Mombu the Medicine Forum sponsored links

Go Back   Mombu the Medicine Forum > Medicine > Mandatory AIDS testing proposal is public health lunacy (diet magnesium down virus cholesterol)
User Name
Password
REGISTER NOW! Mark Forums Read

sponsored links


Reply
 
1 19th July 18:53
paulking
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Mandatory AIDS testing proposal is public health lunacy (diet magnesium down virus cholesterol)


Mandatory AIDS testing proposal is public health lunacy

Based on a newly published report, some doctors are now actually calling
for the nationwide, mandatory testing of all adults for AIDS. When I hear
ridiculous public health ideas like this one, I have to stop and consider:
what's the real motive behind this? It seems clear to me that the motive
for this one is to sell more AIDS drugs. Because the first thing that will
happen if you start testing the entire adult population for AIDS is you
will get a lot of false positives.

In fact, there are an increasing number of doctors who say that AIDS isn't
even caused by HIV. There's a great book on this subject by Dr. Gary Null
called "AIDS: A second opinion," where Dr. Null says that AIDS is really
just an immuno-suppressed state. There's no hard, scientific diagnosis for
AIDS in the medical community: a doctor can assemble a list of symptoms
related to poor immune system function and call that AIDS.

So if you have mandatory nationwide testing, you're going to get a lot of
people who are inappropriately diagnosed with AIDS and who get scared out
of their minds and start taking anti-AIDS prescription drugs, which of
course boosts the profits of prescription drug companies. If all of this
sounds like some grand conspiracy, don't worry, it isn't. It's more like a
bunch of bumbling medical authorities making silly suggestions about
testing the entire population for a disease that isn't even close to the
top of the list of public health concerns. The mainstream media has blown
the AIDS myths all out of proportion. Let me explain...

I'm not saying that the HIV virus doesn't exist or that lots of people
aren't suffering from immune system suppression. But what I am saying is
that the label "AIDS" is rather loosely applied to a great number of
people who are really only suffering from correctable biological side
effects of making poor lifestyle decisions (food choice, diet, lack of
exercise, use of recreational drugs). If you'd like to see some supporting
information from doctors and researchers who have looked into the AIDS
question in great detail, check out Dr. Peter Duesberg's website. Dr.
Duesberg is the professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University
of California, Berkeley, and is one of the most outspoken whistleblowers
on myths about AIDS. There's also a great book on Amazon called, What if
everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong?" that goes into more
detail.

I've personally talked to several people who were diagnosed with AIDS and
then later found out that they didn't really have AIDS at all. All they
had was a suppressed immune system, and by changing their diet and taking
a few herbs, including immune boosting substances such as reishi
mushrooms, garlic and a variety of rainforest herbs, were able to restore
full immune system function and no longer showed any symptoms of AIDS
whatsoever. In fact, when they went back to another doctor and asked to be
checked out for AIDS, they were told they didn't have AIDS and that they'd
never had AIDS.

So to me, this whole idea of testing the entire nation for AIDS is utterly
ridiculous, because you're going to get a whole lot of false positives.
And besides, there are far more important things to be testing for.

Why don't we test people in this country for nutritional deficiencies?
That would do a lot more good than testing people for AIDS; we have well
over half the population now suffering from chronic vitamin D
deficiencies, and that number is even higher in those with dark skin
pigmentation because of its UV blocking effect. Why don't we test people
for that? I'll tell you why we don't: because if you test the country for
vitamin D and you find that half the population doesn't have enough
vitamin D, then you can't sell them overpriced pharmaceutical products to
solve their "disease." To solve the vitamin D problem, the only thing the
people need to do is start drinking cod liver oil by the tablespoon, or
exposing their skin to natural sunlight on a regular basis.

Our medical community doesn't test for nutritional deficiencies because
nobody makes any money when the tests come back positive. Anybody can sell
nutritional supplements, of course, but what I mean is that there's no
controlling interest of the drugs that would be used to treat vitamin D
deficiencies as in the case of AIDS. AIDS drugs are patented, so they can
be controlled and marked up to produce tremendous profits. Hence the push
for AIDS testing.

But you can bet that if vitamins were patented and controlled by Big
Pharma, we'd have nationwide, mandatory testing of nutritional
deficiencies rolled out almost overnight. When there's money to be made,
the diagnostic tests will magically appear to create demand for those
products. After all, nobody needs AIDS drugs if they aren't labeled with
the AIDS disease name. If you want to create demand for AIDS drugs, you
first have to point your finger at a bunch of people and tell them they
have AIDS. (And most people are stupid enough to actually believe their
doctors on this one, go figure...)

The same scheme worked with ADD and Ritalin. The organized medicine
industry just flat-out invented a fictitious disease and created a billion
dollar industry selling drugs to "treat" it. Why wouldn't the same gig
work with AIDS, too? Heck, why not create a whole slew of fictional
diseases like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and milk people for money selling
quack treatments through the channels of organized medicine? In fact,
that's exactly what's happening. (Or, if that doesn't work, you can always
just redefine diseases. A year ago, if your LDL cholesterol was 110, you
were considered normal. Today, you're considered diseased and will be put
on a statin drug. Same LDL cholesterol, new definition. Neat medical shell
game, huh?)

So whenever I hear someone suggesting that we should require mandatory
testing for a certain disease, I have to ask myself: what's the economic
incentive here? Are there other diseases or vitamin deficiencies that we
should be testing as a higher priority? Because you could do a lot more
good in this country and dramatically reduce health care costs by testing
for nutritional deficiencies like magnesium, zinc, vitamin D or the B
vitamins. If you want to talk about public health, let's talk about public
health that works. Let's talk about being able to prevent diseases with a
nickel's worth of nutritional supplements per day per person. Because
that's what you can do with simple vitamins and minerals. Zinc alone, if
given to expectant mothers, can reduce the incidence of low birth weight
infants by nearly one third. Vitamin D supplementation can prevent
prostate cancer, breast cancer, osteoporosis and many other disorders. And
magnesium, of course, can greatly improve cardiovascular health and
actually help prevent heart attacks. And we haven't even talked about the
healthy oils and how supplementing with omega-3 fatty acids or macadamia
nut oil can greatly enhance cardiovascular health while improving nervous
system function.

If you want to talk about public health and what kind of testing we should
be doing, let's start with the things that can create the greatest
positive public health impact. But you see, those aren't the things that
the health authorities want to test for, because once again, they really
have no desire to send a bunch of people to the health food stores to buy
nutritional supplements. It's all about testing only for those things they
can treat with drugs, surgery or radiation.

That's why there's the big push for mammograms, by the way. Mammograms
actually cause breast cancer because they emit so much radiation. Dr. John
Gofman, author of Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of
Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, says that 83 percent of all breast
cancer is actually caused by mammograms and other forms of medical
radiation. (Read more about the uselessness of mammograms here.)

Yet there's always this breast cancer prevention push, and there's a
message that if you don't get mammograms, you're not taking care of your
health. Why do you think mammograms are so heavily pushed by organized
medicine? It's because if you come up with a positive, they've got drugs
to treat breast cancer. And that's the first thing you're going to be
shuffled off to do if your test comes back positive: you're going to find
yourself talking to an oncologist who's likely to recommend chemotherapy.


Why do you think they're still using PSA tests for prostate cancer, even
though the very inventor of the PSA test announced in late 2004 that the
test was utterly and completely worthless? Dr. Thomas Stamey of Stanford
University says that it has no scientific basis whatsoever and doesn't
correlate with prostate cancer. (Click here to read more articles on the
demise of the PSA test.) Yet it's still being used all around the country
to scare men into thinking they have prostate cancer, and to get them to
submit to expensive, invasive therapies like radiation, chemotherapy and
surgical procedures that are quite often medically unnecessary. What the
men need, again, is sunlight and vitamin D. You can eliminate the vast
majority of prostate cancer in this country by getting people to take in a
healthy dose of sunlight and giving them basic nutritional supplements
like cod liver oil, zinc and selected herbs.

So out of the long list of things that we could be doing to enhance public
health, to eliminate chronic disease and to improve nutrition, the only
thing that these doctors can come up with in terms of a suggestion is to
test the whole country for AIDS. On my list of the top 1000 things that we
need to do to improve the health of our population, testing the whole
country for AIDS is somewhere down around #972. There are so many other
things that we should be doing first. If we want to invest the effort of
testing the whole population for something, let's start by testing for
nutritional deficiencies and treating those with low-cost, commonly
available vitamins, minerals and food supplements that can not only
prevent chronic disease, but can actually help reverse diseases. Let's
start there.

See, don't make the mistake of thinking that public health policy is
driven by genuine public health needs. It's actually driven by the mindset
of conventional medicine, which is to treat everything with drugs,
surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. It's driven by intellectual property:
who owns the drugs, who owns the patents, who owns the lab equipment used
to diagnose these diseases, and so on. It's all about power, profit and
control. It's not really about public health. Because, again, if it were
about public health, we'd be testing people for things like nutritional
deficiencies that are responsible for so many of the chronic diseases now
ravaging our nation.

If it were really about public health, we'd be spending 2 to 3 percent of
GDP on education to keep people healthy, rather than what we're doing now,
which is spending 25% of GDP treating chronic disease in this country. If
it were really about public health, every time a woman gave birth to a
child, we'd hand them a manual called "Nutrition For Your Baby," and we'd
teach them the basics of how to keep that baby healthy and prevent chronic
disease. But we don't do any of that. We don't educate mothers in this
country about nutrition (see related ebook on nutrition) and how to
protect the health of their babies. We don't educate our children in
public schools, and astoundingly, we don't even teach our doctors about
nutrition in our medical schools! How crazy is that?

So the only ideas they can come up with are things like, "Hey, let's FORCE
the entire adult population to submit to an AIDS test!" What are they
going to do, throw you in jail if you refuse? If they pass a federal law
mandating national AIDS testing, I promise I'll be at the head of the
march on Washington, holding up the banner of health freedom and demanding
the law be ruled unconstitutional. It is, technically, a violation of the
4th Amendment, because mandatory AIDS testing is an illegal search of your
body. For those who may have forgotten that the Bill of Rights actually
exists (I know, it's been difficult to remember in the post 9/11 era),
here's a reminder of what the 4th Amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated...

With that said, consider how crazy this whole AIDS testing proposal is:
conventional doctors want to violate your body by forcing you to take a
test for a disease that's largely fictional, which will undoubtedly
produce false positives, which will earn you the label of "diseased,"
which will practically force you into a regime of high-cost AIDS drugs,
which will enrich the pharmaceutical companies and, meanwhile, transfer
even more power to doctors who could then DEMAND that you submit to all
sorts of additional tests.

That's the kind of power some U.S. doctors are now demanding over your
body. And they're going to frame the whole thing as a "public health"
benefit! Gee, it's all for YOUR own good!

No thanks. I'm quite healthy without the meddling of conventional doctors,
their warped public health policies, and their egomaniacal ideas of
subjecting the population to procedures that are essentially harebrained
medical experiments.
  Reply With Quote


  sponsored links


Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes




Copyright 2006 SmartyDevil.com - Dies Mies Jeschet Boenedoesef Douvema Enitemaus -
666