How The Media and Establishment Brainwash The Public

[ark]

For all interested: I encourage you to read the Chapter How The Media and Establishment Brainwash The Public from R. Webster Kehr's book The War Between Orthodox Medicine and Alternative Medicine

It is really worth reading and discussing.

 

[Al Today]

I thank you for this information Ark.
Reminds me of my church going days.
A preacher was asked, Why do we have to hear the same stuff every week?
Preacher said, Because you need to be reminded…

You decide it is not necessary to go to the left side of the fence and talk to a creationist because you already think you understand their views and why their views are wrong.
A Common Mistake
If you made such a decision, you would be making a common mistake: you have heard both sides of the issue, but from only one person on one side of the fence.

YES.!.!.!
The brainwashers count on the brainwashee to NOT go to the other side of the fence and learn other views.

The Way We Have Been Taught

Yep, gotta break the chains of ignorance.
But a person may not know the chains exist.
Perhaps, one must be open minded and EXPOSED to alternate views?
I attended the public school system here in the USofA.
I know first hand that it doesn’t work.
Oops, yes, perhaps it does work, for the controllers that is…
How can a child be exposed to views if the teacher has no views, or limited views?
Maybe a case of the already hypnotized, helping hypnotize another generation.

In another post I made comments how I like to listen to talk radio…
I don’t take this personally, but I / we all should be exposed to this…

Did it ever occur to you that what you hear in the news media, for example, is being told to you by people who chose the "establishment" side for the sole reason the establishment had more benefits than the renegades? Did it ever occur to you that you have not been taught by "truth-seekers," but rather you have been taught by "benefit-seekers?"

The problem I may see is the lack of hearing the radical ideas.
The ideas that make one think, ponder, explore, research…
Very few times, I have an epiphany, on my own.
e•piph•a•ny - a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.
I am not a genius, exposure to views help me.

And I do feel I have become a little more aware in realizing…

People are taught from birth to assume and expect that those in the "establishment" (such as the schools, the news broadcasters and newspapers):
1) Have no vested interests or conflicts of interest,
2) Have perfect intelligence,
3) Have all the facts for both sides of the fence,
4) Are totally neutral and unbiased,
5) Have perfect integrity,
6) Have your best interests in mind, and
7) Are truly open-minded.
And above all, you are never, never allowed to think that money or power (i.e. benefits) could possibly influence what the establishment teaches you.

 

[dant]

Hmmm....

Did you read about the VIBE machine that is part of the "Bill Henderson" diet?
I am seriously looking into the Type-III cancer (for emphysema) for my Dad,
and wonder about this machine. There is such a VIBE center in Portland, OR
so naturally I should try to understand if this machine is real or quackery?

It sure looks like a tesla machine but with noble-gas tubes in a circle....

Here is the link: http://www(dot)vibemachine.com/
Henderson Protocol: http://www(dot)cancertutor.com/Other/ShrinkTumors.html

 

[Charles]

But Webster Kehr himself is also doing some magic with statistics.
Not very fair, AND it degrades the quality of his own plea.

It happens over here: http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Evidence.html

Dr. Kelley’s alternative treatment is said to show a 93 % cure rate. The orthodox Medical Establishment says that these can be “explained

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Yes, R. Webster Kehr's website (and that article Ark mentions) is indeed very useful. Interestingly, I was looking at it myself only 2 weeks ago.

Now, to address Charles:

Quite simply Charles, there are no tricks used at all. You need to read all of the material presented so that you can put it into some kind of context. It is an established fact (yes, there are statistics to show this) that people who have had chemotherapy and THEN go on a very good alternative treatment, usually only have a 50% surival rate. But hang on a minute -- 50%! That's MUCH higher than the survival rate of people who only use chemotherapy (which is a pathetic 3%). Survival means that they won't get cancer again, it doesn't mean, as the orthodoxy has it, that you are alive 5 years after initial diagnosis.

In any case, on this particular website, you can find MANY comparisons, accompanied with statistics, between people given alternative treatment after having chemotherapy and those who don't do conventional "treatment" at all. But one of the main points of the website, which clearly you've missed, is to show what ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, ON THEIR OWN, can do. Read the WHOLE website and you'll see there are plenty of statistics for this, and the results are nothing less than amazing (or not, if you consider that the food we are MEANT to eat is not what most people eat).

So that's why some of the data was omitted. It was not being disingenuous, because it was already explained that the cure rate is approximately 50% for those who've already had chemotherapy and then had the best alternative treatments. So, to answer one of your questions, the number who were excluded in the study was probably LESS than 50% (because it would include those who had no chemotherapy at all). Which is nothing like 97% exclusion which occurs for conventional treatment. And, if you read more of the website, you would have also discovered that people who have NO CHEMOTHERAPY, and NO OTHER TREATMENTS, live up to FIVE TIMES LONGER (which proves how destructive chemo is). So it's highly likely that the vast majority of those who died in the first 12 months were the ones who had already had chemotherapy. But in any case there is other less ambiguous, far more clear-cut, information on the website (and actually your concerns are addressed). For instance:

When alternative cancer practitioners do not use cesium chloride for their advanced patients who have been through orthodox treatments, their cure rates are generally poor. But statistics can be tricky.

For example, Dr. Donald Kelley had a 93% overall cure rate for treating cancer patients. This is NOT the bogus "5-year cure rate" of orthodox medicine, but a true cure rate.

However, what many people fail to remember is that Kelley did not include in his statistics any advanced cancer patient who died within 18 months of starting his treatment. In other words, if Kelley started working on a cancer patient sent home to die by orthodox medicine, he did not count this patient in his statistics unless he or she lived for at least 18 months after starting the Dr. Kelley treatment.

A similar story can be told about laetrile. For example, Dr. Philip Binzel did not count advanced cancer patients in his statistics unless they lived for at least one year after beginning his laetrile treatment.

Thus, when looking at the statistics for treating advanced cancer patients a person must know exactly what statistical techniques are being used.

For example, Gerson had a 50% cure rate, however, he counted EVERY patient that came to him, even if they died within the first month. Over 90% of Gerson's patients were advanced and terminal. It may be that the Gerson cure rate of 50% was actually more impressive than the 93% cure rate of Kelley, if you understand the way they did their statistics!! The bad thing about the Gerson treatment is that is was administered by an M.D. and it was a very complex and rigid treatment.

 

[Charles]

Now, to address Charles:

Quite simply Charles, there are no tricks used at all. You need to read all of the material presented so that you can put it into some kind of context.

Context or not, he IS using tricks. To be more precise, he is disingenuous, almost every time he uses the 93 % cure rate. It is not even a trick. It is manipulative, and I guess it is because he is trying to persuade the reader. This would be oookay for me if he would have just done it with data. He does it by bragging with a 93 % cure rate, which is NOT a data. I repeat: it is a non data because I even don’t know what this 93 % measures.

What you have tried to help me see my "error", is provide me/us with

1) a broader context, and

2) repeat his argument (with different wordings) as to why it would be legitimate to take people (few/many/ a lot?? I don’t know) out of the statistics who started the alternative cure program but still died. Say what!? To this end Dr Binzel removed all people who died before 6 … to 12 months, and Dr Kelley removed all people who died before 12 … to 18 months. How arbitrary can it get?


The broader context you provided could allow me to maybe guesstimate the real cure rate that would hide within those 93 %.

For example, Gerson had a 50% cure rate, however, he counted EVERY patient that came to him, even if they died within the first month. Over 90% of Gerson's patients were advanced and terminal. It may be that the Gerson cure rate of 50% was actually more impressive than the 93% cure rate of Kelley, if you understand the way they did their statistics!! The bad thing about the Gerson treatment is that is was administered by an M.D. and it was a very complex and rigid treatment.

I couldn’t agree more. That is very impressive. But to use these statistics to try to do an extrapolation so that we would be able to guesstimate what the real number could be that hides within the 93 % of the Kelley treatment is a leap of faith too far in my books. Why? Because they are using entirely different therapies. And from this follows that I would like to compare different alternative therapies. But to this end I will need the right statistics of the Kelley and Binzel therapy, which are not in my possession. Why would that be?

So, to recap: the 93 %, although it sounds like a very convincing number because it is high AND precise doesn’t say ANYthing to me. I even don’t know what precisely it measures.

To then use this arbitrary magic number of 93 % (or over 92%) in the following ways is more than being disingenuous.

Few examples:

So what was their cure rate? Over 92%. In other words, if their cure rate had been 1.2% we would reject the hypothesis of orthodox medicine. If it had been 2%, we would have laughed at their hypothesis. But it is 92%! The hypothesis is far, far beyond ludicrous.

Circular reasoning.

Group A) Millions of people in this set, 1% spontaneous remission rate, and that is being very generous.
Group B) More than 33,000 patients in this set, with a verified spontaneous remission rate of over 92%.

No it is not 92 %. I do not know what this 92 % measures.
The only legitimate way to use the 92 % number, is to state that you have a 92 % cure rate, ONCE YOU SURVIVE THE FIRST x-y months. To use this 92 % number particularly IN THIS CONTEXT is totally manipulative.

Then let's use it for all cancer patients. In other words, if we can convince cancer patients sent home to die that alternative treatments work, and if by doing this over 92% of the patients sent home to die are suddenly cured, then let's do this for all cancer patients sent home to die!!! It is a marvelous way to cure cancer!

We should also tell those people that they can die within x – y months and that they will not be counted in the statistics. We should also tell those people that they have a statistic cure rate of over 92 % ONCE they have survived the first x – y months.
In other words, here it is a downright lie.

In other words, if Binzel and Kelley can cure 92% of their patients who were on chemotherapy and were sent home to die, then we can logically conclude they could have cured at least 92% of these same patients if they had gone to Binzel and Kelley directly, meaning without going to their orthodox doctors first.

Woohaah. Hold it just there. It would be very interesting data, as I’ve said above, but you can not logically conclude that such would be the case. Who says (or what proves) that the people who were taken out of his statistics died because of the chemotherapy? Maybe their cancers were so invasive and metastasizing that they would have died anyway, with an orthodox therapy AND with an alternative therapy. This fallacy in logic he takes even a step further …

Let me explain this another way. We know these 33,000 cancer patients had an overall cure rate of 92% after most of the patients had been on chemotherapy, thus we can logically conclude that if these same patients had seen Dr. Binzel or Dr. Kelley instead of their orthodox doctors, that first, Dr. Binzel and Dr. Kelley would have had more time to work with these patients, and second, Dr. Binzel and Dr. Kelley could have cured more of their patients because their immunity system had not been destroyed. Thus they would have had a cure rate much higher than 92%. But let's use 92% anyway.

My my my, do I have to go on ? It's still a bummer.

But it also shows how important the lesson is of the "make them belong to one of the two camps" thing.
It happens faster than we admit to ourselves. Often, we even do it to ourselves. It makes us BELONG, maybe.

 

[neonix]

Could Today’s Media Be Labeled Psychopathic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcJ0j2GHI34

Michael Cross, author of “The Destiny of Our Past,” the "Freedom from Conscience" book series and host of UCY's "Unlock the Door" compares the traits associated with a person being a psychopath with the modern “mainstream media.” So what do you think we would get if we set out to do a diagnosis? For further insights into this issue and much more please visit my website at: https://freedomfromconscience.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/genetically-engineering-our-destiny/ and for more information about the "Freedom from Conscience" books please visit:
http://finest.se/jasmincroft/