Who Are the Quacks?
Inquiring minds already know.
Quack: 1) A practitioner who suggests the use of substances or devices for the prevention or treatment of disease that are known to be ineffective.
2) A person who pretends to be able to diagnose or heal people, but is unqualified and incompetent.
In the United States, we spend far more than any other industrialized nation on our healthcare, with a recent report from January 2023 by the Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group, stating that the US spends nearly twice as much as the average country. In 2021, the health expenditures per person, including government and private programs and out-of-pocket spending, was estimated to be $11,912, which is $4,530 more than the next highest country in Germany. In 2022, this jumped up to $13,493 per person. With so much of our money going to our healthcare to the point that it is exceeding other countries, you would assume that we have the healthiest population in the world, correct? If you assumed that this was the case, you'd be wrong.
According to the authors of the report, even though the United States spends more on health care than any other high-income country, we have the lowest life expectancy at birth and the highest rate of people with multiple chronic diseases. Leading author Munira Gunja stated, “Americans are living shorter, less healthy lives because our health system is not working as well as it could be.” Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, stated that the report “validates the fact that we continue to spend more than anybody else and get the worst health outcomes. So we’re not getting the best value for our health care dollar.”
The argument could well be made that we have very little value to show for the vast amount of money that we are spending. Not only do we have the lowest life expectancy at birth and the highest rate of people with multiple chronic diseases, we rank last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes. According to the Commonwealth Funds 2021 report, the U.S. rate of preventable mortality (177 deaths per 100,000 population) is more than double the best-performing country, Switzerland (83 deaths per 100,000). The researchers also found that the U.S. has exceptionally poor performance on two other healthcare outcome measures. The U.S. maternal mortality rate of 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births is twice that of France, the country with the next-highest rate (7.6 deaths per 100,000 live births) while the US decreased its 10-year trend in avoidable mortality by the least amount (the U.S., with the highest level in 2007, reduced it by a 5 percent reduction in deaths per 100,000 population by 2017 — compared to 25 percent in Switzerland by 2017 and 24 percent in Norway by 2016).
While the US is spending more money than any other country on the healthcare of its citizens, we are seeing the exact opposite return for our money, as reflected in the leading causes of deaths in the US. In 2016, a study by Johns Hopkins examined data over an 8-year period and estimated that more than 250,000 people are dying every year from medical mistakes. These are known as iatrogenic deaths, which means that they are deaths caused by those who are supposed to be healers. There are other studies that estimate the number of iatrogenic deaths even higher at 440,000. Whatever the true number is, these estimates place iatrogenic deaths as the third leading cause of death in the US behind cancer (around 580,000) and heart disease (around 600,000), and above respiratory disease (around 150,000). With dangerous heart disease medications (statins, beta blockers, ACE inhibitors, diuretics, etc.), along with toxic antibiotics/antivirals, harmful opioids, poisonous vaccines, deadly chemotherapy and radiation therapies, and unnecessary invasive interventions and surgeries that can all lead to deaths that are subsequently blamed on invisible pathogens and/or the underlying health conditions, the argument could very easily be made that iatrogenic deaths are the leading cause of death in the US.
These are wholly preventable deaths that are a direct result of a corrupt healthcare system that is not designed to protect health, but rather keep people as customers returning to the pharmaceutical industry for life. It is a system that was established in the early 1900s by special interests using massive amounts of money flowing in from the Rockefeller and Carnegie families. I previously wrote about the destruction of the homeopathic healers by the robber barons and the real snake oil salesmen of the past which resulted in the establishment of a system that aimed to sell petrochemical poisons as “cures.” It is a system designed to keep people weak and sickly utilizing drugs for invisible fictitious pathogens that are a means to cover up real environmental causes of illness and disease. Following the 1910 Flexnor report, financed by both of the wealthy industrialists Rockefeller and Carnegie, the entire medical educational system was overhauled and restructured away from holistic and natural therapies (such as homeopathy, herbal medicine, essential oils, chiropractic care, and naturopathy) and towards a system of invasive surgeries and petrochemical “cures.” The Flexnor Report recommended the closing of more than one-half of the medical schools, many of which were homeopathic and alternative medicine practices, based on ancient healing traditions, that were in direct opposition to the desired goals of the wealthy businessmen. The report called for a specific program and curricula to be adopted by all remaining, as well as any future, medical schools. Most importantly, it stipulated that all schools must undergo regular reviews in order for the renewal of their long-term accreditation following the initial approval by the American Medical Association (AMA). In other words, in order to remain a medical school and to receive funding, all schools needed to adopt the new medical system that was built upon the new germ “theory” of disease popularized in the late 1800s and the emergence of petrochemical medicines as a form of treatment. All alternative schools that did not wish to play ball were forced into closure. The AMA was given full control over what would be considered medicine as well as those who could practice it.
Flexner's report created a culture that paved the way for the patenting and monetization of pharmaceuticals, allowing his bosses to profit handsomely from his work. This allowed for the practitioners of the allopathic model, which consisted of the real snake oil-like practices of bloodletting, invasive surgery, and the injection of toxic heavy metals, to reframe themselves as “real medicine” in order to roll over the competition that mainly utilized natural ingredients and practices. Those methods were now considered quackery, and the real healers became seen as the “quacks,” while the real quacks shifted into the role as the “healers.” However, as can be seen by the diminishing returns from our “healthcare” system that creates more chronic diseases than it “cures,” as well as the case that the system itself is arguably the leading cause of death, the system is producing anything but healers.
These revelations shouldn't be startling as this was foreseen by the real healers of the past while this allopathic takeover was occurring, and even by those who were trained within the new system. As is often the case, many of the critical voices were buried and hidden, or the people who spoke critically against the system had their good names smeared and discredited. One must search diligently in order to find these voices as they will not be heavily promoted in mainstream articles. One such voice speaking out shortly after the Flexnor Report was respected surgeon, medical writer, and cancer researcher Dr. Herbert Snow. I previously wrote an article about his excellent 1913 essay dissecting the germ “theory” of disease. In it, he attacked the special interests governing the modern medical system:
“But unfortunately both in the medical and surgical departments of the healing art, powerful vested interests had by this time (i. e. 1890, when Lister at the Berlin Congress officially discarded his “Antisepsis”) arisen, and, in combination with still more powerful financial forces outside the faculty, were compelled to prop up the decaying Germ Theory by every possible method and at all hazard.”
But in medicine, still greater forces were indissolubly pledged to the maintenance of the belief in special micro-organisms as the cause of specific diseases. Pasteur has invented Serum-Therapy, beginning with fictitious cures, whose validity he signally failed to prove, for Rabies and Anthrax. Millions of capital were being invested in commercial enterprises for the manufacture of sera to cure or to prevent human maladies, and sold on the credit of the Germ Theory. Hence it was impossible to suffer public belief in the evil potency of Germs—by this time thoroughly established—to be trampled out by the hard facts of Science.
So nothing was spared that could serve to prevent a perception of the actual truth. The total failure of every one of these nostrums to accomplish its ostensible object was concealed; their frequent dangerous effects disguised, and the statistics of disease manipulated, towards the desired end, or often purposely falsified upon a most extensive scale. In the whole wide field of Serum-Therapy so far, not a solitary genuine success has been scored.
For the insight of someone who was trained within the system after it was established, we can turn to Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, a very vocal critic of the modern medical system. He wrote a scathing review of his profession in the 1979 book Confession of a Medical Heretic. Dr. Mendelsohn was very well-positioned to speak on the topic as he was the Chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee of the State of Illinois, Associate Professor of Preventative Medicine and Community Health in the School of Medicine of the University of Illinois, and the recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine and medical instruction. However, according to mainstream sources such as Quackwatch.com, Dr. Mendelsohn is labeled a “quack” as he “engaged in irresponsible criticism of the medical profession and science-based health care during most of his medical career.” Vaxopedia.com labeled him “America's First Anti-Vaccination Pediatrician” who went on a media tour appearing as an “expert” (their quotations, not mine) who was “scaring parents in the 1970s and 80s.” Dr. Mendelsohn's review of modern medicine was absolutely damaging and very prophetic given what we know today, hence the media attacks against him:
“I believe that despite the super technology and elite bedside manner that's supposed to make you feel as well cared for as an astronaut on the way to the moon, the greatest danger to your health is the doctor who practices Modern Medicine. I believe that Modern Medicine's treatments for diseases are seldom effective, and that they are often more dangerous than the diseases they're designed to treat. I believe that the dangers are compounded by the widespread usage of dangerous procedures for non-diseases. I believe that more than ninety percent of Modern Medicine could disappear from the face of the earth - doctors, hospitals, drugs and equipment - and the effect on our health would be immediate and beneficial."
When speaking on the corrupting influence of the medical educational system, he wrote:
"Medical school does its best to turn smart students stupid, honest students corrupt and healthy students sick. It isn't very hard to turn a smart student into a stupid one. First of all, the admissions people make sure the professors will get weak-willed, authority-abiding students to work on. Then they give them a curiculum that is absolutely meaningless as far as healing or health are concerned."
Dr. Mendelsohn wasn't very forgiving in his summary of his chosen profession:
“The Doctor, once an agent of cure, has become the agent of disease. By going too far and diffusing the power of the extreme on the mean, Modern Medicine has weakened and corrupted even the management of extreme cases."
While Dr. Mendelsohn took major shots at his profession, his stature and experience made it difficult to discredit him, as noted by the Los Angeles Times stating, “If his opinions were outrageous to many, his credentials were above reproach.” Even the American Medical Association was afraid to comment on Mendelsohn, telling a Times reporter in 1984 that “discussing Mendelsohn is a no-win proposition. We don’t even want to get tangled up with him in print.” Regardless, his prescient words have fallen mostly upon deaf ears.
Interestingly, even William Osler, nicknamed the “Father of Modern Medicine,” considered amongst the greatest physicians of all time, and one of the founders of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, provided a warning about the emerging allopathic model:
“One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine.”
Osler was very critical of medicine, believing that those who took medicine were fighting recovery on two fronts:
“The person who takes medicine must recover twice, once from the disease and once from the medicine.”
There are many other great examples of medical men speaking out against our “healthcare” system; one that has turned well-intentioned individuals, who want to do good by healing their fellow man, into the quacks of today. In the spirit of learning from these voices of the past who were able to see the faults in the allopathic model, I am presenting one of my favorite articles here that, beyond Dr. Mendelsohn's amazing book, is an excellent refutation of what we call modern medicine. I will be interjecting some additional commentary throughout the article in order to offer further insight that will serve to help flesh out certain points. At the end, it will be abundantly clear that we have a medical educational system that is churning out the real quacks.
What is presented below is an eight-page essay that was written by Dr. William Howard Hay, an American physician and the founder of The East Aurora Sun and Diet Sanatorium. However, before diving into the essay, I want to provide a little background information on Dr. Hay that will shed some light as to where he was coming from in regard to writing this essay. Dr. Hay is mostly known for the “Hay Diet,” which is a food combining system that practices the consumption of certain food items separately or together in order to obtain the best digestive and health effects. Dr. Hay developed his method, which consisted of consuming foods in their natural state, fasting, and not mixing proteins and starches at the same meal, after his own health broke down due to high blood pressure, Bright’s disease and a dilated heart. The prognosis for his condition at that time was very poor. However, by eliminating coffee, smoking, and following his own nutritional method, Dr. Hay was able to go from 225 lbs to 175 lbs in three months and completely rid himself of all of his symptoms. He was certain that he could reverse diabetes in anyone. The method became very popular at the time and included influential industrialist Henry Ford as a supporter.
Like the previously mentioned Dr. Herbert Snow, Dr. Hay actively campaigned against both vivisection (the practice of performing operations on live animals for the purpose of experimentation for “scientific” research) and vaccination. He was convinced that there was no way to prove that vaccination offered any protection, and that there was no such thing as immunization. For example, in an address presented before the Medical Freedom Society on the Lemke bill to abolish compulsory vaccination in 1937, Dr. Hay made the very logical argument that “protection” via vaccination can never be proven.
I was glad to hear the Honorable Mr. Lemke’s presentation of the subject matter of his bill. I have thought many times of all the insane things that we have advocated in medicine, that is one of the most insane-to insist on the vaccination of children, or anybody else, for the prevention of smallpox, when, as a matter of fact, we are never able to prove that vaccination saved one man from small-pox. Naturally not. When you have protected anybody, as we denote protection in medicine, you have at the same time destroyed your evidence. If that man doesn’t take the disease against which he is supposed he be protected, how can you ever know he would have taken it if he hadn’t been protected? We have destroyed the evidence.
As a matter of fact, perhaps it is safe to say that not more than 10 per cent of the people ever would take smallpox if sleeping in the same bed with an infected smallpox victim. We know there is a large immunity to smallpox. Very few people are subject to it, and these usually in the filthiest surroundings. Now, if we carry that natural immunity to smallpox as we do other diseases, and we have been protected by vaccination and then we are exposed to smallpox and don’t take it, don’t you see there is no proof there? We may be carrying a natural immunity. If one case that has been successfully vaccinated afterwards develops smallpox, that is proof that it isn’t protection, now, isn’t it?
I know of one epidemic of smallpox comprising nine hundred and some cases in which 95 per cent of the infected had been vaccinated, and most of them recently. I have had in my own experience one very small epidemic comprising 33 cases, of which 29 had vaccination histories a “good” scar, and some of them vaccinated within the last year. There was no protection there.
Dr. Hay went on to provide testimony from his own 30 years of practice treating chronic disease, and the observation that children who were vaccinated suffered worse health outcomes than those who were not. He also noted that records in England were more accurately kept than in the United States, and that vaccinations led to, at the very least, three times more death than smallpox.
It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the treatment of chronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run against so many histories of little children who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated and who, in the several years that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I couldn’t put my finger on the disease they have. They just weren’t strong. Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since. Now you can’t record those as deaths from vaccination because they are still alive; but in England, where statistics are a little more frank than they are with us, where they ate kept a little more accurately, a little more aboveboard than in this country, the actual official records show three times as many deaths directly from vaccinations as from smallpox for the past 21 years. If they record three times as many deaths, I will guarantee, you that there are three times as many deaths that were not recorded that are directly traceable to vaccination. That doesn’t take into account the many, many cases of encephalitis or sleeping sickness, of this or that form of degeneration, that occur as a direct result of vaccination. That case is still alive. It hasn’t entered here the mortality records yet, but it is suffering and has suffered ever since vaccination.
Dr. Hay was adamant that immunization did not exist. If anything, it was a habituation to poison, similar to what is seen with rattlesnake venom and continual use of alcohol and drugs.
What is true of vaccination is exactly as true of all forms of serum immunization, so called. There is no such thing as immunization, but we sell it under the name, “immunization”. We jab a needle full of pus germs, we will say the streptococcus, for instance, in attenuated form so it won’t pollute too badly, and we increase the dose or potency of that little by little until we build up what we call a resistance to it. You can do the same thing with the rattlesnake venom. You can be bitten just a little by a rattlesnake and not die, and if you are bitten often enough, you can be bitten In a vital part and not die; you have built up a resistance to the venom of the rattlesnake, but have you improved your physique by doing so? If we could by any means build up a natural resistance to disease through these artificial means, I would applaud it to the echo, but we can’t do it. The body has its own methods of defense. These depend on the vitality of the body at the time. If it is vital enough, it will resist all infections; if it isn’t vital enough, it won’t, and you can’t change the vitality of the body for the better by introducing poison of any kind into it.
We can see that Dr. Hay spoke from experience, learning how to restore health through proper lifestyle changes while witnessing within his practice the damages that the allopathic model wrecked on innocent children. It is clear to see how Dr. Hay's own experiences helped to shape his perception of the modern healthcare system, leading him to the conclusion that those who were sanctioned practitioners utilizing dangerous and ineffective practices of which they knew very little about were the real quacks. Thus, he wrote a devastating takedown of the allopathic model where he challenged his own profession to be better. The entire essay, along with additional commentary, is presented below.
Who Are the Quacks?
By William Howard Hay, M.D.
Buffalo, New York
Dr. Hay began his essay by defining exactly what a “quack” is, which is someone who pretends to be something which he is not, or one who is not able to do what he claims to do, especially if he takes money. Using this definition, everyone within the medical field could be defined as “quacks,” contrary to the common medical perception that a “quack” is anyone who isn't practicing the allopathic model. Dr. Hay asked his fellow practitioners to honestly reflect on how many times they could say to a patient that they do not know what is the matter with them, and that by not knowing, they are in no position to treat the patient intelligently. Dr. Hay said that, if they were all honest with their patients, there would be no patients. He also explicitly stated that disease diagnosis is, at best, guesswork, as a case could “go to a hundred different regular, well-informed physicians” which would result in “nearly as many different diagnoses, and still more different plans of treatment.” (For some additional insight into diagnostic problems, please check out my examination of this issue in the article Differential Diagnosis?). Dr. Hay argued that the blame for the medical professionals turning into “quacks” lies with two parties: it is the fault of the practitioners who allowed themselves to be placed in a position of “arbiters of disease” of which they know very little about, as well as the fault of the public for “being so silly as to think that the mysterious thing we call disease can be reduced to exact formulae.” I would argue that, while practitioners and patients do carry blame, a third party is responsible: the special interests who established the pseudoscientific system used to trick both parties in the first place. For greater insight into the responsible party, please check out Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America.
What is a “quack”? Medically speaking a quack is everyone but us, the regular school of medicine. No one not a graduate of a modern school of medicine is free from odium of quackery, from the regular classical, orthodox standpoint. Isn’t this true?
Let us put the definition of “quacks” a little more broadly, not limiting it to outlaw cults. From the broader viewpoint a quack is someone who pretends to be something which he is not, or one who is not able to do what he claims to do, especially if he takes money for this pretense.
From this broader view how many of us are there who can escape the suspicion of quackery?
If we should tell the absolute truth how often would we be compelled to say to a patient, “I do not know what is the matter with you, and not knowing this, I am in no position to treat you intelligently?”
If we were honest how many patients would we have? They would all leave us for the quacks, and we would be left holding the bag, as it were. We know this, and all unconsciously we are compelled to assume an air of wisdom and pronounce judgment on maladies for which we are consulted, well knowing that if the case escapes us and goes to someone else our opinion is in danger, for it is well a known fact that if a case is not perfectly plain (and most cases are NOT plain), should such a case go to a hundred different regular, well-informed physicians he would get nearly as many different diagnoses, and still more different plans of treatment.
We know this, I say, and we unconsciously protect ourselves by assuring the patient positively that we understand his condition very well, in order to make sure of this unfailing confidence in our enlightened judgment.
Are we quacks for this deception? How can we escape the imputation? Who is to blame for this position in which we find ourselves? Is it our fault or that of human nature as expressed in the patient? No doubt both, for while we are to blame for allowing ourselves to be placed in this position of arbiters of disease, about which we do not know very much, yet so also is the public to blame for being so silly as to think that the mysterious thing we call disease can be reduced to exact formulae.
Dr. Hay examined the origins of the allopathic model where discoveries were made about certain chemicals producing certain effects when taken into the body. It was decided that these “discoveries” could be used to combat disease, which, ironically, is the sign that the body is attempting to heal. Dr. Hay noted that this belief was only a theory, in the traditional sense of the word as an idea or an educated guess, rather than a scientific theory established upon scientific evidence. It can only remain a theory as the internal processes of the body, whether in a state of health or disease, can never be studied in action in order to know for certain.
Dr. Hay pointed out that many people were turning less often to the allopathic model in order to seek treatment from those who are outside of it. He felt that this was due to the failure of the allopathic model to produce the intended results. He again took aim at the difficulty in diagnosing disease, providing the example of Sir James MacKenzie, a respected Scottish cardiologist, who stated that physicians are only picking out a prominent symptom, but this does not tell why the person is sick or what caused it. He estimated that they could accurately diagnose maybe 10% of the cases. Dr. MacKenzie shared his frustration in his attempts to understand how specific diagnoses could be made, fearing it was a defect in himself until he realized the information he sought did not exist. This led to dissatisfaction with his work:
“For some years I thought that my inability to diagnose my patients' complaints was due to personal defects; but gradually I came to recognise that the kind of information I wanted did not exist.”
“I was not long engaged in my new sphere when I realised I was unable to recognise the ailments in the great majority of my patients. For some years I went blundering on, gradually falling into a routine, [that is] giving some drug that seemed to work favourably on the patient, till I became dissatisfied with my work and resolved to try and improve my knowledge by more careful observation.”
Dr. Hay provided another example in Dr. Richard Cabot of the Harvard Medical School, who stated that the diagnosis is wrong in 50% of the cases, something that Dr. MacKenzie would say is not a diagnosis at all. In the early 1900s, Dr. Cabot instigated what were known as “clinicopathological conference” (CPC), where physicians would take to a stage in order to be presented with the case history of a deceased patient that they would then attempt to work out aloud the diagnosis. The audience members, which were made up of physicians and physicians-in-training, would question the methods throughout the conference. In the end, the physician would offer a diagnosis that was compared with the results from the patient’s autopsy. It was considered a dramatic event as the physician risked being wrong in front of an audience, which according to Dr. Cabot, appeared to occur in half of the cases. Cabot's CCP's revealed to the public the errors in medicine, and this was upsetting for many of his medical contemporaries. While his critics did not deny the reality of the errors, they feared that its public acknowledgment would undermine the authority of “scientific” medicine. Regardless, in his 1911 book Differential Diagnosis Presented Through an Analysis of 383 Cases, Dr. Cabot continued asking very pertinent questions about these difficulties related to diagnosis and treatment:
“Why do so many practitioners treat symptoms only? Why are their diagnoses and the resulting treatments so full of vagueness, groping, hedging, and ‘shot-gun’ prescriptions”
Dr. Hay then quoted Sir William Osler, who was himself quoting Voltaire who said, “We put drugs of which we know little, into bodies of which we know less, to cure disease of which we know nothing at all.” The various statements by professionals of his time regarding the inaccuracies of diagnosis and the resulting mistreatment led Dr. Hay to the conclusion that those within his profession are all “quacks.” These same issues with diagnostic and treatment errors has not become any better today as seen by a 2013 review that concluded:
“In summary, a wide range of different research approaches have been used to estimate diagnostic error rates, all suggesting that the incidence is unacceptably high. Although true incidence data are lacking, a wide variety of research studies suggest breakdowns in the diagnostic process result in a staggering toll of harm and patient deaths. A recent, authoritative review by the AMA of ambulatory patient safety concerns reached the same conclusion.”
The fathers of medicine made what they were pleased to call discoveries, which were generally discoveries that certain drugs produced certain symptoms if taken into the interior of the human, and these discoveries were proposed to combat the symptoms of disease.
This was originally a theory, always has been a theory, and in the very nature of things never can be anything but a theory, for the internal processes of the body in health or disease, are not and never will be fully understood, the vital processes not being subject to exact analysis; and while we may learn much of the internal chemistry of the body, and discover experimentally many things of interest in the functions of the various organs, yet we never can analyze the vital machinery in action in the sooner we drop this pretense of exact knowledge the better it will be for our prestige.
Fully a third of the population of the U.S. has ceased to depend on regular physicians for advice or treatment of their various diseases, perhaps, because they are beginning dimly to realize through many disappointments the fallibility of classical medicine. Who can tell?
A questionnaire issued to seven thousand people recently disclosed the fact that less than ten percent of them were unqualifiedly loyal to medicine, more than ninety percent admitting their allegiance, partially or wholly, to Christian Science, Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Naturopathy, Mechanotherapy, or other cult.
“Quacks”, we sneer, yet we must admit the falling off in our former supremacy in the treatment of disease. This is a bitter admission, yet if we are honest enough to face the truth, we should look this thing fairly in the eye and to know why this defection.
A few years ago, Sir James McKenzie, of St. Andrews, Scotland, quoted in the London Times, from the London Lancet, said in effect that to diagnose a gastric ulcer, gall stones, appendicitis, tumor, is not diagnosis in the strict sense of the word, but merely naming a prominent symptom, denoting the point of convergence of the cause of the diseased condition, but to say why this man is sick, to tell how and why he has departed from health, is not possible to him, in this wonderful clinic, in more than ten percent of the cases examined.
Dr. Cabot of the Harvard Medical School, says of the post modern finding of the Massachusetts General Hospital, where precision is carried to the nth degree, that these have proven the diagnosis to be wrong in over fifty percent of the cases, and this means they have missed the principal trouble in more than half of the cases, and Dr. McKenzie says that even this is not diagnosis at all. Sir William Osler, late Regis professor of medicine in Oxford, quoted the immortal Voltaire as saying: “We put drugs of which we know little, into bodies of which we know less, to cure disease of which we know nothing at all.”
Quacks, just plain quacks, whether we are willing to admit it or not, for are not we doing the very things for which we condemn those whom we are pleased to call by this opprobrious name?
Dr. Hay next discussed the work of Antoine Bechamp, a French chemist and physician who had discovered what he called microzymas, little organisms found within every living thing that had the ability to change form into bacteria and fungi depending upon the environment in which they find themselves in. He saw these organisms, and their pleomorphic forms, as a response to the internal terrain of the individual. They showed up after the inner terrain had been damaged in order to clean it up and restore health. The microzyma, along with their bacterial and fungal forms, were the result of, and not the cause of, disease. Louis Pasteur, the father of the germ “theory” of disease, misinterpreted the findings of Bechamp and regarded the pleomorphic forms of the microzyma as germs, ascribing to them the role of the invader causing disease. Dr. Hay acknowledged that Bechamp was a true scientist while Pasteur was simply an advertiser, stealing from Bechamp and strategically utilizing the press to paint the picture of himself as a scientific genius when he was anything but one. For two excellent looks at the fraud that occurred, I highly recommend both Bechamp or Pasteur?: A lost chapter in the history of biology and Pasteur, Plagiarist, Imposter for more information.
Dr. Hay also discussed the work of German bacteriologist Robert Koch, who is given credit for establishing the logical postulates that must be satisfied in order to prove a microbe causes disease. Dr. Hay pointed out that the germ “theory” of disease failed these necessary requirements as the germs are frequently absent within the diseased and are generally present in those without the disease. He also stressed that these supposedly pathogenic microbes do not always cause the disease they are attributed to when introduced into a healthy host, and that most of the time, no disease occurs at all. Dr. Hay believed that the work of Pasteur and his promotion of the germ “theory” had set us back considerably, and that the only way that we could move forward was by understanding the work of Bechamp. He felt that we had wasted precious time and money barking up the wrong tree by following the fraudulent work of Pasteur. This wasted time and effort has led to the creation of dangerous treatments that have no proof of effectiveness.
In 1857-63 Antoine Bechamp announced his microzmian theory of fermentation, which he was pleased to say was also the theory of the beginning of disease, recognizing germs at metamorphoses of the miscrozmya for biochemic purposes.
Pasteur, a contemporary of Bechamp, not a physician, but a chemist, or rather an apothecary, attributed to the germs, these micro-organisms developed from the microzyma of Bechamp, the role of invader, believing that because they were ever present in disease, certain germs being supposedly always present in certain diseases, that therefore they cause these diseases.
Bechamp was a scientist, Pasteur an advertiser. Bechamp was so absorbed in his researches that he contented himself with occasional reports to the Academy of Sciences while Pasteur went to the public with everything he discovered, creating a popular following that acclaimed him a scientific genius.
Much of his work was plainly cribbed from Bechamp without credit, and interpreted to suit his purpose, which was to build up a huge market for germ destroyers.
Bechamp died poor and unknown, outside the Academy; Pasteur in almost affluent circumstances acclaimed by the scientific world as a great benefactor, and mourned yearly since his demise.
This theory of germs as the cause of disease was analyzed by Prof. Robert Koch, who formulated a dictum, accepted by the scientists of his time, that must be met in order to fix on the germ as a cause of disease.
According to this dictum if the germ caused the disease it must be present in every case of this disease; it must not be present except in conjunction with the disease, it must be susceptible of separate cultivation in proper media outside the body, and finally, it must be susceptible of transplantation again in the human body, where it must infallibly produce the same disease.
The germ theory does not meet a single one of these conditions infallibly, the germ frequently being absent from diseased conditions which are attributed to it; being generally present in bodies in which the disease attributed to it is most conspicuous by its absence! And while germs are susceptible to cultivation outside the body, in suitable media, yet they are subject to mutation as the medium is changed in character, and, if again introduced into the body, they do not always infallibly cause the disease they are supposed to cause, generally not causing disease of any kind whatsoever.
Pasteur has already set us back sixty years by his advertising of the germ theory, and if we go back to the teachings of Bechamp, recognizing the microzyma as the prime cause, and the germ as a development of a biochemical nature, result of the condition of the body, transformed into a necessary scavenger to remove from the body objectionable matter, we will perhaps regain the ground lost for over sixty years, and be able to concentrate our attention on the soil conditions in the body, not on the harmless germ scavenger.
If the bacillus of tuberculosis was the cause of tuberculosis how could any of us escape infection?
The same is true of typhoid fever, pneumonia, any infectious disease, for the germs accompanying those diseases are ubiquitous.
We are spending valuable time, oodles of money, splendid brain power, in studying the life history of germs when they are but biochemic scavengers, friendly things whose function is the often urgent one of ridding the body, on short notice, of accumulations that have become intolerable, embarrassing to functions, so that we are thus missing the real object of our search for the cause of disease.
The soil conditions that make necessary the presence of the germs are our real field of search, but we have lost sight of this field almost entirely in our frantic hunt for germs, and we can lay the blame for this wrong steer on Louis Pasteur. We have no proof of the boasted effectiveness of any form of antitoxin or vaccine or serum.
After one is vaccinated or serumized, immunized, we have destroyed the only proof that counts, for we have no way of knowing whether or not the vaccinated or serumized person would have contracted disease in the absence of this so-called protection; not all do so.
If such vaccinated or serumized person contracts the disease against which he is supposed to be protected it is pretty good evidence that such “protection” is valueless, isn’t it? Surely people do contract disease against which they are supposed to be immunized, as we all know.
To support his statements, Dr. Hay brought up the example of the mandatory vaccinations of soldiers during World War 1. He recalled how the healthiest and fittest were “immunized” against many diseases, and rather than dying on the front lines, these supposedly “protected” soldiers died at the camps of the very diseases that they were “immunized” against. This is supported by the evidence that hundreds of soldiers may have died of the fatal serum anaphylaxis associated with the routine administration of anti-tetanus serum during WWI. Also, the first case of the Spanish flu is attributed to Albert Gitchell, a camp cook at Camp Funston in Fort Riley, Kansas, where from January 21 – June 4, 1918 an experimental meningitis vaccination trial took place. Gitchell's case was recorded on March 4th, 1918 as the trials were ongoing. Shortly after Gitchell complained of flu-like symptoms in the morning, another 107 soldiers followed with similar complaints by lunchtime. Five weeks later, more than 1,000 soldiers were claimed to have been “infected” and 47 were dead. Dr. Hay pointed out that records showed that death rates amongst the soliders were 4-5 times higher than that seen in civilians.
Dr. Hay then brought up the failure of a 3-year mandatory vaccination campaign to eliminate smallpox from the Philippines. He stated that the death rate was at 60% with well over 60,000 deaths. Unfortunately, he did not provide the time period for the outbreak, but I did find support for this statement in a 1923 paper that cited similar figures.
Whereas smallpox deaths declined from 1904 until 1916 (mandatory vaccines were introduced in 1901), they began to rise dramatically in 1917, with a peak of 45,873 deaths reported in 1919. The combined total of deaths attributed to smallpox from 1917 to 1920 is over 60,000. Another report citing the same paper confirmed that this period was considered a very severe epidemic of smallpox in the Philippines with over 64,000 deaths, so it would appear that this is what Dr. Hay was referring to in his example. He noted that places with high vaccination rates had the worst cases and death rate, whereas the less vaccinated areas escaped with less disastrous outcomes.
Dr. Hay also brought in his own experiences treating those who were either vaccinated or not vaccinated for smallpox, noting that those who were unvaccinated did not have any more severe disease than those who were vaccinated. He pointed out that this held true for most of the world, and that the smallpox vaccine was dangerous and harmful. This is supported by the book Vaccination: Proved Useless and Dangerous by Alfred Russel Wallace. I also took a look at “The Most Dangerous Vaccine Known to Man” in this article.
In World War 1 were not our boys in the army thoroughly “protected”? They were physically fit on admission to the army, else they could not have got by the examining boards; they were thoroughly, very thoroughly immunized against typhoid fever, meningitis, pneumonia, influenza, yet they died like flies, not on the firing line, but right here at home, in the concentration camps, where they were surrounded by the finest sanitary precautions that science could devise, and not only did they die, but they died of the very disease against which they were supposed to have been rendered immune.
Do you doubt this statement? Look up the records of every cantonment in the country during the concentration of the army, and see for yourself whether or not this is true. The death rate from pneumonia, complicating influenza, was simply staggering, in some camps reaching four or five times the rate among civilians, these weak ones who were not able to go to war, who did not have the blessings of immunization.
How much good did the serum treatment do these boys? Ask Louis Pasteur, if you can conjure up his disembodied spirit.
Quacks, all of us, doing the things we do not know how to do, promising things we cannot perform.
Is it any wonder the public is getting a little suspicious of us and our vaunted “discoveries”? The wonder to me is that there are still seven millions of them willing to submit to vaccination and serum treatment.
The true figures on vaccination for smallpox have never got before the public, though they can be seen in the files of various departments of the army as well as the government, if one cares to ask for them. If the record of vaccination in the Philippines alone were ever to become matter of general knowledge, it would finish vaccination in the whole country, at least among those who were able to read and think for themselves. After three years of the most rigid vaccination, when almost every little brown man had been vaccinated from one to six times, there occurred the most severe epidemic of smallpox that the islands had ever seen, with the death rate running in places to almost sixty percent, and in all well over sixty thousand deaths. Did you ever know this before? Assuredly not; yet it is found in the government records in just this form. Manila and the surrounding province were vaccinated most thoroughly, also they showed the highest case record and death record of the whole archipelago, while some of the outlying country was not so thoroughly vaccinated and escaped with proportionately less disease.How much good did we do these poor fellows? Ask Edward Jenner! He knows now, if so be that we know after death, and I am willing to believe that he would gladly spend a part of his eternity in purgatory if he could undo the wrong he did the world by vaccination.
The only epidemic of smallpox it was ever my misfortune to attend comprised thirty-three cases, with twenty-nine vaccination histories, some recent, and unvaccinated cases did not have the disease in any more severe form than did those with the vaccination history, even those of recent history, and the same proportion holds pretty well over the vaccinated world, for vaccination does NOT protect against smallpox, though it does much harm aside from its usefulness.
Dr. Hay summarized the main points as to why he considered those practicing within the allopathic model are the real quacks:
They profess to be able to do things which they cannot do (diagnosing and curing diseases), and they take money under these false pretenses.
They accuse others of being less capable while proclaiming themselves as the arbiters in matters of disease.
They try to compel legislation that is favorable to their own profession that are not fair to the public.
They use coercion to try and force the unwilling public in matters of public health by claiming what is “in the best interest of the public.”
They attempt to force vaccination on the public without proof of benefit when they are far from knowing how to actually prevent disease.
Well, are you satisfied that we are quacks? In the eyes of those willing to forget the present prestige of medicine, such as it is, with all its dignity, its scientific jargon, its pratings of Altruism, its great endowment, its well heralded “achievements”, we are most assuredly quacks, professing to do things we cannot do, and-yes, taking money under this pretense.
We may excuse ourselves by accusing others, and believing that no one can do better than we, but we are clearly in the wrong when we attempt to secure favorable legislation for selfish ends or try to strangle legislations that may prove undesirable to us in our position as arbiters in matters of disease.
When we attempt to compel by legislation the obedience of an unwilling public we are exceeding the bounds of fairness, to say the least.
The public pays its own bills, it has a perfect right to say who shall and who shall not enjoy its patronage, and for this reason, as well as those stated before the writer is wholly out of sympathy with all efforts to coerce a willing and generous people in the matter of medical care, even as in the matter of religious belief.
We are continually urging on legislatures of state and nation bills to give us more power, more right to compel the unwilling obedience of a long suffering public to our every whim and wish, all “in the interest of public health”.
Suppose we do succeed in so militarizing the whole country that we have the right to go into any private home and tell them what’s what.
Can we do better than the medical section of the army did? We have been seeking legislation to compel every child in school to be “Schickd”, then if reaction occurs we want the power to immunize such suspicious child. We pray for the power of the Kaiser multiplied by seven times, and we almost have that now.
If we had the power to immunize under compulsion every man, woman, and child against influenza, would the results be better than they were among the selected risks of the army? What proof have we that they would be different? Would death rates of twelve to thirteen percent, which seem very high to us even in so fatal an epidemic as that of 1918-19, fall under general immunization? If they fell to twenty-six percent, as we witnessed in some of the army cantonments, it would be hard to convince the public we were benefactors.
No, we are far, very far, from knowing what to do to prevent disease, and even in great epidemic diseases, such as yellow fever, we have had to take off our hats to the entomologist and the sanitary engineer, and it was an entomologist that pointed out the anopheles as the carrier of malaria infection, and it was the sanitary engineer that found how to get rid of the pesky things, while we stood by and applauded to the echo-and then took all credit, as one of the great medical achievements!
The fact is we are occupying a false position, and if we are honest we will retreat as rapidly and gracefully as possible from it, and we will be willing to stand on our own achievements and be judged by them.
We will allow the public to select its physician without compulsion of government, not forgetting that this is distinctly the public’s funeral, and that the public pays the bills.
Until we drop all thought of compulsory medicine we should be consistent and compel our particular brand of religion and politics on our neighbors, as well as our particular brand of medicine.
We have to show that our particular brand of healing is the best and only, so let us have a little more charity for other schools and for the public which has a perfect right to decide its own brand of medicine. If we wish to escape suspicion of quackery let us be sure our backyard is clean before we seek to make our neighbors clean up theirs.
https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-43775180/view?partId=nla.obj-43775195#page/n0/mode/1up
Like Dr. Snow and Dr. Mendelsohn, Dr. Hay was very critical of his own profession. He understood that the system that had been established by the special interests was not in the business of healing. It was there to sell snake oil “cures” that often did far more harm than good. The model was there to create long-term profit for businessmen who had no business being involved in matters of health. He knew that practitioners indoctrinated within this system were simply following along, uncertain of the diagnoses that they were making as well as whether the treatment given would be effective or harmful. Patients who did not succumb to their disease and/or the treatments provided were fortunate, and they survived not because of the treatments, but due to the brilliance of the human body and its ability to endure physical and chemical torture in order to re-establish health.
Dr. Hay knew that those within his profession were, in fact, the real quacks as he was aware of the fraud that had taken place in the 1860s when the germ “theory” was established. He understood that Bechamp and his terrain theory was a much more accurate representation of the disease process and how the body responds in order to heal. This is why Dr. Hay was successful in healing himself of a disease that was supposed to kill him. However, Bechamp's experiments and ideas were stolen by Louis Pasteur and the findings misinterpreted into a model that helped the wealthy industrialists who were polluting the environment and creating disease. They were able to blame invisible culprits and profit greatly from doing so, continuing their destructive ways on the environment and selling their waste products back to those that they sickened as “cures.” While they have done a good job trying to cover up their tracks, the evidence of the pseudoscientific foundations of the germ “theory” of disease and the ineffectiveness of the allopathic model built from it is all around for those willing to look and see. Sadly, until the “healers” of today examine these foundations in order to break free from the teachings supplied by the indoctrination camps founded by Rockefeller, Carnegie, and the American Medical Association, the vast majority of the practitioners within our “healthcare” system will remain the very quacks that they were meant to replace. They will continue pretending to be healers, taking money for writing prescriptions for drugs that they know little about, that are put into bodies of which they know less, in order to “cure” disease of which they know nothing at all. As our collective health deteriorates, we will continue sinking more and more money into a system that is arguably the leading cause of death, chasing positive health outcomes while seeing nothing but diminishing returns.
The Baileys also provided yet another edition of their entertaining and insightful Q & A's.
highlighted the problems with the growing cancer vaccine narrative. challenged Greg Gonsalves, long-time HIV/AIDS activist who acts as professor at a private Ivy League university and received a “genius grant,” to produce scientific evidence for the existence of HIV and he failed to cite even a shred of scientific evidence showing the existence of the imaginary “HIV.” also took issue with Gregg Gonsalves, noting that he won’t dare to bring up the failed vaccines in his criticism of “Covid” critics and of the “Covid” response. took a look at how the “virus” narrative intertwines with our reality.
Betsy also reflected on the power of a good “no virus” meme and its ability to go “viral.”
investigated the insane amount of glyphosate used in the US and its possible connection to seasonal symptoms of disease.
We need to take the discussion a step further lest we let the buck rest on the doorstep of the Rockefellers and shrug, "they just want money". The Rockies are a front for a much larger and sinister entity which runs the global committees, think tanks and fraternities that rule the world. What is the end game to the cartelization of medical care? It isn't simply money-it's total dominion over every aspect of human civilization and the planet's resources by the few.
Great work as always, Mike. It beggars belief how critical a small number of doctors were at the juncture of where medicine took the wrong turn but were steadfastly ignored.