Politics of Medicine
After the many years of research in genetics and health care, I have come to realize the barriers set forth by vested capitalist interests in the health field. After all, the name of the game in business is to make money, and in order to make money in the health field it is necessary for people to be sick. If people lead healthy, vital lives with minimum sickness, the shareholders in the various health-care industries are not going to be happy — and they are going to take their money elsewhere.
I like to use the example of the plant which grows anywhere, and when eaten, cures all diseases known to man. What happens when the discovery of this plant is made public? The medical establishment flexes its considerable public relations muscle, goes on television, gets into national news magazines and local newspapers and assures the public that this "cockamamie" new plant is a hoax. The public, unaccustomed to examining evidence and thinking for itself, automatically believes the medical establishment, and laws are passed to outlaw and eradicate this plant.
Meanwhile, a few researchers and other people who think for themselves grow this new plant, try it out for themselves, and find it to be as effective as advertised. Some of these researchers risk everything to offer this new treatment to the public Many of them lose their jobs, because they will not back down from the medical establishment.
If you are going to live your life to the maximum health and vitality, it is essential that you understand this process and resolve to think for yourself regarding your health. Here is the essential truth: the desire for profits by the medical and pharmaceutical companies distorts the truth. Few people, including physicians, are able to see through these distortions.
In the exquisite process of life the normal state, is totally healthy, but at some point, do to bad diet, expose to microbes or toxins you are likely to get sick. You go to the Doctor and get a prescription for an appetite suppressant and some incorrect, parent-like advice about diet and exercise. Meanwhile, you may notice that the doctor also is a little round and not looking like the picture of vitality.
In my opinion, allopathic researchers are doing far more harm than good, in the long run. Why do I say that? Let us look at the allopathic model of medicine. The allopathic paradigm is that the body is perfectly normal until symptoms of a distinct disease appear. The cause of that disease is thought to be one thing, and all you have to do is identify that one thing and give the one best antidote to return the patient to perfect health.
So, if there is an infection, the task is to identify the bacteria or other organism causing the infection and kill it with a chemical, usually an antibiotic. Or, if the problem is with the immune system, the cause must be one thing, perhaps a virus. So kill the virus or, if that is not possible, develop a vaccine to the virus and protect people who do not yet have the virus. If the offending agent is one of the patient's own organs — the stomach, colon, or gallbladder, for example — pour a chemical on it. If that doesn't work, cut it out, throw it away and pronounce the patient cured! This is not really curing anything it's just treating the septum!
It may be that biology is a bit more complex than the allopathic, one cause, one cure paradigm would have it. It may be that the causes of today's illnesses, especially the ones which are epidemic (vascular disease, cancer and immune dysfunction), are multi-factorial: from many different insults to your genes.
The average person in America is exposed to 500 foreign chemicals each day. Each day! This is an assault on the human body without precedent in history. I am not amazed that so many people are sick, I am amazed that so many people are well.
Nevertheless, the dominant medical model today is the allopathic model, so even though the supposed single causes of most diseases have not been discovered, there still is the assumption that there is one cause, and there should therefore be one treatment. But, what if the cause is genetic?
Let us say that you have been exposed to 500 chemicals each day for years, your immune system is somewhat depressed by having been insulted by molecules foreign to the human body, and you develop bronchitis. Then your doc gives you a prescription for an antibiotic — another foreign chemical. The antibiotic kills the bacteria causing your bronchitis. Success, right? Maybe not. Maybe the antibiotic to which you have just been exposed — in an amount larger than the amount of all the other foreign chemicals to which you have been exposed in the last two months combined — while having killed the bacteria, also has insulted your immune system even more, making it more likely for you to develop another infection, perhaps in a different part of your body. So you solve this problem with another antibiotic — with the same result.
A similar situation exists with the cancer patient. Perhaps the cancer is the result of multiple insults to the body, but then the doctor says "Here take this stuff; it will kill your cancer, if it doesn't kill you first."
Picture the heart patient with cardiovascular disease from who-knows-what-they-put-in- it, which he or she has been eating for years, and the doctor says, "Take some of this stuff. If you survive the side effects, your heart may work better." What kind of solution is that?
Or, picture the AIDS patient. Diagnosis made. Patient assured of the single cause of AIDS: the HIV-1 virus. Here, take this AZT. Patient looks at the package insert, which comes with his AZT and sees that the possible side effects of AZT look like a description of autoimmune deficiency. How much sense does it make to take a medicine which can produce the disease it is supposed to treat?
Contrary to popular opinion, cancer and AIDS survival rates are no better with chemical treatments than they are without. They are different, however: the doctor has something to do and the pharmaceutical industry is getting rich.
The best hounds barking up the wrong tree will never catch the cat. Can it be that we are barking up the wrong tree? What if all diseases have multiple causes and predisposing genetic factors. How wise are we to ignore those factors and take another chemical? Is it possible that we are producing more, rather than less, disease — in the long run?
On the other hand, why wait? Why not do these things now? When you learn you have cancer, or any other degenerative disease, that is the day you will want the address of this web site. It does not have to happen to you either. Your health is in your hands.