The Height of Fakery
Messiahs or Butchers?
Killer Doctors With Killer Medicines
Allopathy kills 783,000 people
every year in the USA
– Study Report
(M. Javed Naseem)
Bad science
“Everyone
should know that most cancer research
is largely a
fraud, and that the major cancer research
organizations
are derelict in their duties to the people
who support them.”
Linus
Pauling, PhD, two-time Nobel Prize winner.
*****************************************
“Much of
scientific literature, perhaps half, may
simply be untrue.
Reasons for this failure:
Studies with small
sample sizes,
flagrant conflicts
of interest and an
obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends
of dubious
importance. As one participant
put it: ‘Poor
methods get results.’”
--- Richard Horton,
Editor-in-Chief, The Lancet
*****************************************
Last week we talked about the horrors of antibiotics. It’s
only relevant that we also talk a little about the Allopathic system of
treatment or medicines which is spreading those horrors. The Allopath doctors
are not promoting good health or permanent cure to the ailments, but they are
promoting the drugs – the medicines that bring millions of dollars to the Big
Pharma. They are advocating chemically-induced temporary relief through
antibiotics which are, as a matter of fact, harmful to our body’s immune
system. It is all about money. There are no morals or ethics involved. It’s the
sheer greed which is controlling the minds and the actions of drug
manufacturers and doctors.
*****************************
They get rich
by killing people!
But unlike CIA,
MI6, Mossad
or NATO, they
don’t kill you
with bombs or
bullets. They
kill you softly
with a smile and
a pack of
allopathic medicines!
*****************************
Science has become the “dirty science” because of the vested
interests of the Big Pharma. They ‘buy’ scientists and dictate the results of
their research. They manipulate and fabricate the data by biased or fake
research and bogus studies. Since the money involved is in billions of dollars,
the game has become very dangerous and brutal. Honest scientists are ignored,
not encouraged and not engaged or hired for research projects. Not only that,
they are also persecuted and ‘black-listed’ by the corrupt sponsors of projects.
Most of these sponsors and funds-providers are part of the Big Pharma.
Scientific research is manipulated by placing the people who
have your point of view in control. An outcome is more likely to be generated
when you have people expecting (or subconsciously intending) that result. On
top of this, results can be bought and the true finance behind that bribery can
be hidden through front groups, think tanks, shell corporations, fake grassroot
organizations and many other means. Since money is used to shut people’s
mouths, the results can even be dictated by the pharmaceutical companies.
Most scientists are given contracts by the corporations
which contain a clause forbidding them to publicize results that the sponsors
don’t like. This means that Big Pharma has the legal right to suppress the
results of any study they don’t like – including being able to stop scientists
from submitting such studies to a journal.
In addition to that there is massive data falsification,
where corporations omit and distort results at will through all sorts of
tactics (by not reporting patients who suffer side effects and instead labeling
them as “non-compliant”, etc.). Corporate science is junk science. It is like a
cancer that is destroying humanity’s attempt for true knowledge and
objectivity. The time has come to expose it fully and restore the truth.
*************************************
Many doctors
are negligent and careless,
and make
mistakes but insurance protects
them from any
harm or punishment. So,
they can
experiment on patients without
worrying much about
the consequences.
*************************************
This is from Webster Kehr – the Cancer Tutor:
“In June 2002, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of
the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors
declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of
review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug
companies whose medicines were being analyzed.
The reason? The journal could no longer find enough
independent experts. Drug company gifts and “consulting fees” are so pervasive
that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in
some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their
reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 (per year) from companies
whose work they judge. Isn’t that comforting?
From: Cancer Tutor
Tim O’Shea ‘s book
‘Conventional Medicine vs Holistic:
A World of Difference’
Two
opposing viewpoints of health and disease have been evident since ancient
times. The conventional view, or Allopathic (literally, “other disease”) sees
problems coming from outside the body. Or simply, the cause of disease comes
from outside, then invades the body and the person gets “sick.” The Germ
Theory. Allopathic philosophy says that when the body has symptoms like pain,
fever, or nausea, that means the person has caught some bug, some disease and
needs to have these symptoms “treated” – i.e., covered up. Usually with drugs.
If the disease localizes itself in one certain part of the body and won’t go
away, then that part of the body may have to be cut out with surgery. That’s
the allopathic viewpoint: disease, symptoms, drugs, surgery.
*********************************************
“Surgery through
the ages has been associated with
a surprising lack
of scientific foundation. In Europe,
from the Middle
Ages to the Renaissance, surgeons
and barbers were
the same people. It was not until
the time of the American
Revolution that England’s
King George the
Third decreed that barbers and
surgeons were two
separate professions.”
*********************************************
The
holistic view is different. Holistic philosophy says that the cause and
cure of all disease lie within the body. The parts of the body are interrelated
in ways that are so complex, so sophisticated, so elegantly orchestrated and
exquisitely tuned, as Deepak Chopra says, that all medical technology has only
the crudest, faintest understanding of just a few basic mechanisms. In most
cases, the body can heal itself if provided with the opportunity. It does this
from the inside out – from the brain and spinal cord, outward through the
nervous system, to every organ, and cell. For every time you have ever been
sick, there have been hundreds of times when your immune system has conquered a
disease without any overt symptoms being expressed. The mysteries of the body –
its inner workings – are actually the most evolved systems in the universe. We
are dealing with the life forces, the life substances – that which can never be
viewed in dissection or isolated in laboratory culture. To influence these
subtle, delicate inter-weavings, natural cures seek to nourish and encourage
the body back into a condition of balance, by gentle support.
Surgery came about from the mechanistic outlook: if a part became too big a problem, cut it off. Quickly, before it gets a chance to heal. If the patient survives, that means the surgeon “saved his life.” Surgery through the ages has been associated with a surprising lack of scientific foundation. In Europe, from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, surgeons and barbers were the same people. It was not until the time of the American Revolution that England’s King George the Third decreed that barbers and surgeons were two separate professions.
“The specific
disease doctrine is the grand refuge
of weak,
uncultured, unstable minds, such as now
rule in the
medical profession. There are no specific
diseases; there
are specific disease conditions.”
– Florence Nightingale, 1860
– Florence Nightingale, 1860
Holistic doctors like Dr. Dean Black explain that viruses
don’t cause flu any more than freeways cause accidents. The responsible
variable for getting the flu is not the presence or absence of virus, but
rather the strength or weakness of the individual’s immune resistance. (Health
At the Crossroads, p.18) Obviously two people can be living with the same sick
person who has the flu. The virus has the same access to both people, but only
the weak one will get the flu. They both got exposed to the virus, and that’s
the point: the virus doesn’t cause the flu. A depressed immune system does. The
terrain, not the germ, as Pasteur himself finally admitted on his deathbed,
when there were no more awards or money to be gained.
We’re not winning, we’re not overcoming disease. Worse yet,
the eradication of disease was never even a goal of organized medicine. Too
many natural cures have been suppressed and buried over the past 75 years to
entertain the illusion that the goal of medicine is health. (The Cancer Industry) The goal of medicine is
more medicine, i.e., wealth. It is a market-driven industry, and any idea that
stands in the way of profit is fair game for persecution and attack. This story
is told in some detail in works by Ralph Moss and Leonard Horowitz, among many
others.
Medical history up until the late 1800s is a long list of bizarre, toxic
poisons, with a healthy sprinkling of incantation and superstition for good
measure. An amazing chronicle by Morris Bealle documents a pharmacopeia of
wacky concoctions that Allopaths through the ages tricked their gullible
patients into swallowing:
o- pigeon dung
o- grasshopper sputum
o- antimony (a poison)
o- pitch
o- nutmeg
o- dried beetles (given to George Washington the night he
died)
o- hog’s lice
o- sheep droppings
o- dried skunk bellies
o- powdered fox lungs
o- powdered human skull
o- viper’s flesh
o- human urine
o- saliva from a fasting person
o- lead
o- mercury
o- rhinoceros skin
o- putrid elephant flesh
– (Bealle, p154 ff)
This is just a partial list. Makes Shakespeare’s reference
to “eye of newt and toe of frog” in Macbeth appealing by comparison. The above
items were mainstays of practice, not weird oddities somebody looked up. About
half the items on this list are from a Pharmacopeia that is less than two
hundred years old, so it’s not all from the Dark Ages. But look at the modern
similarities:
o- Gold salts for rheumatoid arthritis – only recently given
up
o- Premarin, the #1 synthetic estrogen drug in the world,
made from horse urine!
o- vaccines still made from pus from horses, cows, sheep, rabbits
and monkeys. (Horowitz)
o- synthetic cyanocobalamin (Vit. B12) from deactivated sewage.
o- vast majority of pharmaceuticals derived from coal tar
and petroleum. (Bealle)
o- chemotherapy drugs from nitrogen mustard (like the poison
gas).
o- the 4,000 poisons tested to find the 50 or so modern chemotherapy
drugs. (Moss)
How far have we really progressed?
Pharmaceutical drugs artificially alter the systems of the
body in one of two primary ways:
- slow down system operations,
- accelerate system operations.
Does this have anything to do with a return to health?
Rarely.
Everything is Fake:
Top 40 Pieces of Fakery
in Our World
By Makia
Freeman, (Wake Up World) Excerpts:
5. Fake Medicine
Allopathy, has earned the dubious honor of killing
hundreds of thousands of people every year. A 2000
study by Dr. Barbara Starfield, MD, found that Allopathy kills 225,000 per
year in the US, while a 2003
study by Dr. Gary Null, MD and others, found that allopathy
kills 783,000 per year in the US.
Starfield concluded that Western Medicine in America causes:- 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;
- 7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;
- 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;
- 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals; and
- 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.
- 37,136 deaths from unnecessary procedures;
- 32,000 deaths related to surgery;
- 98,000 deaths from medical error;
- 115,000 deaths from bedsores;
- 88,000 deaths from infection;
- 108,800 deaths from malnutrition;
- 199,000 deaths related to outpatients; and
- 106,000 deaths from adverse drug reactions.
Now, with its antibiotic
drugs becoming more useless in the face of rising super bugs, you have to
really question whether an entire medical system that is based on masking
symptoms, “managing” illness, and getting patients on a hamster wheel of pill
after pill after pill, can really constitute true healing – or whether
it’s just more fakery.
6. Fake Scientific Research
Backing the Rockefeller’s Western
medical Big Pharma cartel is a massive pile of fake
scientific research. Like anything fake, the veneer looks shiny and leads
you to believe what lies inside is trustworthy and reputable, when in reality
it’s reams of biased and concocted research with a peer-reviewed stamp on
it. Former Big Pharma reps, esteemed medical journal editors and even
insider governmental scientists have all confessed the shocking truth that
a large amount of the published scientific data out there is fraudulent and
simply can’t be trusted. Check out the top 10
tricks used by corporate junk science.
8. Fake Food
True immunity is derived from lifestyle and diet,
including what quality of exercise, sleep and nutrition you get. This brings us
to the topic of nutrition. Our food today has become so processed and
packaged, so full of preservatives and plastics, that it has become fake
food. It gets churned out of a factory rather than grown on a farm or field.
It’s full of artificial flavors and synthetic tastes – like vaccines,
some of them even derived from aborted fetal tissue, as
Pepsi was forced to admit. Some foods are so refined and
over-cooked they barely have more nutrition than a piece of cardboard.
When you add the monstrosity of GMOs (Genetically Modified
Organisms) into the mix, you get a final product that Dr. Rima Laibow calls
“phude” rather than “food”, because the final engineered, processed
product is so far removed from what our ancestors knew as real food.
By the way, GMOs, in case you hadn’t heard, can
lead to organ failure, infertility and cancer, and are genetically modifying you
as GM proteins bypass digestion and go directly into your
blood (as is their ultimate
purpose). GMOs by their very nature are engineered to withstand
massive doses of chemical and hazardous
pesticides. GMOs are basically a way for chemical companies like Dow
and Monsanto to sell more
chemicals, because people need them to grow Big Biotech’s fake food.
The World Health Organizaation (WHO) recently declared Dow’s 2-4,D possibly carcinogenic and Monsanto’s glyphosate
and pesticides as probably carcinogenic.
(Courtesy:
http://wakeup-world.com/2015/08/22/everything-is-fake-top-40-pieces-of-fakery-in-our-world/)
From: Wake
Up World
Leading Scientists
Believe
Up to Half of Research-Based
Literature Is Simply Untrue!
By Carolanne Wright
Corruption undermining
science
In a perfect world, science would have unlimited
funding, free from corporations or special interest groups, where all studies
would be truly objective and unbiased. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case.
Financing by private companies, or those who have a vested interest in the
outcome of the research, often leads to biased conclusions which favor the
sponsor of the study.
Take for example a pharmaceutical company paying
for a new drug to treat depression. When the track record of such research is
examined, we find studies backed by the pharmaceutical industry tend to show
partiality toward the drug under consideration, whereas research sponsored by
government grants or charitable organizations is prone to draw more objective
conclusions.¹
In a similar fashion, research financed by the
food industry often favors the food under investigation compared to inquiries
that are independently sponsored.
Dr. Marcia Angell, physician and longtime editor
in chief of the New England Medical Journal, feels that
objective research has taken a turn for the worse:
“It is simply no
longer possible to believe much
of the clinical
research that is published, or to rely
on the judgment of
trusted physicians or authoritative
medical
guidelines. I take no pleasure in this
conclusion, which
I reached slowly and reluctantly
over my two
decades as an editor of the New
England Journal of
Medicine.”
And John P.A. loannidis, a professor in disease
prevention at Standford University School of Medicine, writes that most
published research findings are false, due to several criteria — including
“greater financial and other interest and prejudice.” He also states that “for
many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply
accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
Another critique of our current scientific
method is found with Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet,
who stated in the April 15, 2015 edition of the journal:
“Much of scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be
untrue.” He lists a a variety of reasons for this failure: Studies with small
sample sizes, flagrant conflicts of interest and an obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance. Horton adds, ‘as one participant put
it’: “Poor methods get results.”
Moreover, ScienceDaily reports that a
study at the University of Michigan found that nearly one-third of cancer
research published in high-profile journals have conflicts of interest. The
research team examined 1,534 cancer studies published in well-respected
journals.The most frequent type of conflict is with industry funding (17% of
the papers). Twelve percent of the papers were in conflict because the author
was an industry employee. And randomized trials were more likely to have
positive findings when conflicts of interest were present.
Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., and author of the
University of Michigan study, feels that “merely disclosing conflicts is
probably not enough. It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more
at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties.”
Jagsi believes that research has become corrupted
by designing industry-funded studies in such a manner that’s likely to
yield favorable results. Researchers may also be more inclined to publish
positive outcomes while overlooking negative results.
“In light of these findings,
we as a society may wish to rethink how we want our research efforts to be
funded and directed. It has been very hard to secure research funding,
especially in recent years, so it’s been only natural for researchers to turn
to industry. If we wish to minimize the potential for bias, we need to increase
other sources of support. Medical research is ultimately a common endeavor that
benefits all of society, so it seems only appropriate that we should be funding
it through general revenues rather than expecting the market to provide,” Jagsi
says.
*************
