Written.. New York, July 30, 2008 Dr. Vladimir Gouliaev.

Content: The cure--is it forbidden, or unwelcome? Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) syndrome The main problem with modern medicine Paradox The World Health Report 2000 Study by Harvard University and the National Institute of Mental Health Narrow specialization, which kills Antibiotics, which kill Secrets of the cure to high blood pressure Placebos (sugar pills) could safe your life Cancer cure? When your heartache is not caused by a heart problem

THE CURE--IS IT FORBIDDEN, OR UNWELCOME?

It’s no secret that not everything is what it appears to be.

It’s also no secret that the fastest and easiest ways to make "big" money are usually illegal; although the "easy" way is what most people in our society are drawn to. The expected outcome of this is a never-ending stream of (unadvertised) attempts to legalize what is illegal. And unfortunately, there is a great deal of evidence that the medical industry has escaped any punishment for their "legitimized" lawbreaking.

You are about to discover a process of declassification of cure-related materials they do not want you to know about.

You may wonder, who are "THEY?" And why have they been allowed to hide their dirty businesses and to be protected by the government for decades (at least)? By now, you’ve probably guessed that we’re not talking about someone at the level of a pizza-delivery man, right?

Many people might never wonder about how strong the link between politics and medicine is. Well, let’s build a little logical chain:

1. First--Lenin wrote that "politics is concentrated economics," which in plain English, can be translated as "big business determines politics."


2. Second--Mark Twain said, "We have the best government that money can buy." Simply stated, this means that government works not in the best interests of the nation, but exclusively for big corporations for the expense of the nation.


3. Third—A quote from Benjamin Disraeli, The first Earl of Beaconsfield and (Sephardic) Jewish Prime Minister of the U.K.: "The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." In other words, the government that you see is composed of employees of the shadow government, who control the political and financial power of the country (big banks, high-ranking companies, etc.).


4. Fourth—Franklin D. Roosevelt stated, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way." Obviously, this means that when the government says "nobody expected this; we did not think it might happen," they are lying.

How does this corporate dictatorship, which is strangely referred to as "democracy," relate to people who are seeking for medical care? Let’s see:

For starters, can you guess what the main problem with modern medicine is? Is it a lack of money for research? A lack of support from the government? A lack of equipment? No, it isn’t any of these. One of the main problems with modern medicine is healthcare providers’ narrow specialization. This often turns doctors into robots that have no choice other than to follow the (far-from-perfect) instructions they have received, even if they are aware of a superior solution for a patient. Why is this so? Because those companies that sell drugs and related medical products are optimizing their moneymaking machines, and doctors play their respective roles in this clock-like mechanism--no freedom, no choice to go against a system that was created to make the number one priority not health, but money. It’s like a conveyor belt, where the employee (the doctor) does one specific job and prescribes only what the pharmaceutical companies instruct him to do. And the doctor is usually denied the right to use safe, natural remedies as his main treatment. Why? Because the drug companies are determined not allow the manufacturers of natural remedies to make any money, as that would take money out of their pockets.

Now let’s evaluate how good this no-freedom/no-individuality, "conveyer belt" system is for patients:

The norm should be when one doctor is able to evaluate all relationships between organs and disease, determine the reason for the disease, and choose the right treatment, which is "to fight with the fire." 

These types of doctors generally will not prescribe for their patients dangerous, toxic drugs. (Note: in approximately 10 years, more than half of all FDA-approved drugs were classified by the same FDA as dangerous (according to The Journal of the American Medical Association, National Council for Patient Information and Education). Drug companies’ products have already killed more Americans than all U.S.-involved wars.

The doctor's knowledge, no matter what his specialty is, must be not limited to only one part of the body; all body connections to the organ he specializes in, have to be learned, as well. If the doctor has this knowledge, he will never overlook conditions where a primary organ's damage is disguised by a dispatch of pain to another organ. 

For example, Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) syndrome, which affects roughly 25% of the U.S.' population at some point in their lives, may not manifest itself as local pain, but may radiate out to other areas of the body, manifesting itself in the form of severe headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and even asthma. Therefore, if therapists or neurologists are not familiar with TMJ syndrome, they most likely will miss the reason for the patient's problems, and will not make a proper diagnosis. As a result, the patient will not be cured. With narrow specialization, patients might suffer for the rest of their lives and will consume lots of unnecessary drugs. However, the medical system prevents doctors from using techniques that would result in permanent cures, which makes the drug companies very happy.

If doctors were to work in the best interests of their patients, the pharmaceutical companies might lose more than half of their business. But since many doctors work in the best interests of the pharmaceutical companies rather than their patients, it’s pretty obvious who their boss is. The root of the problems in medicine become more evident if you study the money trail. In the year 2002, among in the Fortune 500 companies, the combined profits of the leading 10 drug companies--$35.9 billion--were more than the profits of the other 490 businesses put together, which were $33.7 billion (Public Citizen Congress Watch, "Drug Industry Profits: Hefty Pharmaceutical Company Margins Dwarf Other Industries," June 2003.)

Have you noticed that the richest firms that sell these poison-laden, dangerous drugs have escaped prosecution for decades? Is it because they have corrupted justice as its core, or because justice has exceeded its expiration date? Shouldn’t someone at the top of our political Olympus care about health of the nation as a priority over the wealth of dirty businesses? Don’t people deserve good care? Yet, every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans are killed or have their health ruined by drug companies, which only care about making lots of money, at any cost. And they will continue to do so, unless people stop buying this dangerous stuff.

What are the chances that these AMA- and FDA-controlled doctors will start demanding the right to prescribe to their patients anything besides drugs (e.g., safe natural alternatives)? Well, if a large part of the population continues to regularly use the pharmaceutical companies’ dangerous drugs, this development is probably in the realm of science fiction. In order to change their outlooks, these doctors would need a good "push" from the public.

Here is another question: how were the pharmaceutical firms--which have already taken millions of innocent lives, deliberately hiding the truth about their products’ dangers--able to build their enormous wealth without government cover-ups?

Consider the case of Bill Gates, who is deeply involved in the pharmaceutical arena (as well as in oil, defense, and other high caliber businesses). Mr. Gates’ "no-one-can-see-the-codes" software is in all the voting machines, and it has been proven that this software was utilized in a fraudulent election. This is one example of the link between drug companies and government with politics.

A letter written by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 states, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."

This explains why the AMA and the FDA are trying to eliminate "thinking" doctors by forcing them to follow dogmas that are contrary to the health interests of suffering patients--allowing the drug companies to continue making billions of dollars You have probably heard about some famous cases where an alternative-healthcare doctor went to jail because he cured a cancer patient using methods other than FDA-approved "remedies."

More:
http://www.whale.to/a/shulze.html
http://www.whale.to/b/monopoly_q.html

Here, we come to another paradox. First--consider how many people, whose official mind state is classified as "normal," prefer to use a product that is not good for their health, or is even dangerous, instead of something that is beneficial for health?

You may respond that most people are not that stupid and would not poison themselves by their own free will. I wish this were true! In fact, these same people--who without any hesitation smoke highly carcinogenic cigarettes, drinks lots of alcoholic beverages that cause mental degradation and problems with digestive system, and take toxic pharmaceutical and recreational drugs--are often quite skeptical about taking a completely safe natural remedy that could help (and will definitely not harm) them. They say things like, "I do not know how it works, my doctor does not know either, therefore, I won’t even try it for free."

There is a bit of a contradiction here. They know that smoking drastically increases their risk of cancer and other health problems, but they’re not worried about smoking cigarettes. They’re not worried about consuming toxic drugs. They aren’t concerned that an overdosage of alcoholic beverages can cause mental and other health problems. But they’re afraid of taking safe and effective natural remedies, believing instead in the toxic "wonders" of modern chemistry.

What is going on in the minds of people who claim that they want to be healthy, but willingly/knowingly do the opposite? Are they victims of professional brainwashing (mind programming) or is it worse than that? In fact, the foul deeds of those who kill millions and damage the health of 10 times more people should be classified as crimes against humanity--or more appropriately, the extermination of human kind. For more details, watch the documentary of Alex Johns, The End Game (Full).

Mark Twain had this to say about modern healthcare "developments": Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint."

According to the World Health Report 2000, within 13 countries surveyed, in the U.S. ranked second from the bottom in on 16 available health indicators. In addition, the U.S. came in last for low birth weight and neonatal and infant mortality and ninth and 12th for all life expectancy categories between one year and 40 years.

Furthermore, over half of the U.S. population exhibits one or more symptoms of diabetes, hypoglycemia, and hyperinsulinemia—all life-destroying diseases. Routinely noted symptoms of adult onset diabetes are now observed in a younger generation--six-year-old children. (Type II diabetes is not being cured by today's "orthodox" treatment regimens, but alternative medical approaches to this disease that already exist and are showing effectiveness are not being pursued.)

Other health problems, such as obesity and its related endocrine system dysfunction, are commonly being detected in teenagers. One of the major causes of obesity is addictive supplements, which many manufacturers purposely (and sometimes secretly) add to food. They do this because it drives people to buy "junk" food, and to buy a lot of it.

According to Reuters, a team of Harvard researchers has reported that each year, as many as 8 million Americans with serious mental illnesses fail to receive adequate treatment. "Only 15% (of mentally ill patients) appear to be getting minimally adequate treatment, which is unfortunate-but not unexpected," says Dr. Philip S. Wang, an instructor in medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Mass. "This is a major public health problem, and something needs to be done."

It’s not currently possible to say whether the U.S. is poised to rank as number one globally for mental illness, but the fact is, 46% of all Americans will, at some point in their lives, develop a mental disorder (according to a study by Harvard University and the National Institute of Mental Health, Aug. 16, 2005). Importantly, this figure is an amazing match with a survey published by Washington Post, where 64% of the respondents said they disapproved of the way George W. Bush is handling the war in Iraq. Now, do the simple math, and ask yourself--what is the probability that the remaining 46% of all Americans surveyed who are okay with G.W. Bush may have mental disorders--or this is just a coincidence? If you believe this may not be a coincidence, then ask yourself another question: what or who influenced their minds, and for what purpose? David Rockefeller, speaking at the United Nations in September 1994, may offer an explanation: "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Former President George. H.W. Bush, adding Congress in September 1990 in a message title "Toward a New World Order," confirmed this direction with the following statement: "Out of these troubled times ... a new world order can emerge."

Now we can consider a statement made by our current president, George W. Bush, who exclaimed, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!" (This statement, reported by Capital Hill Blue, was made at a November 2005 meeting at the Oval Office, held to discuss renewing the U.S.A. Patriot Act.)

Most likely, if people were in a "normal" state of mind, they would never accept a regime similar to what Hitler tried to build but failed--a New World Order. But unfortunately, this is often not the case, and in every generation, there are one or more groups of powerful individuals who are very interested in exploiting mentally altered people who they can "program" as they wish.

"It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free--to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act… The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free and the good laws will remain on the statute book; but these liberal forms will merely serve to mask and adorn a profoundly illiberal substance."
--Aldous Huxley (Brave New World Revisited, Published 1958, 2004 p. 333, HarperCollins ISBN 0060535261)

To repress rebellion is to maintain the status quo, a condition which binds the mortal creature in a state of intellectual or physical slavery. But it is impossible to chain man merely by slaving his body: the mind must also be held, and to accomplish this, fear is the accepted weapon. The common man must fear life, fear death, fear God, fear the Devil, and fear most the overlords, the keepers of his destiny."
--Manly P. Hall (an occultist and 33^rd degree mason)

’The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electronically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain."
--Dr. Jose Delgado, Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118 February 24, 1974

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…
…In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons  ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
--Edward Bernays, Nov. 22, 1891 - March 9, 1995. (Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine.)

Now, back to medicine. The quotes noted above provide sufficient reason to start thinking about how the high rate of mental disorders in the U.S. has been caused by negative influences of those officials who are in a position of power.

The above quotes may explain why today, the average medical doctor receives no more then three hours of training on the subject of nutrition, despite the fact that our bodies are RELY ON NUTRITION FOR LIFE ITSELF. Aren't our bodies built from what we eat (including herbs) and drink? If so, why is vital subject largely ignored in the medical community? Is it because this knowledge would hurt the sale of pharmaceutical drugs?

We must face the bitter reality: Medical Society has artificially created a situation in which a doctor’s knowledge is limited only to a certain area of the body, and he is not legally responsible for the health of the other parts. Therefore, doctors do not even want to think about the interaction between the body’s organs and systems.

Is this good or bad? It could be okay if our body acted purely as a machine (i.e., if a disease had no relation to other areas of the body). But in fact the body functions in a totally different mode than a machine--all organs are integrated into one intelligent system, whereby what each organ does impacts the others. Therefore, any disease always either directly or indirectly affects some other parts of the body, or even the whole body. If a doctor ignores this, or if it is out of his field of "specialization," his patient can get into real trouble. It is horrible to think about how many people have suffered from the wrong treatment, because their pain wasn't present in the area where the disease was located.

Here is one real example of this scenario: Andrew, 57 years old, went to Coney Island Hospital in Brooklyn, New York, with stomach pain and shortness of breath. Of course, he was automatically directed to a gastroenterologist. The doctor found minor problems in Andrew’s stomach and started to treat them, assuming that they were the only reasons for the patient's complaints.

Andrew tried to emphasize, "Doctor, it can't be my stomach. All my life, I never suffered from stomach pains and never had any shortness of breath. It has to be something else."

The "good" doctor replied, "No, it's only your stomach. Don't worry about it."

Andrew died shortly after this conversation. His autopsy revealed that the cause of death was a heart attack, plus a sarcoma of the lungs--which also was missed by the hospital, even though X-rays had been taken.

Why did Andrew end up dying? Because the gastroenterologist, due to his narrow specialization, did not know that sometimes pain from a heart attack can radiate to the stomach area only. Therefore, the doctor did not pay attention to the heart (not to mention the lungs). And the amazing part of this story is that when Andrew’s relatives complained about the misdiagnosis, the legal system concluded that doctors at the Coney Island Hospital are not guilty, because… "the patient anyway would of die from cancer" (which they misdiagnosed). Nothing was mentioned about the heart attack. So although this shouts "medical malpractice," it was not deemed to be illegal.

Furthermore, the doctors either did not know, or "forgot" to mention that traditional medicines are claimed to be able to cure 80% of cancers. Assuming this is true, then why didn’t they try to take this route to cure the cancer they said they found in Andrew? One of the main reasons is that the Food and Drug Administration is always ready to cry "fraud" and persecute practitioners of alternative medicine, even if they successfully cure a cancer patient. Conversely, the FDA does not care about protecting victims from extremely dangerous conventional anti-cancer treatments such as chemotherapy (which basically poisons the body) and radiation (which "burns" and destroys cells, the immune system, etc.). Why aren’t government officials defending patients’ rights? Are they too busy jailing doctors who have cured patients with natural remedies?

Think about the FDA’s policies once again in relation to this quote: "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims."
--Ayn Rand

Here’s another case. A woman named Laima had a problem with her backbone, but the pain extended only to her breast and caused spasms of the breast muscles. Whose "caring" hands did she fall into? Not surprisingly, a surgeon’s. And it’s also not surprising that he mistakenly diagnosed the spasms as an inflammation requiring "surgery," and scheduled an operation. Thankfully, this woman sought out a good chiropractor before she had the surgery. The chiropractor found the real source of the problem, and he adjusted her backbone, such that her pain and spasms disappeared completely. No inflammatory process was ever diagnosed afterwards, so obviously, no operation had been necessary!

Is there a solution to this type of medical misdiagnosis and exploitation? Yes, there is—a holistic approach to health care. This approach views the body not as a "soul-less" collection of independent machine-like organs, but as a living system of tightly integrated organs. Living organs act differently than machines and require very different techniques of "repair." Sometimes, in order to effect a cure a, a doctor may not need to treat the directly affected organ, but a related organ instead. For example, in some cases, treating the liver may cure organs such as the pancreas, etc.

WHAT CAN BE DONE WHEN ANTIBIOTICS DO NOT HELP?

A 42-year-old woman named Katty came to me for an examination. She had a lung infection. Under a doctor's supervision she took antibiotics; but the complex antibacterial treatment she was given produced no results. The woman decided to get a second opinion, and came to me.

"Doctor, I’m visiting you because I don’t want to be in the hospital. I need to be healthy. I’ve heard you know how to cure such diseases. Please, help me!"

Upon examination, I found that the liquid in her lungs was caused by her liver. The antibacterial drugs she had been given were so strong and toxic that her liver could not tolerate their side effects. (The side effects of these toxic drugs affected her liver’s ability to perform its main function of detoxifying the body.) Open any medical reference book and read what happens to a body when the liver is damaged--liquid accumulates in the lungs (among other health effects). So, what did I do for this woman? I prescribed liver protectors and some measures for her detoxification. The next day, she was shocked to find that there was no more liquid in her lungs. (Of course, not every patient can be treated in one day, but this can occur.)

The father of a six-year-old girl named Anna came to me, and asked what he should do. His daughter was in the hospital with pneumonia, and her health was deteriorating daily. She was receiving the most powerful antibiotics available, and the doctors said that they don't know what else they could do. They told the father that the girl might die in two weeks.

I examined Anna and then instructed the father, "Take your daughter out of this hospital immediately."

"And do what?" he asked."

And do nothing. Just clean the antibiotics out of her body; she has been poisoned by them."

The father knew that my unusual treatments always seem to work (and he completely trusted me); therefore, without any hesitation, he heeded my instructions. Anna started to heal immediately, and within two weeks, she was completely cured.

Was this a rare case? No. Statistics show that every year, about 40,000 people die from pneumonia in U.S. hospitals! The causes of these deaths might be the poisoning of body organs (the liver, etc.) rather than lung infections.

Therefore, if you have been prescribed potent antibiotics and your condition continues to worsen, think about your liver first--it might not be able to handle the toxic side effects of those antibiotics. Unfortunately, however, most doctors are afraid to go against the medical protocol that says, "any pneumonia cases must to be treated with antibiotics."

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it."
--Robert Heilein

SECRETS OF THE CURE TO HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE

Paradox: All doctors know that there is always an underlying reason for a disease, but when it comes to the treatment, they prescribe pills against "the smoke," not "the fire." For example, if a patient is diagnosed with high blood pressure, he will be prescribed blood-pressure-lowering pills as his main treatment.

To treat a disease without treating its cause is a very poor tactic. In this case, blood pressure should be normalized WITHOUT the use of pressure-lowering medications. In fact, the only sensible treatment is to target the reason for the disease. High blood pressure can be caused by problems in the heart, liver, kidneys, nervous system, vessels, etc. Therefore, in order to cure this disease, a doctor needs to find out the source of the disease and treat it. This is the fastest way to normalize blood pressure and does not require any "pressure pills." Nevertheless, the vast majority of "conventional" doctors prescribe pressure-lowering pills as a primary treatment for high blood pressure. Why? Because the medical protocol (by drug companies?), prohibits, under threat of severe penalty, the treatment of high blood pressure without prescribing pressure-lowering medicines. As a result, a doctor has no incentive to look for the underlying source of a patient’s high blood pressure.

Logically it might seem as if there is nothing wrong with directly lowering high blood pressure, but this is flawed thinking. Consider the concept of why blood pressure increases. The body increases it! Why? Because this is a method the body uses for self-regulation (to deliver more oxygen, nutrients, etc. to an affected area). In other words, the body generates high blood pressure to fight certain health problems.

So because the body must sometimes increase blood pressure, what is the result of taking pressure-lowering pills? Simply put, it’s a DISASTER. Why? Because the medication does not allows the body to handle its regulation by itself. No doubt, the body will try to increase blood pressure more than it would have before, to compensate the drug’s destructive effects. The body is "tricked" into doing this, and it and is attempting to protect us from a dangerous condition. The outcome of such treatment over a period of years is that the blood pressure slowly rises and the patient has to take even more drugs.

Now, with the patient "hooked" on this treatment, drug companies’ profits can continue to grow. I think this clearly explains why the FDA wants to screw every alternative practitioner who can cure a disease. A permanently cured disease represents a disaster for pharmaceutical companies, whereas never-ending treatment is their ideal scenario.

It is also critical to remember that, according to statistics, each second drug that you might take along with the primary medication could have dangerous drug interaction side effects such as heart failure, convulsions, kidney and liver failure, birth defects, and blindness (as reported by the General Accounting Office). Interestingly, more side effects lead to more health problems—and more business generated for the drug companies!

Conversely, here is an example of a patient who received correct treatment. Leonid, who had a 63-year-old mother named Maria, asked me to see his mother. Maria’s doctor had told Leonid that Maria might pass away in 1-2 weeks from super-high blood pressure (about 240/170), and the doctors had sent her home to die in peace because they were unable to help her.

I discovered that the main reason for her high blood pressure was arteriosclerosis of her brain’s arteries. But guess what made her arteriosclerosis worse? It was the drugs they had prescribed to her! (This side effect even was mentioned in the product literature). So the medicine the doctors gave her had no effect other than worsening her condition. I prohibited her from continuing to take the pressure-lowering pills, and instead, prescribed a strong treatment for the arteriosclerosis, with necessary support for related organs. This treatment would "cooperate" with the body, instead of fighting with it. Maria’s blood pressure dropped to a normal level in three days!

Two weeks later, Leonid came to me with some bad news—his mother’s blood pressure had once again risen. I visited Maria, and she told me what had happened. It appeared that the reason her blood pressure was high again was that she had visited her doctor. Apparently, Maria’s doctor had asked what she did that caused her high blood pressure to drop. She showed the doctor all the medicines I had prescribed for her. The doctor told Maria that these remedies was the wrong thing to do and instead, to take the pressure-reducing pills again. So Maria listed to this doctor, and resumed taking the pills that had almost caused her death. I gave her a good "talking-to," after which she returned to the remedies I gave her. In one day, her blood pressure returned to normal levels.

Maria ultimately visited another doctor, and exactly the same scenario was repeated—her pressure rose again. This time, Leonid threw the pressure-lowering drugs into the trash can (as he should have done initially). It has been five years since this occurred, and, she has not suffered from high blood pressure once in all this time.

The conclusion is that if a doctor prescribes only pressure-reducing pills, you do not have a very good chance of being cured. And drugs always have damaging side effects. One could sum it up by concluding that these drugs are designed to prevent longevity.

PLACEBOS (SUGAR PILLS) COULD SAFE YOUR LIFE

There was a 62-year-old cleaning woman, named Lisa, at the office where I worked. She suffered from frequent attacks of high blood pressure (up to 240/130), but she opted to refuse conventional treatments, except in the case of emergencies, when she suffered high blood pressure attacks. However, there was one major problem with these high blood pressure attacks--when they occurred, conventional treatments had little effect, and it was very difficult to bring her blood pressure to a normal level.

One day, Lisa had a high blood pressure attack, and her doctor was not in the office, so she came to see me instead. Upon examination, I discovered that the reason for her high blood pressure was a psychic dilemma. Specifically, her greatest desire was simply to attract attention from people, and in order to do, so she subconsciously raised her blood pressure. This subconscious act was intended to elicit pity from as many people as possible to compensate for the lack of attention (or more appropriately, appreciation) in her life. This tactic seemed to work because people offered her pity only when she was having a high blood pressure attack; when she was okay, no one seemed to show any interest in her. So the subconscious part of Lisa’s mind "ordered" the body to increase blood pressure to fulfill her desire to get attention. The conventional high blood pressure treatment had little effect, because it did not address the real reason for the high blood pressure--Lisa’s mental state.

In order to help Lisa, I knew I had to change her subconsciousness, and that's what I did, using a placebo technique. (There are other solutions as well.) When she came to me, her blood pressure level was a very high 230/120. I told her that this was just "slightly higher than normal," and gave her a harmless sugar pill that did nothing to her blood pressure, or to her psychological condition. In 10 minutes, her blood pressure was normal.

Why did this happen?

The explanation is not as simple as the action was. Generally, this method may be classified as a way of overcoming the resistance of her subconsciousness. Lisa’s brain anticipated that I would eliminate her high blood pressure, causing her to resist this cure, as a cure would prevent her from receiving the attention and pity she craved. Therefore Lisa’s brain subconsciously considered me as an enemy, and prepared react by doing the opposite of everything I was trying to do for her.

Now I’ll explain what was going on behind the scenes after I gave Lisa the "sugar pills." I told her that I was trying to lower her blood pressure, but did not let her know that I was giving her a "sugar pill" that would have no effect at all on her blood pressure. I did this because I knew that her subconsciousness would definitely step in to battle against the treatment, which it would FIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT. Next, because I did not treat Lisa’s high blood pressure directly, her subconscious mind was not able to fight my medicinal treatment, and due to this her mind automatically excluded me from her list of "enemies." Subsequently, who was left to fight with on the battlefield? Only Lisa’s mind itself. So instead of me, Lisa’s subconscious mind had no choice but to declare war to the other part of her mind, which ordered the raising of her blood pressure in order to receive people’s compassion. This trick forced Lisa’s mind to fight with itself, in effect fighting the high blood pressure created by that same mind. Who wins in a situation such as this—the mind or the body? It’s obvious--if the body the created high blood pressure, it will normalize blood pressure if the opposite order is received. That’s how the body can successfully normalize blood pressure, and can do so quickly. The result: no pills, no injections, no side effects, no high blood pressure.

In this case, given that the patient’s mental state was the reason for her high blood pressure, the doctor's first mistake was to tell her that she had very high blood pressure (as this impacted the cause of her high blood pressure—i.e., her mental state). The second mistake he made was giving her a pill that did not address the real reason for her disease but gave rise to inducing emotions within Lisa’s mind. It increased the tension within Lisa’s subconsciousness, which was ultimately causing the problem. That is how Lisa’s subconsciousness drastically diminished the doctor's efforts to help her.

It should be noted that actually, the proper doctor in a case like Lisa’s should not be not a therapist, but a psychiatrist. However, the problems of narrow specialization left her with almost no chance of getting the right treatment.

This is one example of how the narrow specialization of doctors presents serious problems for many patients--way too often, it results in doctors fighting fire with smoke instead of with fire. Imagine a situation where you have a leak in your bathroom. Your plumber, instead of closing off the source of the leak, just cleans up your floor. This is what it’s like when your doctor addresses only the most visible problem and sends you home "unfixed."

Fact--according to the worldwide scientific data, placebo heart drugs (as well as all other drugs) work better than real drugs. The only exception to this is morphine. (Placebo morphine was shown to be 10% less effective than the real product.)

However, how often will the media tell you that these placebos have the same (or better) effectiveness or better than real drugs? Probably as often as you hear true statements from politicians.

"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."
--Mark Twain

CANCER CURE?

There are many other cases in which withholding information about a patient’s condition, combined with using a placebo treatment, has saved people’s lives. These treatments, if applied properly, can be very effective, because the human mind is more powerful than we can imagine. (Think about what yogis can do.) However, there is little chance that a "conventional" doctor will use a placebo treatment. Why? Because a doctor may be severely punished if he steps away from the treatment "norms" sanctioned by the FDA and other medical associations. If doctors were to enable people to use the full power their minds, humanity could live without using any drugs at all.

A farmer named Michael went to see a Russian surgeon, Leon Ender. An examination showed that Michael had cancer in the last stage, and it was determined that nothing could help him. As a doctor, the surgeon would have ordinarily been obligated to tell him the bad news. Instead, the surgeon told him, "Don't worry, Michael. It's nothing serious. Take these vitamins and everything will be okay."

In one year, the farmer returned to the surgeon and affirmed that everything was okay—he had no signs of cancer at all! Why? Because to the farmer, the surgeon was like a god, and he believed in and trusted him 100%. Only a 100% belief can mobilize a body to defeat cancer. So with the surgeon telling him it was nothing serious, he was effectively giving a command to Michael’s body--you can do it; you can get well! The result of this mindset is that the body does its best to prevent a disease from becoming a serious one.

The moral here is, always think twice before giving someone bad news about his health. It’s not always beneficial for a person to hear the complete truth, especially when you can offer no solutions to the problem. You never know what revealing the truth may do to a person--it may diminish his power/will to fight for survival or mobilize his defense forces. And the stakes might be life itself.

An interesting statistic: "Cancer was practically unknown until the cowpox vaccination began to be introduced.... I have seen 200 cases of cancer, and never saw a case in an unvaccinated person."
--W.B. Clark, New York Times 1909.

WHEN YOUR HEARTACHE IS NOT CAUSED BY A HEART PROBLEM

A 40-year-old man, Peter, came to see me. He stated that he was suffering from heart pain, and had been officially diagnosed as having ciliary arrhythmia (cardiac rhythm disturbance) for many years. He complained that his doctor had provided very little help and could not cure his heart pain and arrhythmia. In addition to prescribing drugs for Peter, the doctor had warned him that if he ever got caught in cold water, his heart vessels would collapse, and he would DIE. As a result, Peter was 100% sure that he would die if, for example, he got caught in the rain without an umbrella.

I gave him an examination and found that he did not a heart problem at all. Rather, his condition was caused by unresolved stress that had manifested itself in the area of his heart. Peter’s doctor had drastically amplified his patient’s stress by making Peter believe that he had a real heart problem. That’s why, with the passage of time, Peter developed a nervous breakdown state that mimicked ciliary arrhythmia. I gave this news to Peter, who was shocked and hardly believed me. How it could it be that his doctor, who he thought was second to God, had been so mistaken about his heart?"

So, what is the cure?" Peter asked me. I knew one very effective cure for this kind of stress, but it could be dangerous if Peter were actually suffering from heart disease--it was a brief, cold shower. However, I offered the following anti-stress treatment to Peter because I had sufficient reasons to conclude that it would represent no risk to his life and would be effective enough:

First--I evaluated his heart functions using several methods. This evaluation gave me a 100% assurance that his heart was okay for his age.

I’d like to point out here that an ECG (electrocardiogram) cannot give such an assurance; and other methods are required. As noted above, an ECG (electrocardiogram) alone is not enough to make a proper diagnosis of a heart problem. This diagnosis requires an additional tests, such as the nearly unknown SCG (seismocardiogram), pulse analysis, etc.

Second—Since exposing himself to cold water would be the complete opposite of the hypnotic suggestion the doctor had implanted into Peter’s mind, I told Peter that taking a cold shower would provide him with 100% proof that the doctor was wrong about the reason for his illnesses. I explained that this undeniable evidence would diffuse his fears and subsequently defeat the main reason for the illnesses’ existenc--a mental condition caused by stress and amplified by the doctor’s negative messages. I explained that with no physiological reason for the ciliary arrhythmia to exist, it would disappear almost immediately after the stress was eliminated by his taking the cold shower.

Unresolved stress works as an amplifier of a patient’s emotions, including fear. As a result of stress, Peter experienced uncomfortable feelings in his heart area. However, his doctor, instead of paying attention to his stress and checking his mental condition, made Peter’s stress worse by misdiagnosing his condition. Due to this mistake, Peter’s stress elevated to a form of arrhythmia. This condition was not generated by an actual heart arrhythmia and/or heart pain, but the stress manifested itself with pain in his heart area instead of being located at the source, his head (headache). The doctor mistakenly stated that the pain in the heart area, along with developing arrhythmia, was a sign of a dangerous heart problem; and this diagnosis scared the patient. The resulting fear materialized into the imagination of heart pain and also disrupted Peter’s heart rhythm. Can heart medications cure such disease? No way!

Anyway, back to the story: "Is there another alternative?" asked the distraught Peter, and I responded, "This is the best one."

After two days of considering my advice, Peter came back to me with some of his relatives and said, "My doctor wants to kill me. He will be guilty if I die." He agreed to try anti-stress treatment, a cold shower.

So he took a cold shower, and he didn’t die, and his heart pain disappeared completely. A short time later, his arrhythmia was gone, too. I administered to him additional anti-stress procedures with natural remedies that specifically targeted his type of stress—and he was cured."

I’m sorry, doctor, for doubting you," he apologized. "You were right. Now I understand why I had heart pain and arrhythmia--that it was stress, not my heart, that was the problem. But how come no one cares about peace in my mind at home?"

Let’s view this situation through an analogy: All of the soldiers of one country are fighting with all of the soldiers of another country. It doesn’t matter where one of these armies was victorious--in a field, a forest, or in the mountains. All that matters is that they defeated the enemy's forces, and now, all of the defeated soldiers will do whatever the victor wants. The same is true with stress: it does not matter where it is defeated—it is defeated everywhere.

Unfortunately, using methods such as those noted above requires not only holistic education (which can effectively resolve health problems), but also courageous doctors, because these are not conventional medical approaches and doctors may be severely punished by the FDA, the AMA, and other agencies if they treat their patients with these safe, natural remedies.

In order to improve this situation (and this may sound a little strange), a doctor must have legal rights to do his best to cure a patient. The main problem here is this right would negatively impact the interests of big pharmaceutical companies.

Is there anything you can do about this? Yes, there is--simply not using the services and products of those businesses with a policy of "nothing personal, just business." If you stop supplying them with your money, they will have no choice but to give you what you need.

If you don’t try to stand up for your rights, you automatically accept the possibility that some day, you might be the next victim whose interests will be crossed for money.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
--Edward R. Murrow

The article was written by Dr. Vladimir Gouliaev, July 30, 2008.