World’s Most Heinous Conspiracy

Millions Suffering Needlessly and Dying Prematurely

Steven A. Swan

4-11-12

Imagine there being a scientist who had earned a doctorate degree in cellular biology and physiology (the study of how living things function) way back in 1959. Imagine that this scientist also participated in developing electrocardiography—the interpretation of the electrical activity of the heart.

Imagine that this scientist’s curiosity led her to experiment further with using electricity, as well as radio waves, to analyze substances. Imagine that this scientist discovered that everything in existence, living or dead, animate or inanimate, produces and emits its own radio frequency or range of radio frequencies. (Tiny entities produce a single radio frequency; larger entities produce a range of radio frequencies. The larger the entity, the wider the range.)

Imagine that this scientist invented a device with which she could determine the composition of any substance based upon the radio frequencies emitted by its components. Imagine that this scientist used this invention to analyze individuals with diseases to determine that combinations of toxins and foreign invaders (viruses, bacteria, parasites, etc.) were causing most of them and that by removing these toxins and foreign invaders, virtually all diseases could be cured.

Imagine that this scientist decided against submitting her discoveries for conventional (and somewhat political) scientific review and verification because the process would take much too long and in the interim many people would suffer needlessly and die prematurely. Rather, she opted to disseminate her discoveries directly those who most urgently needed them. She did so by publishing books documenting her discoveries, through media interviews, through word-of-mouth, through whatever she could think of. Fortunately, she was able to reach and help hundreds of thousands of individuals using these methods.

Imagine that when the mainstream medical establishment (including the giant pharmaceutical companies) learned of this scientist’s discoveries, it naturally feared losing its highly profitable health care monopoly. Imagine the mainstream medical establishment, in conjunction with the mainstream scientific community and the corporate-controlled mainstream media, conspiring to savagely and repeatedly vilify this scientist and her discoveries in as many ways as they could imagine.

Imagine this scientist taking all of this unwarranted vilification in stride and continuing her research. This included sharing her new discoveries with others. Being precluded from practicing medicine within the United States because she was not a medical doctor, she also established a clinic in Mexico to help individuals cure their life-threatening diseases. This included closely monitoring their conditions with her invention to ensure that her protocols were being effective. Because they needed her the most, she only admitted the most terminally ill of patients.

Imagine that this scientist was so engrossed in her research and in helping to save the lives of others that she neglected her own health. Inexplicably, she refused to postpone her important work to concentrate on her own ailments. Tragically, in 2009 at the age of eighty, this remarkable scientist’s extraordinary life came to an end.

Imagine this scientist’s detractors using her death as an opportunity to vilify her and her discoveries even further. They cited her death as proof that she was a charlatan, that her discoveries were fabricated, and that her cures did not work. Unfortunately, they have convinced millions of others that their lies are true.

Fortunately, many thousands of us know the real truth. We have used this scientist’s discoveries, inventions, and cures to keep ourselves, our families, our friends, and others healthy and to cure our own ailments and diseases. We only wish that it were easier to overcome the lies of the mainstream medical establishment, et. al., and bring these truths to the millions of other individuals in the world who are suffering needlessly and dying prematurely.

The above account is true. It is the remarkable story of scientist extraordinaire, Dr. Hulda Regehr Clark, Ph.D., N.D. Unfortunately, Dr. Clark is no longer with us. However, there are many thousands of us attempting to disseminate Dr. Clark’s remarkable discoveries to as many others as possible. However, it is a daunting task given the power and influence of those who have conspired against her and her discoveries.

Steven A. Swan has been studying and using Dr. Clark’s discoveries and inventions for many years to keep himself healthy. He was also able to adapt information in Dr. Clark’s final book about curing cancer to cure his own asthma and his own psoriasis.

Swan offers consultations to anyone wishing to use Dr. Clark’s discoveries to cure their own ailments or diseases or who simply wish to understand them better. (Because of the vast amount of scientific information contained in Dr. Clark’s books, they can be somewhat confusing to individuals who have not studied them.)

Swan’s website is entitled Dr. Hulda Clark Consultant and it is located at drclarkconsultant.com. Swan can be reached by email at contact@drclarkconsultant.com.

Jenny McCarthy and autism

Okay. I'm going to write about Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3, but before I do, there's something I have to get off my chest first. Namely, Jenny McCarthy. She got the role of Allied superagent Tanya in C&C:RA3, thus stealing Kari Wührer's job.

This is a little hard for me, because Jenny McCarthy has a place in my heart. She's the first woman whose pictures I remember searching for on the Internet. It wasn't called googling then, because Google didn't exist yet. One particular picture from one of her Playboy shoots, which I can't post here but features her in a bath, is actually the first piece of pornography I ever remember seeing. So in my books, she's really hot.

So I was troubled, to say the least, to learn that she'd taken up the cause of Andrew Wakefield. As near as I can tell, Wakefield is a fraud, who was struck off the UK medical register for dishonest and irresponsible conduct. To make a long story short, he fabricated research results to prove that a vaccine was causing autism in children, planning to make millions from related patents he held. Unfortunately for him, the hoax was blown.

Unfortunately for the rest of the world, he's managed to attract a rabid, cult-like following. Finnish readers can avail themselves of an excellent text on the topic, and English readers can consult the New York Times, who give us this soundbite:

Andrew Wakefield has become one of the most reviled doctors of his generation, blamed directly and indirectly, depending on the accuser, for irresponsibly starting a panic with tragic repercussions: vaccination rates so low that childhood diseases once all but eradicated here — whooping cough and measles, among them — have re-emerged, endangering young lives.

Wakefield has almost single-handedly revived the anti-vaccination movement. He and other anti-vaccination propagandists have managed to cause several moral panics against vaccinations, all of which have led to significant health problems. It's ironic that these anti-vaccination campaigns are providing us with some of the clearest evidence of the efficacy of vaccines. Similar concerns were raised earlier this year over Michele Bachmann's moronic comments on the HPV vaccine.

Despite this, Wakefield has created an anti-vaccination cult. Here's the New York Times again:

“To our community, Andrew Wakefield is Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one,” says J. B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, a group that disputes vaccine safety. “He’s a symbol of how all of us feel.”

Since losing his medical license, Wakefield has depended on his followers for financing and for the emotional scaffolding that allows him to believe himself a truth-teller when the majority of his peers consider him a menace to medicine. The fact that his fans have stood by him through his denunciation may seem surprising, but they may find it easier to ignore his critics than to reject their faith in him. After all, his is a rare voice of certainty in the face of a disease that is, at its core, mysterious.

My impression of Wakefield is that he's a ruthless profiteer exploiting the distress of parents who have autistic children. I use the word "cult" advisedly, because from where I'm standing, Wakefield is behaving like a classic cult leader. It's interesting to note that the journalist who led the way in exposing him as a fraud disagrees.

You could read Deer’s collected body of research on Wakefield and come away with the conviction that Wakefield was an underhanded profiteer who exploited parents and abused their disabled children with invasive tests for the sole purpose of capitalizing on parents’ fears about the M.M.R. vaccine. (He applied, for example, for a patent for a diagnostic kit that could test for measles virus in the intestines.) But Deer does not think Wakefield was solely motivated by profit. He compares him to the kind of religious leader who is a true believer but relies on the occasional use of smoke and mirrors to goose the faith of his followers. “He believed it was true,” Deer says of Wakefield’s theory of M.M.R., but he was also willing to stretch the truth to get more financing for more research. Deer theorizes that Wakefield’s maneuverings were all rationalized by his conviction that he was right: “He would prove it next time.”

Crusading academic or medical cult supremo, what's unquestionable is that Wakefield's stand on autism isn't currently supported by science. He's taken the conspiracy theory route, claiming that his detractors slander him, falsify research results and even lie about non-vaccinated children's deaths to discredit him because they're in the pay of a giant conspiracy by the medical industry. As Cracked.com has noted, pharmaceutical companies are one of the most popular "evil corporation" strawmen out there today. Even if that weren't the case, believing Wakefield's conspiracy theory requires the same leap of faith that all of this "the truth is being suppressed" nonsense demands: taking the word of one discredited researcher and his personal following over just about everyone else who's ever studied the topic. Sorry, Mr. Wakefield.

The foreword to Wakefield's book Callous Disregard was written by Jenny McCarthy, who's been very active in promoting Wakefield's views in the US.

McCarthy claims that her son had autism, but was cured by chelation therapy, a medical procedure that removes heavy metals from the body. Hockey fans might remember a goalie called Steve Passmore, who had chelation therapy to overcome severe heavy metal poisoning he had from drinking contaminated well water as a kid.

It's been claimed that mercury poisoning can trigger autism, although the scientific consensus is that this is untrue. Some experts have speculated that McCarthy's child may well have had Landau-Kleffner syndrome, a rare childhood consition often misdiagnosed as autism. Certainly McCarthy's claim that chelation therapy cured her son of autism flies in the face of medical science. In fact, chelation therapy is actually dangerous if used on patients who don't have heavy metal poisoning; it can cause hypocalcaemia; one 5-year-old autistic boy was killed by chelation therapy through hypocalcemia.

Despite the scientific evidence, McCarthy continues to promote the link between autism and vaccines. Her activities earned her James Randi's Pigasus Award for "the performer who fools the greatest number of people with the least effort in that twelve-month period". Earlier this year, Salon.com called her "a menace", and given that her continuing anti-vaccination campaigning is clearly having a detrimental effect on public health, it's hard to disagree.

McCarthy is unfazed. As recently as this past January, she defended her stance in a column for the Huffington Post, in which she claimed the decisive debunking of Wakefield's work was "one dubious reporter's allegations", and appealed to her authority as a mother. In her worldview, her conviction that her knowledge as a mother, and the determination of innumerable parents of autistic children to find someone to blame for their child's condition, trumps medical research. That's a truly monstrous idea.

**

So you see my problem. I think she's gorgeous, and I remember seeing her smoking hot Playboy pictorial at an impressionable age, but she really is a menace to children's health care. I don't imagine that what I post in this blog makes the least bit of difference to how the world works, but as a point of personal ethics, I'd feel it would be wrong of me to post pictures of her online without saying something about her misguided, downright dangerous personal crusade against science. She's wrong, and should realize that what she's doing is hurting and even killing children by persuading their parents to leave them unvaccinated.

She's still hot. I just wish she'd actually think about the children, and maybe a little about science. Then I could enjoy pictures like this one with a clear conscience.

A more conservative Bible

To start off, an unrelated trivia question: which single disease costs Western society the most to treat?

Tooth decay. From the Cambridge journal Public Health Nutrition:

Dental diseases, particularly dental caries, are the most expensive part of the body to treat. Caries is indeed the most expensive human disease in terms of direct costs. For example, the direct costs of caries treatment in Germany was 20.2 billion, CVD 15.4 billion DM, diabetes 2.3 billion DM.4. In West Germany, the cost of dental care was 10.3% of the health budget in 19945.

**

And if that didn't blow your mind, this will.

Globe and Mail: Group of U.S. conservatives rewrite the Bible

After all these years, one could assume the Bible has held up pretty well, but a group of conservatives in the United States thinks it needs a rewrite.

The folks behind Conservapedia, a right-leaning version of Wikipedia, have launched the Conservative Bible Project, aimed at getting rid of what they call liberal bias, wordiness, emasculation and a general dumbing down of the Old and New Testaments.

A dozen or so users, led by Conservapedia founder Andy Schlafly – the son of conservative political activist Phyllis Schlafly – are tackling the 27 books of the New Testament and 39 books of the Old Testament. Anyone can offer suggested changes.

Just read the article. I could quote all of it.

Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." [1]

That article is PROOF.

**

Conservapedia's own project page is, if possible, even more hilarious. Here's some excerpts, retrieved 20091012. All boldface in the original.

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
* lack of precision in modern language
* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Experts in ancient languages are helpful in reducing the first type of error above, which is a vanishing source of error as scholarship advances understanding. English language linguists are helpful in reducing the second type of error, which also decreases due to an increasing vocabulary. But the third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.

So there you have it. According to Conservapedia, not only is the media biased toward liberals, and Wikipedia, but even the Bible is contaminated by liberal bias. Here's some of the "ten commandments" they suggest for rescuing the Word of God from liberals:

Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

There you go! The Bible isn't conservative and free market oriented enough. This must change.

Also, "liberal wordiness"?

Here's one of their own examples:

Third Example - Socialism

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

As a translator myself, I don't know how to start explaining how wrong this is. Their problem isn't how a given Greek or Hebrew word is translated, but whether the word it is translated into is "liberal" or "conservative". Astonishing.

Father
Yes, you can't beat wood ... Gorn!
Mother
What's gorn dear?
Father
Nothing, nothing, I just like the word. It gives me confidence. Gorn ... gorn. It's got a sort of conservative quality about it. Gorn. Gorn. Much better than `newspaper' or `litterbin'.
Daughter
Frightful words.
Mother
Perfectly dreadful.
Father
Ugh! Newspaper! ... litterbin ... dreadful liberal sort of words. Lib, lib, lib.

The daughter bursts into tears.

Mother
Oh, dear, don't say `lib' to Rebecca, you know how it upsets her.
Father
(to the daughter) Sorry old horse.
Mother
Sausage!
Father
Sausage ... there's a good conservative sort of word, `sausage' ... gorn.
Daughter
Antelope.
Father
Where? On the lawn? (he picks up a rifle)
Daughter
No, no, daddy ... just the word.
Father
Don't want an antelope nibbling the hoops.
Daughter
No, antelope ... sort of nice and conservative type of thing.
Mother
Don't think so, Becky old chap.
Father
No, no, `antelope', `antelope' -- liberal sort of word (the daughter bursts into tears) Oh! Sorry old man ...

"We'll have him in our Bible."

[2]

**

The staggering fact is that Poe's Law works here. I know this is an actual Conservapedia page, and I've read the article in the Globe and Mail where they actually interview Schlafly about the project. So I know this isn't a parody.

But still, when I read the actual project page, the whole thing is so incredibly preposterous that I can't quite convince myself it isn't a parody. They're really proposing creating a "new translation" of the Bible, not by retranslating it, but by rewriting the English text to conform to their ideology.

You really can't make fun of these people at all.