“Nearly all men die of their medicines, not of their diseases.”
--Moliere (1622 to 1673)
The word “allopathic” is a synonym for “Orwellian.” Allopathy illustrates “doublespeak” perfectly: To de-fine something as the opposite of what it really is. According to www.medterms.com, allopathic medicine uses treatments which produce disease symptoms different from the symptoms of the original disease being treated. This contradicts the First Rule of the Hippocratic Oath: “Do no harm,” which is the foundation of real medicine. In reality, however, allopathic procedures cause disease symptoms which are both different and identical to the original disease. For example, Prozac is mainly prescribed to treat depression, while the side effects of Prozac include depression. Does that make any kind of “medical” sense? Why would anyone accept a treatment that causes the very problem being treated? The purpose of allopathy, therefore, is actually the opposite of what most people are told and believe.
This may explain why the word allopathy does not appear (between allocate and allot) in my 2004 Webster's Dictionary (New Edition), while its opposite, homeopathy, does. This is a simple tactic used by The Party in Orwell’s nineteen eighty four: Remove the word from sight and you remove the truth from awareness.Here are five definitions of allopathy according to five different medical sources:
… that system … in which diseases are treated by producing a condition incompatible with or antagonistic to the condition …
… A method of treating disease with remedies that produce effects antagonistic to those caused by the disease itself.
… Conventional medical treatment of disease symptoms that uses substances or techniques to oppose or suppress the symptoms.
… a system of medical therapy in which a disease or an abnormal condition is treated by creating an environment that is antagonistic to the disease …
… method of medical treatment in which drugs are administered to antagonize the disease.
The purpose of allopathy is to oppose, suppress, and antagonize disease. The purpose of allopathy is not to heal or cure anything, evidenced by the utter lack of any claims to “heal” and “cure” in any of those definitions. What is the point of antagonizing a disease if the procedure also antagonizes the immune system?Could that be the real purpose?
I’m not saying that your doctor is necessarily ill-intentioned. Your allopath may really have your best interest at heart. But based on personal experience and a lot of research, many are ill-intentioned. Many don’t seem to want to notice that what they claim to be doing doesn’t quite match the results of their behavior. As they gradually sell out, seduced and blinded by the Mighty allopathic Profit, obedient to the Federal government, corporations, and insurance companies, they render themselves little more than over-priced chemical pez-dispensers.Consider the root or etymology of the word:
Allos other + pathos suffering.
As pork is the “other white-meat,” allopathy is the “other suffering.” First you suffer from your original infliction, then an allopath comes along and inflicts a second (the other) suffering that opposes, suppresses, antagonizes, and mimics (replaces?) the first.
Turning to a 1956 edition of Webster’s, we fiind allopathy is included:
That method of medical practice which seeks to cure disease by the production of a condition of the system either different from, opposite to, or incompatible with, the condition essential to the disease …
Not only is allopathy defined, it actually contains the word “cure.” But the condition that is opposite to and incompatible with the disease is called “health.” Allopathic methods do not “produce” health; they produce an-other, second suffering. What is peculiar about this dictionary, however, is that it contains an appendix of medical terms, and “allopathy” is missing, but “homeopathy” is not.
Webster’s of 1986 also defines allopathy:
… a system of medical practice that aims to combat disease by use of remedies producing effects different from those produced by the special disease treated.
In 1956 allopaths sought to “cure” disease, but in 1986 they aimed to “combat” disease. Something happened between 1956 and 1986 to compel allopathic authorities to shift their focus from cure to combat, and to declare all our bodies as allopathic battlegrounds in the name of The Profit. Their modern weapons of choice produce effects different from the symptoms (except when they are identical). They aim to “combat” the symptoms of disease with the toxic “effects” of their weapons. And what happens to every battleground during war? It is flooded with suffering, and it is destroyed.
From only a hand-full of definitions we have learned that the root of allopathy is suffering; that in the nineteen fifties allopaths still spoke of curing, but by the nineteen eighties the word “cure” disappeared to be replaced by the word “combat”; and by at least 2004 the word “allopathy” itself disappeared from the dictionary. This brief history lesson reeks a distinctly Orwellian stench. Since the purpose of medicine is to heal and cure, allopathy cannot really be the practice of medicine. It is the practice of “allopathic corporatism,” or “organized quackery.”
Former Italian Prime Minister/Dictator, Benito Mussolini said: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of state and corporate power." If real doctors heal people of disease, and allopathic corporatists mimic, replace, and manage disease, then allop-athy is medical fascism. The purpose (from the top down) is to grow and manage diseases for power and profit by using people as Petri dishes. By managing and controlling diseases, they thereby manage and control the dishes. If allopathy actually solved medical problems then it wouldn’t be an expanding “booming” business today. Diseases would be decreasing, not increasing, and thus its financial foundation would dwindle.
If you are having doubts, just consider three important facts: First, the death rate of newborns in America has climbed sharply over recent years. CNN reported in 2006: “U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world ….” In 2006 we had the second worst infant death rate in the developed world. What does this say about our medical system? Perhaps Americans should learn from the Japanese; their doctors lowered Japan’s infant death rate by boycotting vaccines for newborns. As a result: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) disappeared, only to return again, for whatever insane reason, after the inoculation of newborns resumed.
Second, consider that a few years earlier a small team of MD’s and one PhD spent two years tallying all the documented (thus admitted) cases of injuries and deaths caused by modern medicine. The result: Our government protected religion of allopathy turns out to be the number one killer of Americans:
Until now ... [no] one had ever analyzed and combined ALL of the published literature dealing with injuries and deaths caused by government-protected medicine. That has now changed. ... the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.5)
Third, moving back a couple of decades to 1984 we find the first seminar of The New Medical Foundation, in Chicago, Illinois. At this seminar nine speakers, all highly respected and reputable doctors, such as Henry Heimlich, MD, the inventor of the Heimlich maneuver, addressed major problems in modern medicine, such as the inaccuracy of modern medical testing, the ineffectiveness of many medical treatments, corruption, and so on.
The first speaker, Robert Mendelsohn, MD, former President of the National Health Federation, former National Director of Project Head Starts Medical Consultation Service, and Chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee of the State of Illinois, posed the question: How Much Science Is There in Modern Medicine? In answering this question he stated very clearly that the problem with modern medicine involves ethics, not technology or money. He stated that medical training produces a strange way of thinking and talking (as we have just reviewed). And he offered this as an example of the consequence of this strange allopathic way to think and speak:
Whenever doctors strike, throughout the world, the same result occurs: The mortality rate drops. …[One occurred] in Los Angeles, where, according to Professor Milton Reimer of UCLA’s School of Public Health, the mortality rate during that strike dropped by 17 percent. … [Another] strike was in Columbia, South America, where the mortality rate dropped by 37 percent.
His favorite strike was in Israel. During the 85 day period in which doctors stopped seeking The Profit (this excluded E R workers), the mortality rate was cut in half. Losing so much business, the concerned morticians looked into it and found that the last time their business "dropped that low was 20 years previously at the time of the last doctors strike.”
"Why would a sane patient choose a treatment that can kill the patient?"
--Mendelsohn (1926 to 1988)
Psychology/ Medicine/ Religion/ Politics/ Crime
How did Francisco Pizarro use the secret trick of
Christopher Columbus to conquer the mightiest
empire of South America in one evening,
with a single boat load of men,
and almost no resistance?
And what does this
have to do with
"WARNING: MATURE CONTENT"-- scribd.com