Chapter Thirteen
Life Flow One
The Solution For Heart Diseaseby
Karl LorenOther Remedies
I don’t doubt the health value of basic changes in your life style.
The next Section describes how a change in the amount of water you drink can make a vast improvement in your heart health.
The oral chelation, or the intravenous chelation already described are well-proven. Water, as a therapy, has certainly had very little publicity.
There is a wealth of information about the value to your heart health of taking large doses of Vitamin E.
That story is well told by Dr. Wilfrid E. Shute, in his book, Vitamin E Book. See the bibliography.
In this Chapter, however, I want to present a method of improving the health of your heart that is well known within that secret community of cardiologists, but never discussed with a patient.
I’ve written about how corrupt the bypass surgery procedure is. You can see that it would be difficult to test this procedure in a way that the doctor performing the operation didn’t know whether the surgery was performed or not.
Of course not!
Double Blind Study
Scientists are fond of telling you how important it is to do something called a double blind study.
A double blind study is designed so that neither the patient nor the physician administering the treatment knows which patients are getting the real treatment and which are getting the "no treatment."
The easiest example is for a drug of some sort that can be put up in special tablets. The real drug is put in certain tablets, carefully kept in a container marked "real drug." The "non drug", called a placebo, is put in the same type of tablet, but carefully kept in a different container, marked placebo.
There is one person who sets up the test and he is the only one who knows which tablet is which. Let’s call him the In Charge.
He gets a list of names of the patients who are in the test. He divides them up into two groups, trying to make each group comparable on some basis -- age, degree of sickness, or whatever.
Each of these patients, presumably, has some particular doctor who is in charge of treating that patient.
The In Charge gives each doctor bottles of tablets, marked with the name of the patient to get the tablets in that bottle. Only the In Charge knows which patient is getting the real drug and which is getting the placebo. The physician treating any particular patient would not know, nor would the patient, whether that patient is getting the real drug or the placebo.
As the test is going along, the In Charge is interested in reports on the results of various tests. He wants to see if the patients receiving the real drug respond favorably, or not, to the drug.
These double blind studies are used because experience has shown that about 25% of the people will get better when they get a pill, whether the pill contains a real drug or not. In other words, the mental effect, or the non-material cause of wellness is so common that it is impossible to test a drug by just giving it to the patient. When you do that, you can expect a large percentage (25% or so) will get better no matter what you do.
In order to take this factor into account, these tests give placebos to some and real drugs to others.
Generally even some of those who get the placebos will have an improvement in their health. So, if the group with the placebos has a 25% improvement rate and the group with the drugs also had only a 25% improvement rate, then you’d have to conclude that the drug did no good -- just as many people got better without the drug as with it.
It also turns out that you can take a group, give them a "non drug" and 25% will get better, but if you take another group and give them nothing, none of them will get better.
In other words, man’s spiritual and mental ability to heal himself is very real, hard for doctors to measure, but real enough that it has to be taken into account in any test of some drug or medical procedure.
You might also observe that 25% of the group that did NOT get the drug got better and that only 5% of the group that got the drug got better. You could probably conclude that the drug was actually harmful since you could do better with a "non drug" than with the real thing.
That’s a double blind study. It’s called double blind because:
The patient doesn’t know whether he is getting the drug or not, and therefore his mind presumably can’t influence the outcome.
The attending physician, also, doesn’t know which of his patients, if any, are getting the drug, so he can’t hint to the patient. (It has been shown, too, that even if only the doctor knows his patient is getting a drug, and doesn’t tell the patient, nonetheless the patient can get better because of the spiritual or mental powers of the doctor!)
So, double blind studies are commonly demanded of any new drug, or procedure, before logical doctors and scientists will place any credibility in the drug or procedure. It is not unusual for reputable medical journals to demand of any author that he demonstrate that his claims for the value of some drug or procedure be backed up by a double blind study.
These double blind studies have the further advantage that an objective stranger can conduct the same test and should be able to get the same results as some original researcher.
When the medical procedure is something like bypass surgery it is obvious that it would be impossible for the surgery to be performed without the surgeon knowing about it. So, it is inherently impossible for a double blind study to be done for bypass surgery.
It would be possible, however, for a single-blind study to be done for the bypass procedure. A single-blind study would mean that the surgeon knows whether or not some patient got the surgery, but the patient would not know.
This would be quite a trick, wouldn’t it! The patient would have to agree that he can go under anesthesia, that the doctor would make some serious cuts into his chest, but wouldn’t actually do the bypass part of the surgery. Then, the surgeon would take other patients, do the same surgery, but in these cases he would complete the bypass part of the surgery.
When those patients awakened after surgery, they would all have the same scar across their chest and would all have about the same amount of weakness and pain. But, some (known only to the doctor) would have had the actual bypass surgery and others would have had only the fake surgery.
That would be a single blind study of that particular medical procedure.
You’d think that with all the many billions of dollars being spent on bypass surgery, and the terrific importance placed on this treatment, that someone, somewhere, sometime, would have conducted at least a single blind study of the procedure.
No Such Thing Has Been Done!
The surgeons are obviously afraid of doing this single blind study because they know what the results would be.
Believe me, there is no more mentally sick person than a bypass surgeon. He knows, in his heart, but often won’t even admit to his wife or priest, that the surgery he performs is a fraud. He lives with that lie.
See Chapter Nine, about the fraud in bypass surgery.
There Has Been A Single Blind Study
There have been other surgical procedures in the past -- before bypass surgery got so popular. One of these procedures was subjected to a single blind test. The results were so devastating that the procedure was stopped everywhere and no one even wants to talk about it anymore.
It’s hard to find references to this because these surgeons are trying hard to hide their crimes.
Years ago there was a theory that the heart beat because of some electrical impulse going to the heart. This theory held that if the electrical message got screwed up, the heart might stop. This theory held that if you could only give the heart some sort of a shock, or irritation, it would start going again, and after that the message system would continue to work correctly.
According to this theory, if someone whose heart had stopped could be cut open quickly enough, and some irritation caused to his heart, that would cause the heart to beat more regularly.
Does this begin to sound far-fetched?
Well, that is what they did.
These brave surgeons would cut open someone’s chest, expose the heart and rub it with sandpaper, or sprinkle talcum powder on it.
The idea was to irritate the heart and make it start beating properly.
This was the recommended method of heart surgery prior to 1950, believe it or not.
Now, some brave researcher decided to open up a few chest cavities, expose the heart, sprinkle talcum powder on some hearts but not on others.
The doctor would know which patient got "the treatment," but the secret was to be kept from the patient. The laws about such tests are now so strict that this would not be allowed today.
Yes, it was done, and yes, as you guessed, there was no difference between the results. If the heart got irritated, or if the heart didn’t get irritated, there was no difference. It didn’t look like this surgery had any value at all.
It was very quietly dropped.
You think I jest!
Read a report, by Claude S. Beck, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in 1958. In that report Dr. Beck described how 97 percent of the people he operated on, using asbestos to rub against the exposed heart, experienced relief of angina pains.
Another weird surgical procedure involved something invented by Dr. Arthur M. Vineberg. This fraudulent procedure was in full use, on hundreds of patients, for many years. In fact, by 1972 this procedure had been in increasing use for 27 years without any objective test of whether or not it worked.
This procedure involved carving a tunnel through the heart muscle. One of the unused mammary arteries was then pushed into the tunnel and sewn into place. This brought extra blood to the heart, they thought.
The asbestos and mammary artery procedures were just about to be tested in 1972, at the Veterans Administration hospitals when the test was canceled because a brand new procedure had surfaced and seemed to show amazing results.
The new procedure was what we now call bypass surgery.
Neither asbestos, sewn mammary arteries nor bypass surgery has even been tested scientifically and none of them show any real evidence of increasing the length of life of the patient. None!
Many other authors have revealed the fraud behind heart surgery, and the lack of objective tests of any of the many weird techniques.
Yet, there is one method of treating heart patients where a double blind study was done, and where the results showed that the group which got the special new procedure had significant improvement in health and heart condition compared with the group that didn’t get the treatment.
The ONLY
Double Blind Study
In Non-Drug Treatment
Remember that a double blind study means that neither the patient nor the attending physician knows which patient is getting the special treatment.
This test was not widely reported in the medical journals but most heart specialists will admit they know about it when you remind them with some details, but none of them think the new special treatment is valid.
In this case the In Charge of the experiment, Randolph C. Byrd, M.D., took the entire population of a coronary intensive care unit at the San Francisco General Hospital -- all the 450 patients who happened to enter into that unit, during the period from August 1982 to May 1983. Each patient in that unit was told about the treatment. Fifty seven declined to be a part of the test. That left 393 patients who signed consent forms to be included for the test.
Remember, about half of those patients would get the treatment and the other half would not. Those who agreed to be in the test did not know which group they would be in.
Some of these patients were just arriving, in some cases scheduled to receive bypass surgery. Some were recovering patients -- in some cases just having had bypass surgery. There were a wide variety of different conditions in this group of patients.
The In Charge divided the group into two parts so that each group would have, as much as was possible, a similar number of patients with the same conditions.
In fact, out of 393 patients, 109 had been admitted with severe heart attacksand these were evenly split between the group getting the special treatment and the control group which did not.
In this amazing test the physician in charge of each patient had no idea of whether or not his patient was getting the special treatment. In fact, each patient continued along whatever course of treatment had been originally scheduled for him -- with no knowledge that he was going to get, or not get, a special treatment in addition to the already scheduled treatment.
Dr. Byrd never personally met any of the patients.
You understand the simplicity of this test?
Joe was in the intensive care unit, after a heart attack. He was scheduled to get bypass surgery and he got it. At no time did he know whether or not he also received some special treatment, nor did his doctor know.
The results were startling!
The group which got the special treatment had a statistically significant improvement in their recovery rates and over all health indicators compared with the group which did not get the special treatment.
This special treatment was provided at a basic cost of zero. In other words, the only double blind study ever done on heart patients in intensive care units, showed a very good improvement from the treatment, but you have never heard about it and you will never hear about it anywhere else except in this Book.
Wouldn’t you think that a test with such results would be repeated over and over again, to make sure that the results were valid!
Wouldn’t you think that the big hospitals, and the big drug companies, and the AMA would all clamor to find out more about this treatment -- perhaps start teaching other doctors about it?
I owe this story to my good friend, Dr. Robert Mendelsohn when he was a guest on my radio talk show. He had a wonderful way of stringing out a story, just as I have above. Since then, of course, I’ve obtained the entire scientific report.
What was this treatment?
Well, the In Charge took the name and some simple symptoms for each of the patients who were to get the special treatment. He gave these names and information to several individuals located in various cities around the United States.
The job of these individuals was to pray for the patient whose name they received.
The In Charge did not tell them HOW to pray, or when, or anything else. He picked people who believed in prayer and were willing to pray for these patients who they had never met. They were supposed to pray at least every day for the patient they got. Each patient got at least three different persons saying prayers and not more than seven persons.
Dr. Byrd picked persons to pray on the basis of their being Born Again Christianswith an active Christian life as manifested by daily devotional prayer and active Christian fellowship with a local church. Members of several Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church were represented among the intercessors.
Those patients for whom prayers were said did better, by quite a bit, than the patients for whom no prayers were said.
That’s all. Very simple! Unbelievable.
You’d think that this research report would have been broadcast in every newspaper, and then in every church. It was viewed as a curiosity.
There were actually critical reviews of the test -- criticisms on the basis that there was no control over the praying method and that such techniques lacked scientific basis.
Figure 24 Monks Better Than Medical Doctors?
So much for God in the halls of medicine!
These may seem like a humorous story, but consider how serious it is.
I’ve reported above about the placebo effect.
Invariably when patients are given some sugar pill, and told that it is effective in curing their problems, about 25% of them will get better. That is the power of the spirit and mind. Doctors are frightened to death of this because they can’t relate to it. Playing god, themselves, they are not usually ready to acknowledge that there might be a real God, and that real spiritual healing can actually take place.
Remember, the patients in this test did NOT know, for sure, whether they were being prayed for or not. It is possible that ALL of the patients did better than they would have otherwise because ALL of them knew that there was some chance, at least, that someone was praying for them!
Would you like someone to be praying for you when you next visit a doctor?
It would be a lot more effective than bypass surgery or Mevacor!
Bypass surgery has a rate of improvement, too, compared to patients who don’t get it. The most famous study of this type was done at thirteen different Veterans Administration hospitals. The study was reported in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in September, 1977.
A total of 596 patients were included in the study. Ninety-four percent had angina pains and two thirds had had heart attacks. These were serious problem patients! Everyone of these patients would normally have received bypass surgery -- that’s how they were diagnosed.
As in any good study, the patients were divided into two groups, taking into account all the differences in age, medical condition, etc.
This was a very courageous test because the doctors in charge had all agreed to give bypass surgery to HALF of the patients, and NO BYPASS surgery to the other half.
Right away you can see that this is not a blind study at all. The patients, and their doctors, certainly knew which group they were in. But, with this type of test, that’s the best they could do.
You’d have to wonder at the half who agreed to forego bypass surgery. Were they more courageous, and therefore more likely to do well without surgery? That was one of the criticisms of the study when it was reported.
One group got bypass surgery. The other group was treated with drugs only -- mostly nitroglycerin tablets.
What do you suppose?
Could bypass surgery show that it had made a statistically significant improvement in the lives of the patients who got it. After all, prayer had been shown to be effective -- even meeting the fancy test called "statistically significant."
You can guess the results!
The study followed these patients over a period of many years. The basic test was whether the person died or not, and then what further heart complications they had.
Of those who received bypass surgery, 86 percent were still alive after two years.
Of those who did NOT receive bypass surgery, 87 percent were still alive after two years.
The study followed these patients for many years. Generally, even after more than ten years, it proves out that prayer is far better than bypass surgery and receiving NO surgery is just as good as receiving a bypass surgery.
Despite this devastating report, in a respected Journal, the number of bypass surgeries grew rapidly.
If you quote the above story to your cardiologist he will get very angry and spout out all sorts of errors in the study. But, his anger simply betrays his hidden guilt. He knows that the people he refers for heart surgery would do just as well without surgery. He knows that if he would simply send the patient to a church, the patient would do better.
He, that cardiologist, is a very sick man -- spiritually. He, who plays God, and speaks lies with that authority, is worse than Satin.
Endnotes
Chapter 13
The 109 patients had acute myocardial infarction, and were within the Killip’s Classification of Class I: 16% in each group; Class II:, 8% versus 10%; Class III: 1% vs. 1%; Class IV: 2% vs. 2%. Univariant and multivariant analysis showed no statistical differences between the two groups at entry.
Abstract: The therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (IP) to the Judeo-Christian God, one of the oldest forms of therapy, has had little attention in the medical literature. To evaluate the effects of IP in a coronary care unit (CCU) population, a prospective randomized double-blind protocol was followed. Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU were randomized, after signing informed consent, to an intercessory prayer group (192 patients) or to a control group (201 patients). While hospitalized, the first group received IP by participating Christians praying outside the hospital; the control group did not. An entry, chi-square and stepwise logistic analysis revealed no statistical difference between the groups. After entry, all patients had follow-up for the remainder of the admission. The IP group subsequently had a significantly lower severity score based on the hospital course after entry (P < .01). Multivariant analysis separated the groups on the basis of the outcome variables (P < .0001). The control patients required ventilatory assistance, antibiotics, and diuretics more frequently than patients in the IP group. These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU. Abstract. The entire report was published in the July, 1988 issue of Southern Medical Journal, Vol. 81, No. 7.
According to the Gospel of John 3:3! Can you see the humor of this. A scientist must substantiate every part of the test. If he was going to select Born Again Christians, there would have to be a definition, somewhere, of Born Again Christians. So, the bible became the source for that definition. If it were not so serious it would really be funny!
| The Links Below Jump To Pages On Whatever Web You Are In | |||
| Table Of Contents | Search This Web | Navigation Help Page | |
| Write To Karl Loren -- He Pledges To Answer EVERY Personal Message, Personally. Click here or on his name in the box below. | |||
| The Links Below Are To Various Web Sites Published By Karl Loren | |||
| Karl Loren Web | Vibrant Life Web | Karl Loren's Book | |
| Super Colostrum | Bulk MSM | Heart Disease | |
| Emmessar | Happiness | Arthritis | |
| Instead Of | Chelation Therapy | Super Colostrum (2) | |
| Karl Loren's Catalog Store | Central Page For All 12 Webs! | ||
|
I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message
|
|
SUBSCRIBE: The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month. You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below. You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered. If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed. There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit. The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription. When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active. No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
Click here to add the Wednesday Letter as a Channel on your desktop. If your browser is so-equipped, you will be guided through a series of simple questions (about subscription information). Depending on your choices you can show the Vibrant Life Wednesday Letter as one of your "active channels" which will automatically download the new Wednesday Letter every month. In this way you can have the Wednesday Letter delivered to your desktop during the night (or your schedule) for immediate viewing in your browser. You can turn on or off this channel, at will, and delete the channel from your desktop at any time. With this feature operating you can click on the Wednesday Letter channel at any time to read the most recent copy of this electronic letter.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-1799, the FAX: (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:26 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.
