2000-Iatrogenic Illness: The Downside of Modern Medicine

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:18:18 -0000

[sSRI-Research] 2000-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%

20directory

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drug-Free School Zone? Just Say NO to Prozac for Children.