by Jon Rappoport
July 24, 2018
(To join our email list, click here.)
—All right, look, here’s what we’ll do. We’ll take a few general symptoms like fatigue, fever, and swelling, and we’ll invent one new disease label that covers them. We’ll say this is a specific new disease and we’re looking for the cause. Of course, there is no single cause because this isn’t a single disease. It’s a vague generality. But since we control the disease label, the name, we can convince everyone that this is a specific and real disease. It’s a total con, but we can sell it—
Over the years, my readers have seen how I attack disease labels and disorder labels; how I expose them as fictions.
Let me show you an example of the disease label game. The citation is: Blackman, JA. MD, MPH; Gurka, MJ, PhD, “Developmental and Behavioral Comorbidities of Asthma in Children”, Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 28(2):92-99, April 2007:
“Children with asthma have higher rates of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; diagnoses of depression, behavioral disorders, learning disabilities; and missed school days (all p < .0001). The more severe the asthma is, the higher the rates are of these problems.”
Let’s start with asthma. We know that many cases of lung-airway obstruction are called asthma. Try to find a single known cause for asthma. You can’t. The many instances of airway obstruction can have many different causes (e.g., allergies to different environmental substances). Therefore, “asthma” has never been proved to be one unique condition.
In the citation above, the researchers state that asthma in children is associated with higher rates of ADHD, depression, behavioral and learning disorders. But these conditions, too, don’t have a single proven cause. Try to find one.
Go to the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and look for a lab test that would confirm a diagnosis of any of these conditions (ADHD, depression, etc.)—you won’t find one. No blood test, no urine test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.
What are we looking at here? We’re looking at attempts to define, label, and own disorders and diseases which have never been proven to be singular and specific.
While treating, say, asthma with a drug might bring relief (along with adverse effects), long-term treatment that gets to the root cause and creates a cure—well, that’s never going to happen unless the unique individual with the problem is addressed—rather than invoking generalities.
Modern medicine floats disease labels that are generalities, as if they were specific. Often, they’re not.
Here’s the rule: IF YOU CAN’T FIND A SINGLE CAUSE OF A DISEASE CONDITION, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL IT A SPECIFIC DISEASE CONDITION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IT MAY WELL BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CONDITIONS COMING FROM A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CAUSES.
FOR LONG-TERM RESULTS, WORK WITH THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT, NOT THE GROUP.
“Children with asthma tend to have higher rates of depression.” The first condition—asthma—for which a single cause has not been found, leads to the higher rate of a second condition—depression—for which a single cause has not been found.
Of what possible use is such gibberish? It’s useful in marketing and selling gigantic amounts of drugs.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
I prefer the word “illness” over disease. Illnesses are not “owned” by medical authorities.
An illness element, or an elementary illness, has a single cause or causal chain. Any single cause has a cause, which has a cause. We can always find a causal chain. An illness is the intersection of a specific set of signs and symptoms and a causal chain. An illness element can be cured by addressing the causal chain.
This brings us to a simple (theoretical founded) technique to identify an illness. f it can be cured by addressing the cause, it’s an illness.
If not, it’s a disability.
Unfortunately, conventional medicine does not distinguish between disability and disease either.
And so what is it when an individual has some vitamin and elemental deficiencies, combined with nutritional deficiencies/distortions (lipid nutrition imbalances) combined with toxic exposures, and behavioral & biochemical deregulation (like shift work and other stresses)? The multi-factoral background to various disease states cannot be mistaken as a single causal chain. All the bits and pieces of the puzzle have to be examined.
Changing the name or definition of a term is part of an agenda. Calling childhood illnesses “diseases” instead creates fear in young parents and empowers pharma and doctors to abuse us with forced vaccines and drugs.
Can you give example(s) of elemental illness(es)? Are there defining lab tests for the things you call elemental illnesses?
Of course. Many compound illnesses consist of elemental illnesses. A simple, common example of an elemental illness is scurvy. Scurvy, as documented medically, has a single cause. Note: No current medical reference uses the word “cure” with regards to treating scurvy. They recommend treatments, not cures. Vitamin A toxicity, and beri-beri are elemental illnesses. Radiation sickness is an elemental illness.. There are many elemental nutritional illnesses and many complex or compound illnesses consist of a group of elemental illnesses.. There are also elemental physical illnesses – like broken arms, gunshot wounds, and bedsores. Depression can be an elemental illness, having a single cause, or a compound illness having several causes. And elemental mental illnesses, phobias caused by a single dramatic event. These illnesses all have names and are well documented. They can all be assigned a disease code, using the ICD/10 classification of diseases.. We don’t need a lab test to diagnose scurvy, or Vitamin A toxicity, or a broken arm or a phobia. Elemental illnesses are defined (as elemental) by cause, not by lab tests.
“Note: No current medical reference uses the word “cure” with regards to treating scurvy.” Check the definitions of cure and disease below from Taber’s, and Webster’s Medical Desk Dictionary. Scurvy can obviously be cured by definition, with vitamin C.
No standard reference work that I checked has an entry for ‘elemental illness’. What book or reference refers to elemental illness besides yourself? ( -nothing in wikipedia, nothing in books could be found either) If you have made this up yourself you should say so.
Perhaps I missed a word. Clarification: “No current medical TREATMENT reference uses the word “cure” with regards to treating scurvy”. Of course, unofficial sources like dictionaries, which are based on common use, not medical references, use the word cure in many ways. The word has a long and varied history.
Merck’ Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, Lange’s Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment, and Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine all recommend Vitamin C as a “treatment” for scurvy. Not one uses the word cure. Why not? Because it doesn’t cure scurvy.
If a sailor is working on a ship with a crappy diet and gets scurvy, and a doctor “treats” the scurvy with Vitamin C – the signs and symptoms will disappear. But as soon as the sailor goes off the medicine, the disease reemerges. It was never cured. Vitamin C can convert scurvy from a disease to a managed chronic disease – if it is taken forever, but it cannot cure. The patient will eventually suffer other diseases from the crappy diet, scurvy being simply the first to appear.
The 1950 edition of MERCK uses the word cure with regards to infantile scurvy, because the infant’s diet generally changes – the actual cure – during the treatment period.
re: Elemental illness. I created the term elemental illness, as an illness with a single cause. I did not create the concept. I am certain many others have used the concept, without a distinguishing term. Jon used it in this post, but he used the term “disease”. I created the term to clarify and distinguish between concepts of illnesses and diseases with multiple causes, and an illness with a single cause. There is nothing magical, and nothing underhanded about it. It is simply a term to clarify between different types of illness.
BTW; I’m curious which edition of Webster’s you used, because Webster’s New World Medical Dictionary, Third Edition, 2008, does not contain the word cure. I have found at least 7 medical dictionaries that do not contain entries for cure – even though two of them define incurable using the word cure. Cure is defined in standard dictionaries, and many medical dictionaries simply copy these definitions. There is no “medical” definition of cure, and no scientific definition of cure.
Tracy Kolenchuk Clarification: “No current medical TREATMENT reference uses the word “cure” with regards to treating scurvy”. Could it be that Tracy Kolenchuk is misinterpreting, over-interpreting his sources, taking the inference that there is a prohibition on use of the term ‘cure’ instead of the term ‘treatment’ or ‘treat’? When there is no such prohibition in his sources, and no intention to imply such a prohibition? I venture that not one of Tracy Kolenchuk‘s sources actually prohibits the use of the term ‘cure’ in this regard. This is absurd. If there is a prohibition on the use of cure instead of treat or treatment, provide a reference.
Another reference: from Mosby’s:
Cure [L. cura]. 1. Restoration to health of a person afflicted with a disease or other disorder. 2. The favorable outcome of the treatment of a disease or other disorder. 3. A course of therapy, a medication, a therapeutic measure, or another remedy used in treatment of a medical problem, as faith healing, fasting, rest cure, or work cure. Mosby’s Medical, Nursing & Allied Health Dictionary. Sixth edition. Copyright 2002 by Mosby, Inc. ISBN 0-323-01430-5
Mosby’s has ~85 consultants with professional qualifications such as MD, RN, PhD, etc, that edit, contribute or otherwise inform their dictionary, listed in the front pages. They have much more authoritative and official weight than the word of Tracy Kolenchuk. Tracy Kolenchuk is not an official source of information on anything that I know of. If he is, prove the significance, weight, authoritativeness or other reason by which anyone should take his word.
Tracy Kolenchuk: “If a sailor is working on a ship with a crappy diet and gets scurvy, and a doctor “treats” the scurvy with Vitamin C – the signs and symptoms will disappear. But as soon as the sailor goes off the medicine, the disease reemerges. It was never cured.”
This is an abuse of the concepts of disease, cure, and disease re-emergence, more misinterpretations. (See Mosby’s definition, as well.) It’s parallel to saying that malnutrition is never cured, which is an absurdity. Tracy Kolenchuk is not an authority on anything that I know of.
Tracy Kolenchuk: “There is no “medical” definition of cure, and no scientific definition of cure.”
Of course there are medical and scientific definitions of cure, just as there are for treatment and other terms. You’re just misinterpreting and dismissing the valid dictionaries, written by scientists, medical doctors and other professionals. Over 200,000 articles written by scientists and doctors on the NCBI website use the term cure.
Vitamin C, ascorbic acid or ascorbate, is a cure for scurvy because it is not a vitamin, but an essential organic compound absolutely required by all humans in large, gram dose, quantities, which humans lost the ability to make for ourselves millions of years ago. It is required for collagen to have the strength to hold together. Large deficiencies show up as classic scurvy, small deficiencies show up as chronic deadly diseases, heart disease, (artherosclerosis is localized scurvy of the arteries), cancer, osteoporosis, (localized scurvy of the bones), etc. See the books by Thomas Levy, MD, JD, “Curing the Incurable”, and “Death by Calcium”, and by Hickey and Saul, “Vitamin C, The Real Story”.
Found it: “Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins: Curing the Incurable” and also by Dr Levy: “Optimal Nutrition for Optimal Health”
Thank you Sci-reader for posting.
Someone seriously needs to start covering Celiac Disease. The medical industry fails to make any progress beyond profitable tests with false positives and negatives with no treatment other than to eliminate gluten from diet, a near impossible endeavor. Problem is, Celiac leads to many cancers which no one seems to be studying.
This is the only country where pharmaceutical hustlers can advertise directly to the public – which, when you consider the billions of prescriptions sold here each year COUPLED with empirical IMMUNITY from civil liability, means a BUNCH of money to buy off the D.C. infection and also push for GMO/glyphosate poisoning.
https://www.cchr.org/about-us/what-is-cchr.html
https://theevilofzionismexposedbyjews.weebly.com/index.html
If “they” were to label a victim as “disabled” – SOME monies would have to be PAID OUT –
If you call it a “disease” – “they” can “treat” that disease right into the “victims” grave which means monies IN.
Reblogged this on Real News Australia.
Who owns disease?
.
Big Pharma
Spot on, as always. And I agree with Not So Free’s comment – Big Pharma owns disease – but I’d go even further and state that Big Pharma often causes ‘disease’ – or at least, illness. There’s so much evidence now that shows the over-vaccinated populations of the USA and Australia are suffering more chronic illness than other ‘developed’ countries that have less vaccines on their schedules. And all the ‘illnesses’ or conditions the authors of the ‘study’ relate to asthma are also more evident in fully vaccinated children than in the unvaccinated. Furthermore, so many of Big Pharma’s drugs, which are often approved based on their own dodgy ‘studies’ are causing far more harm than they are doing good. E.g. look at the Vioxx scandal of not so long back. And look at all the studies that show statin drugs do more harm than good.
TIm: Let’s look at what Jon said, and take it seriously:
“Here’s the rule: IF YOU CAN’T FIND A SINGLE CAUSE OF A DISEASE CONDITION, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL IT A SPECIFIC DISEASE CONDITION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IT MAY WELL BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CONDITIONS COMING FROM A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CAUSES.
FOR LONG-TERM RESULTS, WORK WITH THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT, NOT THE GROUP.”
The only difference in what I said is that I would call a disease condition with a single cause “an illness”.
There are two kinds of causes –
1. statistical causes, which are used for general analysis of the disease, but might be not present in any single case – in which case they cannot cure; The case you offer consists of statistical causes, without any evidence that a specific cause exists and is causing the disease.
and
2. cure causes which exist in specific cases, and when addressed provide a cure. The concept of multi-factorial causes is generally a reference to statistical causes, without much evidence in a specific case.
Asthma can have many causes. If a case of asthma has a single cause, and that cause is addressed, the illness will be cured. If a case of asthma has two causes – then it consists of two illnesses, and two cures are required, to address the two causes. If addressing only cause A, or cause B cures the illness – the analysis was wrong and there was only a single cause. The cure proves the cause. Of course, any cure can be confused by life factors. Life forms are constantly changing an may address a cause without our knowledge.
When a case of asthma has two causes, each of which can cause asthma, addressing one or the other will cure the individual illness – but the disease will not be cured. It may appear, from a disease perspective, that “symptoms are relieved”. The disease cure will only occur when the second cause is addressed; when the second illness is cured. This is the simplest version of the complex case you suggest, an illness with multiple factors (causes), and it can be modified to suit any number of causes.
We can cure a cause of a case of asthma with a single cause by addressing the cause. There is only one problem. Asthma cured is not defined. There is no test for asthma cured. Just as with ADHD, there is no test for asthma cured. Therefore, in conventional medicine, you cannot prove a cause of asthma in any individual case, even if you cure it.
It can be trivial to prove that asthma has been cured,
1. address the cause.
2. test for a cure (a test needs to be designed)
3. If cured, re-introduce the cause.
4. diagnose asthma
5. address the cause
6. test for cure.
This loop can be repeated many times, proving more solidly each time that the case of asthma has been cured. Of course, asthma can have multiple causes, but the foundation technique is solid. The cure proves the cause.
We can design a similar loop, if we wish, to demonstrate that a specific case of asthma has two, or five causes. But to do so might be immoral.
Of course, many cases of asthma are more complex, but the reason is not commonly understood.
Simple cases of asthma have a single cause. When the cause is addressed, even by accident, the illness is cured. Simple cases of asthma are generally cured. But cured is not defined and not documented for asthma. Cures are not counted. They disappear.
When a case of asthma is not cured, another cause of asthma can arrive. At this point, the patient has an asthma disease consisting of two asthma illnesses. Curing any individual one will appear to “not cure” the disease. Over time, the patient might contract another asthma cause. This results in a patient, like the one you describe, with many causes of asthma, many “asthma illnesses”. The medical paradigm sees one disease. An incurable disease.
Curable cases of asthma disappear from the system. Only incurable cases persist. Even if an incurable case is cured, by some fluke of circumstances, it will disappear from the system. Cured cannot be diagnosed and there is presently no accounting for asthma cures.
It’s possible to cure asthma – just not possible to prove a cure.
But that’s impossible for ADHD. There are two problems. ADHD has no cause that can be addressed. And ADHD has no test for cured. ADHD is a “disease” according to the medical profession (as Jon advises us) but it is not an illness. It has no cure causes. ADHD consists of signs and symptoms. That’s all. Nothing more. It’s nonsense.
An illness consists of the cause and consequences, and is cured when the cause has been addressed. When the cause returns, a new case of illness occurs, not a remission.
A disease? As Jon says, diseases are owned by the system. Diseases are used to treat, but to “not cure”. Diseases support a medical paradigm that sells medicines that don’t cure.
“There are two kinds of causes –
1. statistical causes, which are used for general analysis of the disease, but might be not present in any single case – in which case they cannot cure; The case you offer consists of statistical causes, without any evidence that a specific cause exists and is causing the disease.
and
2. cure causes which exist in specific cases, and when addressed provide a cure. The concept of multi-factorial causes is generally a reference to statistical causes, without much evidence in a specific case. ”
The medical/pharmaceutical establishment wants you to ignore demographics. For example, the demographics on vaccinations. If you don’t think the western diet is causing problems, that is your business. If you want to ignore the demographics concerning disease states in various regions and populations, that is your business. The demographics have causal linkages, that I read about in the literature each day. Other people are not very aware about the mass of research conducted.
You say ‘without any evidence’ and ‘without much evidence’. This can convince the unaware.
Fortunately, there is a mass of literature that actually shows there is evidence. Caveat emptor.
Everyone should be thinking about getting second opinions.
And just to give you an example to think about: CVD. Cardiovascular disease has multiple causes, and multifactoral causes. Not just a single cause. And I know of others, but just one disease is all that is required.
Diseases are not owned by the system, nor by any entity. Logic error. Pathology is not owned by anyone.
This shows a problem: CVD is actually a collection of diseases. But they are grouped together, and so there is a language issue: singular vs collective nouns. “Disease” may be one specific disease, or several, as is the case with CVD, with several causes.
And one more thing to think about: comorbidity.
It is entirely possible to create CVD, cardiovascular disease, from a single cause. Starvation causes cardiovascular disease. Chemotherapy can cause cardiovascular disease. It is possible to create cardiovascular disease with two causes. It is possible to create cardiovascular disease with multiple causes.
Cardiovascular disease in general, in statistical analysis, has many causes. Cardiovascular disease statistically is multi-factorial. But a single case of cardiovascular disease does not necessarily have multiple causes. Each single case has causes specific to the case. A single case might have a single cause. And therefore, a single case might have a single cure.
In the current conventional medical paradigm, cardiovascular disease is incurable. Cured is not defined for cardiovascular disease. There is no test for cured in the current medical paradigm. There is also no distinction, in current conventional medicine, between a cardiovascular disability and a curable cardiovascular disease.
If a patient has a curable cardiovascular disease, it is cured by addressing the cause or causes. A patient might have a curable cardiovascular disease, and also a cardiovascular disability caused by the condition, then the curable portion is a curable illness, and the non-curable portion is a disability.
And so you are writing that there is nothing wrong with what I’ve written? Or are you writing there is something wrong with what I’ve written? Which is it?
Myself, about what you’ve written above; “An illness element, or an elementary illness, has a single cause or causal chain.” say that this is not correct in many cases, and everyone should be skeptical about such claims.
What book, dictionary or other is this from “An illness element, or an elementary illness, has a single cause or causal chain.” What book defines ‘elementary illness’? Is it your own?
“In the current conventional medical paradigm, cardiovascular disease is incurable. Cured is not defined for cardiovascular disease. ”
“If a patient has a curable cardiovascular disease, it is cured by addressing the cause or causes.”
What are you talking about??? Isn’t the internal contradiction obvious?
And … all cancers are called cancer, though cancers are not all caused the same way. This applies to cancers of specific organs as well, eg, lung cancers are not all caused the same way.
There’s more.
“Here’s the rule: IF YOU CAN’T FIND A SINGLE CAUSE OF A DISEASE CONDITION, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL IT A SPECIFIC DISEASE CONDITION IN THE FIRST PLACE.”
A person can get cancer without anyway to determine the specific cause(s). This is common, eg colon and rectal cancers, liver cancer, prostate, breast, etc. And yet the condition of cancer is obvious. Therefore it cannot be stated that absence of causal identification, implies lack of any right to call the cancer, a cancer, or specific type of cancer, whatever it is. It simply does not follow. Therefore it cannot be stated as a general statement about disease or diseases either.
If you look up “Ailments of unknown cause” or ‘diseases of unknown cause’, you can see numerous conditions that in the details, some of which can be seen to be called disease. Including various forms of arthritis, atherosclerosis, Kawasaki disease, etc. So it cannot be stated that absence of knowing the cause of a condition, means you have no right to call it a specific disease.
You have the right to call some disease conditions as specific diseases, without knowing what the cause(s) is/are.
Tim: You can have a bit more fun if you look up “curable diseases that are not caused by a parasite”. There are none documented in current medical reference.
It’s not just diseases of the mind, as Jon points out, that have no cause – and therefore have no cure. There are no cures documented for any disease in current medical references – except those caused by a parasite. Cured is not medically defined, cannot be tested, cannot be proven for any disease – except those caused by a parasite.
Does Jon actually say diseases of the mind have no cause? Or is it that Jon is pointing out that there are no lab tests that can be used for verification for the conditions he writes about?
Some diseases of the mind do have causes, social stress, abuse, traumatic stress, etc. Another example, toxic psychosis: in these, chemical exposures, drugs, etc cause mental disease. Some of these are curable, and no parasite, bacteria or other pathogen microbe is present.
And so Tracy Kolenchuk’s statement “There are no cures documented for any disease in current medical references – except those caused by a parasite.” is categorically false. (Additionally there is the trivial example of non-parasite, but microbial caused diseases that are curable, disproving the statement.) Parasites are not the only pathogens that cause curable diseases.
This is a core problem in ‘modern medicine’: the attempt to remove social and environmental stressors from view, as disease causes.
Anyone reading your comments needs to seek second opinions.
“categorically false”? Name one? Provide a reference?
Quote from Tracy Kolenchuk “There are no cures documented for any disease in current medical references – except those caused by a parasite. Cured is not medically defined, cannot be tested, cannot be proven for any disease – except those caused by a parasite.”
In response to my objection, Tracy Kolenchuk replied: “categorically false”? Name one? Provide a reference?
And here are some references:
Cure [L., cura, care]. 1. Course of treatment to restore health. 2. Restoration to health.
-From Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. Edition 16, copyright 1989 by F.A. Davis Company ISBN 0-8036-8311-1
1 cure (noun) 1 : recovery from a disease … 2 : a drug, treatment, regimen, or other agency that cures a disease … 3 . a course or period of treatment … etc
-Webster’s Medical Desk Dictionary. Merriam-Webster Inc. 1986 ISBN 0-87779-025-6
disease (noun) : an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or of any of its components that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as various genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors : sickness, illness …
-Webster’s Medical Desk Dictionary. Merriam-Webster Inc. 1986 ISBN 0-87779-025-6
According to these, standard reference works, (and there are others in agreement) even malnutrition is a disease. This is readily cured, by definition of cure above, by appropriate nutrition. Additional examples include toxicosis, arising from various poisons which, by the definitions above, is disease. In non-lethal toxicosis, cures, that is recoveries, can be effected by simple means, without any drugs at all, by rest and appropriate nutrition. Examples include chemical exposures at work and non-lethal drug over doses. It is obvious from the definition of disease that various diseases can be cured, by definition, and that are not parasite caused.
Therefore the statements by Tracy Kolenchuk are false.
Suggesting that “a person can get cancer without any way to determine the specific causes” is simply a refusal to try. It’s giving up.
There are techniques to prove the cause of a cancer. Techniques that have been tested and proven in some cases.
1. If a patient is exposed to a poison or radiation that causes cancer, and we remove the cause before it causes a case of cancer, but the patients (or animals) that were not treated get cancer. We know their cause.
2. When we cure a case of cancer by successfully addressing the cause, the cure proves the cause. There are many people who claim to have cured their cancer by addressing the cause, but “cancer cured” is not defined, cannot be tested, so they are safely ignored by the medical establishment.
The current conventional medical treatments for cancer aim to “kill” the cancer rather than address the cause. As long as we never try to cure a cancer by addressing the cause, we will never prove a cause. We find statistical causes, but not cure causes.
When we cure a cancer by addressing the cause – that proves the cause. I
Of course a person can have a cancer that is so far advanced that it is not possible to prove the cause “in time to save their life”. But many cancers are minor and many are slow moving. We have lots of time to test for individual causes, lots of time to cure. But the medical standard for cancers that are not considered dangerous is not “cure”, it’s “wait and see if they become dangerous”.
No, it’s not a refusal to try, it is that the history of cancer development is such that only in a limited number of cases can causes be identified, such as asbestos, benzene exposure, tobacco smoke etc. In many cases, as above (breast cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate, etc), it is simply not possible to determine the cause(s). It is not giving up, it is the reality of the difficulty of determining causes of cancer.
“2. When we cure a case of cancer by successfully addressing the cause, the cure proves the cause. ”
Provide cases of curing cancer by ‘successfully addressing the cause’. Once a cancer has developed you cannot simply address the cause to effect a cure. Cancer no longer has the same biochemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc, as the parent tissue. Name one to support your contention.
Provide cases to demonstrate your point.
Jon
Your opening statement is rather more correct than you posit. My example will not court materialist-atheists but I’ll use it anyway.
Suzy Hansen’s book “Dual Soul Connection” details an account of her (presumed sub-conscious) relationship with “extra-terrestrial” [Zeta – she does not mention it] “Grey Beings”. They, by this account, review and heal ALL illnesses in an identical manner. Every living body attracts an ectoplasmic energy field. Even prior to illness, instability is reflected by a deepening of sensory colours. The extra-terrestrial have a means of recalibrating these faults in manner “unknown”.
Though Hansen did not (or wasn’t able to) reveal the “tools” of this illicit trade, more pragmatically and down-to-earth Barbara Brennan does promote energy field healing techniques. It’s a start, perhaps a step in the right direction….but will the ARROGANCE of “know-it-all” man support her?
Best
OT
Do you know if they would be willing to heal my pet?
She has a tumor.
Use cannabis oil. Energy techniques are not sophisticated enough…yet. The Zetas are “selective” in who/what they aid.
There is an enormous hidden link between food additives most of which contain glutamates (from soy and corn derivatives in 95% of processed food)
and asthma.
Companies like Con Agra and Archer Daniels Midland don’t want you to know that.
Processed foods are mostly poison.
The medical doctor will not tell you that diet can make you very very sick..they will just keep pumping you full of drugs rather than telling you that diet can reverse clogged arteries and reverse adult onset diabetes and a host of other things..
When you get a chance look up RUTH HEIDRCIH
83 year old ironman triathlete .
They won’t tell you that dairy is the leading cause of acne.
They won’t tell you about too many things.
I think we are over-thinking the use of the word “cure” here. If you say you know how to cure anything using an alternative, the FDA or the Medical Board will come after you. This is why information about the purpose of many supplements have been removed from the bottle. The establishment doesn’t want a cure, so ban the word, because it might cause the patient to think about a cure. Instead, everything is a treatment. Not a fix. The establishment knows the power of words, and are adept at how they change the meaning and use of words.
Yes. If you attempt to claim that Vitamin C cures scurvy, and put that claim on a product label, the US/FDA will shut you down. They even state this clearly in their product labelling guidelines.
The government, the US/FDA stance on CURE is clear and totally bureaucratic. If you market a treatment that claims to cure, you must provide evidence to the US/FDA, and your claim must be approved by the US/FDA. The US/FDA does not test cures, it approves or refuses to approve claims for drugs. If your evidence is accepted, your product becomes a “drug” in US/FDA language.
The US/FDA Labeling Guidelines clearly state, with regards to Vitamin C and scurvy:
“General well-being claims describe general well-being from consumption of a nutrient or dietary ingredient. Nutrient deficiency disease claims describe a benefit related to a nutrient deficiency disease (like vitamin C and scurvy), but such claims are allowed only if they also say how widespread such a disease is in the United States. These three types of claims are not pre-approved by FDA, but the manufacturer must have substantiation that the claim is truthful and not misleading and must submit a notification with the text of the claim to FDA no later than 30 days after marketing the dietary supplement with the claim. If a dietary supplement label includes such a claim, it must state in a “disclaimer” that FDA has not evaluated the claim. The disclaimer must also state that the dietary supplement product is not intended to “diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease,” because only a drug can legally make such a claim.”
Note: “the disclaimer MUST ALSO STATE .. that the product (eg. Vitamin C) is not intended to ‘diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease’ (eg. scurvy) because only a drug can legally make such a claim.
The US/FDA is right that Vitamin C supplements cannot cure scurvy, but their logic is nonsense. Vitamin C supplements do not cure scurvy because they do not address the cause.
Cure and cured are clearly defined for antibiotics and antifungal medicines. The illness is cured when the cause – the bacteria or fungus infection – has been addressed. If cured, and the patient acquires another infection, it’s clearly a new infection. Cures by antibiotics can be, and are tested in clinical studies.
Cured is not defined in a testable fashion for any other illness or treatment.
Anyone can claim a cure for arthritis, diabetes, cancer, or scurvy, without any evidence of, or need for proof. All cure claims are simply ignored. If someone claims Vitamin C supplements cure scurvy – no one cares, because the cure appears obvious (even when it is clearly wrong). If someone claims to cure arthritis or cancer or diabetes, nobody cares because no cure can be proven and all such cures are assumed to be invalid.
Cured is not defined, therefore all cure claims are ignored. Medical reference text editors know this and do not claim cure for any disease – except for communicable diseases – eg those caused by bacteria, fungus, etc.
The cause of scurvy is clearly an unhealthy diet – and the only, and obvious cure for scurvy is to address the unhealthy diet. Curing with Vitamin C is a stop-gap measure, which fails when the patient returns to their unhealthy diet without a steady supply of Vitamin C. A steady supply of Vitamin C supplements is not a cure, it is a crutch.
The US/FDA and the medical establishment refuse to acknowledge the cure for scurvy for a simple reason. The cure for scurvy is not a medicine.
The cure for scurvy is health, a healthy diet.
to your health, tracy
Founder: Healthicine
Author: A Calculus of Curing
There is ample evidence that vitamin C cures scurvy. The US government’s own websites states that vitamin C cures scurvy. Look it up: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
The quote from the FDA website does not state that you cannot apply to use such a statement on your product, such as ‘vitamin C cures scurvy’. The statement is that you will have to apply and go through the process. The FDA does not pre-approve such claims, and one would have to say how wide spread it is etc. But with vitamin C and scurvy, the government’s own websites state that vitamin C cures scurvy, so one should have no trouble at all. Just fulfill the necessary bureaucracy.
“Nutrient deficiency disease claims describe a benefit related to a nutrient deficiency disease (like vitamin C and scurvy), but such claims are allowed only if they also say how widespread such a disease is in the United States. These three types of claims are not pre-approved by FDA, but the manufacturer must have substantiation that the claim is truthful and not misleading and must submit a notification with the text of the claim to FDA no later than 30 days after marketing the dietary supplement with the claim. If a dietary supplement label includes such a claim, it must state in a “disclaimer” that FDA has not evaluated the claim. The disclaimer must also state that the dietary supplement product is not intended to “diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease,” because only a drug can legally make such a claim.” (from the FDA website)
And now a legal definition of drug or drug substance:
Drug substance means “an active ingredient that is intended to furnish pharmacological activity or other direct effect in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease or to affect the structure or any function of the human body, but does not include intermediates use in the synthesis of such ingredient.” [21 CFR 314.3; Title 21-Food And Drugs; Chapter I-Food And Drug Administration, Department Of Health And Human Services; Subchapter D-Drugs For Human Use; Part 314-Applications For Fda Approval To Market A New Drug; Subpart A-General Provisions]
The legal definition of drug includes vitamin C, as well as other nutrients, and vitamins. This is pointed out in pharmacology textbooks, such as Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, Twelfth Edition.
It is clear that within the legal processes of the FDA, one may apply for approval, to market vitamin C with a label noting that ‘vitamin C is a cure for scurvy’, because the governments own website states vitamin C cures scurvy. So one could go the supplement route. Or one could go the over-the -counter drug route, as vitamin C is also a drug, by law. If you fulfill the bureaucratic processes, then you may receive approval. There is no explicit statement that you cannot receive approval, only that you have to go through all the processes. Then you may get approval. There is no explicit statement that you cannot go through the process.
Even the government’s own websites note that vitamin C is a cure for scurvy.
Anyone can “claim” that Vitamin C cures scurvy. No one can prove it.
Anyone can claim that marijuana or cottage cheese cures cancer. No one can prove it.
No one can PROVE that Vitamin C cures scurvy, and no one can prove that marijuana or cottage cheese cures cancer. The medical establishment functions without a definition of cured, except for some communicable diseases. As a result, all cure claims of non-communicable diseases are only that, claims without proof.
There is no medical test for scurvy cured. There is no medical test for cancer cured.
I have no doubt that “Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins: Curing the Incurable” and also by Dr Levy: “Optimal Nutrition for Optimal Health” are very good resources and it is possible that they describe many cures accurately,
However,
His books are simply ignored by the medical establishment, as Dr Levy himself admits. None of his cure claims have been proven to the extent that they are recognized and published in authoritative medical texts. It is unfortunate, but true, that Dr Levy has written his entire set of books without a useful functional definition of CURED that is accepted by the medical establishment, without even realizing that there is no test for cured for the diseases he claims to cure.
Claims of cure, without a definition of cured, are viewed as quack cures, even if they actually work. Claims of cured, without a definition of cured, are seen as pseudoscience, quackery – and that is how the books of Dr Levy are seen by most members of the medical establishment. Sad, but true.
If the medical establishment ever makes an honest effort to define scurvy cured, it will be obvious what does, and what does not cure scurvy. Vitamin C supplements cannot cure scurvy, because a lack of Vitamin C supplements is not the cause. When supplements are used to “treat” scurvy, the patient must be supplemented for the rest of their life unless their diet also changes.
Medical reference texts, like Merck, Lange’s and Harrisons cannot agree on the dosage, nor the duration required to “treat” vitamin C, much less define scurvy cured. Lots of texts “claim” that Vitamin C cures scurvy – but all claims exist without proof, without a test that can prove a case of scurvy has been cured.