Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern Medicine.

[Guest guest]

For additional Information:http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Iatrogenic/index.htm#iatrogenic%20directoryIatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern MedicineA White Paper by Gary Null, PhD & Debora Rasio, MDCopyright, 2000Note: The information on this website is not a substitute fordiagnosis and treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.During the past century, a medical establishment has evolved that hasmade itself the exclusive provider of so-called scientific,evidence-based therapies. The paradigm used by this establishment iswhat we call the orthodox medical approach, and for the first 70 yearsof this century, little effort was made to challenge it. In the past30 years, however,

there has been a growing awareness of theimportance of an alternative approach to medical care, one that,either on its own, or as a complement to orthodox medicine, emphasizesnontoxic and noninvasive treatments, and prevention.Unfortunately, this new perspective has been fought vigorously. We'vebeen told that it's only the treatments of orthodox medicine that havepassed careful scientific scrutiny involving double-blindplacebo-controlled studies. Concomitantly, we've been told thatalternative or complementary health care has no science to back it up,only anecdotal evidence. These two ideas have led to the widelyaccepted "truths" that anyone offering an alternative or complementaryapproach is depriving patients of the proven benefits of safe andeffective care, and that people not only don'tget well with alternative care, but are actually endangered by it.By getting society to accept these precepts,

orthodox medicine hasmaneuvered itself into being the sole provider of information aboutdisease and its treatment, and has taken charge of curricula,accreditation, and insurance coverage in the health care arena. All 50states have enacted strict proscriptions at the state medical boardlevel against using so-called unscientific medicine, meaning anythingthat is not, according to the orthodox consensus, common-use medicine.Hundreds of physicians have been prosecuted and punished for notconfining their treatments to the accepted paradigm, some to the pointof having their licenses revoked, being imprisoned, or sufferingbankruptcy. And it has been of only secondary importance whether ornot their patients have claimed to benefit fromtheir treatments. The prosecutors-the state attorneys general workinghand-in-hand with state medical boards and "anti-quackery" groupssupported by pharmaceutical interests-have influenced such

federalenforcement agencies as the FDA, the USDA, and the Justice Department.They've also influenced such bodies as the National Institutes ofHealth as to which modalities receive funding and get incorporatedinto the standard medical model, thus perpetuating the status quo.It is the purpose of this review to question the status quo.Specifically, we'll be looking at a variety of areas-cancer, heartdisease, mental illness, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry,etc.-and asking some basic questions:1. Are the orthodox medical modalities safe and effective, i.e., havethey been proven so by qualified science?2. If they have not been proven safe and effective, then what are therisk/benefit ratios of using these modalities?3. What are the costs, in terms of morbidity and mortality, as well asdollars and cents, of using these modalities, both to the individualand to society as a whole?After a

careful consideration of the answers we can determine howmuch of the existing mainstream medical model should be supported, andhow much should be rejected and replaced with new approaches.It is vital to note that all the studies referred to here are frommainstream medicine's own respected journals, such as the Journal ofthe American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine,and The Lancet. Thus this white paper's criticism of the varioustherapies comes not from the "alternative" world but from the veryheart of orthodox medicine itself and from researchers using the goldstandard of rigorously set-up controlled studies. So there is nothingsubjective or political about the conclusions. Also, I should mentionthat this work was done over a period of eight years, during whichtime over 10,000 studies were analyzed. The studies contained hereinare just samples; many more could have been included but were

notbecause of space considerations.With more than 5000 physicians questioned, it is apparent to thisauthor that the vast majority of medical procedures are done with thebelief that they are safe and effective, rather than with proof thatthey are. Even after procedures and medications have been shown (a)not only not to work, but (b) to cause injury and death at astatistically significant level, they continue to gain in popularityand use. This is one of the reasons we have not had greater gains incombating the major diseases in recent decades. And it is also whythere is an urgent need for physicians, legislators, journalists,funding agencies, curriculum developers, insurance companies,and peer review systems to take note of the substantial gaps inprimary chronic care, and find better approaches.The facts here speak for themselves. We are a society that statesthat we live by the gold standard of

scientific research, but thisreport shows that statement to be at odds with reality. It shows thatwe are routinely causing iatrogenic conditions and unnecessarysuffering-not to mention wasting vast sums of money--through asystemic negligence of the facts. This situation must be challenged,and remedied. "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Messenger with Voice.