Guest guest Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 I recently posted information to another alternative medicine board about two excellent resources for orienting oneself to deal with what the Medical Establishment has to offer medical " consumers. " They were " Examining Your Doctor, " by Timothy McCall MD and " The Doctors Dilemma, " by Bernard Shaw. The only reply I received is this obtuse and irksome one., and in replying, the respondee changed the subject title to, " Beware of All Doctors? " Bernard Shaw no doubt received similar responses in 1907: " Elliot and all, I think it is fairly obvious that MD's are like all human beings. Some are ethical, some immoral. Some are open-minded, some arrogant. Some are intelligent, some stupid. Some are knowledgeable some ignorant. Although there are few of such MD's (or people), we all seek ethical,open-minded,intelligent ones. Most important we must use our own brains to become responsible for our own bodies. IMHO bashing MD's serves no useful purpose. #################################################################### I managed to keep my temper in check and to respond to him this way: " Dear XXXXX, You ended your reply with this: " IMHO bashing MD's serves no useful purpose. " Neither Shaw nor I am about gratuitously " bashing doctors. " Here is the very first sentence of Shaw's " The Doctors Dilemma " . Please pay close attention to the first 8 words: " IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF OUR DOCTORS that the medical service of the community, as at present provided for, is a murderous absurdity. " Shaw is talking about a SYSTEM within the community, of which doctors are a PART. He is not " out to bash doctors, " and neither am I. Shaw is saying that those " ethical,open-minded,intelligent " doctors you mention in your reply are having their ethics and their open- mindedness put at risk or compromised BY THE SYSTEM of which they are a PART. He is further saying that while doctors may be tempted and even encouraged by the system to lose their ethics and open-mindedness, their patients, who are also a part of that system, stand to lose their very lives and limbs. " Modern medicine " and " Managed Care " have not solved the " Doctors Dilemma. " So your changed subject title, " Beware of all MD's? " provided you substitute an exclamation point for the question mark, in this case happens to be apt and to the point. Do not, however, suppose " beware of MD's " means to " avoid " all MD's. It does not. Rather, it means this: In today's system of modern medicine, which is ever more and more Big Business---(hospitals no longer even try to the fact)--- the " patient, " or client, as I would rather call him, has become the factor in the patient/doctor/hospital/insurance company equation who matters least over all, and to whom, in general, the least amount of attention is paid, when all is said and done. THAT is an excellent reason we must, as you say, " use our own brains to become responsible for our own bodies. " With regard to " Examining Your Doctor, " by Timothy McCall: Reading the book happens to be one of the very best things someone not as thoroughly educated and experienced as yourself can do to help him " use his own brain to become responsible for his own body. " Again, " Examining Your Doctor " is not at all about " doctor bashing. " McCall wrote his book to make visible to the public things that for decades only doctors, hospital workers and administrators have been privately aware of. He condensed a decades-long education he got in doctor/patient and hospital/patient relationships and hierarchies into an invaluable two-hour read. Anyone who ignores it by tossing it off as " doctor bashing " does so at their own risk. Lastly, with regard to your use of the word " all, " as in your opening, " Elliot and all, " and especially to your use of it here: " we all seek ethical,open-minded,intelligent, open-minded ones, " I question your use of that little three-letter word, and I try to avoid the use of the word it in my own messages. Obviously, your message was addressed to " all " who are going to read it. I believe there is little reason to say " and all " except to try to appeal to the herd instinct in others. I would rather avoid doing that so as to encourage those reading one of my posts to do their own thinking. Secondly, we may or may not " all seek ethical, open-minded, intelligent " doctors. In fact, and most unfortunately, the majority of the people I know when they are referred to a doctor, simply perambulate over to that doctor's office, listen to what the doctor says and then do it, without wondering for a second whether he is " ethical, open-minded and intelligent. " I trust that SOME people do " seek ethical, open-minded, intelligent doctors, " but IF they do, how are they to know how to search for one? How are they to know when they've found one? And how can they be sure that a doctor who is ethical, open-minded and intelligent in one area will be ethical, open-minded and intelligent in others? Reading and absorbing materials such as " Examining Your Doctor " and " The Doctors Dilemma " can be of much help with regard to such questions. They are not about " bashing doctors. " They are meant, rather, to open the eyes of other people not as aware as you, of which there are still tremendous numbers. They are also meant to further educate people who already have some awareness of the fact that there is excellent reason to beware of all doctors, as well as all hospitals and other facets of the Medical Establishment. For that matter, there is reason to beware of alternative practitioners, as well. Their being " alternative " does not at all make them sacrosanct. Thanks and best wishes, Elliot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2004 Report Share Posted May 8, 2004 Dear Elliot, The doctors that have caused me the most problems and did the most damage to me were in my judgement decent honorable caring people. They were all of that but they were operating within a system and based on the information within that system which ultimately was counterproductive for health. The only reason that the ones that I considered to be " good " people did it to me, was that almost no one would prefer or accept to be treated by what we indivually would judge as incompetents or by ones we thought had mal intents. I subjectively saw them as good people and placed more trust in them because of that. Little did I know that intent and competence, although desirable, were not the deciding factors in the effectiveness in health treatments but more important was the basic foundation or approach to attain health or cure disease. Those nice physicians ( the ones with the most appealing manner or said the things that I wanted to hear. Hey that is salesmanship isn't it? )were but products of their environment and training and could only use their competence or wish to help within the confines of an artificially structured and economically driven pseudoscientific medical system which is based on how profitable a treatment or drug is rather than how effective it is in promoting health. With allopathic methods having an almost monopoly on health care in the USA and the west it was very hard to find out about any other options. Yes, those doctors were but products of the system and are not totally responsible for all the damage and destruction caused by it but I think that almost all of them are quite happy with the status quo and do not care to look too close at the reality of the situation either. If the average person can read a little bit, use a little critical think ( not much ) he will usually come to some of the same conclusions that most of us here have found. If that is true why can we find the truth and they cannot? They should be better equipted to discern the true way to heal and to health than we are. That is what they supposedly been trained to do. That is what their job is. That is what they devote their working hours to do. That is what a large portion of our gross national product is spent on. Don't you think that most people in professions or jobs that were done continously for 30 or 40 years should have some idea beyond what they were taught in their field by the authorities. Empiracle eveidence from seeing patients for a lifetime should be a fairly easy way for them to realize that something is fishy about this whole deal if nothing else. Another tip off is that a lot of doctors today make a living off prescribing their poisons but choose not to take them themselves when it comes to a serious health problem of their own. It is ok to make money foisting them off on others but when it comes to something important, like their own health, they all of a sudden " find out " about alternative methods. I think changing the medical system to one more humane and true would be much easier accomplished by those inside it if that is what a sizable portion wanted. I do not believe that many inside it want it changed. Almost all of them seem to like the allopathic model just the way it is. Do I hold them responsible for the death and destuction emanating from that system. Yes, I do, wholeheartedly. I consider them right up there with the drug companies. When they could do something differently and do not. When they in cooperation with the drug companies impede, misinform and suppress real information and substitute pseudo science for the aquisition of money and power. When they subvert our regulatory, laws and politicians so that they can maintain their monopoly. When they go on prescribing and conducting treatments that they eventually must know are either damaging or at least ineffective. When they deliberately stick their heads in the sand and choose to not see because of self interest, Yes, I hold them resposible for all of that and a heck of a lot more. This isn't a matter of ethics or philosophy. It isn't even just a matter of money ( except to them). It is a matter of life and death to those of us and our families who are on the receiving end. I think they should be held to the highest degree of responsibility possible. Anything less is to once again say that these people's self interest is more important than the millions of people killed or damged annually. Who is that important and why would we ever believe such claptrap. They already get away with more than any other segment of society by far. Yes, I think that we should take the responsibilty for our own health. But only because we really have no other choice or we put ourselves at the mercy of that system and it's adherents and it could be deadly. just my 2 cents, Frank , " breathedeepnow " <aug20@m...> wrote: > I recently posted information to another alternative medicine board > about two excellent resources for orienting oneself to deal with what > the Medical Establishment has to offer medical " consumers. " They > were " Examining Your Doctor, " by Timothy McCall MD and " The Doctors > Dilemma, " by Bernard Shaw. > > The only reply I received is this obtuse and irksome one., and in > replying, the respondee changed the subject title to, " Beware of All > Doctors? " Bernard Shaw no doubt received similar responses in 1907: > > " Elliot and all, > > I think it is fairly obvious that MD's are like all human beings. > Some are ethical, some immoral. Some are open-minded, some arrogant. > Some are intelligent, some stupid. Some are knowledgeable some > ignorant. Although there are few of such MD's (or people), we all > seek ethical,open-minded,intelligent ones. Most important we must use > our own brains to become responsible for our own bodies. > > IMHO bashing MD's serves no useful purpose. > > #################################################################### > > I managed to keep my temper in check and to respond to him this way: > > " Dear XXXXX, > > You ended your reply with this: > > " IMHO bashing MD's serves no useful purpose. " > > Neither Shaw nor I am about gratuitously " bashing doctors. " > > Here is the very first sentence of Shaw's " The Doctors Dilemma " . > Please pay close attention to the first 8 words: > > " IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF OUR DOCTORS that the medical service of > the community, as at present provided for, is a murderous > absurdity. " > > Shaw is talking about a SYSTEM within the community, of which doctors > are a PART. He is not " out to bash doctors, " and neither am I. Shaw > is saying that those " ethical,open-minded,intelligent " doctors you > mention in your reply are having their ethics and their open- > mindedness put at risk or compromised BY THE SYSTEM of which they are > a PART. > > He is further saying that while doctors may be tempted and even > encouraged by the system to lose their ethics and open-mindedness, > their patients, who are also a part of that system, stand to lose > their very lives and limbs. > > " Modern medicine " and " Managed Care " have not solved the " Doctors > Dilemma. " So your changed subject title, " Beware of all MD's? " > provided you substitute an exclamation point for the question mark, > in this case happens to be apt and to the point. Do not, however, > suppose " beware of MD's " means to " avoid " all MD's. It does not. > Rather, it means this: > > In today's system of modern medicine, which is ever more and more Big > Business---(hospitals no longer even try to the fact)--- > the " patient, " or client, as I would rather call him, has become the > factor in the patient/doctor/hospital/insurance company equation who > matters least over all, and to whom, in general, the least amount of > attention is paid, when all is said and done. > > THAT is an excellent reason we must, as you say, " use our own brains > to become responsible for our own bodies. " > > With regard to " Examining Your Doctor, " by Timothy McCall: Reading > the book happens to be one of the very best things someone not as > thoroughly educated and experienced as yourself can do to help > him " use his own brain to become responsible for his own body. " > > Again, " Examining Your Doctor " is not at all about " doctor bashing. " > McCall wrote his book to make visible to the public things that for > decades only doctors, hospital workers and administrators have been > privately aware of. He condensed a decades-long education he got in > doctor/patient and hospital/patient relationships and hierarchies > into an invaluable two-hour read. Anyone who ignores it by tossing it > off as " doctor bashing " does so at their own risk. > > Lastly, with regard to your use of the word " all, " as in your > opening, " Elliot and all, " and especially to your use of it here: " we > all seek ethical,open-minded,intelligent, open-minded ones, " I > question your use of that little three-letter word, and I try to > avoid the use of the word it in my own messages. > > Obviously, your message was addressed to " all " who are going to read > it. I believe there is little reason to say " and all " except to try > to appeal to the herd instinct in others. I would rather avoid doing > that so as to encourage those reading one of my posts to do their own > thinking. > > Secondly, we may or may not " all seek ethical, open-minded, > intelligent " doctors. In fact, and most unfortunately, the majority > of the people I know when they are referred to a doctor, simply > perambulate over to that doctor's office, listen to what the doctor > says and then do it, without wondering for a second whether he > is " ethical, open-minded and intelligent. " I trust that SOME people > do " seek ethical, open-minded, intelligent doctors, " but IF they do, > how are they to know how to search for one? How are they to know when > they've found one? And how can they be sure that a doctor who is > ethical, open-minded and intelligent in one area will be ethical, > open-minded and intelligent in others? > > Reading and absorbing materials such as " Examining Your Doctor " > and " The Doctors Dilemma " can be of much help with regard to such > questions. They are not about " bashing doctors. " They are meant, > rather, to open the eyes of other people not as aware as you, of > which there are still tremendous numbers. They are also meant to > further educate people who already have some awareness of the fact > that there is excellent reason to beware of all doctors, as well as > all hospitals and other facets of the Medical Establishment. For that > matter, there is reason to beware of alternative practitioners, as > well. Their being " alternative " does not at all make them sacrosanct. > > Thanks and best wishes, > > Elliot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2004 Report Share Posted May 8, 2004 Re: Frank's comments on doctors Wow! Well stated! It's time to actually take stock of how little our HMOs really accomplish for us. It's mostly busy work and waste of time adding up to thousands of dollars a year of " care. " Rarely do physicians even try to get to the root of a problem and heal it. ( The sales techniques are very flattering, though. For example, if you are targeted for a surgery, you might even get a caring call to your home to " see how you are doing. " This makes you feel cared for and important. But do we really need to have 30% of women walking around without their uteruses and millions of people missing their gallbladders, for example. (Patients mistakenly think there is no profit motive in doing a surgery. Often they are proud to be receiving such " good care " .) Another example, stomach problems are common, but does the doctor even inquire about your diet, consider parasites, allergies, consumption of irritants such as alcohol, coffee, dairy product, etc. Often the patient is made to feel he is imagining his condition or is given a pat diagnosis such as acid reflux. If receiving no care and wasting your time is the worst that happens to you at the doctor, you should probably consider yourself one of the lucky ones. It might be wise to listen to those patients who have lived a bit longer and had a chance to test out the medical system in more detail. Keep notes of your visits and ask yourself if your problem was solved, or not. Insist on getting copies of everything including your test results. Never mind the wonderful bedside manners. You are paying for a service, just like a car repair service or a computer repair service--no different except for the fact doctors have a monopoly and hold our medicines and community medical equipment hostage from those who cannot pay the high prices they demand. (Average family spends $12,000/year for that wonderful " free " care you get with your insurance--it's far from free yet what do we really get for the money? Think of it this way: You could hire a full time servant for what you pay for health insurance.) I might add, be careful what you say to your " wonderful " doctor--it could end up in your permanent electronic medical record sounding quite different from what you think you said. Some of Frank's comments: " Those nice physicians ( the ones with the most appealing manner or said the things that I wanted to hear. Hey that is salesmanship isn't it? )were but products of their environment and training and could only use their competence or wish to help within the confines of an artificially structured and economically driven pseudoscientific medical system which is based on how profitable a treatment or drug is rather than how effective it is in promoting health... " " If the average person can read a little bit, use a little critical think ( not much ) he will usually come to some of the same conclusions that most of us here have found. If that is true why can we find the truth and they cannot? They should be better equipted to discern the true way to heal and to health than we are. That is what they supposedly been trained to do. That is what their job is. That is what they devote their working hours to do. That is what a large portion of our gross national product is spent on. Don't you think that most people in professions or jobs that were done continously for 30 or 40 years should have some idea beyond what they were taught in their field by the authorities. Empiracle eveidence from seeing patients for a lifetime should be a fairly easy way for them to realize that something is fishy about this whole deal if nothing else. Another tip off is that a lot of doctors today make a living off prescribing their poisons but choose not to take them themselves when it comes to a serious health problem of their own. It is ok to make money foisting them off on others but when it comes to something important, like their own health, they all of a sudden " find out " about alternative methods. I think changing the medical system to one more humane and true would be much easier accomplished by those inside it if that is what a sizable portion wanted. I do not believe that many inside it want it changed. Almost all of them seem to like the allopathic model just the way it is. " Do I hold them responsible for the death and destuction emanating from that system? Yes, I do, wholeheartedly. I consider them right up there with the drug companies. When they could do something differently and do not. When they in cooperation with the drug companies impede, misinform and suppress real information and substitute pseudo science for the aquisition of money and power. When they subvert our regulatory, laws and politicians so that they can maintain their monopoly. When they go on prescribing and conducting treatments that they eventually must know are either damaging or at least ineffective. When they deliberately stick their heads in the sand and choose to not see because of self interest, Yes, I hold them resposible for all of that and a heck of a lot more. This isn't a matter of ethics or philosophy. It isn't even just a matter of money ( except to them). It is a matter of life and death to those of us and our families who are on the receiving end. I think they should be held to the highest degree of responsibility possible. Anything less is to once again say that these people's self interest is more important than the millions of people killed or damged annually. Who is that important and why would we ever believe such claptrap. They already get away with more than any other segment of society by far. Yes, I think that we should take the responsibilty for our own health. But only because we really have no other choice or we put ourselves at the mercy of that system and it's adherents and it could be deadly. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2004 Report Share Posted May 8, 2004 Hi, Frank. " The doctors that have caused me the most problems and did the most damage to me were in my judgment decent honorable caring people. " I subjectively saw them as good people and placed more trust in them because of that. Little did I know that ntent and competence, although desirable, were not the deciding factors in the effectiveness in health treatments but more important was the basic foundation or approach to attain health or cure disease. I agree! The wife of a friend was diagnosed with breast cancer several years ago. The first oncologist they went to they did not like. " Bad attitude, " or some such. I was so happy for them---I was hoping they would try something alternative. But the next oncologist they went to turned out to be just a " wonderful guy. " The wife just finished chemo " therapy " for her first " relapse " a couple months ago... I had the same experience when I was diagnosed with lymphoma 15 years ago. First oncologist was a creep. Second guy was warm and friendly. I was given 20 CT Scans under his direction before I realized how dangerous that was... So far, no leukemia from all that radiation... " With allopathic methods having an almost monopoly on health care in the USA and the west it was very hard to find out about any other options. " Yep. For sure---and there is plenty of false information from mainstream saying various alternatives are ineffective and dangerous. There is false information about " Protocel, " the stuff I took that got rid of the lymphoma, saying it has sulphuric or some other very strong acid in it! " Yes, those doctors were but products of the system and are not > totally responsible for all the damage and destruction caused by it > but I think that almost all of them are quite happy with the status > quo and do not care to look too close at the reality of the situation > either. > > If the average person can read a little bit, use a little critical > think ( not much ) he will usually come to some of the same > conclusions that most of us here have found. If that is true why can > we find the truth and they cannot? They should be better equipped to > discern the true way to heal and to health than we are. That is what > they supposedly been trained to do. That is what their job is. That > is what they devote their working hours to do. That is what a large > portion of our gross national product is spent on. Don't you think > that most people in professions or jobs that were done continuously > for 30 or 40 years should have some idea beyond what they were taught > in their field by the authorities. Empirical evidence from seeing > patients for a lifetime should be a fairly easy way for them to > realize that something is fishy about this whole deal if nothing > else. " Frank, I differ a bit from you on the above. For one thing, I think there is something wrong with the brains/psyches of many " specialists. " What kind of person, for instance, in the case of an oncologist, would want to care for a group of people, 90% of whom die? Or take gynecologists---if I were a woman, I would be veeeeeeeeery, veeeeeeeeeeeeeery careful who I chose to be my gynecologist. I think that field of specialization is loaded with strange people, both male and female---but I would probably choose a female gynecologist were I a female. With regard to urologists, I saw one a couple years ago who, under the pretext of getting me ready for a test of some kind squeezed and pulled my penis very painfully. It was done and over very quickly, and that urologist could easily deny any malicious, perverted intent, but I feel sure there was. However, other than the possibility of many of them being twisted, I believe as a group, that urologists fit perfectly into what you are saying. Several years ago, I attended a conference that was supposed to be a discussion about impotence led by 3 or 4 oncologists. But it was nothing but a sales convention " penile implants " and other mechanical devices for " curing " (right!)impotence. " Another tip off is that a lot of doctors today make a living > off prescribing their poisons but choose not to take them themselves > when it comes to a serious health problem of their own. It is ok to > make money foisting them off on others but when it comes to something > important, like their own health, they all of a sudden " find out " > about alternative methods. " Yes, I am aware of that phenomenon. At least Lorraine Day began to try to help others when she got cancer and saw the light. > " I think changing the medical system to one more humane and true would > be much easier accomplished by those inside it if that is what a > sizable portion wanted. I do not believe that many inside it want it > changed. Almost all of them seem to like the allopathic model just > the way it is. > > Do I hold them responsible for the death and destruction emanating > from that system. Yes, I do, wholeheartedly. I consider them right up > there with the drug companies. When they could do something > differently and do not. When they in cooperation with the drug > companies impede, misinform and suppress real information and > substitute pseudo science for the acquisition of money and power. When > they subvert our regulatory, laws and politicians so that they can > maintain their monopoly. When they go on prescribing and conducting > treatments that they eventually must know are either damaging or at > least ineffective. When they deliberately stick their heads in the > sand and choose to not see because of self interest, Yes, I hold them > responsible for all of that and a heck of a lot more. " While I believe many doctors are simply well-meaning blockheads, I agree there are also many who fit your description. My wife just told me the other day that the father of a friend of hers who was diagnosed with Crohn's Disease, now, courtesy of his surgeon, has not enough intestine left to digest any solid or liquid food. He is getting a catheter installed in his body so he can be fed a pre- digested nutrient solution. It seems many doctors think all of us just want to remain alive at any cost, no matter how much our quality of life is reduced. I heard a call-in radio program that was supposed to be about " colon cancer prevention, " with 3 gastro-enterologists answering phone in questions. A man called in to say that his father died of colon cancer, his older brother died of it, and what could he do to try to prevent his getting it. All three of those doctors said he could do NOTHING except get regular colonoscopies!!! THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN THEY WERE LYING!!! How about drink at least 8 glasses of water a day? How about " if you are obese, lose weight? " How about, " eat quick pass-throug foods and high fiber foods " ? How about " get regular exercise " ? And that's just for starters. MAN WAS I ANGRY!!! And of course, that kind of bald-faced lying goes on all the time... " This isn't a matter of ethics or philosophy. It isn't even just a > matter of money ( except to them). It is a matter of life and death to those of us and our families who are on the receiving end. I think they should be held to the highest degree of responsibility possible. Anything less is to once > again say that these people's self interest is more important than > the millions of people killed or damaged annually. Who is that > important and why would we ever believe such claptrap. They already get away with more than any other segment of society by far. " I hope that as more and more baby boomers come to see how incompetent doctors are to deal with the degenerative and other illnesses their elderly parents have, that they will more and more demand real, curative, and especially preventative medicine from those who claim to practice it. Best wishes, Elliot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2004 Report Share Posted May 8, 2004 Excellent addition to the discussion! As for " Profit Motive " Several years ago, my friend had just gotten his nursing degree, and decided to be an Operating Room nurse. He quickly changed his specialty because he could not take being balled out by the surgeons: " ALRIGHT!!! I WANT THIS OR FILLED ALL DAY, DO YOU HEAR???!! FILLED!!! I DON'T WANT ANYONE SLACKING OFF!! WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT CHOP-CHOP ALL DAY LONG!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?! " and on and on... In general, surgeons want to talk with their clients as little as possible---just enough to find out what needs to be repaired or removed, and once the operation is over, they would rather never hear from a client again--they just want to get on to the next operation=the next $$$. As far as a waste of time, let us not forget psychiatric hospitals--- They are some of THE MOST WORTHLESS " medical " institutions there are. NO healing goes on in them. THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT THINGS that happen daily in such places is that nurses's and psych techs' notebooks get voluminous " notes " writtnen into them, and the patients' vital signs-- -their temperature and blood pressure---get taken morning, afternoon and evening. They are just places to put people judged " crazy " until their insurance runs out, at which point they are discharged till the next hospitalization, or until they commit suicide or murder someone. If someone who is mentally ill does happen to get well, it will have nothing to do with psychiatric institutions or psychiatrists. Best wishes, Elliot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2004 Report Share Posted May 9, 2004 I just thought of one more thing to mention with regard to mainstream doctoring: the phenomenon of the " spontaneous remission " from cancer, or " spontaneous healing " from some other degenerative dis-ease. Once the Protocel I had taken had caused the lymphoma I'd been diagnosed with to disappear down to mere scar tissue, the oncologist I was seeing was not interested in me anymore. He made a pretense of asking me what I had done, but actually what he did was turn his back on me and go back to paying attention to his sick and dying clients. I have heard it said many times that an oncologist who prescribed some non-FDA-approved alternative treatment would lose his license to practice medicine, and could even be fined and jailed. I believe that is correct, but am not sure. I hope, though, that were I an oncologist and I observed a client of mine heal completely from a generally fatal cancer, I would be very interested in what he'd done, and would be willing to change the whole direction of my career if I thought there was something real that could allow people with cancer to recover. Something to think about is " Why would someone want to become an oncolgist, a medical profession in which over 90% of one's clients die? " Something is not right there. I would suggest that ANYONE wanting to become a medical specialist be given comprehensive psychological testing to determine their motive(s). The trouble is that I don't trust the psychiatrists/psychologists who'd be making up and scoring such tests! LOL! But in any event, when just about any oncologist, or just about any mainstream doctor, for that matter, comes across someone who heals from a generally-recognized " fatal " or " chronic " illness, they chalk it up to an " unexplained spontaneous remission or healing, " turn their backs and go back to using their same old " approved, " " recommended " , " traditional " , ineffective and even dangerous and deadly methods. I have heard that " oncologists are too busy, are dug in too deeply, to be able to take the time to learn about alternative medicine, and to change direction in their careers. I am not sure whether Dr. Lorraine Day, who did make a career change, has made significant monetary and life-style sacrifices, but I feel quite sure she is well able to live with herself. Oh, I just remembered something--- When I was getting complete blood counts from my oncologist, I would occasionally forget to fast. I was eating a lot of olive oil at the time, and several times my blood test would come back saying something like: " hyper-lipid " or " hyper- lipoid. " The oncologist never commented on it, and I thought nothing of it until I attended a health seminar years later at which a video was shown of another doctor who made significant career changes. He did so when a blood test he did on a client came back " hyper- lipid. " There was a scum of fat floating on top of the blood in the test tube. The doctor inquired of his client what he'd eaten prior to the test, and it turned out he'd eaten a high-fat meal at a fast food joint. Based on those two things, that doctor revamped his career and his life toward alternative, preventative health. That oncologist of mine was a hematologist, for pity's sakes. Why would he not have questioned me about why there was so much fat in my blood? I guess all he was concerned about was the cancer. Never mind if I died of heart, liver or gall bladder dis-ease. That brings me to a last point: " specialization. " " Specialization " is lucrative for doctors, but dangerous and frustrating for doctors' clients. I believe becoming a " general practitioner " is not so badly " out of vogue " as it was some years ago, but still most people who get MD degrees still end up specializing. And that leads to the kind of thing I just described happened with that oncologist---being blind to the possibility of one's client dying from something other than what one is treating. I was reading the other day, actually, about what happened when doctors stopped making house calls. Going to a client's house revealed to him all manner of things a doctor might otherwise never know that would affect his client's health. It made him a better doctor. A few doctors have started making house calls again, but I doubt it will ever become common again. Best wishes, Elliot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2004 Report Share Posted May 9, 2004 Hi Elliot, I am afraid that you atribute the medical profession with much higher ideals than I do or that the results show. When they fight against any alternative to what they have to sell, when they consutantly find that their research is at odds with real science and do not care. When they almost always have a consistency to do something that later is to be shown not helpful and usually harmful. When the fight can go on for 40, 50, 60, 70, years or more I and can involve millons of doctors in that time, I do not think it is just an accident or they are somehow just misguided slow thinkers. It would be bad enough and would be completely unacceptable if it were being done by any other profession. How about if every auto mechanic in the country did something to just hide the symptoms and actually made your car worse over time. Would we keep coming back and attribute it to well they are just misguided. Would we blandish about the idea that " well we really have to take responsibility for our own repairs, after all it is our car? " BULLSHIT WITH A CAPITAL " B " ' We would be up in arms and demand that something be done. I can't think of any other area that we would accept that. (well maybe law, ecology, politics, chimicals, energy, etc.) I also do not think that most decisions or paths taken by allopathic medicine is done much on the basis of ethics or some philosophy, but on good old dollars and cents. I think most specialties are chosen because they evaluated their skills against how much money could be earned (which is their right). Also the reason that doctoring went from house calls to a semi assembly line approach (typical doctor office setup )and getting closer to the idea assembly line model every day ( HMO's, etc.. If it isn't money let's ask for the ethics, philosophy or the altuistic motives involved in anyone becoming a proctologist, an urologist, or a few others. Doctors become oncologists because it is a very lucrative speciality. Or plasic surgury, or heart surgeon, or whatever. It very much so, ISN'T about making people well as that is shown by their consistant track records. No one could consistantly do the wrong thing 95 out of 100 times by accident and at the same time promote consistantly what is most lucrative 95 out of 100 giving the same solution to the both examples. As an accident or misguided approach it is statistically inconcievable. It is deliberate and very well organized. And even if it were it would still make no difference. The field of medicine isn't about understanding their intent. It is about my child, my wife, my mother, my friends, myself and the health involved. It is watching people die needlessly. It is watching people suffer unneccessisarily. It is seeing people's lives be ruined by the thousands on a daily basis. That isn't a theory or a interesting parlor discussion. When they kill, maim, or shorten the life of my child, father, brother, etc. it ceases to be an amusing conversational tidbit. These people are killing us wholesale and getting paid very well to do it, and we are allowing such crap. That is the worst of all. We are allowing it and helping them make excuses for it. If they had a 50% track record ( a random guess should get close to that rate ) you might even say that they were trying.. from atop my soapbox, Frank , " breathedeepnow " <aug20@m...> wrote: > I just thought of one more thing to mention with regard to mainstream > doctoring: the phenomenon of the " spontaneous remission " from cancer, > or " spontaneous healing " from some other degenerative dis-ease. > > Once the Protocel I had taken had caused the lymphoma I'd been > diagnosed with to disappear down to mere scar tissue, the oncologist > I was seeing was not interested in me anymore. He made a pretense of > asking me what I had done, but actually what he did was turn his back > on me and go back to paying attention to his sick and dying clients. > > I have heard it said many times that an oncologist who prescribed > some non-FDA-approved alternative treatment would lose his license to > practice medicine, and could even be fined and jailed. I believe that > is correct, but am not sure. I hope, though, that were I an > oncologist and I observed a client of mine heal completely from a > generally fatal cancer, I would be very interested in what he'd done, > and would be willing to change the whole direction of my career if I > thought there was something real that could allow people with cancer > to recover. > > Something to think about is " Why would someone want to become an > oncolgist, a medical profession in which over 90% of one's clients > die? " Something is not right there. I would suggest that ANYONE > wanting to become a medical specialist be given comprehensive > psychological testing to determine their motive(s). The trouble is > that I don't trust the psychiatrists/psychologists who'd be making up > and scoring such tests! LOL! > > But in any event, when just about any oncologist, or just about any > mainstream doctor, for that matter, comes across someone who heals > from a generally-recognized " fatal " or " chronic " illness, they chalk > it up to an " unexplained spontaneous remission or healing, " turn > their backs and go back to using their same > old " approved, " " recommended " , " traditional " , ineffective and even > dangerous and deadly methods. > > I have heard that " oncologists are too busy, are dug in too deeply, > to be able to take the time to learn about alternative medicine, and > to change direction in their careers. > > I am not sure whether Dr. Lorraine Day, who did make a career change, > has made significant monetary and life-style sacrifices, but I feel > quite sure she is well able to live with herself. > > Oh, I just remembered something--- When I was getting complete blood > counts from my oncologist, I would occasionally forget to fast. I was > eating a lot of olive oil at the time, and several times my blood > test would come back saying something like: " hyper-lipid " or " hyper- > lipoid. " The oncologist never commented on it, and I thought nothing > of it until I attended a health seminar years later at which a video > was shown of another doctor who made significant career changes. > > He did so when a blood test he did on a client came back " hyper- > lipid. " There was a scum of fat floating on top of the blood in the > test tube. The doctor inquired of his client what he'd eaten prior to > the test, and it turned out he'd eaten a high-fat meal at a fast food > joint. Based on those two things, that doctor revamped his career and > his life toward alternative, preventative health. > > That oncologist of mine was a hematologist, for pity's sakes. Why > would he not have questioned me about why there was so much fat in my > blood? I guess all he was concerned about was the cancer. Never mind > if I died of heart, liver or gall bladder dis-ease. > > That brings me to a last point: " specialization. " " Specialization " is > lucrative for doctors, but dangerous and frustrating for doctors' > clients. I believe becoming a " general practitioner " is not so > badly " out of vogue " as it was some years ago, but still most people > who get MD degrees still end up specializing. And that leads to the > kind of thing I just described happened with that oncologist--- being > blind to the possibility of one's client dying from something other > than what one is treating. > > I was reading the other day, actually, about what happened when > doctors stopped making house calls. Going to a client's house > revealed to him all manner of things a doctor might otherwise never > know that would affect his client's health. It made him a better > doctor. A few doctors have started making house calls again, but I > doubt it will ever become common again. > > Best wishes, > > Elliot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.