Tag Archives: Disease

Understanding the Nature of Ill Health and Disease

The entire approach and foundation of Orthodox Medicine is based on Luis
Pasteur’s Germ Theory, a flawed concept. A
disease condition is viewed by the orthodoxy as an isolated event,
confined to the area in which it manifests itself (E.g. an ear
infection, eye infection, gum infection, lung cancer, skin cancer, etc. ).
Under this theory, for unknown reasons, microbes or
tumors indiscriminately grow in the patient and must be cut (surgery),
burned (radiation), or poisoned (drugs) out of the body.
In the orthodox model, the solution is sought through mechanical and
chemical solutions. Seeking to understand WHY the
infection or disease condition appeared in the first place, is not
usually seriously explored. The quick fix with a prescription of
drugs to smother the symptoms is the typical ‘answer’.

A contemporary of Pasteur, Antoine Beauchamp, had a different opinion as
to why disease conditions ‘took hold’.
Beauchamp felt that the ENVIRONMENT , or the ECOLOGY of the blood played
the critical role in deciding whether
disease conditions would manifest or not.

Alternative medicine explores the stressors (environmental, biological,
chemical, psychological, and emotional) in a patient’s
life that cause a weakening of a particular energy field; which in turn
allows the manifestation of a disease condition in a
weakened area. In order to maintain a state of health, all energy systems
within the body need to exist in a state of balance or
equilibrium. Imbalance leads to conditions of discomfort (dis-ease) which
eventually spirals into ill health if not corrected. The
Chinese and Indians (Ayurvedic medicine) had worked all of this out
thousands of years ago.

Orthodox or Allopathic Medicine utilizes poisonous substances (drugs) in
non-lethal dosages in order to suppress symptoms in
an affected area. This approach neither addresses the cause of the disease
condition , nor is it responsible for healing
the patient. Rather, the use of drugs often will temporarily mask the
outer manifestations of the malady, while at the same
time, drive the disease deeper into the body…only to reappear at a later
date, as a more serious, and chronic health
threat. One of the many flaws of the orthodox approach is that it focuses
on the disease condition itself, rather than the
patient. The term wholistic (or holistic) sprang up to distinguish those
physicians whose diagnostic gestalt considers all of the
physical, emotional, and spiritual energies interacting with the patient.

Do not assume that the only difference between allopathic and alternative
medicine, however, is an honest difference of opinion
in the philosophies and views on the origin of disease states. Hardly!.
There is, in truth, a concerted, organized agenda
-concocted, planned, and contrived by the big pharmaceutical companies
(especially the big German pharmaceutical houses
like I.G. Farben Bayer, and Merck)- to suppress any and every alternative,
non-pharmaceutical therapy that WORKS.
Why?
Because they want people to keep on coming back for more treatments and
more drugs.

A cured patient is a lost source of income. A sick patient who is
marginally “improved” is a manageable patient.

Managing patients means routine office visits and renewing of drug
prescriptions. Therefore, a manageable patient is a
continuing source of income; a cash cow if you will. Multiply that by a
few hundred million people and you get an idea why this
deceit is being put upon you. The profits from the so called “health-care”
industry are staggering!

The thrust of the orthodox pharmaceutical agenda is to provide temporary
relief, while never addressing the cause of the
disease condition. This agenda insures regular visits to the doctor’s
office and requires the patient to routinely return to the
pharmacy to refill his prescriptions. This is what the game is all about
folks, plain and simple. Deny it or Deal with it,…Stick with
it or Get Out of it! … your choice.

Natural Healing

The patient’s immune system and the immune system alone is responsible for
healing and recovery from ill health. The use of
drugs and vaccines represents an assault on the immune system. In some
cases, the use of a particular drug might be a
wise choice to speed healing and recovery for the patient, but the use of
natural, orthomolecular therapies and substances
(substances normally found in Nature) that can more effectively address
the cause of the disease should be considered first
because natural substances work in harmony with Nature. They aid and
stimulate the body to truly cure itself, without the
terrible millstone of drug side-effects.

The human body is predisposed to heal itself and to exist as a healthy,
thriving organism. We inhibit that process by ingesting
unhealthy foods, fouling our inner environment with toxins, and relying
upon poisonous substances to treat disease conditions.

Aids is a man-made disease?

The following came from NEXUS magazine Feb-March 1994 issue:

IS AIDS A MAN-MADE DISEASE?

The author (Dr. Robert Strecker; Los Angeles; Strecker Group) of the above
article claims that Aids was engineered ON PURPOSE, beginning in 1969
when the DoD requested $10 million to produce viruses that could
selectively destroy the immune system. He claims that AIDS’s “base”
genes comes from two retroviruses; the Bovine Leukaemia virus (in
cattle) and the Bovine Visna virus (in sheep). He goes on to state that
these two retroviruses were grown in culture plates of human tissue in
1972 by the U.S. National Institute of Health by a guy named Stuart Aronson.

Near the end of the article he invokes the name of GLOBAL 2000 and the
genocide of 2/3 of the human race as their goal….

Weird stuff, but then again, NEXUS is FATE magazine to the ^10th power…

Speaking as a medicinal chemist, I see red whenever I hear the “AIDS is
man-made” business. We truly don’t know beans about viruses, not enough to make
them, not enough to breed them to specific diseases. This is hard for many
people outside the medical field to swallow, since viral diseases are so
common. Me, I wouldn’t even say the darn things are alive. Living systems are
even harder to figure out, of course, so maybe that’ll help us to figure out
all there is to know about the simplest virus. . .say, about 75 years after I’m
dead.

And we *definitely* didn’t know beans about them in 1969, as the original
post’s source claims. The only thing that makes me hop around the room even
more than this one is the one about “The drug companies have cures for AIDS (or
whatever), but they’re holding ’em back until *everybody* gets it.”

As a recidivist biologist I’ll give this a try. The proposal you mention is
effectively impossible for the following two reasons:

1) Most viruses replicate with the help of a host cell. If the virus and
host cell are not sufficiently well matched already, they cannot replicate.
This means the virus cannot mutate either (since mutation doesn’t exist
except as part of the replication process).

2) If the proposed method of viral proliferation _were_ possible, you’d see
versions of every animal disease with viral origins in humans and (probably)
a counterpart to every human viral disease in animals. The latter is
certainly not the case since we’ve been actively looking for AIDS-like
diseases in populations of other species, both as a source of test animals
and to see what natural defenses those populations might have developed.
Any (active) biologist worth his/her salt can name MANY viral diseases
present in other species that have not been found in humans.

The first human retrovirus was isolated in 1978, the second in 1982. When
the third virus was found in 1983 and this turned out to be the much sought
agent. The other two human retrovirii both cause rare forms of Leukemia.
Considering that Leukemia and AIDS have largely opposing effects this was
rather surprising.

In the ’60’s retroviruses were still little more than laboratory
curiousities and were not thought to have much relavence to the transmission
of cancers in animals in uncontrolled situations. Certainly there seemed
little likelyhood then that they had any relavence to diseases in humans.

The Feline leukemia virus was first discovered in the early 1960’s as
causing disease in natural populations of an animal.

The people who invented HIV must have been incredibly prescient to use
two incredibly rare and poorly studied retro-virusii to invent their killer
disease. It’s not like there were hundreds to choose from, two sounds
like about all they had! So we have some top scientists, paid millions
of dollars to take all the known examples of the most obscure type of
virus, which was little more than a scientific curiousity and randomly
inject them into some animal and they would then magically produce a killer
disease capable of wiping out 2/3’s of the population of an unrelated animal?

Not only this but the main thrust of research into retrovirii was in the
ubiquitous endogenous retrovirii, not the rare exogenous ones which seem
now to be the ones which cause illness.

Until the discovery of reverse transcriptase in 1970 it wasn’t even clear
_how_ retroviruses could interact with the genes of the host to produce
a malignant effect.

Really, the hypothetical HIV manufacturers would have been very unlikely to
pick on retrovirii as their building blocks. Far better to use more easily
understood and plentiful viruses of other types.

Why did it take so long from people to discover it?

Research started in the 1970’s when it became clear that something was
affecting large groups of Africans and some people outside that continent,
predominantly male homosexuals. The disease was unusual in it’s affects and
death was usually caused by opportunist infections. This made it harder to
isolate the virus involved.

Once the virus was isolated it was possible to study blood samples from
long dead patients who died of mystery diseases to discover if they died
of the same thing.

There are far to many lines of evidence which point against a man-made
origin for the idea to have any credibility. It simply isn’t man made.

The rich man’s disease

I always thought no one outside of overblown Victorian romances
got gout, but recently a good friend came down with it and it’s
not after all very funny. Who knew?

I get it in my right foot every now and then and it’s quite painful.
Luckily, there are some good medications for it these days.

I understand that an excessive fondness for steak can lead to it.
Ah, yes — the rich man’s disease.

No, steak doesn’t have much of an impact on it. Liver or kidneys can
contribute.

Nor is it a “rich man’s disease.” Rich men go to the doctor and get
diagnosed for gout. Poor people simply have “the miserables”. As Alan
King once noted, “You never heard of a poor man hospitalized for
exhaustion.”

I wasn’t really serious, although it certainly is known as the “rich man’s
disease”. Poor people never had the chance to eat well enough to fall
victim to it, was the belief. Coincidentally, just last weekend I was with
a man who was suffering with it and made no bones about it. Noisily.
Filthy rich, he was, too.

As for diagnosing it, sure, they know what it is. Curing it is the problem,
and the pain is quite stubborn also, I’m told.

Another victim was my lead-man, way back when I first hired in at Lockheed.
He was in his twenties and hailed from Bohemia. He complained a lot also.