Futile but otherwise harmless medical care is the least important of the damages a proliferating medical enterprise inflicts on contemporary society. However, the pain, dysfunction, disability, and anguish resulting from techical medical intervention now rival the morbidity due to traffic and industrial accidents and even war-related activities, and make the impact of medicine one of the most rapidly spreading epidemics of our time.

Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis (1976)

I believe my generation of doctors will be remembered for two things: the miracles that turned to mayhem, such as penicillin and cortisone, and for the millions of mutilations which are ceremoniously (and totally unnecessarily) carried out every year in operating rooms.

Robert A. Mendelsohn, MD,
Confessions of a Medical Heretic (1979)

 

"Health care" is a modern term used by community leaders and doctors to describe a system which is the very opposite of health care, and which demonstrates mankind's greatest illusion: the belief you can make a sick person well by giving them medicine of some kind. The "quality" of health care is measured by our civic leaders in dollars--dollars--to pay for drugs, to develop new and better drugs, to pay the doctors who administer the drugs and to pay for hospitals in which the "care" can be administered. Money can buy care all right, but it is not health care.

An example of medical thinking is the recent report from the Australian Government Economic Planning Advisory Committee, which revealed that poor people on the average die ten years earlier than high income earners, are four times more likely to get respiratory diseases and other illnesses, and that they were twice as likely to die of cancer. The inference of this report was that poor people would not suffer so much if they had enough money to afford better health care. Of course you could just as easily conclude that germs get more fun out of seeking out and attacking poor people, but is it not more likely that a lot of poor people get sick, not because they are poor but because the same lack of capacity that keeps them poor keeps them also in total dietary ignorance?

A great deal of ingenuity goes into modern medicine, but not a great deal of intelligence. It takes a lot of ingenuity to devise the intricate procedures for a coronary bypass or transplant or reaming out blocked arteries, but why not tell the patient of the possibility of clearing blocked arteries by natural means--by strict diet? Why allow a recovering heart patient to eat a high-fat, high-cholesterol meal while still in coronary care?

Why are researchers looking for the "defective gene" which they say causes diabetes when it has been known at least as far back as 1936 that the prime cause of diabetes is a diet high in fat and protein, and that most diabetics produce all the insulin they need except that the insulin cannot work properly in a toxic bloodstream? And that on a proper diet most diabetics can be free of medical treatment in just a few weeks?

Why do some doctors state that arthritis and multiple sclerosis are auto-immune diseases that happen when white cells go mad and attack their own domicile, while others blame retro-viruses and work to devise ways of thwarting their destructive "attacks"? These opinions are only supposition. Why don't doctors know that if you clear a patient's bloodstream of toxemia their white cells return to normal, that arthritis goes away, that MS goes "into remission", that blood pressure diminishes, ulcers heal, gallstones dissolve, migraines cease and so on?

The reason doctors do not know these simple facts is that standard medical training is based still on the medieval belief that diseases are "things" with evil intent that attack innocent people and that these things have to be counterattacked and driven out. Such beliefs are unacceptable to an intelligent observer and it is no wonder the "practice" of medicine is such a confused and fragmented affair.