Economy of Disease 2


Without question, the U.S. economy is heavily invested in disease. Retailers like Walgreens have mastered the art of selling products on both sides of the equation. At the front of the store, Walgreens sells junk food products, soft drinks, candy and a lot of food that really has no nutrition. At the back of the store, they sell prescription drugs — drugs that treat the symptoms of diseases that are ultimately caused by people’s poor dietary choices and their consumption of junk food. Walgreens has really mastered this. They will sell you the problem and the treatment, all in the same store. One reason Walgreens is so incredibly successful as a business is because it has mastered the art of selling products to consumers as part of the disease economy. It is a flagship company of the disease economy, perhaps even more so than pharmaceutical companies.

One of the funniest things about the disease economy is that the consumers who are diseased think they’re doing well because they own stocks in the companies selling the products that harm them. This fascinates me. A guy dying of cancer or suffering from heart disease, because of the products he has been consuming for years, believes he’s doing well because he owns stock in large food manufacturing companies or large pharmaceutical companies. Maybe he owns stock in a new medical technology, or maybe he’s a partner in a local medical clinic. His investments are doing great, but he’s dying, and he’s dying from preventable degenerative disease.

This is what’s happening across the country, not just to one person, but to millions of people — perhaps hundreds of millions — who think the economy is looking up and think that maybe they have a good job because they work for a pharmaceutical company. They think they have good investments now because they have stocks in the junk food manufacturers. They think they’re doing well financially, but guess what? They’re consuming the product themselves, and they are dying. They’re dying from a degenerative disease at a rate that has never before been witnessed in human history. This demonstrates my entire point: We cannot create abundance by selling each other increasingly expensive products and services that harm each other.

By the way, I don’t mean to leave out all those chemical companies manufacturing pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, toxic household cleaners and toxic personal care products. A lot of those skincare companies are really just chemical manufacturers with sexy marketing and lots of women in lab coats selling you products that actually harm your health; that literally contain ingredients that cause cancer and liver disease. People think our economy is booming, but we’re all dying of chronic disease. Why is it that 50 percent of our senior citizens in the United States have high blood pressure? Why is it that 40 percent of our senior citizens are now clinically obese? I’m willing to bet that a similar percentage may have nervous system disorders or early stages of dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. Most of them are probably metabolizing some form of cancer right now, even though it may not have been diagnosed yet.

The US is a nation of diseased individuals, and that disease starts very early. There are 12-year-old children who have atherosclerosis. There are teenagers with osteoporosis, and teenage children with obesity are now common. In fact, diabetes has gotten so bad in young people that they had to change the name. That used to be the name. Now they just have to call it diabesity, and that applies to children, teenagers and adults alike.

They have created so much disease in US, and based our economy on it to such a degree that, frankly, they cannot untangle this situation without causing economic distress. If there were a cure for cancer, diabetes or heart disease tomorrow, where a person could wave a magic wand and instantly eliminate those diseases, and if every person in the country did that tomorrow, the sobering truth is that the US national economy would collapse overnight. It would collapse because there’s so much money, so much real estate, so much education and so much expertise and research invested in disease that they could not financially survive in an economy based on health and abundance, at least not the way things are configured right now.

They could not economically survive in an economy based on real health. They are so invested in disease in the US that they truly have a disease economy, and in order for that economy to grow, they have to expand the number of people with disease, expand the definition of disease or expand the coverage of people who are treated with high-profit disease-masking products. All three of those things are happening right now. And guess what, the disease economy is spreading.  Look around you and ask yourself how many Asian countries are following these trends.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Advertisements

Sugar Consumption and Junk Food


Earlier studies by experts at St Georges University London had earlier proven a link between teenage consumption of sugary drinks and impulses towards fatty and salty foods. They found that the stomach’s gut lining absorbed these food types more quickly and activated the brains pleasure centre quickly. Their brain then also dampened its impulses towards intake of vitamins and minerals.

These cravings or impulses as driven by the brain create the addictive effect towards sugary drinks and salty or fatty foods. UK research on rats has shown that sugar is as addictive to the brain as cocaine and there is a role in sugar intake in the creation of addictive impulses in humans.

sugar

 

Adults do not suffer strong sugar addiction withdrawal symptoms but this is not true in children who have been found to react and have bodily withdrawal symptoms of a stronger intensity. Tantrums, restlessness, sweats and distracted attention are noted behaviours.  Longer term studies are underway to explore the implications of these observations and findings.

The range of fruit and sport energy drinks are not immune from this discussion as many have higher sugar levels than some fizzy drinks, and as well may also contain addictive amounts of caffeine and related substances. Studies show that both these classes of drinks are more marketing hype than offering any benefit to users in sporting or a health context. Weight gain was determined as being the only likely outcome.

The other main concern about all these categories of drinks is the corrosive impact they have on childrens’ and adults’ teeth. Studies by dentists as reported in the UK British Dental Journal as well as the USA Oral Hygiene Journal both noted findings about cols and citric acids in drinks.

They respectively noted that citric acid which is a common “tangy” ingredient in all these drinks increased the risk of tooth erosion by 252 percent and that cola drinks are 10 times as corrosive as fruit juice in their first 3 minutes of teeth contact.

Many USA based health organisations are reviewing all the research and are calling for regulation  as well as a review of the whole drinks industry guidelines. Medical groups are linking the obesity crisis the western world in part to the habit forming roles around food and diet that soft drinks play in shaping recent generations’ health outcomes. Obesity is the new smoking crisis in these circles.

The average adult woman is supposed to have a daily intake of 90grams of sugar in their diet while a man can absorb 120 grams per day. Children are supposed to have a far lower intake. Many soft and fruit drinks provide that daily intake in one can or bottle.

The images of happiness, fun and health which dominate the marketing themes of the drinks industry are not supported by the emerging research findings across numerous types of studies being conducted on human health. These billion dollar industries are not likely to change their products or admit concerns willingly.

Coca Cola paid Olympic organisers more than 100 million pounds to become the official provider of soft drinks to the Olympics. The association between health and excitemen t(Olympics) to coke cola becomes entrenched by such opportunities. The burden on regulating these drinks falls down to families and individuals.

The role of emotions and stress in creating impulses for sugary food and drink intake is also revealed by several studies. In bodymind science we note that addictions and emotional issues including depression seem to accompany sugar cravings in many people. A soft drink can be an easy crutch to obtain when the impulse strikes.

The answer lies in education and discipline of choice. The declining mental, emotional and physical health in society of a wider cross section of the population has some of its roots in our choice of foods and drinks. We should be mindful of our choices and not assume that sugary drinks offer any benefit or that they are harmless choices for ourselves and our children.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Reach for a glass of coke and lose your life


Most of us at some stage or another have reached for a fizzy drink whether to quench a thirst or as a mixer with alcohol. There are a number of newer types of recreational soft drinks now on the market with a few positioning themselves as sports drinks. The marketing idea is that somehow the drink contains goodness through salt replenishment, energy or nutrients.

The old traditional fizzy soft drinks such as coke also continue to be popular and are also now in a market category that is represented by a lot more brands than even 20 years ago. Some people drank them for taste, some for the energy burst or pick up, some for the claimed benefits in sports performance or the like.

The collective consumption of all these types of drinks has doubled since 1985 from 10 gallons to 25 gallons per head per year. This is substantial. There is now new medical research coming out of Britain that shows that even moderate consumption of these types of drinks poses a real health hazard.

Research by Bangor University has revealed how even a can per day, or just two a week can alter our metabolism over time such that we put on weight and create the basis for Diabetes, liver disease, hyper=tension and heart disease.

Research shows that in children these drinks can assist in the formation of addict-like cravings and orient their appetites for junk and salty food.  The Bangor University research showed how the taking of these drinks affected metabolism by having muscles alter their energy transformation function by consuming sugar as the energy source instead of burning fat.

This creates a less efficient metabolism process, and we increase our retained fat and so put on weight. There appears to be a gene adaption process change that causes muscles to target sugar for energy creation, but this also means that our metabolic process is less able to cope with rises in blood sugar levels, and facilitates the potential onset of Diabetes Type 2.

soda

An American study of 42,000 men who were tracked over 20 years showed that men who drank a standard 12 oz can of sugar sweetened drink every day had a 20 per cent higher risk of heart disease compared to men who did not drink any such beverages at all.

This study was published by the American Heart Association in their journal called Circulation. It also revealed that blood tests had shown that soft drink users had higher levels of harmful inflammation in their blood vessels, and lowered levels of “good”  HDL cholesterol.

Even more disturbing was the research findings reported in the journal “Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention”. This research linked the consumption of just two 330ml carbonated drinks every week to a double increase in the risk of Pancreatic Cancer.

Separate Israeli research on soft drinks with high levels of fruit juice  may be creating possible long term liver damage. The reason is that fructose fruit sugar in such drinks  can overwhelm the liver which responds by accumulating fat which is then the cause of “fatty liver”.

The Israeli study revealed that two cans of such fruit drinks a day were 5 times more likely to develop “fatty liver” which can lead to cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer. There have been calls in Europe and the USA for soft drink taxes to cut consumption as these drinks have been around for over 200 years in various forms and have been traditionally viewed as innocuous.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this emerging research is the research around children. The work done by the University College London’s Health Behaviour Research Centre illustrates this concern.

Their work showed in a study of 346 children aged around 11 years found that drinking soft drinks makes them want to drink more often, even when they are not actually thirsty. They developed addictive tendencies towards sugary drinks which at a young age became a life habit.

Related research found support for this change in tastes. This Oregon USA based study found that fizzy drinks consumption became accompanied by taste preference towards high calorie, high salt food such as chips. These researchers found learned resistance towards raw vegetables and low calorie foods by children who habitually consumed fizzy drinks.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Vaccinated baby monkeys becomes autistic


If vaccines play absolutely no role in the development of childhood autism, a claim made by many medical authorities today, then why are some of the most popular vaccines commonly administered to children demonstrably causing autism in animal primates? This is the question many people are now asking after a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh (UP) in Pennsylvania revealed that many of the infant monkeys given standard doses of childhood vaccines as part of the new research developed autism symptoms.

For their analysis, Laura Hewitson and her colleagues at UP conducted the type of proper safety research on typical childhood vaccination schedules that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have conducted — but never has — for such regimens. And what this brave team discovered was groundbreaking, as it completely deconstructs the mainstream myth that vaccines are safe and pose no risk of autism.

Presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London, England, the findings revealed that young macaque monkeys given the typical CDC-recommended vaccination schedule from the 1990s, and in appropriate doses for the monkeys’ sizes and ages, tended to develop autism symptoms. Their unvaccinated counterparts, on the other hand, developed no such symptoms, which points to a strong connection between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.

Included in the mix were several vaccines containing the toxic additive Thimerosal, a mercury-based compound that has been phased out of some vaccines, but is still present in batch-size influenza vaccines and a few others. Also administered was the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which has been linked time and time again to causing autism and various other serious, and often irreversible, health problems in children

“This research underscores the critical need for more investigation into immunizations, mercury, and the alterations seen in autistic children,” said Lyn Redwood, director of SafeMinds, a public safety group working to expose the truth about vaccines and autism. “SafeMinds calls for large scale, unbiased studies that look at autism medical conditions and the effects of vaccines given as a regimen.”

Adding to the sentiment, Theresa Wrangham, president of SafeMinds called out the CDC for failing to require proper safety studies of its recommended vaccination schedules. Unlike all other drugs, which must at least undergo a basic round of safety testing prior to approval and recommendation, vaccinations and vaccine schedules in particular do not have to be proven safe or effective before hitting the market.

“The full implications of this primate study await publication of the research in a scientific journal,” said Wrangham. “But we can say that it demonstrates how the CDC evaded their responsibility to investigate vaccine safety questions. Vaccine safety oversight should be removed from the CDC and given to an independent agency.”

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Breast Cancer Myths 3


Myth #9: If my mother had breast cancer, I’ll get it too

The Truth: Breast Cancer is not caused by bad genes; it’s caused by bad diets

This is another common lie told to woman by cancer doctors to scare them into medically unnecessary cancer “treatments” (which can kill you or harm you). Did you know that radiation treatment for one breast actually causes cancer in the OTHER breast?

Your genes don’t control your health, but what you put in your mouth and on your skin has near-total control over your health! If your parents had cancer, they were no doubt eating cancer-causing foods (processed meats) and not using anti-cancer foods, superfoods, herbs and supplements. They were also likely deficient in vitamin D, and they probably didn’t drink fresh anti-cancer vegetables on a daily basis. Lastly, they no doubt had regular exposure to cancer-causing chemicals: Cigarette smoke, chemical solvents, perfume chemicals, household cleaners, pesticides, skin care products, conventional cosmetics, etc.

Myth #10: Sunlight causes cancer

The Truth: Sunlight generates Vitamin D in your skin, which prevents 78% of ALL cancers

The disinformation put out by the cancer industry about sunlight has reached a level of absurdity that’s virtually unmatched in the history of medicine. If you believe what the American Cancer Society tells you (still being suckered?), sunlight causes cancer!

Yes, that’s right: Sunlight causes cancer, they claim. According to the entire cancer industry (and most dermatologists, too), you’d be much better off hiding in a cave, or living your life under fluorescent lights or smothered in a layer of toxic sunscreen chemicals (which actually DO cause cancer, by the way).

Somehow, the human race has miraculously managed to survived 350,000 years of natural sunlight without be obliterated. This is nothing short of astonishing, given that sunlight is so deadly. It sort of makes me wonder how the human race survived at all, with sunlight striking any given area of the Earth, say, 50% of the time. Did our ancestors live underground?

The ploy here is so obvious that it’s child’s play to expose their strategy: Cancer industry authorities know that vitamin D prevents 77% of all cancers. Since sunlight exposure causes the skin to generate vitamin D in the human body (for free, no less), the cancer industry has come to the realization that in order for it to continue surviving (and exploiting cancer patients), it has to scare people away from anything that might actually prevent or cure cancer.

This is the whole reason behind the sunlight scare campaigns, of course. It’s all just a clever profit strategy to keep people sick and diseased by enforcing widespread vitamin D deficiency across the human population. Note, too, that this deficiency is especially prominent in men and women of darker skin color, which means the cancer industry’s whole campaign against sunlight is filled with disturbing racial overtones that smack of genocide. (Ever wonder why breast cancer is FAR more aggressive in black women and white women? It’s the vitamin D deficiency caused by the skin color, of course. But cancer docs never tell their black patients anything about it…)

Remember this: Healthy people with abundant vitamin D levels in their blood don’t get cancer and they almost never catch colds. They also don’t need vaccines, by the way. These are three huge profit centers for conventional medicine: Cancer, vaccines and colds. This is why the industry goes to such great lengths to (hilariously) try to discredit the sun.

It’s hilarious because the sun, of course, is the source of ALL life on our planet. Without the sun, there would be no plants, no bacteria, no animals, no fish and certainly no humans. The sun is the single most important source of life on our planet, and without it, we’d all die in a matter of a few hours (from the cold alone). That the cancer industry would declare war on the sun is just a disturbing example of how far removed modern medicine is from the real world.

 

Why the cancer industry is dangerous to women

The cancer industry people are living in a world of self-reinforced fictions, where sunlight is bad and chemotherapy chemicals are good; where food is useless but pharmaceuticals are essential. Almost everything said to you by a conventional cancer doctor is the opposite of what’s real, and yet they believe their own delusions only because those delusions are so widely shared by their colleagues. It is circular logic at its worst, driven by arrogance and greed, and totally lacking any discernable degree of intellectual honesty or compassion for the value of a human life.

The cancer industry is, in a very real way, a danger to the safety of men and women alike. It is a kind of home-grown medical terrorism, through which the application of fear and disinformation results in massive corporate profits that are only exceeded by the body count of our dead women; our mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts and nieces who fall victim to conventional cancer treatments. They are being lost to a medical regime wielding weapons of mass destruction: Chemical weapons (chemotherapy), radiological weapons (radiation) and weapons of sharp steel (scalpels).

These weapons of medical violence are being directed at our women for one purpose only: To secure profits that go into the hands of a few wealthy men who sit at the top of these organizations, raking in fifty-million-dollar salaries while the cancer treatment centers send women home in body bags.

It is the ultimate act of cruelty to promise a woman “treatment” and then deliver poison.

It is the ultimate act of violence to promise a woman “healing” and then mutilate her body.

The cancer industry, as operated today, is ultimately a criminal organization engaged in acts of medical violence against women.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Birth of Spiderman


 

If you believe the “scientific” community, the government figures are always accurate. There’s no cover-up. The situation is completely under control. The radiation levels are miniscule. There was no meltdown. Go on about your business and stop worrying.

Just eat your imported fish, go get your CT scans at the hospital and take your antidepressants. Buy your slave-labor brand-name sports gear at the local mall, and be sure to slather yourself in perfumes, petroleum-based skin lotions and sunscreen (to protect yourself from cancer, of course).

And then, a few years down the road, if you find your DNA has mutated beyond your ability to reproduce in the future, don’t worry: You can always trade a year’s salary for some hormone injections at the local infertility clinic, right? Infertility clinics, by the way, are really great at increasing the survival rate of fetuses with birth defects which would otherwise normally be aborted by the mother’s own body

So even if the next generation of children in Asia are born mostly to irradiated, genetically-mutated parents, thanks to the “miracle” of modern infertility science we can probably manage to keep a fair number of them alive long enough for them to become the new generation of post-Fukushima X-Men with special mutant powers that can save our world from evil villains. Fukushima might also irradiate some spiders that could bite a few geeky teenage boys and magically transform them into acrobatic “spider men” who magically attain advanced hand-to-hand combat skills without ever having practiced them. What could be bad about that?

In fact, the entire Marvel universe of comic book characters might yet materialize out of the smoke and (radioactive) dust of Fukushima. So, you see, Fukushima is actually the solution to all our problems, not the source of any problems.

And if you think none of this could really happen because I’m quoting characters from comic books, just remember this: The Japanese government is reading you lines from a fairy tale and hoping you buy into it just the same.

 

For the very first time, a scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal has come up with a solid estimate of the total number of US deaths caused by the Fukushima nuclear disaster in the weeks following it. Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, and his colleagues say that, based on compiled data, at least 14,000 people in the US were killed during the 14 weeks following the Fukushima catastrophe — and the majority of these deaths were in children under age one.

Published in the International Journal of Health Services, Mangano’s study looked at both infant and adult death rates during the time when Fukushima occurred, as well as in previous months and years. During the 14 weeks prior to Fukushima, for instance, infant deaths had been declining by 8.37 percent, while in the weeks following the disaster they increased by 1.8 percent. Among adults, a 4.46 percent death rate was observed in the weeks after Fukushima, compared to 2.34 percent, which is about half that rate, a year prior.

“This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal,” said Mangano. “It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation.”

During the first few months when the Fukushima disaster was unfolding, there were reports on radiation spikes in milk, rainwater), and the general food supply, both in the US and abroad. Though tangible harm in humans was not necessarily evident at that time, it now appears that this systemic poisoning translated into thousands of known deaths, and likely tens of thousands more cases of cancer and other illnesses.

“Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death,” added Mangano. “Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults.”

 

I am really curious if all this radiation toxicity and side-effects are confined only to Japan and the US. Don’t you wonder too?

 

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Is Medicine becoming a New Religion? (Part 2)


Like any good faith, the church of medicine stands on the authority of its sacred texts. The randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial is the gold standard that assures the purity of church doctrine. The sacred studies are the only source of true knowledge; all other forms of knowledge are held to be inferior. Upholders of the faith frequently quote from the sacred texts in order to disprove and discredit heretical viewpoints.
The conspicuous incongruity here is the ever-changing and fickle nature of medical research studies, which frequently contradict one another and are commonly sponsored and funded by the very corporate interests that stand to gain from that research.

The contemporary battle between the monolith of unyielding medical opinion and those who have experienced the firsthand devastation to loved ones wrought by vaccine injuries and adverse drug reactions is emblematic of the issues created by a medical system that is increasingly unresponsive to its patients. When we come to understand that modern medicine is a result of an overreliance upon the abstracting and analyzing functions of the rational mind, then we see how it can take such cold and calculated positions in the face of so much iatrogenically-induced tragedy.

Such practices don’t strike me as very rational — or scientific. Congregants are also expected to unquestioningly submit to a long string of ritual acts such as well-baby visits, vaccinations, mammograms, cholesterol checks, and an ever-expanding battery of tests and procedures brought to us by the latest cutting-edge technologies made possible through the generosity of the biotechnology industry. One must wonder, with such vast expenditures dedicated to health care, why our collective health as a society suffers so badly.

By contrast, true medical science that was faithful to its original mission was originally conceived to explore the nature of life without a predetermined agenda. It did not impose artificial parameters upon itself in order to define what was and what was not worthy of scientific inquiry. However, when contemporary medicine chooses to restrict the scope of its investigations to the purely material, it must therefore acknowledge the limitations that this places upon it as a science.
It reveals a serious bias when it declares that spiritual existence is a mere figment of the imagination that has no impact upon illness and health. If it chooses not to take spiritual reality into account, then it cannot at the same time claim any authority regarding issues of vitalism, energy, consciousness, spirit, or soul.

Most forms of holistic health and healing, on the other hand, begin with the fundamental assumption that we are spiritual beings temporarily inhabiting physical bodies during our time here on the physical plane. If this truth is to be honored, spiritual laws and energetic principles must be taken into account when we consider issues of health and illness. Another important foundational principle of holism considers it a given that “all is one” and that everything, therefore, is interconnected. To speak of body and soul as separate entities is an artificial construct of the rational mind that is not congruent with holistic reality.
This illusion of separateness is, nevertheless, part of the legacy of the reductionistic / mechanistic / materialistic worldview into which most of us were indoctrinated. And it reduces human life to its lowest common materialistic denominator.

When one person reports the resolution of his chronic headaches after a past life regression, and another experiences relief from her depression after a shamanic soul retrieval, and conventional medicine responds by dismissing such stories as mere “anecdote,” it reveals an unbecoming contempt for things of which it has no understanding.
When homeopathic treatment results in the dramatic improvement of a child with attention deficit disorder and conventional medicine claims that it is just not possible because it defies the laws of chemistry as it understands them, then it is time to go back to the medical drawing board in order to revise one’s conception of the mysterious nature of human health and disease. When orthodox medicine demands explanations that conform to its mechanistic worldview before it will acknowledge those phenomena as legitimate, it simply demonstrates its intractable obstinacy and refusal to adjust its understanding.

Article Reference :

http://l.facebook.com/l/ZAQGIxfybAQGxvW9NseR6nxCgsVUF74IWu4oGPla9Rx2mzQ/spiritsciencehealing.com/is-medicine-science-or-religion/

be well
Dr Sundardas