Cholesterol misunderstanding

 Statins

The establishment definition of a statin refers to,

“any one of a class of drugs that inhibit the action of an enzyme involved in the liver’s production of cholesterol.”

The reason that drugs are required to inhibit the production of cholesterol is claimed by the NIH, on the Resources web page entitled High Blood Cholesterol: What You Need to Know, to be because,

“High blood cholesterol is one of the major risk factors for heart disease.”

The medical establishment theory, which claims that a high level of cholesterol is dangerous and needs to be reduced, is, however, flawed. Interestingly, the establishment definition of cholesterol highlights one of the flaws in this theory because it includes the statement that,

“Cholesterol and its esters are important constituents of cell membranes…”

Despite the plethora of recommendations by the medical establishment that people should lower their intake of cholesterol, the total level of cholesterol within the body is not regulated by dietary intake. The overwhelming proportion, approximately 85%, of the body’s requirement for cholesterol is produced by the liver; it is only the remaining 15% approximately that is obtained through the diet. If, for some reason, the diet provides the body with insufficient cholesterol, the liver will increase its production to compensate for that dietary deficiency. It is clear therefore, that it is the body that regulates the level of this vital substance.

Cholesterol is not solely an important constituent of cell membranes; it is also an important constituent of the brain and essential for its proper functioning; as indicated by a 2010 article entitled The Effects of Cholesterol on Learning and Memory, which states that,

“Cholesterol is ubiquitous in the central nervous system (CNS) and vital to normal brain function including signaling, synaptic plasticity, and learning and memory.”

The recognition that cholesterol is vital for the proper functioning of many of the body’s vital organs directly contradicts the information promulgated by the medical establishment that cholesterol is ‘dangerous’, and that high levels in the body pose a serious ‘risk’ to health.

An April 2016 article entitled Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis, published in the BMJ, explains that the original hypothesis about levels of cholesterol stemmed from a study called the Minnesota Coronary Experiment that was conducted between 1968 and 1973; but the results of this study were not published. This experiment was a controlled study that, for the participants of one of the groups, involved the replacement of saturated fats with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid, a polyunsaturated fat. This dietary intervention was shown to reduce serum levels of cholesterol and assumed to be beneficial.

The documents and data from this original study have recently been re-analysed and the results published in the BMJ. The reason that the original study was not published is claimed to be because the researcher did not believe the results he had obtained. The BMJ article states that,“In meta-analyses, these cholesterol lowering interventions showed no evidence of benefit on mortality from coronary heart disease.”

In addition to the lack of evidence that any benefits accrued from the lowering of cholesterol levels, the BMJ article reports that the evidence,

“…suggests the possibility of an increased risk of death for the intervention group…”

This is not the only study that has discovered that low cholesterol correlates with an increased risk of mortality, not a reduced risk, as the medical establishment claims.

It is stated that there are two types of cholesterol; LDL (low-density lipoproteins), which is regarded as ‘bad’ and HDL (high-density lipoproteins), which is regarded as ‘good’; but these labels are completely misleading. The idea that cholesterol can be either good or bad is based on a misunderstanding that arose from another study that investigated the effects of cholesterol on laboratory animals. The misunderstanding occurred because it was not recognised at the time that the cholesterol used in the study had been oxidised; it is the oxidation of cholesterol that causes health problems. In his book entitled Health and Nutrition Secrets, Dr Russell Blaylock explains the mistaken perception about the different types of cholesterol,

“The reason LDL cholesterol is bad is that it is much easier to oxidize than HDL cholesterol. But oxidized HDL cholesterol is just as dangerous as oxidized LDL cholesterol.”

Oxidation of the cholesterol that constitutes cell membranes will inevitably, adversely affect the cell’s function and, likewise, oxidation of the cholesterol in the brain will affect brain function. These detrimental effects are the direct result of the process of oxidation; a process that produces ‘free radicals’, which are highly reactive particles that can cause damage to any part of the body with which they make contact. Oxidised cholesterol has been shown to cause damage to blood vessels; although free radicals cause damage wherever they are produced in the body.

On the basis of the flawed idea that it is a high level of cholesterol in the body that is the problem, the pharmaceutical industry developed drugs called statins to inhibit the production of this vitally important substance. Inevitably, there are many dangers associated with the use of statins, which, by intention, are designed to interfere with the body’s normal production of cholesterol. The consequences of inhibiting the enzyme in the liver to reduce the production of cholesterol are discussed by Dr Carolyn Dean in Death by Modern Medicine,

“That enzyme, however, does much more in the body than just make cholesterol, so when it is suppressed by statins there are far-ranging consequences.”

Statins are proclaimed by the medical establishment to be both safe and effective, yet, like all other drugs, they produce a number of severely detrimental effects, some of which are explained by Dr Dean,

“Since the brain has the highest concentration of cholesterol in the body, it’s no wonder that the constant demand for lower and lower cholesterol counts is going to impinge on brain function. Previous studies have shown that statins can result in polyneuropathy, which causes numbness, tingling, and burning pain. Researchers showed that people taking statins were 4 to 14 times more likely to develop polyneuropathy than those who did not take statins.”

Statins are intended to inhibit the production of cholesterol; they are not intended to address the problem of oxidised cholesterol, which means that they fail to address the underlying cause of the problem. There are a number of factors that can cause the oxidation of cholesterol and they include many toxic chemicals that are ubiquitous to the environment, as Dr Dean explains,

“In addition, chlorine, fluoride in water, pesticides and other environmental pollutants can also oxidize cholesterol in the body.”

The problems with these chemicals and other environmental pollutants are discussed in more detail in chapter six. Oxidised cholesterol can also be found in processed and ‘fast’ foods, which are also discussed in more detail in chapter six.

In addition to their increased use as treatments for patients with high levels of cholesterol, statins are increasingly prescribed as preventives on the basis of the idea that this will reduce the risk of developing a CVD. As demonstrated by the study published in the BMJ, there is no evidence that high levels of cholesterol constitute a health problem or even increase the risk of developing health problems. The study in fact revealed the opposite; that low levels of cholesterol produce adverse health consequences and that statins increase the level of harm to health.

The harm that they have been shown to cause is demonstrated by the withdrawal of certain statin drugs from the market following reports about a number of severe ‘side effects’, and even death in some cases. Nevertheless, many statin drugs remain on the market, including some that are known to produce many serious adverse effects, as has been reported by many patients who have taken these drugs. This would seem to be another instance of the benefit being claimed to outweigh the risk; but this is clearly not the case.

One of the serious adverse effects that can result from the use of statins is reported in a December 2015 article entitled Statin Use and the Risk of Kidney Disease With Long-Term Follow-Up (8.4-Year Study) published in the American Journal of Cardiology. This study acknowledges that there had been few studies on the long-term use of statins, especially with respect to the effects on kidney disease. The conclusion to the study states that,

“…statin use is associated with increased incidence of acute and chronic kidney disease.”

The reason that these serious health problems were not discovered from the original clinical trials is also explained by the article that states,

“These findings are cautionary and suggest that long-term effects of statins in real-life patients may differ from shorter term effects in selected clinical trial populations.”

Yet again, the medical establishment’s lack of knowledge about the human body has created more problems than it has solved in the attempt to reduce the incidence of heart disease. Cholesterol is not responsible for heart disease, therefore attempts to reduce the body’s production of cholesterol will not reduce the risk of heart disease.

What Really Makes You Ill?

Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease is Wrong

Dawn Lester & David Parker

Innocent cholera bacilli or Koch postulates

 Dr Robert Koch who is regarded as the founder of modern bacteriology; nevertheless, like Louis Pasteur, Dr Koch is falsely venerated as a hero. It is widely claimed that Dr Koch provided the necessary ‘proof’ that certain diseases were caused by certain bacteria; but this is a mistaken claim, as will be demonstrated.

In order for him to test his theory that bacteria were the causes of disease, Dr Koch developed four Postulates that continue to bear his name. The first Postulate, which is the most crucial for determining a causal agent of disease, comprises two criteria, the first of which is that the microbe alleged to cause a specific disease must be found in all people suffering from that disease. The second criterion is that the microbe should not be found in anyone who does not have the disease it is claimed to cause. The logic of this first postulate is undeniable; any exception to either criterion means that the ‘microbe’ could not be the causal agent of the disease in question. This logic is recognised by Dr Peter Duesberg, who states in his book entitled Inventing the AIDS Virus that,

“A single exception would be enough to pronounce the microbe innocent of creating that disease.”

However, investigations of bacteria and their relationship to different diseases reveal the existence of exceptions to both criteria of Koch’s first postulate; bacteria have been found in the bodies of people who do not have the disease they are alleged to cause, and the relevant bacteria have not been found in all people with the disease they are alleged to cause. The significance of these exceptions is that they utterly refute the basic assumption that bacteria cause disease. These exceptions should have persuaded scientists like Dr Koch to reassess the ‘germ theory’, if not completely abandon it.

There was, and still is, a great reluctance to abandon or even reassess the theory; instead, efforts have been made to solve the anomalies raised by these exceptions by making adaptations to the theory. But these adaptations do not resolve the underlying anomalies; on the contrary, they introduce additional anomalies. The main problem is that the adapted theory retains the underlying assumption that ‘bacteria’ are pathogens; but it is precisely this assumption that is fundamentally flawed.

*

Another example that demonstrates the fallacy of the claim that specific bacteria cause specific diseases, or any disease at all, is that of Dr Max Pettenkofer MD, who Eleanor McBean reports to have swallowed, on more than one occasion, the contents of a glass containing millions of cholera bacilli in full view of a class of his students; yet it is reliably reported that Dr Pettenkofer failed to succumb to the disease.

Although it has been suggested by certain sections of the scientific community that Koch’s postulates are flawed, out-of-date and need to be revised, such a suggestion ignores the central point, which is that allegedly ‘pathogenic’ bacteria can be found in abundance in and on the bodies of healthy people. These bacteria cannot therefore be regarded as pathogens merely on the basis that they are sometimes found in some people who are ill. Dr Peter Duesberg states the logical conclusion succinctly,

“Simply finding a microbe is not enough to convict it of causing a disease.”

What Really Makes You Ill?

Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease is Wrong

Dawn Lester & David Parker

Environmental pollution caused by the products, emissions and wastes of a wide variety of industries

 The topic of ‘climate change’ is a controversial one; mainly due to the ideas of the scientific establishment about the causes of changes in the climate. The main claims are that unprecedented levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have adversely affected the climate and that human activity is largely to blame for this situation; but these claims are unfounded. This is not to deny that the climate changes; that is an irrefutable fact. Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred throughout the existence of the planet. The point of dispute is that it has never been proven that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the driving force behind changes in the climate, or that human activity is the most significant contributory factor to the total volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Although carbon dioxide is regarded as a greenhouse gas, it is by no means the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere; it is, however, the only gas that has been accused since the 1980s of causing ‘global warming’, a label that was altered to ‘climate change’ when global temperature readings ceased to support the notion that the planet was experiencing unprecedented ‘warming’.

It is an acknowledged scientific fact that ‘human emissions’ form only a small fraction of the total volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which itself forms only a small percentage of the total volume of ‘greenhouse gases’. Nevertheless, it is claimed that the contribution from ‘human emissions’ creates a ‘dangerous’ level of carbon dioxide; a claim that is refuted by palaeoclimatologist Professor Robert M Carter PhD, who states in his book entitled Climate: The Counter Consensus that,“Though we know little about the transient effect of human emissions, there is little reason to suspect that the effect is dangerous.”

Carbon dioxide is not the ‘dangerous’ villain it is purported to be; on the contrary, Professor Carter states that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have been shown to be beneficial and explains that,

“Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide both enhances plant growth and aids the efficiency of water use.”

Professor Carter is by no means alone in his recognition that atmospheric carbon dioxide is beneficial for plant growth; as demonstrated by a 2009 fact sheet entitled Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses produced by OMAFRA (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs), which states that,“The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for years.”

Carbon dioxide is essential for photosynthesis, which is a vital aspect of plant growth. This means that carbon dioxide is vital for life on planet Earth as many living organisms depend on plants for their food, either directly or indirectly; high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide benefits plant growth and therefore increases the food supply.

Unfortunately, whilst the attention of the public is focused on the idea that carbon dioxide is ‘bad’ and the primary cause of ‘climate change’, the far more important and serious issue of environmental pollution is ignored. The portrayal of carbon dioxide as the ‘villain’ of environmental pollution has become a diversionary tactic to avoid sufficient media attention to expose the real villains, which are the plethora of toxic substances that pollute the environment.

It is often claimed that people who ‘deny’ climate change are funded by the oil industry to help promote their cause; the discussions in this chapter will demonstrate that the oil industry is a major polluter of the environment; this claim cannot therefore be applied to the authors of this book.

The very real and urgent problem that faces humanity is environmental pollution caused by the products, emissions and wastes of a wide variety of industries, as this chapter will demonstrate.

It must be emphasised that this discussion should not be interpreted as a polemic against ‘industry’ expressed from a ‘Luddite’ perspective, in which all industry is viewed as ‘bad’. It is, however, a critique of the direction taken by many industries in respect of the processes and materials they create and utilise, as well as the irresponsible discharge of toxic industrial wastes. The sentiment of the authors of this book is described in Ralph Nader’s book entitled In Pursuit of Justice in which he quotes the words of conservationist David Brower, who states that,“We’re not blindly opposed to progress, we’re opposed to blind progress.”

There is no easily discernible point in history when efforts to understand the world and how it functions developed into efforts to control and dominate the world and its resources; the process seems to have undergone a slow but insidious progression. Activities that began as the utilisation of resources for everyday life, somehow developed into a full-scale exploitation of resources by certain groups of people in the belief that they had an inalienable right to exploit those resources, without regard or responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

In addition to the exploitation of natural resources by industry in general, the chemical industry in particular has created a wide variety of new substances that could never have developed naturally; this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to degrade naturally. Dr Barry Commoner PhD expresses this point in his book entitled Making Peace With the Planet,

“Organic compounds incapable of enzymatic degradation are not produced in living things.”

In this context, ‘organic’ means carbon-based. Enzymatic degradation is the process by which matter is broken down into its individual chemical components. If the matter is organic, these chemical components are reabsorbed into the environment where they are ‘recycled’ by various organisms, including bacteria. The ever-growing volume of non-organic compounds that do not biodegrade naturally is a key factor in the ever-growing level of environmental pollution.

It is no understatement to assert that science has been largely, although not completely, corrupted by those who seek to control and exploit the world’s resources for their own narrow benefits, rather than to understand the importance of the maintenance of natural resources to ensure the perpetuation of life on Earth. Warnings about the dire consequences of the arrogant attitude of those who seek to control and exploit nature, have been expressed by many concerned people from various walks of life over a long period of time. One of those warnings was articulated over half a century ago by Rachel Carson in her book entitled Silent Spring,“As man proceeds towards his announced goal of the conquest of nature, he has written a depressing record of destruction, directed not only against the earth he inhabits but against the life that shares it with him.”

Although her book is primarily a discussion about the dangers of toxic pesticides, Rachel Carson’s words are equally applicable to various disciplines in which mankind seeks the ‘conquest of nature’, particularly by the manufacture of unnatural and dangerous chemicals and the generation of EM radiation. Peter Montague refers in his previously cited 1999 article to the level of awareness of the problem that existed in the 1970s,

“Technical mastery of natural forces was leading not to safety and well being, but to a careless and accelerating dispersal of dangerous poisons into the biosphere with consequences impossible to predict.”

Sadly, the situation has yet to change for the better in the intervening decades; in most instances the situation has substantially worsened. One major example is that with the development of nuclear weapons, mankind has taken the desire for control to its ultimate limit and created the ability to completely destroy the entire world; an event in which no one could ever be the winner.

This is also articulated by Peter Montague in his article, in which he states that,

“During the late 1960s it slowly became clear that many modern technologies had far surpassed human understanding, giving rise to by-products that were dangerous, long-lived and completely unanticipated.”

It is impossible in a single chapter to enumerate and detail all the ways in which the world has been, and continues to be, polluted and poisoned. Such a chapter would not only be long and cumbersome, but it would also be thoroughly depressing. The aim of this book is to inform, not to depress, and so this chapter focuses on providing information about pollutants and toxins, some of which are discussed in detail, for the purpose of demonstrating their widespread nature in everyday life and to assist people to avoid, or at least minimise, exposure to them.

The fact that people survive and are able to live despite constant exposures to a barrage of toxic substances is a testament to the body’s self-regulating and self-healing mechanisms. However, whilst it is essential to bear in mind throughout this chapter that the human body is amazingly resilient, it must also be recognised that there are limits to the body’s ability to withstand increasing levels of toxic intake; these limits are manifested in the serious nature of the diseases with which increasing numbers of people around the world now suffer.

This situation can be changed, but only when people have a genuine understanding of the real causes of illness, so that they can make informed decisions about matters that affect their health. However, informed decisions can only be made when people are in possession of all the relevant information about the ‘poisons’ to which they are exposed and can therefore avoid; providing this information is the core purpose of this chapter.

From: What Really Makes You Ill?

Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease is Wrong

Dawn Lester & David Parker

Science and medicine

Science and technology have generated many innovations that have profoundly changed the way people live; these changes have accelerated substantially over the past three centuries since, and largely as the result of, the Industrial Revolution.

The consequences of these changes have not always been beneficial; many have been positively detrimental. One of the main consequences has been the almost total obeisance to ‘science’ in the belief that it is the only method through which ‘knowledge’ can be obtained. Dr Mendelsohn’s simile that modern medicine is like a religion can be extrapolated to apply to ‘science’, in which ‘scientists’ have assumed the mantle of ‘authority’ and become a new kind of priesthood.

This situation is highly problematic; real science is a process of discovery, but the discipline of ‘science’ has become largely authoritarian because its teachings are: that scientific knowledge is the sole repository of ‘truth’; that only those who accept the ‘consensus’ view are the genuine scientists; and that any dissenting views are to be vilified and described in terms such as ‘unscientific’ and ‘pseudoscience’ or with other similarly disparaging labels.

The field of knowledge that has suffered the greatest harm from this dogmatic approach is that of ‘health’, in which dissenters are labelled as ‘quacks’. But the use of insults has no place in a genuine scientific debate. The greatest error of ‘scientists’ in this field, which is often referred to as ‘medical science’, originates from a false perception of the human body as essentially a ‘machine’ of separate parts that are fundamentally chemical in nature; meaning that a malfunction in each part can be ‘fixed’ by altering its chemical nature. This error has been compounded by the equally erroneous idea that ‘diseases’ are the result of an ‘attack’ on the body, mainly, but not exclusively, by ‘germs’.

Furthermore, most ‘scientists’ in the field of ‘medicine’ regard the living human body as if it were inert; they effectively deny that it has a role of any significance in the production of illness or in the restoration of health. To add insult to injury, the medical establishment maintains the stance that it is only their healthcare system, which operates from the basis of these ideas, that is capable of correctly addressing matters pertaining to health.

Yet again, nothing could be further from the truth.

From: What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease is Wrong

Dawn Lester & David Parker

How To Be Naturally Healthy

 

“Health is not something bestowed on you by beneficent nature at birth; it is achieved and maintained only by active participation in well-defined rules of healthful living…” Henry Bieler

The health policy guidelines developed and issued by the WHO are recommended for implementation by all Member States; they therefore have the ability to affect the health of the entire world population. It may be assumed from the magnitude of this responsibility that the WHO possesses a thorough understanding of the problem it purports to be able to solve; it may also be assumed that the measures recommended for the treatment and prevention of illness are not only appropriate but are also safe and effective; these would however, be mistaken assumptions. As the discussions in this book have demonstrated, ‘modern medicine’ does not possess a thorough understanding of the nature of illness and has failed to correctly identify all of its causes. They have also demonstrated that the measures employed to treat and prevent disease, namely medicines and vaccines, are not only inappropriate, they are neither safe nor effective.

Although modern medicine is claimed to be founded on evidence-based science, it is abundantly obvious that it has failed to solve the problem of illness; this can be demonstrated by a substantial volume of evidence that shows ill-health to be a problem that continues to worsen rather than improve. It is clear that medicines and vaccines do not heal and prevent disease; but the problem with these measures is not merely their lack of efficacy. There is a large and growing body of evidence that shows pharmaceutical products to be toxic and therefore inimical to health, not supportive of it.

The main reason that ‘modern medicine’ has failed to solve the problem of illness is because it operates from the basis of fundamentally flawed theories; yet the medical establishment refuses to revise these theories, despite their obvious flaws.

In common with all other problems, that of ‘illness’ can only be solved by understanding its nature and correctly identifying its real causes. People can only be restored to good health when the causes of ill-health have been eliminated and therefore cease to exist; as indicated by Herbert Shelton who explains that,

“…full recovery cannot be expected so long as cause remains.”

As stated in the Introduction to this book, health is the natural state of the human body, but achieving and retaining good health requires people to take certain actions. The main actions involve making conscious decisions, firstly, to avoid, or limit, exposures to the factors that adversely affect health and secondly, to increase exposures to the factors that improve health. In other words, it requires people to actively participate in ‘healthful living’, as explained by Dr Henry Bieler in the quote that opens this concluding section of the book.

Although most people trust the medical establishment as the ‘authority’ with respect to illness, especially in the treatment and prevention of disease, this is, unfortunately, a misplaced trust for reasons that have been discussed throughout this book. It must be emphasised that authority is not synonymous with ‘truth’. Authority, when not based on truth, can impede progress and even prevent the discovery of truth; as indicated by a saying attributed to Albert Einstein,

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

It is likely that, at the beginning of this book, most readers would have considered the information in this book to have been controversial; it is however, appropriate at this juncture, to repeat the saying attributed to Arthur Schopenhauer,

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

It is sincerely hoped that, having reached the end of this book, you, the reader, will have attained the third stage and recognise the ‘self-evident’ nature of the information it contains. It is also hoped that, with your new understanding of what really makes you ill, you will feel you are now in possession of the information you require to make truly informed decisions about your healthcare.

from: What Really Makes You Ill?

Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease is Wrong

Dawn Lester & David Parker

Drugs are unnecessary, and in most cases injurious ...

 The practice of medicine has clearly not changed a great deal since the days of Hippocrates, after whom the Hippocratic Oath that urges doctors to ‘do no harm’ is named. This Oath is still sworn by newly qualified doctors and it is a laudable principle on which to base any work in the field of ‘healthcare’. But the use of harmful substances in the name of ‘healthcare’ denies physicians the ability to apply that principle in practice; as this chapter will demonstrate.

Although the medical establishment continues to repudiate the idea that ‘medicines’ are harmful, with the sole exception of ‘side effects’, there have been many individual physicians who have become aware of and concerned about the problems inherent within the system in which they were trained. As a result of their investigations, many of these physicians were brave enough to reject some, if not all, of their ‘training’ and to develop and utilise other methods of ‘healing’, many of which resulted in vastly improved outcomes for their patients. One such physician was Dr John Tilden MD, who discusses his experiences in his book entitled Toxemia Explained, in which he states that,“Twenty-five years in which I used drugs, and thirty-three in which I have not used drugs, should make my belief that drugs are unnecessary, and in most cases injurious, worth something to those who care to know the truth.”

Most people will probably assume that the ‘medical system’ of the early 21st century is based on solid scientific evidence, unlike the systems of earlier periods; but this would be a mistaken assumption. The system of modern medicine currently in use has been developed as the result of a variety of customs and traditions, none of which has been scientifically established to be appropriate for the treatment of a patient’s illness in order to restore them to health.

from: What Really Makes You Ill?

Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease is Wrong

Dawn Lester & David Parker

What you can find in the book What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease is Wrong

 Environmental pollution due to ‘harmful substances and influences’ is a far greater and more serious threat to human health than is acknowledged by the scientific community, including the medical establishment. The discussions in chapter six explore the major sources of ‘poisons’, both chemical and electrical in nature, that pollute the environment and refer to some of the main applications of these poisons. This chapter also discusses the use of toxic chemicals as ingredients of a wide variety of everyday products, such as household products, cosmetics and personal-care products, foods and drinks, as well as some lesser-known applications.

The medical establishment admits to not knowing the ‘exact’ causes of most, if not all, chronic health problems, more commonly referred to as noncommunicable diseases. The discussions in chapter seven examine a number of major noncommunicable diseases to expose the existence and extent of these ‘knowledge gaps’; they also examine some of the known causal factors and reveal the existence of an underlying mechanism common to virtually all of them.

Health problems cannot be considered in isolation; they are invariably associated with other circumstances, most of which affect a significant proportion of people throughout the world, especially in countries referred to as ‘developing’. International organisations, especially those within the UN system, claim to be able to resolve all of the problems that confront humanity in the 21st century; but this claim is unfounded. The discussions in chapter eight examine the most recent efforts to implement measures claimed to provide solutions to these problems, with particular emphasis on those that impact human health, whether directly or indirectly, and reveal that these measures are inappropriate as solutions, because they fail to address and thereby remove the real causes of these problems.

The reason that ‘modern medicine’ employs inappropriate solutions to the problem of ‘disease’, despite the unimaginably huge sums of money that have been, and continue to be, expended on the development of medicines and vaccines, is largely due to the influence of ‘vested interests’. The existence and influence of these vested interests over key areas of human life, including the healthcare system operated by the medical establishment, are discussed in chapter nine.

Having revealed the problems with the explanations presented by the medical establishment in the previous chapters, the final chapter explains the real nature of ‘disease’. It also discusses how illness is almost always the result of multiple causes and reveals the existence of a common mechanism. In addition to discussing the problems, chapter ten provides information about how people can reduce their exposures to these causal factors and take responsibility for, and control over, their own health.

The Blood Poisoners

 

In his book entitled The Blood Poisoners, Lionel Dole describes the nature of Louis Pasteur’s experiments,

“The manner in which Pasteur made rabbits "rabid" by boring holes in their skulls and inserting filth into their brains was not science but simply brutal quackery.”

Nevertheless, it was on the basis of this brutal quackery that Louis Pasteur developed his rabies vaccine. The medical establishment references to this vaccine indicate that it was a resounding success; contemporary reports however, tell a very different story and one that again speaks of Louis Pasteur’s fundamental errors and even of fraud.

In her essay, Dr Morden refers to two medical practitioners who were contemporaries of Louis Pasteur but outspoken in their criticism of his work; as the following extracts demonstrate. The first extract refers to Dr Bruette’s exposure of the fraud of the rabies vaccine,

“Dr William A. Bruette, former assistant chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry in Washington, was also a contemporary of Pasteur and gave many proofs of Pasteur’s incorrect findings. Dr Bruette has proved, as a matter of fact, that rabies vaccine is not only a fraud, but harmful. He scorns the use of rabies vaccine and states that ‘inoculation spreads disease.’ He goes as far as to call the sale of rabies vaccine an out and out racket.”

Although 21st century vaccines are different from those used in the 19th century, they are all based on the same flawed theory. The second extract refers to Dr Woods’ exposure of a major flaw in the theory about the alleged cause of rabies,

“Dr Matthew Woods, another contemporary of Pasteur, then a leading member of the Philadelphia Medical Society, wrote much on the subject of rabies. He stated, ‘...at the Philadelphia dog pound, where on an average more than 6,000 vagrant dogs are taken annually, and where the catchers and keepers are frequently bitten while handling them, not one case of hydrophobia has occurred during its entire history of twenty-five years, in which time 150,000 dogs have been handled’.”

Dr Morden cites a further quote from Dr Woods, in which he suggests alternative causes for the symptoms that are often labelled as ‘rabies’,

“In animals, so-called rabies is fundamentally due to maltreatment or malnutrition or both.”
Dr Bruette and Dr Woods were by no means the only medical practitioners to disparage Louis Pasteur’s rabies vaccine; a critical view was also held by Dr George Wilson MD, President of the British Medical Society, who, at the Society’s AGM in 1899, made the following statement that was published in the British Medical Journal,“I accuse my profession of misleading the public. Pasteur's anti-rabies vaccination is - I believe, and others with me - a piece of deception.”

Unfortunately, the rabies vaccine is far more than a piece of deception; it was, and still is a serious public health problem that poses severe health hazards for both humans and animals. It should be clear that maltreatment and malnutrition, the alternative causes suggested by Dr Woods, can be neither prevented nor treated by vaccination. The health of a person or an animal can certainly be adversely affected by vaccines. In his book, Lionel Dole expands on the many problems associated with the use of the rabies vaccine,

“Pasteur cannot be proved to have saved a single life with his vaccines, but it is quite certain that many people died from his treatment of them, even when the dogs that had bitten them remained perfectly well....”

Any dogs that remained ‘perfectly well’ could not have been ‘rabid’; nevertheless, many dogs were destroyed on the basis that they had a disease that they could transmit to people, if bitten.

Although it is claimed that rabies is caused by a virus, the refutation of the ‘germ theory’ in chapter three demonstrates this to be an unfounded claim. There is, however, other evidence that also denies the viral cause of rabies, as explained by Hans Ruesch, a Swiss medical historian, who states, in his book entitled 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, that,

“Medical students are taught that Pasteur solved the ‘problem’ of rabies in the last century – thanks to experiments on dogs. They – and the public – are not told that neither he nor his successors have ever been able to identify the virus which is supposed to cause rabies....”

Hans Ruesch’s book was first published in 1978; in other words, more than four decades after the invention of the electron microscope; this, in turn, means that there had been more than ample time for scientists to have identified the virus alleged to cause rabies. The fact that it had remained unidentified in the late 1970s demonstrates that there can be no original ‘proof’ that rabies is caused by a ‘virus’; the idea that it can be transmitted to humans through the bite of an allegedly ‘infected’ dog is similarly unproven.

In the conclusion to her essay, Dr Morden provides a summary of the mistaken ideas about the existence of an ‘infectious disease’ called rabies,

“Is rabies then a disease? Have we isolated a virus or germ? Is the Pasteur-treatment specific? Is rabies, in short, fact or fancy? I believe it is fancy, for I have handled so-called rabid animals and humans without benefit of Pasteur treatment and in no case has there been a death or any other symptoms of rabies. I submit that rabies is non-existent and that the Pasteur treatment for rabies is worse than the disease, if it were a disease, which it is not.”

from the book What Really Makes You Ill?: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong Dawn Lester & David Parker

Mike Baillie - New Light on the Black Death

 

There is an inherent tendency to view historical events in the light of prevailing theories. It is therefore unsurprising that, with the ‘germ theory’ firmly entrenched in medical establishment thinking, the ‘Black Death’ continues to be reported as an ‘infectious disease’ caused by bacteria, which, according to the WHO fact sheet, are,

“…usually found in small mammals and their fleas.”

The archaeological evidence has not yet persuaded the medical establishment to alter their obviously incorrect theory. [ →British archaeologist, Barney Sloane, who has claimed that the ‘Black Death’ could not have been transmitted by rats; as reported in an August 2011 article entitled Can We Stop Blaming Rats for the Black Death. The article refers to archaeological work that has been conducted in London and states that,

“…excavations in the city have turned up little evidence of a massive rat die-off coinciding with the plague.”]

It sometimes requires a scientist from an entirely different scientific discipline to view evidence from a new perspective, and thereby produce a more compelling explanation for that evidence. In this instance, a new hypothesis about the likely causes of the Black Death has been developed by a dendrochronologist, a scientist who studies tree-rings to identify different growth patterns.

The dendrochronologist in this instance is Professor Mike Baillie, whose study of tree-ring data of the 14th century led him to discover some interesting tree growth patterns, and to undertake further investigations that included the study of ice-core data, as well as contemporary 14th century accounts of the event. Professor Baillie has recorded the results of his research and the basis for his hypothesis in his book entitled New Light on the Black Death, in which he includes extracts from some contemporary documents. One of the extracts he quotes includes the statement that,

“There have been masses of dead fish, animals and other things along the sea shore and in many places trees covered in dust .... and all these things seem to have come from the great corruption of the air and earth.”

Contemporary writers were sufficiently observant to be aware of, and write about, ‘masses of dead fish, animals and other things along the sea shore’, as well as ‘trees covered in dust’. They would, therefore, also have been sufficiently observant to have noticed, and specifically written about, masses of dead rats or even gerbils, had there been any to observe. Such reports are conspicuous by their absence; a situation that supports the archaeological findings.

An even more significant aspect of the quoted extract is the reference to ‘the great corruption of the air and earth’. In addition to these documents, Professor Baillie obtained evidence from his examination of tree rings that led to his statement that,

“The Black Death sits in a clear environmental trough visible in smoothed tree ring chronologies from around the world.”

The corruption of the atmosphere certainly must have been extremely severe to have been able to generate a ‘clear environmental trough’; it was sufficiently severe to have been able to cause death from respiratory problems; as Professor Baillie states,

“The most likely mechanism would be through affecting their respiration system in some catastrophic way. After all, writer after writer on the Black Death makes the point that it is the ‘pulmonary’ form of the disease that was the dominant killer.”

It is clear therefore that ‘something’ must have occurred to have caused such a severe corruption of the atmosphere over a large portion of the world. One interesting and undisputed fact is that a major earthquake erupted in Europe on 25th January 1348. Professor Baillie reveals however, that this was not a singular event, but part of a series of earthquakes that occurred during the mid-14th century, both before and after the January earthquake.

Another interesting piece of the puzzle is that an unusually high level of ammonium has been discovered from the examination of ice core data. A higher than normal level of ammonium has also been discovered in ice cores that have been dated to periods in which other epidemics of ‘plague’ occurred. The result of his investigation of the evidence led Professor Baillie to conclude that,

“There really is enough information about comets, earthquakes and ammonium to permit the quite serious suggestion that the Black Death was due to an impact by comet debris on 25th January 1348 as witnessed by the major earthquake on that day.”Investigations and analysis of the toxic chemicals found within comets and comet debris have produced further supportive evidence for this conclusion; Professor Baillie explains,

“Apart from ammonium, it is now known that a range of unpleasant, toxic and evil-smelling chemicals, including hydrogen sulphide and carbon disulphide, have been detected in recent comets.”

The presence of ‘evil-smelling chemicals’ would certainly explain the documented reports about the ‘corruption of the atmosphere’; their toxicity also explains how these chemicals would have caused severe respiration problems and rapid death from asphyxiation for those people in close proximity to the dense atmospheric poisoning.

Herbert Shelton provides further documentary evidence of 14th century earthquakes and the subsequent pollution of the atmosphere, in his 1967 article entitled Pestilence and Plagues that states,

“Hecker’s Epidemics of the Middle Ages says of the Plague that ‘mighty revolutions in the organism of the earth, of which we have credible information, had preceded it. From China to the Atlantic the foundations of the earth were shaken, throughout Asia and Europe the atmosphere was in commotion, and endangered by its baneful influence, both vegetable and animal life’.”
In the same article, Herbert Shelton also quotes from Berdoe’s Origins and Growth of the Healing Art that provides further information about the prevailing conditions,

“In 1337, four millions of people perished by famine in China in the neighbourhood of Kiang alone. Floods, famine and earthquakes were frequent, both in Asia and Europe. In Cyprus a pestiferous wind spread a poisonous odor before an earthquake shook the island to its foundations, and many of the inhabitants fell down suddenly and expired in dreadful agonies after inhaling the noxious gases. German chemists state that a thick stinking mist advanced from the East and spread over Italy in thousands of places, and vast chasms opened in the earth which exhaled the most noxious vapors.”

These conditions can be explained by comets, comet debris and earthquakes; they cannot be explained by rat fleas ‘infected’ with disease-causing bacteria.

Another outbreak of ‘plague’ occurred in England during the 17th century. Although it is reported to have been minor by comparison to the Black Death, some fascinating details have been found from contemporary writings, including those of notable authors Daniel Defoe and Samuel Pepys, both of whom lived during the period in which it occurred.

The following extract from The Diary of Samuel Pepys, dated 24th December 1664, states that he,
“…saw the Comet, which is now, whether worn away or no I know not, but appears not with a tail, but only is larger and duller than any other star…”

The episode of ‘plague’ that affected England, and especially London, occurred in June 1665, and therefore only a few months after the sighting of the comet.

This is also described by Daniel Defoe, who, in his novel entitled A Journal of the Plague Year, wrote that,“In the first place, a blazing Star, or Comet, appeared for several months before the Plague…”

The evidence from contemporary records as well as tree-ring and ice core data demonstrates the existence of a ‘corrupted atmosphere’ during the 14th century. The earthquakes and impact of comet debris provide credible explanations for that corrupted atmosphere and for its ability to have permeated a significant portion of the planet. The toxic substances known to be associated with comets and comet debris provide an extremely compelling explanation for the rapid onset of severe respiratory problems, asphyxiation and death.

The medical establishment theory about fleas infected with bacteria that were spread by small animals to humans is entirely unsupported by the evidence; the theory that the Black Death, or any other epidemic of ‘plague’ can be caused by a bacterium is shown to be fatally flawed.

 from the book What Really Makes You Ill?: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong
***

(...)According to Baillie, illness and death resulted from poisoned water and air as the comet flew overhead.

But the symptoms—especially bruise-like blotches on the skin and high fatality rate—indicate radiation poisoning★, probably rendered even more deadly by dust and ammonia-like compounds in the atmosphere. Imagine a large comet passing near the earth, crackling with intense electrical arcing, pelting the earth with X-rays and casting off fragments that fall to the earth and spew up toxic clouds of dust, followed immediately by horrible death, sometimes wiping out whole towns. This is not the kind of catastrophe that we can blame on microbes.

Perhaps our solar system is calming down—mankind has not seen such violent phenomena for centuries. But smaller electrical disturbances, ones that can’t be seen, are still likely to promote outbreaks, albeit less disastrous. And if radiation poisoning—whether ionizing or nonionizing—provokes disease, there are obvious cofactors. Poisons in air, water, and food; toxins from insect bites; deadly fungi on grains; exposure to filth; malnutrition; and starvation; as well as fear and despair—we don’t need to resort to the notion of contagion to explain outbreaks of disease.

★The current explanation for the correlation of comets and disease is that of “panspermia.” We now know that outer space is populated by clouds of microorganisms, and the theory holds that comets are watery bodies—dirty snowballs—that rain new microscopic forms on the earth, to which humans and animals have no immunity.¹

However, recent evidence indicates little if any water on comets. Rather, they are asteroids that have an elliptical orbit and become charged electrically as they approach the sun, an exchange that creates the comet’s bright coma and tail. Their surfaces exhibit the kind of features that happen with intense electrical arcing, like craters and cliffs; bright or shiny spots on otherwise barren rocky surfaces indicate areas that are electrically charged. Comets contain mineral alloys requiring temperatures in the thousands of degrees, and they have sufficient energy to emit extreme UV light and even powerful X-rays. Moreover, as comets approach the sun, they can provoke high-energy discharges and flare-ups of solar plasma, which reach out to the comet.²

Thus, comets can create electrical disturbances in the atmosphere even more powerful than those created by man-made electrification*— and this radiation includes demonstrably dangerous ionizing radiation. No wonder the ancients were afraid of comets!

*See The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg. Firstenberg chronicles the history of electricity in the United States and throughout the world, and the outbreaks of illness that accompanied each step toward greater electrification.

¹“Panspermia and the Origin of Life on Earth,” https://www.panspermia-theory.com/.
² Wal Thornhill, “Comets Impact Cosmology,” July 20, 2004, https://www.holoscience.com/wp/comets-impact-cosmology/; 
Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott, “The Electric Comet,” 2006, https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse17.htm.

From The Contagion Myth by Thomas S. Cowan, MD, and Sally Fallon Morello