Sunday, September 22, 2013

Two Authors that Medical Schools Avoid

And whose works should be part of the foundation for a rational and evidence-based medicine...

By Denis G. Rancourt


The two researchers and authors to which I refer are:
In particular, I have in mind their remarkable books:
  • Follies and Fallacies in Medicine (Skrabanek, with co-author McCormick) [1], and 
  • Unhealthy Societies - The Afflictions of Inequality (Wilkinson) [2].
Skrabanek exposes the widespread ineptness and delusional incompetence of the modern medical profession. He does not cross the line of explicitly stating that medical practice does more harm than good but, nonetheless, the reader is left with a realistic mistrust of the inner workings of the mind of the medical doctor. The book opens a window into "the present state of our ignorance", rather than continue the lie that doctors diagnose and prescribe without doing harm [3][4].

Wilkinson, in his chapters 9 and 10, does a review of the extensive research, on both human and non-human animals, which establishes that the dominant and causal factor for health in First World countries is stress (i.e., the physiological responses to stress) from being at the lower end of society's dominance hierarchy.

When we consider the depth, logic, and insight of authors such as Skrabanek and Wilkinson, it is a wonder that their ideas are not the core of medical training, that medical training is not leading a radical criticism of itself, and that individual practitioners can be so indifferent to the Lie. The usual model of professionalism, status, and maintenance of self-image is clearly at work [5].

When we consider that medical practice incorrectly identifies and "treats" false causes (so-called "risk factors") of mortality (Skrabanek, and Wilkinson), combined with the overwhelming evidence that the major killers (heart disease and cancer) are mainly affected by dominance stress (Wilkinson), that medicine can do virtually nothing for the major killers (Skrabanek), and that medical interventions themselves are very often lethal [3][4], then it is a wonder that the modern practice of medicine is legal.

References

[1] Skrabanek, Petr, and McCormick, James, Follies and Fallacies in Medicine, Whithorn, Tarragon Press, xii + 171 pages, 1998 (Third Edition).

[2] Wilkinson, Richard G., Unhealthy Societies -- The Afflictions of Inequality, London, Routledge, 1996, xi + 255 pages, 1996.

[3] Rancourt, Denis G., Do medical doctors improve health?, Activist Teacher, September 9, 2013.

[4] Rancourt, Denis G., Is establishment medicine an injurious scam?, Activist Teacher, November 21, 2011.

[5] Rancourt, Denis G., On the sociology of medical meta-science: Exposing the Truth supports the Lie, Activist Teacher, November 16, 2011.

Monday, September 9, 2013

Do medical doctors improve health?


By Denis G. Rancourt

It is a serious question. If any other profession caused a fraction of the death rate due to medical interventions, then that profession would be prohibited from practicing until a full coroner's inquiry was ordered and completed. But not the medical profession. It kills with impunity, without any real oversight.

The numbers are staggering. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM, of the National Academy of Sciences of the US) published a first authoritative institutional report of medical errors, which disclosed that between 44,000 to 98,000 US citizens were being killed each year by medical errors.[1]

These numbers do not count the equally large death rate from "non-error" adverse effects of medicine.

In her brilliant article of 2000, the late Dr. Barbara Starfield reviewed the medical literature, in the light of the IOM report, and reported that the best estimate of total deaths from medicine in the US was between 230,000 and 284,000 deaths per year.[2]

That was in 2000, and the US population has increased by approximately 11% since then. It is reasonable to assume that the death rates from medicine have remained constant since 2000, which is not contradicted by any study or report. In fact, a detailed study published in 2010 showed no measurable improvement since the IOM report of 1999.[3] This means that presently in the US medicine kills between 250,000 and 310,000 US citizens per year, every year.

These deaths are entirely avoidable, since they are caused by the practice of establishment medicine. This means that halting the practice of medicine would save the lives of over one quarter of a million US citizens every year. Approximately 1000 lives would be saved each day that medicine is not practiced in the US. This is equivalent to the death rate from a large skyscraper collapsing every day.

The corresponding death rate is between 80 and 100 deaths per 100,000 per year. This death rate from medicine is the third leading cause of death in the US, after diseases of the heart and cancer. The other leading causes of death (bronchitis, stroke, non-medical accidents, Alzheimer's, diabetes, influenza/pneumonia, kidney failures, suicide, infections, liver failures) all have individual death rates that are far smaller than the death rate from medicine.[4]

As a percentage, the practice of medicine causes approximately 10-12% of all deaths in the US, compared to diseases of the heart (24%) and cancer (23%). Medicine is a major killer. Yet there is virtually no research funding to find a "cure" for the adverse affects of medicine. By comparison, mega research dollars are spent fighting diseases that medicine has proven itself ineffective at fighting.

The reality of the lethal side of medicine is such that medicine should have the onus to prove that it does more good than harm. If medicine were put to the test, proving its worth would be a difficult task: So-called meta-researchers who critically examine the published claims of benefits from medical drugs and procedures find that most medical research is wrong.[5]-[9]

An institutional analysis reveals an air-tight system in which the medical profession preys on the most vulnerable and kills patients at an alarming rate, without being able to demonstrate a net benefit, from the majority of its lucrative interventions, on the most desperate individuals in society (those with terminal illnesses).

Medicine is good at trauma interventions (car accidents, heart attacks) but may do more harm than good against the leading causes of death, and it is itself a leading cause of death.

All this leads me to suggest that the medical profession is unable to regulate itself, or objectively judge itself. It is in urgent need of external regulation and/or boycott or something. It should be stopped in most of its functions until we figure out how to disarm it.

One collapsing skyscraper per day! If Bush were around, he could start a war against medicine. And that would be more sane than any Obamacare. No public health policy makes any sense unless it deals with the third leading cause of death head on.


Endnotes

[Related article::: "Is establishment medicine an injurious scam?"]

[1] Kohn L. et al (eds.). To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068371/html/

[2] Starfield B. Is US Health Really the Best in the World? Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 284, 2000, 483-485.

[3] Landrigan C.P. et al. Temporal Trends in Rates of Patient Harm Resulting from Medical Care. New England Journal of Medicine, 363, 2010, 2124-2134. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1004404

[4] For death rates which do not correctly account for deaths from medicine, see the annual National Vital Statistics Reports, such as the report entitled "Deaths: Final Data for 2010". http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm

[5] Ioannidis, John PA, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, 2005, PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

[6] "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" by David H. Freedman, The Atlantic, 2010.  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

[7] Ioannidis, John PA et al., Replication validity of genetic association studies, Nature genetics, 2001, 29(3), 306-309.

[8] Ioannidis, John PA, Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research, JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005, 294 (2), 218-228.

[9] “On the sociology of medical meta-science: Exposing the Truth supports the Lie” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2011.  http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2011/11/on-sociology-of-medical-meta-science.html

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Global Economic Model of War::: Understanding Syria and more

War museum, Ottawa, Canada




By Denis G. Rancourt


Following a quick survey of macro-economic indicators which are readily available on the web, from such public sites as the CIA, WTO, and so on, one can readily posit a clear and predictive model of war. (All numbers in this article are expressed in trillions of US dollars, such as 1.0T for one trillion US dollars, as an amount, or as a rate per year, as per the context.)

On observing the planet from space (using a macro-economic telescope), the first and most glaring observation arises from a look at net exports, which clearly show a single and dominant global empire, the USA. It has, for many decades, had a negative annual net export, of -0.63T, or so -- far greater than that of its closest "rival", and former dominant empire, the UK, with -0.14T.

This means that US military projection (over 1000 military bases world wide) and power is such that the US can maintain steady and long-term extraction of wealth from the rest of the world towards itself, no questions asked.

Only a country which is a participating satellite of the empire can share in the spoils of the global extortion project and consistently report a large negative rate of net exports. Notably, the UK (-0.14T), and France (-0.07T). (In this regard, it is no accident that the governments of the UK and France are the most willing partners in the US's present call to destroy Syria; more on this below.)

There are also momentary localized cases of large negative rates of net exports in post-war financial invasions, otherwise known as re-constructions financed by the empire (in the broad sense, including the financiers). But that is part of the accompanying phenomenon of how the empire profits from war itself.

For the system of extortion to function, the empire must maintain two parallel instruments: its military apparatus, and its financial apparatus based on the US dollar as world currency for the purchase of the main strategic commodity, which is energy. Only the empire can print the money that is needed to access the ability to develop or expand. A threat to the US dollar is a sufficient reason for war. Both Libya and Iraq had taken concrete steps to circumvent the US dollar as the operational currency, prior to their destructions. An attempt to circumvent the US dollar in buying or selling oil is an attempt to escape the empire's control, and this cannot be tolerated.

As long as the US dollar is needed to buy and sell the key strategic commodity, the US controls the relative value of other currencies, and as long as the US prints the money, it controls world finance and uses the global financial instrument to enslave all those without military protection, or without the sense to know better (i.e., jurisdictions with puppet leaderships).

Financial extortion is a tremendous tool. World national debt is 56.3T or so. The US debt is only a fraction of this at 11.6T or so. Interest on the national debt is low for "stable" states protected by the empire, and high for "unstable" states being consumed by the empire. The world revenue from interest on national debts can be estimated to be at least 1T (per year), and possibly as much as 10T or more from all loan sources. This is comparable to or greater than the gargantuan world revenue from oil and gas, presently at 4.5T.

Based on history, it is more than reasonable to posit that the empire's wars are driven by profit, that is, by an insatiable desire to extract as much stolen wealth as possible as quickly as possible, and to control territory to ensure continued extraction. Next, I examine the consequences of this assumption.

If the militarily superior empire is driven, as it has always been in terms of its military campaigns, by instant wealth gratification and conquest, then, in order to predict wars, we search for where wealth can be found and stolen. Wealth comes in many forms, such as slave labour, and natural resources, but one form is, more than any other, a strategic commodity: fossil fuel energy.

In the present technological and economic context, fossil fuel is incomparable as a strategic resource. It is the most accessible source of development and growth. Without it, a civilization slows and loses its ability to compete. Control energy supply and you control development. By cutting supply, you can bring an economy to its knees.

It is well known, for example, that the Afghan war is in large part about pipeline geopolitics, in view of controlling China's access to energy. To an empire, territory is important for two reasons: the resources that it contains, and the transportation routes that it sustains.

In the case of Afghanistan, there is also the formidably profitable drug trade, now controlled (and, to some degree, exploited) by the empire. The world illegal drug economy is estimated to be between 1.5T to 5T (per year), comparable to oil and gas. Whereas these drugs are not a major strategic commodity, the empire must control the illegal drug economy in order to prevent any competitors or resisters from accessing the corresponding easily-earned mega-revenues. This explains the so-called US "war on drugs". It of course has nothing to do with US public health.

In a nutshell, in the empire's mind, non-compliant and counter-allied states, such as Iran and Syria, cannot be allowed to benefit from and to control significant oil resources, in an area where China could secure protected land access to these resources. The war in Syria is nothing if it is not a predictable march forward by the dominant global empire. The sectarianism on the ground is as significant a motive, from a macro-economic perspective, as the war propaganda spewed out by the empire's sock puppet politicians and disinformation media is truthful. Sectarianism without financial and military support on either side has a way of turning into negotiated accommodation.

In addition to its geopolitical objectives, war also has its immediate dividends for many in the empire. The destroyed territory (infrastructure, population, etc.) must be "reconstructed", as a compliant serf state, using the empire's financing, and re-building enterprises, all leveraged via the continued world pillaging elsewhere. The sick and dying or diseased population needs expensive prescription drugs, and so on. World spending on prescription drugs is approximately 0.95T (per year), and this is a major high-profit sector in the empire's operations. The interest rates on reconstruction loans will keep the invaded population subservient and exploited for decades.

The main high-profit services and commodities include: prescription drugs, illegal drugs, fossil fuels, ultra-cheap labour, debt financing, and so on, all related to non-essentials to which entire First-World populations are addicted. These economic areas, consequently, are represented by the corporate players that have the greatest influence within the empire, and that most generously contribute to political campaign funds, and to post-political lucrative prize-positions for former politicians and their family members.

Medium-profit economic sectors such as domestic manufacturing and services can hardly compete for influence, and have a much reduced voice compared to the industrial era. Behold the era of the US war economy empire.

Basically, the empire's behaviour is entirely predicted by a mafia economic model of geopolitics. To be fair, however, mafias have ethical rules regarding killing an opponent's family and such, whereas the drone-wielding USA empire has no such rules.

By comparison, from a macro-economic perspective, military spending in China (0.17T) and Russia (0.09T) is defensive against the military spending of the US and its client/satellite states -- US (0.68T), UK (0.06T), Japan (0.06T), France (0.06T), Saudi Arabia (0.06), ..., Australia (0.03T), Canada (0.02T) -- since their net exports are positive: China (+0.20T), Russia (+0.14T).  The net exports of the US's main war partners are of course negative: UK (-0.14T), and France (-0.07T).

There can be no surprise that the US's most willing war partners will always be the UK and France. Such are their macro-economic structures. They have satellite war economies, a status Canada is working hard to fully achieve.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

CODZ: Opposing the US Zionist state's intimidation of academics



Oh boy, can you hear the loud voices of protest from the ranks of tenured professors against the imposition of Zionism doctrine in US academia..., not! There are small seeds, which are reminders that sanity is still barely rooted on the sterile ground of the continent's intellectual farms. One such seed is CODZ.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

The Controls & Confines of Our Obedience Based Education System -- video



Published on Aug 22, 2013
EBTV presents host Evita Ochel (http://www.evitaochel.com) with special guest Denis G. Rancourt (http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/) in a dialogue about the limits of the current education system.

Denis is a former tenured and full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He practiced several areas of science (including physics and environmental science) which were funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He is the author of over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, social commentary essays, and his book "Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight against Racism".

General topics discussed in the video episode include:

1. Denis shares his story of why he is no longer a professor at the University of Ottawa. (1:30)
- how Denis discovered the true nature of the system
- the impacts of confronting the system

2. What the larger framework and pretext was for Denis' dismissal from his position as a professor. (6:00)
- the inside political story

3. The role of transparency and secrecy in governing organizations. (9:20)
- the political endeavour of educational systems

4. The helpful and harmful role of mainstream media in Denis' case. (11:20)
- the corporate ties of mainstream media
- the media blackout of certain topics

5. How awareness influences obedience and indoctrination within the education system. (16:15)
- the role of awareness, as connected to action
- the importance of "praxis"
- the symbiotic combination of reflection and action
- the importance of finding authentic rebellion

6. Denis shares his views and opinions about the shortcomings of the current education system. (21:00)
- the oppression of the education system
- the battle between hierarchal system and the individual
- the atomization and destruction of the individual
- the importance of gaining independence as an individual, and consciousness about one's own oppression

7. Inspiration to face our own oppression. (28:20)
- the role of whistleblowers

8. The limits of the curriculum forced upon teachers and students. (31:15)
- the necessity of natural exploration and interaction within the scope of learning
- Denis shares an example from his teaching methods to promote true learning


9. The limits of the grading system and standardized testing. (39:00)
- inadequacy of appropriate measurement of understanding through testing
- the importance of feedback that is student-centered
- the benefit of authentic dialogue between teacher and student

10. The increasing trend of students not pursuing post-secondary education due to not wanting to participate in the education system. (45:00)
- the economic control over education
- the forced certification for many jobs
- the alternative paths, which do not necessarily require post-secondary education

11. Denis shares some solutions and advice for teachers who wish to be part of the education system and contribute positively. (50:00)

12. Denis shares some solutions and advice for students who are part of the education system. (54:00)

13. Denis shares his next steps, work and projects. (57:22)

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Towering economic separation erodes the effectiveness of public opinion activism

By Denis Rancourt

A good street demonstration is not what it use to be, in terms of its impact. Likewise, petitions and letters to politicians just don't cut it any more. A YouTube video can, in rare cases, get a cop investigated and put on paid leave, but that is about as far as it goes. Don't think about systemic changes.

There is tremendous opinion opposition to injustices of all kinds but none of it seems to matter.

When the wealthy are so wealthy that they live in separate realities, completely disconnected from the middle and lower classes, and even from the upper middle class, then there is no vehicle of social pressure to be equitable towards others. The wealthy become untouchable and buy political power to serve their own desires.

There is undoubtedly a causal link between towering mega-salaries and mega-profits of international entities and their top managers and overseers, on the one hand, and the ineffectiveness of public opinion activism, on the other hand.

The more the elite are financially able to live in a separate and independent universe, the more this elite is indifferent to the howlings of the lower strata of the economic pyramid.

In any plutocracy such as ours, the ratio between the wealth of the elite and the economic means of the average worker is the best indicator of the extent to which complaints and opinions from the basement can have any influence at all in the penthouse. The higher the ratio of, say, executive salaries to worker salaries, the greater the mistreatment and dissatisfaction of ordinary people, and the more stunning the examples of individual injustices.

One might have the impression that public opinion activism boosted by mainstream media coverage can be somewhat effective, but this is merely an impression. The mainstream media is entirely a management tool of the elite. Allowed stories are approved messages to the managers, who know to apply cosmetic methods while preserving and strengthening the status of the elite. A particular incident of injustice may be treated, but without in any way threatening business as usual. The opinion fire is put out in such a way as to apply a chill on any more demands.

The single most effective financial policy change to increase democracy and justice in our society, would be to roll back the obscene salaries and bonuses of the elite, and the obscene profits and capital mobilities of their corporations. The more the ruling (real and corporate) persons are connected to others, the more fairness becomes a norm.

This is because economic isolation breeds contempt. The more the wealthy are wealthy, the more they can buy out, directly and indirectly, all the players in the institutions, that might otherwise create some equity in following public pressures. The more the wealthy are wealthy, and the more managers' salaries are high, the less public pressures are pressures at all.

There is a direct and causal link between towering economic separation and social and civil injustice. If the mayor of the town and the town councilors do not live in the town, then the townsfolk cannot expect to have much say in municipal management policies. Wealth gaps and towering wealth disparities are poison. Extreme class separation enables extreme class oppression.