When State Medical Boards Attack, You Know You Want Some of What They're Going After

Headline: Medical panel: Restrict doctor "In response to criticism about prescribing weeks of intravenous infusions for three advanced cancer patients, Buttar explained he doesn't treat cancer, but rather the conditions that allow cancer to thrive."

Why is the state medical board going after a doctor who doesn't treat cancer, but addresses the underlying terrain that allows cancer to thrive? You would think that such a doctor would be lauded and embraced as a good example for the medical profession, representing its best and most innovative.

Unfortunately, the cult of mediocrity reigns supreme among the licensed medical representatives of the state. I suppose that one explanation for this attack is that it's a threatening embarrassment to much of the medical profession, particularly those who are too cowardly to protect their patients from the toxic and failed treatments of BIG PHARMA. Especially for cancer.

A government founded to protect individual liberty and maximize freedom would protect innovative doctors and the patients whom rely upon them from the petty, envious and pharmaceutically-biased collectivists on state medical boards (and in government). What would the North Carolina Constitution have to say about this abridgement of such a foundational freedom as to determine which medical practitioner and method is best?

"We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness."

Did North Carolinians turn over their medical sovereignty to a bunch of unelected cowardly medical bureaucrats with the intention of destroying doctors who dare to practice holistically? I think not. So who do these bozos think they are? State medical boards are evidently inhabited largely by vile creatures too abhorrent to serve in condominium associations, much less government.

I suspect that J.R.R. Tolkien must have patterned his Auks on current board members, especially them that feel it is their duty to protect the public from the likes of natural medicine and the doctors who would dare employ it. I tip my hat to Dr. Rashid Buttar and all those brave doctors willing to risk their livelihood to do right by those for whom they are dedicated to help.

To the medical boards inhabited by the vile creatures which go after doctors merely because they have leapt the electrified fence keeping you a slave to FDA-approved toxic medicines -- may you wake every night to the cries of family members who have lost loved ones to your blind allegiance to multi-national drug companies. What about the standard of care? The medical boards can cry me a drug infested river for all I care about what they claim to be a standard of care. They can't even define it. Let me help:

When the journal BMJ Clinical Evidence investigated the certainty of "Conventional Medicine," what they discovered is nothing less than shocking. Here is what is known about 2,500 treatments offered by conventional medicine:

• 13 percent are beneficial to the patient
• 23 percent are likely to be beneficial
• 8 percent is a trade-off between benefits and harm
• 6 percent are unlikely to be beneficial
• 4 percent are likely to be ineffective or harmful
• 46 percent have unknown effectiveness

What say the BMJ?

“…the figures above suggest that the research community has a large task ahead and that most decisions about treatments still rest on the individual judgments of clinicians and patients.”

State medical boards go after practitioners of holistic and integrative medicine. Based upon what? Based upon the BMJ revelations:

"...if you believe conventional medicine is based on scientific, cold hard facts, think again."

Even though most state boards of medicine have obviously overdosed on Ambien, we finally have a definitive definition of the standard of care:

It’s a crap shoot -- a 64 percent chance that the treatment will be either harmful, ineffective, or “gee, we have no idea what might happen.”

Just how scientific are the drugs that medical boards insist are the standard of care?

If these medical boards were not so hopped up on FDA approved medication power trips, then they would rightly go after 2/3 of all doctors, particularly those that still practice government-sanctioned allopathic medicine. That way, the only doctors left standing would be ones like Dr. Rashid Buttar, Dr. Nicholas Gonzales, Dr. Stephen Sinatra and Dr. Carolyn Dean, just to name a few.

There would be a lot less people dying from modern medicine. I could live with that. So would millions of others.

Medical Myth-Understandings & Holistic Insensitivity

Click Here. Revealed: The seven great "medical myths" "Despite frequent mentions in the popular press of the need to drink eight glasses of water, they found no scientific basis for the claim." Hmmm. This could be interesting. Read more for my comments in blue, below:

1. Drink eight glasses of water everyday (Yes, some doctors believe that you can get all the hydration you need everyday from a loaf of white bread. I kid you not)
2. Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight (Of course, if your doctor is already DIM, it matters not what kind of light he reads in. Actually many still seem to get their information from good-looking drug reps fresh out of the Britney Spears School of Pharmacological Education)
3. Shaving makes hair grow back faster or coarser (This one is rather inconsequential in the big scheme of things, except for those with an overactive hormonal system. Perhaps the myth here may be that the medical profession disavows any knowledge of the negative impact of xenoestrogens from pesticides, plastics and pharmaceutical drugs -- and their impact on cancer creation)
4. Eating turkey makes you drowsy (I suppose their argument is that there is not enough tryptophan present to have significant biological impact. However, this belies the fact that hormones have great impact on the body at levels in the parts per billion range and beyond. They also overlook the fact of a glycemic plunge from eating to excess, particularly refined foods devoid of CHROMIUM)
5. We use only 10 percent of our brains (I think a better way to phrase this would be to say that we may only use 10% of our consciousness. How else would you describe pre-emptive wars in the name of peace and drug resistant infections CAUSED by antibiotics?)
6. Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death (Really, who cares? Like you need longer hair and nails after you leave your body behind. You know what continues to grow even after the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans each year? The belief that the FDA can protect us from dangerous drugs and adulterated foods. Also, their budget continues to grow inexplicably despite their incompetence. I was going to mention their pharmaceutical conflicts of interest, but that grows along with their budget as well)
7. Mobile phones are dangerous in hospitals (This became an issue at the dawn of cell phones because of the power those neophyte mobile phone units gave off in high power analog mode. Now that they are low power and digital, hospital machinery is safe, but not so fast on the human brain. There is a lot more to be discovered about its effect on human neurological tissue. Of course, the cell phone danger to humans is considered a myth by the medical community. How can energy interact with matter, they ask? That would be this week's medical moment of duh.)

Now for some of my medical myths:

1. Cholesterol causes heart disease (inflammation is the true cause, which results from toxins, free radicals, nutritional deficiencies and infection)
2. Cancer is a chemotherapy and radiation deficiency disease (does this require additional comment?)
3. Homeopathy is just a placebo (actually many drugs work in spite of their toxicity and inappropriateness, specifically BECAUSE of the reality of the placebo effect)
4. Chiropractic is only for back pain (it is actually a whole body methodology that can improve just about every aspect of biological/nervous system function, with kudos to the gifted osteopaths out there as well)
5. Three square meals a day provides all the nutrition a body needs (It should be clear by now that even whole, organic unprocessed foods do not contain optimal nutritional content when compared to their brethren of even 100 years ago. Just look at government recommendations for Vitamin B6, which are a fraction of that recommended by Dr. John Ellis, the world's foremost expert on the subject until his death by accident in 2006)
6. A retrovirus named HIV causes AIDS (this may be the most devastating screw-up in the annals of modern medicine. The grotesque misunderstanding of the human immune system, environmental and metabolic toxicity, has resulted in a drug therapy that causes the very symptoms that make up the syndrome, including death. Visit Rethinking Aids and Peter Duesberg's web site to begin your ascent to medical truth, rather than CDC budget-inflating propaganda)
7. Vaccines are safe and the best and only way to prevent childhood diseases (The vaccination paradigm is actually the mass experimentation and destruction of the genetic integrity of the human species, resulting in the unfortunate guarantee of chronic degradation diseases including autoimmunity and cancer. The medical establishment and its followers still think it's a good idea to circumvent the natural maturation process of the immune system, which is actually an immature perspective to hold, especially for learned and duh-greed medical professionals.)

Maybe you have some medical myths of your own. Perhaps you would be so kind as to share them with me? Just one more medical myth to dispel: "I think all doctors are bad." Absolutely not. I merely take issue with much of the allopathic paradigm and dogma, that's all. Some of my heroes also happen to be medical doctors, including Dr. Carolyn Dean, Dr. Nick Gonzalez and of course, Dr. Ron Paul, just to name a few.