Still Trusting To Antibiotics? You just don’t understand
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby….CLICK BELOW PDF LINK FOR MORE
Modern antibiotics are not just failing big time; they are DANGEROUS. Antibiotics can be lethal in their own right.
I suspect those of you who haven’t yet bought my eBook “How To Survive In A World Without Antibiotics” are still living in a dream world, thinking you are OK. Maybe you think Scott-Mumby is just an agitator. I’m a “scare-monger” according to one subscriber of mine.
Well, hello! Is the guy that shouts “Fire!” a scare monger–or the hero who alerts others to the danger before it’s too late? I’m telling you the whole edifice of treating infectious disease is in flames and about to vanish.
Not only are antibiotics failing but the new forms are so toxic, they kill in their own right.
Did you know that antibiotics are the most common cause of death from acute liver failure? (acute means sudden and unforeseen; as opposed to “chronic”, which everyone can see coming).
Your doctor didn’t tell you that when he/she last prescribed them, I’ll bet. He or she probably didn’t even KNOW that!
The truth, is statistics show that antibiotics are the single largest class of drugs that cause fatal liver damage. Drug-induced liver injury accounts for about 13% of cases of acute liver failure in the United States and is the most common cause of death from acute liver failure.
Liver injury can be caused by a wide range of prescription and nonprescription medications, nutritional supplements and herbal products. In a new study, Indiana University School of Medicine researchers found that 73% of cases were caused by a single prescription medication, 9% by dietary supplements, and 18% by multiple agents. Patients with acetaminophen-related liver damage weren’t included in the study [American Gastroenterology Association, news release, Dec. 1, 2008].
Read that paragraph again. Even health supplements can kill you, if you don’t know what you are doing. But 73% of liver deaths were caused from just one prescription.
That means you won’t get ANY warning, if you are among the unlucky 73%.
Yes, antibiotics were the most common cause of death due to liver injury (45%). The next group, nervous system agents, were only 1/3rd as common (15%). That puts antibiotics way out on their own as deadly drugs.
Chief offenders are isoniazid, macrolides (erythromycin type), penicillins, clavulanic acid (Augmentin), sulphonamides, nitrofurantoin (Macrobid) and tetracycline. In most cases, toxicity is idiosyncratic, reactions occurring only in some susceptible individuals, but that’s hardly the point, is it?
I’m constantly amazed when I hear of colleagues prescribing erythromycin as a first line medicine for a sore throat. Don’t they know how toxic this stuff is? It had a bad reputation when I was in med school in the 1960s. Doesn’t anybody pay attention? If it’s to be used at all, it’s in a life-threatening situation where penicillins and safer drugs have failed.
Lots of antibiotics kill. In my view it is unethical to prescribe them and you wouldn’t get any from me, unless the situation was already life-threatening. Even then, if it was me or my own family, I would rather rely on IV mega-doses of vitamin C than any antibiotic. 50- 100 gr. Of vitamin C is much more certain and quicker (works in an hour to two!)
The bottom line is nobody should be thinking “antibiotics”. We should be thinking of “alternatives”. And here’s the joke: there are 1,000s of viable alternatives. Hundreds of them work as well as antibiotics.
In my book I quoted a 1929 study in which substantial doses of a certain vitamin relieved 100% of puerperal sepsis. No drug is that good! (and, no, it wasn’t vitamin D or C) At that time puerperal sepsis (childbed fever) was the single most common cause of maternal mortality, accounting for about half of all deaths related to childbirth, and was second only to tuberculosis in killing women of childbearing age.
I’m sorry, but if you still believe antibiotics are going to save us, you need to get a grip. The Golden Age of Antibiotics is over. Bacteria have won the war, hands down, and that’s the truth. We’re all out of ammunition!
Well, not quite. There are, as I said, hundreds of healthy, safe and EFFECTIVE alternative modalities of treatment. You need to learn about them and learn NOW, not when somebody is in bed the CAP pneumonia (non-hospital pneumonia, which is the 4th commonest cause of death in the UK, 6th in the USA).
Infectious diseases can strike anywhere and move terrifyingly fast. People have been healthy at breakfast and DEAD by bedtime. This is happening every day in developed countries, not just the Third World.
Get the knowledge you need to stay safe and take care of your loved ones. Learn what you need to know to SURVIVE IN A WORLD WITHOUT ANTIBIOTICS.
Click this link and buy the book now.
For this week only, I have knocked off a further $5, just to help you. That’s just $22. It doesn’t get any better than that for a comprehensive, full 217-page report.
A prescription for antibiotics could cost you more than that (and likely won’t work)! This goes on working, to protect you, for ever!
Prof. (in serious mood today)
VITAMIN C: It can defeat cancer, after all
Thirty years after he put forward the theory, Linus Pauling’s claim that high-dose vitamin C can kill cancer cells has finally been proven.
Researchers have finally established that very high doses of the vitamin can selectively kill cancer cells while leaving alone healthy ones.
Three cancer patients who have been given large intravenous doses have seen their life-threatening tumours shrink, researchers reported this week.
A 49-year-old man who had been diagnosed with terminal bladder cancer in 1996 is still alive and well, thanks to regular infusions of vitamin C. He had declined the standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments.
In a similar case, a 66-year-old woman with an aggressive lymphoma who had a “dismal prognosis” in 1995 is also alive and well thanks to the vitamin C therapy.
And, in the third case, a 51-year-old woman with kidney cancer that spread to her lungs in 1995 had a normal chest x-ray two years later.
Pathologists have confirmed the findings, and they say the cases prove a ‘clinical plausibility’ for Pauling’s claims. Sadly, it’s all come too late for Pauling himself, who never had his theory independently verified. Because researchers were unable to duplicate Pauling’s results in independent studies, his therapy was rapidly consigned to the mass of unproven ‘alternative treatments’.
So why has it taken so long? Apparently every research team before had given high-dose vitamin C orally to patients. However, vitamin C in tablet form is rapidly excreted by the body while intravenous doses not only stay longer in the system, they also achieve blood levels that are 25 times greater than by supplement. It’s only at these very high levels, when retained by the body, that vitamin C can selectively kill cancer cells.
Finally, the findings have triggered more research that will test the therapy using intravenous use of vitamin C, including a major study at McGill University.
It seems extraordinary that it has taken the medical establishment so long to even set the correct parameters for fair trials when we are talking about a therapy that could save the lives of thousands.
It’s looking more and more likely that Pauling discovered an effective, and safe, treatment for cancer that doesn’t kill as many patients as it ‘cures’.
(Source: Canadian Association Medical Journal, 2006; 174: 937-42).
Symptoms Are The Solution, Not The Problem!
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
One of my next eBook projects is about Diabetes. I’ll keep you posted.
It’s going to contain a deal of totally amazing, outside the box, data. Some of it is sensational and so far from orthodox medicine teaching, you’d be right to gulp and do a double take!
I was pretty well “curing” diabetes over 30 years ago. All it took was a change of diet. And NO, I don’t just mean type II diabetes (that’s really easy). I mean type I, patients on insulin.
This is not because I am a genius; this is because Nature is a genius! She’s magnificent at fixing things; just give her the tools and let her go to it.
What I do teach is that any chronic disease is being blocked from healing. That’s it! That’s all there is to the secret! You can fix anything if you know this one simple rule of health.
Chronic diseases are made, they don’t just happen.
Most chronic diseases have been created by clumsy medicine, not understanding the true processes of healing, trying to suppress symptoms.
Symptoms are the answer, not the problem! I’ll type that again, there’s no typo: symptoms are the solution, not the problem! Symptoms are Nature’s fight back. Without symptoms, we would have no recovery.
And that’s what happens, exactly. Idiot doctors suppress the symptoms and so no healing takes place. Result? Chronic disease and $billions in profits for Big Pharma.
This is a big topic, so I’m not going to labor it here in this slot. I’ll come back to it, I promise. It’s important and is why I stand differently, even to most alternative doctors. DOs, NDs, MDs, homeopaths, chiros—all of them, believe mistakenly they are good healers. Nobody heals anything. Nature does that. We just set the stage and let it happen.
Reducing the body burden works. STOP interfering works! Minimalist medicine is to do as little as possible.
Look, even repeated herbs therapies and “formulas” are a fake. If they worked, you wouldn’t need more than a few doses. Think about it. The longer you take them, the less effective they must be!
All this is to introduce a study which is an example of science catching up with my philosophy of the last 40 years. Wonderful news and a wonderful demonstration of natural repair and recovery!
Swiss researchers have discovered that pancreas insulin-secreting cells can regenerate themselves. No surprise to me (I’ve seen it happen). But they were shocked. When they destroyed the pancreas beta cells in mice, to induce an artificial form of type 1 diabetes, other cells called alpha cells simply morphed into insulin-producing beta cells and all was well!
They found that when nearly all of the beta cells had been destroyed, if mice were given insulin therapy to keep them alive, the alpha cells spontaneously changed into functioning beta cells. After enough alpha cells converted into beta cells, insulin therapy was no longer needed. Bingo! (but nothing magic)
The new research, published April 4 2010 in the online edition of the prestigious journal Nature, is the first to show that this change can happen naturally and spontaneously, the study authors said.
This healing process applies to humans too. But diabetes is basically an auto-immune disease. So unless you switch off the allergic inflammatory response, the new cells will be killed too.
That’s a problem? Nah! Just stop eating inflammatory foods, get rid of chemical overload, clean up heavy metals in your terrain and virtually any auto-immune disease will settle down; even vanish.
Done it 10,000s of times! Solved rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, diabetes, polyarteritis and scores of others.
Just change your diet. That’s a good starting place. I tell you in detail how to do that in my book “Diet Wise”. It’s all about toxic foods and getting them out of your diet. Trouble is, toxic foods are different for everyone. So you have to test and figure out which are your problem foods.
How to do that is all in “Diet Wise”, the best and surest life-saving $20 you could possibly spend.
Allergies And Heart Disease: Is There A Link?
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
You guys must know I was christened the world’s “Number One Allergy Detective” back in 1990. Those were great pioneering days and I certainly made my mark.
Various questions came up. One was whether a hyper-active immune system (which is what allergies mean) was good or bad for cancer risk.
By that I mean that a jumpy, over-reacting immune system might be good at preventing cancer. You know that cancer cells exist all the time, but get picked off by white blood cells. So if the white blood cells are trigger happy, that could be a good thing, right?
But on the other hand, a not-quite-optimum immune system might favor the development of cancer. Allergies, after all, mean a dysfunctional immune system.
Well, suffice it to say, I don’t really know. I’ve never seen any published work on that point. My impression (opinion only) is that it reduces the risk of cancer.
Another question that emerged was: do allergies create more arterial disease (heart attack and strokes)? That’s reasonable because the #1 model for heart disease we have today is inflammation. It underpins all aging processes and there are many conditions, from arthritis to Alzheimer’s, that are inflammatory in nature.
Arterial inflammation, damage to the inner lining of arteries, is the real problem with heart disease, NOT cholesterol and all that nonsense. In fact plaque, which occludes arteries, appears to be Nature’s solution to the inflammation, not the cause of the problem. She is trying to seal off the inflammatory problem (like a band aid) and that causes thickening of the artery walls.
So allergies, which by definition are violently inflammatory in nature, ought to raise the risk of heart attack and stroke. But is that really so?
This time there may be evidence.
A study just published in the American Journal of Cardiology investigated whether common allergies increase the risk of coronary heart disease in adults. The study included a total of 8,653 adults over the age of 20 years.
Even after adjusting for elated factors such as asthma and age, there was a 260% increased risk of heart disease with wheezing and a 40% higher risk with rhinoconjunctivitis, compared to no detectable allergies at all.
These associations were mostly seen mainly in women under the age of 50 years; not other groups.
[Kim J, Purushottam B, Chae YK, et al. Relation Between Common Allergic Symptoms and Coronary Heart Disease Among NHANES III Participants. Am J Cardiol. Oct 2010].
Check The Lump With A Biopsy? Start The
Spread Of Cancer!
by Karl Loren –Vibrant Life
Have You Ever Found A Lump?
The most common cancer for women is breast cancer. The most common form of “treatment” is called “self-examination.” Virtually every doctor pounds on you that you MUST do a self-examination of your breasts — you women. They are saying this because they are aware of the growing hostility toward medical fiddling with your health — not to say your breasts. I’m going to be suggesting you get an ultrasound test long before you ever consider a biopsy or knife. Except that doesn’t work either!!
In another blow to the hope that early detection of breast cancer will save lives, the most-rigorous-ever study of the value of teaching women breast self-examination has found that it doesn’t reduce the risk of dying from the disease. A 10-year study of 266,064 women in Shanghai showed the death rate from breast cancer among those who became proficient at monthly self-exams after intensive instruction was no different from women who received no instruction and who didn’t practice self-examination. Tumors in the exam group weren’t even found at an earlier, more treatable stage. The finding, reported in Wednesday’s issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and coming, ironically, as Breast Cancer Awareness Month begins, threatens to dash the hopes of women who are already reeling from the controversy over whether regular mammograms save lives. An editorial in the medical journal pulls no punches: “At least for the great majority of women whose [exam] practice is not optimal, it does not reduce the risk of dying of breast cancer,” write Russell Harris and Linda Kinsinger of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
I had a lump! It wasn’t my breast, but it was on my chest.
The most common cancer for men is prostate cancer. Men don’t find lumps in their prostate gland, but the older men worry about a weak stream of urine, or having to get up several times during the night to urinate.
Lumps appear! Your first thought is often to keep it secret — something you don’t want to mention to ANYONE! What if it is cancer! Then, perhaps, you confess to your spouse, “I have a lump!“
If someone else knows about your lump, you can expect them to tell you, “You’d better get that checked!” “You should have a biopsy!“
Probably less than 20% of people would even worry about the danger of having a biopsy. More would worry about the worry, or the pain, or the cost, but few people realize that a biopsy, itself, can be dangerous to your health.
Because if there IS cancer there, the biopsy is likely to cause it to start spreading.
It just makes sense. The word “biopsy” comes from “bio-” which means “life,” and “-psy” which is from the larger Greek word, “opsis” meaning “vision” — thus, a “biopsy” is a look at life, or an examination of living tissue. One way or another, a “piece” of your flesh, or of some part of your body, is cut out so that it can be examined under a microscope.
Typically the doctor who does the actual biopsy will place a color stain on the sample tissue — a stain that makes the cells easy to see. Then he treats the sample with paraffin so that the individual cells won’t be moving around, or changed. By this time, of course, the cells are no longer alive. He then SLICES the paraffin into thin slices — about the thickness of a few cells.
THIS is what he looks at. When it is done this way several people can look at the same sample and come to an agreed conclusion.
Different parts of your body will have different rates of cell division. For instance, brain cells never divide. You got what you got! Other cells might divide every three weeks. Different rates. The biopsy examination looks at the cells of the sample and can detect how many of them are in the process of cell division. If the sample shows that 10% of the cells are in the process of cell division, and that type of cell ought not to show more than 1% of them going through cell division, then that sample shows abnormal growth — cancer.
Even though cancer is considered abnormal and rapid growth of cells, the entire mass of a cancer is normally rather slow growing — because it is “encased.” It grows inside a wall, or shell. The body is trying to protect itself from the cancer — because cancer would otherwise spread throughout the body. So, the body tries to protect itself by building a wall around the cancer to keep any of its cells from “leaking out.” (Actually, some cancers are very slow-growing [breast and prostate] while others are very fast [liver cancer].)
The least dangerous type of cancer is usually considered “skin cancer,” or “basal cell carcinoma.” This type of cancer hardly ever spreads through the body. It “spreads” by just affecting the tissue right next to it — and growing that way. For this reason a biopsy of basal cell carcinoma is not dangerous at all — but, of course, you don’t know it is basal cell carcinoma until you do the biopsy. An experienced doctor can usually tell by inspection and a history from the patient whether or not it is skin cancer. Generally, these are safely removed with simple surgery, and even if some of the cancer cells are “missed” there is no need for radiation or chemotherapy — just a bit more surgery to get the remaining cancer cells.
When the cancer DOES leak out there is a special word — the cancer is said to metastasize — start spreading into other parts of the body. It grows like an octopus — reaching its tentacles throughout the body.
The doctors all know this, but there is a special reason why they don’t tell you that a biopsy is likely to cause the cancer to start spreading.
They will tell you that the biopsy is painless, not expensive, and that it can be done during an office visit. They will tell you that it is covered by insurance.
They will tell you that if there is cancer in this lump, it is vital that you know about it so that you can start treating it quickly. They will tell you that if you start treating it quickly the chances of winning the battle over cancer are tremendously improved.
They will explain, in detail, the “fine needle biopsy,” where the needle is tiny, and is inserted through the flesh into the lump, a very small amount of material is withdrawn into the needle, and there will be no scar — no pain.
If there is cancer there, of course, they will then tell you that you should move VERY quickly to start treatment. You may not realize it, but there are only three legal treatments for cancer in most of the US. The laws of California make it a serious case of “unprofessional conduct” for a doctor to diagnose cancer and then treat it with anything other than the approved methods — chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. He can lose his license to practice medicine. He could even go to jail.
So, you discover the lump. You go to your doctor. No doctor would ever recommend AGAINST a biopsy — he must be safe or he can lose his license and perhaps millions of dollars in a malpractice lawsuit. So, he tells you, “You need a biopsy, right away. They are safe and not painful. I can do it right now.” or, he says, “Go see Dr. Smith, dermatologist, he can do a biopsy in his office, immediately.”
We are all hoping, at this point, that it is NOT cancer. The doctor may even say, “Well it doesn’t look malignant to me, I don’t think it’s cancer, but it’s better to be safe than sorry. Get the biopsy to find out.”
Here is what he DOES NOT tell you BEFORE the biopsy: “Once you have had the biopsy, if the doctor finds that there is cancer, then you must start your treatment immediately.”
Even if he tells you before the biopsy that you would have to start treatment immediately, he won’t tell you “WHY.” The reason, he will admit if you ask, is that the biopsy, itself, can start the spread of the cancer from the inside of the casing it was in. Remember, the body is protecting itself from having the cancer spread — it builds a wall around the cancer. Once you penetrate that wall, even with a very tiny needle, the cancer cells (they are certainly smaller than the needle) can leak out through the hole and enter the body. These cancer cells can enter the blood stream and within a few seconds they have been distributed throughout the entire body.
Perhaps your immune system is strong enough to handle these stray cancer cells. Perhaps they just won’t find a good place to “live.” But, perhaps you have just allowed the doctor to cause the metastasizing of your cancer.