For all practical purposes allopaths assume that illnesses are a deviation from a biologically given norm. But who decides what is the norm?
Nobody is normal :-p
They have mathematically calculated a so-called ‘healthy range’ for many measures, but
- something normal for one individual may be absolutely abnormal for another.
- the "wide" and "narrow" definitions of normality both yield errors. If the definition is "wide," individuals with disease may get by as "normal"; if it is narrow, then healthy individuals may get misdiagnosed with a sickness
In short, there is no biologically valid definition of what is definitely normal for everyone under all circumstances & at all the times.
Biologically speaking, there is not a single 'average 70 kg man' or '120 pound woman' living anywhere amongst the 6.5 billion inhabitants of this planet.
Thus over-generalized standards may not apply to you because the official benchmarks are just average numbers most of the time, divorced from your unique microvita constitution.
Is that the kind of diagnosis you are looking for?
The 1st step towards your diagnosis is to know that it's going to be unique to you.
Our differences define us:
On top of these multi-dimensional biological variance, there are endless variations in the negative microvita soup bubbling inside, causing innumerable arrangements of symptoms in varying degrees.
Allopaths are merely trained to isolate symptomatic similarities among patients and depend on it as their sole basis for chemical or physical interference .
But the idiosyncrasies are also just as important, if not more – because these individual differences are the ones that make each & every case unique.
By ignoring them, clinicians get caught in a nebulous cluster of symptoms, as if they come & go on their own without any rhyme or reason.
Will such a diagnosis work for you?
The 2nd step towards your diagnosis is to ensure that it takes into account your special circumstances.
Allopathy is what the allopath thinks (if he or she can):
The beauty of allopathy is that, being a 'modern science', it has all been objectively standardized. Right?
WRONG!
That's an assumption I also made until I bumped into Dr. Harris L. Coulter’s expose' [1] that there are no rigorous standards for diagnostic guidelines.
"For patients at a given stage in the progression of chronic illness, medical textbooks contain no evidence-based clinical guidelines for -
- scheduling patients for return visits,
- when to hospitalize or admit to intensive care,
- when to refer to a medical specialist,
- and, for most conditions, when to order a diagnostic or imaging test."
For example, this was found to be the case in the British Medical Journal’s annual Clinical Evidence Concise — which positions itself as “the international source of the best available medical evidence for effective health care” [4].
Is it a surprise then, why at least 98,000 patients die every year due to 'medical error' just in the US? [6].
What may surprise is how can an allopath unquestioningly accept non-uniform & un-ratified criterion for identifying many a disease?
Do you still want their diagnosis?
As a 3rd part of the diagnosis, please be ready for some exploration – as long as they are reasonable neoscientifically, you'll be making progress.
Symptomatic, pathological and biochemical data do not match frequently: [1]
- A patient with duodenal ulcer may have NO stomach pain.
- Visible symptoms failed to indicate pathological lesions discovered during autopsy.
- A woman with an overgrowth on the uterus lining may not have any excessive bleeding or cramps.
- A man with bronchitis may not have any difficulty breathing.
- The diabetic may not urinate in excess.
- A patient undergoing heart attack need not experience any chest pain.
- X-ray findings may show a shadow on the lung but the person may have no symptoms of tuberculosis.
- The patient with gallstones may have no symptoms related to gall-bladder disease.
- High uric acid in blood doesn't necessarily imply gout.
- Excess nitrogenous compounds in the blood of patients with nephritis may have nothing to do with tissue botchup in their kidneys.
- Angiograms often correlate poorly with cardiac irregularities.
- Ultra-sound showed improvement, whereas the patient's situation actually deteriorated, or vice versa.
Several autopsy studies of missed diagnoses causing death, with rates as high as 35-40%, were cited by Dr. Lucian L. Leape cited in his paper “Error in Medicine” which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association [9].
Have you had enough of such allopathic diagnosis?
The 4th step to make a correct diagnosis is to involve your internally guidance; gut feeling can be more reliable than machines. And intuition is always right.
No disease is an isolated island unto itself:
Then comes the issue of fluidity and friability of disease conditions, i.e. the continual changes they undergo, which may undermine the reliability and comparability of clinical investigations -
- Those performed today cannot readily be compared with those performed yesterday.
- Those performed in one country cannot readily be compared with those done in another: for instance, it was discovered that U.S. physicians were calling "pulmonary emphysema" what British MD’s named as "chronic bronchitis."
- Even those performed at the same time in the same country may employ different diagnostic criteria.
There is no consistent specificity in designating diseases such that their wide spectrum of clinical manifestations are covered adequately.
This partly explains the current generation of allopaths over-dependence on myriad instruments; because :
- The medical textbooks avoid precise symptomatic or pathological definitions of diseases leaving all practicing allopaths to come up with their own rules of thumb.
- the more tests performed, the steeper they can drive up the medical bills.
- many of the current generation of allopaths are in it because it makes a lucrative career – they lack the aptitude & confidence to interpret the symptoms properly.
That’s why allopathic under-diagnosis & misdiagnosis will remain common.
Is there be a better way to diagnose yourself?
5th step : be open to work on several organs of your body. The healthy parts will pull up the not-so-healthy ones. So they also need support.
Why & how you get dehumanized?
The above mentioned approximations are actually a guise so that trusting patients can be summarily slotted into fixed treatment categories without any firm foundation for a structure of scientific medicine.
Even though disease names are in steady use, in real life they correspond only to vague and shifting commonalities among patients.
As per officially agreed upon definitions, two patients can have completely different sets of symptoms & laboratory findings, and yet be diagnosed with the same disease. E.g. Rheumatoid arthritis.
Thus the ground reality is that there isn't enough scientific precision in actual allopathic practice.
"While these names may be convenient for the physician, they may be less so for the patient – whose particular condition may not quite correspond to the name on his diagnostic chart and…
…whose mode of treatment may not be quite adapted to his true illness. The superficial and careless use of disease names undoubtedly results in much wrongly directed therapy." – Dr. Harris L. Coulter [1].
By masking the symptoms of the actual causes underlying even common illness, they end up deteriorating into chronic disasters.s it time for a more dignified diagnosis?
Your 6th step : Customize a resolution plan for yourself derived from a generalized template. Sometimes the curative process can proceed along with the diagnosis.
Aren't specialists a tad too special?:
For any malady spanning multiple organs – the diagnosis you'll get will vary wildly, depending on which allopathic specialist you come across – internist, orthopedist, whatever-ist.
Each one will slap their patient with a diagnosis as per their specialization. Surgeons, for e.g., are generally quite eager to cut you open if you just sign up their indemnity form.
The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million in the US. The actual numbers could be as high as 30% of all surgeries.
A study in Spain put the percentage of unnecessary operations at 20-25% [6].
In one study, 19% of patients discharged from a highly specialized tertiary care hospital were found to have gone through adverse medical events [6].
A cross-sectional survey in South London found that “over-investigation, inappropriate information, and advice given to patients as well as misdiagnosis, over-treatment, and inappropriate prescription of medication were common.” [6]
My parents were advised a tonsillectomy on me when I was a kid because I had frequent infections with tonsillitis. It was resolved nutritionally thereafter.
Dr. Elliott Fisher, MD, conducted a study which concluded [5] -
- More medical care doesn’t mean better health care.
- An excess of specialists was a major part of the problem: “Patients .. got more care… in hospitals where there were more specialists”.
- More tests, drugs and procedures – led to more deaths.
- Increase in deaths was due to the fact that they spent more time in the hospital.
So what kind of specialist diagnosis would you like to have?
Your 7th stride: Be willing to work on multiple levels even when there is no obvious connection; for e.g. some aspect of fitness, emotional wellbeing, etc.; because, many a times, multiple forces are at play simultaneously.
When allopaths go on strike – less people die. But when access to allopathy goes up in an area – so does the number of sick people & their medical expenses with 0 improvement in their health:
What one allopath prescribes as a cure may not be fully considered to be so, even by another clinician of the same genre [1].
No wonder during separate physicians’ strike in the US, UK, Israel & Columbia – the death-rate fell dramatically by 35 to 50%. Allopaths are indeed licensed to – - – - [3].
As a matter of fact, there is a long standing Roemer’s Law in allopathic skullduggery which goes:
- "So long as hospital beds are in supply, somebody will be admitted to fill them up" [4].
23% of all hospital admissions were deemed to be inappropriate & an additional 17% could have been handled in outpatient clinics. 34% of all days spent in the hospital were unneeded [6]. - In regions where there are more intensive care units, guess what? … More patients end up in those ICUs [4].
An intensive care unit reported an average of 1.7 errors per day per patient, and 29% of those errors were potentially serious or fatal [9], as noted by Dr. Lucian L. Leape in his research “Error in Medicine”, JAMA. - The more allopathic machines are installed, the more unsuspecting people will be shoved through them [4]. 2 common abuses:
- CT Scanners -
There is little information available on how CT scans improve or affect patient outcomes. In some institutions, up to 90% of scans performed were negative [6].
Dr. John Gofman, a medico with PhD in nuclear chemistry, studied the effects of radiation on humans for 45 years & provides strong evidence that:
X-rays, CT scans, mammography & fluoroscopy devices – are a contributing factor to 75% of new cancers [6]. - Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) -
A review of scientific literature found less than 30 studies, out of 5,000, focussing on diagnostic accuracy or therapeutic value of MRI.
The American College of Physicians assessed MRI studies and rated 13 of 17 clinical trials of MRI's medical usefulness as “weak,”
The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in USA, had this to say:
“It is evident that hospitals, physician-entrepreneurs, and medical device manufacturers have approached MRI and CT as commodities with high-profit potential,…
…and decision-making on the acquisition and use of these procedures has been highly influenced by this approach.
Clinical evaluation, appropriate patient selection, and matching supply to legitimate demand might be viewed as secondary forces."
- CT Scanners -
- About half of the variation in the number of visits to internists per Medicare enrollee is associated with the number of internists per 100,000 residents [4].
Do those ailing folks who submit themselves to this allopathic instrumentation get any better quality of life? Are they any happier?
Dr. Elliott Fisher and colleagues found no qualitative or quantitative difference between the health of those spending a lot on allopathic chicanery as compared to those who had better things to do [4].
Then why does the mushrooming of allopathic shops jack up higher per-person spending on them? [5]
- Allopaths hold 0% accountability for the efficiency of their clinical approach.
Do they give a hoot about -- the total medical expenditure incurred by their patrons because of their recommendations?
- speed & completeness of recovery?
- permanent resolution of it’s rootage?
- overall satisfaction level?
- Misleading / inaccurate information on the heinous risks of allopathy.
“as much as 90% of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed.”- Dr. John Ioannidis, foremost expert in clinical trial methodology [8] - Blind belief on the part of most folks that more allopathy means better medical care. How many drugs do you need?
"No fewer than 150,000 (drug) preparations are now in use. About 15,000 new mixtures and dosages hit the market each year, while about 12,000 die off…
We simply don’t have enough diseases to go around. At the moment the most helpful contribution is the new drug to counteract the untoward effects of other new drugs."
– Dr. Walter Modell from Cornell University’s Medical College, wrote in Clinical Pharmacology And Therapeutics [3]. - Commission based referral system which pays allopaths for impelling their patients into more of lab-tests & specialist humbug.
"Every drug administered, every diagnostic test performed, every operative procedure entered into, carries with it the risk of iatrogenic (allopathy induced) complications.
The more medication, tests and operations a patient experiences, the more likely he or she is to develop an iatrogenic disease.
Because of the present fragmentation of medical care with each sub-specialist looking after his own particular organ system, the total risk to which the patient is exposed is often forgotten." – Dr. Taylor [3]
That was a Doctor's own diagnosis of allopathic diagnosis. What's yours?
How much can your microvita scramble be unscrambled by an allopathic chemical here & a clinical procedure there?
As the disharmony becomes ever more acrid [7], allopaths will ram you with more & more of those disjunct 1-size-fits-all kind of chemicals which will only ratchet up the internal drubbing you are putting up with, from the negative microvita clamber.
“medical errors in inpatient hospital settings nationwide could be as high as 3 million” killing 420,000 allopathic patients annually [6].
The number of people unnecessarily hospitalized annually is 8.9 million in the US [6].
Unnecessary allopathic procedures kill 37,136 patients annually in the US, while surgery-related causes kill another 32,000 [2].
These are just official figures, which are a gross underestimation because of the misleading way in with the cause of death is recorded in allopathic institutions all over the world.
For instance,
- The American College of Surgeons estimates that surgical mistakes are recorded only 5-30% of the times [6].
- As per one study, only 20% of such surgical complications where further investigated [6].
- The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) in the US electronically records the causes of all deaths nationwide.
It’s computer entry system has NO entry code for adverse drug side effects, surgical mishaps or other types of medical error [9].
Until such codes exist, the correct number of people dying due to medical error will not be known.
Can you do with a slightly better prognosis?
The 8th part of your neo diagnosis – There are no diseases; there are only people who are unwell. [1]
We all go through life maneuvering or being maneuvered by an ever ongoing push & pull between the multifarious positive & negative microvitic entities riding upon our non-microvitic substratum.
Disease & limitation is due to a loss of the tenuous equilibrium between your positive & negative microvita fraternities.
When you run into an illness or inefficiency, guess which side is winning?
This generic diagnosis is just as true for any mental glitches.
.
PS : If a flowing river is polluted then both, the river water & the river-bed need to be cleaned while stopping the influx of pollutants as much as possible.
That's where the 5 phase neoscientific protocols come in. Download for free :
- Imbue immaculate immunity
- Auto immure autoimmune disorders
They'll render your body-mind more receptive to the subtle & not-so-subtle profits from MicroVita SuperDiet™, because your whole microvita chassis rests upon the net ingress & egress of all microvitic & non-microvitic forms.
References :
1. The controlled clinical trial – an analysis; Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D.
2. Medicine net
3. The Pharmaceutical Drug Racket
4. Supply-Sensitive Care : There is unwarranted variation in the practice of medicine and the use of medical resources.
5. Health Care Spending, Quality, and Outcomes – More Isn’t Always Better
6. Death by Medicine By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD
7. Jerome Avorn’s Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs; Knopf
8. 90% of the medical information is bogus
9. “Error in Medicine“, Dr. Lucian L. Leape; JAMA
What are ya’ thinkin’?