The Corrupt History of Medicine | John D. Rockefeller

[GreenEdge]

The story of how the oil tycoon and business magnate John D. Rockefeller helped shape western medicine and designed it in such a way that it became very profitable.

In 1910, The Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in New York City, helped to fund the Flexner Report of 1910, which was authored by a man named Abraham Flexner. Flexner was commissioned by the council on medical education, which was created by the American Medical Association. The intentions of this report were to help evaluate and potentially restructure medical education in the United States, and that’s exactly what it did.

During this time, therapies such as homeopathy, herbal medicine, essential oils, chiropractic, and naturopathy were commonplace. The 1910 Flexner report concluded that these natural healing modalities were “unscientific quackery.” This report also concluded that there were too many medical schools as well as too many doctors in America and called for the standardization of medical education. Of course, this was with underlying intentions being that the American Medical Association would be the only entity that could approve medical school licensure in America.

After its publication, Congress implemented changes based on Flexner’s recommendations which led to modern allopathic medicine becoming the standard despite the quite barbaric methods of the time. This was when Rockefeller worked with Andrew Carnegie to provide funding for medical schools across the country. This was with the condition, of course, that they only taught allopathic medicine, and they were offered grants of significant proportions in order to adhere to these conditions. Through these grants, primarily fueled by Rockefeller’s petroleum monopoly, helped to systematically remove any mention of plant-based natural treatments along with teachings on nutrition and diet from medical education curricula. Supported by Rockefeller’s influence on the media of the time, homeopathic and natural medicines were quickly discredited and demonized through targeted media campaigns.

By now, we’re painting a pretty good picture of how Rockefeller advanced to drastically influencing modern medicine. Many are also unfamiliar with the fact that John D. Rockefeller also helped to fund the American Cancer Society in 1913. Did you know that under federal law, it is actually illegal to utilize any modality other than chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery in the treatment of cancer? It’s easy to see why if you follow the money considering that the average cost of cancer treatment in the United States is a minimum of $150,000.

So, at this point in time, Rockefeller owned 90% of the oil refineries in the United States, had founded medical societies, and helped to completely remove natural remedies from medical education in the country. This opened many doors for a monopoly surrounding petrochemicals that none other than John D. Rockefeller had control of. Did you know that petrochemicals are utilized to manufacture everything from antibiotics, antibacterial products, analgesics, rectal suppositories, cough syrups, lubricants, and even the majority of topical ointments, salves, creams, and gels?

For centuries, cultures around the world have utilized homeopathic medicines, including essential oils, chiropractic therapies, and others, with great efficiency and little to no side effects. Something that can not be said about modern modalities. Modern medicine and John D Rockefeller’s support of the 1910 Flexner Report, as well as its influence on helping to shift medicine away from natural therapies, has done and continues to cause detrimental harm.

Sourced from: https://www.potency710.com/how-john-d-rockefeller-influenced-modern-medicine/

 

[linusbert]

its so sad how easily rich powers can move trillions by paying millions.
i wonder if humanity ever finds a way to get those under control.
but corruption seams to be the main mode human societies operate in... until every now and then a benevolent dictator cleans up the trash. but then it slowly reverts back to corrupt state...
its like a room, you constantly have to clean it or it gets pretty bad.

 

[LINE]

I also find it disturbing that we are being poisoned with environmental chemicals that are known to disrupt DNA, yet we hear nothing from the media about it.

 

[linusbert]

I also find it disturbing that we are being poisoned with environmental chemicals that are known to disrupt DNA, yet we hear nothing from the media about it.

they dont have time, they need to warn about the almost non-existent and harmless side effects of Vitamin D and natural remedies...

 

[Alvin2]

For centuries, cultures around the world have utilized homeopathic medicines,

And this is why we need scientific testing, homeopathy is bogus.

For profit medicine is a huge scourge, and if you know how the US healthcare system works its practically a crime against humanity, but easy answers and nonsense are not the solution.

 

[GreenEdge]

Dr. Anthony Chaffee - 'The Corruption of our Nutritional and Medical Guidelines'
In this talk Dr. Anthony Chaffee outlines the pervasive influences behind the nutritional and medical guidelines from the Seventh Day Adventist church, big food corporations and pharmaceutical industries.

Filmed live at the inaugural REGENERATE Health Summit on August 6th, 2023 at Splitter’s Creek, Albury.

 

[linusbert]

hes right, i do not agree on every video with him, but he as a lot of true points and in regards of corruption he is on point. like many other YT MDs too.

 

[GreenEdge]

This video is good but rather long, so the link I'm providing below starts at 57 minutes in:

 

[Hip]

For centuries, cultures around the world have utilized homeopathic medicines, including essential oils, chiropractic therapies, and others, with great efficiency and little to no side effects. Something that can not be said about modern modalities. Modern medicine and John D Rockefeller’s support of the 1910 Flexner Report, as well as its influence on helping to shift medicine away from natural therapies, has done and continues to cause detrimental harm.

"Great efficiency" are not the words that first come to mind when considering herbal medicine. The words "limited effect" would be more like it.

I often use herbs and supplements to treat my own symptoms, but I am aware of their limitations.

Herbal medicine and knowledge was not able to do anything for the killer/maiming diseases that existed in Victorian times, like typhoid, tuberculosis (consumption as it was called), cholera, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and polio.

It would take the scientific understanding of the germ theory, advancements in sanitation, and the advent of antibiotics and vaccines before we had approaches that could address these dire illnesses with "great efficiency".

Rockefeller did the right thing to promote scientific medicine over herbal medicine. And if anything, because of the scientific approach to medicine that we have taken in the last say 100 years or so, alternative medicine has also greatly benefitted and expanded.

For example, all the vitamins that we take as supplements today were discovered between 1913 and 1948. Had it not been for the scientific approach to medicine, these vitamins would not have been unearthed.

Plus the thousands of vitamins, minerals, herbs, amino acids, peptides, and other supplements that are available today are a result of the scientific method. And the benefits these supplements have for our health have also been figured out mainly by scientific studies on them.

 

[Alvin2]

"Great efficiency" are not the words that first come to mind when considering herbal medicine. The words "limited effect" would be more like it.

I often use herbs and supplements to treat my own symptoms, but I am aware of their limitations.

Herbal medicine and knowledge was not able to do anything for the killer/maiming diseases that existed in Victorian times, like typhoid, tuberculosis (consumption as it was called), cholera, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and polio.

It would take the scientific understanding of the germ theory, advancements in sanitation, and the advent of antibiotics and vaccines before we had approaches that could address these dire illnesses with "great efficiency".

Rockefeller did the right thing to promote scientific medicine over herbal medicine. And if anything, because of the scientific approach to medicine that we have taken in the last say 100 years or so, alternative medicine has also greatly benefitted and expanded.

For example, all the vitamins that we take as supplements today were discovered between 1913 and 1948. Had it not been for the scientific approach to medicine, these vitamins would not have been unearthed.

Plus the thousands of vitamins, minerals, herbs, amino acids, peptides, and other supplements that are available today are a result of the scientific method. And the benefits these supplements have for our health have also been figured out mainly by scientific studies on them.

Well put

 

[linusbert]

Rockefeller did the right thing to promote scientific medicine over herbal medicine. And if anything, because of the scientific approach to medicine that we have taken in the last say 100 years or so, alternative medicine has also greatly benefitted and expanded.

whats scientific medicine? studies funded by big corporations to support their own products? or FUD studies to shut down alternative medicine?
there s a problem with scientific medicine if the only one able to fund those big studies are those who sell the products. and the second capable body to fund big studies is the government which is funded by the first. so basically studies are funded by big pharma, or big pharma owned politicians.

btw you dont need much to fake study results... one bought researcher and one bought medicinal journalist and you read everywhere that science discovered a new miraculous drug or bullshit like cholesterol makes coronary heart diseases.

if there was a miracle plant which would cure all diseases including cancer and prolong life by 50 years you wouldnt even hear about it. the rich elites would consume it secretly themselves and try everything to deny the existence of it. there is absolutely no financial interest in healthy people. zero. not by companies which do the sCiEnCe or by politicians.
the holy grail of our current pharma financed medicine system is a disease which slowly and painfully causes death to 100% but is 100% controllable with a synthetic patented drug. something like HIV, but its not efficient enough, it would need to be transmitted airborne, so airborne HIV could be the holy grails or cancer. thats also the politicians dream. absolute control over the plebs, if they dont behave they dont get the drug... and big pharma gets even richer.

"Great efficiency" are not the words that first come to mind when considering herbal medicine. The words "limited effect" would be more like it.

I often use herbs and supplements to treat my own symptoms, but I am aware of their limitations.

whats a herbal medicine though? eating the whole plant, or extracts of it?
berberine extract has same efficacy as metformin.
eating vinegard to meals greatly reduces postbrandial glucose levels. or protein. matching those of other synthetic diabetes drugs.
consuming canabis or mushrooms no doubt has a strong impact not behind synthetic drugs.

and in the beginnings many drugs were based of plants like metformin actually is. back then big pharma was chasing after the next miracle plant or animal poison to extract medicine from it.
but thats not how they do drugs today. today they try to make synthetic drugs which they can patent and sell for a big price.
and they move to completely eliminate alternative medicine ... in the name of corrupt sCiEnCe.
its scientism, not science anymore.

 

[Hip]

if there was a miracle plant which would cure all diseases including cancer and prolong life by 50 years you wouldnt even hear about it. the rich elites would consume it secretly themselves and try everything to deny the existence of it. there is absolutely no financial interest in healthy people. zero. not by companies which do the sCiEnCe or by politicians.

This is the bad side of the Internet: the online world is full of cliches like this one, and these cliches are accepted and reposted without any evidence behind them, and without the posters applying any critical thinking. Many not so bright people just believe and repost these cliches without thinking.

You gets lots of these people online talking about the "cancer cure that they do not want you to have", or the "cancer treatment which worked and so was suppressed". They make statements like this as if there were evidence to support it.

 

[linusbert]

This is the bad side of the Internet: the online world is full of cliches like this one, and these cliches are accepted and reposted without any evidence behind them, and without the posters applying any critical thinking. Many not so bright people just believe and repost these cliches without thinking.

You gets lots of these people online talking about the "cancer cure that they do not want you to have", or the "cancer treatment which worked and so was suppressed". They make statements like this as if there were evidence to support it.

just let me make this clear, i do not believe there is any or anyone has any miraclous cure for anything.
the point was that if there was, the rich and powerful would not share it for profit!

You gets lots of these people online talking about the "cancer cure that they do not want you to have", or the "cancer treatment which worked and so was suppressed". They make statements like this as if there were evidence to support it.

i dont see how the internet has anything to do with it, miracle cures are sold for millenia..
as were snake oil sellers. this isnt anything new.
also the people suspectible to those are the same.

btw, the credible and not credible sellers use the same tactics. you cant trust your pharma salesman any more than the snake oil backstreet seller. but i bet the backstreet sellers has less side effects.
just want to say, when they believed that radium what be a good idea to treat people for a wide range of diseases.
https://histmed.collegeofphysicians.org/for-students/radium/

or when the scientific community believed lobotomy would be a cure for depression... also not so long ago.
there are a lot scientific practices used even today which lack scientific evidence in so called "evidence based medicine".

 

[GreenEdge]

"Great efficiency" are not the words that first come to mind when considering herbal medicine. The words "limited effect" would be more like it.

It's a different world today. Back then people were very healthy. Compare to today, where 88 percent of American adults are metabolically unhealthy - our bodies are confused by sugar and processed foods (containing unnatural substances), its capacity to heal itself has been greatly diminished.

1 billion people worldwide: World Heath Organisation - Obesity and overweight

Herbal treatments might have been very effective back then. Many herbs consumed today were once prized for their medicinal qualities, and due to cost were used only for medicine. Today, herbs are consumed regularly - when the body is already used to their effect, taking more has little effect.

Back then doctors practiced the biomedical model (route cause healing). Today, you'd be hard pressed to find a holistic doctor. Closest? There is naturopath.

Today doctors are taught that hypertension, obesity, diabetes and CVD (cardiovascular disease) are all distinct illnesses when they're different arms of the same tree, the condition of insulin resistance caused by fast carbs or a high carbohydrate diet.

By soloing symptoms into separate illnesses, Rockefeller maximized the number of medicines that could be prescribed. Today, each 'disease' has become very profitable - instead of just seeing 1 doctor, you now see your doctor + multiple specialists. How effective can a specialist be when they don't know the true cause of their disease specialty? Are they really more effective than your doctor?

Listen to this fertility specialist - “The ability to fall pregnant is the ultimate judge of one's health.”

 

[Hip]

Back then doctors practiced the biomedical model (route cause healing). Today, you'd be hard pressed to find a holistic doctor. Closest? There is naturopath.

This is a fairytale you might read in some alternative health literature. It's just deceptive and dishonest alternative health marketing, with no basis in fact. Even today we do not know the root cause of most diseases, and until you do know, you cannot possibly treat the aetiological root.


Personally I subscribe to Prof Paul Ewald's view that in future, we will find most chronic diseases and cancers are caused by the infectious pathogens that we acquire throughout life. This is not proven, it is a theory. But most ME/CFS patients have personal experience of this idea, as they are fully aware how a viral infection can totally destroy one's health.

Even obesity is linked to viruses: adenovirus 36 is known to cause massive fat gain in mice, and this virus is far more common in obese humans.

People who think natural products are benign and effective should note that all these viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa that are linked to swathes of chronic disease are also Mother Nature's inventions. Once you appreciate that Mother Nature can and does produce such horrendously toxic entities that can destroy health, you can no longer fully trust Mother Nature.

Of course there are many natural things which are healthy, and I like to eat a wholesome diet as free of mass produced processed food as I can. But we should not put our full trust in nature, given that nature's pathogens are the likely cause of most of human disease (in Ewald's view).

I think only human higher consciousness and human higher intelligence can figure out what is good and what is bad for us. That's what we should put our trust in.

 

[hapl808]

Personally I subscribe to Prof Paul Ewald's view that in future, we will find most chronic diseases and cancers are caused by the infectious pathogens that we acquire throughout life. This is not proven, it is a theory. But most ME/CFS patients have personal experience of this idea, as they are fully aware how a viral infection can totally destroy one's health.

I believe this as well. I haven't read his stuff, but over the years I've come to believe that not only chronic illnesses and cancers, but likely many 'mental health' conditions and other ailments might be caused or worsened by infections, injuries, etc.

 

[linusbert]

should note that all these viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa that are linked to swathes of chronic disease are also Mother Nature's inventions.

there is no definitive scientific evidence to conclude that. they could also be of alien origin. maybe even caused a mass extinction or two.


"natural product" is a not protected term and everyone understands something different.
for me its a product made of natural sources without much refinement. like a egg. but also a chunk of meat cut off a animal. or a plant or seed. or even milk products in the traditional sense, where milk comes in a bottle, transforms into butter and cheese if it just sits around long enough.

food industry understands under that word a 99% synthetic shit pile with 1% of something natural, maybe 1 piece of chia seed or so to call their products "natural".
also modern milk products i do not consider natural, like cheese made from sterilised milk added artificial microbial lab to let it become cheese again.

I believe this as well. I haven't read his stuff, but over the years I've come to believe that not only chronic illnesses and cancers, but likely many 'mental health' conditions and other ailments might be caused or worsened by infections, injuries, etc.

i dont believe that, at least not for most western diseases. for some diseases sure it might.
its shown that there a tribes devoid of western diseases.. even cultures like not so long ago people of okinawa were pretty healthy, but as soon as they switch to western diet and western lifestyle they get all these modern diseases.
its even true for animals... cats which get the modern pet food will get weird diseases like tooth decay and others. but if switched to pure meet they will recover. happend to our cats.

in general i think those modern diseases are multi factorial, bad food, bad lifestyle, bad poisoned environment, lack of vitamins and nutrition, bad ideology. pathogens as you wrote earlier.
everybody has a certain genetic capacity to buffer of those stressors, but at some point the limit is reached and a person gets sick.
so what was it, which made the cup overflow? was it a pathogen? was it pollution? bad genetics? you will find evidence for all of them.

but we cannot ignore the fact that people just a few decades or century ago were much healthier in terms of common diseases (not counting the plague and other medieval extraordinary episodes).
the biggest improvement to health in history seamed to have been hygiene. clean water. no shit in the streets etc.

also in regards of pathogens as cause of all sickness. they actually might have driven evolution. forcing mutations etc. also we are living since millions of years with them, life adapted.
like with sickle cell disease, gain resistence against malaria but become sensible to other things.
this is all so complex, i doubt that science will ever understand biology and its implications. you cannot just flip one gene to fix something without breaking other things. recently i read a article about the eye color having effect on night vision. so blue eyes common in northern europe help with vision in dark. its not just cosmetics.

 

[Blazer95]

my post may not be the most profound text there is but i just want to say this:

DEFUND THE GOD DAMN CDC.

 

[Hip]

they could also be of alien origin.

Microbes are of alien origin? That's some strong stuff you are smoking! Of course there is the panspermia theory; but generally we understand that microbes were the first step in evolution on Earth. Unlike the Biblical story, animals did not just appear overnight, but evolved from microbial lifeforms.

And viruses have always been a vital and integral part of that evolution. When there was only microbial life on Earth, and no higher creatures (no plants or animals), viruses were an efficient means of distributing useful genes to these microbes.

It's this so-called horizontal transfer of genes by viruses that allows microbes like bacteria to rapidly adapt to their environmental challenges, and is one of the mechanisms that bacteria use today to quickly gain antibiotic resistance.

A virus which infects bacteria is called a phage, and such phages can deliver vital package of genes to a bacterium, to confer the bacterium with new capabilities, such as resistance to antibiotics.

Just as humans can go to a library a pick up a book where they learn new skills that increase their capabilities, bacteria can increase their capabilities after being infected with a phage virus, which delivers useful new genes to the bacterium.


Once multicellular lifeforms emerged during our evolutionary history, viruses started to become more of a curse than a benefit, because viral infections can kill or weaken the host; nevertheless, there were still benefits, and about 8% of the human genome consists of ancient viral DNA from past infections, and a some of these viral genes were incorporated into normal human functioning, playing vital roles in bodily operation. An important gene needed for the human placenta comes from an ancient virus.

So viruses are an essential mechanism of survival and evolution for microbial life, but for higher plants and animals they are mostly deleterious or fatal.

but we cannot ignore the fact that people just a few decades or century ago were much healthier in terms of common diseases

I don't think we actually have any good data to make definitive statements like that. In many regions, records of diseases and lifespans were simply not kept.

Though we do know in 1850 in Victorian England, the average lifespan was just 40 years. Now, after introduction of scientific sanitation, vaccines, antibiotics, advanced surgery, pharmaceuticals to treat numerous diseases, average lifespan is 80.

the biggest improvement to health in history seamed to have been hygiene. clean water. no shit in the streets etc

That is true. Once we learnt about germs, and developed better sanitation (sewer systems, chlorinated or ozonated drinking water), we greatly reduced crippling or fatal infectious diseases.

i think those modern diseases are multi factorial, bad food, bad lifestyle, bad poisoned environment, lack of vitamins and nutrition, bad ideology. pathogens as you wrote earlier.

In the West we have an abundance of good food available today, thanks to modern efficient farming methods. So you can eat very well these days if you choose to, and our nutritional status today might be better than people from centuries ago, where food was often scarce.

However, many people these days have an appetite for junk food or highly processed convenience foods which are filled with preservatives and other unhealthy chemicals, and are linked to worsened health. But that is a lifestyle choice, to eat junk.

Probably some of our food today is not as tasty as it was in the past. For example we know that more expensive free range chickens are tastier than battery farmed chickens. And in the past, all chickens were free range. But on the other hand, only 80 years ago, unless you were aristocratic, having chicken was a rare treat. Most people 80 years ago did not have meat on the table every day, just occasionally.


But if you are contemplating some golden era of human health in past times, one theory is that the invention of farming in neolithic times was a human health disaster, because close contact with animals on farms, and drinking animal milk, allowed nasty animal pathogens to jump into human populations, degrading overall human health. Many of the viruses that circulate in humans today are believed to have originated in neolithic times

When we were hunter-gatherers, we had little contact with animals, apart from when hunting them down for food.

also modern milk products i do not consider natural, like cheese made from sterilised milk added artificial microbial lab to let it become cheese again.

Do you know that a nasty retrovirus called bovine leukaemia virus (BLV) is commonly found in raw milk, and has been linked to breast cancer in humans.

This is an example of how you can never assume anything natural is safe. It's only human intelligence that eventually works out what natural products are safe, and what are not. Some fruits or berries are safe and nutritious, other berries are highly toxic. You don't know which is which in advance, humans and animals have to work that out for themselves.

 

[Tsukareta]

I find this topic interesting but I don't have strong opinions in any particular direction yet, I read a few books so far and I just got another one called 'what really makes you ill', its 800 pages long so I will probably go outside to read it because I often feel discomfort nowadays from the ink chemicals in the book although it varies over time and which book it is.

Since we seem to be getting nowhere with the CFS and other issues I feel like its worth thinking about alternative viewpoints but I don't expect to necessarily get anywhere, I do find it interesting though however.
I've drank chlorine dioxide which the media says is comparable to industrial bleach and there seemed to be no ill effect although I worry it could affect the microbiome in a negative way, after a month of drinking it on and off I noticed I was getting histamine issues like red itching eyes, cant say for sure it was due to that but I suspect it was aggravating it, to be fair though I had these exact issues around this time last year, I have mold hypersensitivity.