For years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has maintained that the combined influenza vaccine, which was first administered during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic flu season, is perfectly safe and actually encouraged for pregnant women. But a new study published in the journal Human and Environmental Toxicology (HET) reveals that, following the mass administration of the untested dual vaccine, which contains the mercury-based preservative Thimerosal, miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women who received it skyrocketed by an astounding 4,250 percent.
Based on information compiled from the official government Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS), which only accounts for less than 10 percent of all actual vaccine injury cases, the multiple-strain, inactivated flu vaccine containing mercury was directly responsible for triggering the 4,250 percent fetal death increase, which was seen only during the 2009 pandemic flu season. In the years before the vaccine’s administration, as well as in the years after, rates of miscarriage and stillbirth were far lower, pointing to the combined vaccine as the culprit.
According to Eileen Dannemann, Director of the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW), the CDC has continually made a conscious and willful effort to cover up this data, which shows the immense dangers of the combined flu shot, and has repeatedly lied to the public with claims that the vaccine is safe for pregnant women. The agency even went so far as to publish a fraudulent study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) that intentionally withheld critical data on the fetal death spike.
“Not only did the CDC fail to disclose the spiraling spike in fetal death reports in real time during the 2009 pandemic season as to cut the fetal losses, but also we have documented by transcript Dr. Marie McCormick, chairperson of the Vaccine Safety Risk Assessment Working Group (VSRAWG) on September 3, 2010, denying any adverse events in the pregnant population during the 2009 pandemic season,” wrote Dannemann in a letter to Dr. Joseph Mercola about her findings.
Hidden presentation slide reveals CDC knew full well about spike in fetal deaths from flu shot, deliberately tried to hide this information
Since the combined flu shot has never actually been tested for safety, especially in pregnant women, the CDC set up a mock advisory group headed by its own Dr. Marie McCormick to track all adverse events from the shot during the 2009 pandemic season. But as reported by investigative journalist Christina England over atVactruth.com, neither Dr. McCormick nor any other advisory person ever fessed up with the truth about the flu shot’s dangers, even after being confronted with incontrovertible evidence.
“The Advisory Committee on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) and CDC were confronted with the VAERS data from NCOW on September 3, 2010, in Washington, D.C., and then again by conference call on September 10, and then again in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 28, 2010,” added Dannemann in her letter. “On both September 3 and September 10, Dr. Marie McCormick clearly denied that there were any adverse events for pregnant women from the 2009 flu vaccine.”
To make matters worse, the CDC’s Dr. Tom Shimabakuru was caught lying about significant adverse reactions to the H1N1 vaccine at the October 28 presentation in Atlanta. According to England, Dr. Shimabakuru had a secret slide in his briefcase that revealed the significant uptick in fetal deaths among pregnant women who received the flu shot, but it was not included in his presentation. It was only after a member of the audience requested information on such adverse events that Dr. Shimabakuru reluctantly and nervously pulled out the slide, further revealing the CDC’s extensive efforts to conceal this important information from the public.
Be sure to read England’s full report on the issue here:
The Food and Drug Administration has just approved a device that is integrated into pills and let’s doctors know when patients take their medicine – and when they don’t. Adherence to prescriptions is a serious problem, as about half of all patients don’t take medications the way they’re supposed to. But with patients doctors now becoming big brother, that statistic could change drastically.
The device, made by Proteus Digital Health, is a silicon chip about the size of a sand particle. With no battery and no sensor, it is powered by the body itself. The chip contains small amounts of copper and magnesium. After being ingested the chip will interact with digestive juices to produce a voltage that can be read from the surface of the skin through a detector patch, which then sends a signal via mobile phone to inform the doctor that the pill has been taken. Sensors on the chip also detect heart rate and can estimate the patient’s amount of physical activity. More than just a way for doctors to look over their patients’ shoulders, it will allow doctors to better assess if a person is responding to a given dose, or if that dose needs to be adjusted.
After clinical trials that began in 2009, the FDA approval follows approval from European regulatory approval in August 2010. Right now the FDA has only approved the chip for placebo pills, which were used in trials showing the chip to be safe and highly accurate. Proteus hopes to gain approval to use the digestible chip with other medicines. Andrew Thompson, chief executive of Proteus, says the chip has already been tested with treatments for tuberculosis, mental health, heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes.
The company is currently working with makers of metformin, a drug used to treat type 2 diabetes and the most commonly prescribed drug in the world. The company also plans on adding a wireless glucose meter to their device so that dosage amount and frequency can be correlated with changes in blood glucose levels.
They would also like to digitize the drugs taken to treat neurological disorders. Disorders such as Parkinson’s Disease and Huntington’s Disease often require patients to receive drugs regularly – sometimes several times per day – and for extended periods of time. Ensuring that these patients are adhering to the prescribed regimen could greatly improve quality of life for some.
Transplant patients, who often have to take immunosuppressive drugs for long periods following surgery, could also potentially benefit from digitizing their medicine.
Ingestible body sensors have been discussed for a while now, but Proteus’ digital pills are the first ingestible sensor to be approved by the FDA, according to Nature. This first step toward regulated ingestible sensors will undoubtedly be followed by others. The Programmable Bio-Nano-Chip developed by Rice University scientists can detect heart disease or cancer from a saliva sample. If the chips were ever permanently implanted into the body, they could provide an early alarm system for these diseases long before symptoms are detected by the patient. Scientists at Tel Aviv University in Israel and Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston are developing a pill-sized robot that is remotely powered by an MRI machine to swim through the gut and look for the molecular signs of gastrointestinal cancer.
The first demonstration involved a placebo, but surely drug companies are eager to digitize their pills – and make sure patients empty out their prescriptions when they’re supposed to. Although possible, it is hard to imagine a complication would arise when the device is used with, say, Lipitor, that did not arise with the placebo. The usual FDA bottleneck could be loosened with the first incorporation into a bonafide drug.
The possible uses for ingestible sensors is as varied as the body itself. As with computer chips, ingestible chips will follow the exponential path of Moore’s Law and be able to sense more with less in the future. The FDA ruling could do much to get the technology on the fast track.
The drug industry is coming up with ever more clever ways to pump Americans full of drugs they may not need — and that may not even work.
The discovery that many people with life problems or occasional bad moods would willingly dose themselves with antidepressants sailed the drug industry through the 2000s. A good chunk of the $4.5 billion a year direct-to-consumer advertising has been devoted to convincing people they don’t have problems with their job, the economy and their family, they have depression. Especially because depression can’t be diagnosed from a blood test.
Unfortunately, three things dried up the depression gravy train for the drug industry. Blockbusters went off patent and generics took off, antidepressants were linked with gory and unpredictable violence, especially in young users and — they didn’t even work, according to medical articles!
That’s when the drug industry began debuting the concept of “treatment resistant depression.” It wasn’t that their drugs didn’t work (or you didn’t have depression in the first place), you had “treatment resistant depression.” Your first expensive and dangerous drug needed to be coupled with more expensive and dangerous drugs because monotherapy, one drug alone, wasn’t doing the trick!
You’ve got to admire the drug industry’s audacity with this upsell strategy. Adding drugs to your treatment resistant depression triples its take, patients don’t know which drug is working so they’ll take all of them and the defective drugs are exonerated! (Because the problem is you.)
Now the drug industry has a new whisper campaign to keep the antidepressant boat afloat. Your depression is “progressive.”
Once upon a time, when depression was neither seasonal, atypical, bipolar or treatment resistant, it was considered to be a self-limiting disease. In fact, just about the only good thing you could say about depression was it wouldn’t last forever.
But now, the drug industry is giving depression the don’t-wait scare treatment like coronary events (statins), asthma attacks (”controller” drugs) and thinning bones (Sally Field). If you don’t hurry and take medication, your depression will get worse!
“Depressive episodes become more easily triggered over time,” floats an article on the physician Web site Medscape (flanked by ads for the antidepressant Pristiq.) “As the number of major depressive episodes increase, the risk for subsequent episodes is predicted more from the number of prior episodes and less from the occurrence of a recent life stress.” The article, unabashedly titled “Neurobiology of Depression: Major Depressive Disorder as a Progressive Illness,” is written by Vladimir Maletic who happens to have served on Eli Lilly’s Speaker’s Bureau, says the disclosure information, and whose co-authors are each employees and/or Lilly shareholders.
On WebMD, a sister site to Medscape, the depression sell is even less subtle. An article called Recognizing the Symptoms of Depression, smothered with five ads for the Eli Lilly antidepressant, Cymbalta, submits, “Most of us know about the emotional symptoms of depression. But you may not know that depression can be associated with many physical symptoms, too.”
Depression may masquerade as headaches, insomnia, fatigue, backache, dizziness, lightheadedness or appetite problems mongers the article. “You might feel queasy or nauseous. You might have diarrhea or become chronically constipated.” And here, you thought it was something you ate!
The danger with these symptoms says the article is that you would fail to diagnose yourself as suffering from a psychiatric problem and buy an over-the-counter drug like a normal person. “Because these symptoms occur with many conditions, many depressed people never get help, because they don’t know that their physical symptoms might be caused by depression. A lot of doctors miss the symptoms, too.”
(NaturalNews) In the last year, American drug disposal programs have claimed more than 309 tons of prescription and other drugs as people turn in their unused medications. While health officials congratulate themselves on a job well done, others consider what these numbers have to say about the state of American health care - how consumerism has leaked into the pharmaceutical industry and is now running rampant.
Perhaps taking a moment to understand how large 309 tons is, will help place the issue in perspective. 309 tons is roughly the weight of 7 or 8 fully grown humpback whales. In each ton, there are over 900,000 grams, and at least that number of pills or doses, which means that over 278 million pills were turned in. That means that for every person in the nation, one dose was turned in, either to be incinerated or buried. This weight was destroyed in two National Prescription Drug Take-Back events, on October 12 of last year and just over a month ago, on April 30.
Spearheading the initiative to give Americans a way to dispose of their unused prescriptions properly, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration sponsored two National Prescription Drug Take-back Days, one in October of 2010 and another in late April of this year. They reason that excess medications are contributing to the accelerating growth of drug addiction in the US. They focus on drug addiction as the problem and how they plan on solving it, but they never mention why so many excess drugs were purchased.
If just two days of effort, which have gone largely unnoticed by the media, were able to take in that significant a figure, you can bet that we harvested just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, there is every reason to believe that multiples of that figure are sitting behind medicine cabinets across the country. Even more have most likely been flushed down toilets, contaminating the water supply.
Still, health officials are excited by the turnout and optimistic about the effect programs of this type will have on health in the US. Administer of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, Michael Leonhart, responding to the results of the second Take-Back day, said: “With the support and hard work of our local law enforcement and community partners, these events have not only dramatically reduced the risk of prescription drug diversion and abuse, but have also increased awareness of this critical public health issue.”
According to the DEA and other authorities, the main reason for Take-Back programs in the US is spurred by the skyrocketing drug abuse in the country. According to the DEA, prescription drug abuse went up 13% from 2009 to 2010 and is expected to increase at a similar rate in 2011. It is clear that the war on drugs is quickly turning into a civil war, as Americans begin to find the purchase of legal substances easier and more appealing than buying imported ‘goods.’
But while the DEA pats itself on the back, the sheer number of excess meds lying around in American homes also paints a dark picture of the American health system and begs the question: why do we have so many drugs lying around?
One could argue that people are asking for too many medications. If you flip that coin around, then you would say doctors are over prescribing. But the issue does not stop at the examination table. In fact, it is not a health issue at all. It is a business issue.
Remember the H1N1 scare in 2009, and how everyone was terrified that Swine Flu would claim thousands of lives? Plenty of doctors appeared on News channels to report the possibility of a massive outbreak and the consequent need for wide-scale vaccinations. Millions of doses were produced, and millions of dollars were given to the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the vaccine.
When it turned out that the supposed outbreak would never happen, we were left with a stack of potentially harmful vaccinations. We then had to dispose of the surplus, roughly 40 million unused H1N1 doses, amounting to more than $260 million, wasted. These and other, similar, surfeit medications were not tallied in the 309-ton figure quoted above, by the way.
Giving citizens a proper means of drug disposal is certainly a great idea. The DEA emphasizes the impact that these medications have on American youth, as there are plenty of cases when children will sneak into their parents’ medicine cabinet to take their pills. This behavior can lead to drug abuse, later in life.
Health Canada, which has had drug disposal programs in place since the 90s, takes a different stance, reporting on their website that improper disposal can pose health risks, due to contamination of the water supply.
With such a staggering number of doses of medications now in the safe keeping of either the atmosphere or deep US soil, one can see why health officials are optimistic. These pharmaceuticals have been swept cleanly, neatly, tidily under the rug.
Equally poignant is environmentally conscious response, which takes a step back to look at this pattern in the US, which indicates our vagrant consumerism is being taken advantage of, even in a place as intimate as the doctor’s office. Why would we want to continue this unsustainable cycle, of creating more drugs than we need, just to spend more money, time, and effort to destroy them?
Every month psychiatric drugs kill more than 911 (by GeorgeGreekTrucker)
People WAKE UP PLEASE
They make up syndromes disorders, .. You name it.
All for huge PROFITS and PLEASURE.
Yes, they love watching you suffer and die, taking all your money on the way.
Paxil side effects
Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: skin rash or hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat. Contact your doctor promptly if you have any of the following side effects, especially if they are new symptoms or if they get worse: mood changes, anxiety, panic attacks, trouble sleeping, irritability, agitation, aggressiveness, severe restlessness, mania (mental and/or physical hyperactivity), thoughts of suicide or hurting yourself.
Call your doctor at once if you have any of these serious side effects: * seizure (convulsions); * tremors, shivering, muscle stiffness or twitching; * problems with balance or coordination; * agitation, confusion, sweating, fast heartbeat; or * easy bruising or bleeding (such as a nosebleed).
Less serious Paxil side effects may include: * feeling nervous, restless, or unable to sit still; * drowsiness, dizziness, weakness; * sleep problems (insomnia); * nausea, constipation, loss of appetite; * weight changes; * decreased sex drive, impotence, or difficulty having an orgasm; or * dry mouth, yawning, or ringing in your ears.
This is not a complete list of side effects and others may occur. Tell your doctor about any unusual or bothersome side effect.
Has your child or grandchild suffered severe side effects from psychiatric treatment? (Like the boy put on psychotropic drugs who then lost his appetite, suffered headaches, tired easily and pleaded with his mother, Do I have to take this drug, Mom? Im smart enough on my own!)
Have you seen your child or grandchild worsen under psychiatric treatment, or suffer real harm or even death?
Psychiatry can destroy a childs education, life and future. If you have witnessed or experienced this, you are not alone. Through psychiatrys false explanations, easy-seizure (commitment) laws and depersonalizing treatments, thousands across the globe unwittingly fall into psychiatrys coercive system every day.
If your child or a child you know has been victimized by false psychiatric diagnoses such as attention deficit disorder and then forced to undergo harmful or degrading psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist, psychologist or other mental health practitioner, CCHR is willing to listen and assist you.
To protect yourself and those you love from criminal psychiatric abuse, the abuses must be reported to proper law enforcement agencies so effective action can be taken.
QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD BE REPORTED?
ANSWER: Report any crime or act which you believe endangers the health, safety and well-being of a child, family member or friend, including neglect, acts of physical or sexual assault, abusive physical or chemical restraints, false imprisonment (wrongful detention in a psychiatric facility), fraud or misdiagnosis.
QUESTION: HOW SHOULD THIS BE REPORTED?
ANSWER: Write up all known details about the abuse, including dates, places, names of psychiatrists, psychologists or others involved, ensuring patient confidentiality is respected. Send this to the nearest CCHR chapter. Following are some guidelines:
1. Provide answers to these questions:
What led to the child or other person being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, treated and/or hospitalized by a mental health practitioner?
What was the diagnosis given? Was this given after a thorough medical examination for underlying physical problems that could look like mental illness?
Was there health insurance involved? Did it seem the diagnosis was based on what insurance coverage was held? Was length of hospitalization increased or decreased based on insurance coverage?
Was full, written, informed consent given for the treatment received?
If the abuse involved physical or chemical restraints, do you know who ordered the restraints and under what circumstances?
What damage, if any, was suffered?
2. Support your information with as much documentation as possible. Remember, do not do anything illegal. Use only evidence that is acquired legally to substantiate the abuse.
3. Call CCHR at 1-(800)-869-2247 to further discuss your case and make an appointment.
All information will be held in strict confidence.
Nearly all drug trials scientifically invalid due to influence of the mind; Big Pharma science dissolves into wishful thinking
NaturalNews) A new study in Science Translational Medicine has cast doubt over the scientific validity of nearly all randomized, double-blind placebo controlled studies involving pharmaceuticals used on human beings. It turns out that many pharmaceuticals only work because people expect them to, not because they have any “real” chemical effect on the body. As you’ll see here, when test subjects were told that they were not receiving painkiller medications — even though they were — the medication proved to be completely worthless.
This particular experiment involved applying heat to the legs of test subjects in order to cause pain, then adding a painkiller medication to an IV drip while assessing the subjects’ pain levels. When the painkiller drug was present, the test subjects were told about it, and just as expected their pain scores significantly dropped. But when test subjects were told the pain medication had been stopped, their pain levels returned back to the original, non-medicated levels even though the pain medication was secretly still being dripped into their IVs.
The mind of the patient, in other words, is what actually determines the “effectiveness” of the pain drug, not the chemical effect of the drug itself.
Talking to the BBC, Professor Irene Tracey from Oxford University said, “It’s phenomenal, it’s really cool. It’s one of the best analgesics we have and the brain’s influence can either vastly increase its effect, or completely remove it.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12…).
As pointed out by George Lewith, a professor of health research at the University of Southampton, these findings call into question the scientific validity of many randomized clinical trials. He said, “It completely blows cold randomized clinical trials, which don’t take into account expectation.”
Many pharmaceuticals only work if you believe they do
What the research really means, you see, is that the mind is the main determiner of the effectiveness of many drugs, not the so-called chemical profile of the drugs themselves. This has been proven out again and again with not just painkiller drugs, but also with antidepressant drugs which have consistently failed to out-perform placebo. (http://www.naturalnews.com/022723.html)
But it all brings up a question: If many pharmaceuticals only work because the mind makes them real, then why do some drugs appear to out-perform placebo in clinical trials?
The answer to that will probably surprise you: It’s because when people are in randomized, placebo-controlled studies, they’re usually hoping to get the real drugs, not the placebo. And how do they determine whether they’re getting the “real” drugs? By the presence of negative side effects! As those side effects begin to appear — constipation, sexual disorders, nausea, headaches, etc — then those participants convince themselves that they received the “real” drugs! And from that point, their mind makes it real! So the blood pressure actually then starts to go down, or their cholesterol numbers drop, and so on.
The patients make real whatever expectation they were given when they were recruited for the drug trial in the first place. Even the act of recruiting people for drug trials sets an expectation in their minds. Patients, after all, are recruited for a “cancer drug trial” or a “blood pressure drug trial” or some other trial in which the expected outcome is made evident during the recruitment phase.
This is all really important to understand so I’m going to break it down step by step:
Why pharmaceutical “positive” effects are actually generated by the minds of the clinical trial participants:
Step 1: Clinical trial participants are recruited through a trial that is advertised as testing a drug for a particular outcome such as lowering blood pressure, halting cancer, normalizing blood sugar, etc. This sets the expectation of the drug effects in the minds of the patients even before the trial begins.
Step 2: When the trial begins, the clinical trial participants are told that half will be given the “real” drug, and the other half will be given a placebo, but it’s a blind study, so no one knows whether they’re receiving the drug or the placebo.
Step 3: Study participants begin to take the pills, but they don’t know whether they’re getting drugs or placebo.
Step 4: Those participants who are receiving the real drugs begin to show toxic side effects (because most pharmaceuticals are toxic to the body). This excites them because they conclude that they are on the “real” drugs!
Step 5: Those participants who conclude they are on the “real” drugs then, through the power of their minds, cause their bodies to make real the physiological effects that were imprinted in their minds in step one! Whatever drug expectation was explained to them before the trial, in other words, is suddenly made real by the patient’s mind.
Step 6: Meanwhile, those patients receiving the placebo pills and having no side effects convince themselves that they aren’t receiving the “real” drugs and therefore they should experience no positive physiological effects. So their mind makes that real, too, and they get no benefit from the whole experience.
Step 7: After the end of the clinical trial, the researchers compare the results of the placebo group against the results of the drug group, and guess what? The drug looks like it performed better! But was the drug the actual cause of that? Not at all: It was the expectations of the study subjects that made the effects real. The drugs, in other words, only look good as a result of wishful thinking.
As you can see here, this calls into question the scientific validity of every randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled drug study that has ever been conducted. The critical scientific failure they all share, you see, is that as part of the clinical trial, the researchers set the expectations of the drug’s results in the minds of the patients. It is those minds that then made the effects real, not necessarily the drugs.
This leads to the fascinating conclusion that in today’s medical system, many drugs may only work when patients expect them to because it is the patient’s mind creating the physiological effects, not the drug itself.
So how do you get around this and design a truly scientific trial that eliminates the effect of the mind?
How to design a truly scientific clinical trial using drugs
The answer to that is simpler than you think: In humans, you must eliminate the trial subjects from learning of any expectation of the drug’s effects. In other words, you can’t sign patients up for a “blood pressure drug trial” because right there you’ve set the expectation that the drug will lower blood pressure.
You essentially have to sign people up for a trial of a “mystery drug” with no expectation of any effects whatsoever. That way, the mind of the study participants is no longer a variable in the outcome of the drug trial. From there, all the various physiological effects of the patients must be tracked. With the patients’ minds now out of the picture, you can get an honest assessment of the genuine chemical action of the drug itself.
Why most clinical trials are scientifically invalid
It is fascinating, of course, that virtually no clinical trials are ever conducted in this way. Today’s drug trials are almost universally described to patients along with the expectations of the outcome. This has been done for decades under the false belief that the mind somehow played no role whatsoever in the physiology of the body. Conventional medical researchers and scientists incorrectly believed that chemistry alone would dictate the outcome of the trial. The mind had nothing to do with it, they claimed.
They were wrong. The mind has everything to do with it. In fact, the mind can make a placebo “real” and render a drug useless. The mind has near total control over the outcome of the trial. Because this has almost never been taken into account, all those clinical trials that ignored the influence variable of intention are, technically speaking, scientifically invalid. There’s no way to know whether the outcome of the trial was due to the drug or the mind.
And that makes the mind a variable in the scientific question of what is at work in a clinical trial. When the mind is at work, you cannot scientifically claim the achieved results were simply due to the drug itself. Unless, of course, you disavow the influence of the mind. And that is precisely the mistake that has been made since the dawn of modern medical science.
The pharmaceutical industry’s “science” falls apart in the presence of the mind
Once you understand the power of the mind to either create real physiological effects in the body or nullify the chemicals being administered to the body, you immediately grasp the stunning conclusion: Big Pharma’s “science” is not scientific!
Virtually all the results from the tens of thousands of clinical trials that have been conducted over the last several decades must now be called into question. In which trials did patients produce their own positive results simply through the power of their minds after believing that negative side effects meant they were taking the “real” drugs?
It is not a question to be taken lightly. This question, in fact, will demolish modern pharmaceutical “science” once it is fully understood. The pharmaceutical industry, you see, needs the power of the mind to make its drugs appear to work! Without the “wishful thinking” factor engaged, it is altogether likely that most pharmaceuticals simply don’t work at all.
The truth is that virtually all the effects of the most commonly prescribed pharmaceuticals — diabetes drugs, blood pressure drugs, painkillers, statin drugs and so on — can be achieved without using any drugs whatsoever. The only cause required to produce the positive effects is the expectation of positive results in the minds of the patients.
There are certainly exceptions to this, of course. Anesthesia drugs do not appear to require the active mental participation of patients in order to function as expected. Likewise, there are certainly nutrients such as vitamin D that function in a certain way in the human body regardless of whether a person “believes” in vitamin D.
The real question, you see, is what happens at the intersection of molecular biology and the expectation of the mind? Modern medical science has near-zero knowledge on that subject because it has denied the existence of the mind. Most so-called “skeptics,” for example, do not believe there is such a thing as the mind. Humans are merely biological robots, they say, and brains are mere molecular machines that carry out deterministic actions based purely on the laws of chemistry and physics. The mind, they insist, does not exist.
No wonder their clinical trials fail to take the mind into account. And that is why their clinical trials are now revealed as medical self delusion. They thought their drugs were working, but it turns out it was the patients’ minds that delivered the results.
The great censorship of the power of the mind
But don’t expect the conventional medical industry to acknowledge any of this. In order to continue its charade of “scientifically validated pharmaceuticals,” the industry must desperately seek to pretend that the mind has nothing whatsoever to do with clinical trials.
That is why the pharmaceutical industry is trying to deny the existence of the mind. It’s why medical journals are reluctant to publish studies that invoke the power of the mind, and it’s why medical schools refuse to teach medical students about mind-body medicine.
The placebo effect — perhaps the single most powerful tool for healing — is utterly discarded as worthless by the entire medical profession!
The mind is so powerful that it can render drugs obsolete. When doctors truly understand and are able to harness the power of the mind, they won’t need routine pharmaceuticals. They will only need to empower patients with the factually correct belief that they have the power to heal within them, and chemical drugs have only been symbolic metaphorical chemicals that allowed the mind to believe healing was taking place.
This is a cultural issue, of course. The culture of our modern world is one of reductionism. Western science refutes the power of the mind and denies individuals the power to heal. Healing must come from external intervention, we are taught: through chemicals, radiation or surgery.
In a parallel world, with the exact same biology, consciousness and environment, another race of human-like creatures might have chosen a different path — the path of patient empowerment where doctors are mere guides who teach patients how to heal themselves. Healing is a personal art, done from the inside out, not through dangerous chemical interventions. All that is necessary for this parallel world to become a reality is a shift in the beliefs of the people. When society accepts as real the power of the mind, it suddenly becomes believable to the weak-minded masses who always look to figures of authority to tell them what’s real.
But the deeper truth of the matter is that what’s real is what you make real. Your mind, all by itself, can alter your physiology, neutralize toxic drugs, halt pain and probably even achieve other seemingly miraculous feats such as re-growing lost limbs. What’s necessary to get there isn’t technology but rather belief in the ability of the mind to shape the outcome of the body.
It is especially fascinating that this is no longer merely new age talk: It is the scientifically validated conclusion of rigorous studies involving patient expectations. Now, the interaction of the body and the mind IS the new science!