Wednesday, February 29, 2012

The Treatment Protocol for Reversing Obesity, Depression , and Cancer

The Natural Cure


Chronic dehydration produces many symptoms, signs, and eventually degenerative diseases. The physiological outcomes of the sort of dehydration that produces any of the problems are almost the same. 

Different bodies manifest the early symptoms of drought differently, but in persistent dehydration that has been camouflaged by prescription medications (drugs), one by one the other symptoms and signs will kick in, and eventually the person will suffer from multiple "diseases." 

We in medicine have labeled these conditions as outright diseases or have grouped them as different " syndromes." In recent years, we have grouped some of the syndromes -- with some typical blood tests - and called them autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, insulin-dependent diabetes, and so on. 

Medical research has until now been conducted on the assumption that many conditions - which I consider to be states of dehydration or its complications - are diseases of "unknown etiology." from the presently held perspectives of human health problems, we are not allowed to use the word cure. You can at best "treat" a problem and hope it goes "into remission."

from my perspective, most painful degenerative diseases are states of local or regional drought - with varying patterns. It naturally follows that, once the drought and its metabolic complications are corrected thru correct hydration (drinking water) , the problem will be cured if the dehydration damage is not extensive. I also believe that to evaluate "deficiency disorders" - water deficiency being one of them - we do not need to observe the same research protocols that are applied to the research of chemical products. Identifying the shortage and correcting the deficiency are all we need do to cure the problem. Deficiency disorders are curable; we can use the word cure to refer to the result! 
 It is now clear that the treatment for all dehydration-produced conditions is the same -- a single treatment protocol for umpteen numbers of conditions. Isn't that great? One program solves so many problems and avoids costly and unnecessary interference with your body. 

The first step in this treatment program involves a clear and determined  upward adjustment of daily water intake. Persistent dehydration also causes a disproportionate loss of certain elements that should be adequately available in the stored reserves in the human body. Naturally, the ideal treatment protocol will also involve an appropriate correction of associated metabolic disturbance. In short , treatment of dehydration-produced diseases also involves correction of the secondary deficiencies that water deficiency imposes on some tissues of the body. This multiple-deficiency phenomenon caused by dehydration is at the root of many degenerative diseases , including the autoimmune condition like lupus and AIDS and, naturally, cancer. 

Bear in mind that cancer is not a disease, but is a biological process triggered by the dehydrated body cells.  So, keep your body well hydrated though correct amount of water and salt intake daily and don't turn on the cancer process. More to come .....

Friday, February 24, 2012

Strike Stroke before Stroke Strikes

According to the National Stroke Association, stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States, and is a rapidly growing health threat for middle-aged women in particular. The most common type of stroke is called "ischemic stroke," which results from an obstruction in a blood vessel supplying blood to your brain.
A number of factors are likely behind the surprising rise in strokes in women, including:
  • Increasing rates of obesity (women's waists have grown by nearly two inches in the last 10 years)
  • Vitamin D deficiency due to lack of sun exposure. Sun avoidance also increases your risk of vitamin D sulfate deficiency, which may be an underlying cause of arterial plaque buildup (a risk factor for stroke)
  • Rising prevalence of high blood sugar levels

Strokes Typically Occur Without ANY Warning

This is why prevention is so important. You simply will not have any warning signs indicating that you're heading for a stroke in the future... And once you suffer a stroke, the damage, should you survive it, can be absolutely devastating.
I like to refer to most strokes as a brain attack, which is similar to a heart attack; the only difference is that the blood clot blocks blood flow to your brain instead of your heart. As a result, brain cells begin to die. Naturally, the longer your brain goes without oxygen, the greater your risk of lasting brain damage. This is one area where conventional emergency medicine excels, as there are emergency medications that can actually dissolve a blood clot that is blocking blood flow to your brain, and if done quickly enough can virtually reverse any permanent neurological damage. 
In order to be effective, you typically need to get treated within one hour. This is clearly one of the miracles of modern science, however it all goes to waste if one does not address the underlying conditions after the stroke. However, if you notice any of these signs of stroke, you should get help right away:
  • Sudden trouble walking (dizziness, loss of balance, etc.)
  • Sudden confusion
  • Sudden numbness or weakness (especially on one side of your body only)
  • Sudden trouble seeing
  • Sudden severe headache

To Prevent a Stroke, First Address Your Diet

Clearly, in the case of strokes (and most disease), prevention is your best option, and your diet plays a CRUCIAL role. (Later, I'll also discuss other lifestyle choices that can have a very significant impact, such as vitamin D.)
A recent article featured by Yahoo Health lists five different foods that have been linked to an increased risk of stroke. I agree with three of the five mentioned, and will review those below. The other two, namely red meat and salt, need some clarification as not all meats and salts are created equal. The devil is in the details, as they say, and that's definitely something to keep in mind before you banish all red meat and salt from your diet. 
  • Red meat—I believe it is a serious mistake to lump ALL red meats together, because the differences between meat raised in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) and organically-raised, grass-fed meats are so vast, it's like talking about two completely different foods.

    Organic grass-fed beef is typically NOT associated with any of the ill health effects you see from CAFO beef, but very few researchers, let alone journalists, ever make this distinction. For more information about why grass-fed beef is actually good for you and will NOT promote disease the way CAFO beef does, please see this previous article.
  • Salt—As for salt, you cannot compare the processed salt used in processed foods with natural, unrefined salt. So while I agree that steering clear of processed foods will help you reduce your stroke risk and improve your health in general, it's important to understand that you don't have to avoid ALL salt, just the processed kind (think regular table salt).

    Unrefined natural salt on the other hand, such as Himalayan salt, is actually very important for a variety of biological processes, including helping the lining of your blood vessels to regulate blood pressure—clearly a beneficial effect, as opposed to a disease-promoting one. To learn more about the differences between processed and the natural unrefined salt essential for life, please review this previous article.  

Trans-Fats: Known to Increase Stroke Risk

Any food containing trans fats should be avoided if you care about your health. This includes numerous processed foods, such as crackers, chips, most store-bought baked goods, and any fried foods, just to name a few examples. Trans fats are known to promote inflammation, which is a hallmark of most chronic and/or serious diseases; not just strokes and heart disease.
Women in particular would be well served to heed this advice as stroke rates are on the rise in middle-aged women, and poor dietary choices is likely a significant culprit.  In one study, released last year, post-menopausal women who consumed the most daily dietary trans fat had a 30 percent higher incidence of ischemic strokes.
Please also understand that nearly all health journalists and "experts" will also lump saturated fats into this category and that would be a major mistake, as saturated fats in appropriate quantities and not damaged by heat are actually health promoting.

Beware of Smoked and Processed Meats

Certain preservatives, such as sodium nitrate and nitrite found in smoked and processed meats have been shown to damage your blood vessels, which could increase your risk of stroke. Furthermore, nitrates are frequently converted into nitrosamines, which are also clearly associated with an increased risk of certain cancers. In the most recent review of more than 7,000 studies on diet and cancer, executed by The World Cancer Research Fund, the researchers concluded that no one should eat processed meats for this reason. Hot dogs, bacon, salami and other processed meats may also:
  • Increase your risk of diabetes by 50 percent
  • Lower your lung function
  • Increase your risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
I recommend keeping these foods to a minimum in your diet, if you choose to eat them at all. And, if you are going to eat bacon, sausage, ham or any other processed meat product once in awhile, following these guidelines will at least help minimize any risk to your health: 
  • Choose organic meats that are grass-fed or free-range
  • Look for "uncured" varieties that contain NO nitrates
  • Choose varieties that say 100% beef, 100% chicken, etc. This is the only way to know that the meat is from a single species and does not include byproducts (like chicken skin or chicken fat)
  • Avoid any meat that contains MSG, high-fructose corn syrup, preservatives, artificial flavor or artificial color
  • Ideally, purchase sausages and other processed meats from a small, local farmer who you can ask about the ingredients

Diet Soda May Dramatically Increase Your Stroke Risk

Earlier this year, research presented at the American Stroke Association's International Stroke Conference showed that people who drink just one diet soda a day may increase their risk of stroke by 48 percent!
According to the authors:
"This study suggests that diet soda is not an optimal substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages, and may be associated with a greater risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death than regular soda."
While more research will likely be needed to confirm this potential link, there's plenty of evidence showing that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose (Splenda) can be dangerous to your health. I believe aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous artificial sweetener on the market. Reports of adverse reactions to the US FDA also support this, as aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA.

How Vitamin D Deficiency Increases Your Stroke Risk

According to research presented at the American Heart Association's (AHA) Annual Scientific Sessions in Chicago, IL in November last year, low levels of vitamin D—the essential nutrient obtained from exposure to sunlight—doubles the risk of stroke in Caucasians.
Vitamin D is the only known substrate for a potent pleiotropic (meaning it produces multiple effects) repair and maintenance seco-steroid hormone that serves multiple gene-regulatory functions in your body. This is why the health benefits of vitamin D run the gamut from improved immune function to significantly reduced cancer risk, to improved mercury detoxification... 
It essentially works as a "master key" to activate the DNA "library" within each cell in your body. This cellular DNA library contains information needed to address virtually every kind of stimulus the cell may encounter; hence the reason why vitamin D works in so many different tissues, and affects such a large number of different diseases and health conditions. So far, scientists have found about 3,000 genes that are upregulated by vitamin D.
Not only is vitamin D deficiency known to increase your risk of arterial stiffness, a major risk factor for stroke, but it can also:

Other Stroke-Prevention Guidelines

It's important to realize that the vast majority—up to 80 percent, according to the National Stroke Association—of strokes are preventable, so you have a lot of "say" in whether or not you're going to become a statistic here.
So, besides avoiding processed foods (especially smoked and processed meats) and diet sodas, and making sure your vitamin D levels are within the therapeutic range, what else can help lower your stroke risk? Conventionally speaking, many of the same risk factors that increase your risk of heart disease also increase your risk of stroke, and these include factors like:
So, as with your heart, eating unprocessed, preferably organic, foods, exercising and maintaining a healthy weight will help to reduce your risk of stroke. Two additional risk factors that can have a direct impact on your stroke risk are:
  • Psychological distress. According to a 2008 study published in the journal Neurology, the more stressed you are, the greater your risk. The researchers actually found that for every notch lower a person scored on their well-being scale, their risk of stroke increased by 11 percent. Not surprisingly, the relationship between psychological distress and stroke was most pronounced when the stroke was fatal.
  • Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and birth control pills. If you're on one of the hormonal birth control methods (whether it's the pill, patch, vaginal ring or implant), it is important to understand that you are taking synthetic progesterone and synthetic estrogen -- something that is clearly not advantageous if you want to maintain optimal health. These contraceptives contain the same synthetic hormones as those used in hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which has well-documented risks, including an increased risk of blood clots, stroke, heart attack, and breast cancer.
Lastly, it may be worth mentioning that vitamin B3, or niacin, may help improve neurological function directly AFTER a stroke. When rats with ischemic stroke were given niacin, their brains showed growth of new blood vessels, and sprouting of nerve cells which greatly improved neurological outcome. While this likely needs to be studied further, it serves as yet another potent example of how nutrition is at the heart of all healing mechanisms in your body, even when it comes to something as serious as a stroke.

But the unquestionable treatment of chioce for acute stroke rehabilitation would be hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). Research has shown that HBOT helps your body produce and mobilize mesenchymal stem cells, which play a critical role in your body's attempt to repair any injured tissues or cells. For more information, please review

Stop and hear the Music ..before it is too late, busy folks ...

On Jan. 12, 2007, at 7:51 on a Friday morning, Bell, dressed in jeans, a long-sleeved T-shirt, and a Washington Nationals baseball cap, opened his violin case, threw a few dollars in as seed money, and began to play. The pieces he performed were not popular, well-known ditties. They were complex, breathtaking masterpieces that have endured for centuries. Bell put his heart and soul into his music, coaxing pristine, resonant notes from his instrument. He played six pieces in 43 minutes.
During that time, 1,097 people walked by the virtuoso.
Only seven stopped to hear the music for more than a minute.
Twenty-seven tossed in some money while hurrying on.
The rest rushed by in oblivion.

More , click read on  and hear the music ...

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Dr Lorraine Day stopped ....(part 2)

She stopped practicing medicine and became a student of " alternative medicine." She started reading copiously about the natural treatment procedures offered by alternative medicine practitioners. She changed her lifestyle and started to look into nutrition for answers to her problem. The cancer was growing and would soon begin to break her skin and ulcerate, exposing her to the additional problems of becoming infected She found a surgeon to only remove the external tumor and did nothing about its fast-growing secondaries in the glands in her armpit, in the space above her collarbone, in her nose, and elsewhere - no chemotherapy and no radiation.

The cancer came back with a vengeance and grew at rapid rates all over again despite her new diet. She became so weak that she could hardly walk and was nursed in her bed. At these final stages of her life, when the archangel was getting ready to accompany her to the Pearly Gates and she knew it, too - as if God wanted to make an ignorance-shattering point in medicine and set her up as another of His medical messengers , someone gave her a copy of my book Your Body's Many Cries for Water . All at once she realized the information in the book was speaking to her problem, and she began to drink water as if there were no tomorrow.

She realized the coffee she'd been drinking all those years between operations, in place of water her body wanted, had done the damage and set her up for the development of the cancer she was now facing.

I asked an artist friend of mine, Lourdes Saenz, to produce these renditions of the tumor photos that Dr. Day has posted on her Website, . (Click here to view tumor ) I chose to use art instead of photos to encourage you to go to her Website and acquaint yourself with the crusade she is now engaged in against the very mainstream medical establishment she represented as a shining star for so many years. The addition of water to Dr. day's daily diet gave the archangel his marching order, and she stared feeling better every day. it took her about 8 months to recover ompletely and become cancer-free ---hallelijah. She has been cancer-free for the past 10 years. (Click here to read her photo report)  Dr. Day is totally healthy and cancer-free, still works full time, participates in all the sports she did when she was in her twenties and thirties, takes no medications whatsoever, and has no aches or pains anywhere.  And it has been nineteen years since her cancerous tumor first appeared.  As you can see, God’s Health Plan works!!

She has more than once stated : " Dr.Batmanghelidj's book Your Body's Many Cries for Water was critical in my recovery. I could not have gotten well without that addition to my plan." -- Dr. Lorraine Day.

Click Here >>

In the past year I have continued to scour the world for better treatments for cancer patients. I gave the keynote address at the Society for Biological Cancer Defense (GfbK, in German) in beautiful Heidelberg last May. Then I co-chaired the International Seminar at Medicine Week in Baden-Baden in late October. I combined this with a follow-up visit to half a dozen cancer clinics in Germany and Austria. I also did a very interesting site visit tour to the Pacific Northwest, driving from San Francisco to Seattle.
Coming up soon will be a similar visit to the CAM cancer clinics in the Phoenix area. I will attend and speak at the Naturopathic Oncology meeting in Carefree, AZ in February. I will also attend the Society of Thermal Medicine meeting in Portland in April. And, of course, I will attend the world-famous American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting in Chicago in June, which has become a required meeting for serious students of cancer from around the world. The result of all this is an improved Moss Report for you and your loved one. Please think of us as a source of comprehensive, timely and up-to-date information on the best cancer treatment, conventional, alternative and complementary.

For more years than I can remember I have written and edited newsletters in the cancer field. This practice began in the mid-1970s with Second Opinion. It continued in the 1980s and 1990s with The Cancer Chronicles. And then for about 10 years I issued a weekly online newsletter, Cancer Decisions. Then, about a year ago, I stopped. The main reason was a lack of time. I realized that my main responsibility, i.e., keeping the various Moss Reports up-to-date, was suffering from a lack of attention. I therefore turned full time to revising and updating those Reports. My staff and I also began a major revision of our Web site.

Revisions Are Now Complete
The revision process has now been successfully completed. We streamlined the diagnosis-specific reports from over 200 to about 20 major diagnoses. I am sorry to have dropped the many rare cancers that I formerly wrote about. But 20 is a number that I can comfortably keep revised and up-to-date. This represents over 90 percent of all cancer incidence. That way, I can guarantee that each comprehensive Moss Report will remain current. Each one will be revised at least once per year. Some may be revised more frequently in the light of new developments.

I am in fact about to begin the first round of 2012 revisions. It is a source of great satisfaction to keep these comprehensive reports in good repair!

Look for Our Redesigned Web Site
At the same time, my staff and I are hard at work thoroughly revising It will not only have a modern look but -- more importantly -- will introduce several new products. And, yes, this will include a new online newsletter! But I don't want to steal my own thunder. I will send out an announcement as soon as we are ready to take subscriptions to that newsletter. Please stay tuned. The process of revising Web sites is tortured and laborious. But I do believe that we are ready to launch quite soon.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Sunlight Needful

Sunlight (cahaya sang suria/matahari) not only prevent cancer, it helps to reverse cancer. Get the patient to sunbath every monrning before 10 am and after 4 PM , barefooted on grass soil. Sunlight is like a magic elixir for the human body, regardless of your personal religion belief. Our ancestors were out in the sun all the time, and they did NOT get cancer. But Today, yet we are repeatly advised to avoid the sun. This bad advice has cost countless thousands of lives by perpetrating an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency and all the many disease resulting from the deficiency including : heart disease, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, type 1 diabetes, infections, auto-immune diseases, depression, asthma, and cancer. Science doesn't even be to understand all the marvelous benefits of sunshine sunlight, yet the disease industry continues to perpetuate the myth (Dongeng) that the sun causes cancer. Exactly the opposite is true. Cells have light-activated receptors that, when triggered, initiate a number of beneficial and cancer protective biological reactions. Scientists are beginning to examine whether the acupuncture meridians function as a photo transfer system, resembling fiber optics, delivering light throughout the human body. Pls check out this Penang retired professor if you are suffering cancer now FOC at

Friday, February 17, 2012


Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, known to millions through his nationally syndicated column as “The People’s Doctor”, was the national medical director of Project Head Start and chairman of the Medical Licensure Committee for the state of Illinois, USA.  Among the many faculty and hospital posts he held, he was an associate professor at the University of Illinois Medical School and a director of Chicago’s Michael Reese Hospital. 

Dr. Mendelsohn, world-famous physician and patient advocate, was a pioneer in the movement toward truth in the medical profession.  Here he explains why Modern Medicine’s methods are often more dangerous that the diseases they are designed to diagnose and treat.

Although Dr. Mendelsohn’s book, ‘Confessions of a Medical Heretic’ was published in 1979, what he has written is even truer today.  Dr. Mendelsohn writes about the doctors in the USA.  The same parallels can be equally applied in many cases to other parts of the world.

One Click publishes an extract from Dr. Mendelsohn’s book entitled ‘The Devil’s Priests’.  In relation to what is transpiring with the MMR Vaccine and ME/CFS patients in the UK, publication of this chapter would seem to be extremely pertinent at this time.  The next time that any of you encounter a doctor such as Michael Fitzpatrick or a psychiatrist from the ‘Wessely school’, we suggest that you remember this chapter and use it to good effect.

The One Click Group


By Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.

Chapter 7
pp. 123-140

The Devil’s Priests

 I always laugh when someone from the American Medical Associ­ation or some other doctors’ organization claims that doctors have no special powers over people. After I finish laughing, I always ask how many people can tell you to take off your clothes and you’ll do it.

Because doctors are really the priests of the Church of Modern Medicine, most people don’t deny them their extra influence over our lives. After all, most doctors are honest, dedicated, intelligent, committed, healthy, educated, and capable, aren’t they? The doctor is the rock upon which Modern Medicine’s Church is built, isn’t he?

Not by a long shot. Doctors are only human — in the worst ways. You can’t assume your doctor is any of the nice things listed above, because doctors turn out to be dishonest, corrupt, unethical, sick, poorly educated, and downright stupid more often than the rest of society.

My favorite example of how doctors can be less intelligent than the situation calls for is a matter of public record. As part of the hearings before the Senate Health Subcommittee, Senator Edward Kennedy recalled a skiing injury to his shoulder, suffered when he was a young man. His father called in four specialists to examine the boy and recommend treatment. Three recommended surgery. The advice of the fourth doctor, who did not recommend surgery, was followed, however. He had just as many degrees as the others. The injury healed. Senator Kennedy’s colleagues then proceeded to question Dr. Lawrence Weed, Professor of Medicine at the University of Vermont and originator of a highly popular patient record system for hospitals. Dr. Weed’s reply was that the “senator’s shoulder probably would have healed as satisfactorily if the operation hadn’t been performed.”

When doctors are formally tested, the results are less than encouraging. In a recent test involving the prescribing of antibiotics half of the doctors who voluntarily took the test scored sixty-eight percent or lower. We’ve already seen in the previous chapters how dangerous it is to have a doctor work on you. All of that danger doesn’t necessarily derive from the inherent risks of the treatment itself. Doctors simply botch some of those procedures. When I meet a doctor, I generally figure I’m meeting a person who is narrow minded, prejudiced, and fairly incapable of reasoning and deliberation. Few of the doctors I meet prove my prediction wrong.

Doctors can’t be counted on to be entirely ethical, either. The dean of Harvard Medical School, Dr. Robert H. Ebert, and the dean of the Yale Medical School, Dr. Lewis Thomas, acted as paid consultants to the Squibb Corporation at the same time they were trying to persuade the Food and Drug Administration to lift the ban on Mysteclin, one of Squibb’s biggest moneymakers. Dr. Ebert that he “gave the best advice I could. These were honest opinions.” But he also declined to specify the amount of the “modest retainer” Squibb Vice-President Norman R. Ritter admitted paying him and Dr. Thomas. Dr. Ebert later became a paid director of the drug company and admitted to owning stock valued at $15,000.

In 1972, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, then of Case-Western Reserve University, one of the world’s authorities on chemical causes of cancer and birth defects, told the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs that “the National Academy of Sciences is rid­dled with conflict of interest.” He reported that panels that decide on crucial issues such as safety of food additives frequently are dominated by friends or direct associates of the interests that are supposed to be regulated. “In this country you can buy the data you require to support your case,” he said.

Fraud in scientific research is commonplace enough to keep it off the front pages. The Food and
Drug Administration has uncovered such niceties as overdosing and underdosing of patients, fabrication of records, and drug dumping when they investigate experimental drug trials. Of course, in these instances, doctors working for drug companies have as their goal producing results that will convince the FDA to approve the drug. Sometimes, with competition for grant money getting more and more fierce, doctors simply want to produce results that will keep the funding lines open. Since all the “good ol’ boy” researchers are in the same boat, there seems to be a great tolerance for sloppy experiments, unconfirmable results, and carelessness in interpreting results.

Dr. Ernest Borek, a University of Colorado microbiologist, said that “increasing amounts of faked data or, less flagrantly, data with body English put on them, make their way into scientific journals.” Nobel Prize winner Salvadore E. Luria, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said “I know of at least two cases in which highly respected scientists had to retract findings re­ported from their laboratories, because they discovered that these findings had been manufactured by one of their collaborators.”

Another now classic example of fraud occurred in the Sloane-Kettering Institute where investigator Dr. William Summerlin admitted painting mice to make them look as though successful skin grafts had been done. A predecessor to Dr. Summerlin in the field of painting animals was Paul Kammerer, the Austrian geneticist, who early in the twentieth century painted the foot of a toad in order to prove the Lamarckian theory of transmission of acquired traits. When he was later exposed in Arthur Koessler’s book, The Case of the Midwife Toad, Kammerer shot himself.

Dr. Richard W. Roberts, director of the National Bureau of Standards, said that “half or more of the numerical data published by scientists in their journal articles is unusable because there is no evidence that the researcher accurately measured what he thought he was measuring or no evidence that possible sources of error eliminated or accounted for.” Since it is almost impossible for the average reader of scientific journals to determine which half of the article is usable and which is not, you have to wonder whether the medical journals serve as avenues of communication or confusion.

One method of judging the validity of a scientific article is to examine the footnote for the source of funding. Drug companies’ records regarding integrity of research are not sparkling enough to warrant much trust. Doctors have been shown not to be above fudging and even fabricating research results when the stakes were   high enough. Dr. Leroy Wolins, a psychologist at Iowa State University, had a student write to thirty-seven authors of scientific reports asking for the raw data on which they based their conclusions.  Of the thirty-two who replied, twenty-one said their data either been lost or accidentally destroyed. Dr. Wolins analyzed seven sets of data that did come in and found errors in three significant enough to invalidate what had been passed off as scientific fact.

Of course, research fraud is nothing new. Cyril Burt, the late British psychologist who became famous for his claims most human intelligence is determined by heredity, was exposed as a fraud by Leon Kamin, a Princeton psychologist. It seems that the “coworkers” responsible for Burt’s research findings could not be found to have actually existed! There is even evidence that Gregor Mendel, father of the gene theory of heredity, may have doctored the results of his pea-breeding experiments to make them conform more perfectly to his theory. Mendel’s conclusions were correct, but a statistical analysis of his published data shows that the odds were 10,000 to one against their having been obtained through experiments such as Mendel performed.

Doctors’ unethical behavior is not limited to the medical business. A doctor whose name is practically synonymous with development of a major surgical procedure was convicted of five counts of income tax evasion for omitting more than $250,000 from returns for 1964 through 1968. A few years ago the chairman of the Board of the American Medical Association was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to eighteen months in jail after pleading guilty to participating in a conspiracy to misuse $1.8 million in bank funds. According to the FBI, he and his codefendants had conspired to “obtain unsound indirect loans for their own interest. . .paying bank funds on checks which had insufficient funds to back them. . .and defrauding the government. . .” 
Keep in mind that these shenanigans are going on at the highest levels of the medical profession. If this kind of dishonesty, fraud, and thievery is going on among the bishops and cardinals of Modern Medicine at Yale and Harvard and the National Academy of Sci­ences and the AMA, imagine what is going on among the parish priests at the other medical schools and medical societies!

Perhaps the most telling characteristic of the profession that is supposed to deliver health care is that doctors, as a group, appear to be sicker than the rest of society. Conservative counts peg the number of psychiatrically disturbed physicians in the U.S. at 17,000 or one in twenty, the number of alcoholics at more than 30,000, and the number of narcotics addicts at 3,500 or one per­cent. A thirty-year study comparing doctors with professionals of similar socio-economic and intellectual status found that by the end of the study nearly half the doctors were divorced or unhappily mar­ried, more than a third used drugs such as amphetamines, barbitu­rates, or other narcotics, and a third had suffered emotional prob­lems severe enough to require at least ten trips to a psychiatrist. The control group of non-doctors didn’t fare nearly as badly.

Doctors are from thirty to one hundred times more likely than lay people to abuse narcotics, depending on the particular drug. At a semiannual meeting of the American Medical Association in 1972, surveys cited showed that nearly two percent of the doctors practic­ing in Oregon and Arizona had been disciplined by state licensing authorities for drug abuse. An even larger percentage got into trou­ble for excessive drinking. Even the AMA admits that one and one-half percent of the doctors in the United States abuse drugs. Various reform and rehabilitation measures over the years have not changed these percentages. Keep in mind that these figures repre­sent only the identified cases. In Illinois, for example, Dr. James West, chairman of the Illinois Medical Society’s Panel for the Im­paired Physician, reported that four percent rather than two percent of Illinois doctors are narcotics addicts. He further estimated that eleven-and-one-half percent were alcoholics - one in nine.

Suicide accounts for more deaths among doctors than car and plane crashes, drownings, and homicides combined. Doctors’ suicide rate is twice the average for all white Americans. Every year, about 100 doctors commit suicide, a number equal to the graduating class of the average medical school. Furthermore, the suicide rate among female physicians is neatly four times higher than that for other women over age twenty-five.

Apologists for the medical profession cite several reasons for doctors’ high rate of sickness. The drugs are easily available to them; they must work long hours under severe stress; their background
and psychological makeup predisposes them to stretch their powers to the limits; and their patients and the community make excessive demands on them. Of course, whether or not you accept these reasons, they don’t explain away the fact that doctors are a very sick group of people.

Nonetheless, I prefer to look for more reasons. Fraud and corruption in the research process comes as no surprise to anyone who witnesses the lengths to which drug and formula companies go to doctors to their way of thinking. Free dinners, cocktails, conventions, and subsidized research fellowships still are only superficial explanations. When you examine the psychological and moral climate of Modern Medicine, you begin to get closer to understanding why doctors are so unhealthy.

Medical politics, for example, is a cutthroat power game of the most primitive sort. I much prefer political politics, because there you have the art of the possible, which means you have to compromise. Medical politics is the art of sheer power. There is no compromise: you go right for the jugular vein before your own is torn out. There’s no room for compromise because churches never compromise on canon law. Instead of a relatively open process in which people with different interests get together to try to get the most out of the situation that they can, in medical politics there is a rigid authoritarian power structure which can be moved only through winner-take-all power plays. Historically, doctors who have dared to change things significantly have been ostracized and have had to sacrifice their careers in order to hold to their ideas. Few doctors are willing to do either.

Another reason why doctors are less prone to compromise is because doctors tend to restrict their friendships to other doctors. Close friendships between doctors and non-doctors are nowhere near as frequent as among other professions. Consequently, doctors rarely have to defend their opinions among people who don’t share their background and who might offer a different point of view. Doctors can develop their philosophy in relative privacy, foray at intervals into the public scene to promote these ideas, and then rapidly re­treat to the security of other doctors who support the views of the in-group. This luxury is not available to others in influential posi­tions in public life.

Of course, doctors do see their patients. But they don’t see them as people. The doctor-patient relationship is more like that between the master and the slave, since the doctor depends on the complete submission of the patient. In this kind of climate, ideas can hardly be interchanged with any hope of the doctor’s being affected. Pro­fessional detachment boils down to the doctor rendering the entire relationship devoid of human influences or values. Doctors rarely rub elbows with non-doctors in any other posture but the professional.

Furthermore, since the doctor’s ambitions project him into the upper classes, that’s where his sympathies lie. Doctors identify with the upper class and beyond, even. They view themselves as the true elite class in society. The doctor’s lifestyle and professional behavior encourage autocratic thinking, so his conservative politics and economics are predictable. Most doctors are white, male, and rich—hardly in a position to relate effectively with the poor, the non-white, and females. Even doctors who come from these groups rarely return to serve and “be with” them. They, too, become white, male, and rich for all practical purposes and treat their fel­lows with all the paternalistic contempt other doctors do.

When asked where doctors learn these bad habits, I used to reply that doctors learned them in medical school. Now I realize they learn them much earlier than that. By the time they get to pre­medical training, they’ve picked up the cheating, the competition, the vying for position — all the tricks they know they need if they want to get into medical school. After all, our university system is modeled after the medical schools, and our high schools are modeled after our universities.

The admissions tests and policies of medical schools virtually guarantee that the students who get in will make poor doctors. The quantitative tests, the Medical College Admission Test, and the re­liance on grade point averages funnel through a certain type of per­sonality who is unable and unwilling to communicate with people. Those who are chosen are the ones most subject to the authoritarian influences of the priests of Modern Medicine. They have the com­pulsion to succeed, but not the will or the integrity to rebel. The hierarchy in control wants students who will go through school pas­sively and ask only those questions the professors can answer com­fortably. That usually means they want only one question at a time. One of the things I advise my students to do in order to survive medical school is to ask one question but never ask two.

Medical school does its best to turn smart students stupid, honest students corrupt, and healthy students sick. It isn’t very hard to turn a smart student into a stupid one. First of all, the admissions people make sure the professors will get weak-willed, authority-abiding students to work on. Then they give them a curriculum that is absolutely meaningless as far as healing or health are con­cerned. The best medical educators themselves say that the half-life of medical education is four years. In four years half of what a medical student has learned is wrong. Within four years of that, half again is wrong, and so on. The only problem is that the students aren’t told which half is wrong! They’re forced to learn it all. Super­vision can be very close. There is no school in the country where the student-teacher ratio is as low as it is in medical school. During the last couple of years of medical school, you frequently find classes of only two or three students to one doctor. That doctor has tremen­dous influence over those students, through both his proximity and his life-and-death power over their careers.

Medical students are further softened up by being maliciously fatigued. The way to weaken a person’s will in order to mold him to suit your purposes is to make him work hard, especially at night, and never give him a chance to recover. You teach the rat to race. The result is a person too weak to resist the most debilitating in­strument medical school uses on its students: fear.

If I had to characterize doctors, I would say their major psychological attribute is fear. They have a drive to achieve security-plus that’s never satisfied because of all the fear that’s drummed into them  in medical school: fear of failure, fear of missing a diagnosis, fear of malpractice, fear of remarks by their peers, fear that they’ll have to find honest work. There was a movie some time ago that opened with a marathon dance contest. After a certain length of time all the contestants were eliminated except one. Everybody had to fail except the winner. That’s what medical school has become. Since everybody can’t win, everybody suffers from a loss of self-esteem. Everybody comes out of medical school feeling bad.

Doctors are given one reward for swallowing the fear pill so will­ingly and for sacrificing the healing instincts and human emotions that might help their practice: arrogance. To hide their fear, they’re taught to adopt the authoritarian attitude and demeanor of their professors. With all this pushing at
one end and pulling at the other, it’s no wonder that doctors are the major sources of illness in our society. The process that begins with cheating on a biology exam by moving the microscope slide so that the next student views the wrong specimen, that continues with dropping sugar into a urine sample to change the results for those who follow, with hiring others to write papers and take exams, and with “dry labbing” ex­periments by fabricating results, ends with falsifying research reports in order to get a drug approved. What begins with fear and fatigue over exams and grades ends with a drug or alcohol problem. And what begins with arrogance towards others ends up as a doctor pre­scribing deadly procedures with little regard for the life and health of the patient.

My advice to medical students is always to get out as soon as pos­sible and as easily as possible. The first two years of medical school are survivable because the students are relatively anonymous. The student should try his or her best to remain so, since if the professors don’t know him they can’t get to him. The last two years are more personal, but the student has more time off to recover from the as­saults. If a student simply does enough work to pass and doesn’t get all wrapped up in the roller derby mentality, he or she can make it to the finish line relatively unscathed. Then, as soon as the student is eligible for a state license, I advise him to quit. Forget residency and specialty training because there the professionals have the stu­dent day and night, and he can really be brainwashed.  That’s when the real making of the Devil’s priests occurs.

Doctors are only human. But so are the rest of us, and sometimes we need the services of all-too-human doctors. Because the doctor-priest acts as a mediator or a conduit between the individual and the powerful forces the individual feels he cannot face alone, a faulty conduit can result in some very powerful energy flowing into the wrong places. For example, when doctors are compared with other people in evaluating retarded and other handicapped persons, those who always give the most dismal predictions and the lowest evalua­tions are the doctors. Nurses are next lowest, followed by psychologists. The group that always gives the most optimistic evaluation is the parents. When I’m faced with a doctor who tells me a child can’t do certain things and parents who tell me that the child can do them, I always listen to the parents. I really don’t care which group is right or wrong. It’s the attitude that counts. What­ever attitude is reinforced and encouraged will prove true. I know doctors are prejudiced against cripples and retarded people because of their education — which teaches that anyone who is handicapped  is a failure and is better off dead — so I can protect my patients myself against the doctors’ self-fulfilling prophecies of doom.

Yet doctors continue to get away with their attitude and their self-serving practices. Even though doctors derive a great deal of their economic status and power from insurance companies, the doc­tors are in control. So much in control, in fact, that insurance com­panies generally act against their own interests when the choice is that or weaken the power of doctors. Blue Cross and Blue Shield and other insurers logically should be searching for methods of de­creasing unnecessary utilization of medical services. Occasionally, we see half-hearted attempts in this direction, such as the flurry of rules requiring second opinions before elective surgery, or the every-so-often policy of discontinuing reimbursement for procedures long fallen into oblivion. These efforts are more window dressing than anything else. They are introduced with considerable fanfare, rapidly generate a groundswell of controversy, and then quietly slip away. Regardless of how well-intentioned they are, they still address them­selves only to the peripheral aspects of medical care and not to the areas where real money is to be saved. If insurance companies really wanted to cut costs, they would promote reimbursement for a wide range of simpler, more effective, cheaper procedures — such as home birth. And they would allow reimbursement for measures that re­store and maintain health without drugs or surgery — such as diet therapy and exercise.

One of the most fascinating statistics I’ve ever run across is one that was reported by the Medical Economics Company, the publishers of the Physician’s Desk Reference. Among other questions, they asked a representative sampling of more than 1,700 people, “If you learned that your doctor had lost a malpractice suit, would it alter your opinion of him?” What amazes me is that seventy-seven percent of the people said NO!

Now I don’t really know if that means that people expect their doctors to commit malpractice or if they don’t care whether he does or not!

I do know that the insurance companies are bamboozled by the doctors into spending more money than they have to. I also know that only about seventy doctors lose their licenses every year — despite all the obvious corruption, sickness, and dangerous malprac­tice. Here we come to one of the truly wondrous mysteries of Modern ­Medicine. Despite (or because of?) all that fear and compe­tition among medical students, doctors are extremely reluctant to report incompetent work or behavior on the part of their colleagues. If a hospital, for example, discovers malpractice by one of its doc­tors, the most that will happen is the doctor will be asked to resign. He won’t be reported to state medical authorities. When he seeks employment elsewhere, the hospital will most likely give him a shining recommendation.

When the famous Marcus twin-brother team of gynecologists were found dead of narcotics withdrawal during the summer of 1975, the news that the doctors were addicts came as a surprise to everyone but their colleagues. When the brothers’ “problems” were noticed the year before by the hospital staff, the twins were asked to take a leave of absence to seek medical care. When they returned to New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, they were watched for signs that they had improved. They had not. Were they then whisked off the staff and kept out of touch with patients before any­one was seriously harmed? Were they reported to state licensing au­thorities? No. They were told in May that as of July 1, they would not be allowed to work in the hospital. They were found to have died within days after they lost the privilege to admit patients to the hospital.

Another favorite example of doctors allowing their colleagues to commit mayhem on unsuspecting patients occurred in New Mexico. A surgeon tied off the wrong duct in a gall bladder opera­tion and the patient died. Although the error was discovered at au­topsy, the doctor was not disciplined. Apparently, he wasn’t taught the right way to do the operation, because a few months later he performed it again, wrong — and another patient died. Again, no punishment and no surgery lesson. Only after the doctor performed the operation a third time and killed another person was there an investigation resulting in the loss of his license.

If I had to answer the question of why doctors are so reluctant to report negligence in the practice of their colleagues yet so cutthroat when it comes to medical politics and medical school competition, I go back to the basic emotions engendered in medical school: fear and arrogance. The resentment doctors are taught to feel for each other as students is transferred to the patients when the doctor
finally gets into his own practice. Other doctors are no longer the enemy as long as they don’t threaten to rock the status quo through politics or research which doesn’t follow the party line. Further­more, the old fear of failure never goes away, and since the patient is the primary threat to security — by presenting a problem which must be solved, much like a medical school test — any mistake by a single doctor threatens the security of all doctors by chalking one up for the other side. Arrogance on the part of any professional group is always directed at the outsiders that the group fears most — never at the members of the same profession.

Obviously, doctors get away with more arrogance than any other professional group. If Modern Medicine weren’t a religion, and if doctors weren’t the priests of that religion, they wouldn’t get away with anywhere near so much. Doctors get away with substantially more than priests of other religions, because of the peculiarly cor­rupt nature of Modern Medicine.

All religions promote and relieve guilt. To the extent that a reli­gion is able to encourage useful behavior by promoting guilt and relieving it, that religion is “good.” A religion which promotes too much guilt and relieves too little, or which encourages the wrong kind of behavior—behavior which will not result in the improve­ment of the welfare of the faithful — is a “bad” religion. An example of how a religion promotes and relieves guilt is the almost universal proscription against adultery. Obviously, if religions didn’t try to make people feel that adultery was “wrong” and encourage them to feel guilty about it, more and more people would do it and necessary social structures would weaken. People wouldn’t know who their parents were, property could not be orderly transferred from genera­tion to generation, and venereal disease could threaten the existence of an especially energetic culture.

Doctors are so powerful precisely because they have, as priests of the Church of Modern Medicine, removed all the old guilts. Modern Medicine invalidates the old guilts which, strangely enough, held people to their old religions. Nothing is a “sin” anymore, because there is a physical consequence, the doctor has the power to fix you up. If you get pregnant, the doctor can perform an abortion. If you get venereal disease, the doctor can give you penicillin. If you are gluttonous and damage your heart, the doctor can give you a coronary bypass. If you suffer from emotional problems, the doctor has Valium, Librium, and other narcotics to help you get by with­out caring, or feeling. If those don’t work, there are plenty of psychiatrists.

There is one “sin” that Modern Medicine will make you feel guilty about: not going to the doctor. That’s OK, because the doctor is the priest who takes away every other guilt. How much harm can there be in guilt that drives you to the doctor every time you feel sick?

The doctor-priest gets away with a lot because he can claim to be up against the very Forces of Evil. When a priest is in a touchy situ­ation and the probability for success is dismal, he escapes blame by saying that he’s up against the Devil. The doctor-priest does the same thing. When the prognosis is not good, he retreats into his mortality and admits that he’s only a man up against the Devil Then, if he wins, he’s a hero. If he loses, he’s a defeated hero — but still a hero. Never is he seen in his true light—as the agent of the Devil.

The doctor never loses, though he plays both sides against the middle and takes bigger risks than necessary. That’s because he has succeeded in identifying his rituals as sacred and potent regardless of their real efficacy. He uses his holiest implements to raise the ante and make the game more ominous than it really needs to be. If a mother comes into the hospital with her baby in the breech position and the fetal monitor says the baby is in distress, the doctor loses time in declaring it a life-and-death situation — which, indeed, becomes once he starts to perform a Caesarean-section delivery. Biologically, the doctor knows the C-section is dangerous. But game is no longer being played by biological rules. It’s a religious game, a ceremony, and the priest calls the shots. If mother and child survive, the priest is a hero. If they die, well . . . it was a life-and-death situation anyway.

The doctor never loses: only the patients lose. The adage that a doctor buries his mistakes still applies. We used to refer mistakenly to doctors as airplane pilots. If the plane goes down, the pilot goes down with it. But the doctor never goes down with the patient.

Doctors also escape blame by claiming that their failures are caused by their successes. If you point out, for example, that a dis­proportionate number of premature babies seem to be turning up blind in premie nurseries, the doctor will say that it’s the price you have to pay. “Gee, we managed to save these little I- and 2-pound babies. Of course they all end up blind and deformed. They’d be dead if we didn’t save them.” Doctors use the same excuse with the problem of diabetic blindness. The reason we have so much diabetic blindness, they say, is because we have succeeded in keeping so many diabetics alive longer. Doctors will use this “we managed to keep them alive longer” excuse for every disease they have trouble treating successfully — which includes all the major causes of non-accidental death. They absolutely ignore the biological facts that creep in and point the finger at Modern Medicine’s mismanagement of both health and disease. Doctors even manage to get away with blaming their own disease on their successes. When you point to the large numbers of dishonest, unhappy, and just plain sick doctors, the excuse usually runs something like this: “The reason for the psychological disability is our tendency to be compulsive, perfec­tionistic, easily given to a sense of guilt if our clinical efforts fail.” A president of the American Medical Association offered that one.

Doctors protect themselves further through the sacred language of the priest. A religion must have a sacred language to separate the discourse of the priesthood from the lowly banter of the masses. After all, the priests are on speaking terms with the powers that seep the universe on course. We can’t have just anyone listening in. Sacred language of doctors is no different from jargon developed by any elitist group. Its main function is to keep outsiders ignorant. If you could understand everything your doctor was saying to you and to other doctors, his power over you would be diminished. So when you get sick because of the generally filthy conditions in the hospi­tal, he’ll call your infection nosocomial. That way, you’ll not only not get angry at the hospital, but you’ll feel privileged to have such a distinguished sounding disease. And too scared to get mad.

Doctors use their semantic privileges to make you feel stupid and convince you that they are genuinely privy to powers that you’d bet­ter not mess with. As long as their rituals are mysterious, as long as they don’t have to justify them biologically, they can get away with anything. They’re not even subject to the laws of logic. Doctors will, for example, justify coronary bypasses by saying that everyone who has one feels better. But if you ask to be treated for cancer with laetrile because everyone you know who has been treated with it feels better, your doctor will tell you that it hasn’t
been scientifically proved effective.

Semantic isolation also serves to disenfranchise the individual from the healing process. Since the patient has no hope of knowing what’s going on, let alone assisting, why allow him or her any part in the process at all? The patient gets in the way of the ritual, so get the patient out of the way. That’s one reason why doctors aren’t in­terested in helping patients maintain their health. To do that, they’d have to inform them rather than work on them. Doctors aren’t going to share information, because that means sharing power.

To back them up, doctors have an enormous tonnage of technological gadgets which proliferates alarmingly. First of all, the patient must stand in awe of the array of machinery the doctor assembles to attack his problem. How could any single person — other than the doctor, who has the power — hope to control such forces? Also, the electronic wizardry adds weight to the doctor’s claim that he “did everything he could.” If it’s just a doctor standing there with a black bag, “all that he could” doesn’t mean very much. But if the doctor throws the switches on $4 million worth of machinery that fills three rooms, that means he did “all that he could” and then some!

Typical of any developed religion, the ceremonial objects in which the most power is concentrated reside in the Temple. The higher the status of the temple, the more machinery within the walls. When you get to the cathedrals and the little “Vaticans” of Modern Medi­cine, you are up against priests who have the weight of infallibility behind them. They can do no wrong, so they are the most dangerous.

The reforms that have been introduced in an effort to solve some of the problems I’ve talked about in this chapter don’t impress me as doing very much good. Rehabilitation programs, for example, don’t really attack the roots of the sicknesses doctors seem to fall prey to. That may be a result of their shying away from exposing the prob­lem as a disease of the core of Modern Medicine. Of course, doctors are not trained to attack the core of any problem, merely to suppress the symptoms.

Attempts to keep doctors’ knowledge up-to-date also do little good, since what doctors don’t need is more of the same kind of in­formation they received in medical school. That’s precisely what they get in most continuing medical education programs. They’re taught by the same people who taught them in medical school. Who’s responsible for keeping them properly informed?

As I’ve already said, you have to protect yourself. To do that, you need to remember the two major attributes of doctors: fear and arro­gance. What you have to do is learn how to work on his fears with­out challenging his arrogance until you have the winning hand. Since doctors are scared of you and what you can do to them, you shouldn’t hesitate to use that fear. Doctors are scared of lawyers, not because lawyers are so powerful but because lawyers can ally them­selves with you, whom the doctor really fears.  If a doctor does you dirty, sue him. It is in courts and juries that you’re most likely to find common sense. Find a good lawyer who knows a lot about medicine and who is not afraid to put a doctor through the ringer. If there’s one thing a doctor doesn’t like it’s to be in court on the wrong end of a lawyer — because that’s one place where the patient has allies that can effectively challenge the doctor’s priestly immu­nity. The increase in malpractice suits is encouraging, since it means more and more people are being radicalized to the point where they challenge the doctor’s power to determine the rules.

If your doctor gives you trouble but not enough to take him to court, you need to be careful about how much you challenge him —not because of what he can or cannot do to you, but because how far you go will determine your effectiveness. If a doctor threatens you and becomes angry, you should stand up to him. Don’t back down. Threaten him back. When a person really threatens a doctor, the doctor almost always backs down if the per­son shows that he means it. Doctors back down all the time because they figure, “What do I need this one kook for?” 

It’s important, though, not to threaten a doctor unless you are prepared to carry through. In other words, don’t reveal your rebel­lion until you have to, until you have the emotional commitment and the physical capability to carry on a successful campaign. Don’t get into an argument with a doctor with the hope of changing his mind on anything. Never say to the doctor who’s treating you for cancer with traditional chemotherapy, “Doc, what do you think about laetrile?” You won’t get anywhere, and you won’t get any laetrile, either. Don’t say to the doctor who recommends a security bottle for your baby, “But I’m breastfeeding and I don’t want to do that.” Don’t bring your doctor columns from the newspaper expect­ing him to change his mind or try something new. Don’t challenge him until you’re ready with an alternative action. Do your own homework.

What does a Catholic do when he decides that his priests are no good? Sometimes he directly challenges them, but very seldom. He just leaves the Church. And that’s my answer. Leave the Church of Modern Medicine.  I see a lot of people doing that today. I see a lot of people going to chiropractors, for example, who wouldn’t have been caught dead in a chiropractor’s office a few years ago.

I see more and more people patronizing the heretics of Modern Medicine.

By Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.

Good to Share Healthy Wealth  Empowering Network