Just to let you know that after increasing the Iodine there has been a marked improvement in the psoriasis to the extent that there is very little left.
And the diet has been relaxed with no ill effects.
Now this may be coincidence or the detoxing or everything but what a GREAT result!
So thank you for the surprise Christmas present and our BEST wishes to yourselves for well being and happiness this Christmas.
Cheers"
(name withheld)
____________________________
Gary:
This is not coincidence, in my opinion, but the result of patience, a lot of persistence on the behalf of the person - plus the benefit of scientific testing to guide the process (in this case, the ICL Hair Tissue Mineral Analysis and the Nutrisearch Thyrodine tests).
Psoriasis, by the way, is closely linked with a number of interesting factors, that show up with these tests, including poor thyroid, adrenal and liver function - and toxic element exposures such as lead and arsenic (which explains why psoriasis is very common among people who work with metals and chemicals - farmers, engineers, mechanics, carpenters, electricians, painters and even plumbers. Think people who use firearms - lead).
There also appears to be a link between psoriasis and fungal and/or viral infections (I think its a fungal infection because it responds to natural antifungal and antiviral nutritional interventions - not drugs).
Iodine has well documented viral and fungal antiseptic properties and is one of the mix of therapies employed.
This is not coincidence, in my opinion, but the result of patience, a lot of persistence on the behalf of the person - plus the benefit of scientific testing to guide the process (in this case, the ICL Hair Tissue Mineral Analysis and the Nutrisearch Thyrodine tests).
Psoriasis, by the way, is closely linked with a number of interesting factors, that show up with these tests, including poor thyroid, adrenal and liver function - and toxic element exposures such as lead and arsenic (which explains why psoriasis is very common among people who work with metals and chemicals - farmers, engineers, mechanics, carpenters, electricians, painters and even plumbers. Think people who use firearms - lead).
There also appears to be a link between psoriasis and fungal and/or viral infections (I think its a fungal infection because it responds to natural antifungal and antiviral nutritional interventions - not drugs).
Iodine has well documented viral and fungal antiseptic properties and is one of the mix of therapies employed.
(I'm about to start generalising; but I am talking about what is the rule and not the exception)
So, why doesn't your doctor (most doctors - I mean - of course there are always a few exceptions) use these unfunded tests and use these cheap "natural therapies", preferring, instead, to rely on mostly ineffective, expensive patent drugs that are, almost without exception, fraught with numerous and often dangerous side-effects?
So, why doesn't your doctor (most doctors - I mean - of course there are always a few exceptions) use these unfunded tests and use these cheap "natural therapies", preferring, instead, to rely on mostly ineffective, expensive patent drugs that are, almost without exception, fraught with numerous and often dangerous side-effects?
The answer is simple:
Medical education, especially continuing medical education after graduation, is dominated by Big Pharma.Doctors are very busy people: In order to keep practicing as a doctor, a doctor must earn a minimum number of CME points (Continuing Medical Education = CME). If a course is not certified for CME credits, few busy doctors are going to attend - Full stop!
Big Pharma fund the medical conferences and most, if not just about all, of the CME training courses, they completely, or partially fund most of the medical research projects and they mostly fund the course presenters for CME. Its pretty much a closed shop for mainstream medicine and it shows in the shunning of natural therapies that can not be packaged into a high-value patent medicine for Big Pharma.
A health practitioner, like myself, is unlikely to be invited to run a course about how to use and interpret the scientific testing that I have become proficient in. Why? Because these tests measure a person's state of health, rather than disease (there is a subtle yet important difference), and shows how to keep a person well and without the need for patent drugs. That's not good for business if you are in the drugs business.
The latest attempt by medicine to counter the growing disillusionment in symptom-driven medicine and the growing trend by their patients to seek "natural therapies" is for a doctor to call oneself an "integrative", or "holistic" medical practitioner. This is a laughable claim in the majority of cases. It is a cunning marketing manoeuvre that is akin to the wolf in sheep clothing. Drugs are then dished out under the pretence that they are "natural therapies", or natural products, or their synthetic analogue, are prescribed in massive and potentially megadoses - Things no responsible "natural therapist" would ever do!
Would you ever give a potted tomato plant a month of fertiliser and water in a single hit and then leave it for a month?
Would you ever give a healthy human being, let alone an ill one, a months worth of vitamins in a single dose?
Of course the answer is "NO!" Because its nuts - you'll kill the tomato plant for sure. What about the human? But your holistic/integrative doctor might just do it.
A current example which I find infuriating is vitamin D. Vitamin D supplementation was resisted for decades by the medical profession, despite the clear evidence that the Sun Smart message had created a global epidemic of vitamin D deficiency-related disorders.
Reason: Natural vitamin D can not be patented. But the resistance has been replaced in the last few years with enthusiastic prescribing of vitamin D. With the development of synthetic analogues of vitamin D such as Ergocalciferol, doctors are now dishing out megadoses of these drugs (these are not natural forms of vitamin D but potentially toxic analogues) with gay abandon and without any testing of an individual patient's vitamin D status. What we are talking about is giving a patient a month's wort of synthetic D in a single dose! One group of medical researchers even experimented with giving elderly women a dose of 250,000iu! The results can be disastrous to health, as any person with a skerrit of common sense, let alone medical training, will know:
http://blog.garymoller.com/2011/06/is-monthly-administration-of-50000iu.html
This woman's GP prescribed 350,000iu of synthetic vitamin D in a single week:
http://blog.garymoller.com/2012/12/widespread-over-dosing-patients-with.html
This sort of prescribing is nutritional nonsense that has no health benefit while risking serious risk harm. Its medically indefensible. Especially if there is no regular testing to monitor vitamin D status.
This woman's GP prescribed 350,000iu of synthetic vitamin D in a single week:
http://blog.garymoller.com/2012/12/widespread-over-dosing-patients-with.html
This sort of prescribing is nutritional nonsense that has no health benefit while risking serious risk harm. Its medically indefensible. Especially if there is no regular testing to monitor vitamin D status.
Iodine Deficiency: 91% of the New Zealand population
Iodine is an element of the universe and, as such, can not be patented as a drug. The same goes for vitamin C - it can not be patented in its natural form. So, these are seldom used as a medical therapy, despite the enormous wealth of research documenting their numerous therapeutic qualities. Nothing will change until a patent version is developed and then the irresponsible rush will be on to capitalise the monetary return. Incidentally, as soon as drug goes off-patent, it usually disappears off the market and is replaced by the next patented medicine designed to fill the gap. Even in little New Zealand this is a billion dollar business that almost totally dominates health care.
What treatment is available, via medicine, often is less to do with what is best for the ill patient and more to do with what is good for business. Sadly.
So, for psoriasis, for example: Because there is not an effective patent drug for the condition, a patient will not be offered an effective natural, non-patent, alternative that deals with the underlying causes. Instead, they may be prescribed a combination of harmful patent drugs such as Prednisone and Methotrexate - Treating the symptoms and not the causes, while risking generating a whole raft of new problems for the poor patient!
No comments:
Post a Comment