Positive Health Online

Causes of Death?

Establishing the cause of death is a doctor’s prerogative. Only a qualified doctor is allowed to fill in the form, which officially makes his statement the true cause of death for that individual. Originally these documents were a legal requirement for the State, who apparently ‘owns’ the body of any deceased person, to release the body for burial. It was a document that stated that the person died of a natural cause and the cause was a legally accepted one. That was all these documents were for: establishing written proof of a natural death.

Then the medical profession decided they could use this information for statistical purposes to publish figures about death rates for a variety of diseases. They treated this information as if the named causes of death were indeed the actual causes of death, while in fact hardly any of those believed causes have been scientifically proven to be correct. It is what the doctor believes his patient died of but without him having any real proof for such a conviction and indeed without even the need for any supporting evidence.  The only thing the document states is that the person died of one of the established natural death causes, in the opinion of the doctor. He never had to worry about whether the cause he writes down is or is not scientifically correct. And yet, this information, based on the doctor’s beliefs, is now being used as ‘true’ information about real causes of death in order to manipulate government policy and finances.

Occasionally, either for medical scientific or for legal purposes, autopsies have been carried out in an attempt to establish the ‘real’ cause of death. And while this in a number of cases, mainly younger people and deaths that were part of a criminal investigation, this has led to identification of a single true cause of death, in the majority of clinical cases it turns up a number of possible causes for each death. In fatalities, diseases usually have undermined the function of several vital organs and systems, which makes it extremely difficult, near to impossible, to determine the ‘exact’ cause of death. Using these documents to create statistical data about demographic diversity and about changing death rates for specific diseases over time in truth only show differences of doctor’s opinions about the cause of death. So cultural and propaganda differences will dominate these statistical data throughout, without ever providing a true picture about death rates for any known and unknown causes. Alter the belief of the physician about what he is treating and his ‘understanding’ about what had caused a specific individual to die has changed too.

The true cause of any death is almost impossible to establish and no statistics on this matter contain any information of value. It only shows us what doctors believe to be the case.

Spreading Infectious Diseases?

If diseases are to be passed on from one living form to another, the element carrying the disease will have to be able to leave the body of the infector before it could possibly enter the body of the infectee. Since the inside of all bodies is well protected by a defensive lining of either skin or membrane in a complete and uninterrupted manner, it requires a physical breakdown of this barrier in at least one, preferably multiple, location before a successful invasion can take place. So the disease carrier has to be present inside the body and the defensive lining has to be broken somewhere in order for the carrier to pass into the outside world where it possibly can be picked up by another living organism. For this to happen it needs to break free from the first infected person and survive in the outside world.

How the first person became infected remains a mystery.

When the defensive lining has been broken it means a disturbance of the normal function of that system, be it the skin or the membrane. Through this opening, leakage of fluids and chemicals will occur, changing the outside equilibrium in the immediate surroundings of the broken defences. This will be noticeable through signs of either excessive fluids such as phlegm, blood, swelling, or signs of inflammation, the reaction of the body trying to repair the breakdown. Without such signs it becomes very unlikely that any carrier of disease is able to leave the body in sufficient numbers. When only miniscule numbers escape in a similar way that a few drops of blood may ‘leak’ out of the blood vessel, which restores itself very quickly, no damage whatsoever will occur and no change in the environment will take place.

From being present on top of the skin or the membranes – the inner lining of mouth, nose, throat, lungs or the digestive tract – the carrier now needs to leave the confines of the body in order to be able to meet another body. This requires the leaked elements, mainly carried within fluids, to be expelled from the body into the outside atmosphere where it could possibly encounter another body. The way this happens is generally regarded as disease symptoms. There are, indeed, signs of a malfunction within the body of the carrier of the infection.

Without any disease symptoms science has not been able to establish proof for a way out of the enclosed body of the infector in order to spread the disease carrier.

In order for an infectee to be contaminated by an infector the latter must release the said carrier of that disease into his or her immediate environment.

Science has established that the concentration of infectious material in the environment has to be of a certain level before a transmission of disease can take place, but it never established an exact figure for this. In truth, science has only been using the argument of the concentration in order to explain a failure in transmitting the infection. When no transmission of disease takes place, medical researchers proclaim that the concentration of infected material was too low, but they never established the minimum threshold for transmission to actually take place.

Micro-organisms such as bacteria and fungi can be detected in expelled fluids from ill persons when these fluids are being collected on the body surface itself or very close to it. Living micro-organisms have only been detected in a space of about half a metre away when the fluids have been projected with an extreme force such as sneezing or violent coughing or projectile vomiting. Nowhere else in the immediate surroundings of an ill person have micro-organisms actually been shown to exist and survive as a direct result of the disease process which is developing inside a person.

For a transmission of a disease to take place between two individuals, the said carrier of the disease has to be present in the atmosphere surrounding the ill person and expressing the disease carrying substance onto this person.

Supposing that is the case – in real terms of everyday life, science has never established this! – there needs to be enough of these carriers attacking the body of the infectee in order to create or find a breakdown in the lining defences of the person who is said to become infected. Scientific studies have established that this cannot happen in people that are healthy at the time of the encounter. It appears as if the carrier on the outside of the body is only able to enter when there is already an existing weakening of the membranes, suggesting a pre-existing illness.

Now, supposing a person gets ill with comparable symptoms to the person he or she has been in contact with, that in itself is no proof that a transmission of a disease carrying substance has taken place. At the most, one can say that there appears to be a correlation between the two ill people but in order for causation to be proven one has to be much more specific. If a disease carrying substance, a germ for instance, is found to be present at the same time as a specific disease it is no evidence that that specific micro-organism has caused the disease. To prove this one has to find that everybody who is carrying that disease producing organism has to have that specific disease and that nobody else, either a symptom free person or a person with a different disease, is found to harbour that specific organism. It should also be demonstrated that when that organism is introduced into a healthy system it should always produce that very specific disease and never any other disease. It turns out that science has never established a causal relationship between any organism accused of carrying a disease and that specific disease! At the same time it turns out that all organisms held responsible for specific diseases can, at one point or another, be demonstrated to be resident within a symptom free body.

This is the truth about living micro-organisms that we do find within diseased tissue and that we can easily show to be alive at the time of identification. So with living micro-organisms, science has concluded that they cannot be held responsible for the disease and cannot be found guilty of having caused the disease. Being present at the scene of a crime does not make you the perpetrator.

Once science began to run into these problems of not being able to demonstrate a causal link between a living organism and a specific disease, the profession invented another invisible ‘cause’, one that is so small it cannot be seen in living conditions at all and it is supposed to ‘reside’ within a cell, ignoring the fact that all cells have a very short lifespan, which poses the question as to why any residing substance within such a cell is not being eliminated at the death of its host cell. Science does admit that this tiny blob, which they have named ‘a virus’, is not a living creature. It is far too small for that and it lacks all organelles (internal organs and structures) to have a metabolism. In spite of the fact that it does not feed itself, it does not metabolize and it does not excrete anything, it is still said to replicate; mind you, not of its own accord but by utilizing the host cell’s DNA, by hijacking the reproductive capacity of the cell and turning the entire cell into a single minded virus production line. The medical profession fails to explain how a blob which has no metabolism, and is in fact not even alive, is able to make the journey throughout the interior of the cell; in a similar fashion the micro-organisms are said to invade the body from the outside. Furthermore, this unbelievably tiny blob that doesn’t do anything must still be capable of not only fighting off the defence mechanisms of the body, designed to keep foreign material out, but also it must find its way past the cell defences in order for it to arrive at the core of life, the cellular nucleus. Apparently, no bodily defence mechanism, great or small, is capable of detecting and destroying this non-living entity!

Science has tried on many occasions to introduce such viruses into the body of healthy people in order to study the effects of the invasion. Across time and across the world they never managed an effective rate higher than 13%, even when they already introduced it past the defensive membrane. And the effect we are talking about is not even seeing the disease occur, it only means that in blood tests they have established what they have called ‘an immune reaction’ to the introduction of the virus. It means that in a small percentage of people they measure slightly higher levels of either specific cells or specific proteins they have determined to be linked to a stimulation of the defences of the body.

Science has never established that a disease can be introduced by contact with a virus. It failed to do so in contact with a microbe and it certainly has failed to do so with regards to viruses. So even if a virus is present in the immediate environment of a sick person, which is scientifically impossible to prove, and even if whatever the virus is said to be carried in (water droplets, air, skin, bodily fluids, surfaces) has entered another body, maybe via the airway or the digestive system, there is no scientific evidence it creates any effect whatsoever.

Can one establish the presence of a tiny particle like a virus in the air or a water droplet? The answer is hardly. It is a very complicated, time consuming and extremely costly business involving electron microscopic imagery. Bypassing the only true way of visualizing what they call a virus, the medical profession has made it easy on itself by chemically ‘isolating’ the virus instead of demonstrating the true presence of the virus. Although there have been several claims about isolating viruses, none has ever been accepted by the scientific community, as purification of the sample or purification of the cellular growth they are using in order to ‘amplify’ the number of viruses is littered with scientific faults, assumptions rather than facts. It appears impossible to filter such a tiny blob out of general cellular debris. The ‘identification’ tests the medical profession is using are not identifying a virus but are identifying a very small DNA sequence or even simply a protein structure. As every living cell is made up of these kind of structures it is potentially possible to ‘identify’ these structures within specific debris of any cellular organism. There is nothing specific about any viral test the medical profession is using in their research. The presence of ‘a virus’ cannot be demonstrated by chemical analysis of cellular debris.

If on so many levels proof in support of a theory is not forthcoming and so many observations contradict the theory, it is scientifically nonsense to continue using the theory to set up prediction models and treatment plans. In the case of infectious diseases it would make scientifical sense to switch to another germ theory. A two century old theory is available that so far has never failed to explain infections. In line with the new physics of the twentieth century we would do well in medicine too to switch from a physical to an energetic approach.

Epidemics?

Epidemics - the spread of diseases on a large scale throughout the population - have happened all the time and is part of nature. In fact, just as inflammation occurs as a natural phenomenon it happens the same way with infections. They arise without any obvious reason within every living organism. It is up to us to find that reason and encapsulating within that answer should lay an understanding why so many people fall prey to the same disease at more or less the same time. In order to progress towards finding that answer, we would do well to step away from a theory about the spread of infectious diseases that is so obviously not true.

Observation about epidemics show us some interesting facts. At the very beginning of an epidemic it is almost impossible to find a material source of infection, which has attacked and invaded the body of a person who came into contact with the possible source. So under the conditions of contact transmission most of the time proof is not being provided. Plenty of stories are being generated around words such as “probably” or “most likely” but these don’t count as scientific evidence.

A causal link between an apparent source of infection and a first infectee is missing.

Furthermore, at the very beginning of an epidemic, when the first few cases in a specific community or area are being diagnosed, one fails to find anything that connects the persons involved in any physical way. No physical contact, neither directly nor via surfaces they all use, can be demonstrated, which would be a necessity if an outside source of the infection needs to be passed on. Here, stories of explanation involve germs that have lingered somewhere for a while, not infecting anybody who frequented that area except that one case, or the germ has been ‘delivered’ in the neighbourhood and must have, somehow, been transferred to another specific site without showing any signs in the body of the person ‘responsible’ for the transfer.

A confirmed transfer link between early victims is mostly not present.

Once the epidemic has established itself properly and everybody, or at least everybody within a certain community or area, will come in contact with the said source of the infection it is noted that not everybody becomes infected. Testing for evidence of infection has become a popular pastime but has scientifically been proven to be of little value, as whatever test method is being used it always falls far short of establishing a link between a positive result and the person showing signs of infection. The number of people getting ill with symptoms that relate to a specific disease which is said to be causing an epidemic is always much smaller than the number of people having been in contact with the disease.

The most amazing fact about an epidemic spreading through an entire population is the very large number of people who don’t become ill.

It turns out that it is scientifically impossible to establish how many people have become infected and whom, but what we do know is that most people who are coming in contact do not become ill. History provides us with striking examples if we care to look. The leprosy colony on Moloka’i became famous within the Catholic congregation because of Father Damien’s work there. However, his work was continued by Sister Marianne Cope, who together with two other nurses agreed to live there in 1888 and care for the sick. She remained on the island until her death in 1918, aged 80. Despite constant direct contact with sufferers, neither Cope nor the sisters under her direction ever contracted leprosy.

In line with the discovery that as far as transferring diseases is concerned it is time to shift our understanding from the physical matter to the energetic, it would also be wise to view the spread of an epidemic as the expression of an energetic phenomenon.

Immunity?

The medical profession likes to inform us about the status of our immune system, how it protects us but also how it can attack us. They do not give any reason as to what would anger the immune system of an individual so much that it would decide no longer to protect but instead to try and kill. This is, however, a complete U-turn in its functionality and for this to happen without the expertise of the professionals providing us with an obvious reason is a real pity. This must be very frustrating for them, not knowing who the enemy is and what its tactics are, until it happens.

Looking at how they measure immunity it turns out that none of the available tests are actually a measure for resistance against diseases. Instead they test changes in various cells and protein levels which they link to a foreign invader, without actually being able to tell who the attacker might be or even being able to establish a causal link between rises in their measured levels and specific invaders. When they decide they have found a high level of whatever parameter they are testing for they simply say it must be caused by an invader.

None of their test methods have been proven to be a reliable measure for protection against any disease. Lots of people with high levels turn out to be vulnerable to the disease and lots of people with low or non-existing levels turn out to be fully protected against many diseases.

None of their test methods are specific for any disease and even they admit that there are plenty of crossover positive reactions, whereby a detected high level against a so-called specific disease might also protect you against some other diseases. But they can’t tell you with certainty which diseases nor can they guarantee you protection either. They notice the inaccuracies within the theory but they do not use those observations to further their understanding.

Since apparently the medical profession does not know what it is exactly they are testing and what it means, it doesn’t much sound like a scientific method.

However, science did establish how protection against diseases works. In the midst of a small forest they infect one tree with a very specific disease, a disease in which they have identified the protein that the tree produces in order to protect itself against that specific disease. Within minutes, indeed, the tree begins to produce the specific anti-dote, as was expected. Science has established that within a very short space of time all the same species trees within that forest, even the ones on the outskirts of the forest, are producing that specific protective protein. Even without there being a possibility of a physical transmission – no direct contact and too short a time (the infected tree hasn’t even become ill) – similar trees are protecting themselves as if they know that this specific disease is in the neighbourhood.

Protection against specific diseases occurs even before physical contact with the disease has been established. If it isn’t physical contact with the disease that stimulates ‘an immune response’ then the organism must somehow smell or sense the presence of danger in its neighbourhood. That is, in effect, an energetic exchange.

What Can I Say about the Science that our Medical Establishment is Using?

These are all outdated models, some of which were even obsolete at the time allopathic medicine was invented by John Rockefeller two centuries ago. But as the inventors and investors of our medical system are business people they opted, and still do, for the most profitable system and one that would make people become totally dependent upon their services. For this dream to become reality one has to stick to the same stories and the same tactics of trashing the opposition, which can easily be done if you own the entire media and governments too.

The reality is far more shocking and far more unbelievable than where human imagination can take you. That is all I can say about medicine.

I am done with it!

No explanation that involves the physicality of matter can even be considered to contain any useful truth in the scientific quest for answers to the fundamental questions of life.

You may believe anything you want, but remember that even that won’t change the truth. No matter how great your numbers are. No matter how democratic you want to be. History has shown us that in science the majority is always wrong!

I close all connecting doors to medicine and I open all doors to science.