Are you microwaving your brain?

      No Comments on Are you microwaving your brain?

The most basic fact about cell phones and cell towers is that they emit microwave radiation; so do Wi-Fi (wireless Internet) antennas, wireless computers, cordless (portable) phones and their base units, and all other wireless devices. If it’s a communication device and it’s not attached to the wall by a wire, it’s emitting radiation.

Most Wi-Fi systems and some cordless phones operate at the exact same frequency as a microwave oven, while other devices use a different frequency. Wi-Fi is always on and always radiating. The base units of most cordless phones are always radiating, even when no one is using the phone. A cell phone that is on but not in use is also radiating. And, needless to say, cell towers are always radiating.

Why is this a problem, you might ask? Scientists usually divide the electromagnetic spectrum into “ionizing” and “non-ionizing.” Ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays and atomic radiation, causes cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, which includes microwave radiation, is supposed to be safe. This distinction always reminded me of the propaganda in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” “Non-ionizing good, ionizing bad” is as little to be trusted.
An astronomer once quipped that if Neil Armstrong had taken a cell phone to the Moon in 1969, it would have appeared to be the third most powerful source of microwave radiation in the universe, next only to the Sun and the Milky Way. He was right. Life evolved with negligible levels of microwave radiation.

** An increasing number of scientists speculate that our body’s own cells, in fact, use the microwave spectrum to communicate with one another, like children whispering in the dark, and that cell phones, like jackhammers, interfere with their signaling.

** In any case, it is a fact that we are all being bombarded, day in and day out, whether we use a cell phone or not, by an amount of microwave radiation that is some ten million times as strong as the average natural background. And it is also a fact that most of this radiation is due to technology that has been developed since the 1970s.

As far as cell phones themselves are concerned, if you put one up to your head you are damaging your brain in a number of different ways. First, think of a microwave oven. A cell phone, like a microwave oven and unlike a hot shower, heats you from the inside out, not from the outside in. And there are no sensory nerve endings in the brain to warn you of a rise in temperature because we did not evolve with microwave radiation, and this never happens in nature.

Worse, the structure of the head and brain is so complex and non-uniform that “hot spots” are produced, where heating can be tens or hundreds of times what it is nearby. Hot spots can occur both close to the surface of the skull and deep within the brain, and also on a molecular level.

Cell phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and you can find, in the packaging of most new phones, a number called the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, which is supposed to indicate the rate at which energy is absorbed by the brain from that particular model. One problem, however, is the arbitrary assumption, upon which the FCC’s regulations are based, that the brain can safely dissipate added heat at a rate of up to 1 degree C per hour.

Compounding this is the scandalous procedure used to demonstrate compliance with these limits and give each cell phone its SAR rating. The standard way to measure SAR is on a “phantom” consisting, incredibly, of a homogenous fluid encased in Plexiglas in the shape of a head. Presto, no hot spots! But in reality, people who use cell phones for hours per day are chronically heating places in their brain. The FCC’s safety standard, by the way, was developed by electrical engineers, not doctors.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

If you want to be learn more please click the following link.

https://www.facebook.com/againstradiation

Electromagnetic toxicity and illness (Part 1)

      No Comments on Electromagnetic toxicity and illness (Part 1)

As the computer visual display (VDU) unit became more common in the workplace, the issue of radiation hazards associated with the prolonged use of VDU’s were tested by reputable laboratories and found to emit no detectable levels of X-  rays. A similar study by Canadian Radiation Protection. Bureau researchers arrived at the same conclusion. World  Health Organisation (WHO) experts endorsed similar findings. Given such reassurances, the temptation has been to  conclude that VDU’s are harmless. However, deeper more haunting statistics suggest that health problems from VDU’s could arise from electromagnetic radiation.

The early research did not consider all the relevant data. Since 1979 small clusters of miscarriage and birth defects among VDU users in a dozen or more office locations have been reported. Due to the low level of X-ray radiation around VDU’s, authorities often dismissed the increased incidence of these abnormalities as chance occurrences, while  others argued alternately that the reported defects could be  hereditary.

In 1982 Delagado and others reported powerful inhibitory effects on chicken embryos produced by weak 100 H2 {28}  electromagnetic fields. The following year Ubeda and others also observed ‘teratogenic” changes or monstrous mutations to chicken embryos exposed to low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields of 100Hz. The most deterious effects  were observed with a weak magnetic field strengths of about 1  micro Tesla, with stronger and weaker fields less effective.   Since the original work of Delgado and co-workers, several more recent studies have confirmed that weak  electromagnetic fields are capable of interacting with  biological systems of specific frequencies and intensities. Since magnetic field strength pulses of up to 400,000 microtesla have been reported with VDU’s it follows that weak  magnetic pulses will exist even at a considerable distance  from the units.

With approximately half the workforce using VDU’s being women of childbearing age, the health implications are enormous.  McDonald and co-workers who studied births in the Montreal area in 1984, reported, that the rate of spontaneous  abortion in 2609 current pregnancies with no VDU use was 5.7%  compared to 8.3% for 588 with weekly exposure of less than 15  hours and 9.4% for 710 pregnancies with VDU use greater than 15 hours per week.

In 1988 Goldhaber and co-workers found in a case control study of pregnancy outcome that there exists:  “Significantly elevated risk of miscarriage for working women who using VDU’s for more than 20 hours per week during the first trimester of pregnancy compared to other working who reported not using VDUs”. The increased risk could not be explained by age, education, occupation, smoking, alcohol consumption on other maternal characteristics.

Be well

Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay

 

Are we drinking a liquid pharmacy?

      No Comments on Are we drinking a liquid pharmacy?

Like all animals, we have a natural instinct to drink water. It’s a basic drive to survive. For most of our history on this planet, we naturally looked at our drinking water as a source of life and had no reason to fear it.

Today we live in a different world. The Environmental Working Group reports  316 contaminants in U.S. tap water. For the first time in human history, we need to stop and think before we drink.

That’s not a natural thing for us to do but it’s a discipline we need to learn. In the modern world, our instinct to drink water might just get us into trouble.

You see, many of the chemicals in our water are over-the-counter and prescription medications. That’s right. Drink from the tap at home and you could be taking drugs without even knowing it.

A 2008 investigative study from the Associated Press found 56 different drugs in Philadelphia’s water supply. They detected antibiotics, cholesterol drugs, and blood pressure medications, as well as psychiatric drugs for depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, epilepsy, and schizophrenia. They also found lots of veterinary medicines.

It’s not just Philly. The AP found over 100 different types of drugs and human hormones in the water supplies of 23 other municipalities affecting 46 million people.

How do all these drugs get into our water supply?

Every year:

  • Drug companies and healthcare facilities dump tons of drugs into the water supply, landfills and down the drain.
  • Consumers flush unused or expired prescriptions down the toilet.
  • Animals and people excrete medications into sewer systems and surface waters.

Once in the system, pharmaceuticals pretty much stay there. Most municipal treatment plants are designed to remove bacteria and pathogens… not drugs. The pharmaceuticals go right back into our drinking water supply.

Amounts found so far have been small. The study measured concentrations way below any medical dose. But what happens when you take a low level of 50 drugs over decades? No one knows. Just last month a study in the journal Science, found low levels of oxazepam, a psychiatric drug for anxiety, insomnia and alcohol withdrawal, changed the way wild fish fed and how they socialized.

Another fish study suggested that low levels of psychoactive drugs found in drinking water could potentially trigger an autism gene.

It’s hard to believe but the US federal government has never set safety limits for pharmaceuticals in our water supply. Most municipal water systems don’t even test for drugs.

And you can’t rely on bottled water since 40% of it comes straight from the tap with a fancy label slapped on.

The best way to protect yourself from other people’s medicine is through a home filtration system. There are two types that most experts recommend.

Reverse Osmosis Systems. These are generally considered the most effective way to filter out just about everything in your water, including arsenic and pharmaceuticals. The drawback is the steep price of the systems which usually require professional installation and frequent filter changes. If you can afford it, this is the way to go.

Carbon Systems. Most home filtration systems use more cost-effective carbon filters. And here’s the good news… Brita claims internal test results show that its pitcher filters can remove 96.7% of pharmaceutical compounds found in tap water.

PUR brand filters claim to filter out 99% of pharmaceuticals, including painkillers, antibiotics, hormones, steroids, antidepressants, and anti-anxiety medications.

You can choose something as simple as a filtration pitcher for your refrigerator, a faucet mounted model, or even a whole house filter system. And you might want to consider a shower-head filter because taking a 10 minute hot shower is like drinking a gallon of water. Even if you never swallow a drop.

Be well

Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay

The Fluoride Myth (Part 3)

      No Comments on The Fluoride Myth (Part 3)

The year before water fluoridation began in the United States, the entire dental profession recognized that fluoride was detrimental to dental health. In fact, in 1944 the Journal of the American Dental Association reported that using between 1.6 and 4 ppm (parts per million) fluoride in water would cause 50% of adults to need false teeth. On top of that, the world’s largest study looked at 400,000 students, revealing that tooth decay increased in over 25% with just 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water

Yet still, in 1945, fluoride was put into municipal water systems in Newburgh, New York, and Grand Rapids, Michigan. Over the next 50 years, more than 60 percent of the U.S. population was “fluoridated” at a minimum of 1 ppm. Currently, over 75% of the United States water supply contains this deadly toxin.

One part of the hoax, “fluoride helps with tooth formation,” was removed from the “American Fluoride Campaign” early on. Realizing this might expose the entire campaign as fraudulent, the FDA and CDC simply removed that language, but kept the masses believing that fluoride keeps dental cavities at bay.

Over 70% of America still clings to the multi-faceted myth;

Research proves that fluoride is an extremely neurotoxic chemical which interrupts basic functions of nerve cells in the brain and can lead to Alzheimer’s, atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), infertility, birth defects, diabetes, cancer and lowered IQ. The aluminum “tricks” the blood-brain barrier and allows chemical access to brain tissue.

Think fluoride is used by the rest of the world? France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Finland, India and Great Britain have all rejected its use after special commissions and health secretaries reviewed the negative evidence.

Think fluoride cleanses the water? Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in military nerve gas. Sodium fluoride is a hazardous waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminum and fertilizer, and it is a common ingredient in roach and rat poisons.

Think fluoride fights cavities and strengthens bones? Dental fluorosis is often caused by over-exposure to fluoride when the dental enamel is mineralizing during childhood. Fluoride is unique in its ability among acids to penetrate tissue, causing soft tissue damage and bone erosion as it leaches calcium and magnesium from the body.

Think fluoride evaporates from water? Fluoride does not evaporate from water left sitting out. Also,boiling or freezing won’t help at all, and basic filters like Brita do not remove it. Reverse osmosis does remove it, and natural spring water does not contain it.

Because the ADA maintains a stranglehold on the dental profession, no dentists are ever openly critical of fluoride. The ADA can influence State Dental Boards which can take away a dentist’s license, so you won’t hear anything negative about it from your dentist. Most brands of toothpaste contain at least 1,000 ppm fluoride, so if a child were to eat an entire tube, he/she would die.

Fluoride has never received FDA approval and does not meet “requirements of safety and effectiveness.” The FDA states that fluoride is a prescription drug. Because this “drug” is put in municipal water, there is absolutely no control over individual dosage.

Be well

Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay

How Fluoride was transformed from a toxic waste to a “National Saviour” (Part 2)

      No Comments on How Fluoride was transformed from a toxic waste to a “National Saviour” (Part 2)

Dr. Frederick S. McKay was born in 1874 in Lawrence, Massachusetts. He was a 1900 graduate of the Dental School University of Pennsylvania and came to Colorado Springs in 1901. Partially because he had the inquisitiveness of a recent graduate and partially because he was not a native of Colorado Springs, Dr. McKay was intrigued by the number of patients whose teeth were stained with white or brown spots; and in severe cases, the enamel was pitted.

 Image

Following years of observation and study, McKay determined that it was high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the drinking water that was causing the mottled enamel. McKay’s deductions were researched by Dr. H. Trendley Dean, a dental officer of the U.S. Public Health Service.  Dean designed the first fluoride studies in the United States. These early studies were aimed at evaluating how high the fluoride levels in water could be before visible, severe dental fluorosis occurred.

Now Dean remembered McKay’s claims that fluorosis victims mottled, discolored teeth were especially resistant to decay. He came up with the notion that fluoride added to the water supply at the magic threshold dosage of 1 ppm would prevent tooth decay, while avoiding damage  to bones and teeth. He recommended further studies to determine whether his hypothesis  was  true.

Back at the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s Pittsburgh industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. There, biochemist Gerald J. Cox immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that: “The case should be regarded as proved.”

In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims and burdened by the odious expense of disposing tons of toxic industrial waste (fluoride).

Cox began touring the country, stumping for fluoridation. Dean would go on to carve out a nice career for himself as the “father” of public water fluoridation. He became the first dental scientist at the National Institute of Health, advancing to director of the dental research section in 1945.

Be well

Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay

Is your drinking water lowering your IQ and causing Alzheimer’s? (Part 1)

      No Comments on Is your drinking water lowering your IQ and causing Alzheimer’s? (Part 1)

Is your drinking water really safe?

Some people protested publicly and made claims that fluoride “causes Alzheimer’s” and “lowers IQ”. On one hand there are claims that these people are conspiracy theorists and are incorrect and misinformed. Is this all there is to it?

The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences said in 2006, “Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease… Studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride should be undertaken to evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia” and that “The possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities.”

A recent lead author of a meta-analysis, which was conducted by Harvard University maintains : “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.”

The National Research Council has raised a ‘red flag’ in the aforementioned categories.
While the NRC report (2006) only looked at the concentration range of 2-4mg/L, which some say renders it irrelevant to artificial fluoridation. Well, firstly, this is not true, as explained by one of the expert Panelists of the report, Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, DDS, PhD. Secondly, this range does not account for the intertwined issues of ‘margin of safety’ and ‘dose’ (as opposed to concentration).

And thirdly, in relation to I.Q., international studies that show ‘red flags’ have not been properly replicated in fluoridating countries, so data needed to fully explore this matter is lacking. As the NRC panel pointed out, “studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short-and long-term memory. Care should be taken to ensure that proper testing methods are used, that all sources of exposure to fluoride are assessed, and that comparison populations have similar cultures and socioeconomic status.”

Where are these studies? They have not been done, nor have the dementia studies. How many randomized controlled trials on the effects of fluoridation did the University of York find in 2000? Ans: None

Be well
Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay

Corruption in the Disease Economy 2

      No Comments on Corruption in the Disease Economy 2

Globally, the US disease economy simply cannot compete with global economies that actually produce something useful. You want proof of it? Just look at what’s happening to General Motors. General Motors is shutting down. General Motors is probably headed for bankruptcy. One of the largest corporations ever produced by the United States is about to go bankrupt. Why? The answer is that General Motors is spending more on health insurance than it is on steel. They’re operating in a disease economy, and in a disease economy, it costs way too much for workers because workers are diseased, and you have to cover the costs of treating all that disease so you can have health insurance for all those workers. The United State’s health insurance costs are the highest of any nation in the world.

Not only do they have workers who are under-educated in the United States, they are also over-diseased. They have a disease economy, so they think they are creating abundance by selling each other expensive treatments, products and services for disease. The real industries, like automobile manufacturing, are disappearing. Toyota is smart. Toyota is going to dominate the auto industry. Personally, I won’t drive anything other than the Toyota. Toyota is the best mainstream vehicle in the world. Interestingly enough, Toyota is going to be making robots soon, too. Japan does not have a disease economy. Japan has an economy with a good dose of innovation. In fact, innovation is thriving throughout Asia. They don’t have a disease economy. They have an innovation-based economy where they actually have to produce something useful to get paid.

Smart nations will invest in prevention

Now, at some point these nations, as they adopt the Western lifestyle and become richer and start to consume more beef animal products, as well as junk food, may very well become disease economies. But some of these nations will be smart about it and start investing in prevention. For example, any nation right now in this world that allows cigarettes to be sold to its population is committing a form of self-destruction. It’s like national suicide. What nation would want its citizens to smoke cigarettes so that they would halve their own lives, create huge health-care costs and at the same time reduce their long-term productivity?

The US is losing its health. They are losing their minds. They are losing their genuine economic base. They are losing their manufacturing and losing their scientific edge. They are losing their educational edge, and  losing the inherent value of their money supply as the U.S. dollar continues to slip. What do they have left? Well there’s always the Wal-mart and the Walgreens. If you can’t sleep, you can always buy sleeping pills. If you can’t wake up in the morning, you can always drink some coffee. It’s the disease economy.

The disease economy is all around you

It takes an act of great self-determination and courage to extricate oneself from the disease economy and be a productive member of society. It is a rare thing to witness. Very few people I’ve ever known, or know today, are actually productive members of society doing something useful for the benefit of other human beings.

Do you know who some of those people are? Organic farmers. These are people I greatly respect who are actually doing something useful for others. It is something difficult, something laborious, something a lot of people wouldn’t want to do. There are people in society that are productive, and if we’re going to succeed as an economy — or even as a nation — into the future, we’re going to have to expand the number of people who are making a living doing something useful, not something that is just based on disease.

You see, thinking that money spent on disease treatment is economic productivity is actually an economic fallacy. Here’s an example: If you just want to create jobs in the country, I have a brilliant plan for job creation. First, hire half the nation to be window breakers. Give them all hammers. Their job is to go around the entire country and break windows. Then you hire the other half of the nation to be window replacers. Their job is to go around and replace all the windows that were broken by the window breakers. You do that and you will have full employment! Sounds insane, doesn’t it? But that’s what’s actually happening today with health.

Then there are nations like Singapore. Singapore is doing some very intelligent things, and education is one of them. Singapore has a very smart population and a booming economy based on actual abundance and not disease. Of course, people say, “Singapore is almost like a police state. What about personal rights?” That’s a huge argument. Should people have the right to smoke themselves to death? Should they have the right to drink soft drinks until they’re so obese that they need a knee replacement and demand to be covered by Medicare? Should people be allowed to eat junk food all day, avoid exercise and then get heart disease and need a heart transplant that’s paid for by other taxpayers or other participants in their insurance company? These are questions I can’t answer in this article. All I can say is that any nation that bases its economy on “diseasification” of its citizens is ultimately doomed to economic collapse. That’s exactly where the United States economy is currently headed, to certain economic collapse. Singapore is not heading that way.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Corruption in the Disease Economy 1

      No Comments on Corruption in the Disease Economy 1

Drug companies have experts on their payroll who are part of the FDA’s drug safety decision panels, and who don’t disclose their conflicts of interest. They are making decisions that expand the definition of disease. A classic case of this was when cholesterol numbers were lowered from 130 to 100 to instantly make 10 million more Americans diagnosable with high cholesterol so they could be treated with statin drugs.

The US has the ridiculous (and scientifically dishonest) expansion of psychiatric disorders or so-called brain chemistry diseases, which really have nothing to do with chemistry, but everything to do with expanding the marketplace of psychiatric drugs. The way you expand the marketplace is not to sit around and wait for people to become mentally disturbed. What you do is change the definition of mental disorders and make up new ones.

One of the biggest questions right now is the marketing of adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or adult ADHD. It is a made-up disease. What are the symptoms of this disease? You have too many things on your mind, you can’t keep track of everything you need to get done and you are easily distracted. What adult doesn’t meet those criteria? We all do, because modern society is a busy place. According to the drug company definition, and even the definition offered by the psychiatric community, we are all suffering from mental illness and must be treated with drugs.

This is one way to expand the disease economy. This is one way you keep those profits flowing and those shareholders happy that they’ve invested in your company. Most people e in the US invested in a disease economy, one way or another.

Enough about the problem; what about the solution? How do you solve the disease economy, challenge it and turn it around into a health economy, a healing economy or an abundant economy? To do that, you first have to figure out a way to make health profitable. How do you make healthy people profitable when there’s so much money in treating disease and chronic illness and so much money in addicting people to lifetime requirements for prescription drugs? How do you generate profits off of healthy people, as a nation?

Let’s face it: If people are healthy, especially well into their old age, they are no longer customers of those clinics being constructed all over this country. They are no longer customers of Walgreens, CVS or the Wal-Mart pharmacy. They are no longer customers of surgeons, physicians, foot specialists or Alzheimer’s doctors. This is why I believe there is absolutely no genuine investment in disease prevention in this country. There’s really no investment at all, because preventing disease is the last thing that this disease economy wants.

How do you make it worthwhile to keep people healthy? The answer to that comes down to education, and here’s why: When a person is educated, whether it be an education in the arts, the sciences or in any other realm, they live longer and healthier. They maintain their brain function, and they remain productive members of society, no matter how long they live. They can be producing something that benefits other members of society well into their 70s, 80s or even 90s. Healthy individuals can age gracefully and maintain healthy cognitive function. They can directly produce things, such as writing a book, or they can help teach others. They can even be mentors to young entrepreneurs, who can benefit from experience in learning how to manufacture, market or sell something useful.

An uneducated individual, on the other hand, tends to be more of a consumer than a producer of things of value, because they don’t have the background, education or experience to be productive members of society. If you don’t educate the population, they all become consumers and not producers. It is when people are stuck in the consumer state that they can be profitable to the disease economy. But when the public is educated, it becomes far more profitable to keep people healthy. You could add 20 or 30 years of creative productivity to an individual’s life, which means you could boost the productivity of the entire nation by perhaps 15 to 20 percent, which is a huge number. You wouldn’t have to base it on disease anymore. You could base it on health. We need a health economy that’s based on disease prevention, tied with genuine education.

Think about what is produced in the United States versus other countries. While they are toiling away in the US disease economy and inventing new super extreme nacho Doritos and coming up with new prescription drugs that alter brain chemistry in children, genius-level students in other countries are actually doing something useful. In Japan, for example, they are inventing a whole new industry, which I believe will dominate the world’s economy. It will be bigger than the computer industry and automobile industry ever was. It’s the robotics industry.

In the next 20 or 30 years, the robotics industry will be absolutely huge. Japan is at least 10 years ahead of the United States in this key industry. Why? It’s because Japanese students are well educated. They also tend to have a lot better health than students in the United States. In India, they’re inventing new computer technologies and new customer service systems that are siphoning labor away from the United States because they do it faster, cheaper and with similar quality but for less money and far lower health-care costs. What do we do to make sure we go the way of Japan and not the US?

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Economy of Disease 2

      No Comments on Economy of Disease 2

Without question, the U.S. economy is heavily invested in disease. Retailers like Walgreens have mastered the art of selling products on both sides of the equation. At the front of the store, Walgreens sells junk food products, soft drinks, candy and a lot of food that really has no nutrition. At the back of the store, they sell prescription drugs — drugs that treat the symptoms of diseases that are ultimately caused by people’s poor dietary choices and their consumption of junk food. Walgreens has really mastered this. They will sell you the problem and the treatment, all in the same store. One reason Walgreens is so incredibly successful as a business is because it has mastered the art of selling products to consumers as part of the disease economy. It is a flagship company of the disease economy, perhaps even more so than pharmaceutical companies.

One of the funniest things about the disease economy is that the consumers who are diseased think they’re doing well because they own stocks in the companies selling the products that harm them. This fascinates me. A guy dying of cancer or suffering from heart disease, because of the products he has been consuming for years, believes he’s doing well because he owns stock in large food manufacturing companies or large pharmaceutical companies. Maybe he owns stock in a new medical technology, or maybe he’s a partner in a local medical clinic. His investments are doing great, but he’s dying, and he’s dying from preventable degenerative disease.

This is what’s happening across the country, not just to one person, but to millions of people — perhaps hundreds of millions — who think the economy is looking up and think that maybe they have a good job because they work for a pharmaceutical company. They think they have good investments now because they have stocks in the junk food manufacturers. They think they’re doing well financially, but guess what? They’re consuming the product themselves, and they are dying. They’re dying from a degenerative disease at a rate that has never before been witnessed in human history. This demonstrates my entire point: We cannot create abundance by selling each other increasingly expensive products and services that harm each other.

By the way, I don’t mean to leave out all those chemical companies manufacturing pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, toxic household cleaners and toxic personal care products. A lot of those skincare companies are really just chemical manufacturers with sexy marketing and lots of women in lab coats selling you products that actually harm your health; that literally contain ingredients that cause cancer and liver disease. People think our economy is booming, but we’re all dying of chronic disease. Why is it that 50 percent of our senior citizens in the United States have high blood pressure? Why is it that 40 percent of our senior citizens are now clinically obese? I’m willing to bet that a similar percentage may have nervous system disorders or early stages of dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. Most of them are probably metabolizing some form of cancer right now, even though it may not have been diagnosed yet.

The US is a nation of diseased individuals, and that disease starts very early. There are 12-year-old children who have atherosclerosis. There are teenagers with osteoporosis, and teenage children with obesity are now common. In fact, diabetes has gotten so bad in young people that they had to change the name. That used to be the name. Now they just have to call it diabesity, and that applies to children, teenagers and adults alike.

They have created so much disease in US, and based our economy on it to such a degree that, frankly, they cannot untangle this situation without causing economic distress. If there were a cure for cancer, diabetes or heart disease tomorrow, where a person could wave a magic wand and instantly eliminate those diseases, and if every person in the country did that tomorrow, the sobering truth is that the US national economy would collapse overnight. It would collapse because there’s so much money, so much real estate, so much education and so much expertise and research invested in disease that they could not financially survive in an economy based on health and abundance, at least not the way things are configured right now.

They could not economically survive in an economy based on real health. They are so invested in disease in the US that they truly have a disease economy, and in order for that economy to grow, they have to expand the number of people with disease, expand the definition of disease or expand the coverage of people who are treated with high-profit disease-masking products. All three of those things are happening right now. And guess what, the disease economy is spreading.  Look around you and ask yourself how many Asian countries are following these trends.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Economy of Disease part 1

      No Comments on Economy of Disease part 1

This is an article about the disease economy. That’s a term I coined because I could find no economy because such a huge percentage of the economic activity and economic growth I see in the US is based on the manufacturing, marketing and selling of products and services based on disease. That is, products and services that either cause diseases or “treat” those diseases.

How do I know we’re in a disease economy today? You can see it for yourself. Just drive around any city or town in the United States and you can see what’s happening. Take a look at the new construction. What’s going to be there? If it’s an office complex, chances are it’s going to be a medical office building. If it’s on a street corner, it’s probably going to be a pharmacy — maybe a new Walgreens or CVS Pharmacy or a new drive-through Wal-Mart pharmacy. You even see pharmacies in grocery stores now, because they are so profitable. When you go into grocery stores and look at what’s being sold there, you’re getting a good look at the economic activity in this country. You mostly see products that promote disease, thanks to their disease-causing ingredients.

 

phar

 

photo courtesy of google

 

Of course, the disease economy promotes Big Pharma companies. These are the pharmaceutical manufacturers in this country, and they are huge global corporations. The selling of pharmaceuticals is a $1 trillion industry. It’s an amazing statistic. Here in the United States, some of our largest corporations are drug companies. In fact, as I’ve stated before, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies in the United States earn more money than the remaining 490 Fortune 500 companies. Just recently, I heard the Bush administration was very excited about the news that we are experiencing economic growth in this country. The economy is up, more money is changing hands, and that’s all that economists really look at when calculating gross domestic product or gross national product. They’re just looking at the total number of dollars that changed hands.

An economy based on paying for disease treatment

 

BusinessHero_1

However, if you look at the quality of the products and services that are being exchanged for these dollars, you’ll realize something is amiss here, because what we’re doing is basing our economic growth on the growth of chronic and degenerative disease. We’re basing our economy on the idea that we can treat more and more people with drugs and medical services and keep selling them soft drinks and fast food while calling it economic growth.

This leads me to the most important point of this article, which is that we cannot create abundance in the United States or in any country by selling each other increasingly expensive products and services that promote disease. In other words, we cannot create abundance by poisoning ourselves. The very idea is absurd. The whole point of economic growth is to create economic abundance, and if you look at the classic definitions of economic growth, they are about providing more goods and services to people in a more efficient manner. Those goods and services are supposed to improve the quality of life for those people.

In the old days, the arguments for the invisible hand in the economy were that if you let entrepreneurs compete in a free market, they would devise clever and efficient ways to create, produce and deliver goods and services to consumers that would ultimately enhance their quality of life. That part is absolutely true, and the United States has done that very successfully. The free market does work in accomplishing that, but what we’re seeing now is something beyond what those old-school economists could have ever conceived. We’re seeing an economy that is increasingly based on goods and services that do not add to the quality of consumers’ lives but rather take away from it. We’re seeing entrepreneurs and creative, clever people finding new ways to market products that harm people and calling that profitability or economic growth.

We see this quite blatantly in the drug industry, where creative marketers keep coming up with new, absurd ways to sell drugs to people through direct-to-consumer advertising on television. Some of these ads are absolutely idiotic in what they are promising. Yet, they are effective in creating demand. They sell products, but these products do not help consumers.

We also see a lot of products being marketed and sold to consumers that may give them very short-term benefits — such as the taste of a hamburger or the taste of french fries, which lasts about 10 seconds — but has long-term detrimental consequences, like obesity, heart disease, brain disorders, cancer and diabetes. These diseases largely come about as a result of long-term consumption of nutritionally depleted foods.

Be well

Dr Sundardas