One aspects of the rising medical costs in medicine is that supply is controlled through limiting licensing. Say an area of 500,000 people has a need for 1,000 doctors to adequately serve the people. But in order to legally practice medicine, a person is required to be a licensed doctor. By limiting the number of available licenses to 800, it creates an enforced shortage. 1/5th of the people in the area, or 100,000 people, would not have proper access to medical care.
How and When to Be Your Own Doctor - Isabelle A. Moser, M.D., Steve Solomon
The Hygienic Care of Children - Herbert M. Shelton, D. P., D. N. T., D. N. Sc. (1931)
Yet, even this shortage has not been enough for the industry. By using tax dollars to provide services for the bottom 1/5th of people - who are left behind - prices rise yet further.
If the underlying shortage remains, and the bottom 1/5th of people in income have their medical services paid for by the government, then a different group of people will find themselves without access.
And there's another teacher to consider — Dr. Robert Morse N.D. — whose YouTube channel will teach health seekers how to undergo regenerative detoxification through understanding how our body really works to be well, something you'll not hear from the government-sanctioned allopathic medical industry.
Confessions of a Medical Heretic – Robert S.Mendelsohn, M.D. (1979)
The Temples of Doom (76-79)
I still don’t like to make rounds through hospitals at night: too many crying babies. I always have a lot
of trouble with crying babies - I can’t ignore them. When I used to make night rounds regularly I would
pick up the crying babies or the little kids and carry them out to the nurses’ station. If they could sit on
the nurses’ laps or on the edge of the desk they wouldn’t cry.
Adults and the elderly also suffer from a hospital stay. Dr. David Green has called hospitals "the worst
place in the world for aged people." I don’t disagree with him, except that I would say that hospitals are
the worst place in the world for everybody. I don’t know how we can expect children not to be harmed
by the super stresses of a hospital stay when those stresses are so hard on adults. Ironically, we expect
the kids to act like super adults in the hospital and adjust to the separation and the fear - while we
expect the adults to adjust to being treated like helpless children. Hospital procedures have absolutely
no respect for a person’s dignity. You have to take off your own clothes and wear a hospital gown that
leaves you immodestly vulnerable to inspection and attack by innumerable doctors, nurses, and
technicians. You have to lie down most of the time. You can’t come and go as you please. And you
have to eat what they serve you - if there’s time. Then, to top it off, you have to sleep in a room with
strangers - sick strangers at that!
Hospitalization degrades you. In my twenty-five years of practicing and witnessing the practice of
medicine, I’ve never seen a degrading experience that did anybody’s health any good. But remember,
hospitals are the temples of Modern Medicine. When you enter the temple of another religion, you
enter the presence of that religion’s deities. No gods will allow you to take rival gods into their house,
so you leave behind your old gods and all that they taught you before you enter. Since the Church
views all aspects of life that contribute to health as rival gods, you must leave your identity, your
family, your confidence, and your dignity at the temple door. Only when you’ve been purified of your
real life can you be eligible for the sinister rewards of the Church of Death’s sacraments.
I’m always fascinated when one kind of epidemic or another spreads through a hospital so fast that
everybody has to be sent home or transferred to another hospital. Usually, very few people have to be
transferred to other hospitals. We always manage to send nine out of ten patients home with no
About twenty-five years ago, I decided to conduct a little experiment to find out just how necessary
hospitalization really is. I was in charge of a hospital ward that had about twenty-eight beds. I decided
that none of the twenty-four patients already there would stay unless they absolutely required
hospitalization. I also had control of admissions. So when someone came to be admitted, we decided
whether or not they really had to be. We had special procedures available to allow people to be treated
at home. We could, for example, pay their taxi fare for outpatient visits, and we had a truck we could
use to go out to adjust patients’ devices if they were in traction.
I kept this up until we got down to three or four patients. I figured I had pretty well proved that
hospitals weren’t necessary. I found out afterwards that I was the one who wasn’t necessary. The
nursing office started to complain because the nurses in my ward had nothing to do and were in danger
of being transferred. The interns and residents complained that they did not have enough teaching
material. That was the end of my experiment on hospital utilization.
Hospitals exist in such aggressive abundance for the convenience of the medical profession, not for the
good of the people they’re supposed to serve. Hospitals started out as "poor houses" where doctors
could send patients who didn’t have the money to pay for their services. After awhile, doctors realized
that it was much easier for them to have all their patients in one place, with all the machinery right
there. Naturally, as medicine becomes less personal and more mechanical, it becomes increasingly
convenient for the doctor to manage patients in the hospital. It’s a well-known fact that a doctor has to
be sharper and more skillful if he treats people on an outpatient basis. As talent and consideration have
become rare commodities among doctors, hospitals have burgeoned. Insurance companies drive people
into hospitals by refusing to pay for outpatient treatments. If we didn't recognize that hospital and
medical insurance payments were really indulgences to keep a corrupt Church solvent, we would bridle
at the absurdity of an insurance company preferring to pay thousands of dollars for treatment in the
hospital that could be performed out of hospital for hundreds.
Confessions of a Medical Heretic - The Temples of Doom (81)
Hospital costs are the biggest single element in the country’s total bill for medical "care." That bill is
rapidly overtaking defense, the Number One item on the country’s total bill for everything. When
medicine exceeds defense, the Inquisition will really be unstoppable. No one seriously challenges
whatever institution is the first item on the budget. Whatever costs more than anything else gathers
bureaucratic inertia of such immense proportions that it controls the destiny of the country. Then the
dream of Modern Medicine will be fulfilled: the whole country will become a hospital. We’ll all be
patients in the Temple of Doom.
Confessions of a Medical Heretic - If This Is Preventive Medicine I’ll Take My Chances with
We've already seen what a disaster curative medicine has become, but so-called preventive medicine is
just as dangerous. In fact, the juggernaut of Modern Medicine's drive for power over our lives is
preventive medicine. It's no secret what mayhem power-hungry institutions - including governments -
can get away with hiding behind the intention of "preventing" trouble. Modern Medicine gets away
with even more. For example, the Defense Department explains the billions it spends by forwarding the
old "we're protecting you from camels" routine. Though a great portion of those billions is no doubt
wasted money, at least the Defense Department can point to the virtual absence of camels as evidence
that some of the money is spent on worthwhile activities.
Modern Medicine can't even make that claim. There's no way anybody can justify the billions of
dollars we spend every year on "health care." We’re not getting healthier as the bill gets higher, we re
getting sicker. Whether or not we have national health insurance is, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, one
of the most dangerous decisions facing us in the years ahead. Because even if all doctors services were
free, disease and disability would not decrease.
I wonder if we can really expect anyone to ask whether more of what we already have too much of will
do us any good. Modern Medicine has succeeded in teaching us to equate medical care with health. It
is that equation which has the potential to destroy our bodies, our families, our communities, and our
We’ve already seen how much of what Modern Medicine describes as "preventive" medicine is not
only ineffective but dangerous. The sacrament of the regular physical exam exposes you to the whole
range of dangerous and ineffective procedures. From this "act of faith" you receive the absolution of
the priest - if you’re lucky. First you have to give him a full confession, a complete and honest history
including things your wife and best friends don’t even know. Then he’ll pass the ceremonial
stethoscope over your vital parts - a stethoscope that has a good chance of not working properly. The
doctor will check your orifices, further the humiliation by having you give a bottle of urine to the
nurse, hit you ceremoniously on the knee with a rubber hammer, and pronounce you saved!
Or write out your penance in Latin.
Or - if your sins have been legion - send you to a specialist for really sophisticated punishments.
Screening programs could be called a Comedy of Errors if the results weren’t so often less than funny.
The tuberculin test, for example, was originally very valuable as a method of identifying people who
required further investigation for tuberculosis. But the current very low incidence of tuberculosis
means that the test has instead become used as a method of "preventive management." This means that
in order to prevent the possible one case out of 10,000 or more, potent and dangerous drugs such as
INH are given for months and months to people who are so-called "primary reactors." There is also
considerable psychological damage that can result when a person becomes a social pariah because
friends and neighbors find out that he or she is a positive reactor. Doctors now have to caution mothers
against letting neighbors and even relatives know that a child has had a positive tuberculin test, since
the test doesn’t usually indicate communicability in a child.
If you follow the sounds of medical-governmental drum-beating in favor of a "preventive" procedure,
you’ll more often than not find yourself in the midst of one of the Church’s least safe and effective
sacraments. For instance, with some immunizations the danger in taking the shot may outweigh that of
not taking it!
Diphtheria, once an important cause of disease and death, has all but disappeared. Yet immunizations
continue. Even when a rare outbreak of diphtheria does occur, the immunization can be of questionable
value. During a 1969 outbreak of diphtheria in Chicago, four of the sixteen victims had been "fully
immunized against the disease," according to the Chicago Board of Health. Five others had received
one or more doses of the vaccine, and two of these people had tested at full immunity. In another report
of diphtheria cases, three of which were fatal, one person who died and fourteen out of twenty-three
carriers had been fully immunized.
The effectiveness of the whooping cough vaccine is hotly debated all over the world. Only about half
of its recipients benefit, and the possibility of high fevers, convulsions, and brain damage is too high to
ignore. So great are the dangers that many public health authorities now prohibit the use of the vaccine
after age six. Meanwhile, whooping cough itself has almost completely disappeared.
Whether or not the mumps vaccine is advisable is also in doubt. While the vaccine definitely lowers the
incidence of mumps in those who receive it, it does so at the risk of exposing them to the dangers of
mumps later on after the immunity has worn off. Furthermore, diseases such as mumps, measles, and
German measles - for which vaccines have been developed over the past few years - don’t have the
dread implications of smallpox, tetanus, and diphtheria. Contrary to popular belief, measles cannot
cause blindness. Photophobia, which is merely a sensitivity to light, can be treated as parents years ago
did: by pulling down the windowshades.
Confessions of a Medical Heretic - Epilog - In Search of the New Doctor (171-183)
Health neither begins nor ends with the doctor. The doctor’s role is somewhere in the middle. And still
crucial. If doctors weren’t important, the Church of Modern Medicine could never have gained the
power it has.
This simultaneous process of destroying Medicine and rebuilding Medicine is, by nature, a political
process. At all levels, the Medical Revolution involves the participant in politics: If you keep your
children out of public school to avoid immunizing them, that is a political act. If you have your baby at
home when state laws discourage it or health insurance refuses to pay for it, that’s a political act. If you
decide to have another baby, that’s a political act. While we turn our backs on the Inquisition, we turn
towards and embrace the New Medicine as we need to in order to survive and prosper. That is going to
require action which is explicitly political, too.
As John McKnight has said in his essay, "The Medicalization of Politics," "Politics is the act of citizens
pooling their intelligence to achieve the maximum human good. Medicalized politics is the disavowal
of that common intelligence. Politics is the art of the possible - a process that recognizes limits and
grapples with the questions of equity imposed by those limits. Medicalized politics is the art of the
impossible - the process by which an unlimited promise is substituted for justice. Politics is the art of
reallocating power. Medicalized politics mystifies control so that power is no longer an issue. The
central political issue becomes the right to more control. Politics is the act of citizens. Medicalized
politics is the control of clients. Only the hands of citizens can cure medicine. Medicine cannot cure
itself because its prescriptions come from its own system of values."
If your community is considering fluoridating the water - or if it already has fluoridated water - you
may have to fight it. You may take political action and work against the enactment of national health
insurance, or work for the inclusion of "revolutionary clauses" which will prevent the Inquisition from
getting a death grip on our society. You may work politically for laws which will effectively remove
poisons from our air, food, and water. Or for changes in the Social Security and tax laws that will favor
keeping families together and strong.
I recently was asked by a group of Latin-American mothers in Chicago to help promote breastfeeding
among the members of their organization for better child raising. They knew their biggest problem was
that the community hospitals these women were using sanctioned the use of formula. The mothers
decided to do something with their organization. They visited the heads of the hospitals and tried to
persuade them to stop encouraging bottle-feeding by handing out free six-packs of formula and special
"supplementary feeding packs" to mothers who already were breastfeeding. They said that if the
hospital heads did not respond to their requests, they were going to picket the hospitals.
It seems to me that the New Doctor has to be in the front lines of these struggles. He or she will have to
be involved politically if only in response to his patients’ needs. He or she will be visible through the
newspapers and other media when these issues come to the fore. And if they don’t come there, he’ll
make sure they do.
This is one of the major differences between the ethics of Modern Medicine and those of the New
Medicine. Modern Medicine tells doctors to stay out of politics. Of course, this is merely to hide the
fact that doctors are already into politics in an immensely powerful way. The Church likes the status
quo, since it is in control, so it wants to be able to scare away potential troublemakers and blacken the
reputations of those who can’t be scared away, by labeling them "politicians."
The New Medicine says that the doctor is not a monastic priest sitting in his monastery, but is a
participant in the life of the community. Doctors will be community leaders active in politics because
concern for the health of the community demands it. When the water company wants to fluoridate the
public water, the New Doctor will be right there to make sure people know the biological
consequences. When the power company wants to build a nuclear power plant, the New Doctor will
not stand by and let the health of the community be threatened. Rather than allow political issues to
become medicalized - and thus defused - the New Doctor will acknowledge the need for political
power to be applied to matters of health and disease. He or she will not shrink from identifying "bad"
politics as factors in disease.
Community involvement of this nature implies a certain type of doctor with the sensitivities, skills, and
motivation to help build the New Medicine. Any collection of ideas-for-action can be subverted by the
people who do the acting.
The New Doctor is comfortable with people from all walks of life - not only in the doctor-patient
relationship, but in social relationships as well. The New Doctor considers his or her service as an
agent of social improvement, so he or she will need to understand and be aware of the social and
ethical foundations of medicine.
The New Doctor will be conversant not only in the language of science, but in the language of people
as well. He or she is going to be constantly informing patients: informing them of the risks and benefits
of prospective treatments, informing them of the ways they can stay healthy, informing them of how
certain activities and circumstances affect health. The doctor-patient relationship is democratic in the
sense that both doctor and patient share information equally. But that "democracy" must necessarily
break down when the doctor has to exercise his or her authority. The "perfect" example of this is when
the patient is unconscious. Obviously, under those circumstances the doctor must accept responsibility
and make choices in the best interests of the patient - without the patient’s consent. When the patient is
conscious, however, the doctor must still recognize that there might be a point at which the patient’s
knowledge ends and the doctor’s keeps going. That’s why the patient is seeing the doctor, after all, to
depend - however much - on that knowledge and training. I don’t care whether the doctor wears blue
jeans or a three-piece suit, whether his or her hair is short or long, whether he works out of a brand-new
clinic or a used van - the patient is there for the benefit of the doctor’s knowledge. The doctor must
inform the patient of how the patient’s choices will affect him, but he or she must not shrink from
making a judgment based on his or her knowledge and talents. That’s what the patient is paying for.
When the New Doctor is faced with a patient who has just had a baby, that patient is going to be
informed of what her alternatives are for feeding and caring for that baby. The New Doctor is going to
tell her that bottle feeding is not as safe or healthy as breastfeeding, and that the difference in benefit
and risk is great enough so that if she chooses to bottle feed, she is going to have to find another doctor.
The New Doctor is not afraid to act on evidence that’s available today. He or she has enough
confidence in his or her knowledge, training, and instincts to avoid the cop out: "We don’t know
enough. All the evidence isn’t in. We need more research."
Because the New Doctor admits up front that these choices are necessary, he or she must be aware and
responsive to the ethics of the doctor-patient relationship. To what extent do people have stewardship
over life, death, and health? How far can medicine increase our control over life and death? What
issues are involved in the choices to use artificial organs, transplanted organs, and artificial lifeextending
machinery? It’s not enough for the New Doctor to know how to do things, but why. Just
because something can be done, does that mean it should be done? The ethic that will permeate the
New Doctor’s practice and training is regard for the rights and dignity of human beings.
As maker of health, the New Doctor is aware that the patient and nature are the ingredients, not merely
the medium for the expression of technique. Aware of the limits of human competence, the New
Doctor knows when to intervene in natural processes, when to encourage natural processes, and when
to let natural processes run their course. Implied in this knowledge is awareness of the harm that can be
done by doctors.
"The art of medicine," according to a colleague and good friend of mine, Leo I. Jacobs, M.D., Medical
Director of Forest Hospital, Des Plaines, Illinois, "flows from the physician’s ability to be introspective
and to understand the patient as a human being with certain feelings, thoughts, attitudes, interpersonal
relationships, aspirations, and expectations rather than a mere symptom carrier. Such a physician tends
to see the patient, and not himself, as the primary person responsible for maintaining health, by leading
a meaningful life in which proper nutrition, exercise, and stress management combine with an
appropriate balance of love, play, and work within a harmonious family. Such a physician will resort to
drugs or surgery only after his understanding of the patient’s predicament has ruled out non-invasive or
educational, psychological, or social approaches."
The New Doctor acknowledges nature as the prime healer, and so regards natural supports of health,
such as the family, as having supreme importance in the healing process. The family is the unit of
health and disease, so the New Doctor treats the whole person in the context of family as well as
religion and social system. The New Doctor makes house calls and meets the family on its own turf. He
or she disregards professional language and advice that tends to split families into warring factions.
Proper avoidance of hospitalization will be a key goal, so the New Doctor delivers babies at home and
scorns the idea that people must come into and leave this world under conditions of intensive care.
The New Doctor is a lifeguard. He or she stands by ready to intervene in life-threatening situations. At
the beginning of life he lets the mother deliver the baby and stands by for the tiny percentage of cases
in which he is needed.
As soon as we assign the role of lifeguard to the doctor, we define what he does and does not do
throughout his career. He or she does not play the central role. The central roles are played by the
individual, the family, and the community.
And in "guarding" the health of his patients, the New Doctor establishes priorities according to their
promise of safety and effectiveness. The Hippocratic order of treatment placed regimen before
medicine and surgery. So will the New Doctor. What a patient does every day with and to the body and
soul have a greater effect on health than what the doctor can do in a small fraction of that time. The
New Doctor must teach the patient what to do during the mass of time he is living his life on his own,
away from the doctor, to maintain and maximize health.
The one rule I give to all my medical students is that I don’t care what you do to the patient as long as
he or she feels better when leaving the office than when coming in. The New Doctor heals with
himself. If the doctor has enthusiasm and hope, and can communicate this to the patient, then the
patient is going to feel better. A healer is a healer no matter what techniques he uses. Conscious of this,
the New Doctor prescribes "himself" in generous doses, meaning he or she uses whatever resources of
personality and human caring possible.
The New Doctor still will be a priest in the sense that he or she will officiate or mediate at the
absolution or cleansing of the patient’s "sins." You’ll still have to confess to the New Doctor, in the
sense that you will give your "history" and the doctor will identify what is health-producing and healthdestroying
in your life. The New Doctor doesn’t presume you’re never going to do anything unhealthy,
but he’s going to make sure you’re aware of it when you do. We know that the body has its own
powers of absolution in its incredible ability to adapt and make up for "mistakes." You still have to do
penance, but there’s a difference. The New Doctor doesn’t sprinkle you with holy water and pronounce
you saved if you take this drug or let him mutilate you. The New Doctor doesn’t sacrifice you to any
vengeful gods. Your penance is biological, it’s the price you have to pay to get back in balance. You
have to overcompensate for a while to make up for going too far.
Naturally, the New Doctor tries to motivate people to avoid disease, too. I believe guilt is one of the
strongest motives for changing one’s behavior. The New Doctor, being concerned with causes of
disease rather than superficial symptoms, is going to ascribe guilt in a more rational and ethical fashion
than Modern Medicine. The guilt will be personal, but not exclusively personal, and it will be
relievable through action, not symbolic rituals. In the case of lead poisoning, the guilt will be ascribed
to whoever is responsible for the lack of food in the refrigerator, whoever is responsible for the lead in
the air, in infant formula, and in food. If a woman opts for analgesia and anesthesia during childbirth,
she deserves some guilt because these things are not good for the baby. If a mother tells the New
Doctor she’s planning to bottle feed her baby, the New Doctor is going to tell her she’s threatening the
baby’s health. New Doctors will try to make people feel guilty about eating refined sugar and flour and
over-processed foods, about smoking, and about not exercising.
The New Doctor’s use of guilt will motivate people to healthy habits rather than frustration and fear
because there won’t be any double-think involved. Something is either good for you or bad for you and
the New Doctor will make sure you know the difference. That difference will be determined
biologically rather than politically or religiously. If bottle-feeding is wrong, it’s wrong because it
exposes mother and baby to a number of unhealthy conditions, such as gastroenteritis, allergies,
infections, and inadequate bonding between mother and child. The New Doctor may believe that a
woman’s body is her own, but biologically he or she knows that abortion causes a higher rate of
sterility and other complications that a properly informed woman would not choose to expose herself
to. A doctor should tell a woman that an abortion will increase the chances of her delivering a
premature infant in the future by fifty percent. He should tell her about the Israeli study of more than
11,000 pregnancies in which women who had previous induced abortions "were subsequently less
likely to have a normal delivery. In the births following induced abortions, the relative risk of early
neonatal death was doubled, while late neonatal deaths showed a three- to four-fold increase. There
was a significant increase in the frequency of low birthweight, compared to births in which there was
no history of previous abortion. There were increases in major and minor congenital malformations."
(American Journal of Epidemiology, September, 1975)
The New Doctor’s honesty will extend to denying Modern Medicine’s mythical claim that everything
can be cured, that no matter how you mess yourself up the skills of the doctor can put you back
together. The New Doctor informs his or her patients that real cures are hard to come by and that even
miracle cures fade fast. Patients are thus cautioned against straying too far away from the balance that
will insure them a long and healthy life.
The New Doctor will be skeptical of the promised benefits of drugs and surgery. One of his or her
major areas of responsibility is to protect people against the excesses of surgeons and drug companies
in foisting off their wares. Nevertheless, the New Doctor does not abandon useful technology, but
rather discriminates between useful machinery and machinery for-the-sake-of-machinery. He’s trained
in the use of scientific equipment, but he’s also taught the risks and the deficiencies of it. Most of all,
the New Doctor doesn’t rely on machinery unless absolutely necessary. He’s aware of the dangers of
letting technology rule over common sense and instinct.
Since he will reject much of Modern Medicine’s machinery, the New Doctor is knowledgeable in
unorthodox methods of treating disease, including nutritional therapy, acupuncture, kinesiology,
chiropractic, homeopathy, and others.
One of the primary activities of the New Doctor is to protect patients against the excesses of specialists.
New Doctors will be antagonists to the specialists: they’ll make their patients feel guilty about going to
a specialist and endangering themselves without justification. Instead of viewing the patient as a
collection of symptoms localized in a single spot, the New Doctor will see the whole person as the
context and possible cause for disease.
Eventually, in the light of ethics, iatrogenic considerations and exposure, and generalist education of
doctors, the specialties will largely disappear. If the hospital addiction can be licked early in life - at
birth - it will not become a habit later in life. Home delivery of babies will cause the disappearance of
ninety-five percent of obstetrics and gynecology. As the failure of psychiatric chemotherapy, psychosurgery, electroshock therapy, analysis, and most counseling is exposed - in favor of strong familial, friendship, self-esteem support networks - most of psychiatry will disappear. Internal medicine will go under with its highly lucrative recruiting practices: annual exams, screening for hypertension, and drug therapies for diseases that can be treated naturally. Surgery will mostly disappear as people learn to refuse to let doctors mutilate them for no particularly good reason - and as they are able to find more and more New Doctors who will treat them without surgery. The entire field of orthodox oncology will disappear as chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation for cancer are revealed as fundamentally irrational and scientifically unsupportable. Pediatrics, of course, will disappear as more and more mothers are
encouraged to breastfeed their babies.
The New Doctor is committed not only to putting the specialists out of business, but to putting himself
out of business as well. Doctors used to say they were in business to put themselves out of business, but
it was only a slogan. Now you don’t even hear them saying it anymore. But the New Doctor will back
up his commitment with action. He or she will teach people how to keep themselves healthy and how
to restore health and balance without the aid of a professional. While the New Doctor knows there will
always be a need for doctors, the doctor’s role in the person’s health will diminish to the point where it
might not be a bad idea if doctors had another way to earn a living besides practicing medicine. One
thing is certain, if every doctor were a New Doctor, we would need far fewer doctors and medical care
would not be the outsized behemoth in people’s lives that it is today.
The New Doctor must be prepared for courageous behavior, which means doing what has to be done
even though it means giving up the wealth, power, and status associated with being a conventional
physician. I don’t think we’ll have any trouble instilling courage in New Doctors. The ones I’ve met -
as both doctors and doctors-to-be - seem to come equipped with both courage and the cunning to
defend themselves. I met a young doctor recently who had quit his formal medical education as soon as
he was eligible for a license - immediately after his internship. I asked him where he was licensed, and
he told me in five states. He said he anticipated having trouble with the medical establishment, so he’s
prepared if they start taking his license away. Smartest fellow I’ve met in a long time. The New Doctor
knows what he has to do to survive long enough to work himself out of business.
Obviously, the New Doctor exists despite his or her medical education rather than because of it. With
this in mind, I and a number of my colleagues have created a blueprint for the New Medical School,
which is now actively seeking state approval and looking forward to taking on its first class of New
The education of the New Doctor will include not only medical and clinical sciences but ethics and
literature as well. All students in the New Medical School will be shown how human behavior relates
to health and disease. New Doctors will be trained to communicate by means of the written as well as
the spoken word. They also will learn the basic techniques and social implications of other media, such
as television. New Doctors must not only be able to communicate effectively with the community, but
they must be aware of the processes by which they and their patients are influenced. Since legal
procedures are important not only to the doctor’s protection of his practice but to the protection of his
patients as well, New Doctors will learn to deal with lawyers and the law.
The New Medical School will have a Department of Ethics and Justice. A community’s concept of
justice determines the health of its members in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, morbidity
statistics, and quality of medical care. Theoretical economic structures are irrelevant. A free enterprise
system saturated with justice can provide good medical care, while a socialized medical system devoid
of justice can provide deadly medical care. An immoral society that sets arbitrary limits on
technological achievements can be harmful, while a moral society that strives for the best that
technology has to offer can produce healthy people. In our Department of Ethics, the traditional
medical disciplines will be required to expose their material to the light of various ethical systems:
Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, utilitarian, situational, etc.
The New Medical School will have a very strong Department of Iatrogenic Disease. In this department
all medical disciplines and specialties will be required to demonstrate how their methods can produce
disease and disability. Doctors and professors will be paid to find out how medical care does more
harm than good, and how proposed new treatments might prove harmful.
Instead of the New Medical School providing the same specialist-encouraging instruction and role
models that conventional schools do, it will stress generalism. The New Medical School will be an
open forum of ideas on healing. Students will be taught not only by medical doctors, but by osteopaths
and chiropractors and naturopaths and nutritionists. We don’t want the New Doctors to learn about
these ideas and practices as if they were abstract academic principles. We want them to see them
The New Doctor will be educated in methods and principles that do not become obsolete every few
years. Once the fifty-to-ninety percent of what is now being taught is rejected as either wrong, outdated
or irrelevant, we will have enough time to teach what has to be taught, such as fundamentals of
diagnosis and prognosis.
The New Medical School will begin producing New Doctors by selecting a different kind of person to
be a student. Students who score highly on traditional medical school entrance exams tend to be too
compulsively achievement-oriented. They lose contact with the genuine goals of medicine and become
wrapped up in competition and in the application of technology to subdue rather than restore the
balance of Nature. The New Medical School will downplay quantitative tests and look for people who
are comfortable being with people rather than doing something for or to them. We don’t want insecure
people with so little self-esteem that they always need to be proving themselves by challenging their
peers and defending their status. Such characters are unhealthy to those around them as well as to
To help avoid the social pathology that seems to affect physicians as a group, the New Medical School
will concern itself with supporting and strengthening the family life of each New Doctor. We will
encourage students to marry and have families, because we want them to experience their profession
from both sides, as real people. The New Doctor will also have strong roots in the community, since
the local culture of a people is always a factor in health and disease.
I remember some years back I was asked to give the speech to incoming medical students at a medical
school. The title of my talk was ‘How To Survive Medical School." I gave them a number of rules, one
of which was to stay close to your family and to people you knew before medical school. Stay close to
people who are not doctors and not studying to be doctors. Don’t work too hard. Don’t try for A’s. It’s
almost impossible to get kicked out of medical school, so you might as well just slide through. Make a
major investment in your education, but not an exclusive one. Not an investment to the exclusion of the
rest of your life.
After I finished, the dean of the school got up and said he agreed with everything I said, but that the
students should always remember that when you enter medicine you are entering a new life!
Students at the New Medical School will be taught in a different manner, too. Their relationship to the
faculty will be as graduate students actively involved in the study of a discipline rather than as passive
recipients of trade school training. The New Medical School will not be a research institution or a
hospital. It will be a school. Students will be assigned to teachers, not to hospitals. The teaching format
will be by preceptorship or professional apprenticeship. Students will take responsibility for their own education.
When those young men and women are graduated, you won’t have any trouble distinguishing them
from the rest of the pack. For in preparing the state application form for our New Medical School, we
visited a number of other medical schools. One of them was a new school in a small community in
southern Illinois. After they had finished showing us all they had accomplished, we asked the directors
one question: If you were to mix your graduates with a bunch of Harvard Medical School graduates,
would you be able to tell them apart? The answer was "No, you wouldn’t, because our students are
indistinguishable from those at Harvard."
We then decided that we wanted nothing further to do with that school. Our students are going to be
easily identifiable: Their first rule is going to be First, Do No Harm.
I tried to explain to someone that the body can't be detoxifying itself, while also trying to digest and process a huge amount of food.
I plugged in her ideal weight based on body type and height, and then calculated her calories burned per day by her level of activity.
It was less than she ate for breakfast, let alone lunch, mid-afternoon snack, a Feast for dinner, and a healthy dessert.
aa5 » August 24th, 2016, 1:09 am wrote:To expand, there is the 'diseases of civilization', or the metabolic syndrome.. of severe obesity, heart disease, thyroid/fatigue, acid reflux/bloating/gas, digestive problems, hypoglycemia/type II diabetes, dull witted/mental fog, etc.. Eventually leading to even more serious problems. Each of these symptoms can be prescribed drugs to manage the problems.
I have seen many young women who start out with a healthy body weight, and near perfect health at age 22, then by 30 gaining 80-100 lbs from there, and obtaining some or all of these problems. By the mid-30's and another 20-100 lbs gained,and many of these women are starting the process of applying for long-term disability. For whatever reason it is more common among women than men at that age, although the guys catch-up fast later on.
Barring rare genetic diseases that manifest in the mid-20's, the root cause is eating way, way too much. I know it is blatantly obvious that a woman's diet shouldn't exceed 6,000 calories a day.. but people have an incredible ability to deny reality in order to believe what they want to believe.
I also know a diet book explaining how to reduce calories while still feeling full, is likely to collect dust on the shelf.. while a diet book saying how they can eat 6 meals a day, full of sugar and fat sells like hot cakes.
Certainly, too much (of what most people call) food is a problem, and the bigger problem by far is eating like billy goats, i.e., putting the wrong fuel in the body. In my most recent post, I've noted a health teacher who has shown, and still shows, the way to thousands of people the proper chemistry to be putting into their bodies for ultimately regenerating themselves to a perfectly healthy body and mental disposition. We are frugivores by nature, and we must eat as a frugivore to attain this state of health. This is a way of eating that goes against culture, and one needs strength in themselves to follow through against the crowd around them. The way is simple, not easy.
fbenario wrote:^ Forgive me if I'm asking a stupid question, but didn't the incidences of smallpox and polio start going down drastically and quickly at the same time as the introduction of those two vaccines? What caused such a good result if not the vaccines?
Fair questions fbenario! You’re absolutely right in that incidences of Polio diagnoses drastically plummeted shortly after the introduction of the ‘Salk’ vaccine in 1955. However, it was changes in diagnosis and diagnostic methods that helped ‘wipe out’ Polio (in name only!). For example, cases that would have previously been classified as ‘poliomyelitis’ (Polio) were reclassified as ‘non-poliomyelitis acute flaccid paralysis,’ ‘Guillian-Barré syndrome’ and ‘Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease’ to create the illusion of vaccine efficacy (Polio ‘eradication’).
It’s been a very successful medico-media psyop to say the least. I touched on this in the brief timelines of Smallpox & Polio I posted in the Ebola thread (viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1748&start=60#p2394414). What we used to call ‘Polio’ we now call ‘Chronic fatigue Syndrome.’ Vaccination has to be one of (if not the) cruelest scientific hoaxes of all time! Kudos to Pilgrim for his timely and informative post which may help people in scud & brianv’s (Congrats, btw) situation make informed decisions.
sometimes people forget that a police officer's job is to enforce the law.. not to question whether a law is good or bad.
For vaccines, a big problem I see is they cannot ethically do placebo controlled trials. They would need maybe 500 people chosen at random, and randomly give half the vaccine and half placebo. Then inject the live virus into all 500 people. Then have double blinded doctors doing examinations on the 'participants'. By looking at how many in each group developed full blown illness, a statistical probability of the efficacy of the vaccine could be generated.
1954 – “…Salk had his polio vaccine ready for testing. (He confessed to ‘sacrificing’ some 17,000 monkeys in the process of developing it) He based the vaccine on his theory that children would gain immunity to living poliovirus if dead poliovirus were injected into them. He hoped our sensitive immune system would react by creating antibodies to these viral corpses that would also protect us against living wild poliovirus. To kill the virus he poisoned it with formaldehyde before putting it into his vaccine… he tested this concoction on more than 400,000 US children. It was reported afterwards that ‘only’ 112 of the children who received three jabs of his vaccine contracted polio within the next few months. Salk judged his experiment a success. But his safety-test results omitted all cases of children who were paralysed after one or two doses of the vaccine – or within two weeks of taking the third dose. These were counted as cases of polio in the non-vaccinated control group and thus in my view cast doubt on the validity of his results, for it made it impossible to tell just what impact his vaccine had had.”*
“Prior to 1954, the diagnosis of spinal paralytic poliomyelitis followed the World Health Organization definition: "Signs and symptoms of nonparalytic polio, with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart."”**
1955 – “On April 12 1955, Salk’s polio vaccine was pronounced totally safe and effective in providing complete protection against poliomyelitis (infantile paralysis), when it was launched by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis before an invited audience of 500 doctors and 200 journalists. The launch ceremony was relayed by closed-circuit television to some 54,000 doctors in cities throughout the US and Canada.”*
“But beginning in 1955 following the introduction of the Salk vaccine, the criteria changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the (fraudulent) 1954 Salk field trials: "Unless there is residual involvement (paralysis) at least 60 days after onset, a case of poliomyelitis is not considered paralytic." Laboratory confirmation was possible after 1955, but not required for diagnosis. Obviously, more cases of paralysis had a chance to recover within 60 days, than in 24 hours. As intended, paralytic polio decreased by 23,500 cases from 1955 to 1957. However, after 2 years of widespread uptake of the Salk vaccine, paralysis increased about 50% from 1957 to 1958, and about 80% from 1958 to 1959.”**
“This ‘drop’ in polio cases was publicly credited to the vaccine. Furthermore, all cases of polio occurring within 30 days of vaccination (such as the first 200 cases that had so alarmed the White House) were in future not to be blamed on the vaccine but to be recorded as ‘pre-existing’”*
“Obviously, more cases of paralysis had a chance to recover within 60 days, than in 24 hours. During the panel discussion, Dr. Greenberg commented, "This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a 'new' disease, namely, paralytic polio with a longer lasting paralysis [than what was required before 1955]. As a result of these changes in both diagnosis and diagnostic methods, the rates of polio plummeted from the early 1950's to a low in 1957." (a decrease of 23,500 cases from 1955 to 57.)
However, Dr. Greenberg pointed out that not even this artifactual "decline" could continue, after the Salk vaccine had been used widespread use for 2 years. He showed that nationally, paralytic polio increased about 50% from 1957 to 1958, and about 80% from 1958 to 1959.
Polio had indeed been wiped out. But in name only. “**
1957 – “The New York Times reported that nearly 50 per cent of cases of infantile paralysis in children between the ages of five and 14 had occurred after vaccination.”*
1958 – “So, when patients diagnosed as having polio in a 1958 epidemic in Detroit were re-tested as required by this new rule, 49 per cent were found to have no poliovirus. They had to be reclassified as having ‘non-poliomyelitis acute flaccid paralysis’ even though they were suffering from symptoms identical to poliomyelitis with the same paralysis and the same pain. Other polio cases were reclassified as ‘Guillian-Barré syndrome’, which some researchers now think is what crippled Roosevelt. Yet more cases are now referred to as ‘Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease’, which can also cause paralysis. And last year the Coxsackie virus was found in cases of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), which sometimes shows polio-like symptoms of muscle damage; in the past CFS might have been classified as a form of polio.”*
If I had a prospective new heart medicine, and had rat studies showing effect...
From Healing Herbs to Deadly Drugs: Western Medicine's War Against the Natural World - Marti Kheel
The human capacity to "reason" is, indeed, unique, as a glance at the
thinking of animal research scientists shows. Thus, while researchers
attempt to justify animal experimentation by the claim that animals are
different from human beings, they also seek to justify it scientifically by
"reasoning" that animals are similar to human beings. But, although animals
are similar to humans in the important aspects of life- i.e., they feel joy,
sadness, loneliness, and fear- their physiologies differ significantly from our
own. Each species has a unique constitution and develops diseases and
responds to drugs in very different ways. Thus, "penicillin kills guinea pigs.
But the same guinea pigs can safely eat strychnine, one of the deadliest
poisons for humans- but not for monkeys"; opium is "harmless to dogs and
chickens"; "morphine, which calms and anesthetizes humans, causes
maniacal excitement in cats and mice"; thalidomide, though tested
extensively and "proven" safe in several species, later caused birth defects
in the ten thousand children born to pregnant mothers who took this drug.
Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, M.D., an internationally renowned researcher, author and advocate of the natural healing power of water, was born in Iran in 1931. He attended Fettes College in Scotland and was a graduate of St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School of London University, where he studied under Sir Alexander Fleming, who shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of penicillin.
Dr. Batmanghelidj practiced medicine in the United Kingdom before returning to Iran where he played a key role in the development of hospitals and medical centers[ ]. He also helped establish sport projects for youth in Iran, including The Ice Palace in Tehran, the first ice skating and sports complex in the Middle East.
When the Iranian Revolution broke out in 1979, Dr. Batmanghelidj was placed in the infamous Evin Prison as a political prisoner for two years and seven months. It was there he discovered the healing powers of water. One night, Dr. B. had to treat a fellow prisoner with crippling peptic ulcer pain. With no medications at his disposal, Dr. B. gave him two glasses of water. Within eight minutes, his pain disappeared. He was instructed to drink two glasses of water every three hours and became absolutely pain free for his four remaining months in the prison. Dr. B. successfully treated 3,000 fellow prisoners suffering from stress-induced peptic ulcer disease with water alone. While in prison he conducted extensive research into the medicinal effects of water in preventing and relieving many painful degenerative diseases. Evin proved an ideal “stress laboratory,” and despite his being offered an earlier release, Dr. B. chose to stay an extra four months in prison to complete his research into the relationship of dehydration and bleeding peptic ulcer disease. The report of his findings was published as the editorial of the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology in June 1983. The New York Times Science Watch reported this discovery on June 21, 1983.
On his release from prison in 1982, Dr. Batmanghelidj escaped from Iran and came to America. At the Foundation for the Simple in Medicine he began to research the effect of chronic unintentional dehydration on the human body. His findings were published in the Foundation’s “Journal of Science in Medicine Simplified” in 1991 and 1992. They can be read on the web site http://www.watercure.com.
Dr. F. Batmaghelidj wrote his first self-help book “Your Body’s Many Cries for Water” in 1992, in which he stated that a dry mouth is not a reliable indicator of dehydration. The body signals its water shortage by producing pain. Dehydration actually produces pain and many degenerative diseases, including asthma, arthritis, hypertension, angina, adult-onset diabetes, lupus and multiple sclerosis. Dr. B’s message to the world is, “You are not sick, you are thirsty. Don’t treat thirst with medication.”
Dr. F. Batmanghelidj devoted the last 20 years of his life promoting public awareness of the healing powers of water. He appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and lectured around the world. He has left a body of valuable works of six books and more than a dozen educational audio and video seminars. His work has created an international community that has embraced the natural healing of the water cure. His ground-breaking book “Your Body’s Many Cries for Water” has been translated into 15 languages and continues to inspire readers all over the world.
"Medical professionals of today do not understand the vital roles of water in the human body. Medications are palliatives. They are not designed to cure the degenerative disease of the human body.
The current practice of clinical medicine is based on the application of pharmacological chemistry to the human body. At the medical school, more than six hundred teaching hours are allocated to the use of pharmaceutical products. Only a few hours are allocated to instructions on diet and nutrition.
The simple true is that dehydration can cause diseases. Everyone knows that water is good for the body. They seem not to know how essential it is to one's well-being. They do not know what happens to the body if it does not receive its daily need of water."
"We misinterpret thirst signals as pain, and treat them with drugs which silence instead of cure the problem. Because dehydration eventually causes loss of some functions, the various signals given by water distribution system regulators during severe and lasting dehydration have been translated as indicators of unknown disease conditions of the body. I discovered that histamine is a vital chemical messenger in the brain. Histamine has a most important function not written about in medical textbooks. It is in charge of water intake and drought management in the body. It is less active when the body is fully hydrated, and becomes increasingly active when the body becomes dehydrated.
To hush the body's call for water by masking the symptoms with drugs is like turning out the dashboard light that signal us that our car is about to overheat."
"Every function inside the body is regulated by and depends on water. Water must be available to carry vital elements, oxygen, hormones, and chemical massages to all parts of the body. Without sufficient water to wet all parts equally, some more remote parts of the body will not receive the vital elements that water supplies. Without sufficient water to constantly wet all parts, your body's drought-management system kicks into action. The histamine-directed chemical messenger systems are activated to arrange a new, low quota of water for the drought-stricken area. When histamine and its subordinate "drought managers" come across pain-sensing nerves, they cause pain. This is why dehydration produces pain as its first alarm signal. If the dehydration persists and is not corrected naturally with water, it becomes symptom-producing and, in time, develops into a disease condition."
- Your Body's Many Cries for Water
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests