The Brits in the battle of Waterloo only had a death rate of 4 percent

The the bold part of the article below verifies what I have believed for years and years. By far the majority involved in the medical profession are only concerned with the money they can get. Not all, but most. When I have talked to doctors about alternative health cures I have had all I have gotten back is an occassional raised eyebrow. No interest shown what so ever. Others that have had seemingly miraculous cures but not told their doctors what they did have just been told to keep doing whatever they were doing but ask no questions about what they did.

Harvey

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4035849.stm

Immediately below is commentary by Bro Jon on the medical article which follows his remarks. Excerpt:

So why aren't modern doctors aware of such simple facts? Quite simply because for over 100 years, American medicine headed by the Rockefeller University and Rockefeller-owned pharmaceutical companies have taught most doctors that all "diseases" should be treated with profit-making medicines and procedures. Anything that looks like inexpensive "home remedies" or even letting the patient's body "treat" the disease for free, must be "pooh-poohed" in the prestigous medical journals, and even "outlawed" by the government's FDA.****

That's why today's hospitals have a death rate of about 30% from septicemia following heroic life-saving attempts with modern techniques and medications, while the severely injured British soldiers of the 13th Light Dragoons following the battle of Waterloo, only had a death rate of 4%. That is a 750 percent increase in "Death by Doctor" in the last 200 years. Is there something wrong with modern medicine? You betcha.

Liz

Today's BroJon Top Story points out a sad fact of modern life. Today's modern medicine is doing a far, far worse job of treating disease and saving lives from serious injuries than doctors were doing over 200 years ago. So what has gone wrong?

The Top Story shows the medical results from the British battle of Waterloo against Napoleon's huge French army in the early 19th century. This was the first big defeat for Napoleon and a big win for the Brits. Thus the records from that battle are part of the British national history. The medical records were kept and are very clear. Far more people are dying in today's modern hospitals from serious injury than died from the medical treatments given to the injured soldiers in the Battle of Waterloo.

To be specific, Professor Mervyn Singer, of the British research team found "Of the 52 privates in the 13th Light Dragoons wounded by sabre, gunfire and cannon injuries at Waterloo, only two subsequently died." This was despite that fact that they all had serious infections and nearly complete shut down of all internal organs, only two of 52, or 4% died as a result.

Just 60 years later, during the American Civil War, the "new" surgical techniques used unclean scalpels and "butcher knives" to remove injured arms and legs. The result was nearly 1/5 or 20% of the injured soldiers were dying days later of severe infections or septicemia caused by the "new medical" treatments.

It seemed that a greater percentage of Civil War soldiers were dying from the "medical" care they received, than were dying from enemy gunfire on the battlefield. This problem was solved when doctors actually started washing their hands before surgery and even cleaning their surgical tools. But...

Compare that to what is happening in today's modern hospitals where surgical patients are dying at an even far greater rate, about 30%, from septicemia and major organ shutdown. Clearly something is going wrong in modern hospitals. That is even worse than the record of the Civil War surgeons who never washed their hands. So what can be going so wrong? And why is nobody shouting about this? Is the medical profession going backwards?

According to the article, "Survival statistics from the battle of Waterloo throw up an even more radical theory - that multiple organ failure, triggered by severe trauma or subsequent infection, may actually represent the body's last-ditch attempt to survive in the face of a critical illness."

"By switching itself off and becoming dormant, as with hibernating animals during extreme cold, the body may thus be able to tide itself through the critical period."

"Support for this theory comes from the fact that the organs invariably recover, to the point of appearing remarkably normal, within days to weeks when the patient survives."

Professor Singer adds about the British Waterloo soldiers, "Despite the non-existence of antibiotics, blood transfusions, life-support machines and other paraphernalia of modern intensive care, most of these soldiers recovered, often from life-threatening injuries."

Finally Singer states, "Even lowering the temperature of a feverish patient may be counter-productive." And Bingo!! For that statement, Singer wins the BroJon Gazette Award for Medicine. Lowering the temperature of a feverish patient actually shuts off the patient's immune system and thus opens the body to increased bacterial and viral infections, or septicemia, which days later results in complete organ shutdown and death. Thus, what at first seems to be a successful treatment, lowering the fever, actually results days later in death. This is now very common.

That is why so many people are dying in today's hospitals. The doctors are killing their patients by mistakenly treating the fever as if it were a disease, and not by treating the fever as the human body successfully mounting an attack against infection. The fever should be raised and not lowered. For more medical information about fever and disease read, "Fever and the Mystery Disease SARS," and "The 1918 'Spanish Flu' and SARS: Why was it so Deadly?" Both are found on the BroJon Gazette frontpage archives near the bottom of the page.

So why aren't modern doctors aware of such simple facts? Quite simply because for over 100 years, American medicine headed by the Rockefeller University and Rockefeller-owned pharmaceutical companies have taught most doctors that all "diseases" should be treated with profit-making medicines and procedures. Anything that looks like inexpensive "home remedies" or even letting the patient's body "treat" the disease for free, must be "pooh-poohed" in the prestigous medical journals, and even "outlawed" by the government's FDA.

Thus most of today's doctors, to protect their practice from lawsuits, must go along with the medical professon's "standard practice." For most doctors that "standard practice" is typified by what is found in the latest edition of the Merck Manual. And of course, the Merck Manual is published by Merck & Co., Inc. -- a pharmaceutical company.

That's why today's hospitals have a death rate of about 30% from septicemia following heroic life-saving attempts with modern techniques and medications, while the severely injured British soldiers of the 13th Light Dragoons following the battle of Waterloo, only had a death rate of 4%. That is a 750 percent increase in "Death by Doctor" in the last 200 years. Is there something wrong with modern medicine? You betcha.

What can you do about this problem? Tell your friends and family about what you just read. Send a copy of what you just read to the people on your email list. Ask your doctor about what you just read. In most cases you will be surprised by their answer.

Marshall Smith Editor, Brother Jonathan Gazette newseditor

Waterloo lessons could aid medics

British soldiers in a dramatisation of the Battle of Waterloo The battle of Waterloo could help doctors fight death from multiple organ failure - the number one killer of intensive care patients.

Scientists at University College London are launching a study into why multiple organ failure kills some critically ill patients but not others.

Professor Mervyn Singer said impressive survival statistics from the battle may provide a clue.

He said they showed the body's ability to heal itself under harsh conditions.

We may need to be more strategic in our treatments and therapies, tailoring them to how the body responds naturally.

Professor Mervyn Singer Of the 52 privates in the 13th Light Dragoons wounded by sabre, gunfire and cannon injuries at Waterloo, only two subsequently died.

Professor Singer said: "Despite the non-existence of antibiotics, blood transfusions, life-support machines and other paraphernalia of modern intensive care, most of these soldiers recovered, often from life-threatening injuries.

"Yet with all our technical advances in medicine, mortality rates from conditions such as sepsis (bacterial infection of the bloodstream) haven't improved dramatically over the past century.

"The question we need to ask ourselves is whether our present understanding of underlying pathology in medicine is leading us down the wrong path, and whether our current interventions may even be injurious to the healing process."

Professor Singer said modern treatments trigger changes in the patient's inflammatory and immune responses, or influence other factors such as hormone release and circulation in ways we do not fully appreciate.

"Even lowering the temperature of a feverish patient may be counter-productive.

"We may need to be more strategic in our treatments and therapies, tailoring them to how the body responds naturally to sepsis and other critical illnesses."

Radical theory

Survival statistics from the battle of Waterloo throw up an even more radical theory - that multiple organ failure, triggered by severe trauma or subsequent infection, may actually represent the body's last-ditch attempt to survive in the face of a critical illness.

By switching itself off and becoming dormant, as with hibernating animals during extreme cold, the body may thus be able to tide itself through the critical period.

Support for this theory comes from the fact that the organs invariably recover, to the point of appearing remarkably normal, within days to weeks when the patient survives.

The UCL team will carry out a large study of multiple organ failure induced by sepsis, which kills around a third of patients in intensive care.

Ultimately, they hope that by understanding why people either survive or die from this condition, new therapies can be developed to reduce the period of illness and death rate.

Preliminary work suggests that the body's ability to store and use energy efficiently may play a part in determining whether a patient will recover.

The hormone leptin, which regulates hunger, body weight and metabolism, seems to play a key role.

Dr Paul Glynne, who is also working on the study, said: "We think that some septic patients become deficient in leptin and this leads to energy failure and subsequent organ dysfunction.

"Exploring the relationship between leptin, body energy regulation and the severity of critical illness will reveal whether leptin, or one of its downstream targets, could potentially be developed as a new therapy for septic patients with organ failure."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4035849.stm