GUT BRAIN HEALING with PROFESSOR SUNDARDAS - NATUROPATH, HOMOEPATH, ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, SINGAPORE

Fake Science and vaccines

Dr Sundardas October 8, 2012 No Comments

Many “scientific” studies are literally nonsense. This is not a conspiracy theory. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association [2005;294(2):218–28] published a paper showing that one-third of “highly cited original clinical research studies” were eventually contradicted by subsequent studies. The supposed effects of specific interventions either did not exist as the original studies concluded, or were exaggerated. It is not unusual for the “science” of today to degenerate into tomorrow’s fiction.

Vaccine studies are often funded by vaccine manufacturers. The lead authors of important studies that will be used to validate the safety or efficacy of a vaccine are often beholden to the manufacturer in some way. They may own stock in the company or are paid by the manufacturer to travel around the country promoting their vaccines. Lead authors may receive consultation fees, grants or other benefits from the drug maker. Although many people consider this unethical or corrupt, in the world of immunizations this is an acceptable practice, condoned by the CDC and FDA.

Sometimes study conclusions contradict core data in the study. It is not uncommon to read the abstract or summary of a major paper touting a vaccine’s apparent safety or benefits, only to find that upon examining the actual paper, including important details, the vaccine is shown to be dangerous and may have poor efficacy as well. For example, a landmark study published in Pediatrics [2003;112:1039-48] found that cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines “resulted in a significant positive association with tics” and “increased risks of language delay.”

In other words, babies that received two or more vaccines containing mercury showed signs of neurological damage. This crucial information can be found in the body of the study. However, the authors concluded that “No consistent significant associations were found between thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes.” Sadly, the media is reluctant to publish anything that challenges the sacrosanct vaccine program. Newspaper articles about vaccines, and reviews of vaccine studies that are published, merely mimic the original spurious conclusions.

Often, important information is missing from a study. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine [2007;356:1915-27] published a paper on the HPV vaccine. It concluded that the vaccine “was highly effective” even though data in the study showed that vaccine efficacy was just 17% against high-grade cervical lesions. However, truly vital information that would help families to make informed vaccine decisions was never mentioned in the paper.

A secret FDA study [VRBPAC Meeting: May 18, 2006] had already found that the HPV vaccine may “enhance cervical disease“ in girls who are sexually active prior to vaccination. In other words, the vaccine seems to work best in virgins and may actually increase a young woman’s chance of developing cervical cancer if she was previously exposed through sexual intercourse to HPV strains included in the vaccine.

In some instances, study results may be preordained. For example, when the vaccine-autism link became a public concern, vaccine proponents hastened to produce authentic-appearing studies that contradicted genuine data. Years ago, tobacco companies used this very same ploy. They financed numerous bogus studies ostensibly “proving” that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. The real studies got lost in the muddle. Sadly, it’s all too easy to obfuscate truth and deceive the public.

At the infamous Simpsonwood conference held in Norcross, Georgia [June 2000], CDC and FDA authorities knew that mercury in vaccines was damaging children. They had irrefutable proof: a comprehensive study conducted by the CDC itself. However, instead of making this important information public, they hatched a plan to produce additional “studies” that denied such a link. In fact, vaccine proponents had the audacity to claim in some of these papers that mercury in vaccines not only doesn’t hurt children but that it actually benefits them! In the topsy-turvy world of overreaching vaccine authorities, the well-documented neurotoxic chemical mercury somehow makes children smarter and more functional, improving cognitive development and motor skills. Of course, this is nonsense. Numerous real studies document mercury’s destructive effect on brain development and behavior.

Another ploy used by vaccine proponents is to design studies comparing vaccinated people to other vaccinated people. Honest studies would compare them to an unvaccinated population. In addition, vaccine control groups rarely receive a true placebo, which should be a harmless substance. The scientific method has always been predicated upon removing all potentially confounding influences. However, many vaccine studies do not conform to this integral component of valid research. This is an important concept to grasp. For example, when a new vaccine is being tested for safety, one group may receive the new vaccine which contains an attenuated virus and an aluminum adjuvant while the “control” group receives an injection of aluminum as well (rather than water or another harmless substance). When vaccines are compared in this way, that is, to other substances that are capable of causing adverse reactions, the vaccine appears safer than it really is. Whenever this deceptive tactic is utilized, officially acknowledged adverse reactions to a vaccine may represent only a fraction of the true potential risks to the recipient.

It should also be noted that some clinical studies that are used to license vaccines exclude people in certain groups. For example, they may be too young, too old, pregnant, ill, or have other preexisting health ailments. However, once the vaccine is licensed, it may be recommended for people in these groups. Much like using false placebos, this unethical practice artificially inflates the vaccine’s safety profile and places more people at risk for adverse reactions.

Although some studies are mere propaganda, part of a larger disinformation campaign designed to promote a vaccine agenda, other studies link vaccines to debilitating and fatal diseases. For example, the British Medical Journal [1999;319:1133.] and Autoimmunity [2002;35(4):247-53] published data correlating the haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine to rising rates of type 1 diabetes. The hepatitis B vaccine has been linked to autoimmune and neurological disorders. Guillain-Barre syndrome — a serious paralytic disease — is a well-known adverse reaction to the flu vaccine.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Diabetes and Depression Can Make you Blind

Dr Sundardas August 31, 2012 No Comments

It’s an all-too-familiar story. In fact, maybe it’s even your own.

Let’s say you’re diagnosed with diabetes. Suddenly, it seems as if you have to make a load of adjustments to your life. Navigating the holidays or a social gathering can start to feel like a nightmare, and before long you begin to feel down.

Now, of course, everyone feels a bit down in the dumps sometimes, so it may not be such a big deal. But for many diabetics, the blues can morph all too easily into a serious depression. And, according to a new study published in the journal General Hospital Psychiatry, if left untreated this depression can lead to serious eye damage.

Diabetic retinopathy, a condition that can lead to bleeding in the eye and severe vision damage, is already a well-known complication of long-term diabetes. But research now shows that diabetics suffering from severe depression are significantly more likely to develop the disease.

Researchers from the University of Washington Medical School in Seattle studied the cases of 2,359 people with diabetes. Using a special survey tool, the PHQ-9, they then determined the volunteers’ various levels of depression. That’s when the association between depression and diabetes was revealed.

In a five-year follow-up period 22.9% of the volunteers with a PHQ-9 ranking that indicated major depression developed retinopathy as compared with 19.7% of the patients without depression. But even more telling, was that for every five-point increase on the PHQ-9 scale there was a staggering 15% increase in risk for developing the disease.

Even after adjusting for other outside factors, including obesity, smoking, a sedentary lifestyle, and blood-sugar levels, the researchers found that depression was still associated with the increased risk of developing retinopathy.

The UW researchers theorize that the physical changes that accompany depression…things like, raised cortisol levels and blood-clotting factors… that are at least partially responsible for the increased risk.

While more research needs to be done to nail down all the factors and to figure out exactly how depression is connected, one thing’s for sure and that is that depression hurts. And, frankly, regardless of what future research turns up about the retinopathy-and-depression connection, it’s really a no-brainer that reversing depression is going to do only good things for your health.

A good place to start is to increase the amount of fish in your diet. The omega-3 fatty acid DHA, which is found in fish oil, has been shown to be an all-natural mood-lifter. Also, try increasing your depression-busting vitamin-D levels by spending some more time in the sun and eating more vitamin-D-rich foods like eggs, shiitake mushrooms, fish, and shrimp. And finally, be sure to take a good B-complex vitamin daily to help ward off depression at the pass.

Reminding you that dealing with diabetes is difficult enough without the double whammy of dodging depression and dimming eyesight

Be well

Dr Sundardas

What happens when you are wrongly diagnosed ?

Dr Sundardas July 30, 2012 No Comments

Psychologists in the Netherlands have documented the case of a 58-year-old woman who was misdiagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease. Her condition deteriorated to the point where she became permanently confused, and at one point suicidal — before another doctor realized the diagnosis was incorrect.

What happens to people who are wrongly diagnosed with having cognitive difficulties? It turns out that even if your brain is perfectly healthy, you’ll start having more problems with concentration.

So how did this 58-year-old woman come to be misdiagnosed with Alzheimer’s? She consulted a neurologist at a stressful time in her life, in the knowledge that her mother had had the illness. A brain scan indicated reduced activity at the front of her brain (“hypofrontality”), and the neurologist also estimated her performance on a test of cognitive impairment as poor (though no formal test was conducted). On this basis he diagnosed Alzheimer’s.

(Many years later, the neurologist was found guilty of having misdiagnosed several patients with Alzheimer’s and 26 malpractice suits were filed against him, but the woman featured in this case study was not part of that litigation.)

The woman was devastated, and thereafter her condition deteriorated significantly, to the point that she was permanently confused and, at one point, suicidal. Some months later, after receiving advice from an Alzheimer’s helpline, the woman consulted a different neurologist for a second opinion. She completed comprehensive memory tests and undertook a further brain scan. All results were normal. This neurologist surmised that her earlier hypofrontality was associated with depression. He also went to great lengths to explain the good news about her results and the misinterpretation of her earlier scan, but it proved extremely difficult to assuage her concerns.

Years later, Harald Merckelbach and his team have interviewed the woman and they report that she continues to experience intrusive thoughts about the misdiagnosis and to catastrophise her memory lapses. Merckelbach’s group believe the effect of a misdiagnosis has parallels with the implantation of false memories. Just as false memories are difficult to reverse, so too are mistaken diagnoses. “Conferring a diagnostic label is far from a neutral act,” they said. “Many diagnostic labels have strong stereotypical connotations and sometimes, these will automatically shape the experiences and behaviour of patients, a phenomenon called ‘diagnoses threat‘.”

To test these ideas further, Merckelbach, with colleagues Marko Jelicic and Maarten Pieters, gave 78 undergrads a psychological symptoms questionnaire to complete. Afterwards the students performed Suduko puzzles as a distraction. Next, the researchers went through some of the students’ answers with them. During this review, the researchers inflated two of the answers they’d given to anxiety items. For example, imagine a student had originally indicated that she never had trouble concentrating. The researcher would inflate that answer by two points on the scale, as if she’d said that she sometimes had trouble concentrating, and they then asked the student to explain why she’d given that answer.

Remarkably, 63 per cent of the participants failed to notice that their answers had been altered, and they proceeded to describe their experience of the symptoms (readers may notice parallels here with a phenomenon known as “choice blindness“, in which people seem to have little insight into a recent choice they made).

Ten minutes later, and again after one week, all the students re-took the psychological symptoms questionnaire. At both time points, students who’d earlier failed to notice that two of their answers had been altered, now gave higher ratings to those two items, as if they considered themselves to have those symptoms. Such an effect was not observed among the minority of students who’d earlier noticed that their answers had been altered. An analysis of all the students’ original baseline answers uncovered higher average baseline symptoms among those who would fail to notice the inflation of their answers.

“Apparently a non-zero symptom intensity level introduces ambiguity; thereby raising the probability that misinformation is accepted,” the researchers said. However, it’s not the case that the influenced participants were simply more keen to give answers that the researchers wanted – they scored just the same on a test of social desirability.

The results from this study are consistent with past research showing how misinformation about physical symptoms can shape how people feel: for example, false feedback about asthmatic wheezing can trigger breathlessness in children with asthma.

Harald Merckelbach and his colleagues said their findings had particular significance for the way medical professionals interact with patients with unexplained symptoms, including those labelled with chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic pain. “… Expressing concern about the possibility of an underlying illness and, related to this, excessive investigation and attending patient support groups may all contribute to symptom escalation. What these interventions have in common is that they convey the message to the patient that his or her symptoms might be more intense and severe than he/she thinks they are. Our study suggests that blindness to unintended misinformation about the severity of the symptoms may underlie escalation of symptoms.”

The researchers recommend that medics avoid mentioning the whole spectrum of possible symptoms when interviewing patients with medically unexplained symptoms. They also pointed to interesting avenues for future research. For example, notwithstanding the ethical issues involved, could patients benefit from receiving misinformation that lowered their symptom ratings? Also, is the inflated self-reporting of symptoms observed here based purely on exaggerated report, or is it grounded in an altered experience of symptoms?

I have actually noticed that when I work with clients who have been given a particularly challenging medical diagnosis, they often experience distress when they start getting better faster than expected. They have almost set up an expectation that given their condition they should suffer more or take longer to recover. Are you really running our lives or are we victims of medical “programming”?

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Acupuncture Helps Breech Babies Turn

Dr Sundardas July 11, 2012 2 Comments

When women give birth naturally, their babies come out headfirst. This is because when they are in the womb, the baby is upside-down. For some women, this is not the case, and the baby is in the head-up position, known as non-vertex presentation, or more simply, breech. For these women, unless the baby can be turned, they will likely need to undergo a cesarean procedure to surgically birth the baby. A cesarean section is major abdominal surgery, and requires the new mother to stay in the hospital for several days. As it also takes weeks to recover, it should be avoided if at all possible. So, what to do if your baby has not turned upside down?

Ideally, the issue can be identified early – in weeks 29 – 32. At this stage, about 15% of babies are breech. This is the time to act. Though about half of these babies will naturally turn upside down by week 38, it is best not to leave it to chance. If your baby has not turned by week 32, acupuncture, herbs and moxa can help.

With acupuncture, the mother-to-be is allowed to rest on her side. The acupuncturist then employs points that encourage the baby to turn. This is also a great time to address any other issues the woman is dealing with. Lower back pain is a common problem, as are digestive issues.

Many times, when a baby has not turned, it is a sign that the mother’s energy needs strengthening. In Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), the kidney chi is responsible for reproduction. If the mother’s kidney chi is weak, she is more likely to have a breech presentation. If she is under the care of an acupuncturist when she gets pregnant, and her kidney chi is known to be weak, it is very important that she continue treatments and herbs throughout her pregnancy to help avoid a breech presentation.

Moxa is also used to help encourage a baby to turn. This involves using a moxa stick made primarily of dried Chinese mugwort leaf. The stick is lit at one end and burns slowly like incense. It is then used to warm a point on the foot that helps the baby to turn. It may sound far-fetched, but numerous studies show its effectiveness.

One such study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in November, 1998. The study divided 260 women with breech presentations in their 33rd week of pregnancy into two equal groups. 130 received moxa treatments and 130 did not. Two weeks later, 75% of the fetuses in the moxa group had turned compared with 48% in the other group. Women whose babies had not turned were then offered external cephalic version treatments. This procedure is done in a hospital and involves a doctor massaging the uterus to move the fetus into a head-down position. It can be quite uncomfortable, though it is a good last resort to avoid a cesarean procedure.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Birth of Spiderman

Dr Sundardas June 27, 2012 No Comments

If you believe the “scientific” community, the government figures are always accurate. There’s no cover-up. The situation is completely under control. The radiation levels are miniscule. There was no meltdown. Go on about your business and stop worrying.

Just eat your imported fish, go get your CT scans at the hospital and take your antidepressants. Buy your slave-labor brand-name sports gear at the local mall, and be sure to slather yourself in perfumes, petroleum-based skin lotions and sunscreen (to protect yourself from cancer, of course).

And then, a few years down the road, if you find your DNA has mutated beyond your ability to reproduce in the future, don’t worry: You can always trade a year’s salary for some hormone injections at the local infertility clinic, right? Infertility clinics, by the way, are really great at increasing the survival rate of fetuses with birth defects which would otherwise normally be aborted by the mother’s own body

So even if the next generation of children in Asia are born mostly to irradiated, genetically-mutated parents, thanks to the “miracle” of modern infertility science we can probably manage to keep a fair number of them alive long enough for them to become the new generation of post-Fukushima X-Men with special mutant powers that can save our world from evil villains. Fukushima might also irradiate some spiders that could bite a few geeky teenage boys and magically transform them into acrobatic “spider men” who magically attain advanced hand-to-hand combat skills without ever having practiced them. What could be bad about that?

In fact, the entire Marvel universe of comic book characters might yet materialize out of the smoke and (radioactive) dust of Fukushima. So, you see, Fukushima is actually the solution to all our problems, not the source of any problems.

And if you think none of this could really happen because I’m quoting characters from comic books, just remember this: The Japanese government is reading you lines from a fairy tale and hoping you buy into it just the same.

For the very first time, a scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal has come up with a solid estimate of the total number of US deaths caused by the Fukushima nuclear disaster in the weeks following it. Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, and his colleagues say that, based on compiled data, at least 14,000 people in the US were killed during the 14 weeks following the Fukushima catastrophe — and the majority of these deaths were in children under age one.

Published in the International Journal of Health Services, Mangano’s study looked at both infant and adult death rates during the time when Fukushima occurred, as well as in previous months and years. During the 14 weeks prior to Fukushima, for instance, infant deaths had been declining by 8.37 percent, while in the weeks following the disaster they increased by 1.8 percent. Among adults, a 4.46 percent death rate was observed in the weeks after Fukushima, compared to 2.34 percent, which is about half that rate, a year prior.

“This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal,” said Mangano. “It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation.”

During the first few months when the Fukushima disaster was unfolding, there were reports on radiation spikes in milk, rainwater), and the general food supply, both in the US and abroad. Though tangible harm in humans was not necessarily evident at that time, it now appears that this systemic poisoning translated into thousands of known deaths, and likely tens of thousands more cases of cancer and other illnesses.

“Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death,” added Mangano. “Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults.”

I am really curious if all this radiation toxicity and side-effects are confined only to Japan and the US. Don’t you wonder too?

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Fukushima radiation hazards

Dr Sundardas May 30, 2012 No Comments

Based on the accumulation of information from multiple sources, it is now clear that the true scope of the Fukushima disaster has been greatly downplayed by both the Japanese and U.S. governments. I would suggest that those who are concerned begin taking regular, safe doses of three things: Natural iodine sources (seaweed or otherwise), bentonite clay (for internal use) and zeolites (any brand).

Naturally, be sure to check with a qualified nutritionist or natural medicine practitioner when taking supplements. Those on thyroid medications, in particular, should seek professional advice before consuming supplementary iodine from any source.

Bentonite clay is, of course, completely safe for internal use (yes, you can eat it) when used as directed. It is a cleansing substance that can bind with various radioactive isotopes and carry them out of your body. Zeolites are also extremely good at attracting both heavy metals and some radioactive isotopes which are also carried out of your body.

The reason for this action notice is due to the increasing realization that radiation emissions from Fukushima are far higher than what we are being told. Although I have analyzed reports from multiple sources on this, perhaps the best citizen blogger explaining this right now is found at http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/04/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-154.html

This blogger is Japanese, and he reads the local Japanese news sources to get a lot of information about Fukushima before the translators screw it up (or distort it).

His latest post reveals that Fukushima is releasing 154 terabequerels of radiation per day. This is an order of magnitude higher than what the official Japanese sources were saying just a few weeks ago.

Another great blogger on Fukushima is Lucas Whitefield Hixson, who published an analysis of the photos that seems to indicate Reactor No. 3 already suffered a massive core containment breach from the very first explosion: http://lucaswhitefieldhixson.com/hi-res-photographic-proof-reactor-co…

If true, this would mean that TEPCO has been lying to us from day one about the true extend of the reactor core containment vessel breach.

I have good reason to believe we may very well be witnessing an event that has already vastly exceeded the Chernobyl disaster in its total release of radiation into the environment. Yet the admission of that fact is so politically unviable that no government dare admit utter the words. Instead, it is much more politically expedient to simply imagine there is no radiation (it’s invisible, after all), and hope no one notices the huge increases in cancer rates in the coming years.

Such is the cowardice is modern-day political leaders. To avoid causing a panic, they would rather people keep eating radioactive fish and drinking radioactive milk. Somewhere in Washington, a group of nuclear experts must be sitting around a table with the President, asking, “So when are we going to tell them about all this?” The answer is, of course, “Never.”

After all, any increase in cancer can always be blamed on sunbathing, or tanning salons, or whatever convenient target the medical community is currently trying to discredit. (Heck, they could probably find a way to say that vitamin D causes cancer!)

This Fukushima fallout could even be a whole new profit center for the cancer industry which has long been in the business of irradiation women’s breasts with mammography machines anyway. Cancer industry corporations must be drooling over the profit prospects that will emerge from the global radiation exposure under way right now.

The upshot of all this is that the masses may be suffering from very risky doses of radioactive fallout right now, with no precautions whatsoever being taken to protect themselves. After all, President Obama stood in front of his podium and told the American people there was nothing to worry about. He said no one needed to prepare, and this was followed up with yet more official urgings to avoiding taking potassium iodide.

The game is apparently on. What game is that? The game of culling the human population by eliminating from the human gene pool those individuals who are too brain dead to think for themselves. Cancer + infertility, after all, is a fairly effective way to remove someone’s genetic code from the future of the population, and what better than a massive, global radiation dump to sort out the brainwashed masses from those who actually take their genetic future seriously?

That’s one theory behind all this, at least. Some say it’s only a theory and nothing more. But when you look at what’s really happening today with the mass intentional contamination and destruction of our planet — the spread of GMOs, the fluoride poisoning of the water supply, the pesticide-induced honey bee population collapse, and so on — you can’t help but wonder if someone really is trying to kill off a very large segment of the human population. Fukushima either deliberately or coincidentally seems to play right into that agenda.

Or maybe that’s all just paranoid conspiracy thinking, and the real explanation behind all this is just global government incompetence combined with pathological national leaders who have no compassion whatsoever for the lives and health of their own citizens. Either explanation is sufficiently bizarre enough to make intelligent people at least start asking questions… and hopefully to start taking some precautions against radiation fallout (hence the iodine, clay and zeolites). Bentonite clay, after all, doesn’t cost much. Losing the genetic integrity of your sperm production, on the other hand, is a real show-stopper.

be well

Dr Sundardas

Flu Vaccines creating Rip Van Winkles

Dr Sundardas May 18, 2012 1 Comment

Rip is an amiable though somewhat hermitic man who enjoys solitary activities in the wilderness, but is also loved by all in town—especially the children to whom he tells stories and gives toys. However, a tendency to avoid all gainful labor, for which his nagging wife (Dame Van Winkle) chastises him, allows his home and farm to fall into disarray due to his lazy neglect.

One autumn day, Rip is escaping his wife’s nagging, wandering up the mountains with his dog, Wolf. Hearing his name being shouted, Rip discovers that the speaker is a man dressed in antiquated Dutch clothing, carrying a keg up the mountain, who requires Rip’s help. Without exchanging words, the two hike up to an amphitheatre-like hollow in which Rip discovers the source of previously-heard thunderous noises: there is a group of other ornately-dressed, silent, bearded men who are playing nine-pins. Although there is no conversation and Rip does not ask the men who they are or how they know his name, he discreetly begins to drink some of their liquor, and soon falls asleep.

He awakes in unusual circumstances: it seems to be morning, his gun is rotted and rusty, his beard has grown a foot long, and Wolf is nowhere to be found. Rip returns to his village where he finds that he recognizes no one. Rip is told that he has apparently been away from the village for twenty years.

The long-term health damage caused by the great H1N1 swine flu scam “pandemic” of 2009 — and particularly the mass vaccination campaign that accompanied it — is already becoming apparent in the form of an autoimmune disorder. A new review published in the journal Public Library of Science ONE confirms that Pandemrix, a swine flu vaccine produced by drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), is responsible for causing an up to 1700 percent increase in narcolepsy among children and teenagers under 17 years of age.

Based on their findings, a cohort of scientists has determined that narcolepsy rates increased significantly following mass vaccination campaigns with Pandemrix. Compiled data has revealed that between 2002 and 2009, the narcolepsy rate among children under age 17 was 0.31 per 100,000. But in 2010, that number jumped to 5.3 per 100,000, which represents a 17-fold increase.

Similarly, research compiled by Markku Partinen of the Helsinki Sleep Clinic and Hanna Nohynek of the National Institute for Health and Welfare in Finland, both of which were also involved in the new research, has determined a link between Pandemrix and narcolepsy. Children not vaccinated with Pandemrix were found to have a 1300 percent less risk of developing narcolepsy compared to children who were vaccinated with Pandemrix.

But because the subject of controversy is a vaccine, researchers were quick to inject several caveats to their findings that deflected some of the blame to other potential causes. In their soft-peddled, politically-correct conclusion, researchers said they “consider it likely that Pandemrix vaccination contributed, perhaps together with other environmental factors, to this increase in genetically susceptible children.”

But the findings are strong enough to have prompted officials in Great Britain to begin their own investigation into Pandemrix causing narcolepsy in children. Though the U.K.’s Health Protection Agency (HPA) has declared that seasonal flu vaccine is not linked to narcolepsy, the agency is concerned that Pandemrix is of a different breed, and that it is not necessarily safe for children (http://www.guardian.co.uk).

Back in 2009, it was confirmed that narcolepsy is actually an autoimmune disorder characterized by missing brain cells that are responsible for producing hypocretin, a hormone that promotes wakefulness. Based on those findings, which were published in the journal Nature Genetics, it appears as though Pandemrix may be responsible for actually spurring the immune system to destroy vital hormone-producing cells in young children (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090503132613.htm).

The truth is really starting to come out now about the failure of vaccines. A new study reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are higher among children already vaccinated against whooping cough!

Infection rates were lower among unvaccinated children, not surprisingly. That’s because the vaccines actually spread the disease they claim to treat! That’s why outbreaks rise as vaccine rates rise.

So in my previous blogs I have railed against the illusion that vaccination is purported to be a “scientific” process. I rest my case.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Is Medicine becoming a New Religion? (Part 2)

Dr Sundardas April 24, 2012 1 Comment

Like any good faith, the church of medicine stands on the authority of its sacred texts. The randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial is the gold standard that assures the purity of church doctrine. The sacred studies are the only source of true knowledge; all other forms of knowledge are held to be inferior. Upholders of the faith frequently quote from the sacred texts in order to disprove and discredit heretical viewpoints.
The conspicuous incongruity here is the ever-changing and fickle nature of medical research studies, which frequently contradict one another and are commonly sponsored and funded by the very corporate interests that stand to gain from that research.

The contemporary battle between the monolith of unyielding medical opinion and those who have experienced the firsthand devastation to loved ones wrought by vaccine injuries and adverse drug reactions is emblematic of the issues created by a medical system that is increasingly unresponsive to its patients. When we come to understand that modern medicine is a result of an overreliance upon the abstracting and analyzing functions of the rational mind, then we see how it can take such cold and calculated positions in the face of so much iatrogenically-induced tragedy.

Such practices don’t strike me as very rational — or scientific. Congregants are also expected to unquestioningly submit to a long string of ritual acts such as well-baby visits, vaccinations, mammograms, cholesterol checks, and an ever-expanding battery of tests and procedures brought to us by the latest cutting-edge technologies made possible through the generosity of the biotechnology industry. One must wonder, with such vast expenditures dedicated to health care, why our collective health as a society suffers so badly.

By contrast, true medical science that was faithful to its original mission was originally conceived to explore the nature of life without a predetermined agenda. It did not impose artificial parameters upon itself in order to define what was and what was not worthy of scientific inquiry. However, when contemporary medicine chooses to restrict the scope of its investigations to the purely material, it must therefore acknowledge the limitations that this places upon it as a science. It reveals a serious bias when it declares that spiritual existence is a mere figment of the imagination that has no impact upon illness and health. If it chooses not to take spiritual reality into account, then it cannot at the same time claim any authority regarding issues of vitalism, energy, consciousness, spirit, or soul.

Most forms of holistic health and healing, on the other hand, begin with the fundamental assumption that we are spiritual beings temporarily inhabiting physical bodies during our time here on the physical plane. If this truth is to be honored, spiritual laws and energetic principles must be taken into account when we consider issues of health and illness. Another important foundational principle of holism considers it a given that “all is one” and that everything, therefore, is interconnected. To speak of body and soul as separate entities is an artificial construct of the rational mind that is not congruent with holistic reality.
This illusion of separateness is, nevertheless, part of the legacy of the reductionistic / mechanistic / materialistic worldview into which most of us were indoctrinated. And it reduces human life to its lowest common materialistic denominator.

When one person reports the resolution of his chronic headaches after a past life regression, and another experiences relief from her depression after a shamanic soul retrieval, and conventional medicine responds by dismissing such stories as mere “anecdote,” it reveals an unbecoming contempt for things of which it has no understanding.
When homeopathic treatment results in the dramatic improvement of a child with attention deficit disorder and conventional medicine claims that it is just not possible because it defies the laws of chemistry as it understands them, then it is time to go back to the medical drawing board in order to revise one’s conception of the mysterious nature of human health and disease. When orthodox medicine demands explanations that conform to its mechanistic worldview before it will acknowledge those phenomena as legitimate, it simply demonstrates its intractable obstinacy and refusal to adjust its understanding.

Article Reference :

http://l.facebook.com/l/ZAQGIxfybAQGxvW9NseR6nxCgsVUF74IWu4oGPla9Rx2mzQ/spiritsciencehealing.com/is-medicine-science-or-religion/

be well
Dr Sundardas

Is Medicine becoming a New Religion? (Part 1)

Dr Sundardas April 3, 2012 No Comments

Modern medicine projects the image of scientific rigor but has all the hallmarks of a system of religious belief. The practical consequence of its insular perspective is the dead-end system of Western medical materialism that we have today. Repair of the physical body is erroneously equated with healing. Never mind whether it is capable of true healing; it doesn’t even understand the meaning of the concept. The “church” of modern medicine is a dysfunctional Frankenstein monster, a result of having raised the analytical abstractions of the rational mind to god-like status above all other faculties of human experience. It is a mere caricature of what medical science could and should be.

In its quest for objectivity medicine has rejected its spiritual roots and lost sight of its humanity. It cannot be but a reflection of the culture from which it has emerged. It arrogantly rejects the wisdom of thousands of years of human history, is fragmented to the point of dissociation, devoid of common sense, preoccupied with short-term material goals, slave to its financial overlords, and utterly lacking in the requisite spiritual knowledge that would enable it to find its way out of its self-imposed foolishness.

Like some religious faiths, medicine clings ferociously to its worldview when challenged by congregants (patients) whose firsthand experiences sometimes lead them to believe otherwise. It defends its dogma with a powerful form of groupthink and is quick to lash out at heretical ideas that threaten its doctrine and its territorial interests. Like some religious movements that purport to be the one and only true path to salvation, it displays an unusual degree of intolerance when faced with nonbelievers who dare to ask questions. It is a closed belief system that does not allow innovation or new ideas. It lays claim to truth, fact, and objectivity, but exposes itself as otherwise when we closely examine its assumptions, politics, and practices.

The church of medicine found its origins with Rene Descartes in the seventeenth century, a key figure in the Scientific Revolution and a proponent of rationalism, a philosophy that elevated the mind and its ability to reason to a superior status above all other sources of knowledge. There are many thoughtful individuals, however, who would consider spiritual insight to be a superior form of knowledge. Nevertheless, even though spiritual reality and material reality can be considered two halves of Cartesian dualism, one gradually began to take precedence over the other. That which could not be measured, quantified, or assigned a logic to justify its truth was dismissed and tossed aside as irrelevant, and it was from this dogma that the new secular church of medical materialism took root. That is to say that this is the point where it began to deny the primacy of spirit and replace it with the worship of the physical body as the most important, if not the only consideration relevant to human health.

Medical science takes a materialistic stand in opposition to the non-physical; it is predicated upon a denial of the relevance of spirit. The irony here is that the church of medicine assumes the authority and function of a religious system but refuses to account for the role that the spiritual dimension plays in human health. Others who understand the significance of spiritual factors such as an afterlife, reincarnation, dreams, synchronicity, and so on, are forced to contend with an unnatural cultural split that reduces the welfare of the physical body to material terms and relegates the welfare of the soul to the wayside, as if body and soul are not connected and have no impact upon one another.

Before I get much further into this critique of Western medicine, let me qualify by saying that I am not anti-science per say. My first degree was in physics. I often joke that in the hard sciences like Physics the accuracy of our results are measured to three decimal places. In medicine, you are lucky if you have one decimal place if at all. Neither am I against conventional medicine and diagnosis when I find it necessary for my patients, my family, and myself. It has its pluses and minuses.
We could not do without medical diagnostics, emergency medicine, insulin for diabetics, antibiotics for life-threatening illnesses, and so on. And although I have the utmost respect for my conventional medical colleagues who dedicate themselves to the well-being of their patients, the system itself is badly broken, based upon a flawed philosophy, and in dire need of serious revision. Similarly, I respect the diversity of human religious and spiritual experience, especially when it, too, respects diversity and eschews the impulse to proselytize.

“Scientism” is a term that has been applied to Western science’s tendency to consider itself as the only valid way of describing reality and acquiring knowledge. Far from objective science, it is riddled with a self-imposed form of materialistic and mechanistic bias. When it inappropriately and clumsily attempts to impose its restricted worldview upon domains where it has no business meddling, it can no longer be considered legitimate science that is practiced with an awareness of its boundaries. It instead begins to resemble an ideology not unlike a religious form of evangelism. Again, it is more than a bit ironic when conventional medicine attempts to belittle some alternative therapies as “faith-based.”

If you have read my earlier two articles, the mishmash of murky money politics, government manoeuvrings and character assassination would be wonderful ingredients in a popular pot-boiler but hardly appropriate for the BMJ, one of the sacred cows of Western Medicine to be involved in. The scandalous attempt to destroy the reputation and career of Dr Wakefield.is fairly typical for a political or religious organisation but not for a scientific one, unless it is a really a political or religious organisation masquerading as a scientific one.
Why is this important to you as a consumer? Simply because if you recognise that organisations like the British Medical Journal have a “religious and political” agenda first followed by a scientific agenda, you are less likely to be disappointed then if you expect scientific and academic impeccability.

Article Reference :

http://l.facebook.com/l/ZAQGIxfybAQGxvW9NseR6nxCgsVUF74IWu4oGPla9Rx2mzQ/spiritsciencehealing.com/is-medicine-science-or-religion/

Be well
Dr Sundardas

What you don’t know about vaccines can kill you

Dr Sundardas March 16, 2012 No Comments

It is facts like these that BMJ, Brian Deer, and the rest have conveniently Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been shamelessly mocked, repeatedly lied about, and cruelly defamed for his legitimate scientific research into the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in children. But Dr. Andrew Wakefield is now fighting back against those responsible for viciously denigrating his work and his character by filing a lawsuit against the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which published lies about him, and journalist Brian Deer, who authored many of those lies.

The lawsuit cites several articles and editorials published in BMJ that include “false and defamatory allegations” about Dr. Wakefield and his work. Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, an article written by journalist Brian Deer that was published in BMJ, and an accompanying editorial by Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of BMJ, are two of the defamatory writings named in the suit.

But ignored in their witch hunt to destroy the career and life of Dr.Andrew Wakefield, who has hardly been given the chance to present his side of the story before the public. This is why many still falsely believe, for instance, that Dr.Wakefield fabricated his research data. This accusation was entirely made up by those that Dr.Wakefield is now suing — or that he is no longer a doctor just because the GMC banned him from practicing in the UK.

Such malicious slander against a man who dared to conduct honest science about a condition that afflicts more and more children every year is outrageous. But it is precisely becauseDr. Wakefield’s science conflicts with the medical status quo that the full arsenal of hatred and vilification was drawn upon to destroy him.

Vaccine studies are often funded by vaccine manufacturers. The lead authors of important studies that will be used to validate the safety or efficacy of a vaccine are often beholden to the manufacturer in some way. They may own stock in the company or are paid by the manufacturer to travel around the country promoting their vaccines. Lead authors may receive consultation fees, grants or other benefits from the drug maker. Although many people consider this unethical or corrupt, in the world of immunizations this is an acceptable practice, condoned by the CDC and FDA.

Sometimes study conclusions contradict core data in the study. It is not uncommon to read the abstract or summary of a major paper touting a vaccine’s apparent safety or benefits, only to find that upon examining the actual paper, including important details, the vaccine is shown to be dangerous and may have poor efficacy as well. For example, a landmark study published in Pediatrics [2003;112:1039-48] found that cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines “resulted in a significant positive association with tics” and “increased risks of language delay.”

Sadly, the media is reluctant to publish anything that challenges the sacrosanct vaccine program. Newspaper articles about vaccines, and reviews of vaccine studies that are published, merely mimic the original spurious conclusions.

Often, important information is missing from a study. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine [2007;356:1915-27] published a paper on the HPV vaccine. It concluded that the vaccine “was highly effective” even though data in the study showed that vaccine efficacy was just 17% against high-grade cervical lesions. However, truly vital information that would help families to make informed vaccine decisions was never mentioned in the paper.

A secret FDA study [VRBPAC Meeting: May 18, 2006] had already found that the HPV vaccine may “enhance cervical disease” in girls who are sexually active prior to vaccination. In other words, the vaccine seems to work best in virgins and may actually increase a young woman’s chance of developing cervical cancer if she was previously exposed through sexual intercourse to HPV strains included in the vaccine.

In some instances, study results may be preordained. For example, when the vaccine-autism link became a public concern, vaccine proponents hastened to produce authentic-appearing studies that contradicted genuine data. Years ago, tobacco companies used this very same ploy. They financed numerous bogus studies ostensibly “proving” that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. The real studies got lost in the muddle. Sadly, it’s all too easy to obfuscate truth and deceive the public.

Be well

Dr Sundardas