A few others have also commended on this but as of yet they are still in the minority. Right now it easier and less risky for a doctor to call for prostrate or mammogram testing etc. then to be charged with not adequately doing his job.
The fact that these tests have a high rate of false positives and that many people are scared into unneeded surgery is irrelevant. We must not let ethics get in the way of profit.
I think less medical care, is good for many reasons.
It keeps you from understanding you are in charge of your health. A pill is not a long term solution.
Most pharmaceutical companies test plants for their healing properties. Then they manufacture pharmaceutical drugs that aren't always clinically proven to be better than what nature provides. Most cause harm, and if anything increase the risks of most chronic conditions.
The medical community usually has no idea of how to heal you. If fact most of their advice is the opposite of common sense. The consumer is the boss except in medicine. Doctors have no idea how important good nutrition is for healing.
They may have the technology, and surgical skills, but what they lack is an understanding that healing is an inside job.
Most drugs fail to prevent and do not heal. That is why the cure word is the wrong word. By taking off body parts, and killing off whatever, they are not healing. They are just getting rid of the symptom. If what ever you had looks like it's gone, then they say you are cured. However, that doesn't mean you are healthy.
LOL! There was an article in prevention magazine 30 yrs ago (before they sold out to big pharma) that was mentioning a doctor strike in israel. The death rate went down during the strike.
They may have the technology, and surgical skills, but what they lack is an understanding that healing is an inside job.
I think most doctors do have that understanding, but they've been trained otherwise, more for financial reasons and pushing drugs for Big Pharma.
Luckily, I don't have to see them very often, but there's been a couple that encourage me to keep doing what I'm doing as far as natural supplementation and eating. However, they are reluctant to get into any conversations about natural healing, it detracts from what they were taught professionally, they're afraid the walls may have ears.
__________________ "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanual Kant~
My wife and I visited our family doctor yesterday as part of our yearly-ish physical exam. One of the first things he mentioned after examining us was, "What are you guys doing here? You don't need me. You already do all of the things I tell my patients to do."
Dr. K. isn't an alt-med doctor but he is very conservative in his treatment approach - utilizing medication only if patients don't respond to lifestyle modification.
In addition, he keeps his overhead low by maintaining a highly competent but minimal staff and practicing in a very modest looking facility ... even though it's located in Beverly Hills.
I wish there were more physicians like him. He's a good man who genuinely cares and it's very evident. And I'm working on familiarizing him with some integrative medical concepts that will hopefully help him to become an even better health care provider in the future.
__________________
You're officially invited to visit my natural health blog: www.healthyfellow.com
When my children were small I never took them to a pediatirican, except when they got ill with bad sinus stuff, and that was only because I didn't have anyone alternative to take them too. The more they went to that guy the sicker they got. Finally I found a homeopath that worked with them and only in a few visits they were quite well and they didn't go to a doctor again for many many years. Stay away from those jerks if you can and find a good naturopath or homeopath.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
Dr. K. isn't an alt-med doctor but he is very conservative in his treatment approach - utilizing medication only if patients don't respond to lifestyle modification.
I wish there were more physicians like him. He's a good man who genuinely cares and it's very evident. And I'm working on familiarizing him with some integrative medical concepts that will hopefully help him to become an even better health care provider in the future.
It sounds like you have a very special doctor there, definitely a keeper!
Harry, the type of doctor you are talking about is the way I remember the old-fashioned doctor. They had unpretentious offices and many times the office was in their house. They knew by instict and working with people what was going on.
Today, before you are in the office they have both the tests referrals, and a prescription ready. Since they have been trained by the pharmaceutical companies, they have lost the ability to depend on their insticts.
Yes, doctors may be smart, but that doesn't mean that they understand healing. The reason may be that now it is an intellectual game, dictated by the pharmaceutical companies. Healing use to be based on more than the physical aspects of a condition.
A new study by French and British researchers examined 72 new drug therapy studies to evaluate if there was a spin on the conclusions for the benefit of the drug.
"More than 40% of the reports had spin in at least 2 of these sections in the main text.
More at link including this quote "Over the last 20 to 30 years, psychiatry has really transformed itself from a profession in which we try to understand people and understand their psychology -- and talk to them and help them that way -- into a profession in which we diagnose diseases, and we medicate those diseases," says Carlat."
The Head of Genetics at Smith-Glaxo-Kline let the 'cat out of the bag' seven years ago, when he stated "Our drugs dont work on most people", and shattered the aura that the medical profession had built around the pharmaceutical paradigm of a DBPC drug for every disease. If a drug only works on 30% of patients its real cost is 70% higher than its retail price not to mention the cost of all the extra time wasting it causes patients and doctors trying different drugs that are never going to work on them.
ABSTRACT
The cholesterol-lowering drug trials published in 2008-2009 were either negative (ENHANCE, SEAS, GISSI-HF, AURORA) or obviously biased and therefore not credible (JUPITER).
How can we explain this wave of negative cholesterol-lowering drug trials?
In this article, authors review and comment the results of these recent trials.
It is also noteworthy that most cholesterol-lowering drug trials published between 2005 (the year of the Vioxx affair and of enforcement of new clinical trial regulations) and 2007 were also negative or ambiguous.
Taken together, these recent trials, including those of 2008-2009, strongly suggest that the results of previous, highly positive trials with statins — particularly in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease — published between 1994 and 2004 and that were used to issue guidelines for medical practitioners should be carefully re-examined by experts independent from the pharmaceutical industry.
The next question would be whether it is not time for a full reappraisal of the theory according to which cholesterol-lowering results in a significant protection against cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
The full text is at the link but it's good to see that the days are now numbered for the cholesterol hypothesis.
They end the paper with the question "is it not time for a full reappraisal of the cholesterol theory?"
Less is more: how less health care can result in better health
Linear Mode
