Alternative Doctor

I’ve never taken any kind of recreational drugs. I was too scared! I regret missing out on the fun but not missing out on the hazards. I’ve had a few friends I knew took cocaine from time to time. I have noticed that cocaine users will sometimes go down suddenly with a cerebral hemorrhage. A friend in […] The post Cocaine Use Ages You Faster appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.

Recently I was approached by a researcher and asked some broad questions about childhood vaccinations and their consequences. It’s not very efficient to write for just one reader, so I thought I would share it with the many. Here’s my response: My opinion overall is that childhood vaccinations are over rated. We are used to fudging of side effects and overstating the protective effect, so it’s hard to accept the overall supposed social value. There are several obvious problems. First, mother gives the typical child plenty of antibodies for the first few months and to blunder in with vaccinations before the 6th month is pretty unscientific. Secondly, the “schedule” recommended has clearly more to do with making Pharma profits than actual scientifically justifiable needs (many other countries do not administer anywhere near the number of shots that US kids get). It is possible to well protect a child with far fewer shots. I think there is every reason to be extremely wary that vaccinations can cause neurological inflammations and possibly autism. For me, it was one of those clinical things: you know, after the 25th Mom comes in and says “Well, he was fine till has vaccinations and then started to go backwards in development…” you begin to realize there is a pattern building up. That’s how discoveries start. But note that I do not and never have believed that mercury is the problem. I think it’s the organisms and almost certainly the measles virus. I cite Andrew Wakefield’s work and point out that the accusations against him have been proven false, over and over. But orthodoxy will not admit they were wrong: clearly driven by desire to protect the industry, not the children. I do not believe that parents should be advised to avoid having their children vaccinated. With a sensible schedule, I have no problem that vaccination has value, if that’s what the parents want. But parents MUST have the final say, not public employee bullies.

Recently I was approached by a researcher and asked some broad questions about childhood vaccinations and their consequences. It’s not very efficient to write for just one reader, so I thought I would share it with the many. Here’s my response: My opinion overall is that childhood vaccinations are over rated. We are used to fudging of side effects and overstating the protective effect, so it’s hard to accept the overall supposed social value. There are several obvious problems. First, mother gives the typical child plenty of antibodies for the first few months and to blunder in with vaccinations before the 6th month is pretty unscientific. Secondly, the “schedule” recommended has clearly more to do with making Pharma profits than actual scientifically justifiable needs (many other countries do not administer anywhere near the number of shots that US kids get). It is possible to well protect a child with far fewer shots. I think there is every reason to be extremely wary that vaccinations can cause neurological inflammations and possibly autism. For me, it was one of those clinical things: you know, after the 25th Mom comes in and says “Well, he was fine till has vaccinations and then started to go backwards in development…” you begin to realize there is a pattern building up. That’s how discoveries start. But note that I do not and never have believed that mercury is the problem. I think it’s the organisms and almost certainly the measles virus. I cite Andrew Wakefield’s work and point out that the accusations against him have been proven false, over and over. But orthodoxy will not admit they were wrong: clearly driven by desire to protect the industry, not the children. I do not believe that parents should be advised to avoid having their children vaccinated. With a sensible schedule, I have no problem that vaccination has value, if that’s what the parents want. But parents MUST have the final say, not public employee bullies.

If you wear a smiling face, people are more likely to judge your age as younger. That’s according to a study published in Psychology and Aging, online, Sept. 5, 2011. In the study, 154 young, middle-aged, and older adults guessed the age of 171 faces of young, middle-aged, and older men and women with various expressions portrayed on a total of 2,052 photographs. Each face displayed either an angry, fearful, disgusted, happy, sad, and neutral expression. The results showed facial expressions had a big effect on the accuracy of age estimates. Compared with other facial expressions, the age of neutral faces was estimated most accurately. Frowning, angry or fearful faces were judged older than they really were. Meanwhile, the perceived age of happy or smiling faces was most likely to be judged younger! But there is more to a smile than this… If you maintain a happy, cheerful disposition, you really are likely to live longer. If you surround yourself with friends and arrange your furniture how you want it, believe it or not, that has an impact on how long you will live!

If you wear a smiling face, people are more likely to judge your age as younger. That’s according to a study published in Psychology and Aging, online, Sept. 5, 2011. In the study, 154 young, middle-aged, and older adults guessed the age of 171 faces of young, middle-aged, and older men and women with various expressions portrayed on a total of 2,052 photographs. Each face displayed either an angry, fearful, disgusted, happy, sad, and neutral expression. The results showed facial expressions had a big effect on the accuracy of age estimates. Compared with other facial expressions, the age of neutral faces was estimated most accurately. Frowning, angry or fearful faces were judged older than they really were. Meanwhile, the perceived age of happy or smiling faces was most likely to be judged younger! But there is more to a smile than this… If you maintain a happy, cheerful disposition, you really are likely to live longer. If you surround yourself with friends and arrange your furniture how you want it, believe it or not, that has an impact on how long you will live!

We know that the brain can grow and get bigger and more powerful by using it a lot. It’s called neuroplasticity. The demand brings on more brain cells. But did you know exercising your arms and legs and the rest of your body can also result in increased brain performance? One crucial area of the […]

We know that the brain can grow and get bigger and more powerful by using it a lot. It’s called neuroplasticity. The demand brings on more brain cells. But did you know exercising your arms and legs and the rest of your body can also result in increased brain performance? One crucial area of the […] The post Your Brain Is A Muscle – Use It! appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.

The article in “New Scientist” started out OK, pointing out how Mum’s breast milk enhances the child’s immunity. No argument from me. It’s the ultimate “raw milk” argument, actually. Nothing in cow’s milk junk (raw or cooked) matches the magic of human breast milk for babies. It contains lactoferrin, a protein that inhibits the growth of bacteria, and special sugars that stick up pathogens so they can’t flourish. There are also lots of juicy Momma’s antibodies, to get the child started with immunity to a wide range of pathogens. This is easily monitored in the fact that breast-fed babies get far fewer infections than those fed on cow’s milk. So far so good. There’s nice semi-erotic picture of a delicious warm globe of a breast, filling a contented baby’s face as it suckles. Then the NEXT LINE, it says, “There is another way of furnishing a child’s immune system with first-class defenses that is quick, relatively cheap and arguably one of medicine’s greatest achievements: vaccinations against a dozen or more fatal diseases” Wait a minute! Grab the remote, hit REWIND; let’s back up here…

The article in “New Scientist” started out OK, pointing out how Mum’s breast milk enhances the child’s immunity. No argument from me. It’s the ultimate “raw milk” argument, actually. Nothing in cow’s milk junk (raw or cooked) matches the magic of human breast milk for babies. It contains lactoferrin, a protein that inhibits the growth of bacteria, and special sugars that stick up pathogens so they can’t flourish. There are also lots of juicy Momma’s antibodies, to get the child started with immunity to a wide range of pathogens. This is easily monitored in the fact that breast-fed babies get far fewer infections than those fed on cow’s milk. So far so good. There’s nice semi-erotic picture of a delicious warm globe of a breast, filling a contented baby’s face as it suckles. Then the NEXT LINE, it says, “There is another way of furnishing a child’s immune system with first-class defenses that is quick, relatively cheap and arguably one of medicine’s greatest achievements: vaccinations against a dozen or more fatal diseases” Wait a minute! Grab the remote, hit REWIND; let’s back up here…

You probably thought science was simple; that’s what they taught you at school. You do a test, get a result and you have learned something about reality. Science is about the truth, right? Wrong! You do the test but if you get a result that disagrees with your prejudices, you throw out the truth and stick with what you believe. You just ignore anything different. That’s really a summary of modern science. The Big Bang theory has been proved over and over and over to be false. But scientists won’t let it go. “It must be true,” they say and so ignore all the evidence to the contrary. There was a time in science when, if your theory had holes in it, you revised your theory. Not so today. If you haven’t got the proof you want, then you just say, “we will find it” (like the Higgs boson). The Big Bang theory predicts dark matter, lots of it—but unfortunately, there isn’t any! Rather than look for a better explanation of reality, physicists are just hanging around waiting for dark matter to show up. The twentieth and twenty first century are the times when truth in science is not valued but keeping your job and paying the mortgage is what motivates most scientists. Those who don’t kowtow to the fashionable prejudice are often ruined financially. Science worked best when it was in the hands of European gentlemen of means. They didn’t care about money, they had pots of it, so the truth to them was what they found was real: the behavior of gases, metals, electricity, magnetism, evolution, etc. Lord Kelvin, Antoine LaVoisier and Charles Darwin are examples. The world of quantum physics today has proved almost anything can happen and that all concepts of time and space we knew and loved are utterly false. Time can and does run backwards; space does not exist (it’s called non-locality); particles come into existence without any precursors and disappear just as amazingly; only one billionth of the universe is “stuff”, the rest is all just energy and information (not that anyone has the faintest idea what energy is, only that it changes things). You would think that modern science, which has more or less dismantled the simplistic Newtonian view of reality, would look very favorably upon interesting phenomena of the mind that appear to also be in violation of the so-called laws of physics. Curiously, however, scientists living in the Alice in Wonderland world of quantum physics still rage about telepathy, telekinesis, prescience and so on. These notions are fake, unscientific, delusory, “voodoo science”, to echo just a few of their derisory comments. It doesn’t make sense. I’ve adopted a saying from a friend in England, Cyril Smith, who is fond out pointing out that advanced physics doesn’t just say that the strange things we encounter in holistic healing could happen, it says that they MUST happen! But when it’s convenient, the critics just drop all pretense of science and shove their heads in the sand. They cherry-pick their “science”.

You probably thought science was simple; that’s what they taught you at school. You do a test, get a result and you have learned something about reality. Science is about the truth, right? Wrong! You do the test but if you get a result that disagrees with your prejudices, you throw out the truth and stick with what you believe. You just ignore anything different. That’s really a summary of modern science. The Big Bang theory has been proved over and over and over to be false. But scientists won’t let it go. “It must be true,” they say and so ignore all the evidence to the contrary. There was a time in science when, if your theory had holes in it, you revised your theory. Not so today. If you haven’t got the proof you want, then you just say, “we will find it” (like the Higgs boson). The Big Bang theory predicts dark matter, lots of it—but unfortunately, there isn’t any! Rather than look for a better explanation of reality, physicists are just hanging around waiting for dark matter to show up. The twentieth and twenty first century are the times when truth in science is not valued but keeping your job and paying the mortgage is what motivates most scientists. Those who don’t kowtow to the fashionable prejudice are often ruined financially. Science worked best when it was in the hands of European gentlemen of means. They didn’t care about money, they had pots of it, so the truth to them was what they found was real: the behavior of gases, metals, electricity, magnetism, evolution, etc. Lord Kelvin, Antoine LaVoisier and Charles Darwin are examples. The world of quantum physics today has proved almost anything can happen and that all concepts of time and space we knew and loved are utterly false. Time can and does run backwards; space does not exist (it’s called non-locality); particles come into existence without any precursors and disappear just as amazingly; only one billionth of the universe is “stuff”, the rest is all just energy and information (not that anyone has the faintest idea what energy is, only that it changes things). You would think that modern science, which has more or less dismantled the simplistic Newtonian view of reality, would look very favorably upon interesting phenomena of the mind that appear to also be in violation of the so-called laws of physics. Curiously, however, scientists living in the Alice in Wonderland world of quantum physics still rage about telepathy, telekinesis, prescience and so on. These notions are fake, unscientific, delusory, “voodoo science”, to echo just a few of their derisory comments. It doesn’t make sense. I’ve adopted a saying from a friend in England, Cyril Smith, who is fond out pointing out that advanced physics doesn’t just say that the strange things we encounter in holistic healing could happen, it says that they MUST happen! But when it’s convenient, the critics just drop all pretense of science and shove their heads in the sand. They cherry-pick their “science”.

This is welcome news in a couple of ways. If they are faking cancer stats and cancer recoveries (as many of us suspect), then it shows up in this fact that half the people with cancer will die of a different disease. Secondly, even if the stats are real, it means cancer is less to be feared than many people think. I think the third interpretation… that we are winning the war against cancer, is the least likely to be true! What are the facts? Officially (this is the USA), there are now 12 million cancer survivors… up from 3 million in 1971 and 9.8 million in 2001. Other territories will have proportionately similar figures. Two-thirds of them have survived cancer for at least five years, according to Yi Ning, MD, ScD, of the Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center in Richmond. He and his colleagues examined data on 1,807 cancer survivors who participated in the 1988-1994 and 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). The most common forms of cancer among the survivors were breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal. Fifty-one percent died from cancer and 49% died from other causes. Died Of What?