Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern Medicine

[Guest guest]

Long I

Short a

tro

gen

ic

Doctor caused illness

-

" ken " <schw9883

 

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:34 PM

Re: Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside

of Modern Medicine

 

 

> Good article...

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

>

> Thanks, Ken

[Guest guest]

I work in a " health care facility, " and am acutely perturbed by the

invincible ignorance of most of the physicians throughout the area, who

flatly refuse to consider any type of alternate treatment, and who place " oh

yes, that alternative treatment stuff " on a par with placebos for the

simpleminded, something to be used in addition to other prescribed treatment

options- either a pharmaceutical product with toxic side effects, or a

procedure which wounds the body in order to treat it.

 

(Those two components attend every treatment advocated or used by modern

medical practice- poisoning or wounding. Consider cancer treatments: all

clearly fall into these two categories. Many survivors of the treatments for

cancer have described their treatment to me as " poison, slash, and burn. "

Chemotherapy is extremely toxic, or poison. Surgery is an attack on the body

with an implement. And radiation- or freezing- destroys tissue, or burns

it.)

 

Even those treatments, long recognized by scientific studies as having

benefit in the treatment of a condition- such as Gingko Biloba, or

Echinacea- are dismissed as harmless placebos.

 

And to publicly advocate for the use of herbal or other types of alternate

treatment is rather risky, career-wise, in a mega business network run, on

the ground floor, by physicians who are the representatives for large

international corporations who manufacture and market pharmaceutical

products.

That sounds rather cynically jaded. But if you think about it for a minute,

alternate medicine may be ill received by physicians because it is competing

with the officially marketed system of products and procedures. None of

these treatments- not a single one- is without some monetary cost; and most

are quite expensive. Licensed Physicians are the sole proprietors of

pharmaceutical products; one, by law, must have a prescription or physicians

order to obtain or possess them.

Many alternative treatments cost little to most often nothing. They are

given through the bounty of God in nature.

If folks were to turn to methods of healthful living, and did not require

the expensive products that physicians have to offer, the pharmaceutical

companies would loose money.

Its just a business.

 

( Moderator's Note: How right you are. Since you mention cancer treatment it is

a very good example, there was a study done on practicing oncologists who all

made their living dispensing cancer drugs but when questioned something like 80%

admited that if they had cancer that they would not take chemo drugs. How is

that for hypocracy?But they earned big bucks selling them to others. $$$$$$$.F.)

 

 

 

 

ken [schw9883]

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 7:34 PM

 

Re: Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside

of Modern Medicine

 

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]

" ... there was a study done on practicing oncologists who all made their

living dispensing cancer drugs but when questioned something like 80%

admited that if they had cancer that they would not take chemo drugs. How is

that for hypocracy?But they earned big bucks selling them to others.

$$$$$$$.F.) "

 

A very recent and simpler example involved a patient who had minor gum

disease. The doctor wrote orders for the person to see a dentist- which

would cost them money. Afterward, the doctor and I were talking, and both

agreed that we would not go to a dentist for such, but would rinse a few

times with hydrogen peroxide and salt, and brush our teeth. But the doctor

felt he could not tell a patient to do that.

 

On the other hand, I am thankful for some of the good old family Doctors I

had the privilege to be attended by as a youth.

 

One of them once had come to the emergency room to patch up a hand I had

crushed. After he had finished, he told me I would have to call to get my

nails drilled again (to relieve the painful buildup of blood under the

nails).A few days later I went to see him to drill out the nails again. I

asked him if there was something I could do at home, since I didn't want to

have to keep spending money. He looked at me closely, then went to his desk,

got a lighter and a paperclip, heated up one end of the paperclip and told

me to press the heated end into the nail. I asked him if it would hurt much.

He said something like, " well that depends on you. " I then asked if I

pressed too deeply whether I might burn my finger. He said " you wont. " He

then added, " well, now if you want to, or if you get home and get to hurtin,

call me. "

 

I went home, mustered the courage, and did as he had said, and was

immediately thankful to God for this wonderful Doctor and is good advise.

 

He taught me how to heal my own wounds, and how to rely on my own home

remedies with as much vigor as possible. Yet he would be there for the

stitches and the broken bones. He was of the type of physician that regarded

himself, not as the director, but as an ally in a person's pursuit of good

health. Sort of a learned friend you could rely on if all else failed.

Those were the days...

 

 

 

 

 

 

ken [schw9883]

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 7:34 PM

 

Re: Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside

of Modern Medicine

 

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.