Alternative Doctor

Cholesterol IV is a treatment? How crazy does it get? They have been telling us (quite wrongly) that cholesterol is a problem and causes heart attacks. Now, they are giving cholesterol IV, as a treatment! This is how crazy “science” is. It flip flops remarkably every decade or so; usually not more than a quarter […] The post IV Cholesterol For Heart Disease appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.

We all know that Tamiflu is a scam. But we are so used to these things being criminally hushed-up, that it comes as quite a shock when one of the world’s leading medical journal accuses Roche of massaging data to make their drug look effective when it isn’t. The British Medical Journal ( BMJ) has alleged that pharmaceutical giant Roche is deliberately hiding clinical trial data about the efficacy of oseltamivir ( Tamiflu) in patients with influenza. According to experts writing for the BMJ, global stockpiling and routine use of the drug are not supported by solid evidence (meaning it’s worthless and doesn’t work). Moreover, they openly accuse Roche of concealing neurological and psychiatric adverse events associated with Tamiflu.

We all know that Tamiflu is a scam. But we are so used to these things being criminally hushed-up, that it comes as quite a shock when one of the world’s leading medical journal accuses Roche of massaging data to make their drug look effective when it isn’t. The British Medical Journal ( BMJ) has alleged that pharmaceutical giant Roche is deliberately hiding clinical trial data about the efficacy of oseltamivir ( Tamiflu) in patients with influenza. According to experts writing for the BMJ, global stockpiling and routine use of the drug are not supported by solid evidence (meaning it’s worthless and doesn’t work). Moreover, they openly accuse Roche of concealing neurological and psychiatric adverse events associated with Tamiflu.

“Strike Vitamin D Off the List for Cold Prevention?” That was the headline. “Study clears up speculation about vitamin D reducing colds,” said the press release. So I was intrigued. Supposedly, vitamin D was “tested” and found ineffective in warding off colds and flu. But look what they ACTUALLY did… They had people take 200,000 […]

“Strike Vitamin D Off the List for Cold Prevention?” That was the headline. “Study clears up speculation about vitamin D reducing colds,” said the press release. So I was intrigued. Supposedly, vitamin D was “tested” and found ineffective in warding off colds and flu. But look what they ACTUALLY did… They had people take 200,000 […] The post This Is Evil appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.

Shocking Scans Show The Real Impact of Love on a Child’s Brain Mother’s care could do more than just keep a child comfortable. It may affect how large his or her brain grows. Shocking: According to neurologists the sizeable difference between these two brains has one primary cause – the way were treated by their mothers Both of these images are brain scans of a two three-year-old children, but the brain on the left is considerably larger, has fewer spots and less dark areas, compared to the one on the right. According to neurologists this sizeable difference has one primary cause – the way each child was treated by their mothers. But the child with the shrunken brain was the victim of severe neglect and abuse. According to research reported by the newspaper, the brain on the right worryingly lacks some of the most fundamental areas present in the image on the left. The consequences of these deficits are pronounced – the child on the left with the larger brain will be more intelligent and more likely to develop the social ability to empathise with others. But in contrast, the child with the shrunken brain will be more likely to become addicted to drugs and involved in violent crimes, much more likely to be unemployed and to be dependent on state benefits. The child is also more likely to develop mental and other serious health problems. Professor Allan Schore, of UCLA, told The Sunday Telegraph that if a baby is not treated properly in the first two years of life, it can have a fundamental impact on development. It also seems that the more severe the mother’s neglect, the more pronounced the damage can be.

Shocking Scans Show The Real Impact of Love on a Child’s Brain Mother’s care could do more than just keep a child comfortable. It may affect how large his or her brain grows. Shocking: According to neurologists the sizeable difference between these two brains has one primary cause – the way were treated by their mothers Both of these images are brain scans of a two three-year-old children, but the brain on the left is considerably larger, has fewer spots and less dark areas, compared to the one on the right. According to neurologists this sizeable difference has one primary cause – the way each child was treated by their mothers. But the child with the shrunken brain was the victim of severe neglect and abuse. According to research reported by the newspaper, the brain on the right worryingly lacks some of the most fundamental areas present in the image on the left. The consequences of these deficits are pronounced – the child on the left with the larger brain will be more intelligent and more likely to develop the social ability to empathise with others. But in contrast, the child with the shrunken brain will be more likely to become addicted to drugs and involved in violent crimes, much more likely to be unemployed and to be dependent on state benefits. The child is also more likely to develop mental and other serious health problems. Professor Allan Schore, of UCLA, told The Sunday Telegraph that if a baby is not treated properly in the first two years of life, it can have a fundamental impact on development. It also seems that the more severe the mother’s neglect, the more pronounced the damage can be.

I’ve been saying for decades that vets know more about health than doctors, especially about nutrition. If you see what nutrients are added to dog food and cat food, it’s better nourishment than human food! There is less propaganda and more science. Vets are not judged by fake TV advertising, corrupt politicians, or phoney science: they are judged entirely by the math. Does the animal live or die? If it doesn’t, it’s a financial disaster and the vet is OUT! So I always keep an eye out for veterinary science. Here’s something interesting. At Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine they carried out a number of studies on the effects of vaccination on dogs. Again, no propaganda, nothing to hide, as you will see… The question they were asking was whether multi-vaccinations of dogs could cause auto-immune diseases to flare up. I said YES in my various books of the 1980s and 1990s; I think mass vaccinations are the main reason for the virtual “allergy epidemic” that kicked off in the 1970s and has just got worse. One aspect of this “epidemic” is the huge rise in auto-immune diseases; that’s where the body makes antibodies against itself… a sort of “allergy to one’s own tissues”. Lupus, certain types of hypothyroidism and rheumatoid arthritis are examples of that type of disease. Hypothyroidism too is on the rise. From my own work over 3 decades, I am certain there is a connection between cancer and thyroid malfunction. What did the veterinary scientists find?

I’ve been saying for decades that vets know more about health than doctors, especially about nutrition. If you see what nutrients are added to dog food and cat food, it’s better nourishment than human food! There is less propaganda and more science. Vets are not judged by fake TV advertising, corrupt politicians, or phoney science: they are judged entirely by the math. Does the animal live or die? If it doesn’t, it’s a financial disaster and the vet is OUT! So I always keep an eye out for veterinary science. Here’s something interesting. At Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine they carried out a number of studies on the effects of vaccination on dogs. Again, no propaganda, nothing to hide, as you will see… The question they were asking was whether multi-vaccinations of dogs could cause auto-immune diseases to flare up. I said YES in my various books of the 1980s and 1990s; I think mass vaccinations are the main reason for the virtual “allergy epidemic” that kicked off in the 1970s and has just got worse. One aspect of this “epidemic” is the huge rise in auto-immune diseases; that’s where the body makes antibodies against itself… a sort of “allergy to one’s own tissues”. Lupus, certain types of hypothyroidism and rheumatoid arthritis are examples of that type of disease. Hypothyroidism too is on the rise. From my own work over 3 decades, I am certain there is a connection between cancer and thyroid malfunction. What did the veterinary scientists find?

If a boxer knocked out 12 of 13 opponents, would you bet on him winning most of the next 10 bouts? Probably you would. Certainly, nobody would think you were crazy or crooked. But that’s bad science! Specifically, that’s not a big enough series of cases to justify confidence that he could keep winning. We have a lot of problems with defining science, even when we are well-meaning and intelligent (not in the pay of some drug cartel). The answers you get depend, largely, on the questions you ask (like in real life!) But one of the difficulties dogging mainstream science is randomized controlled double-blind trials. OK, I don’t need to go into the definition of double-blind, etc. Let’s focus on the word “randomized”. It means what is says. Somewhere in the study a computer spits out a series of random numbers, saying who gets what treatment, in what order. It’s supposed to remove chance and bias. But if you’ve ever tossed a coin and got 8 heads in a row, you’ll know that you can’t totally rule out the surprises of chance. The only way to eliminate it from your calculations is to do very large numbers of examples. We all know that if you go on and on tossing a coin, it will eventually come out roughly equal: as many tails as heads. 8 out of 10 heads was just a lucky run. It gave a false impression. But eventually you would have, say, 2963 heads and 2922 tails, or roughly equal. The trouble is, with science investigations, you can’t always assemble enough people to make a statistically significant case. You might need thousands of cases, yet you can only find a few hundred volunteers. What to do? Common sense says go ahead and make the best of it you can; at least you’ll get some sense of a result. You might even get lucky and find the evidence points overwhelmingly in one direction (but remember the 8 heads out of 10 coin tosses warning!) Your results may not mean anything and that allows critics to trample on your nice published study, if they don’t like it. Big dilemma!

If a boxer knocked out 12 of 13 opponents, would you bet on him winning most of the next 10 bouts? Probably you would. Certainly, nobody would think you were crazy or crooked. But that’s bad science! Specifically, that’s not a big enough series of cases to justify confidence that he could keep winning. We have a lot of problems with defining science, even when we are well-meaning and intelligent (not in the pay of some drug cartel). The answers you get depend, largely, on the questions you ask (like in real life!) But one of the difficulties dogging mainstream science is randomized controlled double-blind trials. OK, I don’t need to go into the definition of double-blind, etc. Let’s focus on the word “randomized”. It means what is says. Somewhere in the study a computer spits out a series of random numbers, saying who gets what treatment, in what order. It’s supposed to remove chance and bias. But if you’ve ever tossed a coin and got 8 heads in a row, you’ll know that you can’t totally rule out the surprises of chance. The only way to eliminate it from your calculations is to do very large numbers of examples. We all know that if you go on and on tossing a coin, it will eventually come out roughly equal: as many tails as heads. 8 out of 10 heads was just a lucky run. It gave a false impression. But eventually you would have, say, 2963 heads and 2922 tails, or roughly equal. The trouble is, with science investigations, you can’t always assemble enough people to make a statistically significant case. You might need thousands of cases, yet you can only find a few hundred volunteers. What to do? Common sense says go ahead and make the best of it you can; at least you’ll get some sense of a result. You might even get lucky and find the evidence points overwhelmingly in one direction (but remember the 8 heads out of 10 coin tosses warning!) Your results may not mean anything and that allows critics to trample on your nice published study, if they don’t like it. Big dilemma!

When I was young, we used to laugh at those silly American statistics that some idiot took the trouble to work out. I remember one very vividly: every kiss takes 7 minutes off your life! Ah well, if you’ve got a slide rule and nothing better to do… (these days, of course, we could crunch […]