by: Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) The inconvenient release of private email conversations among climate change scientists has been a boon for climate change skeptics. What emerges from the leaked emails is a depiction of a group of scientists who practice "intellectual protectionism" — meaning they know they're right and they'll do anything to protect their beliefs, even if it means hiding or manipulating data.

Sound familiar? Scientists in the pharmaceutical industry have been practicing this for decades. If you think the ClimateGate emails are revealing, just imagine what kind of similar emails are flying around between Big Pharma scientists who routinely manipulate study data and commit scientific fraud in the name of medicine. Time and time again, we see revelations of manipulated clinical trials where data was intentionally distorted in order to make a dangerous, useless drug appear to be safe and effective.

What ClimateGate scientists and Big Pharma scientists have in common is that they have both abandoned the core principles of good science in their quest to be right. Rather than asking questions of nature and humbly listening to the answers provided by the data, these scientists have staked out a position and decided to defend that position at all costs — even if it requires hiding or distorting data!

That approach is entirely unscientific, of course. In my mind, it now puts much of the recent global warming science in the same category as Big Pharma's research: Pure quackery.

As Christopher Booker explains in The Telegraph, "The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated. What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/…)

Global warming may, indeed, be a real phenomenon. But trying to "prove" it by conspiring to manipulate the data in order to be right is absolutely the wrong way to go about studying the issue. In fact, these ClimateGate revelations have soundly discredited much of the global warming scientific community to the point where whatever these people say from now on simply cannot be trusted.

And that's a shame because the question remains: What if the global warming scientists are really right? What if they're right for all the wrong reasons, and they let their egos and their professional pride get in the way of conducting real science, thereby discrediting the very notion they were attempting to prove? That's a possibility we would still do well to consider.

Yet, from their released emails, it's quite clear these scientists were manipulating data to make the "science" fit their beliefs. They weren't focused solely on the real facts; they were interested in forwarding their climate change theories using any means necessary — including scientific trickery.

What's truly sad about all this — both in the climate change community and the pharmaceutical community — is that real science has seemingly been replaced by pseudoscientific quackery. I've known for a long time that you can't trust scientists who work for pharmaceutical companies because they tend to distort their findings to support their employer. Now learning that a similar approach to junk science was apparently pursued by climate change scientists is more than a little disconcerting. It makes me wonder: Are there any honest scientists left anywhere?

It seems that in all realms of science, egos are more important than observational data. Whether you're dealing with astronomy, oceanography, anthropology or biology, every scientist wants to be right, and most will do whatever it takes to defend their proclaimed theories and beliefs. This is why it remains so ridiculously difficult to penetrate the minds of modern doctors with facts about vitamin D and cancer, for example: These "scientific thinkers" have already decided what to believe, and they'll defend those beliefs at all costs, even in the face of strong evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

What I've come to realize in all this is that many of today's scientists aren't scientific thinkers. They're really just followers of their own private cult. Some "scientists" belong to the Cult of Pharmacology, and they believe pharmaceuticals are the answer to everything. Others belong to the Cult of Climatology, where scientific evidence is replaced with "faith" beliefs that are not allowed to be questioned. These micro-cults of scientific "truth" explain why science usually doesn't advance until a whole generation of scientists either retires or expires.

It all brings us back to the amazing book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. As this book explains, science almost never advances based entirely on new research, new ideas and new data. Instead, these new understandings collide with a wall of ego-driven resistance from the established scientific community. At times, such new ideas may linger for decades or even centuries before finally being seriously considered by the scientific community and then adopted as "truth." The classic example of this is the "Earth is the center of the universe" belief that was eventually replaced with the current sun-centric solar system model — but not before many scientific thinkers were condemned (and even put to death) for their "preposterous" belief that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

In reality, modern science advances much like vomit — in sudden wretched heaves that are both painful and revealing. The modern scientist is far more interested in being right than in being humbly informed about the mysteries of nature, and this makes much of so-called science more of a laughing matter than anything to be taken seriously. There are, no doubt, many very good scientists operating today who truly take to heart the Scientific Method and who avoid entangling their egos in their work, but I'm coming to discover that the number of such scientists may be far smaller than I had hoped.

In my mind, all of this further discredits the very idea that science is a reliable pathway to knowledge. There are many ways to glean knowledge about the world around us, and science is only one of them. Other methods included meditation, "communing" with nature, spiritual study or even embarking on spirit journeys with the help of plant medicines. Western science has given us much in terms of practical discoveries in fields like electricity, chemistry and physics, but it has utterly failed to provide us with answers on the things that really count: What is the meaning of life? What is the nature of human consciousness? What is the human soul?

None of these questions, it seems, will ever be answered by an ego-driven, profit-focused scientific community that would rather be right than enlightened.

In order to know what's truly happening with human-caused climate change, we need to get accurate answers to the following three questions:

Question #1) Are CO2 emissions on the rise? And by how much? (The answer to this is clearly yes. This part isn't being debated.)

Question #2) Will high CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause global warming? If so, what will be the climate effects at different CO2 levels? (This is the part being debated.)

Question #3) What can we do to prevent devastating climate change from occurring? (This is also being heavily debated.)

In my mind, there's no question that what we dump into the air affects the climate in some way, but as I'm not a climate scientist, I must rely on others to determine what levels of carbon dioxide are correlated with observable climate effects (such as a change in atmospheric temperature or lack thereof). What I've learned from the ClimateGate scandal is that I really can't trust these scientists to tell the truth about their findings, and that leaves me in a position of having more questions than ever before.

It won't change my behavior, though. I'll still engage in recycling. I'll continue with my plans to install solar panels to power my house. I'll keep planting trees and growing most of my own food locally. Regardless of who's right about ClimateGate, we all have a responsibility to reduce our footprint on this planet, or we may someday discover some other environmental tsunami rising up to haunt us in ways we may have never imagined.

The ClimateGate scientists may have made complete fools of themselves, but I believe we must still practice ecologically-sound "green living" in our own way, each and every day, to the best of our abilities. In other words, don't let the egos of a small group of scientists distract you from the very real need to protect the future of life on our planet. Reduce your own environmental footprint in ways that you can. Conserve and protect what we have on this planet, and we may yet have a planet left for our children a few generations down the line.

Remember: Just because these scientists manipulated the data doesn't mean we all have free license to endlessly pollute the planet. If these scientists really were hiding data indicating global warming isn't as bad as we thought, that would only be a blessing because it would mean we have more time than we thought to reduce the eco-footprint of human life on Earth (hopefully without invoking nefarious Big Brother population control measures…)

It will be fascinating to see how this story develops. We'll continue to cover it here on NaturalNews.com.

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) Word to the wise: Be careful of what doctors tell you to cut off following a cancer diagnosis. Submitting to cancer surgery can cost you an arm… or a leg.

Increasingly, cancer surgeons are recommending that woman have their healthy breasts surgically removed as a way to prevent cancer — even when those women have no cancer! But recently, an even more bizarre story surfaced: According to a BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/…), a UK woman had her leg amputated by a cancer surgeon who claimed her leg showed signs of a malignant cancer tumor. She naively agreed to undergo the surgery and awoke with quite a shock: Not only was her leg missing, but the doctor told her she never had cancer in the first place.

I'm trying to figure out who made the bigger goof here: The doctor who claimed there was cancer, or the patient who agreed to let a doctor amputate her leg without getting a second opinion…

Here's what the doctor reportedly said upon her regaining consciousness: "I've got a bombshell to tell you – I'm very sorry, but we shouldn't have taken the leg off."

At that point, I think the patient should have picked up that amputated leg and beat the snot out of the surgeon with it. But that's just me…

The finest medical care in the world
The leg amputation patient was offered a settlement of roughly US$158,000, much of which ended up being used to buy a prosthetic leg. This is how the medical system generates business these days: First they harm patients with one procedure (drugs, chemo or surgery), then they make even more money treating the harm they caused in the first place. It's quite a clever system for repeat business.

The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, where this surgery took place, denied it had been negligent. (That must be some creative excuse-making.) The leg amputation was approved by "a group of clinical experts – three of them world-renowned in their particular fields," according to statements published by the BBC. (None of them lost their jobs over the incident.)

Is that a relief? It would be far more comforting to think this was a mistake made by bumbling idiots who had no idea what they were doing. But no, this leg amputation error was made by the best doctors and surgeons around! These are the smart ones!

I'd hate to think what some lesser-educated members of the medical profession might have done. Perhaps they would have resorted to the tactics of masochistic U.S. breast cancer surgeons and recommended that the women remove both legs just to make sure she never gets cancer there in the future.

And why stop at that? Chop off the arms, legs, testicles, breasts, colon and reproductive organs — all just to make sure no cancer appears there. Soon, you're left with the Black Knight from Monty Python, a wiggling torso with an animated head that insists he's just fine and can still fight.

You gotta wonder, by the way, why this victim settled for a mere $158,000. Isn't your leg worth much more? I don't know about you, but I need both legs because there are still too many practicing cancer surgeons who need a good swift boot to the head!

Need a CT scan? Here's the "Hiroshima special…"
Oh, and just in case you think the craziness of modern health care is limited to surgeons who remove the wrong body parts, here's something else you need to know. As the LA Times reports:

"After Cedars-Sinai reset a CT scan machine in February 2008, more than 200 brain scans on potential stroke patients were performed at eight times the normal dose of radiation, the hospital says." (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l…)

So instead of getting a low-risk medical imaging test, patients who went to Cedars-Sinai got something more like a taste of Hiroshima and its radioactive fallout. CT scans, even when properly calibrated, are equivalent to receiving 100 chest X-rays (http://www.naturalnews.com/023582.html). Multiply that by eight — as happened at Cedars-Sinai — and you the equivalent of 800 chest X-rays worth of radiation all in one setting!

"Hey doctor, something's strange here. All these CT scans are showing the brains of these patients are completely fried! What should we do?"

Replies the doctor at Cedars-Sinai: "Don't worry about it. If these patients had any brains to begin with, they wouldn't be visiting us in the first place!"

by: E. Huff

(NaturalNews) A recent Henry Ford Hospital study revealed that a new strain of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), the deadly bacterial "superbug" that becomes resistant to many antibiotics, is five times more deadly than other previously-seen strains. Fifty percent of patients who become infected with the new virulent strain die within 30 days; other MRSA strains kill only about 11 percent.

Called USA600, the new strain possesses uniquely noxious characteristics that researchers are linking to the significantly higher mortality rate. Study findings were presented at the 47th annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America in Philadelphia.

Typical MRSA strains are problematic because they are resistant to virtually every available antibiotic drug. Most MRSA infections are allegedly treatable with vancomycin, a powerful intravenous drug, but the new USA600 strain has proven itself to be nearly impervious to the drug.

Deadly MRSA strains typically take hold on a person through skin and blood infections, as well as through surgical wounds. While predominantly contracted in health care facilities like hospitals and clinics, the disease is now starting to make the rounds in otherwise healthy people in the outside world.

Experts are associating the increased resistance of deadly MRSA strains to the over-prescription by doctors of antibiotics for all sorts of conditions that do not need them. According to Joel Fuhman, an M.D. from New Jersey, studies show that 90 percent of antibiotics are prescribed for viral diseases, against which they have no effect.

When antibiotics are prescribed needlessly for conditions like a child's ear infection, which is viral rather than bacterial, they do more harm than good by killing off the child's beneficial bacteria. As a result, the child's immune system is weakened making them more susceptible to developing other illnesses and being prescribed more antibiotics.

Europe's Centre for Disease Control warns that if excessive antibiotic use is not curbed, antibiotics will become all but useless and modern medical procedures like organ transplants and neonatal care for babies will no longer be possible.

Modern medicine must also reawaken to the incredible power of colloidal silver in stopping harmful bacteria, viruses, and fungal infections. Studies show that there is virtually no bacterial strain resistant to silver's powerful antibacterial effects. When developed properly for therapeutic use, colloidal silver packs a punch unlike any other antibiotic.

by: E. Huff

(NaturalNews) A recent French study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology has revealed that a "Mediterranean" diet rich in fruits and vegetables, fish, and olive and sunflower oils will reduce the risk of post-menopausal women developing cancer. Findings implicated the "Western" diet as contributing heavily to incidences of breast cancer.

Research for the study began in 1990 when 65,374 women living in France agreed to complete self-administered diet questionnaires that tracked the participants' eating habits from among 208 pre-selected foods and beverages. The women, born between 1925 and 1950, were assessed based on a number of physical, demographic, and genealogical factors that were compiled and analyzed in conjunction with the questionnaire data at the conclusion of the study.

After 9.7 years during a median follow-up interval, it was discovered that 2,381 women had developed post-menopausal invasive breast cancer. Based on data analysis, researchers indicated that the Mediterranean diet was a key factor in reducing the risk of breast cancer when accompanied by adequate energy intake and avoidance of excess junk food consumption.

The Mediterranean diet is replete with foods that are rich in vital nutrients. Olive oil, for instance, contains high levels of oleic acid, an anti-cancer fatty acid that blocks oncogene HER-2/neu, a cancer-causing agent. Other anti-cancer nutrients include high levels of selenium, glutathione, fiber, polyphenols, vitamins E and C, and a highly favorable omega-6 to omega-3 ratio.

On the other hand, the Western diet consists of many highly-refined, nutrient-depleted processed foods. Grain-fed meats high in harmful fats, excess refined flours and starchy foods, processed sugars, and gluttonous alcohol intake are some of the typical staples in the unhealthy, cancer-inducing Western diet.

Prior to the study, few scientific inquiries had been made into the correlation between breast cancer risk and diet. Though the link should be obvious to everyone, the study illustrates the obvious fact that diet plays a crucial role in keeping the body healthy and free of disease.

Japan offers a perfect illustration of the detrimental effects of an unhealthy diet on a population. Formerly a very healthy nation, Japan's traditional diet was rich in nutritious, unprocessed foods, many of which were derived from the sea. As Japan has slowly adopted a more Western diet over the years, its rates of cancer have begun to increase, exemplifying the link between dietary habits and health.

It is imperative for every health-oriented individual that a wide variety of whole, natural foods be consumed as opposed to processed foods high in unnatural sugars and refined flours. Fortifying the body with nutrients, minerals, and vitamins from natural, balanced sources is vital to maintaining optimal health.

by: Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) The November 25 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute contains a report about the long-term side effects experienced by men who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer. Severe neurological side effects, discoloration of the hands and feet when exposed to the cold (Raynaud-like phenomena), tinnitus, and impaired hearing were found to be common in men who received chemotherapy as opposed to those who did not.

by: Barbi Trejo

(NaturalNews) In a BBC article titled, "Herbal Remedies Boost Brain Power," a scientist stated that, "A combination of two ancient herbal remedies can dramatically boost brain power and may have many applications in medicine." Those two herbs are ginkgo biloba and ginseng.

One study revealed that a combination of ginseng and ginkgo biloba was the most effective formula for increasing brain power. A preparation of 60% ginseng and 40% ginkgo was the most effective formula when it came to improving the memory of the study volunteers.

According to Dr Scholey, with the University of Northumbria, "Subjects were able to sustain their concentration for longer. Normally, when people have to concentrate over an extended period of time, their reaction time begins to slow – ginkgo seemed to stop that slowing and one dose actually [sped] them up."

There are few things more precious than memory. Whether it is a memory of that first kiss or recollections of your wedding day, memories are very important. As we age, memories tend to fade and sometimes, memory loss occurs much faster than expected. The ability to remember new information (in the short term and in the long term) is also impaired. Whether the cause is Alzheimer's disease or aging, improving memory is easier than some may expect.

Natural Ways for Improving Memory:

Olive Oil – Olive oil is one of the best foods for improving memory. It is high in omega 3 and 6 fatty acids and is also polyunsaturated. With its wide array of benefits, olive oil should be used daily. The suggested dose is 1/4 cup of extra virgin olive oil mixed with lemon juice (extracted from 1/2 lemon.) The mixture should be taken daily, just before sleeping.

Folate and B Vitamins – To improve memory, consume plenty of foods loaded with B vitamins. Patients with a deficiency in B vitamins and folate demonstrated forgetfulness, memory loss, confusion, dementia and depression.

Honey – Studies show that consuming raw honey can improve memory. It also offers many other health benefits. Raw honey calms nerves and relieves anxiety, thereby promoting relaxation and rest. One to two teaspoons per day is recommended.

Rosemary – Rosemary acts as a decongestant and astringent. It is good for digestion and circulation problems, and it relaxes the stomach. Rosemary isn't just an excellent herb for cooking; it can also relieve headaches and menstrual cramps, and it regulates blood pressure. (See Recipe below)

Ginger – Ginger has long been used as a remedy for stomach distress, as it relieves inflammation, nausea, vomiting and pain, and it increases circulation. Ginger can also cleanse the colon. Ginger also remedies hot flashes, morning sickness and motion sickness. 1 cup per day of ginger tea is recommended.

Recipes to Enhance Memory:

Memory Zest Blend

1 part ginkgo
1 part gotu kola and peppermint leaves
1 part red clover tops
1 part rosemary leaves
1 part ginger root
Honey

Bring a cup of water (or an entire tea pot) to a boil and add the herbs. Allow the tea to steep for at least ten minutes, strain and drink. Honey can be added after the tea is strained. According to HerbalSolutions.com, this is "a mentally refreshing beverage [that will] give you feelings of clarity and precision."

Yogurt and Rosemary Drink

1 cup of raw yogurt
1 twig of rosemary or 1 teaspoon of dried rosemary
2 figs
1 tablespoon of olive oil

Place the ingredients in a jar and seal overnight. In the morning, place the mixture in a blender and blend until smooth. Drink this daily to feel refreshed.

Colloidal Gold
Ginkgo Biloba
Honey
Stress B
IntraMax

by: E. Huff

(NaturalNews) Two doctors from the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice recently reported that many prescription drug labels do not contain accurate information about all side effects and the true severity of listed side effects, and they fail to mention that certain medicines are not truly effective.

A long standing problem, drug companies are in charge of writing their own drug information which is then presented to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for final approval. Though tasked with negotiating accurate and sensible wording, the FDA often lets slide inadequate information that is both misleading and outright deceptive.

Lunesta, a prescription sleeping drug created by Sepracor Inc., is touted on its information label as being superior to placebo in alleviating insomnia and inducing restful sleep. Test results from the most comprehensive study performed on the drug revealed that the drug did not reduce insomnia and that there were no meaningful improvements in next-day functioning and alertness as drug advertisements claimed.

Even though the study's findings were provided to the FDA for further review, the FDA allowed misleading information to be published on Lunesta's information sheet anyway. In response to allegations that the company is misleading the public about Lunesta, Sepracor retorted that information above and beyond what is required by the FDA is always available to those who request it.

Rozerem, another insomnia drug produced by Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., omitted similar information from its drug information sheet. Though no empirical sleeping improvements occurred in test patients who received treatment with Rozerem, the company did not disclose this fact on the product label. Takeda continues to market the product untruthfully.

Other examples of drug label deception include Novartis' Zometa bone cancer drug. The drug's information label states that ingesting the 8-milligram dose poses a greater risk of kidney damage with no explanation about how great a risk. Truth be told, 33 percent of patients in a test study died when taking the 8-milligram dose of Zometa.

As disturbing as all of this is, it illustrates the grave failure of the FDA in performing its job. Drug companies seemingly run the show from start to finish, researching, manufacturing, and self-regulating their own products. The FDA time and time again has caved at the behest of corporate pressure.

The FDA must be held responsible for its utter failure to function as it should. In direct opposition to its own mission statement which summates its purpose as defender of public health, the FDA operates as a corporate lapdog to pharmaceutical interests. It is time that the people demand the dismantling of this corrupt organization and the formation of a new one.

by: Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) The cancer industry has blatantly abandoned science these past two weeks by insisting women under 50 should receive annual mammograms even though the industry's own scientific task force concluded that such screenings result in too many false positives. Essentially, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took a good, hard look at the science and concluded that mammograms harm far more women than they help (for women under 50, anyway). But when they announced the new recommendations that women under 50 should avoid mammograms — and women over 50 should only get them every other year — the cancer industry cried foul.

Radiologists, oncologists, Big Pharma pill-pushers and cancer industry non-profits all banded together to declare, "We are abandoning the science! We want more mammograms for more women, science be damned!"

Of course, they all still claim to be "scientific," but what they really do is selectively cherry-pick which bits and pieces of the scientific evidence they choose to adhere to. And when it comes to these new mammogram recommendations, they've decided to simply abandon the science and keep pushing more radiation imaging tests for women (mammography).

The cancer industry is a complete failure
What you are witnessing here, folks, is the desperate last gasps of a failed industry. Their technologies do not save lives, their drugs do not cure cancer, and their "science" doesn't add up. The cancer industry is a fraud, and now its fraudulent nature is finally becoming apparent to everyone. It even has the mainstream media (USA Today) describing the failures of mammography in articles like the one you'll see here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health…

Here's something else you need to know: The cancer industry hasn't merely abandoned science in terms of mammography; it has also abandoned all science with the pushing of chemotherapy. Did you know there has never been a randomized, placebo-controlled study proving that chemotherapy saves the lives of breast cancer patients?

That evidence doesn't exist. The whole "treatment" scam is based entirely on fiction. Chemotherapy only works at all against three rare types of cancer, and breast cancer isn't one of them.

In defending the new mammography guidelines, Dr. Timothy Wilt, a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said that the task force recommendations "were based on the most rigorous peer review of up-to-date, accurate information about the evidence about the harms and benefits of treatment."

He repeated that women under 50 should never receive mammograms, and women 50 or over should only receive a mammogram every two years.

The American Cancer Society, quite predictably, has a real problem with that recommendation. Its entire success (and power) depends on more people getting cancer, and one of the best ways to make sure that happens is to keep pushing for more mammograms. In opposing the new mammography recommendations, the ACS has now abandoned science, too.

Chemotherapy: The chemical holocaust
When cancer doctors tell you that "chemotherapy will save your life," they are lying to you. And they lie thousands of times a day, deceptively recruiting women into modern medicine's version of a chemical holocaust.

The cancer industry offers no cures. A cure for cancer would destroy the industry. It would wipe out billions of dollars in profits that drug companies, radiologists and oncologists are counting on right now. This is precisely why the cancer industry dares not tell women the truth about vitamin D, for example, which prevents 77% of all cancers, including breast cancer.

If every woman in America were given vitamin D supplements, cancer rates would plummet by up to 77% in a single year, and the cancer industry would virtually collapse. That cannot be allowed to happen, of course, which is precisely why the industry has a complete blackout on vitamin D information while pushing hard for annual mammograms that continue to cause cancer (and generate repeat business).

The U.S. government has abandoned science, too
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has told women to ignore the new mammography advice by the U.S. government task force. But she has zero scientific evidence to back up her advice. She, like everyone else pushing mammograms, is engaged in pure quackery.

I find this particularly fascinating, given that the cancer industry claims people who are offering cancer cures are "quacks." Such cures aren't based on rock-solid science, they claim! But when the rock-solid science says mammograms are dangerous for women, the cancer industry abandons the science! That's why they are the new quacks.

Here's a simple prediction: In twenty years, mammograms will have been long since abandoned. Doctors of that era will look back at 2009 and wonder how this so-called "modern" medical industry could have been so deeply invested in such a dangerous, cancer-causing technology called mammography. They will scratch their heads and ask, "Why didn't they heed the science that said mammography is dangerous?" They'll write about "how medically illiterate the people were in 2009" because they voluntarily inserted their body parts into irradiation machines.

The fact is that people of every era are suckers for apparent medical authority. Patients tend to believe doctors because they mistakenly think doctors know what they're talking about. But conventional doctors are technicians, not healers. They understand the detailed of how to administer poisons, but they have no clue how to activate the body's innate healing potential.

Doctors tend to be very intelligent individuals, but even they cannot understand things they've never been taught, and medical school is focused almost entirely on a drugs-and-surgery approach to medicine (slash and burn).

To expect a conventional doctor to be good at healing is like expecting your accountant to be good at ballet.

Doctors may be smart, but they're ignorant about healing. And for the most part, they're nutritionally illiterate, which is why cancer doctors still don't recommend vitamin D. (Astonishing, but true.)

So why, then, would patients who are interested in healing their bodies go see medical professionals who are experts in the administration of poison? It makes no sense. But that's what insurance covers, so they keep doing it. And they keep dying of cancer, an almost entirely preventable disease with cures that exist right now but will never be publicized because too much profit depends on keeping people sick.

Mammograms are the insurance of the cancer industry. As long as mammogram machines keep running, there will always be more cancer to diagnose — because the machines are making cancer!

Laurel Rose OPC
IP-6
IntraMax