Establishing ‘Best Practices’
It seems the automotive industry is unique in its application of ‘Best Practices’. When an automotive company discovers a technology that makes automobiles safer other companies adopt similar practices and there is little backlash from the original company which is glad to acknowledge that the practice it discovered now serves to make all vehicles safer. This appears to apply not only among U.S. auto makers but among automakers worldwide.
In an ideal world this concept would be extended to the medical profession as well, but it seems this is not the case. Instead it seems the medical profession, guided by the pharmaceutical industry, is geared toward the most profitable practices with no consideration of quality of outcome, as the U.S. auto industry was in the 1970’s with ‘planned obsolescence’. In case after case the medical profession creates a theory (hypothesis) based on incomplete and incorrect assumptions, establish a protocol based on these assumptions that fails to resolve the problem, and then formalizes a standard of care that creates an endless flow of income, and victims, requiring perpetual care at astronomical cost, although providing a compromised outcome. This is the model practiced for every condition from diabetes to cancer.
When diabetes was first recognized as a condition of elevated blood sugar there was no recognition that it was first a condition of elevated insulin. It has now become recognized that the bodies levels of insulin, the fat storage hormone, become elevated (in an effort to keep blood sugar levels down) long before the level of blood sugar begins to rise ‘out of control’. The body itself raises insulin levels in an effort to control blood sugar (by turning it into fat). By the time blood sugar levels get out of control the body has failed to deal with the overwhelming levels of sugar being introduced into the body, but by the time blood sugar is out of control there are already elevated levels of insulin trying to deal with it. The obvious solution is to reduce the load of sugar/carbs being provided to the body so that the body is not overwhelmed by it, but rather than reduce the sugar load of the body our ‘medical profession’ encourages diabetics to continue overloading the body with sugar/(carbohydrates) and attempts to compensate for the sugar overload with insulin overload/injections, which inevitably results in a deteriorating quality of life.
Similarly tumors/(‘cancerous growths’) are attacked by chemotherapy, radiation and surgery rather than trying to determine what caused the ‘cancerous growth’ in the first place. Isn’t it ironic that one of the ‘side effects’ of chemotherapy drugs is cancer, 1, 2 not only as inevitable reoccurrences in the patient, but also development of cancer in the nurses and technicians administering the chemotherapy. While identifying the root cause of the cancer can be beneficial not only in treating the cancer but in preventing it from occurring in the first place, the chemotherapy industry is so profitable it has been able to invest vast sums of its profits to establish itself as the ‘standard of care’ despite its dismal success rate and the fact that it has become recognized as a cause of cancer, 1, 2 and the fact that safer and more effective methods of treatment have presented themselves, from medical cannabis to Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy to ‘metabolic therapy’.
As I recall, when Obama proposed his healthcare plan he was faced with an overwhelming media campaign launched against him (personally) and his health care program by the pharmaceutical industry. He then apparently made a ‘deal with the devil’ (the pharmaceutical industry), revising his healthcare plan to one they would approve of so as to put a stop to the campaign against him and his health care plan, and his wife shifted her efforts from ‘healthy eating’ (as exemplified by the white house garden) to ‘lets move’ (suggesting that more exercise would overcome the obesity epidemic created by the junk food industry), however he then faced stiff opposition from the leadership of his own democratic party and while he was able to ‘convince’ them to support his plan, it resulted in a corrupted healthcare plan with ever escalating costs, and it was a plan that the democratic leadership (Nancy Pelosi) clearly was not happy about. Obama was clearly overwhelmed by the desire to ‘compromise’ with the pharmaceutical industry in an effort to get a healthcare system in place. While recent ‘fake news’ tries to blame the problems with health care as starting with Obama I see the chain of events leading up to Obama going back nearly 100 years. The distortion of the medical profession goes back at least to the 1930’s with the criminalization of cannabis to the suppression of innovative treatments such as offered by Royal Rife (1888-1971) who designed high power amplification equipment to identify pathogens in the body and using micro current ‘beam rays’ to disrupt the pathogens and restore homeostasis in the body. His book ‘The Cancer Cure that Worked’ was published in 1931 and according to his supporters he cured a number of people infected with such things as typhoid, salmonella and influenza and in a 1938 article Rife stopped short of claiming to cure cancer but went so far as to say he could ‘devitalize disease organisms in living tissue’. In 1939 he was invited to address the Royal Society of Medicine which approved his findings and formed a corporation to build models of his equipment for hospitals and clinics, but his work was then suddenly discredited by the American Medical Association which turned against him alleging that his results were simply not possible to obtain and banned the use of his beam ray to treat patients. He died penniless in 1971 and since then efforts have been made to recreate his technology.
In my own lifetime I first recognized the corruption between government and big business when President Ronald Reagan turned the FDA over to the chemical industry when Donald Rumsfeld (a drug company executive) as part of Reagans transition team called in a favor by having Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr chosen. as the head of the FDA, thereby allowing the fast tracking of aspartame, the newest version of artificial sweetener, despite objections of FDA scientists who warned of the potential health consequences including brain tumors and cancer. Since then the government has established a revolving door between drug company executives and the agencies (FDA, CDC, EPA, etc.) that were created to regulate them.
While its hard to imagine a greater criminal among our presidents than Lyndon Johnson, who apparently coordinating the efforts of the CIA and the mafia to assassinate John F Kennedy and had it covered up by the Warren Commission, it would seem the most corrupt of our presidents was Richard Nixon. (‘tricky dick’) the only president forced to resign in disgrace for criminal behavior to avoid prosecution, leaving behind an appointed vice-president after his vice-president was forced to resign before him. But before he resigned he not only moved to increase criminality for cannabis use, but also abolished the gold standard for the U.S. economy. Both of which, it would seem to me, went against what the founding fathers would have considered ‘The laws of nature and of natures god’, thereby exceeding what the founding fathers would have considered the jurisdiction of the president or the government in general. Certainly other presidents have also stretched the limits of the office by extending their reach beyond the limits of what the Constitution would have allowed. and the legislature has passed laws contrary to ‘the laws of nature and of natures god’. (e.g. ‘criminalizing cannabis). Just as the founding fathers called a constitutional convention to create the Declaration of Independence to define the separation of power between the three branches of government, another constitutional convention is apparently needed to define ‘The laws of nature and of natures god’ as referred to in the Constitution, which the founding fathers apparently considered ‘self evident’, but which has since clearly become distorted. Unfortunately George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are not around to clarify this and any effort by todays politicians threaten to further distort this concept into something the founding fathers never intended, turning it around to further corrupt government and to further promote personal gain rather than defending the ‘common good’. Such a discussion and clarification could not be done by todays politicians and the businessmen they work with/for, who have distorted the concept of ‘the laws of nature and of natures god’ in the first place. Such a task would need to be done by philosophers and educators, such as Larry P Arnn, president of Hillsdale College who seeks to educate about the ‘evolution’ of the U.S. government, and the meaning of the constitution. I can only imagine how such a constitutional convention would change any elements of the three branches of government but it would certainly redefine them by defining (not redefining) ‘the laws of nature and of natures god’. It would also need to address the monopolistic power of government agencies. While the constitution clearly separates the executive, the legislative and the judiciary branches of government a government agency (such as the CDC, FDA or EPA) once established assumes all three roles, establishing laws under its ‘jurisdiction’, enforcing those laws and prosecuting those who break its self imposed laws with little or no government oversight. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that while it may disagree with certain laws established by government agencies it does not have the right to ‘interfere’ with these agencies performing the duties for which they were established.
Another group that would certainly have an educated opinion on the subject would be Native American’s whose heritage already had established a relationship with the laws of nature and of natures god before our country was founded, and with whom George Washington and the other founding fathers certainly would have established relationships.
Such an overhaul could require a restructuring of our countries/government’s efforts to use ‘unnatural’ methods to control the weather, laws that allow patenting of genetically modified seeds, poisoning of our environment and our food/water supply, corruption of our legal, medical, educational systems and the use of government agencies hijacked by the industries they were intended to regulate and used against the people they were intended to protect. Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, offers a novel solution for the corruption of the EPA. He offers to do the job of the EPA at his private, accredited, lab, although a better solution might be to put him in charge of the EPA, giving him access to more resouces to do the job, and I expect he could find ways to streamline and downsize the agency saving much taxpayer money while also doing the job the agency is currently not doing. Similar solutions are needed to restructure or eliminate other agencies including the FDA, CDC and all the other agencies that have been corrupted so as to distort their original objectives. Might a constitutional convention be a good place to start?