people who suffered during disease epidemics. Orthodox medical treatments were dangerous and comparatively less successful in treating patients. Great divides existed between orthodox and homeopathic physicians. The attempt to suppress homeopathic medicine was accelerated in 1910 with the Flexner Report, influenced by the funding by John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. In effect, healthcare in the US was bought out and successful homeopathic physicians disallowed from further practice. This important change led to safe, inexpensive treatments being forced to the fringe of mainstream medicine, a practice which remains in effect today. Understanding healthcare's past can assist in better comprehending the obstacles and difficulties faced in today's very slanted pharmaceutical and vaccine-based model of healthcare. Today's Healthcare Today's healthcare has a strong emphasis on pharmaceuticals and vaccinations, which are entrenched in our medical health delivery system. One rarely leaves a physician's office without a prescription or recommendation for a vaccine. The growth of vaccinations in the last 60 years has been astronomical. In 1953, 16 dosages of 4 vaccines were recommended, while in 2013, 49 dosages of 14 vaccines were included in the recommended vaccine schedule. Healthcare In The 1800s At one time, physicians were highly trained in nutrition and homeopathic remedies. In the 1800s, a significant portion of physicians were homeopathic practitioners who used inexpensive, effective and safe homeopathic remedies to treat health conditions. The focus on vaccinations and pharmaceuticals was not as dominant as it is today. In the mid 1800s, the primary treatments of orthodox medicine included dangerous bloodletting and medicines made from arsenic, mercury and lead. In contrast, safe homeopathic medicine successfully treated various infectious, epidemic diseases that were rampant throughout America and Europe. Statistics showed that the death rate by those treated in homeopathic hospitals was one-half to as little as one-eighth compared to those treated in orthodox medical hospitals. During the 1849 cholera epidemic, Cincinatti homeopathic physicians reported only three percent of their 1,116 patients died, compared to 48-60 percent of those receiving orthodox medical treatments. Homeopathic Versus Orthodox Medicine Division between homeopathic physicians and orthodox medicine grew in both Europe and America. One reason for the division was homeopaths' criticism of orthodox medicine's use of formulas aimed at suppressing symptoms, making it more difficult to successfully treat patients with homeopathic remedies. Respected homeopath Dana Ullman reported in a historical summary of homeopathy:
"Despite the persecution, homeopathy continued to grow. It grew not just because it offered a systematic approach to treating sick people, but also because orthodox medicine was ineffective and even dangerous. There is general agreement among medical historians today that orthodox medicine of the 1700s and 1800s in particular frequently caused more harm than good."
Major adversity existed for quite some time between these two schools of medicine. The AMA refused to allow homeopathic physicians to join their medical group and evicted physicians who even consulted with a homeopathic physician.
READ MORE HERE: http://www.sott.net/article/315387-How-healthcare-was-transformed-to-sick-care-focused-on-vaccines-and-drugs…
are quick to mention that not enough research has been done to warrant prescribing them. This is a common theme when it comes to using food as medicine and the science behind it. It’s unfortunate that science today is dominated by the pharmaceutical industry, and that most of the research received by physicians in the Western world comes directly from pharmaceutical companies.
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – (source)(source) Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
This, however, does not mean that other research, published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, is not being conducted, or is not significant.
A great example comes from a study that shows there is an active anti-cancer component in coconut oil that constitutes 50 percent of its makeup. It’s called lauric acid, and in a study published in the journal Cancer Research, researchers at the University of Adelaide discovered this component completely exterminated more than 90 percent of colon cancer cells after just two days of treatment in a colon cancer cell line (CRC) in vitro. The study also reports/cites studies that postulate and indeed support the position that lauric acid can induce cancer cell death both in vitro and in vivo. For this study, the researchers used the rat small intestinal cell line as a model of normal intestinal epithelial cells, which again, “demonstrated that lauric acid induced considerable cell death.” Although there is still much to learn, there is obviously some potential here.
That being said, as reported by the United Nations University, experiments are being conducted with animals to find out how coconut oil can guard against cancer and have already yielded some interesting results. You can read more about that here.
What’s the difference between in vivo and in vitro studies? For in vitro studies, researchers conduct experiments using cells in a petrie dish, or perform a procedure in a controlled environment outside of a living organism. So, when we are talking about coconut oil and cancer, the study has not been performed in vivo, where researchers will perform experiments on whole, living organism as opposed to a partial or dead organism. Animal studies and clinical trials are two forms of in vivo research.
Unfortunately, clinical trials are highly expensive, making studying the beneficial effects of lauric acid on cancer difficult for researchers who lack proper access to funding. Despite the fact that multiple studies stress the need for more rigorous research, there is simply no money available. Why is this? It’s because medical research is funded by pharmaceutical companies, and pharmaceutical grade products, like drugs, are what they test in human and animal clinical trials. Things found in nature cannot be patented. Drugs can. It is therefore not in the best interests of a pharmaceutical company to fund this type of research, even though it is clearly in the best interests of the rest of the population.
Below is a clip of Dr. Peter Rost, a former vice president of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, Pfizer. In it he explains the monetary issue…
More On Coconut Oil
Lauric acid, the colon cancer killing property within coconut oil, is typically found in breast-milk as well. It’s a medium-chain fatty acid which supports the immune system and has plenty of antimicrobial properties. Some people consider raw, organic, virgin coconut oil to be a superfood that can help heal cancer and other disease, and studies like the one above support that assertion.
According to the American Society for Nutrition, clinical studies have also shown that the fats found within coconut oil (MCFAs) “may be useful in treating and preventing diseases such as diabetes, osteoporosis, virus-related diseases (mononucleosis, hepatitis C, herpes, etc.), gallbladder disease, Chrohn’s disease, and cancer.” (source)
Coconut oil has even been shown to decrease the side effects of chemotherapy and improve the quality of life for cancer patients. (source)
The point is that there are too many potential health and healing properties associated with virgin coconut oil to count, and further research would be, inarguably, beneficial. If you are interested in learning more about it we encourage you to further your research.
For starters, you can check out this article by Greenmedinfo.com: “The 50 Latest Coconut Oil Benefits, Backed By Science.”…
nic shock to the system, when one of its most respected and honored public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America.
The landmark Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came to the following conclusions:
Every year in the US there are:
12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;
7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;
20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;
80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;
106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.
The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.
This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.
The Starfield study is the most explosive revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published. The credentials of its author and the journal in which it appeared are, within the highest medical circles, impeccable.
Yet, on the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, although media reporting was extensive, it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.
All in all, it seemed that those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this mind-boggling situation preferred to ignore it.
On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email.
What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?
My papers on the benefits of primary care have been widely used, including in Congressional testimony and reports. However, the findings on the relatively poor health in the US have received almost no attention. The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.
In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?
The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency). They, of course, would like an even greater share of the pie than they now have, for training more specialists. (Of course, the problem is that we train specialists—at great public cost—who then do not practice up to their training—they spend half of their time doing work that should be done in primary care and don’t do it as well.)
Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the effects of the US medical system?
Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?
Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into a untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.
Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?
They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.
Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?
Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.
Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?
Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.
Do medical schools in the US, and intern/residency programs in hospitals, offer significant “primary care” physician training and education?
NO. Some of the most prestigious medical teaching institutions do not even have family physician training programs [or] family medicine departments. The federal support for teaching institutions greatly favors specialist residencies, because it is calculated on the basis of hospital beds. [Dr. Starfield has done extensive research showing that family doctors, who deliver primary care—as opposed to armies of specialists—produce better outcomes for patients.]
Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?
No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.
What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?
I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.
Has anyone from the FDA, since 2000, contacted you about the statistical findings in your JAMA paper?
NO. Please remember that the problem is not only that some drugs are dangerous but that many drugs are overused or inappropriately used. The US public does not seem to recognize that inappropriate care is dangerous—more does not mean better. The problem is NOT mainly with the FDA but with population expectations.
… Some drugs are downright dangerous; they may be prescribed according to regulations but they are dangerous.
Concerning the national health plan before Congress—if the bill is passed, and it is business as usual after that, and medical care continues to be delivered in the same fashion, isn’t it logical to assume that the 225,000 deaths per year will rise?
Probably—but the balance is not clear. Certainly, those who are not insured now and will get help with financing will probably be marginally better off overall.
Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?
It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!
Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?
I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.
106,000 people die as a result of CORRECTLY prescribed medicines. I believe that was your point in your 2000 study. Overuse of a drug or inappropriate use of a drug would not fall under the category of “correctly prescribed.” Therefore, people who die after “overuse” or “inappropriate use” would be IN ADDITION TO the 106,000 and would fall into another or other categories.
‘Appropriate’ means that it is not counter to regulations. That does not mean that the drugs do not have adverse effects.
Some comments from the interviewer:
I’m aware there are reports, outside the mainstream, which conclude far more than 225,000 people in the US die every year as a result of medical treatment. For example, see the work of Carolyn Dean, Trueman Tuck, Gary Null, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio, Dorothy Smith.
This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.
Yes, many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs. The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.
As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions. Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.
It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings. If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?
To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.
Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for nine years. She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever. In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale. And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.
In these times, medical schools continue turning out a preponderance of specialists who then devote themselves to promoting the complexities of human illness and massive drug treatment. Whatever the shortcomings of family doctors, their tradition speaks to less treatment, more common sense, and a proper reliance on the immune systems of patients.
The pharmaceutical giants stand back and carve up the populace into “promising markets.” They seek new disease labels and new profits from more and more toxic drugs. They do whatever they can—legally or illegally—to influence doctors in their prescribing habits. Some drug studies which show negative results are buried. FDA panels are filled with doctors who have drug-company ties. Legislators are incessantly lobbied and supported with pharma campaign monies.
Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is good, whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.
Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent or, at the very least, massively incompetent. In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.
At the same time, without evidence, doctors off-handedly tout their work with great confidence. Some years ago, a resident at a major New York hospital harangued me about the primacy of controlled studies. She boasted, in passing, that the hospital’s heart-bypass surgery team was considered the best in the city, and one of the best in the country. I asked her for a reference. Was her statement a combination of folk-wisdom and rumor, or was there a proper study that confirmed her opinion? A bit chagrined, she admitted it was hearsay. I was sure she would repeat her tune, however, many times.
Claiming evidence where there is none, and denying the evidence that the medical system does great harm, are apparently part of the weave of the modern Hippocratic Oath.
F the shelves, but they still WON’T formally acknowledge that the vaccine is the cause of death. But still, investigators are pursuing Novartis and their FLUAD vaccine, trying to prove if the vaccine could have caused the deaths. The two strains in question are numbered 1-4-2-7-0-1 and 1-4-3-3-0-1. While the agency warns anyone with home pack vaccines NOT to use those strains, the Italian government still says vaccines are important to prevent a flu epidemic.
As usual, Novartis denies any wrongdoing, saying there is no “causal relationship” between their vaccine and the deaths of their patients. Last year, in the U.S. alone, Novartis hauled in nearly 58 BILLION dollars in revenue. And yet while their patients are dying, every single dollar Novartis makes on vaccines is STILL protected by a special federal law. This indemnity law strips patients of their right to sue the company for any negative side effects, allowing the billion dollar company to run free from any responsibility.
In the United States, government agencies admit there are some risks involved with vaccines. But they counter that by highlighting the importance of preventing outbreak or widespread disease. Regardless of where you stand on vaccines, massive, multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies are doing fine on their own. They’re hardly the type that should need special government protection from responsibility. No lawsuit can revive the dead, but the consequences could force the pharma giant to claim accountability for their actions, and prevent further deaths down the road.
So long as Novartis and other pharma giants are allowed to escape responsibility, with a free government sanctioned license to shoot patients full of drugs and vaccines, driven with plenty of incentive for profit and restricted by zero fear of consequence, drug companies will always act to preserve their own reputation and their profit stream above all else.
When self-preservation of the company is more important than the preservation of the people, the system is seriously sick.…
TPS was created in 2011, in time for our first 9/11 Truth Marathon. Many thanks to Jim and SkyBlueEyes for helping with the background design and layout and Sky, BP, IC Freedom and others for all the hours spent in the Conference room for our Popcorn & Movie Topic Nights.