Showing posts with label alias no identity Costner Matthews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alias no identity Costner Matthews. Show all posts

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Reply to: Autism Linked to Inherited Gene Mutations

Reply to: Autism Linked to Inherited Gene Mutations

Here is again the reply sent to this referenced to blog, and again it will not be published because it is to much truth, just like again the blog page before that. He never could stand up to me ever one on one, and that is the reason he created the blog he did, with not his name in the url, but my name. At least I fearlessly put my name right out into the public light for the past three years; unlike people like this which make up false excuses and must hide their identity. If he was anything near being credible, he would stand up lie a real man and put his information front and center for the world to see; wouldn't you think? What does that tell you about the agenda going on? That's right, it is what you see it is.

Here is a copy of the reply that was sent.

  Another in denial and intellectually dishonest blog, by alias no identity Costner. And with again that hateful and all to typical personal attack, based in every blog page. Your really looking good, don't you think? LOL.

Lets take a look at those studies.

Excerpted from the said blogs linked to article.

[At least 14 to 15 percent of children with autism will have some form of these identified gene mutations, said Geshwind.But the findings won't necessarily tell parents much. While having the mutation may increase the risk of autism, it doesn't necessarily mean the child will develop the disorder. The findings also can't tell researchers how severe a child's autism will be.]

Excerpted from the first study.

[Specifically, the frequency and distribution of these mutations have not been well characterized in matched unaffected controls, and such data are vital to the interpretation of de novo coding mutations observed in probands]

Here we show, using whole-exome sequencing of 928 individuals, including 200 phenotypically discordant sibling pairs, that highly disruptive (nonsense and splice-site) de novo mutations in brain-expressed genes are associated with autism spectrum disorders and carry large effects. On the basis of mutation rates in unaffected individuals, we demonstrate that multiple independent de novo single nucleotide variants in the same gene among unrelated probands reliably identifies risk alleles, providing a clear path forward for gene discovery. Among a total of 279 identified de novo coding mutations, there is a single instance in probands, and none in siblings, in which two independent nonsense variants disrupt the same gene, SCN2A (sodium channel, voltage-gated, type II,  subunit), a result that is highly unlikely by chance.]

Excerpted from the second study

[Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are believed to have genetic and environmental origins, yet in only a modest fraction of individuals can specific causes be identified1, 2. To identify further genetic risk factors, here we assess the role of de novo mutations in ASD by sequencing the exomes of ASD cases and their parents (n = 175 trios). Fewer than half of the cases (46.3%) carry a missense or nonsense de novo variant, and the overall rate of mutation is only modestly higher than the expected rate. In contrast, the proteins encoded by genes that harboured de novo missense or nonsense mutations showed a higher degree of connectivity among themselves and to previous ASD genes3 as indexed by protein-protein interaction screens. The small increase in the rate of de novo events, when taken together with the protein interaction results, are consistent with an important but limited role for de novo point mutations in ASD, similar to that documented for de novo copy number variants. Genetic models incorporating these data indicate that most of the observed de novo events are unconnected to ASD; those that do confer risk are distributed across many genes and are incompletely penetrant (that is, not necessarily sufficient for disease). Our results support polygenic models in which spontaneous coding mutations in any of a large number of genes increases risk by 5- to 20-fold. Despite the challenge posed by such models, results from de novo events and a large parallel case–control study provide strong evidence in favour of CHD8 and KATNAL2 as genuine autism risk factors.]

The second study as well seems to contradict the solid nature of the study that the first one eluded to. Again, while their data is at best quite inconclusive, that past that off in their conclusion as highly indicative of a link in causation.

As well in their statement that at least 14 to 15 percent of children with autism will have some form of these identified gene mutations; then even if one day the finding is more conclusive on a larger scale, that does not and has not yet linked any common findings for the other 85% of the autistic! Looks like you have a LONG way to go, to ever even begin to make the claim that you have, whihc was exactly this. [However these studies do show us a link, and finding more and more of these links coupled with determining other risk factors can lead us to the true cause somewhere down the road.]

If call that proving or showing a link or any link, then you are a delusional as the authors of those two studies, who like you, have clearly a vested interest in accusing any cause but vaccines. nature as well is not a nature publication nor anything even related to it, it is clearly a pharma connected journal I have seen articles from many times before.

I can show you a horror story list of recent scientific studies that far far more conclusively link autism to vaccines, than you can come up with any study at all, to dig yourself out of that information, in a month of Sundays, Costner! You know they are there, because you clearly directed to that and linked and referenced to them. it is quite all to obviously YOU that needs to start to pay attention to that research and modify their hypothesis. It, and as to that information and the science is as well far past the hypothesis state, in any rational and honest mind, alias no identity Costner!

Antivaxxers are nothing if not consistently misleading and flat-out dishonest???? Really? How is that? You have no science that even actually supports a hypothesis that genes of any kind are responsible for the major increase in autism; which you also denied that actual increase, in your previous blog page. The hypothesis in those two studies is so extremely weak it is pathetic that they would even promote that as the definitive cause of autism. Where is the proof as well that even if that gene is correctly identified, that the gene itself is solely responsible for autism, and the now known major increases in autism, and that nothing else triggers it? And yet it was as said only found in 15% of the autistic? Keep digging Costner, this blog page would be nearly hilarious, if the issue of autism was was not so serious.

The rate of autism going from 1 in 10,000 pre 1987 and the enactment of no federal liability act and the major increase in vaccines, to now rate of 1 in 88; is all due to a major shift in the gene pool of humanity??? And you specifically name me and have the hateful audacity to claim - Antivaxxers are nothing if not  consistently misleading and flat-out dishonest??? Wow. Another page filled with denial of all, imagine that, and a personal attack to go with it.

How many pages does that make now, of your personal obsession with me and the information I put out there? 80 plus? Thanks to the now 100 years misinformation and lies fed to us by the likes of modern chemicalized medicine, people like you are what they created. By the way; did you ever fully comprehend that (the) soil and the seed concept? That's what I thought. People with for one reason or the other far to much to lose to ever admit the truth, nor do they now have the ability to face the truth.

Don't have facts, proof, nor any science, alias Costner? 

What's this????


You just hate it when I do that, don"t yaa!!!!

As a final thought specifically on this said replied to blog page, I found an additional interesting commentary I will provide here.


Gene Mutation Risk for Autism --5% to 20%

If rare gene mutations are suspected to be the cause of  5% to, at most, 20%  autism, it leaves the most important questions unanswered:
What about the cause of autism in 80%  (possibly 95%) of autistic children unanswered?

To date, only the MMR vaccine and mercury in vaccines have been studied.

With so many millions of children affected by autism--and the spiraling increase in that number--shouldn't scientists take seriously the eye witness reports by thousands of parents who blame vaccines for triggering autistic spectrum in their previously healthy children?

There is a pressing need to examine without prejudice whether the vaccine-autism association is valid by comparing  autism (and other health) outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children.

Why is such an obviously necessary research approach so contentious and, therefore, neglected?

Whose financial investments are threatened by an analysis of data comparing the health of children vaccinated with those not vaccinated?

Read more;
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/841/9/

And here are a few more studies you can kick around in your head, Costner.

All that chemicalized pharma science is all good, right, Costner. All of it has followed the scientific method?

How does this happen then? Must of been all the corrupt multiple end point studies, got em confused?
Has pharma ever published a negative study on anything? No? Looks like they should have had a few? In the last 100 years, what have they accomplished for real cures??? How many times have they actually outlined the real cause of any chronic condition?  Make a list in your next blog page.

Vitamin D

What Type of Vitamin D Supplement is Best? - Video

Early Vaccines for Babies are Useless - Video

Prescription drugs kill one person every 19 minutes

Prescription Drugs Kill One Person Every 19 Minutes

http://www.ihealthtube.com Dr. Joel Wallach says that there are many cures for diseases and conditions available, but they're not available. Dr. Wallach illustrates why this is and what needs to happen to allow certain cures to become mainstream.

Related article...

The Quiet Epidemic: prescription drug abuse destroys millions of lives

Death by Medicine

Most Astonishing Health Disaster of the 20th Century


Death By Doctor

Why Aren't Cures Readily Available?

Brain Inflammation Found in Autism - Study findings may reinforce immune system link.

Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations

The spectrum of ASIA: ‘Autoimmune (Auto-inflammatory) Syndrome induced by Adjuvants’

Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality (2012)

Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity 

(Do your next blog page on that study, Costner; its far more important than the stuff you are wasting your time on).

Conclusions: SignificanceSystemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host's immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system's self-organized criticality.


Seventeen scientific references as to the harm of HPV vaccination, and as well as to the aluminum adjuvant connection.

More studies here: 


  Vaccines - The Risks, The Benefits, The Choices [complete], Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

              

Monday, October 25, 2010

Response to: Lowell Hubbs Quote of the Day

Response to: Lowell Hubbs Quote of the Day
                                                                                                  
And Costner has had this information below right in front of him the whole time and intentionally ignored it?

Modern Medicine (so called), and Vaccine Truth
www.vacfacts.info

Here are Costners statements, and numbers from the CDC website.

“How credible is anything you are told by people in that medical field, when modern medicine is one of the leading causes of death in America. They have all been brainwashed, just like you. Any doctor that speaks out is sytematically [sic] destroyed; it is just a fact.” ~Lowell K. Hubbs

Well there you have it.  Of course don't bother asking Lowell to prove that modern medicine is one of the leading causes of death in America, because he will point you to his personal website as evidence.
 
However, for those of us interested in real facts supported by science, here is a complete listing of the most common causes of death in the US.


•         Heart disease: 616,067
•         Cancer: 562,875
•         Cancer: 562,875
•         Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
•         Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
•         Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
•         Diabetes: 71,382
•         Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
•         Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
•         Septicemia: 34,828

Complete table with source documentation can be found here.

Then Costner goes on to make this statement right here.

So apparently if you die of a medical condition, Lowell believes that is the fault of modern medicine. That makes perfect sense.  Of course any doctor who dares speak out against the medical establishment is "sytematically [sic] destroyed", and those that don't speak out are simply "brainwashed".  I guess that is rather convenient, but in reality such a statement with no supporting evidence is what we call a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory? Pay attention here Costner, apparently I have to rub your nose in this again! You are not even referencing to the correct study information. How can you do any form of evaluation of the situation, when you ignore the right data to evaluate the said claim with?

The study and the numbers come right from the AMA Journal. Of course since 2000, they have made that abstract and the study a dead link on their site; imagine that. What did they have and decided they needed to hide??? To much truth?

Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Killing 225,000 People Every Year, Jul 30, 2000
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/01/15/doctors-drugs-part-two.aspx


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/medical-mistakes-part-three.aspx


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/26/prescription-drugs-number-one-cause-preventable-death-in-us.aspx

Medical Errors - A Leading Cause of Death

The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.

However, we can clearly see what was in that study when we go here below to an interview with Dr Barbara Starfield.

MEDICALLY CAUSED DEATH IN AMERICA

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock to the system, when one of its most respected and honored public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America.

The landmark Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came to the following conclusions:

Every year in the US there are:

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries; 
7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals; 
20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals; 
80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals; 
106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.
The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.

Obviously, YOU can not even do nor comprehend the most basic math, Costner!!!

Now look at your numbers Costner? 225,000 fits right between,  Heart disease: 616,067 Cancer; 562,875 Chronic; and Lower respiratory diseases: 127,924; making that, (by the study figures), the third leading cause of death in the US! Now, this is 2012; do you think those numbers have become worse, or better? Nothing has changed, nor promoted any change, so obviously it could not ever actually get better. And the FDA is still the corrupt revolving door with the pharma industry, that silences any whistle blowers, and they all know that their jobs depend on not being in disagreement and rocking that boat.

This makes the medical system in that year 2000, the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer. Face it.

Now, lets go to another study in the year 2004, showing so called modern medicine to be the first and leading cause of death in the US!  Take a look at the numbers.

Modern Health Care System is the Leading Cause of Death, Part I, Jul 7, 2004

Excerpts:



One of the most prominent articles on this site is Doctors are the Third Leading Cause of Death . Well that article was written in 2000 and now it appears that, based on a variety of references noted in the below article, some from prior to 2000 some after, the conventional medical system in fact the LEADING cause of death in this country. Not heart disease, not cancer--doctors. In all fairness, doctors themselves are not to blame for all of this. The entire modern health care system, however, is responsible for allowing, even promoting, so many unnecessary procedures, drugs and mishaps. This illustrates precisely why the system is so desperately in need of change, and why facilitating this change is, and will continue to be, such a substantial portion of my vision .


By Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD


A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. 1 Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics. 2, 2a


The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million. 3 The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million. 4 The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths shown in the following table is 783,936.


It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251. 5


Check out the graph on the site page referenced:


Adverse Drug Reactions 106,000  
Medical error 98,000   
Bedsores 115,000  
Infection 88,000  
Malnutrition 108,800  
Outpatients 199,000  
Unnecessary Procedures 37,136  
Surgery-Related  32,000
 
TOTAL           783,936 (cost) $282 billion


Remember this number from above? Heart disease: 616,067 (it is simple math, alias no identity, Costner)!


We could have an even higher death rate by using Dr. Lucien Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million. 14 Multiplied by the fatality rate of 14 percent (that Leape used in 1994 16 we arrive at an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. If we put this number in place of Lazorou's 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 98,000 medical errors, we could add another 216,000 deaths making a total of 999,936 deaths annually.

Read more:

Modern Medicine (so called), and Vaccine Truth

More relevant excerpts from the previous, year 2000 era study:

The Starfield study is the most explosive revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published.  The credentials of its author and the journal in which it appeared are, within the highest medical circles, impeccable.    

Yet, on the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, although media reporting was extensive, it soon dwindled.  No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation.  Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, it seemed that those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this mind-boggling situation preferred to ignore it.        

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000? 

My papers on the benefits of primary care have been widely used, including in Congressional testimony and reports. However, the findings on the relatively poor health in the US have received almost no attention. The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame? 

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it.  He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).  They, of course, would like an even greater share of the pie than they now have, for training more specialists.  (Of course, the problem is that we train specialists—at great public cost—who then do not practice up to their training—they spend half of their time doing work that should be done in primary care and don’t do it as well.)

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into a untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir?  I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later!  The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Do medical schools in the US, and intern/residency programs in hospitals, offer significant “primary care” physician training and education?

NO. Some of the most prestigious medical teaching institutions do not even have family physician training programs [or] family medicine departments. The federal support for teaching institutions greatly favors specialist residencies, because it is calculated on the basis of hospital beds. [Dr. Starfield has done extensive research showing that family doctors, who deliver primary care—as opposed to armies of specialists—produce better outcomes for patients.]

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies.  Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?
I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.

Has anyone from the FDA, since 2000, contacted you about the statistical findings in your JAMA paper?

NO. Please remember that the problem is not only that some drugs are dangerous but that many drugs are overused or inappropriately used.  The US public does not seem to recognize that inappropriate care is dangerous—more does not mean better.  The problem is NOT mainly with the FDA but with population expectations.

… Some drugs are downright dangerous; they may be prescribed according to regulations but they are dangerous.

Concerning the national health plan before Congress—if the bill is passed, and it is business as usual after that, and medical care continues to be delivered in the same fashion, isn’t it logical to assume that the 225,000 deaths per year will rise?

Probably—but the balance is not clear. Certainly, those who are not insured now and will get help with financing will probably be marginally better off overall.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates.  Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

106,000 people die as a result of CORRECTLY prescribed medicines.  I believe that was your point in your 2000 study.  Overuse of a drug or inappropriate use of a drug would not fall under the category of “correctly prescribed.”  Therefore, people who die after “overuse” or “inappropriate use” would be IN ADDITION TO the 106,000 and would fall into another or other categories.    

‘Appropriate’ means that it is not counter to regulations.  That does not mean that the drugs do not have adverse effects.

Some comments from the interviewer:

I’m aware there are reports, outside the mainstream, which conclude far more than 225,000 people in the US die every year as a result of medical treatment.  For example, see the work of Carolyn Dean, Trueman Tuck, Gary Null, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio, Dorothy Smith.

This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.

Yes, many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs.  The buck stops there.  If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable.  The American people must understand that.

As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions.  Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.

It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings.  If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?

To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.

Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for nine years.  She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever.  In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale.  And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.

In these times, medical schools continue turning out a preponderance of specialists who then devote themselves to promoting the complexities of human illness and massive drug treatment.  Whatever the shortcomings of family doctors, their tradition speaks to less treatment, more common sense, and a proper reliance on the immune systems of patients.

The pharmaceutical giants stand back and carve up the populace into “promising markets.”  They seek new disease labels and new profits from more and more toxic drugs.  They do whatever they can—legally or illegally—to influence doctors in their prescribing habits.  Some drug studies which show negative results are buried.  FDA panels are filled with doctors who have drug-company ties.  Legislators are incessantly lobbied and supported with pharma campaign monies.

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians.  Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is good, whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies.  These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent or, at the very least, massively incompetent.  In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

At the same time, without evidence, doctors off-handedly tout their work with great confidence.  Some years ago, a resident at a major New York hospital harangued me about the primacy of controlled studies.  She boasted, in passing, that the hospital’s heart-bypass surgery team was considered the best in the city, and one of the best in the country.  I asked her for a reference.  Was her statement a combination of folk-wisdom and rumor, or was there a proper study that confirmed her opinion?  A bit chagrined, she admitted it was hearsay.  I was sure she would repeat her tune, however, many times.

Claiming evidence where there is none, and denying the evidence that the medical system does great harm, are apparently part of the weave of the modern Hippocratic Oath.

JON RAPPOPORT
--------------------

Milbank Q. 1998;76(4):517-63, 509.
How good is the quality of health care in the United States?
Schuster MA, McGlynn EA, Brook RH.

RAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 

Abstract
Studies over the past decade show that some people are receiving more care than they need, and some are receiving less. Simple averages from a number of studies indicate that 50 percent of people received recommended preventive care; 70 percent, recommended acute care; 30 percent, contraindicated acute care; 60 percent, recommended chronic care; and 20 percent, contraindicated chronic care. These studies strongly suggest that the care delivered in the United States often does not meet professional standards. Efforts to measure quality and report routinely on the results to the public at large would allow more definitive assessments of the status of the nation's health care and would enable us to single out the areas in need of improvement.
PMID: 9879302 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline in Mortality. This study has never been refuted. Check out where it was done.
http://links.jstor.org/pss/3349539
http://www.ppge.ufrgs.br/giacomo/arquivos/eco02072/mckinlay-mckinlay-1977.pdf

Shattering the false philosophy and junk science of conventional medicine.
These articles below as well show that the real numbers are likely to be MUCH higher than being the third leading cause!
So apparently if you die of a medical condition, Lowell believes that is the fault of modern medicine. That makes perfect sense.  Of course any doctor who dares speak out against the medical establishment is "systematically [sic] destroyed", and those that don't speak out are simply "brainwashed".  I guess that is rather convenient, but in reality such a statement with no supporting evidence is what we call a conspiracy theory.

SOMETHING is way wrong with you Costner! Is your comprehension of reality and the actual reference materials, that bad?

--------------------

Lets go now to another claim you made on your said blog page!!!!

Here is a quotation of the rest of Costners claims on this particular blog page he created and titled, Lowell Hubbs Quote of the Day.

So apparently if you die of a medical condition, Lowell believes that is the fault of modern medicine. That makes perfect sense.  Of course any doctor who dares speak out against the medical establishment is "sytematically [sic] destroyed", and those that don't speak out are simply "brainwashed".  I guess that is rather convenient, but in reality such a statement with no supporting evidence is what we call a conspiracy theory.

The reality of the situation is that countless doctors do speak out against medical techniques, drug interactions, process errors and numerous other medical issues each and every day.  This is what helps to keep medicine evolving and what helps to develop newer and better treatments. 

Case in point, when doctors and researchers started realizing that there were problems with Vioxx, did they get ostracized from the medical community for speaking out?  No they didn't, and in fact it led to an FDA investigation, the drug being pulled from the market, and eventually billions of dollars (yes that is billions with a "b") worth of fines and settlements being paid by Merck.

Yet throughout all of the process, not a single doctor or researcher lost his or her job or was in any way harmed by voicing their opinion that was a direct assault against one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on the planet.

I guess not everyone in the medical community is as brainwashed as Mr. Hubbs would have us believe.

Well Costner, again it is you that has been brainwashed, and again it is you that does not have your facts straight. In fact your claims made are entirely false in the above referenced section.

In fact Costner, the FDA had nothing to do with the pulling of Vioxx from the market. I will show you the proof as this page progresses. It took major lawsuits, a second failed clinical trial, and the FDA clearly did not do their job in this matter.

The Facts and The Time Line as to Vioxx; from a large legal firm. 

What Merck Knew About Vioxx Side Effects, (be sure to read number 43, as well, as to your claims that no doctor nor scientist was attacked nor lost their job).



The FDA Exposed: An Interview With Dr. David Graham, the Vioxx Whistleblower
Clearly attacked, for the truth as well.
http://www.naturalnews.com/011401.html

# 20. In September 2001, the American Heart Association, the National Stroke Association and the Arthritis Foundation asked Merck to test whether Vioxx increased the risk of heart attack and stroke. (There was a second clinical trial).

This process that you claim exists right here; in your below quoted and italicized paragraph; I would challenge you to provide some proof for that, and in any major way?

The reality of the situation is that countless doctors do speak out against medical techniques, drug interactions, process errors and numerous other medical issues each and every day.  This is what helps to keep medicine evolving and what helps to develop newer and better treatments.

Indeed as well, when we are talking about alternative cancer cures, with a natural basis to it, or natural healing of any condition and within the self healing body that does exist, given the right means; we are talking about entirely differant issues than what you have referenced to in these (your) said blog claim statements. Natural means to heal is an entirely differant subject than is drug interactions and the issues you referenced to in the above italicized paragraph. Even those statements are clearly baseless and you have nothing to base that on. Do you work as a doctor, or around doctors that would make it even possible for you to make these said claims; I doubt it! If those claims were fact, and if that system were so effective at producing the outcomes you claim it has as well Vioxx would never have become the large issue of damage and death that it did!

Your referenced and italicized statement below:

Case in point, when doctors and researchers started realizing that there were problems with Vioxx, did they get ostracized from the medical community for speaking out?  No they didn't, and in fact it led to an FDA investigation, the drug being pulled from the market, and eventually billions of dollars (yes that is billions with a "b") worth of fines and settlements being paid by Merck.

This is what helps to keep medicine evolving and what helps to develop newer and better treatments.

In your above statements you obviously conclude that the FDA was responsible in some way for the removal of Vioxx from the market. The FDA did not in fact remove that drug from the market, and they clearly should have long before Merck did it themselves! Obviously these major drug companies have to be forced to do what should be done, under the weight of what would be the twin towers, or nothing gets done; when there is that much money to be made. And you are going to still make the claim that modern medicine has all the real science, done under the (that) scientific method? That is some amazing selective ignornace you have going on! 

What happens when any doctor speaks out about vaccines, or if they were to speak out about the ineffective means to cure cancer based on proven natural therapies and protocols. You are going to claim that doctor would never be attacked nor silenced? It would be and has been career suicide, and you know it. Wakefield was one good example, amoung many.

Now moving on to the issue of your claim that the doctor report systems in place and the FDA were responsible for the removal of Vioxx from the market. Again refer to the above timeline; that certainly does not appear to be the case.


Did you know that Merck then also turned around and produced the dangerous and fast tracked vaccine Gardasil as well? Some system of protection they have.

The Tragic Truth behind the Gardasil Nightmare http://www.naturalnews.com/025613_cancer_HPV_cervical.html


Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science; thousands of clinical trials invalidated.  [And even Mercks Gardasil never used a true placebo in their clinical trials, they used an aluminum, and a carrier solution placebo].


Educate yourself to the FACTS! I thought you stated Costner, that there was never any doctor that lost their job for speaking out about Vioxx. What a delusional world you live in Costner. You were wrong - here as well!

Silencing public health advocates: Outspoken Vioxx critic loses job after testimony against Merck in federal trial.

Merck litigation strategy - destroy expert witnesses.

Merck employees had "hit list" of doctors they sought to "neutralize", court documents reveal.

Merck caught in scandal to bury Vioxx heart attack risks, intimidate scientists and keep pushing dangerous drugs; Vioxx lawsuits now forminghttp://www.naturalnews.com/002155_Merck_Vioxx.html

Vioxx Reapproved by FDA Panel Members With Ties to Drug Companies http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/03/02/vioxx-fda.aspx

Now we can see how bad it actually has to get before a major drug on the market is actually pulled from the market. What about vaccines?

Top 10 vaccine stories of the year (so far).

And as said, the FDA still did not pull the drug Vioxx. Merck company was forced to due to do that, due the lawsuits and due to the failure of second necessary clinical trial on the drug Vioxx, etc. Again read the timeline of events above!
If the FDA is doing its job, then how does all this linked to below... happen? And even when they found out the truth, the FDA still did NOT pull Vioxx from the market. The FDA is clearly in bed with the pharmaceutical industry; they do not actually protect the public, they protect large profitable pharmaceutical corporations. It is often a revolving door of employment; to even include ties to the CDC.

Former head of CDC lands lucrative job as president of Merck vaccine division.


$30 Billion Vioxx Recall -- The Dangers, Powerful Lessons & Safe Alternatives that Eve.

http://search.mercola.com/Results.aspx?k=vioxx

Leaked documents show Merck knew of Vioxx dangers, yet hid them for years.

http://www.naturalnews.com/010613.html

Merck Caught in Massive Scientific Fraud as In-House Authors were Disguised as Independent Scientists (opinion).

http://www.naturalnews.com/023052_Merck_scientific_fraud.html

Merck Sat on Data Showing Vioxx Risks for Years Before Pulling Drug

http://www.naturalnews.com/027946_Merck_Vioxx.html

Merck's Vioxx scandal widens: Drug maker knew Vioxx was deadly for years before risk was made public

http://www.naturalnews.com/027582_Merck_Vioxx.html

The FDA obviously can provide the services needed, unless it had unbiased oversight that can not be intimidated, or removed for making solid and publicized disagreement.

Liver-Damaging Effects of Cholesterol Drug Zetia Hidden by Merck, FDA Documents Reveal.

http://www.naturalnews.com/024072_Zetia_studies_Merck.html

Natural News.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/Vioxx.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=vioxx&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=34&sa.y=13#976

And yet again they were allowed to make Gardasil, and that nightmare the FDA will not and still refuses to come to terms with as well.
 

Merck is not the only pharmaceutical company to be fined for its corruption!
http://www.naturalnews.com/corruption.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=phara+corruption&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8#1337

http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=drug+copany+corruption&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8#1338

http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=phara+corruption&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8#1393

 http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=drug+copany+corruption&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8#1396

More Vaccine Insanity.
Hepatitis B Vaccine: Good for 'Newborn' Prostitutes and Drug Users, but Who Else?
http://www.naturalnews.com/023610_hepatitis_B_vaccination.html

MICHAEL BELKIN'S WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS, (on the insanity of injecting hepatitis B vaccine in an hours old infant).   (PART 1)       
Tuesday May 18, 1999

http://www.compleatmother.com/belkin_1.htm

Hepatitis B Vaccine
http://www.thinktwice.com/hepb.htm

Mindless Vaccination Bureaucracy
By Michael Belkin

http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Hepatitis-B/fatherstory.aspx


VAERS ANALYSIS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)

Excerpts:

The total 24,775 VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31, 1998 show 439 deaths and 9673 serious reactions involving emergency room visits, hospitalization, disablement or death. Therefore, more than one third of total reports were serious events. 17,497 of those total reports were for hepatitis B vaccine only, the remainder were vaccine cocktails where hepatitis B was administered along with DPT, HIB, IPV, OPV, etc.

The hepatitis-B-vaccine-only reports show a shocking cluster of reactions in females starting in their teenage years (the male/female reporting ratio is balanced before age 16).

Read the entire article here.http://alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/belkin.htm


FRANCE STOPS VACCINATING CHILDREN WITH HEPATITIS B
15,000 French citizens filed a lawsuit against the French government for understating the risks and overstating the benefits associated with the hepatitis B vaccine. Hundreds of people were reported to have suffered from auto immune and neurological disorders, including multiple sclerosis, following hepatitis B vaccination. As a result, in October 1998, the French Minister of Health ended the mandatory hepatitis B vaccination program for all school children.
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/hep-b.htm

Guess who also makes a hepatitis b vaccine?

HEPATITIS B VACCINE (RECOMBINANT)
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/r/recombivax_hb/recombivax_pi.pdf

Oh the FDA and the CDC are the best, they have ALL the science... Costner! Don't be looking at any of those what you claim are nut job conspiracy theory sites!!!! The information you claim are UFO and tin foil hat conspiracy theory sites. If you admit the truth you might have to stop supporting your mission of lies, personal attacks on all people and alternative sources of information; (simply as well claiming they sell something) and as well your promotion of the mainstream - - misinformation!

What a mislead stooge. What are you falsely protecting Costner, and why? With what you have been shown endlessly you should know by now that if you are honest, I can shove you right back down the hole you always came out of; and with with the real facts.

http://www.lowellsfacts.com/

F.D.A. Reviews Arthritis Drugs for Links to Cancer

Excerpt:

Since the drugs block part of the immune system, it has always been known that they might contribute to higher risk of cancers and also infections. The labels for the drugs all contain warnings to that effect -- particularly about the risk of lymphomas, which are cancers of immune system cells.

[My note: The Immune System is what keeps all cancers in check, something the mainstream circles refuse to acknowlege. The human body makes cancer cells every day. Gee I wonder why anyone would want to investigate proven natural protocols that get to the actual cause instead of just manage the symptoms?

The pharmacuetical world of drugs is just riddled with endless unknown situations such as these, as to adverse effect of their drugs.]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E5D6103DF936A35755C0A96E9C8B63

Bechamp or Pasteur: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology (Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/Bechamp-Pasteur-Chapter-History-Biology/dp/1564599272

Bechamp's science and the microzymas.
http://www.squidoo.com/bechamp#module11271810

Professor Antoine Bechamp (1816-1908)
http://www.squidoo.com/bechamp

BIOLOGICAL TERRAIN VS THE GERM THEORY
http://thehealthadvantage.com/biologicalterrain.html

DARK FIELD(LIVE BLOOD CELL) MICROSCOPY
http://www.aquatechnology.net/darkfield.html

DISEASE UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSE.
http://chiropracticresearch.org/NEWS_disease.htm

Gee Costner, maybe you should have gone to whale.to... after all??? All of it as far as modern medicine and vaccines is pretty much irrefutable and it contains as well the real historical record that has been deleted from the text books. Pretty hard to believe isn't it! Those are the facts, like it or not.

Antoine Bechamp, Pleomorphism, Disease Theory.
http://www.whale.to/v/bechamp1.html

The Lost History of Medicine.
http://www.whale.to/a/lost_history_of_medicine.html

The Drug Story: By Hans Ruesch
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/rockefeller-drug-empire-story.html



Modern (so called) Medicine, and Vaccine Truth
www.vacfacts.info





Saturday, October 23, 2010

Response to: Chiropractors Admit Their Treatments Are Based On False And Outdated Beliefs

This is a response to the below linked to blog page.

In this blog Costner makes all sorts of wild claims that I have supported chiropractic as being a preferred and viable treatment for anything from autism, asthma; to you name it. He generalizes that all the claims he claims to have heard that chiropractors have made to that, that I support the same, just because I support chiropractic treatment in general. 

Lying, twisted statements, making things up as he goes; all true to form for Costner anywhere he posts anything. Chiropractic does help keep the body in optimum working condition, and that does effect overall health. There is no doubt. And I will reference some studies. But he would have us believe that we are a bunch of mislead stooges, and that when in need, filling our bodies full of pharmaceutical drugs and endless vaccines is the better answer. He doesn't want anything competing or making modern medicine look bad; so he even went to the lengths to claim that massage therapy and physical therapy are equally effective. Well, that depends on what type of, or specific condition you are referring to. I can tell you as fact that although massage therapy is good, and I have been to both; it does not correct the problems that chiropractic does. Experiencing that is believing, as well. I have met people as well that had no real relief after an accident, from modern medicines physical therapy; and did not get relief and healing until they went to a good chiropractor!!! Then it was, "I have never felt better"! 

Now, when you add to your chiropractic practice information for your patients in seminar form such as Maximized Living Chiropractors do, then you have the whole package of health care and preventative care. Things like detox, correct exercise, proper diet and eliminating sugar and junk food; anything with a label that has refined ingredients and chemicals you can barely pronounce. There is a whole new protocol there depending on how far you want to go, and where you need to go.    

Chiropractors Admit Their Treatments Are Based On False And Outdated Beliefs


Excerpts from Costners blog, discrediting chiropractic.

However, for those of us who don't wish to remain blinded by ignorance, there is a growing mountain of evidence which continues to show chiropractic care for what it is... nothing more than a modern version of snake-oil.


Ok, so prove that; where is that mountain of evidence, as I can show you a mountain of proof that you are flat out lying!

In any case the article that references these developments can be found here and the published article that appears in the journal of Chiropractic and Osteopathy appears here. Although both the article and the paper itself are informative, here are a few highlights: (two links in it).

And exactly what is in (Costner's) links? Lets take a look. The first one goes directly to an article put forth by Gorski, at his (Not so) Science Based Medicine - site. Dr. David Gorski is also the author of the blog known as Orac; which has major similarities to Quackwatch, a pharma front that also bashes anything that is within the realm of alternative medicine, protocols, and related information. In other words these people have a mission to bash anything but the sheeple blind promotion of modern medicines goals of retaining false allopathic superiority, no matter what.

Orac the Nipple Ripper...references Dr. David H. Gorski as (a.k.a. Orac),

Costner's said reference evaluation article, from of the Journal of Chiropractic and Osteopathy article is here - below.

Chiropractors Admit Their Treatments Are Based On False And Outdated Beliefs.

So, here we have Costner ridiculing me for using whale.to which is comparatively a small part of what is on my website, www.lowellsfacts.com Yet he goes straight to the same author as the infamous Orac for his evaluations of so called science. And by the way there is absolutely nothing wrong with the vaccination and modern medicine truth information on whale.to Costner can not refute any of it, and all the medical sheeple that have reviewed it, know that, or they would have attempted to. They scoff at the truths they can not deny.

In the very first article paragraph of Costners evaluation of the study article, it makes this false statement below:

An article written by 4 chiropractors and published on December 2, 2009 in the journal Chiropractic and Osteopathy may have sounded the death knell for chiropractic. 


The End of Chiropractic.(The original stated Gorski article).

David H. Gorski, MD, PhD – Managing Editor 

Respectful Insolence, (also the editor is the same Dr. David Gorski). Just so you can see what his actual said mission in life is. Be sure to read, Who, or what is Orac.

The referenced Journal of Chiropractic and Ostheopathy study is below.

An epidiological examination of the subluxation construct using Hills criteria of causation.

Here is the comment section of that article, with some interesting comments clearly outlining why this study design is in no way conclusive of any claims against chiropractic at all. That in regard to claims of its viability as to greatly benefiting the general health of an individual. And as well as to being and aid in the prevention of illness. I will also reference some actual peer reviewed studies in this writing. The comment section of this study, contains an excellant analysis by James Demetrious, as to the said study. Put forth are the flaws in the interpretation conclusion that it contains. I will not post those comments as they are very easily linked to here. There are other good comment evaluations of the study there as well. Encouraged reading! Clearly, in no why does that study sound the death knell for chiropractic, and that conclusion is nothing but an extremely ignorant and biased statement. 


Chiropr Osteopat. 2009 Dec 2;17:13. (Also at Pubmed).
An epidemiological examination of the subluxation construct using Hill's criteria of causation.

Mirtz TA, Morgan L, Wyatt LH, Greene L.
University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota, USA. timothy.mirtz@usd.edu


The concluding main points of this study I will also excerpt for you here.

Hill's Criteria and subluxation: temporal sequence

Temporal sequence is the only absolutely essential criterion for a cause-effect association [12]. It asks the question "did the exposure occur before the disease began?" It (temporal sequence) must be clearly defined as the "cart is firmly behind the horse" [3]. This suggests that subluxation must always precede the clinical condition for a true cause and effect scenario to take place. If a subluxation is present for any period of time, a progression of ill effects should be observed when there is an increase in magnitude over the same period of time. However, to date there exist no evidence to support a temporal sequence of any population being exposed to subluxation and the occurrence of any clinical condition.

Limitations to utilizing Hill's Criteria

Hill's Criteria do have some limitations. The only criterion of Hill's that is truly a causal criterion is temporality while suggesting that the other criteria were vague [11]. Although these criteria were never designed to be hard and fast rules they do provide essential guidelines for establishing causation [30]. Nevertheless, the criteria of Hill remain as basic principles in finding causal relationships. Henneken and Buring's criteria are better due to the incorporation of statistical concepts and de-emphasizes the weaker criterion of analogy [31]. Nevertheless, if a concept such as subuxation fails the test established by Hill's Criteria, it would seem that the application of Henneken and Buring's criteria is premature.

Conclusion
Hill's criteria are the most commonly used epidemiologic model for suggesting a causal link for any diagnostic or treatment approach. There is a significant lack of evidence in the literature to fulfill Hill's criteria of causation with regards to the chiropractic subluxation. No supportive evidence is found for the chiropractic subluxation being associated with any disease process or of creating suboptimal health conditions requiring intervention. Regardless of popular appeal this leaves the subluxation construct in the realm of unsupported speculation. This lack of supportive evidence suggests the subluxation construct has no valid clinical applicability.

My note: So in review of that, just because the peer reviewed studies were not done nor were found to support the claims of chiropractic subluxation being associated with any disease process or that of creating suboptimal health conditions requiring intervention; dues this conclusively prove there are no other benefits to chiropractic, other than treatment of pain???

-------------------------

Here it also states interestingly on Quackwatch that the lead author of that chiropractic subluxation study, endorses Quackwatches guidelines! Amazing.


South Dakota (1)

Timothy A. Mirtz, DC, MSE, CHES —R L 
Dakota Dome 221B
414 East Clark Street
University of South Dakota
Vermillion, South Dakota 57069
(605) 677-5933

Here below is one of Costners comments in his blog.


In the 114 years since chiropractic began, the existence of chiropractic subluxations has never been objectively demonstrated. They have never been shown to cause interference with the nervous system. They have never been shown to cause disease. Critics of chiropractic have been pointing this out for decades, but now chiropractors themselves have come to the same conclusion.


Well now, lets see if that is actually the truth?

Vertebral subluxation

Spinal Anatomy 101

Costner has made the claim that there are no peer reviewed studies to show that chiropactic can treat anything but back pain, and he claimed chiropractic is no better than massage or physical therapy. Costner stated there were no scientific peer reviewed studies. There are actually studies and papers that come from a wide variety of distinguished scientific journals including JVSR, Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics, Chiropractic Research Journal, Australian Journal of Chiropractic and Osteopathy, Pharmacological Reviews, Circulation, Annals of Internal Medicine, Advances in Neuroimmunology, and International Journal of Psychophysiology.

Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research
A Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal

Format of their required peer reviewing process.

But Costner has been linked to these studies before, and what did he claim to? Oh, that is done by the chiropractors, that is biased and not a reputable journal. Then what is reputable, only a pharma journal? 

110 scientific peer reviewed references, to the benefits of chiropractic and the immune system, and are many more that exist!

If the immune system is benefited anywhere from 200 to 400%, by chiropractic adjustments; that to me would be a better bet than shooting up endless toxic vaccines and taking pharma drugs! The past historic record and the facts also show on how chiropractic has clearly benefited our population, and during times of past epidemic life threatening disease outbreaks, and as well where the standard medical field was a near complete failure. Costner does not know his history. The real history.

If chiropractic is proven to do all that, then what are its overall effects on general health? The answer is obvious!

Does Chiropractic Strengthen Immunity?

Chiropractic Subluxation and Neurology Articles and Studies.





More links:




Here is the hight of Costners hypocracy, this statement he made right here at the end of this particluar blog page.You can not get anymore selectively ignorant than that.


The simple truth is, if chiropractic care had to undergo the same scrutiny as pharmaceuticals, the FDA would most likely have banned it years ago.


Really.... Costner? People going to a chiropractors office and also one that has the correct information going on like the Maxized Living Chiropractors do, and then getting healthy and throwing away their prescription drugs in a large container that is nearly full to the top, sort of blows your bogus claims in the dirt.


Watch This video: Maximized Living Makeover. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqyMB0M2TkQ





Here are some more of the articles at the bottom of Costners initial reference and evaluation of that study article. Amazing and selective ignorance.

Chiropractic Medicine: Its History And Pseudoscientific Practices

Alternative Medicine’s Flawed Reasoning: The One True Cause of All Disease.

My articles make more sense!
Is Modern Medicine Founded on Error?

A Faulty Medical Model:  The Germ Theory

Louis Pasteur, Antoine Bechamp and the True Causes of Disease.


History of Medicine, (go there for more on the well known soil and the seed concepts, that were erased from the text books when the Rockefellar oil money put Pasteurs false concepts and work into every medical school in the country; promoting that only a drug or vaccine can prevent or cure disease. All other proven protocols were branded as quackery and snake oil, decades ago; as now the mislead Costner has been continued to be brainwashed to believe is the correct protocol).



Disease; Understanding The Cause.

Excerpt: Dr. D.D. Palmer, the discoverer of chiropractic stated, “Disease is abnormal performance of certain functions: the abnormal activity has its causes. “ Chiropractic has sought to find these causes which often are due to nerve interference along the spine caused by a spinal misalignment, called subluxation.  Subluxations can impair normal nerve transmission which then causes abnormal body function, lowering the bodys resistance and making the body susceptible to disease.


BIOLOGICAL TERRAIN VS THE GERM THEORY

Costner, if modern medicine is so up on the current technologies, why are they not using DARK FIELD(LIVE BLOOD CELL) MICROSCOPY? Why are they not using it to determine the cause of any disease process? (Oh, thats right, the FDA banned it from use as a diagnostic tool). Why are they also not using it to determine what happens to the blood after vaccinations, especially in those with severe adverse vaccine reactions; (oh thats right, those never happen, they can't admit that). Its always a coinsidense, and some other cause; 1 to 10% known reporting to VAERS. 

DARK FIELD(LIVE BLOOD CELL) MICROSCOPY

Budwig diet protocol, read what it states about sick blood, in cancer. 

Live and Oxidized Blood Analysis  hlb (high resolution blood) analysis

Also called Bradford Peripheral Blood Examination - BPBA . A lot of scientific research was done at Bradford Research Institute, San Diego, USA by Prof Robert W Bradford, DSc and Henry W. Allen


This is where modern medicine should be in the year 2010, why aren't they? They are still in the dark ages!

Live Blood Analysis


Who are these blood analysts? 
What qualifications do these people have?


It is not like it is unknown. So why haven't we heard of it being used? 



This blood analysis would also show the blood sludging and abnormal blood after vaccinations, especially in those with a clear adverse reaction. the same thing Dr. Andrew Moulden showed us to be true! And where is he now? It appears that the powers that be have finally destroyed him.



Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center.

Hallelujah Acres


Current understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulation and stroke: what does it mean for the chiropractic profession?


Conclusion to the above:

The current understanding of the relationship between CMT and VADS provides new responsibilities and new opportunities. The response the chiropractic profession takes to these responsibilities and opportunities will impact its continued maturation and will help to limit suffering among its patients and the public at large. While current evidence suggests that CMT is associated with but not causally related to VADS, it can be expected that patients with undetected VADS will continue to see chiropractic physicians and it is essential that focused attention be made in an attempt at detection of this uncommon but potentially devastating disorder. In addition, the profession would do well to engage in a public health campaign designed to educate the public about VADS to increase recognition of the early signs of this disorder.


Most chiropractors today, do not crack necks! The knowledge has progressed beyond any need of it.

So much for your false information, again!