Adjust font size:
        

Site Search

The Hunger Project Bolen Report
Ohm Society
Untitled
Politics in Medicine Print E-mail
by Ron Kennedy, M.D., Santa Rosa, CA

Dr. Kennedy After the last few years of researching the medical literature to discern the proper way to maximum health and vitality, I have come to realize how very obscured is my vision by the barriers set forth by vested capitalist interests in the health field. After all, the name of the game in business is to make money, and in order to make money in the health field it is necessary for people to be sick. If people lead healthy, vital lives with minimum sickness until their times to die come, then die quickly and easily, the shareholders in the various health-impact industries are not going to be happy — and they are going to take their money elsewhere.

I like to use the example of the (I think imaginary) plant which grows anywhere, is non-patentable and, when eaten, cures cancer, vascular disease and all other major diseases known to man. What happens when the discovery of this plant is made public? The medical establishment flexes its considerable public relations muscle, goes on television, gets into national news magazines and local newspapers and assures the public that this "cockamamie" new plant is a hoax. The public, unaccustomed to examining evidence and thinking for itself, automatically believes the medical establishment, and laws are passed to outlaw and eradicate this plant.

Meanwhile, a few doctors and other people who think for themselves grow this new plant, try it out for themselves, and find it to be as effective as advertised. Some of these doctors use it for themselves and their families and say nothing to their patients for fear or losing their licenses to practice medicine. Other doctors risk everything to offer this new treatment to their patients. Many of them lose their licenses, because they will not back down from their medical boards.

If you are going to live your life out in maximum health and vitality, it is essential that you understand this process and resolve to think for yourself regarding your medical treatment. Here is the essential truth: the desire for profits distorts the truth. Few people, including physicians, are able to see through these distortions.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, heart disease was almost unknown. Now heart disease is rampant, and the medical establishment is telling us that fat is the cause. If we would only cut our fat intake, our health would return, they say. However, fat intake in 1900 was greater than it is now. Where was heart disease then? Around that time, hydrogenated trans-fatty acids began to make their way into the American diet. This was a tragic instance of messing with nature, and plays a large part in the causation of heart disease. It is not fat, per se, which causes the problem, it is the type of fat. Saturated fats and hydrogenated (trans) fatty acids are key players in heart disease, along with vitamin C deficiency. The monounsaturated fats, such as virgin olive oil, have been shown over and over to protect the heart from atherosclerosis.

Since 1955, when fat phobia got its start, Americans have cut their fat intake by more than five percent, yet more people are obese (33% versus 25%) and more people have vascular disease and cancer, both supposedly associated with eating fat. Does this make sense to you? What kind of health system are we living in if it does not encourage us to distinguish the different types of fat? Are we supposed to be too stupid to grasp the notion that not all fats are the same?

Average life expectancy at birth is greater now than at the turn of the century, to be exact (as of 1998) 76.7 versus 49.24 in 1900. The medical establishment tells us, "Oh, of course people live longer now, and therefore they live long enough to develop vascular disease." However, an examination of the facts reveals that if you reached age 50 in the year 1900, you could expect to live (on average) another 21.26 years. As of 1998 if you live to age 50, you can expect to live another 29.8 years.* The difference is not 27 years, but rather 8 years (give or take a few weeks). While 27 extra years of life would be enough to explain the vast increase in vascular disease, 8 years is not. People simply died younger in the early part of the 20th century. The improvement is surely due to sanitation, not to the brilliance of allopathic medicine.

Since the year 1900, the industrial revolution has come to full fruition. People flocked to cities to work in factories in great numbers, leaving the countryside to be farmed by fewer people, using more efficient equipment. Large farm cooperatives, and later incredibly large food production companies, were created to fill the vacuum left by millions of farmers who had migrated to cities to participate in the industrialization process.

The desire for profits on the part of these food companies dovetailed nicely with the busy life of city folks, and the fast food revolution was born. Now you could go to the store and buy "food" to which you only needed to add water and/or heat, and the meal was ready. To achieve this, food was "processed," a term which covers a multitude of sins, including the addition of preservatives to increase the shelf life of this "food."

The processing of food sacrifices its nutritional value. Adding chemical preservatives to food throws another joker into the deck, because no one knows the exact results these chemicals have on the human body over a lifetime.

Of course, it is in the farmer's best economic interest to produce the highest yield of food, so he takes advantage of herbicides and pesticides to eliminate the competition of weeds and critters. There are standards set to tell the consumer the safe levels of these things in their food, when no one knows if any level is safe, over a lifetime.

Also, as you may know, many foods are considered "commodities" and as such the market price goes up and down. Sometimes grain is stored, the farmer hoping the price will rise. This storage often goes on for months and years. Meanwhile the grain deteriorates, the oils contained going rancid. When the price goes up and the grain is sold, it is made into bread and it arrives on your table. Fresh bread is not really fresh, but rather months or years old.

As the modernization of farming technology took place, food for farm animals began to be manufactured rather than grown directly on the farm. "Animal feed," which the farmer could buy cheaper than he could grow animal food, was invented. Meat, eggs and milk products began to contain even higher levels of herbicides and pesticides than vegetables and fruits, thus contaminating the food supply on the other side of the plate. And guess where in their bodies animals store toxins? Same place you do: in the fatty tissues. Most herbicides, pesticides and preservatives are fat soluble, so they naturally end up in the fat tissues.

It's not the fat, folks its the type of fat, and it's what is in the fat that accounts for the three-fold increase in the incidence of cancer since the turn of the century. The real culprit behind vascular heart disease is the increased intake of carbohydrates in proportion to proteins since the medical establishment came out with that recommendation in 1955, and the increased intake of processed foods containing, among other things, hydrogenated, trans-fatty acids, and the continued intake of animal (saturated) fat.

It is true that you are better off to eat a low-fat diet, but you would be just as well off to eat a balance of fats, carbs, and proteins, as long as you can be sure they are produced without the aid of herbicides and pesticides, and that they are not stored in preservatives.

Perhaps it is not necessary be a vegetarian to enjoy maximal health and vitality. This begs the question of the moral and spiritual consideration of eating meat, which necessitates the taking of sentient life. The homocentric point of view is that it doesn't matter, and that God gave us the power to enslave, raise and slaughter animals — so it is right to do it. A more cosmic point of view would have something else to say about the morality of killing animals, particularly in face of the fact that we can obtain all necessary nutrients from plants.

Now, let us take a look at the problem of obesity. It is just amazing to me to go into public (a mall or supermarket) and see the sheer number of fat people — not just a little fat, but grossly fat — beached whale fat. One-third of Americans are obese! If you go to family albums and newspapers from the turn of the century, you see that people were not obese then, and they are now. Why?

To get the answer, let us take a look at what people try to do to handle the fat, namely diet and exercise. It is now well recognized, even among lay people, that diets do not work. Many people have tried dieting for years, and it just does not work to lose weight and keep it off. Stories abound of people, exemplified by certain celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey, who diet the pounds off only to have them return with friends in a few weeks or months. Exercise offers a bit more hope as long as you continue regular exercise, but if you quit — same story — the fat comes back, sometimes multiplied.

Many people are discouraged, and many have given up on diets and exercise and resolved to readjust their self image to allow themselves to be fat without regret. That is a good move, psychologically speaking, but it begs the question: why are people so fat these days?

I believe the problem is twofold. On one hand, herbicides, pesticides and preservatives, even in low concentrations, damage the hormonal regulatory systems of the body, particularly the adrenal gland, but also the thyroid, parathyroid, thymus, pancreas and the pineal gland itself. Not only is the production of hormones altered but so is the receptivity of the body's cells to these hormones. Add to that the fact that farm animals are fed hormones and antibiotics to increase production of meat, milk and eggs, and that many of these hormones and antibiotics find their way into the body of the consumer of these products, and you have a prescription for metabolic imbalance.

Then, when you consider the imbalanced diet the typical person eats, heavy on carbs, light on protein, you can begin to understand the amount of blubber folks are carrying around. The hormonal regulatory systems of the body are deeply disturbed, and all the complex carbs pass through digestion to simple carbs and storage as fat.

If you could imagine the exquisite process of life, in the normal state, as a kind of biochemical symphony, and imagine that the members of the orchestra playing this symphony all become high on drugs, each playing his or her own melody, you would have some kind of analogy to what happens in the human body after years of eating and drinking food laced with herbicides, pesticides, preservatives and hormones. If we test the performance of any one member of this orchestra we may find that the music produced is acceptable; however, it is not in sync with the rest of the orchestra.

Thus, we may measure the blood biochemistry of an obese person, or a person with immune deficiency, and find almost all the studies to be normal. So, the doctor says, "Your studies are normal. There is nothing I can do for you. You have to learn to live with yourself the way you are."

That response would be a relatively enlightened one for most doctors. What you are more likely to get is a prescription for an appetite suppressant and some incorrect, parent-like advice about diet and exercise. Meanwhile, you may notice that the doctor also is a little round and not looking like the picture of vitality.

In my opinion, allopathic doctors are doing far more harm than good, in the long run. Why do I say that? Let us look at the allopathic model of medicine. The allopathic paradigm is that the body is perfectly normal until symptoms of a distinct disease appear. The cause of that disease is thought to be one thing, and all you have to do is identify that one thing and give the one best antidote to return the patient to perfect health.

So, if there is an infection, the task is to identify the bacteria or other organism causing the infection and kill it with a chemical, usually an antibiotic. Or, if the problem is with the immune system, the cause must be one thing, perhaps a virus. So kill the virus or, if that is not possible, develop a vaccine to the virus and protect people who do not yet have the virus. If the offending agent is one of the patient's own organs — the stomach, colon, or gallbladder, for example — pour a chemical on it. If that doesn't work, cut it out, throw it away and pronounce the patient cured.

It may be that biology is a bit more complex than the allopathic, one cause, one cure paradigm would have it. It may be that the causes of today's illnesses, especially the ones which are epidemic (vascular disease, cancer and immune dysfunction), are multifactorial: coming from many different insults to body metabolism.

The average person in America is exposed to 500 foreign chemicals each day. Each day! This is an assault on the human body without precedent in history. I am not amazed that so many people are sick, I am amazed that so many people are well.

Nevertheless, the dominant medical model today is the allopathic model, so even though the supposed single causes of most diseases have not been discovered, there still is the assumption that there is one cause, and there should therefore be one cure. But, what if the cause is multiple?

Let us say that you have been exposed to 500 chemicals each day for years, your immune system is somewhat depressed by having been insulted by molecules foreign to the human body, and you develop bronchitis. Then your doc gives you a prescription for an antibiotic — another foreign chemical. The antibiotic kills the bacteria causing your bronchitis. Success, right? Maybe not. Maybe the antibiotic to which you have just been exposed — in an amount larger than the amount of all the other foreign chemicals to which you have been exposed in the last two months combined — while having killed the bacteria, also has insulted your immune system even more, making it more likely for you to develop another infection, perhaps in a different part of your body. So you solve this problem with another antibiotic — with the same result.

A similar situation exists with the cancer patient. Perhaps the cancer is the result of multiple insults to the body, but then the doctor says "Here take this stuff; it will kill your cancer, if it doesn't kill you first."

Picture the heart patient with cardiovascular disease from who-knows-what-they-put-in- it, which he or she has been eating for years, and the doctor says, "Take some of this stuff. If you survive the side effects, your heart may work better." What kind of solution is that?

Or, picture the AIDS patient. Diagnosis made. Patient assured of the single cause of AIDS: the HIV-1 virus. Here, take this AZT. Patient looks at the package insert, which comes with his AZT and sees that the possible side effects of AZT look like a description of autoimmune deficiency. How much sense does it make to take a medicine which can produce the disease it is supposed to treat?

Contrary to popular opinion, cancer and AIDS survival rates are no better with chemical treatments than they are without. They are different, however: the doctor has something to do and the pharmaceutical industry is getting rich.

The best hounds barking up the wrong tree will never catch the cat. Can it be that we are barking up the wrong tree? What if all diseases have multiple causes and predisposing factors. How wise are we to ignore those factors and take another chemical? Is it possible that we are producing more, rather than less, disease — in the long run?

If I were living a typical American life — eating processed foods, occasionally visiting a fast-food restaurant, drinking soft drinks, as well as unfiltered water from the city water supply (full of chlorine and fluoride), eating meat, not exercising so much — and I turned up with cancer or AIDS, here is what I would do if I wanted my best chance of living a long and vital life.

I would clean up my act. I would move to the countryside, as far away from traffic and industrial pollution as possible. I would either grow my own food or eat certified organically grown food. I would stop taking all drugs, including nonprescription drugs. I would drink only distilled or filtered, reverse osmosis water. I would never smoke another cigarette or drink another alcoholic drink. I would take a full range of vitamin supplements. I would exercise — vigorous aerobic exercise — 30 minutes every day. I would meditate several hours each day. All my medicines would be derived from herbs and other plants. I would juice fast three days of each week. I would find a colon therapist and maintain a perfectly clean colon. I would find a progressive physician and request chelox therapy (a combination of chelation therapy and hydrogen peroxide therapy). I would read and learn new things to do for my health, and I would do them. I would think and act for myself.

On the other hand, why wait? Why not do these things now? This is the way I live my life, except I do not meditate hours each day. When you learn I have cancer, or any other degenerative disease, that is the day you can throw away the address of this web site network and forget about it. It will not happen. It does not have to happen to you either. Your health is in your hands.

Related web page: Political Situation in Nutritional Medicine

* National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 48, Number 18, Feb. 7, 2001



The information in this article is not meant to be medical advice.οΏ½Treatment for a medical condition should come at the recommendation of your personal physician.

health healing information, physician medical library medical informaion, health, healing, advertising
(3087 words)