Jesus healed ten lepers
by Mary W Maxwell, currently a candidate for US Senate
This article recaps the three earlier parts of my Health Care series, and makes a comment on helping the sick by charity. Part 1said please look at power plays. Part 2 spotlighted our habit of shying away from calling Dr Bradstreet’s death an out-and-out murder even though there is no chance of it being anything other than an out-and-out murder. Heck, we don’t even demand that the “logical” culprits be brought in for questioning. This is a big mistake — anger toward a wrongdoer is one of the main ways to get a behavior changed. Part 3 covered the heroic life of Nick Gonzalez, MD, working for cancer patients.
What Is the Rockefeller Institute’s Cancer Cure?
Recall that Dr Richard Day had the colossal gall to stand up at a meeting in 1969 and say that the cure for most cancers is “on file” at the Rockefeller Institute. Per Wikipedia:
The Rockefeller University was founded in June 1901 as The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research—often called simply The Rockefeller Institute—by John D. Rockefeller, who had founded the University of Chicago in 1889. Greatly elevating the prestige of American science and medicine, it was America’s first biomedical institute, like France’s Pasteur Institute (1888) and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute (1891).
(In my opinion, the Pasteur and Koch institutes are of the same nature as the Rockefeller. I think they all answer to the same boss. I assume they all cheated on real science for purposes of controlling their populations. In particular, they promoted a wrong theory of germs. Please see articles by myself and by Alan Cantwell, MD on the subject of pleomorphism, at GumshoeNews.com)
Eighteen Medical Cures for Cancer
There are many different cancer cures that work. This series of articles on Health Care does not undertake to examine the cures as such. Let me give a very abbreviated description of the 18 cures that I report in my book Consider the Lilies: A Review of 18 Cures for Cancer and Their Legal Status – to demonstrate that we’re not talking about flimsy stuff.
Note: an underlined name of the doctor means the cure is still available. An asterisk means maybe this is the cure Dr Day was referring to – but that is only a guess by me.
- Virginia Livingston, MD: Culture the microbe from patient’s urine; make vaccine.*
- Stan Burzynski, MD, PhD: Infuse, intra-lymphatically, the missing amino acid.
- Gaston Naessens: Infuse, intra-paranodularly, 714-x nitrogen-in-camphor.
- Evangelos Michelakis, MD: Consume dichloroacetate to help mitochondria signal.
- Royal Rife, DSc: Track a cancer microbe and zap it with radio frequency.
- Robert O Becker, MD: Put electrode-generated silver ions into the cancer.
- Georges Lakhovsky: Use antennae or oscillator to neutralize cosmic rays.
- George Crile, MD: Equalize the negativity of cancer cell and adjacent cells.
- Robert Olney, MD: Treat blood with UV light; this helps immune system.*
- John Ott: Get the correct part of the light spectrum into eyes, skin.
- John Beard, DSC: Prescribe pancreatic enzymes: trypsin and amylopsin.
- Johanna Budwig, PhD: Blend ﬂaxseed with ricotta cheese, it helps lipids.
- William Coley, MD: Induce hypothermia with erysipelas and B. prodigiosus.*
- Max Gerson, MD: Get nutrients from veggie juice; detoxify with enemas.
- Thomas Glover, MD: Culture cancer microbe, make serum in horses, inject it.*
- Robert Lincoln, MD: Inhale germs in order to evoke natural bacteriophaging.*
- Emanuel Revici, MD: Manipulate the acid or alkaline imbalance; stop the pain.
- Ryke Hamer, MD: Psychologically undo effects of emotional shock or loss.
Of course, if the Rockefellers were able to “cure most cancers” by the year 1969 – and didn’t do so – they are responsible for massive suffering. And that suffering continues today. So let us now turn to the question: How, in 2017, do these cruel folks manage to prevent doctors from using the many excellent cures?
Answer: the Rockefeller family took great interest in “cleaning up” medical schools — such that by 1920 only the schools they controlled were giving accredited MD degrees. This was accomplished by controlling each of the 50 states politically.
The American Medical Association
As stated in my book, Consider the Lilies, some of the curers had their license to practice medicine taken away by the state. For instance, California took Virginia Livingston’s and New York took Emanuel Revici’s. The nation of Norway took Ryke Hamer’s but he sued them over it!
In what way do state legislatures feel qualified to say that only the Big Three cancer treatments are acceptable – chemo, radiation and surgery? I mean wouldn’t a doctor be better able than a politician to judge this? Ah, but never discount the cleverness of the Rockefellers. They arranged that the states give the local AMA some scope in deciding such things.
Thus when Virginia Livingston, who was definitely curing terminal cases of cancer, was told she had deviated from protocol, it was really the AMA of California that was behind her troubles.
Granted it is a state’s ethics board, or Office of Professional Responsibility, that may seem to sign the decree that strikes the doctor off the register. But the rules that the board is applying, in relation to cancer treatment, were set forth by the state’s AMA. Note: the local group pretty much follows a model offered by the national body. That’s also true of the American Bar Association.
When the issue is cancer, there is also the ACS — The American Cancer Society. Although it is a wholly private body, a state may fit its rules under the ACS, by allowing doctors to use only methods that have been given the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, so to speak, by the ACS. The American Cancer Society is accountable to no one. We can deduce that “the Rockefellers of this world” have control over the ACS, as they couldn’t very well let such an organization operate freely.
I also take the Sloan Kettering Memorial Hospital to be a gate-keeper, like the ACS, in suppressing cures. William Coley’s daughter tried in vain to get SKM to check the records of her Dad’s accomplished cures. (Hello? Would that be asking too much?)
Commerce Clause, the FDA, the NIH, Bioweapons
Here I will recap what Parts 1-3 said about the mechanisms for government control of health. Most of them violate the Constitution’s Article I, section 8, that limits Congress’ “jurisdiction.”
In Part 2 we saw that Clause 3 of that section, known as the Commerce Clause, does allow intervention in trade actions that cross state borders. But in commerce-clause lawsuits, the plaintiff rarely wins. I mean he doesn’t win a trimming back to what the Framers meant by Congress’s power to regulate COMMERCE (not “business in general”, not labor, not manufacture).
Two cases actually did win. In Lopez (1995) it was found that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unsupportable by the Commerce clause, since gun-carrying is not related to trade. In Morrison (2000), the US Supreme Court knocked down the Violence against Women Act of 1994, both on Commerce-clause grounds and by saying the 14th amendment did not justify such a federal Act.
I suspect judges are instructed NOT to protect states’ rights, which are, of course a pillar of the Constitution. This affects medicine insofar as the FDA (Food and Drug Administration, which is supposed to protect consumers) can use the labelling rule to control doctors. The law says that a doctor mustn’t indicate on a product’s label that it is a treatment for such-and-such unless that treatment is “approved.” As far as I know, that was the FDA’s “case” against Jeff Bradstreet regarding his new cure for autism, a protein known as GcMAF.
Part 3 showed how the Public Health Service came about in a sneaky way. The USPHS grew out of the Marine Hospital for merchant seamen – and so did the concept of a US “Surgeon General.” What a hoot.
As for the NIH, it should not exist. We cannot have a National Institute of Health if there is no federal grant of power in the Constitution for the subject matter “health.’’ Sorry, no can do. Yet the NIH has heaps of money and thus controls what areas a scientist is “allowed” to do research in.
From there we moved to my broad-brush claims about bioweapons, even dating back to the bubonic plague of 1667. I admitted that only a few cases are proven, such as the deliberate spreading of smallpox to native Americans and the apologized-for event in Guatemala where we gave people syphilis.
Note: my 2013 book, Consider the Lilies: A Review of 18 Cures for Cancer and Their Legal Status, amasses some data about other genocides. I think the thalidomide accident was deliberate, and use of hoof-and-mouth disease is a form of economic sabotage. I feel certain that Williams syndrome, a new disease involving personality, was spread “experimentally.”
You do not need to believe me on any of this, but why take the stance that it’s normal for people to forego available weapons? There is no historical record of that kind of holdback!
So now to the matter of the US legislators trying to create a new type of health insurance scheme after the repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act, known as Obamacare. I see that one of the candidates competing with me for the US Senate has listed a gift of $10,000 from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama. Naturally any interest group that has a stake in “the health care industry” will try to sweeten up the senators.
I guess they won’t be giving me a red cent as I do not approve of federal health stuff. In 1965, LBJ – President Lyndon Johnson – talked about making “the Great Society” (like JFK made the New Frontier, FDR made the New Deal, etc.). Johnson brought in Medicare for persons age 65 or over. My Dad was 66 and we all thought (thoughtlessly) that that was nice.
The first thing you can know about Medicare, even if you never studied it, is that the push would not have come from the people or their representatives. It would have been foisted on us by the usual suspects. Let me repeat one of Dr Day’s arrogant ideas, recorded by Dr Dunegan:
“There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, it would be much more tightly controlled. ‘Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance, it is now, abundantly evident. But it’s not necessary, we have other ways to control health care.’ Costs would be forced up so that people won’t be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay for it, You’re entitled to it. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished.”
A similar thing happened in Australia. Those of us who had been buying private health insurance all along suddenly got a tax rebate for doing so. This was a way to ease everyone into getting private health insurance. Yay! A tax rebate!
Of course once the big boys from Blue Cross or from Health Maintenance Organizations get into the act they gain a lot of control over which medical treatment you get, if for no other reason than they can decided whether they will “cover” it.
In Matthew 8: 2-3 we read:
“And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.”
In my Catholic upbringing, the care of the sick was a duty of the Church. Many girls joined the convent to become nursing Sisters, to perform God’s work of healing. In the last 30 years or so, the religious hospitals have been funded by government. So, just as the doctors obey the state, we find nuns doing the same.
In Australia, nearly all the charity work done by nuns is now government-funded. As is the work done by charities such as the Salvation Army. This cannot but remove some of the altruism and religious motivation of the care-giver.
Note: the other night in Huntsville, I saw a troubled-looking man on the street. The next thing you know, a van from the Rock Family Worship centre showed up to help him. Boy was I impressed. The Rock also runs a genuine soup kitchen.
I said at the beginning of this series of articles that the decision by legislators today should not mix the question of generosity with the question of health care. I realize that after many years of (unconstitutional) federal involvement in health, many people are dependent on free medical care. They certainly need protection, but I do not see why it could not become again a matter of charity. Altruism holds a society together.
Finally, I ask once again: Given the “government’s” record in such things as the wholesale suppression of cures for cancer and the murder of a man who is curing autism (Jeff Bradstreet, MD), is there reason to trust government-influenced health “care”?
–Mary Maxwell, PhD, LLB, is competing in the August 15, 2017 primary in Alabama for the US Senate seat that was vacated when Senator Jeff Sessions became US Attorney General
Photo credit: St. Josemaria Institute