‘cancer’ to an individual by a so-called ‘doctor’ is a death sentence par excellence. It’s utterance, even by those who apparently possess enough data to be compos mentis and including the likes of ‘health rangers’ and so forth, is astoundingly obtuse.

Why? Because the results of external ‘treatment’ are slash/burn/poison in any order you wish and the ignorance of the purveyors of this ‘treatment’.

It is totally incorrect to assume that ‘cancer’ is a singular ‘disease’ (as usually presented).

For example: ‘He/she has cancer, I have cancer, I have a relative/friend who has ’cancer’ and so forth.

There are very many ‘types’ of cancer, therefore it should only be used in the plural, whatever you beliefs otherwise. This is a very serious issue. This is the fakery of natural processes.

Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer and his research... (German New Medicine)
________________________________________________________________

I became aware of this man’s work a number of years ago. Having studied medicine since I was about twelve years of age (and that is over fifty years ago) I found his explanation suitably academic (in the real sense of the word, which is continual assessment of data and changes thereof) perfectly rational.

According to Dr. Hamer the real cause of a cancer and other ‘diseases’ is an unexpected traumatic shock for which we are emotionally unprepared and all are a response to the body from the brain.*

These unexpected traumatic shocks cause a conflict which needs to be resolved before a proper healing can take place.

The body is a self-healing entity providing the correct nutrients are ingested in sufficient quantities and this especially includes sunlight, as a prime mover, without which we would not exist in the first place.

*I would have to say that I would extend this definition to perhaps more seemingly minor health 'problems' that arise. This does not preclude, of course the ability of the mind or body to react negatively to foreign proteins or other poisons. ALL dis-ease is due to lack of correct nourishment (whatever that may be, in simple).

The following list shows some of the relationships between conflict feelings and target organs.

* Adrenal cortex – Wrong direction, gone astray
* Bladder – Ugly conflict, dirty tricks
* Bone – Lack of self-worth, inferiority feeling
* Breast milk gland – Involving care or disharmony
* Breast milk duct – Separation conflict
* Breast, left (right-handed) – Conflict concerning child, home, mother
* Breast, right (right-handed) – Conflict with partner or others
* Bronchials – Territorial conflict
* Cervix – Severe frustration
* Colon – Ugly indigestible conflict
* Oesophagus – Cannot have it or swallow it
* Gall Bladder – Rivalry conflict
* Heart – Perpetual conflict
* Intestines – Indigestible chunk of anger
* Kidneys – Not wanting to live, water or fluid conflict
* Larynx – Conflict of fear and fright
* Leukaemia – A "self-devaluation conflict" refers to a loss of self-esteem or self-worth
* Liver – Fear of starvation
* Lung – Fear of dying or suffocation, including fear for someone else
* Lymph glands – Loss of self-worth associated with the location
* Melanoma – feeling dirty, soiled, defiled
* Middle ear – Not being able to get some vital information
* Mouth – Cannot chew or hold it
* Pancreas – Anxiety-anger conflict with family members, inheritance
* Prostate – Ugly conflict with sexual connections or connotations
* Rectum – Fear of being useless
* Skin – Loss of integrity
* Spleen – Shock of being physically or emotionally wounded
* Stomach – Indigestible anger, swallowed too much
* Testes and Ovaries – Loss conflict
* Thyroid – Feeling powerless
* Uterus – Sexual conflict

Note: The above list is not on my making but the author is unknown to me however, I owe him/her my thanks.

Examples of unexpected trauma shocks leading to conflicts:

Surgical shock...

This is very common and can takes forms such as a bite from a venomous creature including stabbing with a needle, common inoculations/vaccinations, knives, bullets, surgical knives (operations) and suchlike.

Feelings or emotional shocks...

Loss or perceived loss of a loved one, employment, or anything else that is important to a particular person.

Diagnostic shocks from your local 'doctor'...

The diagnosis of a 'cancer' is probably the worst but anything that affects a person directly in the negative.

Various other shocks...

Severe accidents of any description (cars, falls, breakages etc.)
Rapes and other physical assaults upon a person, including verbal assault
Threats of violence
Fear, whether actual or perceived

These may all relate to another person who is very close to you; they do not necessarily include yourself.

I have in my possession a book called ‘The Trauma Trap’, written by Dr David Muss (my version 1991) which details how to recover from what is known as Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. His site is still available at:
http://www.davidmuss.co.uk/therewindtechnique/

I have had this book long before my introduction to Hamer but it compliments his work admirably.

WHY 'ALTERNATIVE' CANCER TREATMENTS WORK
___________________________________________________

I do not like the word 'alternative' for natural ‘cures’. I believe that the 'alternative' referred to should relate to the notion of 'orthodox' treatment or 'modern (allopathic) medicine'. That is, slash, burn and/or poison.

Having researched the subject of cancer treatments exhaustively, I am of the firm opinion that Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer's hypothesis in his New German Medicine shines above all else as the beacon of explanation because it relates to the study of embryology of which it has a 'real' scientific foundation (there are little or no vested interests that I am aware of).

I am not going to attempt to explain German New Medicine, as that is not my point here. There is ample data available on the Internet to read far better than I could ever paraphrase.

I might suggest you look at some or any or all of these lectures which describe Hamer’s work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zYWtzq4XBk


My point is that there are many other notions regarding successful treatment of cancers (and other dis-eases) and this may be confusing to those looking for natural help and I believe they are all complimentary to Hamer's hypothesis.

As with the alleged remark made by Florence Nightingale ('there are no specific diseases, only specific conditions’) the are no specific remedies but only the conditions of their use, providing they are supplied by Nature. Nature has been supplying these for thousands of years and never to a detriment! A great deal has to be related to T.L.C. (Tender, Loving Care).

Thus, there can be no one complete answer to the cure of cancer (or any other so-called 'dis-ease') and there does not necessarily have to be any conflict between them. This is very important.

If Hamer is correct, then any form of answer will be correct if it has a natural implementation.

Health is a matter of maintaining a correct terrain.

Terrain is the body in toto, that is, it is holistic (the total body).

If the terrain is compromised by whatever means, then it will not function correctly but since the body is self-healing, it will endeavour to do so and any 'help' will be made use of.

An organism is mind (whatever that may be and at whatever level of awareness it is) and body (the 'meat' of the subject).

For example, if one has several different fields (as in farming), then depending on what one wants to do with those fields, they all have an underlying structure (terrain) that must be treated accordingly to its purpose if one wants to grow corn in one and have cows grazing on another.

Treatments of 'dis-ease' come in as many flavours as there are 'dis-eases'.

Dis-ease comes about from a compromise of the terrain.

There are no bad or good 'germs', no 'immune system', ‘antibodies’ and so forth. In dis-ease, there is only compromised terrain (mind and/or body).

Thus, any positive natural treatment will aid in recreating a non-compromised terrain and therefore will aid in the self-healing of the body/mind.

Hamer refers to 'conflicts' as causing disease and the more difficult the conflict, the more the terrain is compromised. At the same time, there may be a number of conflicts. These must all be dealt with; probably on their own particular terms, which complicates the situation.

A conflict is something which occurs unexpectedly.

However, the less the body is compromised, the better able is the body to self-heal.

The reason that I am not going into specific dis-eases or treatments is because as long as the terrain is not compromised by the treatment, it will all work to aid self-healing.

So-called 'orthodox' or 'modern' medicine can do little or none of this self-healing. It aims at 'symptomatic' treatment. Treating symptoms is nowhere near aiding self-healing (preservation) and is most often detrimental to the point of non-survival. There may be a temporary placebo effect (which we know is real) but modern medicine has no hope in trying to 'cure' a dis-ease; it merely attempts to treat the symptoms. In this event it usually fails and at the same time further compromises the terrain.

All pharmaceutical (Man-made) drugs are foreign to the body and will therefore have effects up to and including the point of death. It is well-known that over 80% of pharmaceutical drugs are ineffective to begin with. This was a statement made by a retired chemist in the industry but I am unable to find a link).

It is also well known that physician induced deaths out-way the dis-ease related deaths.

Allopathic medicine constantly touts ‘cure’ but can never achieve such a thing because that is not the intent of its ‘medicine’.

Even the word 'cure' should not be used at all, since it is an end product and life can never be an end product because it is dynamic. There will always be a new compromising of the terrain to heal.

What we call death is an end product but if we are all composed of pleomorphic fragments a lá Bechamp et al, then our de-organisation (i.e. death) is only the beginning of some other life form.

The only useful thing for any 'orthodox' medicine is for accident and emergency, where some techniques are useful but the use of any man-made (i.e. pharmaceutical) drug should be limited to those that have as natural a basis as far as possible or have a well-proven track record without disastrous side-effects (they still only treat symptoms, not the 'cause').

My main thrust is that all natural treatments from Essiac tea to various diets, sodium bicarbonate, Vitamin C, Vitamin (actually enzyme producer) D3 (a.k.a. sunlight), meditation, TLC (tender loving care) are all perfectly valuable in producing a terrain that is available for the self-healing properties of the terrain.

Cancer is not a death sentence unless you allow 'orthodox' medicine to be used as a treatment or even a diagnosis. The death sentence is in the treatment.

Remember also, that diagnosis is very difficult and many times cancer is not the cause of symptoms. The symptoms are the healing process and should be managed, not destroyed.

Any 'tumour' is part of the healing process and needs to be accorded its value in the healing process.

Most of 'modern' or 'orthodox' medicine/diagnosis/treatments/vaccination is an invasion of a whole creature and produces an 'attack' conflict resulting in a dis-ease of the whole creature. Peter K. Sharpen

Most of 'modern' or 'orthodox' medicine/diagnosis/treatments/vaccination is based on profit, not a healing of the unwell. Peter K. Sharpen

If you follow the NHS (UK) vaccine regime (for example), your new-born healthy baby will be stabbed 19 times and injected with toxic chemicals and foreign proteins, without its consent, in the first 13 months. Would you want that on your uninformed conscience? sharpstuff

[Flabbergasted]

Boy, I am glad you are not my physician!

I like the idea of a thread about different concepts of health and disease, but your post is not very sharp stuff. Not up to CF standards.

It is well-known that over 80% of pharmaceutical drugs are ineffective to begin with.

If you say so.

[Seneca]

Correctly or incorrectly, I am voicing my observations and opinions within my experience and readings over many years.

So far you have only voiced your opinions and readings. I am more interested in your observations and experience. What observations have you made that formed your opinion about Geerd Hamer's hypothesis?

[sharpstuff]

So far you have only voiced your opinions and readings. I am more interested in your observations and experience. What observations have you made that formed your opinion about Geerd Hamer's hypothesis?”

My original intent on posting this subject was to expose the notion of ‘dis-ease’ as reply soley upon the notion that ‘germs’ cause ‘dis-ease. That the ’germ’ theory by result is the reason for the appalling effects to a gerneral public not versed in the requirement of natural substances to keep them in ‘survival’ mode (as it were).

This seems to have been misconstrued.

Principally, dear Seneca (whoever you are) that ‘allopathic’ treatments do not (and cannot) work! That is obvious from the slash/burn/poison techniques available to the recipient; they die!

I chose (the example) cancers because it is alluded to so ridiculously often and without any reference to what it might be) a so-called ‘disease’ that does not exist; it is ‘engineered’ to exist to cause the jolly old ‘fear’ in the population of ignorati who have been variously programmed to accept the joint opinion of a group of psychopaths for control.

Thus, dear person, is A.I.D.S., A.D.S. ( Attention Deficit Syndrome), and all the other psychiatric filth perpetrated by those who want to control your health.

My opinions can only come from anecdotal readings from numerous sources; those relating to both positive and negative aspects, as I have no direct evidence from personally knowing people with any (for example) ‘cancers’ and am not able to compile case studies. That does not necessarily equate with not knowing anything at all because it is anecdotal.

I am not an ‘oncologist’ since if I were, I would have to cow-tow to the ‘established’ views from whom I defer. I cited ‘cancers’ because they are one of the mainstays of the present paranoia regarding this affliction and refers (in a sense) to all other diseases. If you wish me to expand on that notion, please let me know in precise terms.

All so-called ‘dis-ease’ is related to improper nutrition (mind, body or ’spirit’). Nature (or whatever you want to call it) cannot self-destruct or we would not be here at all.

In terms of Geerd Hamer’s work with actual cancer patients, his views make perfect sense if you have (or are willing to have) studied embryology and biological systems to any extent.

https://books.google.fr/books/about/Ham ... edir_esc=y

I do have a bound copy of this volume if you require a scanned response on a particular issue I will willingly oblige.

I am not saying Geerd Hamer is correct, merely that his work is based on actual patient experience as a doctor (demonised, as usual, by the ‘establishment’).

If you take the trouble to look at the videos I have linked to and absorb them with an open mind that would be good; you may thus make your own conclusions. Please do not depend upon mine because I am not asking you. I do not write ‘off the top of my head’ (which one might claim but that would be incorrect).

Oncologists cannot verify their claims to my satisfaction, please prove otherwise with verifiable evidence.

Please follow the links I have provided and make up your own mind before denigrating what I have written.

My post was intended as an introduction, not a treatise. If it appeared that way, I apologise.

I will happily supply links to my works (over the many years) if you require a clarification of my research as I said in my ‘Introduce yourself’’.

Ask not why a person is ill, rather ask why a person is well.

***************************************************************************

“Boy, I am glad you are not my physician!

I like the idea of a thread about different concepts of health and disease, but your post is not very sharp stuff. Not up to CF standards.”

“sharpstuff wrote:
It is well-known that over 80% of pharmaceutical drugs are ineffective to begin with. “

If you say so.”

Well ‘flabbergasted’, I am flabbergasted by your reply. I intend not to be anyone’s ‘physician’. Are you dismissing me out of hand? And my post is not ‘sharpstuff’? Who do you think you are?
‘Not up to CF standards? Who are you to tell me? Nearly 400 views and only two replies? And these in the negative?

Please tell me your stance. If you don’t like the content of my post, please say so directly and I will exit this forum immediately.

I have no need of a ‘physician’. I have been nowhere near no ’doctor’ for over fifty years and that was A & E. I am not registered with such a person nor have a need for one. I could tell you why. And I am in perfect health. I could also tell you why.

[pov603]

@sharpstuff - I think the information you've posted is worth a look at though there is a lot to take on board. Regarding other responses, take any comments as a learning curve and try and refine some of the points you've made in smaller follow on posts. Also try and use the format options so that quotes are indented etc as this is in keeping with standards on this board and is worth adopting.
With regard to your comments on cancers I remember someone saying to me many years ago that the 'cancer' was no more than a 'healthy' reaction gone awry, more in keeping with a symptom rather than a cause. Having had family members, friends and acquaintances affected by 'cancer' (as have many of the members of cf I'm sure) it is a very emotive subject to discuss especially if talking about 'alternative' remedies or diagnosises but overall 'cancer' always seems to be this pervading 'bogeyman' which doctors, medicines and hospitals struggle to treat effectively and one has to wonder if the basics are somewhat overlooked. A GP friend and neighbor of mine is always referring back to Galen and the diagnosis via the use of humors and notes how useful these references can be even after nearly 2000 years yet we struggle with something so prevalent and resource consuming in cancer and still are not anywhere near a 'cure'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen

[Seneca]

@sharpstuff
If you read my new topic, maybe you can see that I was not trying to denigrate what you have written. I can't even say that I disagree with anything. I am really interested in your observations and experience, but I didn't explain why. It doesn't matter if you don't have experience with cancer, any disease progression that you could explain with the hypothesis, or not, would be interesting. But I would understand if you find that too private to share.
I am glad you shared that you haven't consulted a doctor for over fifty years and are in perfect health, that is impressive.

I do have some criticisms about your writing style but I think others are better placed and able to formulate them.

[ICfreely]

I have no need of a ‘physician’. I have been nowhere near no ’doctor’ for over fifty years and that was A & E. I am not registered with such a person nor have a need for one. I could tell you why. And I am in perfect health. I could also tell you why.

Hear, hear! Those are the words of a man who has mastered the art/science of being his own doctor.


Dear Sharpstuff,

First off, I'd like to apologize for overreacting to your criticism of my posts. By and large, I agree with your take on modern medicine & think everyone (myself included) stands to gain a tremendous amount from your accumulated wisdom. I think this thread has the potential of being the most beneficial of all to many current & future readers. Anyhow, for the sake of keeping this thread alive here are a few sources as a 'primer' of sorts for the novice.

Health Through Nutrition By Dr. Joel Robbins

In the field of health, there are a few good rules to follow to achieve health.

1) Follow the laws of Nature

2) Let Truth be your authority, not authority your truth.


One of the Laws of Nature is that the innate intelligence of the body strives to keep the body alive, regardless of the cost. The “cost” is what we call “disease”. Disease is the effort of the body to keep us alive.


DISEASE AND ITS CAUSE

Disease or "dis-ease" is defined as a lack of health. Disease results when any cell is not functioning 100% of its designed duty whether due to trauma, toxicity, lack of communication or a combination thereof. Disease is due to stress.

Whether due to ignorance or laziness, exposing the body to stress will produce a diseased state of the body. Stress is the only means of tearing down health resulting in disease, our bodies paying the price for violating the laws of nature (our wrong doings). We do not "catch" a disease or illness, we earn it. We must "work" for disease.

Disease is nothing more than the body responding to the wrong we have done to it. It is the body's attempt at keeping us alive in response to the wrongs we have inflicted on our bodies.

Pathological changes are the cell's response to stress. These changes or compensations allow the body to survive - maintain homeostasis - as long as the stress continues. These tissue changes which result in disease, are the outward manifestation of internal compensation to stress. Until the cause is removed, the condition will remain in one form or another.

THE HEALING CAPABILITY OF THE BODY

Is there such a thing as an incurable disease? From a medical standpoint many diseases are incurable.

The only reason some diseases are deemed incurable by the medical profession is because they have yet to get out of the body's way and let it work in restoring itself to health.

They have yet to learn about removing the cause.

The medical profession is bent on "curing" the body. This is done by providing symptomatic relief. In so doing, they not only hinder all or most healing activity of the body, but actually produce a more stressful condition for the body, lowering its immune system, leading to a more serious diseased condition.

http://healmarketplace.com/pdf_files/He ... rition.pdf

Are Most Diseases Caused By The Medical System? - Walter Last
http://www.whale.to/a/last1.html


HEALTH via FOOD – William Howard Hay, M.D. (1929)
http://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/upl ... 65.hay.pdf


NATURE’S HEALING POWER THROUGH FOOD - Farokh J. Master, M.D. (Hom.)
http://www.drfarokhmaster.com/articlesp ... 20FOOD.pdf


Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects - Weston A. Price, MS., D.D.S., F.A.G.D.
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html


The Medical Mafia - Ghislaine Lanctôt, M.D.
http://www.whale.to/v/medical_mafia.pdf


Magic, Myth and Medicine - Donald T Atkinson
http://www.thehealingproject.net.au/wp- ... dicine.pdf


From Healing Herbs to Deadly Drugs: Western Medicine's War Against the Natural World - Marti Kheel
http://martikheel.com/pdf/healing-herbs-marti-kheel.pdf


Medical Education Under Siege… and the Making of “Slave Doctors” - Brian McKenna
http://libjournal.uncg.edu/index.php/ij ... le/217/269

The War Between Orthodox Medicine and Alternative Medicine - R. Webster Kehr

Contents

1. Introduction To The War in Medicine
2. The Foundation Of The War in Medicine
3. Case Study of Scientific Corruption [Pauling and Cameron]
4. Remission, Cure Rates and Other Deceptions
5. The Approval of Chemotherapy Drugs
6. The Scientific Evidence For Alternative Medicine
7. Cancer Research
8. Case Study of Media Corruption
9. How The Media and Establishment Control The Public
10. Other Control Tactics
11. The Role of the FDA
12. The FDA Versus Freedom of Speech
13. Who Do You Believe - Follow The Money Trail

http://www.cancertutor.com/warbetween/

“If the structure does not permit dialogue the structure must be changed.”
-- Paulo Freire

[kickstones]

Here's another primer below that helped me gain a better understanding of the dynamics behind the so called 'health system' in the USA.

It's by G. Edward Griffin ( I'm aware he's got a dodgy roll of honor on his freedom site, but I still think the book has merit)
September 10, 1974 WORLD WITHOUT CANCER

Dedicated to the millions of cancer victims and their loved ones whose suffering has been the tragic cost of scientific arrogance and political vested interest. May the story presented in this book help to arouse an indignant public awareness which, alone, can break the hold of these deadly forces. . .

FOREWORD

At the time of this writing, the FDA has banned the use of Laetrile in the treatment of cancer. Anyone who manufactures it, transports it across
statei lines, sells it, administers it, or even recommends it for such use is subject to legal harassment, penalties, or imprisonment. Therefore, even though this entire volume is in defense of Laetrile, it must be clearly understood at the outset that I am a researcher, not a physician; I am not qualified to practice medicine in any way; and I am not recommending Laetrile in the treatment of cancer. If the reader is favorably impressed by the facts and opinions presented in the following pages, and if he decides to seek out Laetrile for his own use, he must do so entirely on his own evaluation of those facts and opinions, and not as a result of any "recommendation" on my part. "

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART ONE:
THE SCIENCE OF CANCER THERAPY

FOREWORD

Chapter I 17

THE WATERGATE SYNDROME

Examples of FDA dishonesty and corruption; a close look at the primary scientific study which declared Laetrile (vitamin B 17) "of no value;" the proof that such study was fraudulent; the FDA's ruling against the use of Laetrile because it had not been tested; and its refusal then to allow anyone to test it.

Chapter II 47

AN APPLE A DAY

A review of entrenched scientific error in history; a statement of the basic vitamin deficiency concept of cancer as advanced in 1952 by Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. ; and a survey of the supportive evidence both in nature and in recent history to reinforce this concept.

Chapter III 61

THE ULTIMATE TEST

A look at the many cultures around the world that are, or have been, free from cancer, and also an analysis of their native foods.


Chapter IV 79

CANCER: THE ONRUSH OF LIFE

An explanation of the trophoblastic thesis of cancer; a description of a simple urine test for cancer; an appraisal of, BCG vaccine as an anti-cancer agent; and a review of the vital role played by the pancreas in the control of cancer.


Chapter V 97

THE TOTAL MECHANISM

The nutritional factor as a back-up mechanism to the enzyme factor; a biographical sketch of Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. and his development of Laetrile; the beneficial secondary effects of vitamin B 1 7 on a wide range of human disorders; and an appraisal of the complexity of the total natural anti-cancer mechanism.

Chapter VI 113

THE CYANIDE SCARE

A newspaper account of a couple who reportedly were poisoned by eating apricot kernels; a close look at the real facts in this case; an evaluation of the toxic potential of seeds containing B17 ; a common sense rule for eating same; and the clinical evidence that Laetrile is less toxic than sugar.

Chapter. VII 129

THE LAETRILE "QUACKS"

The names, professional standings medical achievements, and clinical findings of some of the more prominent doctors who endorse Laetrile; the beneficial side-effects produced by its use; a suggested anti-cancer diet; and a brief description of vitamin B15.

Chapter VIII 145

"UNPROVEN" CANCER CURES

Clinical evidence in support of the trophoblastic thesis'; laboratory experiments showing that Laetrile kills cancer cells; and case histories of a variety of terminal cancer patients who attribute their recovery to the effect of Laetrile.


Chapter IX 169

"PROVEN" CANCER CURES

The effects of surgery and radiation on prolonging the life of the cancer patient; a comparison showing that those who receive no treatment at all live just as long, if not longer, than those who are treated.

ChapterX. 195

A NEW DIMENSION OF MURDER

Orthodox anti-cancer drugs shown to be ineffective and cancer-causing; FDA approved experiments on humans resulting in death from drugs rather than from cancer.


Chapter XI 223

A STATISTICAL COMPARISON
The inherent weaknesses of all cancer statistics; the need for statistical comparisons in spite of these weaknesses; the methods of computing statistical values for both orthodox and nutritional therapies; and a reflection on the consequences of consensus medicine.

TABLE OF CONTENTS .

PART TWO
THE POLITICS OF CANCER THERAPY

Chapter XII 241

CARTELS — THE ESCAPE FROM COMPETITION

A short review of the science of cancer therapy ; a thesis summary of the politics of cancer therapy; the early history of the I. G. Farben chemical and pharmaceutical cartel; a look at the cartel's early success in the United States with particular emphasis on its "marriage" with DuPont, Standard Oil, and Ford.

Chapter kill ' 269

THE ULTIMATE MONOPOLY

Early examples of cartel endorsement of totalitarian regimes; particular focus on I. G . Farben' s role in lifting Hitler out of political oblivion and converting the Nazi state into an instrument of hidden cartel power.

Chapter XIV 285

WAR GAMES

Germany's industrial preparations for World War II ; the continued support by American industrialists given to Farben and to the Nazi regime during this period ; and the profitable role played by Ford and ITT in war production for both Nazi Germany and the United States.

Chapter XV 299

CONSPIRACY

Efforts to camouflage Farben ownership of firms in America; the repeated assistance rendered by various Rockefeller interests; the successful penetration into the U . S . government by cartel agents; and the final disposition of the Farben case.

Chapter XVI ' 327

THE ROCKEFELLER GROUP

A biographical sketch of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., including his lifelong crusade against competition; the growth of Standard Oil; the entry of the Rockefellers into the investment banking field; the Rockefeller influence in the cartelized American pharmaceutical industry; and an overview of the importance of the Rockefeller family in international politics.

Chapter XVII 347

THE CHARITY PRESCRIPTION

A preview of the drug cartel's influence over the curricula taught within the nation's medical schools; the drug oriented training given to all medical students; the philanthropic foundation as a special creation of cartelists to avoid payment of taxes; and the use of the foundation to obtain control over educational institutions.

Chapter XVIII , 369

HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER

The low state of medical education, in the U.S. prior to 1910; the importance of the Flexner Report in dramatizing the need for reform; the role played by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations in implementing the Flexner Report; and the use of extensive foundation funding as. a means of gaining control over American medical schools.


Chapter XIX ,383

HE WHO CALLS THE TUNE

AMA influence over the practice of medicine in America; the means by which the leadership of the AMA keeps control away from the general membership; the extent to which the AMA is financed by the drug industry; and examples of interlock between the two.

Chapter XX 395

THE PROTECTION RACKET

Cartel agents in the federal government; the CFR examined as a parallel structure for cartel control over U.S. foreign policy; cartel influence within the FDA ; examples of FDA scientific ineptitude; and the growth of FDA's administrative power.

Chapter XXI 421

THE ARSENAL OF COMPLIANCE

Specific examples of government harassment of the organic nutrition and vitamin industry; the important role played by the mass communications media in discrediting Laetrile in the public mind; and a comparison of the cost of typical Laetrile therapy with that of orthodox cancer treatments.

Chapter XXII 437

THE DOUBLE STANDARD

An analysis of the FDA's double standard in which harmless non-drug materials such as organic vitamins and food supplements ars burdened with restrictions and regulations in excess of those, applied to many toxic and dangerous drugs; special consideration of FDA attitudes toward aspirin, apricot kernels, Aprikern, bitter almonds, fluoridated water, and marijuana.

Chapter XXIII 457

TO WALK THE HIGHEST WIRE

The means by which doctors are intimidated against the use of Laetrile; the Sloan- Kettering investigation of Laetrile as a case history of capitulation; and the courageous stand of Dr. John Richardson against the FDA.

Chapter XXIV 477

A QUESTION OF MOTIVES

Conclusions regarding the specific motives that have led various groups into opposition to vitamin therapy; particular perspective given to the role played by desire for world government; a review of the "limited** vs. "total" conspiracy theories; and an appraisal of grass-roots backlash as a force for potential change.

Chapter XXV ' 511

A WORLD WITHOUT CANCER
Areas of need for future research with B17; how the Laetrile controversy differs from cancer therapy controversies of the past; an analogy between biological and political cancer; and a future projection of how both can be conquered together.

https://archive.org/details/World_Without_Cancer


Just to add that I have been consuming various types of kernal detailed in the above book. I have a few fruit trees in my garden so it is, in the main, relatively cost free, I have not suffered any adverse effects, whether or not it has helped prevent the onset of cancer only time will tell.

[ICfreely]

It's by G. Edward Griffin ( I'm aware he's got a dodgy roll of honor on his freedom site, but I still think the book has merit)

Agreed! As they say, "you have to go through the weeds to get to the flowers."

I'm adding excerpts from the following book as a corollary to kickstones' post.

Alive and Well: One Doctor's Experience with Nutrition in the Treatment of Cancer Patients - Philip E. Binzel Jr., M.D.

Chapter Four - Preparing for Battle

To the best of my knowledge, there was no law in the State of Ohio which would prevent me from
using Laetrile. I had checked with several attorney friends. I had asked them to see what the law
was. They reported that there were no laws in the State of Ohio regarding the use of Laetrile.
I called the Ohio State Medical Association. A woman answered the phone. Our conversation went
something like this:

"I would like to know the present legal status of Laetrile in Ohio."

"Laetrile is illegal," I was told.

"If Laetrile is illegal, there must be some statute which says it is illegal. Would you please give me
that statute number so that my attorney can look it up for me."

"Laetrile is illegal," I was told again.

"Yes, I understand that, but what is the statute number that makes it illegal?"

"Laetrile is illegal," I was told for the third time.

"You have told me that three times now, but you have not given me the precise law that makes it illegal."

"Well, it is not approved by the FDA," was the reply this time.

"Does that make it illegal?"

"No."

"Why, then, did you tell me three times that it was illegal?"

"Because that was what I was told to say if anyone inquired about Laetrile," was her reply.




Chapter Five - The Battle Begins

The trial between Mr. Rutherford and the Government went on for several weeks. Federal Judge
Luther Bohanon presided. Each day the FDA attorneys would tell the court that the FDA had
hundreds and hundreds of studies that proved that Laetrile would not work. Toward the end of the
trial Judge Bohanon said to the FDA attorneys, "Tomorrow, when you come into court, I want you
to bring with you all of these studies that have been done by the FDA on Laetrile."

The following morning, when the trial began again, the Judge asked for the studies. The FDA
attorneys said, "Your Honor, we did not bring the studies because they are so scientific that we
don't think you can understand them." This, as you can well imagine, did not please the Judge. He
insisted that all of the studies must be in his court room the following morning.

The next morning there were no studies. When the Judge asked why, the FDA attorneys said the
studies were so voluminous they were not sure that all of the studies would fit in his court room.
The Judge then stated that, if necessary, he would empty the entire court house, but he wanted all of
those studies in his court the following morning.

The following morning there were no studies. Again, the Judge asked why. The FDA attorney said
very simply, "Because, Your Honor, there are no studies." Of course, the Judge was irate. The FDA
attorneys explained that each evening after the trial they would call Washington. Each evening the
Washington office of the FDA would assure the attorneys that they had all of these studies. When
the attorneys finally pinned down the Washington office, they said that they had done no studies at
all on Laetrile. This was when Judge Bohanon called for Administrative Hearings.

In truth, as time has gone on, I have found much evidence to make me believe that the FDA had,
indeed, done a great many studies on Laetrile. The problem was they apparently had found that —
when properly used with other vitamins, minerals, enzymes and diet — Laetrile could be very
beneficial to many cancer patients. There was no way the FDA was going to admit this! For more
than fifteen years they had been saying that Laetrile was of no value. To come out now and say that
they had been wrong was unthinkable. The fuss and furor that would have come from the people of
this country would have been tremendous. Congress, rapidly, would have been forced to do away
with the FDA. To the government, this would have been a terrible loss. After all, the "most
important" function of any government bureaucracy is to perpetuate itself. It is my opinion, and
only an opinion, that it was easier for the FDA to say that they had done no studies than to reveal
what their studies had actually shown. It was far less dangerous to go through Administrative
Hearings than to admit that they were wrong.

http://whale.to/m/binzel.html

Thanks to the FDA the bitter almond tree is also outlawed in the States. The FDA was established to destroy healthy living. The sooner you figure it out the better off you'll be. Here are just a couple of examples of FD-Assholery:


FDA Threatens To Raid Cherry Orchards
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/mar2006_awsi_01.htm


FDA Says Walnuts Are Illegal Drugs
http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/ ... legal.html


The following book recounts the pretext for creating the FDA monstrosity in the first place.


THE HISTORY OF A CRIME AGAINST THE FOOD LAW: THE AMAZING STORY OF THE NATIONAL FOOD AND DRUGS LAW INTENDED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE PERVERTED TO PROTECT ADULTERATION OF FOODS AND DRUGS - HARVEY W. WILEY, M.D.
http://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/upl ... 05toc.html


P.S.

The Flexner Report is a book-length study of medical education in the United States and Canada, written by Abraham Flexner and published in 1910 under the aegis of the Carnegie Foundation. Many aspects of the present-day American medical profession stem from the Flexner Report and its aftermath.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report

Flexner Report

Two years later, he published the Flexner Report, which examined the state of American medical education and led to far-reaching reform in the training of doctors. The Flexner report led to the closure of most rural medical schools and all but two African-American medical colleges in the United States, given his adherence to germ theory, in which he argued that if not properly trained and treated, African-Americans and the poor posed a health threat to middle/upper class whites. His position was:

"The practice of the Negro doctor will be limited to his own race, which in its turn will be cared for better by good Negro physicians than by poor white ones. But the physical well-being of the Negro is not only of moment to the Negro himself. Ten million of them live in close contact with sixty million whites. Not only does the Negro himself suffer from hookworm and tuberculosis; he communicates them to his white neighbors, precisely as the ignorant and unfortunate white contaminates him. Self-protection not less than humanity offers weighty counsel in this matter; self- interest seconds philanthropy. The Negro must be educated not only for his sake, but for ours. He is, as far as the human eye can see, a permanent factor in the nation."

Ironically, one of the schools, Louisville National Medical College, was located in his home town. In response to the report, some schools fired senior faculty members in a process of reform and renewal.

Influence on Europe

Flexner soon conducted a related study of medical education in Europe. According to Bonner (2002), Flexner's work came to be "nearly as well known in Europe as in America." With funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, Flexner "...exerted a decisive influence on the course of medical training and left an enduring mark on some of the nation's most renowned schools of medicine." He worried that "the imposition of rigid standards by accrediting groups was making the medical curriculum a monstrosity," with medical students moving through it with "little time to stop, read, work or think." Bonner (2002) calls Flexner "the severest critic and the best friend American medicine ever had."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Flexner

[ICfreely]

Yeah this one right here goes out to all the baby's mamas, mamas
Mamas, mamas, baby mamas, mamas
--OutKast, Ms. Jackson

Osteoporosis Myth: The Dangers of High Bone Mineral Density - Sayer Ji

The present-day definitions of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis were arbitrarily conceived by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the early 90's and then projected upon millions of women's bodies seemingly in order to convince them they had a drug-treatable, though symptomless, disease.

Deviant Standards: Aging Transformed Into a Disease

Within the WHO's new BMD definitions the aging process is redefined as a disease, and these definitions targeted women, much in the same way that menopause was once redefined as a "disease" that needed to be treated with synthetic hormone replacement (HRT) therapies; that is, before the whole house of cards collapsed with the realization that by "treating" menopause as a disease the medical establishment was causing far more harm than good, e.g. heart disease, stroke and cancer.

As if to fill the void left by the HRT debacle and the disillusionment of millions of women, the WHO's new definitions resulted in the diagnosis, and subsequent labeling, of millions of healthy middle-aged and older women with what they were now being made to believe was another "health condition," serious enough to justify the use of expensive and extremely dangerous bone drugs (and equally dangerous mega-doses of elemental calcium) in the pursuit of increasing bone density by any means necessary.

One thing that cannot be debated, as it is now a matter of history, is that this sudden transformation of healthy women, who suffered no symptoms of "low bone mineral density," into an at-risk, treatment-appropriate group, served to generate billions of dollars of revenue for DXA device manufacturers, doctor visits, and drug prescriptions around the world.

WHO Are They Kidding?

Osteopenia is, in fact, a medical and diagnostic non-entity. The term itself describes nothing more than a statistical deviation from an arbitrarily determined numerical value or norm. According to the osteoporosis epidemiologist Dr. L. Joseph Melton at the Mayo Clinic who participated in setting the original WHO criteria in 1992, "[osteopenia] was just meant to indicate the emergence of a problem," and noted that "It didn't have any particular diagnostic or therapeutic significance. It was just meant to show a huge group who looked like they might be at risk." Another expert, Michael McClung, director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, criticized the newly adopted disease category osteopenia by saying ''We have medicalized a nonproblem."

In reality, the WHO definitions violate both commonsense and fundamental facts of biological science (sadly, an increasingly prevalent phenomenon within drug company-funded science). After all, anyone over 30 years of age should have lower bone density than a 30 year old, as this is consistent with the normal and natural healthy aging process. And yet, according to the WHO definition of osteopenia, the eons-old programming of our bodies to gradually shed bone density as we age, is to be considered a faulty design and/or pathology in need of medical intervention.

How the WHO, or any other organization which purports to be a science-based "medical authority," can make an ostensibly educated public believe that the natural thinning of the bones is not normal, or more absurdly: a disease, is astounding. In defense of the public, the cryptic manner in which these definitions and diagnoses have been cloaked in obscure mathematical and clinical language makes it rather difficult for the layperson to discern just how outright insane the logic they are employing really is.

Bone Mineral Density is NOT Equivalent to Bone Strength

As you can see there are a number of insurmountable problems with the WHO's definitions, but perhaps the most fatal flaw is the fact that the Dual energy X-ray absorpitometry device (DXA) is only capable of revealing the mineral density of the bone, and this is not the same thing as bone quality/strength.

While there is a correlation between bone mineral density and bone quality/strength – that is to say, they overlap in places -- they are not equivalent. In other words, density, while an excellent indicator of compressive strength (resisting breaking when being crushed by a static weight), is not an accurate indicator of tensile strength (resisting breaking when being pulled or stretched).

Indeed, in some cases having higher bone density indicates that the bone is actually weaker. Glass, for instance, has high density and compressive strength, but it is extremely brittle and lacks the tensile strength required to withstand easily shattering in a fall. Wood, on the other hand, which is closer in nature to human bone than glass or stone is less dense relative to these materials, but also extremely strong relative to them, capable of bending and stretching to withstand the very same forces which the bone is faced with during a fall. Or, take spider web. It is has infinitely greater strength and virtually no density. Given these facts, having "high" bone density (and thereby not having osteoporosis) may actually increase the risk of fracture in a real-life scenario like a fall.

Essentially, the WHO definitions distract from key issues surrounding bone quality and real world bone fracture risks, such as gait and vision disorders. In other words, if you are able to see and move correctly in our body, you are less likely to fall, which means you are less prone to fracture. Keep in mind also that the quality of human bone depends entirely on dietary and lifestyle patterns and choices, and unlike x-ray-based measurements, bone quality is not decomposable to strictly numerical values, e.g. mineral density scores. Vitamin K2 and soy isoflavones, for instance, significantly reduce bone fracture rates without increasing bone density. Scoring high on bone density tests may save a woman from being intimidated into taking dangerous drugs or swallowing massive doses of elemetal calcium, but it may not translate into preventing "osteoporosis," which to the layperson means the risk of breaking a bone. But high bone mineral density may result in far worse problems....

[Note: Soy 'milk' is shit & vitamins, at best, are useless!]

High Bone Density: More Harm Than Good

The present-day fixation within the global medical community on "osteoporosis prevention" as a top women's health concern, is simply not supported by the facts. The #1 cause of death in women today is heart disease, and the #2 cause of death is cancer, particularly breast cancer, and not death from complications associated with a bone fracture or break. In fact, in the grand scheme of things osteoporosis or low bone mineral density does not even make the CDC's top ten list of causes of female mortality. So, why is it given such a high place within the hierarchy of women's health concerns? Is it a business decision or a medical one?

Regardless of the reason or motive, the obsessive fixation on bone mineral density is severely undermining the overall health of women. For example, the mega-dose calcium supplements being taken by millions of women to "increase bone mineral density" are known to increase the risk of heart attack by between 24-27%, according to two 2011 meta-analyses published in Lancet, and 86% according to a more recent meta-analysis published in the journal Heart. Given the overwhelming evidence, the 1200+ mgs of elemental calcium the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) recommends women 50 and older take to "protect their bones," may very well be inducing coronary artery spasms, heart attacks and calcified arterial plaque in millions of women. Considering that the NOF name calcium supplement manufacturers Citrical and Oscal as corporate sponsors, it is unlikely their message will change anytime soon.

Now, when we consider the case of increased breast cancer risk linked to high bone mineral density, being diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis would actually indicate a significantly reduced risk of developing the disease. What is more concerning to women: breaking a bone (from which one can heal), or developing breast cancer? If it is the latter, a low BMD reading could be considered cause for celebration and not depression, fear and the continued ingestion of inappropriate medications or supplements, which is usually the case following a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis.

We hope this article will put to rest any doubts that the WHO's fixation on high bone density was designed not to protect or improve the health of women, but rather to convert the natural aging process into a blockbuster disease, capable of generating billions of dollars of revenue.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/osteop ... al-density

[ICfreely]

A brief primer on cholesterol, heart disease & statins:

The Great Cholesterol Myth - DR. Malcolm Kendrick

The Development of the Cholesterol Hypothesis

Landmark developments:

1850s
Rudolf Virchow notes the presence of cholesterol in atherosclerotic plaques, and suggests that excess cholesterol in the bloodstream may be the cause.

Early 1900s
Ashoff feeds rabbits on fat and cholesterol, and notes the development of atheroma.

1912
First heart attack described by Herrick.

1940s
Epidemic of heart disease hits the USA, and interest in the area explodes. Many researchers blame the high fat/cholesterol diet.

1948
The Framingham study on heart disease begins. It is still running today.

1954
Ancel Key’s seminal Seven Countries Study is published, demonstrating clear links between saturated fat intake and heart disease.

1961
Framingham confirms the link between raised cholesterol levels and heart disease.

1960s
The first cholesterol-lowering drugs are developed.

1970s
Brown and Goldstein find the gene leading to extremely high cholesterol levels (Familial Hypercholesterolaemia) and premature heart disease.

1980s
Statins are launched.

1985
The Nobel Prize is awarded to Brown and Goldstein.

1990s
Statins trials demonstrate that cholesterol lowering protects against heart disease.

Presented in this way, it’s not difficult to see how the cholesterol hypothesis became the dominant hypothesis, effortlessly swatting alternative ideas. Indeed, to question this theory is to risk being placed on the same shelf as flat-earthers and creationists.

However, all is not what it seems. The cholesterol hypothesis can be likened to a cathedral built on a bog. Rather than admit they made a horrible mistake and let it sink, the builders decided to try and keep the cathedral afloat at all costs. Each time a crack appeared, a new buttress was built. Then further buttresses were built to support the original buttresses.

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles ... terol-myth

The Great Cholesterol Deception – Dr. Peter Dingle
http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles ... -deception

The Cholesterol Theory of Heart Disease is Nonsense - Anthony Colpo

Where’s Your Head At?

Some of you reading this will do further investigation and will conclude of your own volition that what I have reported above is factual. Some of you will be confused and will not know what to make of what I have just reported; it sounds compelling but at the same time you have great difficulty accepting that so many “prestigious” health authorities, government bodies, medical associations, doctors, journalists, authors, and numerous other assorted talking heads could be so wrong. Such a mindset reveals a rather naïve understanding of human nature. No matter how prestigious and well-funded the organization or profession, it is still comprised of fallible human individuals with a deep-rooted evolutionary-programmed tendency to follow the herd and subscribe to groupthink.

A minority of readers will even become angry at what I have just written, offended by my temerity to report facts which so blatantly contradict what they have come to believe. My response to those who fall into this category is…too bad. [ ] After years of coming under attack from the disgruntled worshipers of various scientifically untenable nutrition paradigms, I’m totally over trying to reason with the unreasonable. My aim is simply to relay research findings to those who may find the information useful, not to pander to the fragile sensibilities of those who attain emotional solace in certain diet and health beliefs.

Life, if you allow it to be so, is a fascinating voyage of continual discovery. If you wish to make any meaningful progress during this voyage, you will frequently need to re-examine beliefs that you have become comfortable with, and you must be prepared to discard these beliefs if the evidence dictates.

http://anthonycolpo.com/the-cholesterol ... -nonsense/

Misleading Recent Papers on Statin Drugs in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals - Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D.

Henry Lorin, D.M.D., among others, would like to see the terms “good” and “bad” cholesterol buried. Biochemists agree that LDL-C is the form of cholesterol that is carried to all the cells of the body, an essential function, so it must not be called or considered “bad cholesterol.”

Duane Graveline, M.D., M.P.H., wrote an entire book on statin drug side-effects and the misguided war on cholesterol. Such side effects are not so much concealed by the statin manufacturers as simply not sought; thus, Bayer, for example, could not give bad news on cerivastatin to the FDA because Bayer claimed not to have any.

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no1/kauffman.pdf

[Ataraxia]

Chapter Five - The Battle Begins[/b]

The trial between Mr. Rutherford and the Government went on for several weeks. Federal Judge
Luther Bohanon presided. Each day the FDA attorneys would tell the court that the FDA had
hundreds and hundreds of studies that proved that Laetrile would not work. Toward the end of the
trial Judge Bohanon said to the FDA attorneys, "Tomorrow, when you come into court, I want you
to bring with you all of these studies that have been done by the FDA on Laetrile."

The following morning, when the trial began again, the Judge asked for the studies. The FDA
attorneys said, "Your Honor, we did not bring the studies because they are so scientific that we
don't think you can understand them." This, as you can well imagine, did not please the Judge. He
insisted that all of the studies must be in his court room the following morning.

The next morning there were no studies. When the Judge asked why, the FDA attorneys said the
studies were so voluminous they were not sure that all of the studies would fit in his court room.
The Judge then stated that, if necessary, he would empty the entire court house, but he wanted all of
those studies in his court the following morning.

The following morning there were no studies. Again, the Judge asked why. The FDA attorney said
very simply, "Because, Your Honor, there are no studies." Of course, the Judge was irate. The FDA
attorneys explained that each evening after the trial they would call Washington. Each evening the
Washington office of the FDA would assure the attorneys that they had all of these studies. When
the attorneys finally pinned down the Washington office, they said that they had done no studies at
all on Laetrile. This was when Judge Bohanon called for Administrative Hearings.

In truth, as time has gone on, I have found much evidence to make me believe that the FDA had,
indeed, done a great many studies on Laetrile....

To me, the above story reads exactly like a fairy tale, complete with the traditional grouping of three events, which is a device used in fiction from the earliest stories ever created to the structure of just about every Dora the Explorer cartoon ever made. That sort of gives it away. It's even written in the same tone as any of the traditional fairy tales. Not to mention the unbelievable nature of the story itself, i.e. that the judge keeps giving them another chance.

To me, a story like the above is just part of a creation of a new mythos for modern society, with new heroes, new enemies and new cure-alls. Like how Monsanto is created to become a great super-villain of our age. Which it seems it all has to be fake since it's created for people like Alex Jones to decry and gain fame from. All invented and built upon the barebones of reality, much like how reality tv itself is created. But it's all essentially reality tv, isn't it?

[sharpstuff]

My Dear Icfreely et al.,

Many thanks for your positive comments and apology. In turn, I must also apologise to this forum for my over-long didactic post originally.

I have never had the opportunity to discuss my researches with any of my ‘friends’, colleagues or acquaintances so haven’t been able to hone my ‘debating’ skills.

I am truly passionate about medical matters. From a very early age, all I wanted to do was to become a doctor but that was, for me, impossible. Thus I studied medical matters in my own way. One of my daughters is, in fact, a doctor and works in a hospice in the U.K. My ‘ex’ was a Staff-nurse.

Health ‘issues’ are thrust at us from every quarter. ‘Germ’ theory has been so entrenched in most people’s psyche that anyone providing an antithesis is suspect of not being quite ‘right in the head’. Therefore, I have learned, it is better to tread lightly on this emotive subject.

The ‘germ’ theory of dis-ease is foremost in today’s’ engineering of diseases (especially the unseen…the ‘viruses’ that confound our credibility of Nature (A.I.D.S, Sexually transmitted diseases, SARS, EBOLA, SWINE FLU. BIRD FLU, etc… and ad nauseum). Oh, and we now have another inhuman-created epidemic based on the ZIKA ‘virus’ to be foisted upon us.

These invented intangible entities (‘germs’) soak the gullible from the real. The ‘gullible’ have been totally misled (faked/coerced, if you will) into believing that ‘germs’ cause disease.

Antoine Bechamp (Doctor) was doing his research long before the Pasteur (chemist). He was working on fermentation as were a number of others.

I am listing a few references. Do what you will with them.

References:

Bacteria Inc.
By Cash Asher
(1949)

This book I purchased through the Soil and Health library and I am unable to pass it on for copyright reasons.

*************************************************************

I have another work from the same library

Rational Bacteria
By J R Verner C W Weiant and R J Watkins
(1953)

*****************************************************************

Both of these books refute the 'germs' as a 'cause' of disease

*******************************************************************

Exposing the Myth of the Germ Theory

© College of Practical Homoeopathy 2005

Link directly to the paper:

http://www.homoeopathytraining.co.uk/do ... THEORY.pdf

Fairly short but a good read.


*****************************************************************

I have this essay as an .rtf:

The Monstrous Virus Hoax: The Scam that Made the Grade!
...by T.C. Fry

I couldn’t re-find it on the Internet.

I can upload this to MEGA as a .pdf if anyone is interested but I will not give the link publicly. You would have to p.m. me

********************************************************************************

Toxemia Explained

By J. H. TILDEN, M. D.

(1926)

This can be downloaded as a .pdf from:

http://whale.to/vaccines/tilden.html

Quote from the Preface:

“DEFINITION of Toxemia and crises ofToxemia:—In the process of tissue building—metabolism—there is cell building—anabolism—and cell destruction—catabolism.The broken down tissue is toxic and in health—when nerve energy is normal—it is eliminated from the blood as fast as evolved. When nerve energy is dissipated from any cause—physical or mental excitement or bad habits—the body becomes enervated, when enervated, elimination is checked, causing a retention of toxin in the blood or Toxemia. This accumulation of toxin when once established will continue until nerve energy is restored by removing the causes. So-called disease is nature’s effort at eliminating the toxin from the blood. All so-called diseases are crises of Toxemia.”


Aside: I know it is downloaded from Soil and Health library but the other books referenced by me above were paid for.

**********************************************************************************

This book may have been already linked but here it is again:

The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur

This book can also be downloaded from

http://www.whale.to/a/b/pearson.html

*********************************************************************************

My own slide/show video, made a few years ago:

The Importance of Good Terrain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qZgQkppoz8

It is about 12 minutes long.

*********************************************************************************

I have two of my health books available, also available via MEGA. These are given freely.

Easy Health.pdf

Sharpen’s ‘Alternative’ Encyclopaedic Medical Dictionary.pdf

(2011)

A link can be supplied if you p.m. me

********************************************************************************

Well be you.






.

[kickstones]

Interestingly, the US government hold the patent for an invention that was found to have proven benificial preventive measures for many diseases.

United States Patent 6,630,507 Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##

Inventors: Hampson; Aidan J. (Irvine, CA), Axelrod; Julius (Rockville, MD), Grimaldi; Maurizio (Bethesda, MD)
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)
Family ID: 26767641
Appl. No.: 09/674,028
Filed: February 2, 2001
PCT Filed: April 21, 1999
PCT No.: PCT/US99/08769
PCT Pub. No.: WO99/53917
PCT Pub. Date: October 28, 1999

http://www.google.com/patents/US6630507
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... &r=1&f=G&l


F.D.A. Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana

By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: April 21, 2006

WASHINGTON, April 20 — The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana, contradicting a 1999 review by a panel of highly regarded scientists.

Susan Bro, an agency spokeswoman, said Thursday's statement resulted from a past combined review by federal drug enforcement, regulatory and research agencies that concluded "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment."

Dr. Donald Abrams, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said he had studied marijuana's medicinal effects for years but had been frustrated because the National Institutes of Health, the leading government medical research agency, had refused to finance such work.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/healt ... .html?_r=0

Maybe they need the monies for other research areas such as swine flu vaccines?

Government Funding Drug Companies to Make Vaccines Quicker

September 30, 2010
The Wall Street Journal reported:

U.S. officials say they're using lessons learned from the H1N1 swine-flu pandemic, which erupted in April 2009, to speed the production and development of vaccine and to try to reach more people with shots. The government plans to plow nearly $2 billion into helping researchers and biotechnology companies develop new drugs, vaccines and equipment to shorten the six- to nine-month time frame currently needed to make a flu vaccine.

“To meet anticipated demand, manufacturers are producing between 160 million and 165 million doses this year, more than ever before ... The CDC is accelerating development of two new tools to speed production of vaccine ...”


http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 1130700056

Mind you, some folk get a good return on the governments investments...

GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) is a British pharmaceutical company headquartered in Brentford, London. Established in 2000 by a merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham, GSK was the world's sixth largest pharmaceutical company as of 2015,

GSK's drugs and vaccines earned £21.3 billion in 2013;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlaxoSmithKline

[ICfreely]

To me, the above story reads exactly like a fairy tale, complete with the traditional grouping of three events, which is a device used in fiction from the earliest stories ever created to the structure of just about every Dora the Explorer cartoon ever made. That sort of gives it away. It's even written in the same tone as any of the traditional fairy tales. Not to mention the unbelievable nature of the story itself, i.e. that the judge keeps giving them another chance.

To me, a story like the above is just part of a creation of a new mythos for modern society, with new heroes, new enemies and new cure-alls. Like how Monsanto is created to become a great super-villain of our age. Which it seems it all has to be fake since it's created for people like Alex Jones to decry and gain fame from. All invented and built upon the barebones of reality, much like how reality tv itself is created. But it's all essentially reality tv, isn't it?

Like I said, you have to go through the weeds to get to the flowers!

First off, the FDA, like the Federal Reserve, is above the law. Second, Laetrile is illegal in the U.S. Seeing as it's just concentrated vitamin B17, it begs the question, why? Having said that, I don't want to give the impression that it's a 'silver bullet cure' for 'cancer.' I, personally, have no use for concentrated forms of vitamins either. Nature provides all the vitamins & minerals one needs to get/stay healthy. For instance:

The Chemistry of Essential Oils - Dr. David Stewart, Ph.D.

If you tell most medical doctors that essential oils bring about healing with no negative side effects, they won’t believe you. This is because in medical school, students are repeatedly told by their professors that all effective medicines have negative side effects, and if they don’t then they can’t be effective.

When I was in medical school one professor emphasized this point in a colorful, graphic manner with specially prepared slides. In each slide specific drugs were depicted as evil looking demons or goblins. As he presented each picture, he explained, “Although ugly and capable of doing harm, these ‘demons’ are also the bearers of some good. So long as the benefits outweigh the risks, we use them,” he summarized. “We have no choice,” he continued, “because if a drug has no dangers, then it can have no benefits. That’s just the way it is. And that’s why it is essential that only qualified physicians be allowed to prescribe medicines,” he concluded.

Actually, the professor was telling the truth. Within the restricted practice of allopathy (MDs) the only real medicines are physician prescribed pharmaceuticals. Such medicines always do have negative side effects. All of them. No exceptions. Hence, doctors are trained to accept the bad with the good as the price of effective medicine.

Why Companies Deliberately Sell Dangerous Products

It is illegal to patent any natural product. The way to big profits in the medicine industry is to create an unnatural substance that never before existed in nature, then patent it, and obtain a monopoly. Hence, the molecules of pharmaceutical drugs are all strange to the human body. In all the history of humankind, such molecules were never encountered or taken into any human body. Hence, the body does not easily metabolize them. God never made your body to accept and deal with these chemicals and antibiotics.

Non-toxic natural organic substances are usually easily eliminated by the body when their usefulness has run their course. Up to a point, your body can even deal with and eliminate natural toxic substances. But when your body receives a synthetic substance, even one that may seem benign or inert (like plastic), your body does not know how to metabolize and eliminate it. If sent to the liver to break it down into disposable compounds, the liver says, “Hey. What is this? I don’t know what to do with it. Here kidneys, you take it.” Then the kidneys react saying, “Hey liver, don’t send it to us. We don’t know what it is either. Send it to the pancreas. Maybe it will have an enzyme that can deal with it.” Then the pancreas objects, “Hey guys, what do you think you are doing? I don’t want this stuff. Dump it in the blood or the lymph or try the spleen. Maybe the spleen can filter this thing out or something.” Finally, the substance ends up in the long term waste holding area of the body (usually fat tissue, including the brain) where it can remain for years and even for a lifetime, perturbing normal body functions as long as it remains. That’s why you can find traces of prescription drugs in your body taken in childhood, decades ago.

On the other hand, natural molecules, such as those found in essential oils, are easily metabolized by the body. In fact, your body was created to handle them. When an essential oil molecule finds the receptor sites it was designed to fit and conveys its information to the cell, or participates in other therapeutic functions, it then goes on its way to the liver and the kidneys and moves out of the body. Its benefits have been conveyed and its job is complete.

By contrast, the unnatural molecules of man-made drugs attach themselves to various tissues, disrupting normal function for years while the body tries to figure out what to do with them. Meanwhile, they wreak mischief with our bodily functions and even our minds.

Can the Present Health Care System Change?

In my opinion, changing the medical system toward natural and spiritual forms of healing that encourage more individual responsibility is impossible. The system can’t change. It won’t change. It must be replaced. There was a time for horses and buggies, but when automobiles came along people gave up their former ways of transportation. There is also a time to repair your car and keep it, and a time to discard it for a new one. The medical profession is a sophisticated machine, but it rests on a fallacious foundation. Its philosophical basis is like a Model-T Ford stuck in the mud that can’t move and won’t change.

There is a time to repair the old car and a time to replace it. The current medical system is an old car, beyond repair, parked on a false foundation. It survives, not because it serves the good of humanity, but because it has become politically entrenched in our society. The time has come to remove its legal franchise and replace it by allowing alternative modalities to flourish free of the shackles placed upon them by allopathy’s monopolistic intent.

Terry Friedmann, MD, in his book, Freedom Through Health, envisions a new holistic system to replace the current one that emphasizes personal responsibility and fosters cooperative relationships among many modalities with allopathy playing only a minor role. Dr. Friedmann’s new health care model would include nutrition, exercise, stress management, and aromatherapy, to address the whole person – mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. In their books, Robert Mendelsohn, MD, and Richard Gerber, MD, also foresee a new holistic medical paradigm – one not dependent on allopathic drugs and procedures as its primary focus.

The time has come to move on to paradigms and modalities based on different premises than those that underlie modern allopathy. Those of you who have opted out of the system in favor of essential oils and their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual benefits are among the pioneers who are replacing the system.

As for those of you who have taken over-the-counter or prescription drugs over long periods of time, essential oils are your best friend because they can cleanse the residues of these toxins from your system once and for all and help restore your body back to its natural healthy state.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/why-es ... rugs-dont/

Keep in mind that the FDA itself does not test the drugs it approves. It only reviews the studies submitted by private corporations. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are not obligated to submit all of their studies/clinical trials to the FDA. They are free to run as many trials as they wish. They, of course, only submit the most favorable studies. Further, there are many ways to cook the books to make a study 'successful.' Moreover, there's a revolving door between big pharma executives and FDA officials. That's a fact! Make of it what you will.