I've been doing a lot of research lately on the history of medicine, disease, the AMA, etc. The information I've been gathering has been astounding, and I'm in the process of writing a screenplay based on just one of the many stories which would shake the medical world if everyone knew about them.
But the most important single thing I've learned is about pleomorphism. The mere fact that it exists (and it does, it's been scientifically proven over and over again) should alter the entire way medicine is practiced today. Yet, even though this phenomenon was proven 150 years ago, the medical "industry" has neither embraced it nor even accepted it. What is pleomorphism? Simply put, it means that bacteria can change form, from one type of bacteria to another. All modern medicine is built around the idea that bacteria can NOT change form (monomorphism), even though this has been proven and WITNESSED! What pleomorphism shows us is that disease does not come to us externally, but rather internally. Our own good bacteria, when living in a nutritional deficient environment, actually changes form and becomes bad bacteria. If the environment is fixed, it changes back again to good bacteria. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but that's the basic idea.
I encourage everyone to read about this and explore it in detail - you'll be amazed at what you will discover. When you understand this concept, you will understand why the pharmaceutical approach to disease is detrimental and why we can never really be cured that way. Look up Antoine Bechamp, the Frenchman who first proved pleomorphism, and you will understand why the health care industry is in the mess it's in today. See how Pasteur plagiarized Bechamp's research and worked unscientifically, yet is treated as the father of modern medicine. His story is one of the great examples of how ambition and money can actually brainwash an entire society (not to mention his responsibility for countless deaths and unfathomable sickness).
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Monday, November 1, 2010
The Bible
Let me start off with a disclaimer. If you will find discussions of religion offensive or upsetting, read no further.
This blog will not discuss the existence or non-existence of God. There's really no point in that - God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven. It is a personal belief, and no one can force anyone to think either way. This is solely a discussion of a book which is the basis of a couple of major religions throughout the world. There are thousands of individual statements in the Bible which can be debated - science vs religion - but I am just going to pick one for now. But I am going to approach it from a perspective I've never seen or heard before - I don't know if I'm the first to question the Bible in this way, but this aspect has been on my mind for a while.
Most scientists I've read about who question the validity of the Bible deal with creation - the big bang vs "Intelligent Design." But I've never heard scientists discuss the speed of light. This to me is the most compelling argument against the validity of the stories in the Bible. The Bible is pretty clear about the time frame from creation to present day. Though the exact total is debated, most agree it is somewhere around 10,000 years. Now the speed of light is a pretty carefully proven value - it is something we can see and measure here on earth. I haven't heard this number questioned by creationists. So we know how long light takes to travel in a vacuum, and therefore we know that for the universe to have only existed for 10,000 years, it would not be possible to see any stars in the sky which are further than 10,000 light years from earth. That's just a fact - again, can't be debated. So now the question is how far are the farthest stars we can see? Well, given modern technology (Hubble Telescope, etc) we know that the answer to that is MUCH MUCH farther! Like on the order of MILLIONS of light years farther. Now having researched the way this distance is measured I know that someone could try to argue that those methods are invalid, but they are really pretty simple and logical - based on color shifts in nearby stars and applying those shifts to the farther stars. So unless the nearby stars behave in a completely different manner than the distant stars - possible but extremely unlikely - the fact remains that the universe is much MUCH older than the Bible claims.
Now if one element of the Bible is disproven, does that discredit the entire book? Well if we were talking about some ordinary book, I would say not necessarily, though it would certainly cause one to question it. However, this is not just an ordinary book. This is a book which millions of people follow and base their entire lives around. It is a book which was supposedly written by God himself (speaking through mortal men, of course - when that happens today we usually lock those people up). So even if one aspect of the book is completely disproven, where does that leave the rest of it? Well that answer is up to those to choose to follow it. Each individual has to make up his own mind whether or not he would base his life around a book which has giant holes in it's accuracy. My point here is simply to raise the questions.
This blog will not discuss the existence or non-existence of God. There's really no point in that - God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven. It is a personal belief, and no one can force anyone to think either way. This is solely a discussion of a book which is the basis of a couple of major religions throughout the world. There are thousands of individual statements in the Bible which can be debated - science vs religion - but I am just going to pick one for now. But I am going to approach it from a perspective I've never seen or heard before - I don't know if I'm the first to question the Bible in this way, but this aspect has been on my mind for a while.
Most scientists I've read about who question the validity of the Bible deal with creation - the big bang vs "Intelligent Design." But I've never heard scientists discuss the speed of light. This to me is the most compelling argument against the validity of the stories in the Bible. The Bible is pretty clear about the time frame from creation to present day. Though the exact total is debated, most agree it is somewhere around 10,000 years. Now the speed of light is a pretty carefully proven value - it is something we can see and measure here on earth. I haven't heard this number questioned by creationists. So we know how long light takes to travel in a vacuum, and therefore we know that for the universe to have only existed for 10,000 years, it would not be possible to see any stars in the sky which are further than 10,000 light years from earth. That's just a fact - again, can't be debated. So now the question is how far are the farthest stars we can see? Well, given modern technology (Hubble Telescope, etc) we know that the answer to that is MUCH MUCH farther! Like on the order of MILLIONS of light years farther. Now having researched the way this distance is measured I know that someone could try to argue that those methods are invalid, but they are really pretty simple and logical - based on color shifts in nearby stars and applying those shifts to the farther stars. So unless the nearby stars behave in a completely different manner than the distant stars - possible but extremely unlikely - the fact remains that the universe is much MUCH older than the Bible claims.
Now if one element of the Bible is disproven, does that discredit the entire book? Well if we were talking about some ordinary book, I would say not necessarily, though it would certainly cause one to question it. However, this is not just an ordinary book. This is a book which millions of people follow and base their entire lives around. It is a book which was supposedly written by God himself (speaking through mortal men, of course - when that happens today we usually lock those people up). So even if one aspect of the book is completely disproven, where does that leave the rest of it? Well that answer is up to those to choose to follow it. Each individual has to make up his own mind whether or not he would base his life around a book which has giant holes in it's accuracy. My point here is simply to raise the questions.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Curing Multiple Sclerosis
Let me first start by saying there is no "cure." There is no cure, because it's not really a disease in the way we usually think of diseases - things caused by germs, viruses, etc. If someone were allergic to peanuts, you wouldn't necessarily try to "cure" them - you would tell them to stop eating peanuts. Well MS is the same thing (as are the other "diseases" in the same family, such as Parkinsons, ALS, etc). They are all basically a gluten sensitivity. Most people are familiar with gluten sensitivity in the form of Celiac disease, whereby the symptoms are intestinally related. Well that's only 1 of 3 ways gluten sensitivity shows up. It can also show up as autoimmune disorders or neurological disorders. Now does this mean you stop eating bread and your MS goes away? Well not exactly, but it's a good start!
Nothing in the body is clean cut, but there are basical general principles to start with when trying to fix problems. With MS and other similar neurological disorders, the basis is a gluten-free / casein-free diet (casein is found in dairy). To truly gain the effects of a gluten-free diet, you need to be strict about it. Just cutting down isn't going to get you very far - you need to cut it out thoroughly and completely. Even a small amount of gluten can continue to cause the problems, and it stays in your body for a long time. There have been supposed "tests" done on MS patients that have been "inconclusive." Well I'd be very interested in knowing the details of those tests. For one thing, I'd be willing to bet that corn was not included in the testing. Though corn is not thought of as a gluten containing food (most "gluten-free" products use corn as a main ingredient), it actually does contain corn gluten. For a long time this wasn't even considered an issue, but recently even medical doctors are noticing that some celiac patients have the gluten sensitivity to corn as well as to wheat and barley. I really hope they remove corn from "gluten-free" products soon! I'm not saying that every single MS patient will be cured simply by a strict gluten/casein-free diet, but I think many (or maybe most) would. There are always other contributing factors, but I absolutely believe they are ALL food-related. And, by the way, I do even personally know an MS patient who was cured with a gluten-free diet (she hasn't even bothered to tell her doctors, because she knows they won't believe her anyway).
There are several aspects of this topic that absolutely boggle my mind. First of all, most people have never even heard this information before. When so many people have been cured by it, isn't it interesting that the information can only be obtained through word of mouth or on the internet? Furthermore, even when people hear this information, they still typically won't even try it. Are eating your bread and cheese really so important that it's not even worth giving it a shot to save your life? I think it just illustrates the way we as a society have been brainwashed to believe SO strongly in whatever doctors say that anything outside that world is ridiculed and promptly dismissed. I even found a website written by a doctor entitled "Be Wary of Multiple Sclerosis 'Cures'", and he lists Methods to Avoid. Among these methods to avoid are diets, including a gluten-free diet, fructose restricted diet, sucrose free diet, and even tobacco free diet. All of these things are great diets no matter who you are, yet he actually says to avoid them. OMG - don't eat those evil healthy foods!! And those diets were listed under the heading of implausible and untested or inadequately tested. Just what are these people afraid of? Well I think I know the answer to that, and it starts with a "$."
I was inspired to write this blog after seeing the recent report on David Osmond from the Today Show. I thought it was interesting that at the end of the report he mentioned switching to natural foods - I'd be very curious to know the specifics of his diet - if anyone does know, please let me know!
Nothing in the body is clean cut, but there are basical general principles to start with when trying to fix problems. With MS and other similar neurological disorders, the basis is a gluten-free / casein-free diet (casein is found in dairy). To truly gain the effects of a gluten-free diet, you need to be strict about it. Just cutting down isn't going to get you very far - you need to cut it out thoroughly and completely. Even a small amount of gluten can continue to cause the problems, and it stays in your body for a long time. There have been supposed "tests" done on MS patients that have been "inconclusive." Well I'd be very interested in knowing the details of those tests. For one thing, I'd be willing to bet that corn was not included in the testing. Though corn is not thought of as a gluten containing food (most "gluten-free" products use corn as a main ingredient), it actually does contain corn gluten. For a long time this wasn't even considered an issue, but recently even medical doctors are noticing that some celiac patients have the gluten sensitivity to corn as well as to wheat and barley. I really hope they remove corn from "gluten-free" products soon! I'm not saying that every single MS patient will be cured simply by a strict gluten/casein-free diet, but I think many (or maybe most) would. There are always other contributing factors, but I absolutely believe they are ALL food-related. And, by the way, I do even personally know an MS patient who was cured with a gluten-free diet (she hasn't even bothered to tell her doctors, because she knows they won't believe her anyway).
There are several aspects of this topic that absolutely boggle my mind. First of all, most people have never even heard this information before. When so many people have been cured by it, isn't it interesting that the information can only be obtained through word of mouth or on the internet? Furthermore, even when people hear this information, they still typically won't even try it. Are eating your bread and cheese really so important that it's not even worth giving it a shot to save your life? I think it just illustrates the way we as a society have been brainwashed to believe SO strongly in whatever doctors say that anything outside that world is ridiculed and promptly dismissed. I even found a website written by a doctor entitled "Be Wary of Multiple Sclerosis 'Cures'", and he lists Methods to Avoid. Among these methods to avoid are diets, including a gluten-free diet, fructose restricted diet, sucrose free diet, and even tobacco free diet. All of these things are great diets no matter who you are, yet he actually says to avoid them. OMG - don't eat those evil healthy foods!! And those diets were listed under the heading of implausible and untested or inadequately tested. Just what are these people afraid of? Well I think I know the answer to that, and it starts with a "$."
I was inspired to write this blog after seeing the recent report on David Osmond from the Today Show. I thought it was interesting that at the end of the report he mentioned switching to natural foods - I'd be very curious to know the specifics of his diet - if anyone does know, please let me know!
Saturday, October 23, 2010
My Parents and Cancer
Nearly 30 years ago my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. She got several opinions. Some doctors went as far as to tell her to cut off both her breasts (she had cysts ever since she gave birth to my brother, so it was always difficult to distinguish between the cysts and possible tumors). Around that time my brother had gotten married, and his new wife was very into health foods. She and my brother had started eating a macrobiotic diet just to stay healthy, and they recommended my mother try it. She ultimately decided to try macrobiotics. Luckily her cancer wasn't a very aggressive type, so she felt she had time to see if the healing diet would work. Initially she was cooking separately for herself and my father, but eventually he decided to go on the diet with her so she wouldn't be cooking two separate meals. On the diet they both noticed marked improvements in the way they felt. My mother's cysts disappeared. She's never had a definitive biopsy to be sure the cancer is gone, but I think the fact that she's still in great health almost 30 years later would convince anyone that it is.
My father's story is even more compelling. Now you would think with him being on a macrobiotic all these years that he wouldn't have any major health problems, but thanks to the evil of pharmaceuticals he did. He was diagnosed with Petit Mal (a form of epilepsy) in his early twenties. He had always been on medication for it - the only medication he really took. Well a few years back he began to have a very serious issue with his heart - a bubble had formed on his aorta, and he needed surgery to repair it. He later discovered this problem was most likely a result of being on much too high a dosage of his medication for several years. He hadn't had it checked as regularly as he should have. During his operation clogged arteries were found and he had a bypass as well. Now after you go through an operation like that, the doctors load you up with mounds of medications. He was on at least a dozen or more different medications after the surgery. Soon he developed shingles (which took a long time to go away), and he then developed lymphoma. He went to doctors, oncologists, and even a macrobiotic counselor. Every one of them recommended he get chemo - they all said it had a very high success rate with lymphoma (he was in stage 3). He remained adamant that he would heal himself with a macrobiotic healing diet. I think even most doctors when pushed would admit that chemo can cause cancer. If you research lymphoma you'll find that it's not uncommon after chemo for the cancer to "come back" in some other area. Well it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that this "coming back" could very well be a new cancer from the chemo, and this was a big concern of my father.
My father stuck to his guns and went on a very strict healing diet. A short while before this I had begun going to a holistic chiropractor who I'm always raving about. I asked her if there was anyone in my parents' area that did work similar to hers, and lo and behold it turned out that her mentor, one of the leading practitioners in the entire world, had his office just a few minutes from my parents. They had to wait two months to get an appointment, but my father credits Dr. Schmitt with saving his life. Dr. Schmitt examined the medications my father was taking - it turned out most of them were seriously damaging his immune system; thus the onset of shingles and later lymphoma. He gave my father a mushroom derivative to begin taking to strengthen his immune system, balancing the negative effects of the medication. He used other natural supplements as well to balance him. Very quickly the swelling in my father's lymph nodes subsided. When he went back to the oncologist a few months later the doctor said he had made a believer out of him, and to keep on doing whatever he had been doing. Within a year he was mostly better - his last PET scan showed the lymphoma gone.
The moral of the story is this: natural methods of healing do work. I believe they work better than the ways of western medicine. I don't believe anyone should try them on their own, especially when dealing with a life-threatening disease. Find an expert to help guide you. I think many people go about these diets in a half-assed fashion, and then when they fail the doctors point to them and say "see - it doesn't work." Well I would imagine if they went on chemo and didn't stick to the plan, missing medication, it wouldn't work either. With natural methods it may take longer, but there is no sickness, no nausea, no hair loss; you will only continue to feel better and better. For patients who do opt for chemo but go on a healing diet as well, their side effects are greatly reduced. I have no issue with anyone opting for any method they like, but I do have an issue when they make an uninformed decision. If you only consult medical doctors, you will not be making an informed decision, since doctors will rarely inform you of alternative methods; you need to research on your own!
My father's story is even more compelling. Now you would think with him being on a macrobiotic all these years that he wouldn't have any major health problems, but thanks to the evil of pharmaceuticals he did. He was diagnosed with Petit Mal (a form of epilepsy) in his early twenties. He had always been on medication for it - the only medication he really took. Well a few years back he began to have a very serious issue with his heart - a bubble had formed on his aorta, and he needed surgery to repair it. He later discovered this problem was most likely a result of being on much too high a dosage of his medication for several years. He hadn't had it checked as regularly as he should have. During his operation clogged arteries were found and he had a bypass as well. Now after you go through an operation like that, the doctors load you up with mounds of medications. He was on at least a dozen or more different medications after the surgery. Soon he developed shingles (which took a long time to go away), and he then developed lymphoma. He went to doctors, oncologists, and even a macrobiotic counselor. Every one of them recommended he get chemo - they all said it had a very high success rate with lymphoma (he was in stage 3). He remained adamant that he would heal himself with a macrobiotic healing diet. I think even most doctors when pushed would admit that chemo can cause cancer. If you research lymphoma you'll find that it's not uncommon after chemo for the cancer to "come back" in some other area. Well it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that this "coming back" could very well be a new cancer from the chemo, and this was a big concern of my father.
My father stuck to his guns and went on a very strict healing diet. A short while before this I had begun going to a holistic chiropractor who I'm always raving about. I asked her if there was anyone in my parents' area that did work similar to hers, and lo and behold it turned out that her mentor, one of the leading practitioners in the entire world, had his office just a few minutes from my parents. They had to wait two months to get an appointment, but my father credits Dr. Schmitt with saving his life. Dr. Schmitt examined the medications my father was taking - it turned out most of them were seriously damaging his immune system; thus the onset of shingles and later lymphoma. He gave my father a mushroom derivative to begin taking to strengthen his immune system, balancing the negative effects of the medication. He used other natural supplements as well to balance him. Very quickly the swelling in my father's lymph nodes subsided. When he went back to the oncologist a few months later the doctor said he had made a believer out of him, and to keep on doing whatever he had been doing. Within a year he was mostly better - his last PET scan showed the lymphoma gone.
The moral of the story is this: natural methods of healing do work. I believe they work better than the ways of western medicine. I don't believe anyone should try them on their own, especially when dealing with a life-threatening disease. Find an expert to help guide you. I think many people go about these diets in a half-assed fashion, and then when they fail the doctors point to them and say "see - it doesn't work." Well I would imagine if they went on chemo and didn't stick to the plan, missing medication, it wouldn't work either. With natural methods it may take longer, but there is no sickness, no nausea, no hair loss; you will only continue to feel better and better. For patients who do opt for chemo but go on a healing diet as well, their side effects are greatly reduced. I have no issue with anyone opting for any method they like, but I do have an issue when they make an uninformed decision. If you only consult medical doctors, you will not be making an informed decision, since doctors will rarely inform you of alternative methods; you need to research on your own!
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Medical Charities
I can not even tell you the frustration I feel every time there is a new charity drive for medical charities (cure this disease, help cure that disease). It is my opinion that every disease is curable without any drugs, radiation, or suffering (unless you consider giving up your favorite food as suffering - which many seem to). I consider every dollar given to one of these organizations like giving a dollar to help kill someone. That may sound a bit extreme, but that's the way it makes me feel. These organizations do nothing but help to cover up the truth, which is that these diseases are already curable.
Everyone is looking for that "magic pill." Well here's a shocker - it doesn't exist. There is no quick fix. Your body is capable of healing itself if fed properly, but it TAKES TIME. In fact, time is the only key ingredient in making every disease 100% curable. If you have enough time for your body to do it's thing, it will.
I wish folks would do a little research before they throw their money away. Any organization that claims to be associated with the disease of the month will get money thrown at it. At least learn where your money goes. I used to just give my money away if it was for "charity." Now I'm always skeptical, and really look into the organization and ask questions. I no longer want to give money to organizations doing work I don't believe in. Also, pick any disease - call it disease X - and google "X natural cures." You may be surprised at what you will find. The information is all out there thanks to the web, but no doctor will ever give it to you (well a few will, and that number is growing all the time). In a future blog I'll tell you the story of my parents and their battles with cancer - it may help change your minds about some things.
Everyone is looking for that "magic pill." Well here's a shocker - it doesn't exist. There is no quick fix. Your body is capable of healing itself if fed properly, but it TAKES TIME. In fact, time is the only key ingredient in making every disease 100% curable. If you have enough time for your body to do it's thing, it will.
I wish folks would do a little research before they throw their money away. Any organization that claims to be associated with the disease of the month will get money thrown at it. At least learn where your money goes. I used to just give my money away if it was for "charity." Now I'm always skeptical, and really look into the organization and ask questions. I no longer want to give money to organizations doing work I don't believe in. Also, pick any disease - call it disease X - and google "X natural cures." You may be surprised at what you will find. The information is all out there thanks to the web, but no doctor will ever give it to you (well a few will, and that number is growing all the time). In a future blog I'll tell you the story of my parents and their battles with cancer - it may help change your minds about some things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
