To skipper: Your 1980s example is the mechanism in its naked form. Send the chemo failure to surgery; record the death as a surgical complication; the chemotherapy column stays clean. The same logic still operates, now with more sophisticated coding software and more plausible deniability. The figures don't lie. The people who decide what gets recorded do. Thank you for the concrete history.
To David Weiner: The Bastiat reference is the one I should have made and didn't. He named the principle in 1850 and applied it to the broken-window economics that still misleads policymakers today. Wald formalized it for aircraft in 1943. The same error governs vaccine reporting now. The harmed are excluded from the safety registries while the unharmed credit the shot. The data is generated by the very filtering it is supposed to detect.
To Mike Williams: The brewery workers survived because the boiling removed the toxic load from the water, not because it killed bacteria. The contaminated London supply contained sewage, industrial runoff, and decomposing organic matter; boiling reduces all of these alongside any microbial content. Within germ theory the explanation is bacterial. Within terrain it is the same boiling acting on the toxic burden of the water. Cowan was reasoning within a framework you don't accept. That is a legitimate disagreement. It is not a logical error.
To Tonetta: Your testimony is the rarest kind: a survivor describing iatrogenic harm honestly, without rewriting it into triumph. The 43% statistic you faced is itself a screening artifact. I hope the back damage stays manageable and the second cancer never comes.
To Randy: The urologist who told you there is no upper limit for PSA in men over eighty is doing the job honestly. You found one of the rare ones.
I submit that the dead would tell the most truly accurate tales if they could be heard. As the modern stone age medical mafia and big pharma offer nothing other than toxic vaccines and drugs, they have to game the system and market it as if there are no other options and the fear of death can be assuaged only by engaging in their tyranny.
This is why I refuse all testing...unless it is a dire emergency...and then it might not really matter.
I think it is next to impossible, no completely impossible, for the vast majority to come to terms with how many individuals are actively killed by the medical industry every single day.
Yes! I lived next door to a retired oncologist who had liver cancer and has never done conventional treatments. He has had it for years and goes to Duke University Medical Center for his care.
Fantastic article. I read the book, Overdiagnosed by Gilbert Welch, about 12 years ago which covers this very same topic. When I tried to get others to read this, the response was usually something like, “yeah, but this is just one doctor.” No interest in the actual substance. You’ve put all the substance into one very coherent document, great work. Thanks!
Likewise, 10% of people die with gall stones so having them does not indicate a problem to fix unless there are symptoms. In the 1980s when chemotherapy started, I knew of an oncologist who sent treatment failures to surgery and when they died, it was classified a surgical failure death and not failure of the chemo. Figures don't lie but liars can figure.
This is where the words of Patrick Hahn have true relevance: “My vision of health means taking care of the body I was born with, and accepting my mortality.”
Excellent! I bought the book, "Should I Be Tested For Cancer?" on the recommendation of Dr Tom Cowan. Your article sums up this book brilliantly. I had one mammogram in the early 1990's and instinctively knew this was NOT a good thing to do to my breasts. I have said no to them ever since, and no to colonoscopies as well. I have said no many times to many things to many physicains over the decades. It is not always easy to do, but it is my body, not theirs, and now I know I was right to refuse these screenings when I am healthy and w/o symptoms.
We see some of the same issues when it comes to vaccines. So many people are grateful that they supposedly avoided serious illness or death by taking them, when they really have no idea whether or not that it is the case. They only know that they survived. To make matters worse, they don't know that many of their health problems may have been triggered by vaccination. Of course, the medical establishment and the media work hard to dismiss or discount the folks who were killed or harmed by vaccines ... they are not allowed to "testify" in court, or in the public sphere. Their harm is excluded (or disguised) from safety studies ... their testimony is thereby excluded from medical journals.
The great 19th century French free market economist Frederic Bastiat made much the same point regarding survivorship in his political and economic analysis. Check out this famous paper:
Excellent article! I dislike the slogans like “i beat cancer” portraying it as a fight. It all carries the smell of marketing. I am one of the ca. survivors, sofar. The 5 yr survival rate was 43% (vulvar ca stage 3b). Back then in 2010, upon reading up extensively (including the detrimental effects of chemotherapy concoctions), I already decided that if the stage would be iv, i would decline chemo and opt for doing nothing but pain management. We do all die after all. And it would be good if people learned to accept that. But when it turned out to be stage 3b I weighed and did agree to and receive radiation and at least my oncologist was honest in telling me that not many 3b survived the first year without recurrence and also that indeed years after radiation, the latter would often result in a new cancer. Sofar no recurrence and no new cancer yet, but I can certainly tell by my lower back that radiation harms, and the harm notably shows up later.
Wonderful article! The Author can think! Sadly, they no longer teach Logic in the public schools. So a person who can actually THINK is a Gift to the world.
Whilst I have heard a few analogous versions of this important idea from different countries in different cultures over the past 30 years, this one is the best.
Author's Note
To skipper: Your 1980s example is the mechanism in its naked form. Send the chemo failure to surgery; record the death as a surgical complication; the chemotherapy column stays clean. The same logic still operates, now with more sophisticated coding software and more plausible deniability. The figures don't lie. The people who decide what gets recorded do. Thank you for the concrete history.
To David Weiner: The Bastiat reference is the one I should have made and didn't. He named the principle in 1850 and applied it to the broken-window economics that still misleads policymakers today. Wald formalized it for aircraft in 1943. The same error governs vaccine reporting now. The harmed are excluded from the safety registries while the unharmed credit the shot. The data is generated by the very filtering it is supposed to detect.
To Mike Williams: The brewery workers survived because the boiling removed the toxic load from the water, not because it killed bacteria. The contaminated London supply contained sewage, industrial runoff, and decomposing organic matter; boiling reduces all of these alongside any microbial content. Within germ theory the explanation is bacterial. Within terrain it is the same boiling acting on the toxic burden of the water. Cowan was reasoning within a framework you don't accept. That is a legitimate disagreement. It is not a logical error.
To Tonetta: Your testimony is the rarest kind: a survivor describing iatrogenic harm honestly, without rewriting it into triumph. The 43% statistic you faced is itself a screening artifact. I hope the back damage stays manageable and the second cancer never comes.
To Randy: The urologist who told you there is no upper limit for PSA in men over eighty is doing the job honestly. You found one of the rare ones.
Brilliant! By far the best explanation of this phenomenon I've seen.
It is an eye opener and is also true. That is my belief.
Not only is it true, I really think it's probably WAAAAAAAY more true than we have any real idea of.
"ARRR" Matey !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://piratechain.com/
Whoops, I got "rickrolled". I should've seen that one coming!
Second that.
I am always intrigued by people's SS handles - A Prayer for Monkey might just take the cake... Until I see something even more intriguing tomorrow!
You probably will. Thanks.
I always liked Assistant Village Idiot.
I submit that the dead would tell the most truly accurate tales if they could be heard. As the modern stone age medical mafia and big pharma offer nothing other than toxic vaccines and drugs, they have to game the system and market it as if there are no other options and the fear of death can be assuaged only by engaging in their tyranny.
This is why I refuse all testing...unless it is a dire emergency...and then it might not really matter.
I think it is next to impossible, no completely impossible, for the vast majority to come to terms with how many individuals are actively killed by the medical industry every single day.
The medical system is inherently malignant.
Thanks - what a clear essay!
There are 'cancer specialists' who would rather live out their last days than take the 'treatment' that they give to their patients!
Most, in fact. And if they had a clue, they’d look into laetrile, soursop and others
Yes! I lived next door to a retired oncologist who had liver cancer and has never done conventional treatments. He has had it for years and goes to Duke University Medical Center for his care.
Fantastic article. I read the book, Overdiagnosed by Gilbert Welch, about 12 years ago which covers this very same topic. When I tried to get others to read this, the response was usually something like, “yeah, but this is just one doctor.” No interest in the actual substance. You’ve put all the substance into one very coherent document, great work. Thanks!
Likewise, 10% of people die with gall stones so having them does not indicate a problem to fix unless there are symptoms. In the 1980s when chemotherapy started, I knew of an oncologist who sent treatment failures to surgery and when they died, it was classified a surgical failure death and not failure of the chemo. Figures don't lie but liars can figure.
This is where the words of Patrick Hahn have true relevance: “My vision of health means taking care of the body I was born with, and accepting my mortality.”
Excellent! I bought the book, "Should I Be Tested For Cancer?" on the recommendation of Dr Tom Cowan. Your article sums up this book brilliantly. I had one mammogram in the early 1990's and instinctively knew this was NOT a good thing to do to my breasts. I have said no to them ever since, and no to colonoscopies as well. I have said no many times to many things to many physicains over the decades. It is not always easy to do, but it is my body, not theirs, and now I know I was right to refuse these screenings when I am healthy and w/o symptoms.
Very interesting and informative.
We see some of the same issues when it comes to vaccines. So many people are grateful that they supposedly avoided serious illness or death by taking them, when they really have no idea whether or not that it is the case. They only know that they survived. To make matters worse, they don't know that many of their health problems may have been triggered by vaccination. Of course, the medical establishment and the media work hard to dismiss or discount the folks who were killed or harmed by vaccines ... they are not allowed to "testify" in court, or in the public sphere. Their harm is excluded (or disguised) from safety studies ... their testimony is thereby excluded from medical journals.
The great 19th century French free market economist Frederic Bastiat made much the same point regarding survivorship in his political and economic analysis. Check out this famous paper:
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Excellent article! I dislike the slogans like “i beat cancer” portraying it as a fight. It all carries the smell of marketing. I am one of the ca. survivors, sofar. The 5 yr survival rate was 43% (vulvar ca stage 3b). Back then in 2010, upon reading up extensively (including the detrimental effects of chemotherapy concoctions), I already decided that if the stage would be iv, i would decline chemo and opt for doing nothing but pain management. We do all die after all. And it would be good if people learned to accept that. But when it turned out to be stage 3b I weighed and did agree to and receive radiation and at least my oncologist was honest in telling me that not many 3b survived the first year without recurrence and also that indeed years after radiation, the latter would often result in a new cancer. Sofar no recurrence and no new cancer yet, but I can certainly tell by my lower back that radiation harms, and the harm notably shows up later.
Brilliant.
If you go looking for trouble, chances are you'll find it.
Wonderful article! The Author can think! Sadly, they no longer teach Logic in the public schools. So a person who can actually THINK is a Gift to the world.
Great article… so true .
Thank you, as always!!!
Great article.
Brill. Love it.
Whilst I have heard a few analogous versions of this important idea from different countries in different cultures over the past 30 years, this one is the best.