Posts Tagged ‘Health care’

Trusting the Research

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

This past year, City Council meetings in my hometown regarding the hazards/benefits of having fluoridated water was interesting beyond the obvious level of polarization that it created.  If you were trying to be totally objective in weighing the pros and cons, you had to be impressed with the level of knowledge and research presented.  I was struck by the fact that most of the best research was shared by ordinary citizens rather than health professionals.

It occurred to me that the anti-fluoride side was much better prepared in presenting actual facts and figures about the problems with adding fluoride to municipal water systems, while the professionals seemed to expect that people should agree with them just because they had a title or credentials. Today, in the age of the internet, everyone has access to Pub Med, the service that supplies published research to anyone with a computer.  In other words, we all have access to the truth if we can type in a few search words.

Personally, I spend a lot of time on Pub Med.  Did you know that there are over 20,000 peer-reviewed research papers published each year?  Keeping up on all of the information is impossible for any one person, even if you spent all of your free time reading the available data.  That is why I am always amused when another health professional tell me that there is no research to validate a statement that I have made.  I just ask them if they have reviewed all of the 20,000 articles that were published in the past year. End of discussion.

The real issue is this—Can you trust the results of the research?  After all, somebody had to write a check to pay for the study that was published, since most researchers do not work for free.  Can the results of the research be tainted by the special interests of the industry that is funding the research?  Of course it can!  It happens more often than the general public will ever be allowed to know.  Therefore, looking at the source of the funding is paramount.

Approximately 2/3rds of the research is funded by two industries, the chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry.  Many of the research projects that are started are never finished.  The funding is pulled if the data implies that completion of the study may possibly work against the industry that is paying the bills.  That information is then swept under the carpet and the public will never learn why the data was destroyed.  This is particularly evident in the chemical industry, where GMO (genetically modified organism) research is often started but never completed.

Personally, I prefer to read the purer research studies published by the computer industry, for two reasons.  First, they are only interested in the truth about how to create the next level of technology.  They have nothing to hide from the public about studies that go horribly wrong.  Secondly, they tend to model future computer technology after new research that studies the functions of the human brain.  Computers have always been designed with that idea in mind.

The latest peer-reviewed research suggests that human memory is not held in the brain, or even in the body.  It is held in the field of energy that surrounds the body.  The brain, the neurons and the dendrites act as antennae to read the information coming in from the field as a person recalls a memory.

As the co-creator of a healing technique that has pioneered the concept of reading and responding to information from the human energy field, this revelation directly impacts my communication with the health care practitioners that I teach around the country and the patients that I treat.

In the computer industry, this research has led to the development of a new type of memory chip.  It is not silicon based.  Since the body is about 70% water, the new computer chip utilizes a lightly refined droplet of water.  They can pour many terabytes of information into this new chip.  As you might suspect, the data is not stored in the water.  Water acts as a matrix/template to organize the data which is actually help in a field around the chip and even around the computer itself.  This give a whole new meaning to the term “cloud computing”.

It is easy to see why I am selective about the research that I rely upon to provide the truth about the world around us.  I tend to distrust the research that is funded by chemical and pharmaceutical industries, because they tend to withhold any inconvenient information from the public.  When any “expert” attempts to convince you that you need to believe what they are stating, consider that they may be quoting research that came from an impure origin or denying the existence of research that is valid and factual.


America and the Culture of Chemicals

Wednesday, March 1st, 2017

Recently, I observed the 40th anniversary of my chiropractic practice in Port Angeles, WA, treating the citizens of the North Olympic Peninsula longer than any other current practitioner in my profession. As the local chiropractic patriarch, so to speak, please forgive me as I look back over that time. I wish make a few personal observations about health perspectives in my practice over the past 4 decades.

Initially, I began my professional education as a student at the University of Washington
School of Pharmacy. In my short time there, I came to understand that the health concepts they taught there were not aligned with my own beliefs. I walked away from that experience convinced that I did not wish to exist in a world of chemically-induced side effects and adverse reactions.  

To be clear, I also had other objections regarding the Pharmacy School’s narrow view of natural health care and the issues of big pharma’s stated financial goals.  It seemed to me that their objectives revolved more around positive profit outcomes rather than positive patient outcomes. But those are subjects for a different article.

In this commentary, I wish to discuss the general topic of chemical use and abuse, both legal chemicals and illegal chemicals.  Since I practice in a profession that does not use chemicals as part of the healing experience, I speak from the perspective of the now-uncommon person who prefers that the injection or ingestion of chemicals be kept to a minimum.

One of my first professional experiences with chemical abuse came in the mid-1970’s, when scientists suddenly “discovered” that Valium was addictive.  You might remember the Rolling Stones song called “Mother’s Little Helper”, about the overprescribing of tranquilizers.  In 1977, there were 60 Valium dispensed for every man, woman and child in the United States.  Somebody got my 60, somebody got my wife’s 60 and somebody got my children’s 60.

I can still recall the stress in the voices of the many people I treated that year who had suddenly been “cut-off” and could no longer get their fix.  It was heartbreaking to watch.  It was an example of what I call “legal chemical abuse”.  At that time, I put the blame directly on the shoulders of the big pharmaceutical companies and their representative, who convinced the doctors that there was no harm in prescribing them.  At that point, I was feeling pretty pleased with myself for walking away from that world.

That experience was the first of many similar episodes regarding both legal and illegal chemical abuse in my home town.  I have talked with many women who were convinced by their practitioner that they needed hormone replacement therapy to avoid hot flashes or osteoporosis, only to learn later that it made them predisposed to some types of cancer.

I have watched as the vaccines have grown to a $35 billion industry, projected to reach $60 billion in 5 years with absolutely no legal consequences if it all goes wrong. This has occurred thanks to a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that stated that vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe”, therefore the 3-5% of people who reacted to them had no legal recourse if their health was permanently damaged following their inoculations.

I have watched big pharma successfully lobby to make vaccines mandatory for students entering school in California, forcing the parents of these children to make radical, life-changing decision to avoid the vaccine dragnet.  There are many conscientious parents who do not want the vaccine chemicals, known as adjuvants, injected directly into their children’s blood stream.

I have watched as the USDA and the FDA have allowed the large commercial food manufacturer to add over 12,000 “legal” chemicals to our food supply.  I have also seen them approve the use of genetically modified (GMO) food lased with pesticides and herbicides without a single human feeding study to show that they are safe.

15 years ago, I watched as a large group from the local High School Class of 2002 suddenly “disappear” from school, drawn into the poisonous world of methamphetamine.  That was a classic example of the illegal side of the culture of chemicals.  To my thinking, it is an offshoot of the idea that you can just go numb to your problems if you take the right chemical.  Currently, my town has even greater threats from meth, cocaine and other illegal chemicals.

Someone purchases each of these chemicals, making them a huge stream of revenue for the entity that manufactures them.  And, they have a vested interest in pressuring us to continue their use.

Yes, my town is a big consumer of chemicals, both legal and illegal.  

How many more chemicals can we consume before we pass the point where cancer, autism and other diseases related to chemical abuse become the norm rather than the exception?

My “Truly Affordable” Health Care Solution

Thursday, January 19th, 2017

I was recently asked to speak at an event in my town sponsored by the Democratic Party about the “crisis” of repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), known by most as “ObamaCare”. The invitation came from a local physician, who believed that the public should have input from all sides, including that from the “alternative perspective”.

After quickly considering all of my Sunday afternoon options, I declined the invitation. While I agreed that everyone in the health care conversation would benefit from my perspective, I was pretty sure that nobody who would attend this function really wanted to hear what I had to say.

This morning, I read an article in the local newspaper about the event. The story in the paper only confirmed that my opinions about the practicality and affordability of Obamacare would have fallen on deaf ears. According to the article, everyone at the meeting agreed that repealing the ACA would be a disaster for everyone. I totally disagree. Done properly, a new system that gives coverage to every person is just what we need!

The biggest problem we have with the Affordable Care Act is that it is not really affordable. On the other hand, complete coverage could be very affordable but requires a total reconsideration of several factors that nobody wants to talk about. Surprisingly, it starts with a premise that should be near and dear to the heart of all Americans—freedom!

America is the “land of the free”, right? You do not hear that much anymore. The phrase has slowly been changed to “freedom isn’t free”. The implication is clear—we aren’t really free and we should all be OK with that. Events, like the one I did not attend, are occurring all over the country right now. These events are telling us that we have to accept the government’s right to make our decisions for us, including about our health and health care. If you don’t like the set-up, too bad. And, by the way, you have to pay for it anyway!

ObamaCare has been a disaster for the large number of people who prefer the natural health alternative. Resources are being routed into a system which they neither support or routinely participate in, except in an emergency. Paying the massive insurance premiums needed to support the current system leaves them without the financial resources needed to participate in a truly natural health care system, one that focuses upon “health” rather than on “disease”.

Contrary to the initial promises made by the advocates of the ACA, natural preventative care does not play an active role in this system. The term “preventative care” has been redefined to meet the needs of the pharmaceutical and medical lobbyists and true preventative care has been marginalized into near extinction.

As a result, most of my patients use cash to pay for their care. Plus, they also pay their ever-increasing insurance premiums. The people I treat are not seeking to get another chemical in the form of a prescription. They know that they are getting enough chemicals already from the processed GMO food products they are eating. My patients are seeking advice regarding health alternatives from nature. And I am pleased to provide them with those options. They pay out-of-pocket because our protocols are “not a covered service”.

So, what is my “Truly Affordable Health Care Solution”?

It is pretty simple—get rid of all of the expensive stuff that really doesn’t support true health, like insurance companies and government interventions.

I recommend an automatic health savings account totally directed by the person responsible for making the individual health care decisions. The account would be backed by a major medical policy that would kick-in only when the annual health expenses exceed $10,000. Each American would receive an annual health care allotment that can be used as they choose (freedom returns). If they don’t spend it, it can be rolled-over into the next year.

Everyone will be covered. Everyone becomes responsible. Freedom of choice in health care returns.

Health savings accounts have worked well in the past. The problem came from the “disease care” industry as people increasingly made natural health care choices. The insurance companies, the hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry all lost market share when people were actually empowered to make their own choices. The money flows away from them. These are the groups that do not really want the system improved.

That is why those groups need their lobbyists!

Port Angeles, Washington