Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern Medicine

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:28:15 -0400

[sSRI-Research] Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern

Medicine

 

 

Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern Medicine

 

A White Paper by Gary Null, PhD & Debora Rasio, MD

Copyright, 2000

 

Note: The information on this website is not a substitute for

diagnosis and

treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.

 

During the past century, a medical establishment has evolved that has made

itself the exclusive provider of so-called scientific, evidence-based

therapies. The paradigm used by this establishment is what we call the

orthodox medical approach, and for the first 70 years of this century,

little effort was made to challenge it. In the past 30 years, however,

there

has been a growing awareness of the importance of an alternative

approach to

medical care, one that, either on its own, or as a complement to orthodox

medicine, emphasizes nontoxic and noninvasive treatments, and prevention.

 

Unfortunately, this new perspective has been fought vigorously. We've been

told that it's only the treatments of orthodox medicine that have passed

careful scientific scrutiny involving double-blind placebo-controlled

studies. Concomitantly, we've been told that alternative or complementary

health care has no science to back it up, only anecdotal evidence.

These two

ideas have led to the widely accepted " truths " that anyone offering an

alternative or complementary approach is depriving patients of the proven

benefits of safe and effective care, and that people not only don't

get well

with alternative care, but are actually endangered by it.

 

By getting society to accept these precepts, orthodox medicine has

maneuvered itself into being the sole provider of information about

disease

and its treatment, and has taken charge of curricula, accreditation, and

insurance coverage in the health care arena. All 50 states have enacted

strict proscriptions at the state medical board level against using

so-called unscientific medicine, meaning anything that is not,

according to

the orthodox consensus, common-use medicine. Hundreds of physicians have

been prosecuted and punished for not confining their treatments to the

accepted paradigm, some to the point of having their licenses revoked,

being

imprisoned, or suffering bankruptcy. And it has been of only secondary

importance whether or not their patients have claimed to benefit from

their

treatments. The prosecutors-the state attorneys general working

hand-in-hand

with state medical boards and " anti-quackery " groups supported by

pharmaceutical interests-have influenced such federal enforcement agencies

as the FDA, the USDA, and the Justice Department. They've also influenced

such bodies as the National Institutes of Health as to which modalities

receive funding and get incorporated into 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, heart disease, mental

illness, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry, etc.-and asking some basic

questions:

 

1. Are the orthodox medical modalities safe and effective, i.e., have they

been proven so by qualified science?

 

2. If they have not been proven safe and effective, then what are the

risk/benefit ratios of using these modalities?

 

3. What are the costs, in terms of morbidity and mortality, as well as

dollars and cents, of using these modalities, both to the individual

and to

society as a whole?

 

After a careful consideration of the answers we can determine how much of

the existing mainstream medical model should be supported, and how much

should be rejected and replaced with new approaches.

 

It is vital to note that all the studies referred to here are from

mainstream medicine's own respected journals, such as the Journal of the

American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, and The

Lancet. Thus this white paper's criticism of the various therapies

comes not

from the " alternative " world but from the very heart of orthodox medicine

itself and from researchers using the gold standard of rigorously set-up

controlled studies. So there is nothing subjective or political about the

conclusions. Also, I should mention that this work was done over a

period of

eight years, during which time over 10,000 studies were analyzed. The

studies contained herein are just samples; many more could have been

included but were not because of space considerations.

 

With more than 5000 physicians questioned, it is apparent to this author

that the vast majority of medical procedures are done with the belief that

they are safe and effective, rather than with proof that they are. Even

after procedures and medications have been shown (a) not only not to work,

but (b) to cause injury and death at a statistically significant

level, they

continue to gain in popularity and use. This is one of the reasons we have

not had greater gains in combating the major diseases in recent

decades. And

it is also why there 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 in primary

chronic care, and find better approaches.

 

The facts here speak for themselves. We are a society that states that we

live by the gold standard of scientific research, but this report

shows that

statement to be at odds with reality. It shows that we are routinely

causing

iatrogenic conditions and unnecessary suffering-not to mention wasting

vast

sums of money--through a systemic negligence of the facts. This

situation must be challenged, and remedied.

 

For additional Information:

 

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Iatrogenic/index.htm#iatrogenic%20director

y

[Guest guest]

I get " the page cannot be found "

So...I " eventually " just tried GaryNull.com and found lots of good stuff. Wanted

to follow up on this particular item, but it will have to wait.

Very weary tonite. Registering voters is depressing, but not hard work. The

really hard part is being somewhere, at a certain time...EVERY day.

 

califpacific <califpacific wrote:

SSRI-Research@

Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:28:15 -0400

[sSRI-Research] Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern

Medicine

 

 

Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern Medicine

 

A White Paper by Gary Null, PhD & Debora Rasio, MD

Copyright, 2000

 

Note: The information on this website is not a substitute for

diagnosis and

treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.

 

During the past century, a medical establishment has evolved that has made

itself the exclusive provider of so-called scientific, evidence-based

therapies. The paradigm used by this establishment is what we call the

orthodox medical approach, and for the first 70 years of this century,

little effort was made to challenge it. In the past 30 years, however,

there

has been a growing awareness of the importance of an alternative

approach to

medical care, one that, either on its own, or as a complement to orthodox

medicine, emphasizes nontoxic and noninvasive treatments, and prevention.

 

Unfortunately, this new perspective has been fought vigorously. We've been

told that it's only the treatments of orthodox medicine that have passed

careful scientific scrutiny involving double-blind placebo-controlled

studies. Concomitantly, we've been told that alternative or complementary

health care has no science to back it up, only anecdotal evidence.

These two

ideas have led to the widely accepted " truths " that anyone offering an

alternative or complementary approach is depriving patients of the proven

benefits of safe and effective care, and that people not only don't

get well

with alternative care, but are actually endangered by it.

 

By getting society to accept these precepts, orthodox medicine has

maneuvered itself into being the sole provider of information about

disease

and its treatment, and has taken charge of curricula, accreditation, and

insurance coverage in the health care arena. All 50 states have enacted

strict proscriptions at the state medical board level against using

so-called unscientific medicine, meaning anything that is not,

according to

the orthodox consensus, common-use medicine. Hundreds of physicians have

been prosecuted and punished for not confining their treatments to the

accepted paradigm, some to the point of having their licenses revoked,

being

imprisoned, or suffering bankruptcy. And it has been of only secondary

importance whether or not their patients have claimed to benefit from

their

treatments. The prosecutors-the state attorneys general working

hand-in-hand

with state medical boards and " anti-quackery " groups supported by

pharmaceutical interests-have influenced such federal enforcement agencies

as the FDA, the USDA, and the Justice Department. They've also influenced

such bodies as the National Institutes of Health as to which modalities

receive funding and get incorporated into 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, heart disease, mental

illness, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry, etc.-and asking some basic

questions:

 

1. Are the orthodox medical modalities safe and effective, i.e., have they

been proven so by qualified science?

 

2. If they have not been proven safe and effective, then what are the

risk/benefit ratios of using these modalities?

 

3. What are the costs, in terms of morbidity and mortality, as well as

dollars and cents, of using these modalities, both to the individual

and to

society as a whole?

 

After a careful consideration of the answers we can determine how much of

the existing mainstream medical model should be supported, and how much

should be rejected and replaced with new approaches.

 

It is vital to note that all the studies referred to here are from

mainstream medicine's own respected journals, such as the Journal of the

American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, and The

Lancet. Thus this white paper's criticism of the various therapies

comes not

from the " alternative " world but from the very heart of orthodox medicine

itself and from researchers using the gold standard of rigorously set-up

controlled studies. So there is nothing subjective or political about the

conclusions. Also, I should mention that this work was done over a

period of

eight years, during which time over 10,000 studies were analyzed. The

studies contained herein are just samples; many more could have been

included but were not because of space considerations.

 

With more than 5000 physicians questioned, it is apparent to this author

that the vast majority of medical procedures are done with the belief that

they are safe and effective, rather than with proof that they are. Even

after procedures and medications have been shown (a) not only not to work,

but (b) to cause injury and death at a statistically significant

level, they

continue to gain in popularity and use. This is one of the reasons we have

not had greater gains in combating the major diseases in recent

decades. And

it is also why there 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 in primary

chronic care, and find better approaches.

 

The facts here speak for themselves. We are a society that states that we

live by the gold standard of scientific research, but this report

shows that

statement to be at odds with reality. It shows that we are routinely

causing

iatrogenic conditions and unnecessary suffering-not to mention wasting

vast

sums of money--through a systemic negligence of the facts. This

situation must be challenged, and remedied.

 

For additional Information:

 

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Iatrogenic/index.htm#iatrogenic%20director

y

[Guest guest]

This link should work:

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Iatrogenic/00Iatrogenic_index.htm

 

Scroll down for an index of topics related to iatrogenic illness once you reach

the website.

 

califpacific <califpacific wrote:

SSRI-Research@

Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:28:15 -0400

[sSRI-Research] Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern

Medicine

 

 

Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern Medicine

 

A White Paper by Gary Null, PhD & Debora Rasio, MD

Copyright, 2000

 

Note: The information on this website is not a substitute for

diagnosis and

treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.

 

During the past century, a medical establishment has evolved that has made

itself the exclusive provider of so-called scientific, evidence-based

therapies. The paradigm used by this establishment is what we call the

orthodox medical approach, and for the first 70 years of this century,

little effort was made to challenge it. In the past 30 years, however,

there

has been a growing awareness of the importance of an alternative

approach to

medical care, one that, either on its own, or as a complement to orthodox

medicine, emphasizes nontoxic and noninvasive treatments, and prevention.

 

Unfortunately, this new perspective has been fought vigorously. We've been

told that it's only the treatments of orthodox medicine that have passed

careful scientific scrutiny involving double-blind placebo-controlled

studies. Concomitantly, we've been told that alternative or complementary

health care has no science to back it up, only anecdotal evidence.

These two

ideas have led to the widely accepted " truths " that anyone offering an

alternative or complementary approach is depriving patients of the proven

benefits of safe and effective care, and that people not only don't

get well

with alternative care, but are actually endangered by it.

 

By getting society to accept these precepts, orthodox medicine has

maneuvered itself into being the sole provider of information about

disease

and its treatment, and has taken charge of curricula, accreditation, and

insurance coverage in the health care arena. All 50 states have enacted

strict proscriptions at the state medical board level against using

so-called unscientific medicine, meaning anything that is not,

according to

the orthodox consensus, common-use medicine. Hundreds of physicians have

been prosecuted and punished for not confining their treatments to the

accepted paradigm, some to the point of having their licenses revoked,

being

imprisoned, or suffering bankruptcy. And it has been of only secondary

importance whether or not their patients have claimed to benefit from

their

treatments. The prosecutors-the state attorneys general working

hand-in-hand

with state medical boards and " anti-quackery " groups supported by

pharmaceutical interests-have influenced such federal enforcement agencies

as the FDA, the USDA, and the Justice Department. They've also influenced

such bodies as the National Institutes of Health as to which modalities

receive funding and get incorporated into 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, heart disease, mental

illness, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry, etc.-and asking some basic

questions:

 

1. Are the orthodox medical modalities safe and effective, i.e., have they

been proven so by qualified science?

 

2. If they have not been proven safe and effective, then what are the

risk/benefit ratios of using these modalities?

 

3. What are the costs, in terms of morbidity and mortality, as well as

dollars and cents, of using these modalities, both to the individual

and to

society as a whole?

 

After a careful consideration of the answers we can determine how much of

the existing mainstream medical model should be supported, and how much

should be rejected and replaced with new approaches.

 

It is vital to note that all the studies referred to here are from

mainstream medicine's own respected journals, such as the Journal of the

American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, and The

Lancet. Thus this white paper's criticism of the various therapies

comes not

from the " alternative " world but from the very heart of orthodox medicine

itself and from researchers using the gold standard of rigorously set-up

controlled studies. So there is nothing subjective or political about the

conclusions. Also, I should mention that this work was done over a

period of

eight years, during which time over 10,000 studies were analyzed. The

studies contained herein are just samples; many more could have been

included but were not because of space considerations.

 

With more than 5000 physicians questioned, it is apparent to this author

that the vast majority of medical procedures are done with the belief that

they are safe and effective, rather than with proof that they are. Even

after procedures and medications have been shown (a) not only not to work,

but (b) to cause injury and death at a statistically significant

level, they

continue to gain in popularity and use. This is one of the reasons we have

not had greater gains in combating the major diseases in recent

decades. And

it is also why there 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 in primary

chronic care, and find better approaches.

 

The facts here speak for themselves. We are a society that states that we

live by the gold standard of scientific research, but this report

shows that

statement to be at odds with reality. It shows that we are routinely

causing

iatrogenic conditions and unnecessary suffering-not to mention wasting

vast

sums of money--through a systemic negligence of the facts. This

situation must be challenged, and remedied.

 

For additional Information:

 

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Iatrogenic/index.htm#iatrogenic%20director

y

[Guest guest]

Good article...

How is the word " iatrogenic " pronounced.. Ditto for " nosocomial "

 

Thanks, Ken

-

Leslie H. Basden

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 5:21 PM

Re: Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of

Modern Medicine

 

 

This link should work:

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Iatrogenic/00Iatrogenic_index.htm

 

Scroll down for an index of topics related to iatrogenic illness once you

reach the website.

 

califpacific <califpacific wrote:

SSRI-Research@

Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:28:15 -0400

[sSRI-Research] Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern

Medicine

 

 

Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern Medicine

 

A White Paper by Gary Null, PhD & Debora Rasio, MD

Copyright, 2000

 

Note: The information on this website is not a substitute for

diagnosis and

treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.

 

During the past century, a medical establishment has evolved that has made

itself the exclusive provider of so-called scientific, evidence-based

therapies. The paradigm used by this establishment is what we call the

orthodox medical approach, and for the first 70 years of this century,

little effort was made to challenge it. In the past 30 years, however,

there

has been a growing awareness of the importance of an alternative

approach to

medical care, one that, either on its own, or as a complement to orthodox

medicine, emphasizes nontoxic and noninvasive treatments, and prevention.

 

Unfortunately, this new perspective has been fought vigorously. We've been

told that it's only the treatments of orthodox medicine that have passed

careful scientific scrutiny involving double-blind placebo-controlled

studies. Concomitantly, we've been told that alternative or complementary

health care has no science to back it up, only anecdotal evidence.

These two

ideas have led to the widely accepted " truths " that anyone offering an

alternative or complementary approach is depriving patients of the proven

benefits of safe and effective care, and that people not only don't

get well

with alternative care, but are actually endangered by it.

 

By getting society to accept these precepts, orthodox medicine has

maneuvered itself into being the sole provider of information about

disease

and its treatment, and has taken charge of curricula, accreditation, and

insurance coverage in the health care arena. All 50 states have enacted

strict proscriptions at the state medical board level against using

so-called unscientific medicine, meaning anything that is not,

according to

the orthodox consensus, common-use medicine. Hundreds of physicians have

been prosecuted and punished for not confining their treatments to the

accepted paradigm, some to the point of having their licenses revoked,

being

imprisoned, or suffering bankruptcy. And it has been of only secondary

importance whether or not their patients have claimed to benefit from

their

treatments. The prosecutors-the state attorneys general working

hand-in-hand

with state medical boards and " anti-quackery " groups supported by

pharmaceutical interests-have influenced such federal enforcement agencies

as the FDA, the USDA, and the Justice Department. They've also influenced

such bodies as the National Institutes of Health as to which modalities

receive funding and get incorporated into the standard medical model, thus

perpetuating the status quo.

[Guest guest]

You can listen to the pronunciation of " iatrogenic " at this link:

http://education./reference/dictionary/entries/32/i0003200.html

 

It seems to me that nosocomial is pronounced no-so-CO-mial, where " no " is

pronounced just like the word " no " as a two-year-old would say it, and the " so "

and " co " portions rhyme with the first syllable. The " co " portion is where the

emphasis would fall. The dictionary at did not list this word.

 

ken <schw9883 wrote:

Good article...

How is the word " iatrogenic " pronounced.. Ditto for " nosocomial "

 

Thanks, Ken

-

Leslie H. Basden

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 5:21 PM

Re: Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of

Modern Medicine

 

 

This link should work:

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Iatrogenic/00Iatrogenic_index.htm

 

Scroll down for an index of topics related to iatrogenic illness once you

reach the website.

 

califpacific <califpacific wrote:

SSRI-Research@

Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:28:15 -0400

[sSRI-Research] Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern

Medicine

 

 

Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern Medicine

 

A White Paper by Gary Null, PhD & Debora Rasio, MD

Copyright, 2000

 

Note: The information on this website is not a substitute for

diagnosis and

treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.

 

During the past century, a medical establishment has evolved that has made

itself the exclusive provider of so-called scientific, evidence-based

therapies. The paradigm used by this establishment is what we call the

orthodox medical approach, and for the first 70 years of this century,

little effort was made to challenge it. In the past 30 years, however,

there

has been a growing awareness of the importance of an alternative

approach to

medical care, one that, either on its own, or as a complement to orthodox

medicine, emphasizes nontoxic and noninvasive treatments, and prevention.

 

Unfortunately, this new perspective has been fought vigorously. We've been

told that it's only the treatments of orthodox medicine that have passed

careful scientific scrutiny involving double-blind placebo-controlled

studies. Concomitantly, we've been told that alternative or complementary

health care has no science to back it up, only anecdotal evidence.

These two

ideas have led to the widely accepted " truths " that anyone offering an

alternative or complementary approach is depriving patients of the proven

benefits of safe and effective care, and that people not only don't

get well

with alternative care, but are actually endangered by it.

 

By getting society to accept these precepts, orthodox medicine has

maneuvered itself into being the sole provider of information about

disease

and its treatment, and has taken charge of curricula, accreditation, and

insurance coverage in the health care arena. All 50 states have enacted

strict proscriptions at the state medical board level against using

so-called unscientific medicine, meaning anything that is not,

according to

the orthodox consensus, common-use medicine. Hundreds of physicians have

been prosecuted and punished for not confining their treatments to the

accepted paradigm, some to the point of having their licenses revoked,

being

imprisoned, or suffering bankruptcy. And it has been of only secondary

importance whether or not their patients have claimed to benefit from

their

treatments. The prosecutors-the state attorneys general working

hand-in-hand

with state medical boards and " anti-quackery " groups supported by

pharmaceutical interests-have influenced such federal enforcement agencies

as the FDA, the USDA, and the Justice Department. They've also influenced

such bodies as the National Institutes of Health as to which modalities

receive funding and get incorporated into the standard medical model, thus

perpetuating the status quo.