+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

  1. Link to Post #21
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    Evidence-Based Homeopathic Family Medicine
    Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    December 02, 2018


    Dr. Mercola Interviews Dana Ullman on the Principles of Homeopathy
    Uploaded on Nov 28, 2018
    "Natural health expert and Mercola.com founder Dr. Joseph Mercola interviews Dana Ullman on how homeopathy works, and why, despite being backed by numerous research, it’s been shunned aside by the conventional medical community in favor of pharmaceutical drugs."

    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=484476750

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    The principles of homeopathy were originally developed by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), a German physician to the Royal family, and are based in the law of similars, also known as “like cures like”
    In 1900, homeopathy was a leading therapy in the U.S., with 22 homeopathic medical schools. This began changing when, in 1901, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was established, and in 1910 when the Carnegie Foundation in secret collaboration with the AMA published the “Flexner Report”, with the aim of replacing homeopathy and herbs with chemical drugs
    The more a medicine undergoes a specific pharmacological process of “potentization,” that is, serial dilution with vigorous shaking, the more effective and long-lasting it is, as nanodoses are able to penetrate the blood-brain barrier and cellular membranes with greater ease
    There are more than 300 double-blind and placebo-controlled trials published in peer-reviewed medical journals, including The Lancet, The British Medical Journal, Pediatrics, Rheumatology, the journal Cancer and many others
    According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, some homeopathic remedies contain no active ingredient, yet it still claims homeopathic remedies can be dangerous
    Homeopathy has been a form of medicine for hundreds of years. Dana Ullman, whose father was a medical doctor, a pediatrician and allergist, has dedicated a significant portion of his professional life to the practice of homeopathy. Ullman was introduced to this medical art as a junior at University of California (UC) Berkeley, in 1973.

    "A Stanford-trained doctor and a male midwife created a group of people to study homeopathy together: three doctors, two nurses, two yoga teachers, a dentist and several laypeople. We met weekly for five years. Towards the end of that, I was honored to be arrested for practicing medicine without a license. That was in 1976.

    We won an important court case settlement by differentiating medical care from health care. We made it clear that I wasn't treating a disease. I was treating a person with a disease.

    The courts agreed that was a reasonable interpretation, and that as long as I have written contracts with my patients that differentiate medical care from health care, as long as I refer patients for medical care, which is not what I am providing, then it can work out. I've been doing that ever since," Ullman says.

    Definition of Homeopathy
    The principles of homeopathy were originally developed by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), a German physician to the Royal family, and are based in the law of similars, also known as "like cures like."

    "Homeopathy is a type of natural medicine that uses nano-doses, really small doses of plants, minerals, animals and chemicals," Ullman explains. "We look to find whatever toxicological symptoms that substance causes. Once you know what syndrome or symptom a substance causes in the toxic dose, you can use specially prepared nano-sized doses of that substance to treat the syndrome that it causes.

    The logic of that … [is that] your body does whatever it can to survive. Your symptoms are not the result of breakdown. Your symptoms are the result of that doctor inside of you that is trying to defend you and is trying to heal you. Your symptoms are part of your defenses.

    And the very word, 'symptom' means sign or signal, and symptoms are just that. They're signaling us that something's wrong. Instead of turning off that signal, in homeopathy, you turn into the skid.

    One of the things that your driver's education teacher probably taught you is that when you skid, you turn into the skid — that's the best way to get control of the vehicle and come to a stop more easily …

    In about 20 percent of our patients with chronic illness, [there's] a healing crisis at first, where their symptoms get worse … in the first 48 hours. Sometimes they re-experience old symptoms they haven't had in many months, years or even decades … Especially, it brings out skin problems, or women might have an early menstruation that will be clotted, because it's almost like they're going through detox.

    When they begin talking about old symptoms coming back, those symptoms were typically treated in an allopathic way, and thus suppressed. One of the things people have to understand is that when we say conventional medicines work, all too often, that's the bad news.

    That means they were effective in suppressing a symptom and a disease, and from a homeopathic point of view, the reason there's more mental illness, more cancer and heart disease, chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction is because we treat illness in a suppressive way.

    Our body-mind is so brilliant that it does whatever it can to defend itself and heal. Whatever symptoms we're having are the best effort of our body at that time to defend ourselves. If we cut off that defense, then it's like the body surrenders, and our body gets suppressed and then develops a new serious syndrome."

    Homeopathy Was a Leading Medical Treatment Until 1901
    In 1900, homeopathy was the leading alternative therapy in the U.S., with 22 homeopathic medical schools, including Boston University, University of Michigan, Ohio State, University of Minnesota, University of Iowa and New York Medical College, which at the time was called New York Homeopathic Medical College.

    All of this changed when, in 1901, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was established, and in 1910 when the Carnegie Foundation in secret collaboration with the American Medical Association (AMA) published the "Flexner Report," with the aim of replacing homeopathy and other natural medicines, such as herbs, with chemical drugs. I wrote about that part of history in "How the Oil Industry Conquered Medicine, Finance and Agriculture."

    Ullman also delves into some of this backstory in this interview so, for more, listen to the audio or read through the transcript. Here's just one sordid tidbit:

    "In 1860, homeopathy was beginning to gain a lot of traction. Homeopathy was already appreciated by the smartest people in America, most of the literary greats — the transcendentalists, from Mark Twain to William James, Emily Dickinson, Louisa May Alcott and Harriet Beecher Stowe — they were all big advocates for homeopathy.

    The American Medical Association was so threatened that they wrote into their ethics code that if any conventional doctor simply consulted with a homeopath on a patient, they would lose their membership in the AMA. In the 1860s, that meant you lost your medical license until, finally, the homeopaths organized and created a separate medical board. So, at least if you got your license revoked from the AMA, you could go to the homeopaths."

    Homeopathy Basics
    Homeopathic remedies are essentially nanomedicines. A 2012 study published in the journal Langmuir, published by the American Chemical Society (ACS), tested six homeopathic medicines — gold, silver, copper, tin, zinc and platinum — at three different dilutions:

    1 to 100, six times
    1 to 100, 30 times
    1 to 100, 200 times
    There's a principle in chemistry that says if you dilute something 1 to 100, 12 times, none of the original molecules will remain. This is a mathematical estimation, which turns out to be untrue. Ullman explains:

    "What actually goes on is this — and it's quite amazing. In homeopathy, we use test tubes made out of glass … because we thought glass was inert. But guess what, it isn't.

    Modern spectroscopy [shows] that if you take double-distilled water, which is the highest pharmaceutical-grade water presently known … [and] shake it vigorously in a glass container, the nanobubbles [hit] the side walls, and six parts per million of silica fragments fall off into the water.

    The vigorous shaking, the 40 shakings, create turbulence and increase the water pressure to what the head of Stanford's Department of Material Science estimated to be at 10,000 atmospheres … What that means is that whatever you're making into a medicine will be pushed into these silica fragments.

    Then, when you dump out 99 percent of the water to make a dilution, a lot of the fragments cling to the glass walls. This ACS study found that no matter how many times you did these dilutions [fragments remain]. Three different types of spectroscopy measured the original gold, silver, copper, tin, zinc or platinum in the water.

    And guess what? Our body's hormones and a lot of our neurotransmitters operate at nano-dose levels. They actually found nano-doses of each of these substances, no matter how many times they did these dilutions …

    Whenever you see a homeopathic medicine that says 6 X — X is a Roman numeral for 10 — that means it was diluted 1 to 10, six times, 12 times or 30 times. When it has a C after it, that's a Roman numeral for centesimal. That means it was diluted 1 to 100. Two C's would be 1 to 1,000. M stands for 1,000. That means it was diluted 1 to 100, 1,000 times. Now we even have 50,000, 100,000 [times] and even more.

    Over 200 years of clinical experience by tens of millions of patients, we have consistently found that the more these medicines go through this potentization process, the longer they act, the deeper they act, and the less doses are needed."

    Less Is More
    In other words, the more diluted the medicine is, the more effective it becomes. While this may sound incredibly paradoxical to the modern mind, there's a good explanation for it. One is the simple fact that these nano-doses are able to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, entering into deeper recesses of the brain.

    These nanoparticles can also enter cellular membranes with greater ease without triggering a defense mechanism. A more concentrated dose can set off a proverbial alarm in the cell, causing the membrane to lock itself down to prevent the foreign substance or toxin from entering.

    "Once it's inside the brain, the body realizes 'We've just been infiltrated by lead, silver or gold,' and says, 'How do I get rid of it?' When a patient has the symptoms of gold or of the substance that they're having, the body then has a powerful immunological reaction that begins to heal it," Ullman explains.

    Another major benefit is the fact that there are no side effects. Were you to select the wrong remedy, nothing happens. There's no reaction — no benefit, but also no adverse effect.

    Is There Scientific Evidence That Homeopathy Works?
    The media will typically tell you there's no evidence that homeopathy works. In reality, there are more than 300 double-blind and placebo-controlled trials published in peer-reviewed medical journals, including The Lancet, The British Medical Journal (BMJ), Pediatrics; Chest American College of Chest Physicians, Cancer (the journal of the American Cancer Society), Rheumatology (the journal of the British Society for Rheumatology), Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal, and many more.

    "Many of the best journals in the world have published positive studies on homeopathy," Ullman says. "So, whenever you hear people say there's no evidence that homeopathy works, they are either misinforming you or directly lying.

    You have to realize that it's a lie, and then you also have to remember that Big Pharma advertises on TV news so that they can own the news … That's one reason why we're not getting accurate information about natural therapies and about the importance of vaccine safety. It's because Big Pharma really runs and owns the news …

    And if you think conventional medicine is scientific, please know statistics show that, last year, enough drugs were prescribed to give every man, woman and child in America 13 prescription drugs. Yet there's no evidence of safety or efficacy of multiple drugs together. They don't do science that way. Conventional medicine is standing on Jell-O. The evidence base is really limited."

    The AMA has also gone to great lengths to keep homeopathy suppressed, and if it weren't for the AMA, there'd be a whole lot more scientific research backing homeopathy. Here's just one of the stories Ullman recounts in this interview:

    "We're all familiar with the Sloan Kettering Foundation. What people don't know was that Charles Kettering was a big advocate for homeopathy. Kettering was vice president of General Motors (GM). Alfred Sloan was president of GM, but Kettering was the inventor. He was the one that developed the electric battery. Delco battery was his company.

    In 1920, he gave $1 million to Ohio State University for their homeopathic medical schools' research department.

    Wouldn't you know it, a month later, one of the key members of the AMA went to meet with the president of Ohio State and gave him an ultimatum, saying that unless you return that million dollars back to Kettering, the AMA would reduce the grade of Ohio State's allopathic conventional medical school (Ohio State had a homeopathic medical school and an allopathic one).

    As it turns out, the president of Ohio State returned the million dollars to Kettering. That was supposed to go to homeopathic research. Once again, a million dollars in 1920 money is like a billion dollars today."

    The Irrational Stance of FDA
    When it comes to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), its stance on homeopathy is irrational to say the least, because on the one hand, it claims there's no active ingredient in it; in other words, it's essentially a placebo, yet on the other hand it claims homeopathic remedies are dangerous.

    As explained by Ullman, the FDA was created in the early 1900s, but the agency really wasn't empowered until 1938, during Franklin D. Roosevelt's reign, when New York senator Dr. Royal Copeland wrote the Federal Food, Drugs and Cosmetics (FD&C) Act of 1938, which charged the FDA with the regulation of drugs. Ullman offers the following bit of historical background:

    "Royal Copeland was not just a senator. He was a medical doctor — a homeopathic physician. He was the dean of the New York Homeopathic Medical College. Before that, he was the mayor of Ann Arbor, where he grew up. He was a professor at the University of Michigan, which had a homeopathic department.

    A part of this legislation gave recognition to homeopathy on par with the United States Pharmacopeia. The United States Pharmacopeia and the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia were on equal footing. Then, in the late '70s, the FDA deemed that homeopathic medicines are primarily over-the-counter drugs, because they're so basically safe, you don't need a doctor's prescription to use them.

    Up until that time, the FDA and the homeopaths had a good working relationship. In fact, up until literally a year or two ago, we had a good working relationship in that our medicines were allowed. There were certain [homeopathic] medicines that only medical doctors and naturopathic physicians were allowed to prescribe due to dose issues. We're fine with that too. But the vast majority were over-the-counter drugs.

    However, in the last year or two, as a result of pressure brought by Big Pharma and skeptics of homeopathy, they began to change the regulations. We don't know with specificity what they are planning to do. They're saying now that they're changing it from the present model to what's called risk-benefit model.

    Because their position is that homeopathy provides no benefits, we are concerned they're going to find little risks in different things, like they did with Standard or Hyland's Homeopathic teething tablets … We're now waiting for them to come out with the specifics of their [new] guidelines.

    We've written to them, many of us, in detail, making our recommendations. We're now ready for them to respond … They say they're going to maintain most of the homeopathic remedies, but I am worried they may reduce access to what are called homeopathic nosodes.

    Nosodes are homeopathic medicines, super diluted, made from different bacteria and viruses. Right now, only medical doctors, naturopathic doctors and professional homeopaths have access to these nosodes. I'm fine with that. But it would be a real problem [if they were taken away]."

    Homeopathy Versus Drugs
    Again, it's worth remembering that the FDA approves all pharmaceutical drugs, and the average American is on 13 of them simultaneously — many of which have flimsy justification for their use at best. Drugs, as a general rule, never treat underlying causes. They treat symptoms by suppressing them.

    The insanity of this model is evidenced by the fact that drugs, when properly prescribed and taken, kill an estimated 106,000 Americans each year. Yet, in the name of "protecting public health," the FDA claims homeopathic remedies may need to be reined in because they might be dangerous — even though there's no active ingredient. As noted by Ullman:

    "Here's where your bull**** detectors need to go up, because it's so obvious that homeopathic medicines are safer. To reduce access … to the safe medicines, and yet have complete access to so many conventional drugs, which are so dangerous, would be the epitome of a 'doctatorship.' That's a word I developed.

    There is also what I call 'medical chauvinism.' There's the assumption that there's only one way to heal people. You and I, and I bet every other person listening to this, knows there are other methods. We need to stand up for ourselves."

    More Information
    To learn more about homeopathy and/or obtain Ullman's services, check out Homeopathic.com and HomeopathicFamilyMedicine.com. For direct questions, you may also write to him at email@homeopathic.com. Ullman has also created an e-course called "Learning to Use a Homeopathic Medicine Kit," which is available on www.HomeopathicFamilyMedicine.com.

    This course is for laypeople or health professionals who have no real desire to become a licensed homeopath but would still like to learn how to use simple remedies for common injuries and for various non-life-threatening ailments. The accompanying e-book, "Evidence-Based Homeopathic Family Medicine," is nearly 550 pages and filled with specific references, including links to published studies. A series of video tutorials are also included.

    Another excellent resource is the National Center for Homeopathy (NCH), which is the leading organization for homeopaths. They have a couple different websites, including HomeopathyCenter.org, where you can find a listing of qualified homeopaths and a helpful "Find a Remedy" search feature. NCH also holds an annual conference and issue a bimonthly magazine. "They are doing the most important work," Ullman says.

    Lastly, there's also a group of mothers in Texas called "Americans for Homeopathy Choice." They've been putting together petitions for homeopathy. "I really support their work," Ullman says.

    "One last thing is that I know a lot of people go to Amazon to buy their homeopathic books, medicines and different things, but I want to encourage people to, when possible, use homeopathic sources, and use natural medicine sources for getting your medicines.

    We have to support the organizations. We have to support the businesses that are in this field, because if we don’t do that, then when the FDA and other giants begin to attack homeopathy, who’s going to be there to help us?"

    You can also learn more about homeopathy from Ullman’s previous articles, “Water and Homeopathy: Latest Discoveries at Science’s Cutting Edge”: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...omeopathy.aspx
    and “The Logic, Wisdom and Scientific Evidence for the Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza.” :https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...treatment.aspx
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (3rd December 2018), Bubu (4th December 2018), leavesoftrees (3rd December 2018)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Avalon Member Tree Of Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th November 2018
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 118 times in 17 posts

    Thumbs up Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    Thank you so much for posting this great summation!
    It hit me on these main take-away messages...


    alternative medical solutions
    A change in diet
    I cured myself
    Western medicine was wrong
    I quit suffering
    simple cure
    medicinal herbs
    healing


    "These alkaloids could often be produced synthetically by the petrochemical industries. Sometimes the active ingredient of a medicinal herb could be chemically modified and patented"
    "All other traditional healing approaches were successfully eliminated from medical education"


    Nails it!

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Tree Of Life For This Post:

    Bubu (4th December 2018)

  5. Link to Post #23
    Spain Deactivated
    Join Date
    8th August 2018
    Location
    Canary Islands overlooking a beach with forest covered mountains behind.
    Age
    75
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked 918 times in 170 posts

    Default Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    I think Natural Medicine began to be destroyed long before 1910. Over 100 years earlier Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815) was doing remarkable things with hypnotism and discovered that even surgery could be painless using free 'mesmerism'. This is cure by belief and very empowering. But the birth of the drug industry maybe started with the use of chloroform to render patients unconsciousness and, of course, new 'drug' companies could charge for supplying chloroform. Mesmer was denounced as a charlatan.

    Only recently has hypnosis been used again in hospitals for major surgery but sadly the beliefs of the general public have been shaped by the pharmaceutical industry and a very few would choose hypnosis over a 'real' anaesthetic!

    We've been brainwashed to believe that we need doctors and drugs to cure us but maybe we should question whether we need even alternative medicine when perhaps we all have the ability to cure ourselves without anything external. Of course, if we are already ill then we almost certainly don't have that belief system and so something external is needed...
    Last edited by 5th; 3rd December 2018 at 23:29.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to 5th For This Post:

    Bubu (4th December 2018)

  7. Link to Post #24
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    How Conventional Medicine Killed Millions and How Homeopathic Medicines Saved Millions
    Lessons from a Century After the Flu Epidemic of 1918:
    December 06, 2018
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=487888925
    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    A remarkable 50 million were thought to have died as a result of the influenza epidemic of 1918, 100 years ago, but there is now a better explanation for why so many people died
    Aspirin went off patent in 1917, allowing it to be available at cheap prices, and because its former patent owner, Bayer, had worldwide distribution of it, aspirin was available easily and cheaply
    Medical associations and governments encouraged people to take aspirin or other fever-suppressing drugs for influenza, even though we today know that fever is an important defensive function in the body’s efforts to fight influenza
    Leading medical journals of the day actually recommended using 25 aspirin a day to suppress the fever in patients suffering from influenza. Many of the people who died from influenza were found to have bleeding in the lungs, a strange symptom of the flu and a known side effect from aspirin overdose
    Homeopathic physicians had remarkably good success in treating people during the 1918 influenza epidemic. Numerous recent studies published in medical journals have found that the homeopathic medicine, oscillococcinum, is effective in treating influenza
    By Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH

    Every fall and winter, the media begins pumping stories about why you should be afraid, even very afraid, of the flu. Since 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has asserted that between 12,000 and 56,000 people have died from influenza every year.

    In actual fact, according to one of the most respected medical journals in the world, the annual death rate from influenza in the USA is closer to 1,000.1

    When you realize that Big Pharma annually spends billions of dollars promoting their immensely profitable drugs on various television and radio news programs, it is no wonder that these news programs “give back” to Big Pharma by using the best marketing tool ever created: instilling “big fear” into people.

    And the CDC’s cooperation with these outlandish statistics is simply evidence of the cozy relationship the CDC has with Big Pharma. Big Media inevitably reminds us about the famous flu epidemic of 1918 when supposedly 50 million people died from this ailment. Because this year, 2018, is the 100th anniversary of this major epidemic, Big Media is able to increase the fear factor to even higher levels. Whoopie!

    However, you can predict that Big Media will not report accurately about influenza and its history because such history actually shows us that a very significant number of these deaths were not the result of the flu but due to the use of various fever-suppressing treatments, including aspirin, acetaminophen, quinine, arsenic, and even bloodletting. The “epidemic of influenza” should more accurately be deemed an “epidemic of fever-suppressing treatments.”

    Understanding and Respecting Fever
    It is widely recognized that fever is a vital defense of the body in its efforts to fight infection. A fever enables the body to increase its production of interferon, an important antiviral substance that is critical for fighting infection. Fever also increases white blood cell mobility and activity, which are instrumental factors in fighting infection.

    Jane Brody, a longtime respected health columnist for The New York Times, reported back in 1982 on the healing benefits of fever. She noted, “a number of physicians, including pediatricians, are now suggesting that moderate fevers be allowed to run their course, for they may shorten the illness, potentiate the action of antibiotics and reduce the chances of spreading the infection to others.”2

    Recognition that fever is beneficial has been known for more than 2,000 years, and historically, the healing benefits of fever are so substantial that many patients have actually been treated with ''fever therapy'' to aid their recovery from such ailments as cancer, tuberculosis and even mania.3,4

    However, in the late 1800s, aspirin and its various compounds were shown to rapidly reduce fevers, and the medical view of fever changed dramatically. Drug companies have successfully convinced conventional physicians and the general public to become vigilant in bringing down fevers, even sometimes using such drastic measures as cold baths and alcohol rubs along with aspirin.

    In reference to the flu and fever, the bottom line is that it makes little sense to aggressively suppress the body’s natural defenses against viral infection. There are, of course, some exceptions here.

    For instance, it may make sense to seek medical care in those extremely rare instances when one’s fever is above 104 degrees Fahrenheit for over six hours or in any fever in an infant less than 4 months of age. However, as you will see, physicians in the early 20th century prescribed massive doses of fever-suppressing drugs to virtually everyone with a fever.

    The Epidemic of Fever-Suppressing Drugs
    Although doctors today claim to believe in “evolution,” they instead show no respect for it when treating people with various diseases. An integral part of evolution is that the human body defends itself from infection and/or stress in its best efforts to survive.

    In fact, fever is one of the body’s vitally important defenses: During a fever, the body naturally secretes interferon (an antiviral chemical), increases the number and mobility of white blood cells so that they can help fight infections, and binds iron in cells so that microbes cannot feed on it. However, too many medical doctors today prescribe drugs that work directly against the body’s self-defensive efforts, including fevers.

    The German company, Bayer, began marketing its new “miracle” drug, aspirin, in 1899. Aspirin was sold as a painkilling drug AND as a drug that lowers fever. And few people could argue with its successes. It clearly reduced certain types of pain, and it clearly reduced fever.

    Although one might initially and naively think that it is a good idea to lower a fever, such actions inhibit the body’s efforts to defend itself against infection. Using aspirin or other fever-lowering drugs when a person has influenza is akin to having the person fight flu viruses with two hands tied behind one’s back.

    As it turns out, Bayer’s patent on aspirin in the USA ran out in February 1917,5 thereby allowing any and every company to make aspirin at extremely low prices. These facts led to a confluence of events that created a “perfect storm” for overprescribing a cheap drug that was encouraged by medical organizations, medical journals, and various military and governmental agencies at a time when it was not known that aspirin and other fever-suppressing drugs had a seriously dark side to them.

    JAMA actually recommended a dose of 1,000 mg every three hours(!), which is the equivalent of almost 25 standard 325-mg aspirin tablets in 24 hours. Such dosages are more than TWICE the daily dosage considered safe today and, in fact, today it is specifically not recommended to take aspirin when one has influenza at all, let alone 25 tablets per day!

    Yet, in 1917-1918, the Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy also recommended aspirin as a symptomatic treatment for influenza, and as a partial result of this recommendation, the military bought huge quantities of aspirin in 1917 and 1918.

    It is further shocking to note that, according to the famed Smithsonian magazine, some medical authorities at the time actually recommended extremely large doses of aspirin of up to 30 grams per day (equivalent to 250 aspirin tablets per day!).6

    The Smoking Gun That Shows Aspirin Was an Important Cofactor in Massive Death Toll
    Based on the War Department's most conservative count, influenza sickened 26 percent of the Army, which was more than 1 million men, and it killed almost 30,000 before they even got to France. The Navy recorded more than 106,000 hospital admissions for influenza and pneumonia out of 600,000 men (and these numbers do not count those people who experienced mild cases of the flu).7

    Because the 1918 influenza epidemic was known to kill so many “young people,” it is not surprising that a particularly high percentage of those people killed were in the military who had too-easy access to the dangerous medical treatment of that day and age. Death from influenza usually inflicts infants and the elderly, but what was so unusual about the 1918 epidemic was how many young people between the ages of 18 and 40 died (the common age of people in the military).

    A real “smoking gun” to the evidence that aspirin was an important cofactor in these deaths was the observation that many of these young people died of a type of pneumonia that included significant amounts of blood in the lungs, a condition that aspirin is known to cause (and this condition is rarely seen in young people with the flu).

    One probable reason that there were considerably fewer deaths of infants and children during this influenza epidemic was that aspirin was NOT recommended for them in the leading pediatrics textbook of the day. Instead, hydrotherapy (water/bathing therapy) was recommended.

    It was not just the Americans who overprescribed aspirin and other fever-reducing drugs to people with influenza. A historic 1920 report for the British Ministry of Health on the influenza pandemic recommended that the aspirin dose be 975 to 1,300 mg (3 or 4 tablets). No recommended frequency was given.8

    Typically, these high doses of aspirin were repeated every hour, every other hour and every three hours. One London doctor bragged about treating his patient with 1,300 mg (4 tablets) hourly for 12 hours nonstop.

    For the record, physicians in 1918 did not just recommend aspirin to lower fevers; they used a wide variety of drugs to do this. Whether or not aspirin was available, they used whatever drug they deemed would lower a fever.9 Commonly, doctors recommended quinine (usually recommending a highly dangerous amount of this drug: 1.3 grams every hour; today, it is not recommended to take more than 2 grams per day).10

    Other doctors insisted upon prescribing arsenic and other metallic solutions; bloodletting was even recommended by one very prominent physician.

    Despite the widely-known assertion that aspirin should not be prescribed for people with influenza (you can even ask Google about this, and they will confirm that it is NOT recommended), many doctors still prescribe it with abandon and, sadly, some naïve adults prescribe it for themselves or their children.

    It is no wonder that so many people died in the influenza epidemic of 1918 — it wasn’t because of influenza that they died, it was because of the overuse of aspirin and other fever-suppressing drugs of the day. Sadly, until and unless doctors learn to respect fever as an important defense of the body and until they stop prescribing it for people with influenza, we may yet again experience massive numbers of deaths from this usually innocuous disease.

    Safer, Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza
    In 1916, Dr. W.A. Dewey, a homeopathic physician who was a professor at the University of Michigan, had been charged with compiling a list of the institutions that had a homeopathic school of medicine in the U.S.

    He recorded 101 homeopathic institutions, including Boston University, University of Minnesota, University of Iowa, New York Homeopathic Medical College (which today is known simply as New York Medical College), Hahnemann Medical College and The Ohio State University, among others.

    Then, in 1919, Dewey took on the task of evaluating deaths from influenza in these institutions. An institution was deemed to be “homeopathic” if the management of the hospital was a homeopathic physician, if its staff was homeopathic and if the clinical care was conducted only by homeopathic physicians.

    These 101 institutions in 1918 represented 20,092 beds, or 110,000 inpatients. Or, if you include outpatient services, it amounted to 750,000 patients. Thirty physicians in Connecticut responded to Dewey’s request for data. They reported 6,602 cases with 55 deaths, which is less than 1 percent.

    Dr. Frank Wieland, a Chicago homeopathic physician, reported that in a factory of 8,000 workers where homeopathic treatment was provided, only one death from influenza was reported. Wieland noted that the homeopathic medicine Gelsemium was practically the only remedy used.

    Dewey was amazed to discover that the average death rate in these institutions was the very small percentage of 4.1 percent for the 110,000 patients, compared with 30 percent in a hospital managed and staffed by conventional physicians.11

    Respected Homeopathic Doctors Had Success Treating the Flu
    Dr. T. A. McCann was a respected homeopathic physician who interacted considerably with conventional physicians. In fact, he was one of the few homeopathic doctors to work with the nationwide Federation of State Medical Examining Boards, serving as vice president in 1914 to 1915. McCann is often quoted today as a result of his report on the impressive successes of homeopathic treatment during the flu epidemic of 1918.

    In 1921 at the 77th annual convention of the American Institute of Homeopathy in Washington, D.C., he reported that 24,000 cases of flu treated in conventional medical hospitals had a mortality rate of 28.2 percent while 26,000 cases of flu treated in homeopathic hospitals had a mortality rate of 1.05 percent.12

    The dean of medicine at Hahnemann Medical College in Philadelphia was Dr. W. A. Pearson, and he evaluated 26,795 cases of influenza treated by homeopathic physicians in its hospital with a mortality of only 1.05 percent.

    Dr. H.A. Roberts, who later became the editor of a leading homeopathic journal, recorded his experience in treating soldiers during World War I. In the transporting of soldiers to Europe, he recorded 81 cases of influenza, where all recovered and none died. In comparison, it was common for ships to lose dozens of soldiers.

    Dr. Royal Samuel Copeland (1868-1938) was appointed president of the New York Board of Health from 1918 to 1923. Copeland was a homeopathic physician and previously a professor of ophthalmology and otology (eyes and ear health). He is widely credited with helping to keep the public calm during this worldwide epidemic.

    Further, four leading hospitals in New York City at the time were homeopathic hospitals, all of which had extremely low death rates during this epidemic. Copeland actually bragged that the results that these hospitals experienced during the influenza epidemic of 1918 showed the fewest deaths by percentage than any other city in the world.13

    Copeland’s medical successes were so appreciated far and wide that he sought to become a senator from New York in 1922 and had Franklin D. Roosevelt serve as his campaign manager. He ended up being elected three times as a senator and became immortalized by being the author of one of the most important consumer rights legislation ever written: The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938.

    This legislation empowered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate drugs, and it gave formal federal recognition to the United States Homeopathic Pharmacopeia, thereby granting legal authority to homeopathy and homeopathic medicines. Copeland died three days after this legislation was signed into law.

    Homeopathy Has a Track Record of Successfully Treating Many Infections
    Homeopathy’s success in treating the notorious flu of 1918 was not surprising. The leading reason that homeopathy gained such popularity during the 19th century was in part due to its significant and obvious successes in treating the many infectious diseases of that era, including epidemics of scarlet fever, typhoid, yellow fever and cholera.14,15

    Different popes in the Vatican granted the highest award they could grant a nonclergy person to three M.D./homeopaths who provided effective homeopathic treatment during cholera and typhoid epidemics in the 19th century.16

    Bringing this historical experience up to date, three large modern studies have tested oscillococcinum, a popular homeopathic medicine from France in the treatment of the flu, and found this medicine to be clinically effective.17,18 One of these studies showed that 70 percent more people who took this homeopathic medicine were healed from the flu within 48 hours than those given a placebo.19

    Even the famed medical journal, The Lancet, acknowledged the surprising efficacy of this medicine in the treatment of influenza.20 Of special interest is the fact that this homeopathic medicine, oscillococcinum, is made from the liver and heart of a duck.

    Biologists and epidemiologists have acknowledged that ducks carry a wide variety of influenza viruses in their digestive tracts and, therefore, ducks are a vector in the spread of various types of flu viruses, including those that cause the “bird flu.”

    It is interesting to note that ducks are known to infect humans and chickens, with virtually 100 percent of the chickens that get infected dying from influenza, and yet, ducks are immune to it.21 It seems that this immunity and the ability to fight influenza viruses are transferred in this homeopathic medicine.

    The fact that homeopathic practitioners have used oscillococcinum since 1928 suggests that homeopaths have been more aware of this important vector in the spread of the flu. Further, homeopaths and homeopathic patients have been using this safe and effective medicine for almost a century.

    Homeopathic Remedies for Influenza
    Besides oscillococcinum, there are also various other homeopathic medicines that are used in treating people with the flu, though the effective use of these medicines requires individualization of treatment based on each person’s unique syndrome of symptoms. Some of the most common homeopathic medicines are:

    Gelsemium (yellow jessamine)

    Bryonia (wild hops)

    Arsenicum album (arsenic trioxide)

    Eupatorium perfoliatum (boneset)

    Rhus toxicodendron (poison ivy)

    Nux vomica (poison nut)

    Belladonna (deadly nightshade)

    Although some of the remedies are known toxic substances, the super-small doses used in homeopathy led FDA to deem them safe enough to be considered “over-the-counter” drugs, that is, they do not require a doctor’s prescription.

    The super-small doses used in homeopathy make it appropriately deemed to be “the original nanomedicine.” The “nanodoses” used in homeopathy enable it to be extremely safe to use when utilized in the generally infrequent doses, and these nanodoses are much more able to penetrate cellular membranes and the blood-brain barrier than large and/or toxic doses of medicines.22

    For details about how to determine which remedy to use, I recommend getting a homeopathic book, either such as those that I’ve written — “Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines, Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants” — or that have been written by some of my respected colleagues: Shelley Keneipp’s “Parent’s Guide to Homeopathy” or Robert Ullman and Judyth Reichenberg Ullman’s “Homeopathic Self-Care” (no relationship to me).

    The Questionably Effective Flu Vaccine
    The CDC strongly advocates for the flu vaccine for virtually everyone, despite the well-known recognition that this vaccine is one of the least effective vaccines presently available. In fact, according to Scientific American, “Despite government recommendations, there is little evidence that flu vaccines help individuals older than 65 or younger than 2.”23

    As for adults, a review of the best studies was published in one of the most respected medical journals in the world, and they determined that there was very little benefit given to adults.24 The review concluded:

    “Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (‘influenza-like’ illness), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalizations or number of working days lost.”

    Further, they also asserted, “We were uncertain of the protection provided to pregnant women against ILI and influenza by the inactivated influenza vaccine, or this was at least very limited.”

    It should be noted that around 20 percent of the flu vaccines today are made with thimerosal (a mercury compound). Although the CDC and the FDA commonly insist that there is no “causational” link between mercury and autism, it is widely known and accepted that mercury is a neurotoxin and that it clearly is “associated” with various neurological symptoms and syndromes, including autism.25

    Another Homeopathic Protocol
    Many homeopaths recommend a much safer way to reduce the incidence of influenza. One protocol is to use Influenzinum 9C (some homeopathic companies create a new version of this medicine each year and include in it the three most common flu viruses, as determined by the Pasteur Institute, and that are commonly placed in a flu vaccine).

    This homeopathic medicine is made in a much smaller dose than any vaccine, and it doesn’t include any “additives,” including mercury, aluminum or formaldehyde. As yet, no formal research has been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of this treatment, though even skeptics commonly recognize that such homeopathic medicines are basically safe.

    Closing Thoughts
    It has been estimated that 50 million people died during the “flu epidemic” of 1918, and this article presents a compelling case that a large number of these deaths were due to the use of substantial doses of aspirin and other fever-suppressing drugs.

    When you consider that around 40 million people have died from AIDS in 40 years, the large death toll in one year alone (from October 1918 to October 1919) is literally devastating. It is time (finally) to acknowledge that the medical community played a large role in the deaths of these 50 million people. By acknowledging this painful fact, we can hopefully learn from it.

    The bottom line is that people today should not be fearful of the simple flu but, rather, we should be fearful of going to doctors who overprescribe dangerous fever-suppressing drugs (let alone other dangerous drugs that show that they have no respect for the wisdom of the inner doctor in all of us).

    Further, because aspirin is an over-the-counter drug that does not need a physician’s prescription, we can and should educate the masses to realize that suppressing the fever in people who have influenza is NOT recommended and, in fact, it can be very harmful.

    We should also be fearful of physicians who do not take seriously those most famous words of Hippocrates (the “Father of Medicine”) who asserted, “First, do no harm.” In other words, people should explore and utilize various safer methods FIRST before resorting to more risky medical procedures.

    This article also presents a compelling case for how homeopathic medicines have been used successfully in history and have been shown effective in clinical research. To learn more about homeopathy, see my previous articles:

    “Water and Homeopathy: Latest Discoveries at Science’s Cutting Edge”
    “The Logic, Wisdom and Scientific Evidence for the Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza”
    “Evidence-Based Homeopathic Family Medicine” "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  8. Link to Post #25
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    Faking Medical Reality
    by Jon Rappoport
    December 6, 2018
    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...ality-for-all/
    “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.” —Marcia Angell, MD

    “The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” —George Burns

    "The faking of medical reality is, at bottom, an operation designed to bolster the power of the medical cartel, one of the most important forces on the planet.

    What do doctors rely on? What do medical schools rely on? What do medical journals and mainstream medical reporters and drug companies and the FDA rely on?

    The sanctity of published clinical trials of drugs. These trials determine whether the drugs are safe and effective. The drugs are tested on human volunteers. The results are tabulated. The trial is described in a paper that is printed by a medical journal.

    This is science. This is rationality. This is the rock. Without these studies, the whole field of medical research would fall apart in utter chaos.

    Upon this rock, and hence through media, the public becomes aware of the latest breakthrough, the newest medicine. Through doctors in their offices, the public finds out what drugs they should take—and their doctors know because their doctors have read the published reports in the medical journals, the reports that describe the clinical trials. Or if the doctors haven’t actually read the reports, they’ve been told about them.

    It all goes back to this rock.

    And when mainstream advocates attack so-called alternative or natural health, they tend to mention that their own sacred profession is based on real science, on studies, on clinical trials.

    One doctor told me, “The clinical trials and published studies are what keep us from going back to the Stone Age.”

    So now let me quote an article in the NY Review of Books (May 12, 2011) by Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies.”

    “Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them. The problem is particularly widespread in medical research, where peer-reviewed articles in medical journals can be crucial in influencing multimillion- and sometimes multibillion-dollar spending decisions. It would be surprising if conflicts of interest did not sometimes compromise editorial neutrality, and in the case of medical research, the sources of bias are obvious. Most medical journals receive half or more of their income from pharmaceutical company advertising and reprint orders, and dozens of others [journals] are owned by companies like Wolters Kluwer, a medical publisher that also provides marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry.”

    Here’s another quote from the same article:

    “The FDA also relies increasingly upon fees and other payments from the pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency is supposed to regulate. This could contribute to the growing number of scandals in which the dangers of widely prescribed drugs have been discovered too late. Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers. The companies have agreed to pay settlements in class action lawsuits amounting to far less than the profits the drugs earned on the market. These precedents could be creating incentives for reduced vigilance concerning the side effects of prescription drugs in general.”

    Also from the NY Review of Books, here are two quotes from Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world. (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption”)

    “Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the trials (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive—that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk—the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.”

    Here is another Angell statement:

    “In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that [drug] industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeated in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”

    It turns out that the source of the informational pipeline that feeds the entire perception of pharmaceutical medicine is a rank fraud.

    It would be on the order of an intelligence agency discovering that the majority of its operatives were actually working for the other side.

    And then continuing on with business as usual.

    Sometimes the body is dead even though it keeps on walking. It can smile and nod and perform basic functions—a zombie—but it is doing so only because certain implacable criminals back it up and give it a machine-like force.

    “We have the clinical trials of studies on drugs and they are published in top-rank journals. We are the epitome of science.”

    Yes, false science. Riddled from top to bottom with lies.

    Perhaps this will help the next time a friend, pretending he actually knows anything, tells you pharmaceutical medicine is a resounding success.

    If you need more, cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s famous study, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000. Starfield concludes that 225,000 people are killed by the medical system in the US every year—106,000 by FDA-approved medicines. That latter figure would work out to over a MILLION deaths per decade.

    A final note: The august editors of medical journals have a game they can play. Suppose a drug company has just finished writing up the results of a clinical drug trial and has submitted the piece to a journal for publication. The editor knows the company carried out a half-dozen other such trials on the same drug…and they didn’t look good. The drug caused wild fluctuations in blood pressure and blood sugar. There were heart attacks. Strokes. But this ONE study, the one submitted for publication, looks very positive. The editor knows if he prints it and forgets about “ethics,” the drug company will order re-prints of the piece from him and distribute them to doctors all over the world, and to reporters, professors, government officials. The drug company will order and pay for so many re-prints, the medical journal can make $700,000 from publishing THAT ONE STUDY. Let’s see. In one hand, the editor sees: I won’t publish it=no money. In the other hand, he sees: I’ll publish it=$700,000. What to do?"
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (8th December 2018)

  10. Link to Post #26
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    Part 2, Faking Medical Reality
    Placebo washout: Another outrageous medical coverup
    by Jon Rappoport
    December 7, 2018
    "Here is yet another way to do medical studies that guarantee a waterfall of lies will spread out far and wide. Another way to make the studies look good when they aren’t.

    Let’s say you went into a school to see if it was a good place for your child to acquire a real education. And you were shown overall performance records of the students on standardized tests, and these records looked quite impressive.

    Upon inquiring a little further, though, you came across an interesting point. The head of the school believed that some students just didn’t perform well on tests—and so he had excused them from taking any exams.

    Shocked, you said to him, “Your performance records are a sham. They don’t reflect the truth. You’ve stacked the deck.”

    And he replied, “Not at all. I’ve merely kept statistics on those pupils who have the ability to take tests. That’s the important population. The others shouldn’t be tested at all. In this venue, they don’t count.”

    Keep that analogy in mind as we proceed.

    I want to alert you to a staggering medical practice in clinical trials of psychiatric drugs.

    It’s called “placebo washout.”

    Basically, it works this way. Before a drug company starts to test the effectiveness of a new medicine they want to market, they bring together all the volunteers—and they give them a sugar pill.

    They tell them, “We’re going to give you a sugar pill.”

    After a ten-day period on the placebo, the researchers weed out the people who improved, got better, feel better. They dump them from the ensuing clinical trial. Bye bye.

    They don’t want these people around for the real clinical trial that is to follow.

    Of course, they claim there are good reasons for this washout strategy. But the fact is, eliminating these volunteers from the study makes it far more likely that the drug being tested will look good, when it shouldn’t.

    First, in case you don’t believe placebo washout is a real and widespread practice, do a search for it at the NIH website.

    It’s real. They give everybody a sugar pill, and then they dismiss all those who got better on it.

    Then they get down to the actual clinical trial. They divide the remaining volunteers into two groups. Those who will receive the drug, and those who will be given another placebo.

    Nobody is told which group they’re going to be in. That’s the whole point. Blinding the study enables researchers to compare the number of people who get better on the drug with those who get better on the placebo.

    You see, it’s common knowledge that some people will get better on anything. That’s why they form the two groups. They have to prove (to the FDA) the drug is performing better than the sugar pill.

    General estimates vary on what percentage of people get better on placebos. 35-45%, some researchers say, is a rule of thumb. Sometimes the % is higher.

    But wait! The researchers ALREADY kicked out the people who got better on the sugar pill during the 10-day preliminary washout!

    What’s going on here?

    Well, in the actual clinical trial, where half the people get the placebo and half get the medicine, some people who get the placebo—armed with the hope that they might be getting the medicine—will feel better, even though they’re only swallowing sugar pills.

    And the researchers must show that more people who are getting the drug are feeling better than those who are getting the placebo.

    That’s the whole reason for this type of clinical trial.

    “See, 47 people who took the drug feel better. And only 22 people who took the sugar pill feel better. Therefore, the drug really works.”

    Sure it works. Because you already kicked out all the people who felt better on a placebo in the washout phase.

    In effect, you did a screening. You “cut out the competition.”

    It’s like saying, “We have a great runner on our team. His times in the 100-meter dash are exceptional…there’s only one thing. In track meets, we insist he run only 80 meters and you have to imagine it’s 100.”

    The FDA, which approves all drugs for public use, knows all about the placebo washout con job. Researchers know this. Shrinks know this. Drug companies know this. Even some medical reporters know this.

    And yet, the practice goes on.

    Placebo washout is on the order of saying, “Yes, we tested the new plane and it performs magnificently. Of course, we didn’t put it into the air. We rolled it across the runway.”

    If there are any psychiatrists out there who are reading this, any researchers who want to defend placebo washout, I suggest we set up a debate with Dr. Peter Breggin, psychiatrist and author. But I warn you. Buckle up. It’ll be a bumpy ride.

    Placebo washout. Rigging the game. Stacking the deck. The bigger the lie and the more obvious it is, the harder it is to believe that’s what’s you’re looking at. Until you LOOK.

    In my 30 years as a reporter, I’ve come across maybe 100 scandals that could cause a significant sector of the medical cartel to burst into flames and blow away in the wind. This is one of those.

    Of course, media, government, and drug corporations make sure such a thing never happens. And when I say media, I’m including publications you’d think would love to watch a really good fire. Turns out they have no stomach for it.

    NOTE: In case you’re still a little shaky on this scam, let me lay it out this way:

    A drug company has a new drug, Gx, for depression. It’s not on the market yet. For that they need FDA approval, and the approval rests on the results of a clinical trial the company is going to launch.

    The company signs up 500 volunteers, all of whom meet mainstream criteria for a diagnosis of clinical depression.

    The company brings together the 500 volunteers and administers them a sugar pill (placebo) for 10 days. Everybody knows it’s a sugar pill.

    After 10 days, the company discovers which of the 500 people responded well to the pill: placebo effect. Let’s say 80 people did. They feel better. Boom. They’re dumped from further consideration. They’re gone.

    Why? Because chances are very good that, were they allowed on to the next phase, those among them who ended up with the sugar pill would have said, “Wow, I feel better. I feel less depressed.”

    And THAT means the people who were given the actual drug, Gx, would be “up against stiffer competition” from the group who took the placebo.

    After those 80 people were booted from the placebo washout phase, with 420 volunteers left, they were divided into 2 groups of 210 each, and then 210 got the drug, Gx, and 210 got a sugar pill. None of the volunteers knows what they’re getting. This phase of the trial goes on for 6 weeks. At the end of that period, the study is “unblinded,” and everyone knows who got which pill. Now, among the placebo group of 210, it turns out that 60 showed significant improvement, and among the group of 210 who got Gx, 85 showed improvement.

    The researchers conclude, “Those on Gx performed significantly better than those on placebo. This drug is good.”

    But had those original 80, who were kicked to the side of the road after the placebo washout phase, been included in this later phase, the conclusions of the researchers could have turned out quite badly for the drug and the drug company. Gx could have performed no better than the sugar pill. It could have done worse.

    And this is called SCIENCE."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (8th December 2018)

  12. Link to Post #27
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    Exposed: the Nazi roots of the European Union
    by Jon Rappoport
    December 12, 2018
    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...uropean-union/
    "This is an intelligence briefing. Here I present the bare bones of what has been happening before our eyes…if we would see it.

    Once upon a time, there was an industrial combine in Nazi Germany called IG Farben. It was the largest chemical/pharmaceutical octopus in the world. It owned companies, and it had favorable business agreements with companies from England to Central America to Japan.

    The author of The Devil’s Chemists, Josiah DuBois, traveled to Guatemala, on a fact-finding mission, in the early days of World War 2, and returned with the comment that, as far as he could tell, Guatemala was “a wholly owned subsidiary of Farben.”

    The pharmaceutical empire was and is one of the major forces behind the European Union (EU). It is no accident that these drug corporations wield such power. They aren’t only involved in controlling the medical cartel; they are political planners.

    This is how and why Big Pharma fits so closely with what is loosely referred to as the New World Order. The aim of enrolling every human in a cradle-to-grave system of disease diagnosis and toxic drug treatment has a larger purpose: to debilitate, to weaken populations.

    This is a political goal. It facilitates control.

    IG Farben’s main component companies, at the outbreak of World War 2, were Bayer, BASF, and Hoechst. They were chemical and drug companies. Farben put Hitler over the top in Germany as head of State, and the war was designed to lead to a united Europe that would be dominated by the Farben nexus.

    The loss of the war didn’t derail that plan. It was shifted into an economic blueprint, which became, eventually, the European Union.

    The European Commission’s first president was Walter Hallstein, the Nazi lawyer who, during the war, had been in charge of post-war legal planning for the new Europe.

    As the Rath Foundation reports: In 1939, on the brink of the war, Hallstein had stated, “The creation of the New Law [of the Nazis] is ONLY the task of the law-makers!”

    In 1957, with his reputation sanitized, Hallstein spoke the words in this manner: “The European Commission has full and unlimited power for all decisions related to the architecture of this European community.”

    Post-war, IG Farben was broken up into separate companies, but those companies (Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF) came roaring back, attaining new profit highs.

    I refer you to the explosive book, The Nazi Roots of the Brussels EU, by Paul Anthony Taylor, Aleksandra Niedzwiecki, Dr. Matthias Rath, and August Kowalczyk. You can also read it at relay-of-life.com. It is a dagger in the heart of the EU.

    At the Rath Foundation, you can also read Joseph Borkin’s classic, “The Crime and Punishment of IG Farben.”

    In 1992, I was deeply engaged in researching the specific devastating effects of medical drugs. Eventually, I concluded that, at the highest levels of power, these drugs weren’t destructive by accident. They were intended to cause harm. This was covert chemical warfare against the population of the planet. The Rockefeller-Standard Oil-Farben connection was a primary piece of the puzzle.

    It was, of course, Rockefeller (and Carnegie) power that had forced the birth of pharmaceutical medicine in America, with the publication of the 1910 Flexner Report. The Report was used to excoriate and marginalize Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, and other forms of traditional natural practice, in favor of what would become the modern juggernaut of drug-based treatment.

    In an article about the FDA, “Medical Murder in the Matrix,” I point out the fact that this federal agency has permitted at least 100,000 deaths of Americans, per year, from the direct effects of drugs it, the FDA, has certified as safe. (See, for example, JAMA, July 26, 2000, ‘Is US Health Really the Best in the World,’ Dr. Barbara Starfield.)

    The FDA knows these death figures. “Unintended” and “accidental” can no longer be applied to this ongoing holocaust.

    The pharmaceutical industry itself also knows those death figures.

    To understand the dimensions and history of the ongoing chemical warfare against the population, in the form of medical drugs (and of course pesticides), one must factor in the original octopus, IG Farben.

    World War 2 never ended. It simply shifted its strategies.

    In any fascist system, the bulk of the people working inside the system, including scientists, refuse to believe the evidence of what is happening before their own eyes. They insist they are doing good. They believe they are on the right side. They see greater top-down control as necessary and correct. They adduce “reasonable” explanations for inflicted harm and death.

    World War 2 is still underway. The battleground has been changed, and the means are far cleverer.

    Sun Tzu wrote: “Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting… The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities…It is best to win without fighting.”

    This is what has been happening: invisible warfare."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (13th December 2018)

  14. Link to Post #28
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th November 2018
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 30 times in 9 posts

    Default Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    What did you use to cure arthritis?

  15. Link to Post #29
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    Australia bans rebates on yoga, naturopathy, homeopathy
    Australian government says that yoga, naturopathy and Pilates will not benefit your health, bans private health insurance rebates
    by Lori Alton May 23, 2019
    https://www.naturalhealth365.com/aus...yoga-2986.html

    "(NaturalHealth365) The Australian government has just launched another salvo in the battle against natural medicine worldwide. While a whopping 80 percent of all Australians currently use some form of natural treatments – including yoga, Pilates and naturopathy – to improve health, the government ruled last month that Australian consumers will no longer be able to claim rebates for those services from private insurers.

    These natural therapies are now prohibited by the federal government from being funded – due to a “lack of scientific evidence.” Are these people clueless or what?!

    Although the ban is touted as a way to cut costs of private health insurance, Australian natural health experts say it won’t lead to any financial benefit – and may have devastating effects.

    Stunning: Australian government ban involves 16 different natural, drug-free therapies
    The ban includes yoga, which encourages breath control and meditation – and improves flexibility, balance and strength.

    Also included are Pilates – an exercise system influenced by yoga, calisthenics and dance – and tai chi, an ancient Chinese martial art that emphasizes slow, controlled movements and deep breathing.

    Also banned are homeopathy – which uses infinitesimal amounts of natural substances to stimulate a healing response – reflexology (therapeutic foot massage), shiatsu (a form of massage based on Traditional Chinese Medicine) and aromatherapy, the use of essential oils and plant extracts.

    Iridology, Rolfing, kinesiology, the Alexander Technique and Bowen therapy will no longer be covered, either, nor will “Western herbalism,” defined as encompassing the herbal traditions of Europe and the Americas.

    And – perhaps most infuriating and confusing of all – “naturopathy” is included in the decision.

    Naturopathic medicine is an entire healing system based on the concept that diseases can be treated without the use of drugs, with an emphasis is on stimulating the body to heal itself. Using the blanket term “naturopathy” means that a wide range of therapies could therefore be ineligible for rebates.

    In fact, whether a consumer can claim a rebate or not may come down to semantics.

    For example, “remedial massage” gets the thumbs-up when it comes to getting a rebate – but not “massage using shiatsu techniques.” “Physiotherapy utilizing a Pilates technique” would be accepted — “Pilates,” as a therapy, is not.

    There is no apparent justification for the decision – financial or otherwise
    The group Friends of Science and Medicine, which says it supports evidence-based medicine, has lobbied the Australian government for the past seven years to stop subsidizing treatments deemed “ineffective” by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Banning the natural treatments, says a spokesperson, is “important in using precious health dollars wisely. “

    But Private Healthcare Australia has gone on record as acknowledging the ban would, in reality, have a “very minimal” impact on premium costs.

    In fact, a spokeswoman at PHA said there are no plans to reduce private health insurance premiums at this time.

    An executive at PHA said the decision to stop rebates on natural therapies was reached after consultation with stakeholders, which included doctors’ groups and the insurance industry.

    Gee, I wonder, could these ‘experts’ have a vested interest in keeping consumers sick?

    Physician: Decision will have “devastating” consequences
    Kerryn Phelps, G.P., an Australian medical doctor and politician, has lambasted the decision to prohibit natural therapies. In addition to predicting that it will cause harm to consumers and discourage medical research, Dr. Phelps takes issue with it as a means to save money.

    In fact, she maintains, complementary medicines being supported by private health insurance could actually lead to savings – not increases – in public expenditure.

    According to ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) News, Dr. Phelps has written a letter to Australian Health Minister Greg Hunt, requesting that at least some of the therapies – including yoga, tai chi, Western herbalism and naturopathy – be removed from the “banned” list.

    Decision spurred by inadequate research
    Many natural health experts say that the review that preceded the decision was flawed. In arriving at the decision, the NHMRC used no studies conducted after 2014.

    Hence, the last 5 years of research on natural therapies – that may have shown substantial benefits – have been ignored. Proponents of natural healing insist that there are real benefits to the techniques – as well as good evidence.

    They point out that yoga, herbal medicines and tai chi are often included in international treatment guidelines – and endorsed by the World Health Organization, which supports traditional and complementary medicine in its mission statement.

    Natural medicine also under attack in Spain
    It is not only Australia that is discouraging the use of natural therapies.

    The Spanish government has recently taken steps to ban “natural medicine” from health centers on a national level.

    The proposed ban will include acupuncture – an ancient and revered system that has brought relief to countless millions since its inception 2,000 years ago – and homeopathy, a system of healing that has been in use for several centuries.

    The Spanish government is going even farther than the Australian government – with plans afoot to prevent Spanish universities from teaching alternative medicine, or from awarding diplomas in the field.

    Observers say that this governmental action is in response to the highly publicized deaths of several cancer patients, who made the decision to stop standard treatment entirely and pursue only alternative therapies.

    Of course, most natural healers maintain that naturopathic techniques are to be used as a complementary form, in conjunction and cooperation with standard medical care.

    Undeniable truth: Governments are trying to discourage and suppress natural healing
    Natural health experts the world over are concerned that these moves by the Australian and Spanish governments represent the latest attempts to tighten the stranglehold of the conglomeration of pharmaceutical giants, otherwise known as ‘Big Pharma.’

    Here in the U.S., we have the government trying to censor all vaccine information that represents vaccines as anything other than “safe and effective” – with state-by-state attempts to eliminate vaccine exemptions.

    In fact, many fear that the pharmaceutical giants will stop at nothing until all knowledge of natural medicine is wiped away – and every person is taking multiple pharmaceutical drugs.

    Speaking of pharmaceutical drugs: overdoses involving prescription opiates claimed 46 lives a day in 2016 alone, according to the National Study on Drug Use and Health.

    Of course, not all natural health and alternative therapies are safe – or effective. Just as in conventional medicine, there may be practitioners who are dishonest, careless, incompetent and greedy. So, caution and common sense must prevail.

    But, to claim that alternative treatments ‘lack evidence of efficacy’ is to deny a vast body of research. After all, even the most cursory search of PubMed yields studies on the efficacy of natural substances.

    To name only a few examples: clinical studies support medical-grade honey’s ability to outperform the pharmaceutical medication sulfadiazine when it comes to promoting the healing of partial-thickness burns, while the amino acid N-acetyl cysteine is so effective in treating liver failure from acetaminophen overdose that it is the standard of care in hospitals.

    We must strive to keep naturopathic medicine available – and this we can do by continuing to share lifesaving information with our friends and family.

    Sources for this article include:

    ABC.net.au
    TheGuardian.com
    NIH.gov
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Constance (24th May 2019), DeeMetrios (14th February 2020), Hervé (23rd May 2019)

  17. Link to Post #30
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Language
    English
    Posts
    3,453
    Thanks
    20,718
    Thanked 25,435 times in 3,321 posts

    Default Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    Bumping because this is such an excellent post. Thanks Onawah. See post #16 for the full write up.
    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Water and Homeopathy: Latest Discoveries at Science’s Cutting Edge
    Nobel Laureate – Prof Brian Josephson“New Horizons in Water Science — The Evidence for Homeopathy?”
    Presentation by Cambridge Professor Emeritus Brian Josephson at the conference (July 14, 2018), introduction by Lord Kenneth Ward-Atherton

    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=453965450
    Last edited by Constance; 24th May 2019 at 07:52.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Constance For This Post:

    onawah (25th May 2019)

  19. Link to Post #31
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    Access to Homeopathy Threatened by Latest FDA Action -Action Alert
    Greenmedinfo
    December 17th 2019
    Posted By: GMI Reporter
    https://www.greenmedinfo.health/blog...SzJ2WEF5In0%3D

    "Originally published by www.homeopathyusa.org

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced a new guidance that could lead to the end of homeopathy in America in less than three months

    The consequential action taken by the FDA involves the elimination of the administrative framework for homeopathy that the agency used for 30 years, one that allowed manufacturers of homeopathic remedies to thrive while ensuring the quality and purity of homeopathic medicines. We are referring to the withdrawal of Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 400.400, which has served the industry and consumers well.

    Homeopathic medicines are now in real danger. The newly revised Draft Guidance, if adopted as currently written, will be a recipe for the destruction of homeopathy as we know it in America.

    Under the new guidance, ALL homeopathic medicines will be considered illegal. This is because the Draft Guidance declares all homeopathic medicines to be "new drugs" which have not undergone the agency's pre-market approval process known as a New Drug Application (NDA). This "new drug" designation makes this new guidance particularly damning for homeopathy. Homeopathic medicines cannot be patented and therefore cannot justify the enormous expenditures that an NDA entails. If the FDA insists that a homeopathic medicine be put through the NDA process, the agency will essentially be issuing a potential ban on that medicine in the United States.

    If the Draft Guidance is adopted unchanged -- and especially if the designation of all homeopathic medicines as "new drugs" is allowed to stand -- consumers will likely begin to see homeopathic medicines disappear from store shelves and practitioners' offices as the FDA takes aim at one homeopathic medicine after another.

    What's more, if the Draft Guidance is finalized, the FDA will have little trouble defending its actions in any administrative procedure or court. The danger is real because the designation of homeopathic medicines as "new drugs" makes all of them illegal, and the FDA can remove any illegal drug from the marketplace without notice and without additional justification merely because it is illegal.

    It would be a simple matter for the American Institute of Homeopathy to produce evidence showing that homeopathy is extremely safe, with excellent clinical results backed by an extensive medical literature, including hundreds of clinical trials which demonstrate its safety and effectiveness. We could also point to the very real public health emergency around antibiotic resistance and the immense potential for homeopathy to save lives as reason alone to protect homeopathy.

    Sadly, none of that will matter if those who support and rely on homeopathy do not immediately unite to seek a better framework from the FDA.

    If you'd like to do your part to protect your access to this extraordinary system of medicine in America, please take these steps immediately:

    1. Submit a comment to the FDA docket about homeopathy telling the agency that we need a 180-day extension in order to respond adequately to the FDA's latest proposed rules. When you're ready to do that, click here: https://homeopathychoice.org/fdacomment/

    2. Encourage all of your contacts, patients, and family members to also submit a comment to the docket by sending them a copy of this email.

    We can and must save homeopathy in America, but we must act now.

    The Board of the American Institute of Homeopathy "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Anka (20th December 2019)

  21. Link to Post #32
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: How Natural Medicine (was) Destroyed in 1910

    The Clock Is Ticking for Homeopathy--Petition!
    FEBRUARY 13, 2020
    Alliance for Natural Health
    https://anh-usa.org/the-clock-is-tic...or-homeopathy/

    "This could be our last chance to defend access to homeopathic treatments. Action Alert!

    The FDA has extended the comment period on its completely unacceptable guidance that shifts how the agency will regulate homeopathic medicines. While the agency says that it will exercise enforcement discretion and focus on certain categories of homeopathic drugs, the wording of the guidance, in fact, says that all homeopathic drugs are currently being marketed illegally, leaving the door open for the agency to take action against any and all products. Concerned consumers must make their voices heard to stop this draconian guidance from moving forward.

    For background, read our previous coverage of this topic below and take action at the bottom of the page.



    As we’ve reported previously, the FDA’s guidance says:

    Any homeopathic drug that has not been considered “generally recognized as safe and effective” (GRAS/E) is considered a new drug;
    FDA has not determined that any homeopathic drugs are GRAS/E;
    A new drug cannot be marketed unless it goes through the FDA’s approval process;
    No homeopathic drugs have gone through FDA approval nor can any producer afford to take them through the approval process.
    This means, according to the FDA, all homeopathic medicines are being marketed illegally. The FDA explains that it will focus enforcement actions against specific categories of medicines with safety concerns: products with dangerous ingredients, products intended for vulnerable populations, etc. However, the FDA does reserve the right to take action against any homeopathic product: “This guidance is intended to provide notice that any homeopathic drug product that is being marketed illegally is subject to FDA enforcement action at any time.”

    There is not much new in the revised guidance. The FDA does provide a definition of “homeopathic drug,” which was notably absent from the initial guidance, much to the confusion of the homeopathic industry and other stakeholders.

    It is somewhat encouraging that the agency did not issue a final guidance, but rather another draft. This is an indication that our voices are being heard and the FDA is engaging with the natural health community.

    There seems to be a lot of confusion about homeopathy. While opponents often say that there is not any evidence that homeopathy works, several major meta-analyses have found homeopathic medicines to have an effect greater than placebo. We address these and some other common misconceptions here.

    Unfortunately, it’s likely that the FDA’s antipathy towards homeopathy is fueled more by a desire to protect drug industry profits than ignorance about the data. The FDA continues to cite homeopathic teething tablets with belladonna as one of the concerns that prompted the agency to tighten control over homeopathic medicines. Specifically, the agency states that 99 adverse events were “possibly related” to homeopathic teething products. Yet, while the agency did find variable amounts of belladonna in some products, these amounts were well within safe limits, even if an infant swallowed an entire bottle.

    The FDA will not stop this attack on homeopathy unless it is forced to do so by engaged citizens. We must issue a strong response to the FDA and Congress, telling the government that these actions threaten the future of homeopathic medicine.

    Action Alert! Write to the FDA and Congress, telling them to protect consumer access to homeopathic medicines. You can also go here to submit comments directly to the FDA. Please send your message immediately."

    https://anh-usa.org/the-clock-is-tic...or-homeopathy/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    DeeMetrios (14th February 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts