|
|
|
 |
Introduction
Modern medicine is not the cure we were brought up to believe. |
|
|
 |
- Experiments show that when doctors go on strike, turning off modern
medicine, the death rate falls. And when the strike is over, turning
modern medicine back on, the death rate returns to where it was before
the strikes. This happened in seven of seven (7/7) cases. Also, "...an
increase in the doctor supply is associated with an increase in
mortality."
- Medical researcher Gary Null studied the pertinent research in the
U. S. The data led to his conclusion, “It is evident that the American
medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United
States.”
- Industry insiders say they know this and keep their industry’s
secret. “It is too difficult for people in our industry to say the
obvious, ‘My work is killing some of the people it is supposed to be
helping.’”
|
|
|
 |
Concluding that an industry does not work is not unusual, as I have
studied the life cycles of industries for many years and found they
change through time, almost always becoming less effective as they grow
older.
What surprises me as an experienced business, marketing and consumer
researcher is an entire industry knowingly creating the unnecessary
injuries and deaths of its own customers.
Modern medicine seems to be mostly an irrational phenomenon. This likely
is the result of the consumer not getting all of the needed information,
the truth, to make life and death decisions about their life threatening
procedures and medicines.
|
|
*********************** |
|
|
|
|
We know of no other strikes over the years to include in this analysis.
One can always question the details of any research but when there is
the same pattern in seven out of seven cases, spread over forty
years in four countries, in which no one person could have rigged the
data, we are pretty confident in the information.
In support of the above, there is a 2003 robust Australian study finding that the more doctors the
greater the death rate and the less doctors the lower the death rate.
This is a different way to show the same thing, that allopathic
medicine's drugs and invasive procedures are creating more negatives
than positives.
footnote 3 |
 |
|
We are confident these findings lead to the conclusion that the
allopathic drugs and invasive procedures' component of modern medicine
is creating an overall negative contribution to society. |
|
|
|
I apologize. |
| |
I am sorry if you think I am unjustly coming down hard
on modern medicine. I do not want to upset anyone. The
compassion your doctor shows you and the mechanical repairs
by doctors putting us back together after accidents are not the problem we
are reporting.
Read more |
|
|
|
|
The
supporting quantitative data in Q2 and the qualitative information in Q3
below continue adding to our confidence.
Q2.
How Could the Medical Industry’s Overall Effect Be Negative?
A2. Modern Medicine Is the Leading Cause Of Death and Injury In the
U.S., Creating More Negatives Than Positives.
Once researchers find an overall effect of what they are studying, like
the overall negative effect reported above, they begin to look for relationships to
help explain it. Then, as these negative effects are found and removed, the
remaining effect would show an overall positive effect and what is contributing
to it.
One goal at Good Samaritans International is to help identify negatives
and communicate them to consumers so we can remove them, when we are
ready, leaving an overall positive effect to help more people create a
better reality.
To our knowledge the only researcher to attempt a comprehensive analysis
of the overall negative effect of modern medicine in the U. S. is Gary
Null, PhD. Part of the Abstract of his work follows and there is a link
to his comprehensive review at the end of the partial Abstract in
Footnote 4. Footnote 5 is of a similar review but for modern medicine in
Australia.
|
ABSTRACT A definitive review and close reading of medical
peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that
American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. … The total
number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It
is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of
death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual
death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251.5
footnote 4,
footnote 5
GSI note. Dictionary
definition of "iatrogenic" (below) taken from Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary, 10th Edition
iatrogenic: induced inadvertently by a physician or
surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures |
|
We would like to add to the quantitative information of the negative
overall effect in seven of seven (7/7) experiments of modern medicine
and Gary Null’s supporting research findings and conclusion, “It is
evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death
and injury in the United States.” We offer our own qualitative but
supportive information from our interviews with workers within the industry.
Our purpose is to report what some people feel and say about the issue
of “drug safety.” While the qualitative information of our
study is internally
consistent and the people representing it are the only ones in the
industry with whom we interviewed over the years about drug safety, the
samples’ selection and number of people we interviewed in the different
types of organizations are not scientific or generalizable. |
|
|
Q3.
How Could Modern Medicine Do This To Us?
A3. Here Is What Different Industry Insiders Say About It.
First, let me give some information about myself.
For thirty-five years, until recently, I lived and worked in the
geographical center of the U. S. drug industry. As CEO of a marketing
services firm, I visited, talked, dined, entertained and partied with
people who work in modern medicine. Here are some representative
excerpts of our conversations.
Drug Company Executives
When I said to these individuals, “There seem to be a lot of secrets in
your company,” they reluctantly admitted it. I have had executives tell
me they know their drugs, “… are hurting many people, or worse.” Some
volunteered things like, “You will never know the extent of it.”
In other words, the drug company executives with whom I talked know how
dangerous their drugs are.
But when one executive said to me, “What can you do to help us with our
drug brands?” I said, “I can help you add information to your brands’
communications that will help consumers get better, faster. But then
they may not need to use your brands as much.” She said, “That would not
go over well around here.” End of conversation.
Drug Company Non-Executives
The drug company production workers and non-executive office workers
with whom I talked also know their drugs are dangerous. Like the
executives, I have heard several of the non-execs admit they know their
drugs are hurting people, or worse.
Some said, when they learned how dangerous their company’s drugs were,
they stopped taking them, or stopped taking all drugs.
One said, “It is too difficult for people in our industry to say the
obvious, ‘My work is killing some of the people it is supposed to be
helping.’”
Pharmacists
The pharmacists with whom I talked said the manufacturers’ drugs are
dangerous, maiming, even killing us. Several experienced druggists
confided in me that they do not take drugs, or at least not for long,
because they have seen so many people coming back to their stores with
livers and other organs destroyed from taking too many drugs, as
recommended. They volunteered they knew customers whose deaths were more
likely to be from the drugs they took than from the problems the drugs
were supposed to be helping.
Physicians
The doctors with whom I talked know how dangerous the industry's drugs
and invasive procedures are. I learned this directly from MDs who
recommend drugs and invasive procedures and then indirectly through
their MD friends who do not, themselves, dispense drugs or procedures.
The non dispensers sometimes gave more information as they made negative judgments
of their dispensing friends. I also learned of dangers from nurses and
office workers in clinics.
There are some physicians who are trying to talk their patients out of
using drugs or into using fewer drugs. And there are those, when
learning their drugs were dangerous, left or changed their practice to
avoid invasive and dangerous treatment. There are the complementary,
alternative and integrative practitioners like Norm Sheely,
Andrew Weil, Deepak Chopra and other creators of the first holistic
clinics, who have seen
the light. But, sometimes it was their nurses and office workers who saw
the light first, or kept it on. Also, there are those physicians trained
outside of allopathic medicine who help us learn how to heal without
invasive procedures and drugs.
A growing number of physicians and staff are helping to lead us out of
the dilemma of “modern” allopathic medicine. They are working on a
better model of healing and health.
Government
Citizens want to trust their government, including the Food & Drug
Administration. Yet pharmaceutical company executives have told me FDA
executives know how dangerous industry procedures and drugs are.
The FDA misrepresents the dangerous as safe by putting our government’s
seal of approval on them. Yes, clinical testing is supposed to release
the good things and hold back the bad things from the market. But the
actual in-market, real-world data are the most accurate data, showing
clinical drug testing to be invalid and, more importantly, irrelevant.
Allopathic Medicine: Tested and False
Pharmaceutical companies seem to successfully pay for protection through
contributions to both major political parties. Our representatives
accept the money and cannot help but develop a vested interest in the
pharmaceutical industry far greater than do the people they
represent. While our political representatives may not know the dangers
of procedures and drugs, many without this knowledge seem to be trying to protect the drug
companies from lawsuits by the consumers being injured. The pharma
companies, FDA and many of our representatives in government are
complicit.
Advertisers
Drug secrets kept from consumers often start with drug advertising. We
have found from our advertising and promotion experiments conducted for
our former pharmaceutical company clients that drug advertising first
does harm. Intrusive and unsolicited drug advertising depresses people’s
health merely by switching consumer attention from the positives of the
daily feelings of love and contentment, all of which heal, to the negative symptoms of
depression, pain,
sickness and disease -- the source of which is fear.
The negative headlines, sound bites, and content depress consumer health
and increase stress, stimulating a need for relief and a search for it.
The consumer’s new need and search for relief often lead to incremental
buyers of the drugs in the ads. But the depressed health and the
need for relief stimulated by the ads do not seem to go away when the consumers
purchase and use the advertised brand.
One of the fathers of TV advertising research used to tell his clients
that the old snake oil salesman’s adage is alive and well: “First ya
make em sick; then ya sell the cure.” Is modern medicine just a
sophisticated extension of the old snake oil industry, but more
dangerous?
The answer seems to be, “Yes.” All of the experiments we conducted for
our clients had the same result: the ads depressed health and increased
sales. And this was still occurring among consumers when we measured
long after exposure to the advertising. We also found that the more
vulnerable the people, i.e. older and sicker, the more extreme were the
results.
The drug company executives for whom we conducted the advertising
experiments told us to take these findings out of our presentations and
reports. I refused.
Pharmaceutical companies stopped calling me as they learned I would not
suppress my findings to protect the higher-ups. I stopped calling on pharmaceutical companies when
I learned their secret and could not make a change for the better.
Safety, Guilt & Secrets
All of the people with whom I initiated conversations in their companies
seemed more willing to talk about their dangerous products, also known
as “drug safety,” if I approached the issue through the company secrets
of which they felt burdened.
When I provoked these executives with my statement about their company
having a lot of secrets they seemed shocked, got up and closed their
doors, lowered their voices to the serious or secretive levels, shook
their heads negatively, and often looked down to avoid eye contact.
They seemed afraid, stressed, and in pain as they described meetings
they attended in which fellow executives talked of their concerns for
drug safety and what could be done about it. One executive said, "Drug safety. Get it? They are
afraid to say 'consumer safety' or 'dangerous drugs' because of where it
might lead."
In our conversations, none denied the deaths and permanent injury nor did anyone
defend their products. These people have real secrets and heavy guilt.
Some non-executive employees said they feel guilty but quitting their
jobs would not help the situation and they said besides they need the
money.
I believe the above people with whom I talked got into the industry to
help people or at least liked that idea when they were hired. Then, like
the frog put into cold water over the fire, the industry workers
started to learn what was really going on. Some left the industry, while
most decided to stay, accept and honor the secret to protect themselves
and each other. It is difficult to change when you have a vested
interest in your work, company, family and paycheck.
Recently, I heard someone say, “Everyone is innocent, until they know.”
And it may be easier for workers not to change, when they know the
general public believes in and wants modern medicine. |
|
|
Summary
It is sad that the industry’s own research findings lead to the
conclusion that modern medicine is so dangerous, yet the industry
continues in its ways. I understand there is an effort to try to reduce
hospital errors and that is good, but if successful it will make little
progress in reducing the overall negative effect. The industry's
problem is less about some people getting the wrong treatment by mistake
but more about everyone taking drugs and procedures, as a whole they
would be better off without.
And it is a problem that cannot be fixed with "modern" medicine's
snake oil salesman's point of view. |
|
|
|
THE MODERN
MEDICINE ILLUSION
A Short Conversation |
Q. But why do so many of us believe
modern medicine works, if the industry’s own
research shows it does not?
A. Good question. It is due to the modern
medicine illusion with which we were raised. Let
me explain.
Modern medicine has two components: physical and
mental. |
- The physical component is made up mostly
of external medicines and procedures
recommended by physicians.
- The mental component is called the placebo. Our
research has identified the placebo’s active
ingredient as compassion, which seems to be
limited only by our beliefs and
expectations.
|
| Our beliefs and expectations with which
we were raised create the illusion that the
external pills and procedures cure us, when in
fact it is compassion from within and from
others that makes us whole. As modern medicines’
toxic chemicals and invasive procedures make us
worse, we incorrectly blame the symptoms, for
which we were mistakenly being treated in the
first place. |
Q. Does this mean the physical
component is actually worse than it appears
because compassion is compensating for it, and
if we changed our beliefs and expectations,
compassion would help even more?
A. Yes, thank you. That completes the
modern medicine illusion. |
|
|
|
|
Good news and hope. If, as individuals, you and I strip away the
negative medical procedures and drugs, our chances of not being injured
or dying young from them would improve, dramatically. We then would be
left with the best of modern medicine -- the placebo's positive
effect. The placebo is the most tested, consistently positive and
powerful treatment ever researched. It does all the heavy lifting of
drugs and procedures and it comes in medicine and procedure forms.
It is time for consumers to reject the dangerous procedures and
poisonous drugs and harness the most powerful tool, the placebo.
Together, we Good Samaritans will continue to learn and show the world
how to heal from within so we, our children and grandchildren will live
happier, healthier and longer.
Good News |
|
|
|
References:
(1) British Medical Journal reports “Doctors’ strike in Israel
may be good for health.” The same phenomenon was found in all strikes,
i.e. death rates fell during strikes only to return to pre levels after
the strikes: Israel, 2000; Israel, 1983; Israel, 1950’s; LA, 1970’s;
Canada, 1970’s.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1561
<
back to text >
(2) Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D., reports death rates dropped during
doctor strikes only to return to pre levels after the strikes. The
strikes were in Bogota, 1976; Los Angeles, 1976 (same as above); and
Israel, 1973.
http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/doctordeathrate.html
<
back to text >
(3) Richardson and Peacock of the Centre For health
Program Evaluation, Working Paper 137, Will More Doctors Increase or
Decrease Death Rates? April, 2003.
http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/wp137.pdf
<
back to text >
(4) Gary Null, et al, writes of his "DEATH BY
MEDICINE" research that it is: “A definitive review and close reading of
medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows
that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good.”
http://www.wnho.net/deathbymedicine.htm
<
back to text >
(5) Also see “The Human Element Of Adverse Effects” in the Medical
Journal Of Australia in
http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/doctordeathrate.html
at bottom of screen for more of the same but from Australia. |
|
|
|
As we help you or your loved ones please consider commensurate
. |
|
