Mainstream Medicine May Someday be Viewed as the Dark Age of Medicine

August 14, 2017; by Tony Isaacs (Silver Bulletin e-News Magazine) By mainstream medicine’s own admission, mainstream medicines kill over 100,000 people a year in the US alone – and that is only for medicines which were properly prescribed and administered. That alone makes mainstream medicine the number three cause of death in the US. When you add in doctor errors, overdoses, un-evaluated and under-reported deaths (such as deaths at home) deaths which were attributed to the original disease instead of the medicines that caused the death, and diseases acquired in hospitals (such as MRSA) that number is estimated to be as high as 750,000 people a year. To put it bluntly, mainstream medicine may someday be viewed as the dark age of medicine.

Meanwhile, vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements kill about zero in any given year. But natural supplements and foods, and natural healing, which we have adapted to and utilized since we first put down our footsteps in the sands of time are considered woo by the maim-stream crowd, while side-effect laden medicines (over 95% have side effects) which mostly manage symptoms are considered to be the only valid forms of healing? Amazing how every generation thinks that their science is the end-all, though the rule is that the science of today is often overturned tomorrow.

Although mainstream medicine has been lauded for making many advances over the past century, many of those so-called advances are proving to be illusory. For example, take the credit given to vaccinations for reducing disease. Mainstream medicine and the vaccine makers have been all too quick and willing to take credit for eradicating and reducing infectious diseases. However, the truth is that every single disease that vaccines have been credited with stopping or reducing was already in a precipitous decline and heading towards zero or few infections prior to the introduction of vaccines for those diseases. And the real clincher when it comes to debunking the claims of the vaccine makers is found in two diseases which were on a similar decline and which never had vaccines developed for: typhoid fever and scarlet fever.

It was not medicine, but rather improved sanitation and, at least until recent decades, improved nutrition which were most responsible for the reduction in infectious diseases. In other words, things such as indoor plumbing and toilets, hot water and sterilization, regular baths and hand washing and better access to healthy food are what have been mainly responsible for the elimination of infectious diseases. It should be noted, however, that our foods have become increasingly less healthy in recent decades due to toxins being processed into our foods for reasons such as costs, color, taste, texture and shelf life while much of the real nutrition has been processed out.

Another example of illusory accomplishments is antibiotics, which were once hailed as medical science’s greatest contribution in the fight against illness. Now, over a century after the introduction of antibiotics, many people are worried that the development and widespread use of antibiotics may end up being one of medical science’s greatest mistakes.

Quite simply, increasingly virulent pathogens are continuing to mutate and are defeating the strongest antibiotics that science can produce. Many such pathogens have taken up homes in our hospitals, Examples include: virumethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPC), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). An old nemesis, tuberculosis is also making a strong comeback and is now termed multi-medicine-resistant tuberculosis, or MDR-TB. It appears that the age of antibiotics is coming to an end and we are entering the age of the superbugs.

So OK, let’s talk cancer. Here are some more unpleasant facts: Chemotherapy and radiation both cause cancer and they cure precious little. Both damage the immune system which is vital for beating cancer and keeping cancer at bay and both kill cancer cells and healthy cells alike – often resulting in damage to vital organs including the liver and heart. Mainstream studies in the US and Australia found that 5-year survival for people who had chemo was only 2 – 3% greater than it was for those who did not opt for chemo.

Like chemo, radiation kills the least robust cancer cells first and leaves behind the most resistant cells to multiply and make the cancer ever stronger and harder to beat.  Worse still, recent year studies have found that both radiation and chemo create cancer stem cells which are 30 times more difficult to kill than regular cancer cells. The sad and alarming fact is that chemo kills many more people than it saves each year – mostly from liver failure, heart failure and wasting disease (cachexia). Think Patrick Swayze.

Despite statistical juggling, the cure rate for cancer has not grown all that much. Much of the credit for the improvement in cancer statistics is due to earlier diagnosis because in addition to cancer being easier to defeat when it is detected early, mainstream medicine considers anyone who survives 5 years after diagnosis to be a “cure” – even if the day after their 5th anniversary their body is eaten up with cancer and they die. The biggest reason for improved breast cancer statistics is that a highly curable condition that had previously been considered to be a pre-cancerous condition, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS),  was moved to the cancer category and viola – breast cancer survival stats improved by leaps and bounds.

Neither chemo nor radiation, nor surgery for that matter, address the root causes that enabled cancer to gain a foothold in the first place. For many decades, mainstream science considered genetics to be the primary cause of cancer, though they are slowly coming to admit the truth – that toxins are the main cause of cancer, as famed French scientist Antoine Bechamp told us a century and a half ago. A person may be genetically predisposed to have a greater risk of cancer, but it isn’t the genes that cause the cancer, it’s the toxins.

So why has mainstream cancer stuck to a mostly failed treatment paradigm of trying to cut out, poison out or burn out the symptoms of cancer (the tumors) instead of addressing the root caus? Why does mainstream treatment continue to treat cancer with items which cause cancer? For the same reasons they reject abundant natural cancer cures, several of which are highly effective. Because cancer is a profit-making Goliath. Estimates range from over $100 Billion a year to as high as $400 Billion – especially when you consider the medicines, oncology practices, hospitals, hospices, mammography machines and film and the government agencies and non-profits with their cushy salaries and perks. The only way to maintain, much less increase, all the profits, jobs and perks is to NOT find a cure for cancer. And so we haven’t.

Meanwhile, as it has for thousands of years, nature continues to actually heal us with very little in the way of dangerous side effects (in any given year, there are usually no deaths at all reported due to natural supplements). Perhaps we have not advanced nearly as much as many would have us believe and when it comes to today’s medicine, someday mankind may very well look back and see  it as the true dark ages of medicine.

Colloidal Silver Advanced 8.6 oz Bottle

Share

Tags: , , , , ,