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

Economy of Disease part 1


This is an article about the disease economy. That’s a term I coined because I could find no economy because such a huge percentage of the economic activity and economic growth I see in the US is based on the manufacturing, marketing and selling of products and services based on disease. That is, products and services that either cause diseases or “treat” those diseases.

How do I know we’re in a disease economy today? You can see it for yourself. Just drive around any city or town in the United States and you can see what’s happening. Take a look at the new construction. What’s going to be there? If it’s an office complex, chances are it’s going to be a medical office building. If it’s on a street corner, it’s probably going to be a pharmacy — maybe a new Walgreens or CVS Pharmacy or a new drive-through Wal-Mart pharmacy. You even see pharmacies in grocery stores now, because they are so profitable. When you go into grocery stores and look at what’s being sold there, you’re getting a good look at the economic activity in this country. You mostly see products that promote disease, thanks to their disease-causing ingredients.

 

phar

 

photo courtesy of google

 

Of course, the disease economy promotes Big Pharma companies. These are the pharmaceutical manufacturers in this country, and they are huge global corporations. The selling of pharmaceuticals is a $1 trillion industry. It’s an amazing statistic. Here in the United States, some of our largest corporations are drug companies. In fact, as I’ve stated before, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies in the United States earn more money than the remaining 490 Fortune 500 companies. Just recently, I heard the Bush administration was very excited about the news that we are experiencing economic growth in this country. The economy is up, more money is changing hands, and that’s all that economists really look at when calculating gross domestic product or gross national product. They’re just looking at the total number of dollars that changed hands.

An economy based on paying for disease treatment

 

BusinessHero_1

However, if you look at the quality of the products and services that are being exchanged for these dollars, you’ll realize something is amiss here, because what we’re doing is basing our economic growth on the growth of chronic and degenerative disease. We’re basing our economy on the idea that we can treat more and more people with drugs and medical services and keep selling them soft drinks and fast food while calling it economic growth.

This leads me to the most important point of this article, which is that we cannot create abundance in the United States or in any country by selling each other increasingly expensive products and services that promote disease. In other words, we cannot create abundance by poisoning ourselves. The very idea is absurd. The whole point of economic growth is to create economic abundance, and if you look at the classic definitions of economic growth, they are about providing more goods and services to people in a more efficient manner. Those goods and services are supposed to improve the quality of life for those people.

In the old days, the arguments for the invisible hand in the economy were that if you let entrepreneurs compete in a free market, they would devise clever and efficient ways to create, produce and deliver goods and services to consumers that would ultimately enhance their quality of life. That part is absolutely true, and the United States has done that very successfully. The free market does work in accomplishing that, but what we’re seeing now is something beyond what those old-school economists could have ever conceived. We’re seeing an economy that is increasingly based on goods and services that do not add to the quality of consumers’ lives but rather take away from it. We’re seeing entrepreneurs and creative, clever people finding new ways to market products that harm people and calling that profitability or economic growth.

We see this quite blatantly in the drug industry, where creative marketers keep coming up with new, absurd ways to sell drugs to people through direct-to-consumer advertising on television. Some of these ads are absolutely idiotic in what they are promising. Yet, they are effective in creating demand. They sell products, but these products do not help consumers.

We also see a lot of products being marketed and sold to consumers that may give them very short-term benefits — such as the taste of a hamburger or the taste of french fries, which lasts about 10 seconds — but has long-term detrimental consequences, like obesity, heart disease, brain disorders, cancer and diabetes. These diseases largely come about as a result of long-term consumption of nutritionally depleted foods.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

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

Breast Cancer Myths 1


Myth #4: Chemotherapy is safe and doesn’t cause permanent damage to your health

The Truth: Chemotherapy causes vomiting, hair loss, muscle loss, brain damage, heart damage, kidney damage and liver damage. Much of this damage is permanent. Symptoms include:

Cancer Drug Causes Permanent Brain Damage

Chemotherapy Causes Brain Shrinkage

Chemotherapy Found to Cause Permanent Brain Damage

Myth #5: Regular mammograms are the best way to detect cancer

The Truth: Mammograms harm 10 women for every one woman they help

Here’s part of a story published in 2006, called Breast Cancer Screening Harms Ten Women for Every One That it Helps

“A new study by researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark found that mammograms may harm ten times as many women as they help.

The researchers examined the benefits and negative effects of seven breast cancer screening programs on 500,000 women in the United States, Canada, Scotland and Sweden. The study’s authors found that for every 2,000 women who received mammograms over a 10-year period, only one would have her life prolonged, but 10 would endure unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments.”

Got that? For every 2,000 women receiving mammograms, only ONE would have her life extended at all. TEN women, though, would be harmed with chemotherapy, radiation or mastectomies.

What the study didn’t point out, by the way, is that all these treatments are highly profitable for the cancer industry. That’s the real reason why mammograms are pushed so aggressively onto women. It’s not because mammograms detect cancer; it’s because mammograms make them money.

To the breast cancer industry, a woman is nothing more than a piece of meat with a cash reward attached to it. The push for mammography is a marketing ploy designed to keep women scared, misinformed and lined up to be poisoned with chemotherapy while they shell out their life savings for treatments that, for most of them, aren’t even medically justified!

That’s why I say the breast cancer industry is, by any honest assessment, a crime against women. In Singapore, husbands who beat their wives are considered criminals. They’re arrested and locked away. But those very same men, when wearing a doctor’s coat, can assault women with chemicals, slice off their breasts with scalpels and even kill those women… all with impunity. There’s not a single breast cancer doctor who has ever been arrested for the death of a patient.

The true history of western medicine’s violence against women

In time, of course, this will change. Medical violence against women is a crime, regardless of whether the weapon is a fist, a baseball bat or a syringe full of chemicals that will cause permanent damage to her vital organs. In time, chemotherapy will be outlawed and breast cancer doctors will be put out of work or prosecuted for their crimes against women. Perhaps they’ll even be castrated as part of a “fitting” punishment.

To all the women reading this, note carefully the history of western medicine and its numerous assaults on women over the years. Do you know where the term “hysterectomy” comes from? It comes from the belief by male doctors that women’s emotions were “hysterical,” and they believed the best way to “cure” women of their hysteria was to violently cut her reproductive organs out of her body.

The procedure was widely adopted by male surgeons and used for well over a hundred years to treat women who were diagnosed as suffering from virtually every kind of emotional variance you can imagine. Doctors who didn’t use scalpels to remove these organs from a woman’s body often resorted to so-called “pelvic massages” — a medicalized raping of the female patient by the male doctor, of course.

Even today, tens of thousands of hysterectomies are performed each year with no medical justification whatsoever. Doctors continue to view women’s bodies as diseased and abnormal, surgically removing their breasts and reproductive organs for no justifiable reason whatsoever. It’s even being done today as a cancer prevention procedure, against women who have no cancer at all!

Western medicine’s treatment of breast cancer patients today is little more than an extension of hundreds of years of medical violence against women by the male-dominated medical establishment.

Want proof? Notice that cancer doctors never advise men to surgically remove their testicles as a way to “prevent” testicular cancer? That’s because the male surgeons performing these operations prefer to maim women, not men.

Be well

Dr  Sundardas

 (To be continued….)