Dr.Vernon who wrote this opinion piece is himself a medical
doctor and had saw through the duplicity and the harm that it had
brought upon the unsuspecting mankind.

Everyone should take some time to read and understand the import
of what this doctor had to say for it means our own and our family
health could be at risk.

Article is available here : http://www.laleva.cc/choice/modern_medicine.html

Reproduced below for you convenience.

---------------------------------------------
What we know about cancer.....

You can easily fill a whole library with articles on the
subject of cancer, but what we actually know about cancer
would barely fill a business card.

Prof. Dr. Bier, German Pathologist.

http://djhampa.spaces.live.com
----------------------------------------------

-------------- Modern Medicine is not a
science --------------------------
By dr. Vernon Coleman - Lynmouth, Devon EX35 6EE, England - Source:
Amrit-Manthan - International Journal devoted to Holistic Healing Arts
by Leo Rebello.

Doctors, medical researchers and drug companies like to
persuade all present and potential consumers of health care that
medicine is a science and has advanced far beyond the mystical
incantations and witch doctor remedies of the past. But modern
medicine is not a science and modern clinicians and medical
researchers are not scientists. Modern clinicians may use scientific
techniques but in the way that they treat their patients they are
still quacks.
The foundation of modern, 20th century medical thinking is the
Cartesian principle that although the mind and the body are linked
they are essentially separate entities. Accordingly, doctors treat the
lesion or the organ that they believe to be failing to function
properly rather than the patient, his or her fears, and symptoms. They
organise laboratory tests and then believe that by treating
abnormalities they are acting scientifically.
But since doctors have very little idea of what 'normal' blood
levels are (since they ever measure the blood levels of people who are
ill) the success of treatment is usually measured by how successful
the doctor is at changing the laboratory results rather than at making
the patient better. When a patient complains of pain the doctor does
tests to find out why, but doesn't treat the pain because that would
interfere with the results of the tests. Meanwhile, the patient
suffers so much from the pain that s/he becomes even more severely
ill. With that sort of background it is hardly surprising that the
reputation of allopathic medicine as a healing branch of science is
crumbling rapidly. Too many modern doctors neither cure nor care.
The modern clinician and the medical researcher base their
opinions and conclusions almost exclusively on subjective observations
and wishful expectations which are likely to be based on inaccurate
historical perspectives and experimental experiences with members of
another species.
Superstition and suspicion are the principal foundations of
20th century medical science. Error is built upon error and unproven
theories are used as building blocks for new ideas. Assumptions,
prejudices and hearsay compete with subjective observations and
personal interpretations of symptoms and signs for the doctor's
attention and allegiance. To be truly scientific, doctors would have
to subordinate their personal opinions to impartial knowledge gained
by analysis and experimentation; but if they did this doctors would
lose the mystique and authority which has traditionally been a part of
the medicine man's armoury. By becoming scientists, doctors would
become technicians and lose their god-like powers.
In true science an idea is born and then tested before
conclusions are drawn. Without testing there can be no science and an
idea can never be more than an opinion or a hypothesis. True
scientists will do everything they can to disprove their hypotheses,
excluding probability, chance, coincidence and the placebo effect, and
ignoring pride, vanity and all commercial pressures in their search
for the truth. Sadly such devotion is rare indeed within the world of
medicine. All too frequently doctors use case reports as testimonials.
They will admit that all patients are different and then they will
draw conclusions about the treatment of thousands of patients from
single case reports published in a medical journal. Statistics are
essential for determining probabilities, for making predictions and
for choosing the best possible remedy, but doctors frequently use
their own interpretations of statistics. A doctor will say: "I have
seen 300 patients with this disease over the last 5 years and this
treatment or that remedy is best." He will forget that (???)ably never
considered and he will ignore the fact that some of his patients may
have died and many of them may have got no better. When case histories
are viewed subjectively the mind of the viewer can and often will lie
and distort in order to protect the viewer's pride and vanity.
Most patients probably assume that when a doctor proposes to
use an established treatment to conquer a disease he will be using a
treatment which has been tested, examined and proven. But this is not
the case. The savage truth is that most medical research is organised,
paid for, commissioned or subsidised by the drug industry (and the
food, tobacco and alcohol industries). This type of research is
designed, quite simply, to find evidence showing a new product is of
commercial value. The companies which commission such research are not
terribly bothered about evidence; what they are looking for are
conclusions which will enable them to sell their product. Drug company
sponsored research is done more to get good reviews than to find out
the truth.
Today's medical training is based upon pronouncement and
opinion rather than on investigation and scientific experience. In
medical schools students are bombarded with information but denied the
time or the opportunity to question the ex-cathedra statements which
are made from an archaic medical culture. Time and again new
treatments and new techniques are introduced on a massive scale
without there being any scientific support for them and without
doctors knowing what the long term consequences are likely to be.
Instead of experimenting and then practising tried and trusted
techniques, modern medical practitioners use all their patients as
guinea pigs and practice their black art as a massive international
experiment.
High dose contraceptive pills were prescribed for years for
millions of patients without anyone knowing exactly what was likely to
happen. When it became clear that such pills were killing hundreds of
women lower dose contraceptive pills were introduced. As I pointed out
in the 1960s, we still don't know what effect the contraceptive pill
is likely to have on the children of women who took it. Medicine
doesn't anticipate disasters - it simple reacts to them. This sort of
approach can hardly be described as 'scientific'.
Three specific examples illustrate how medical techniques are
adopted on a mass scale without doctors having any idea what is likely
to happen to the patients who are involved. The use of drugs to lower
blood cholesterol levels, for example. If you have a high level of
cholesterol in your blood should you try to do something about it -
such as taking a drug? Or van lowering your blood cholesterol level
prove more dangerous than leaving it alone?
For years now many doctors and patients have believed that a
patient who has a high blood cholesterol level will probably be more
likely to suffer from heart trouble, high blood pressure or a stroke.
Millions of pounds have been spent on screening patients for blood
cholesterol levels. And many patients have been frightened half to
death by finding out that their blood cholesterol levels were too
high. As a result of this belief the drug-industry has for some years
planned to introduce cholesterol lowering drugs on a large scale. The
cholesterol lowering drugs are everybody's dream. The drug companies
love them because they know that there is a massive, long term
international market, and they love massive long term international
markets. And patients love the idea of taking a pill to lower blood
cholesterol because although they believe that a high cholesterol
level means a high heart attack risk they don't want to stop eating
the fatty food that cause a high blood cholesterol.
So I believe that the biggest growth area in the 90s for the
drugs industry is likely to be in the sale of drugs which lower blood
cholesterol levels and there is already some evidence that the
explosion has already started. Between 1986 and 1990 the number of
prescriptions for cholesterol lowering drugs trebled in the U.K.
alone. For the health service and for governments all around the world
the prescribing of cholesterol lowering drugs will be an expensive
business. A huge proportion of apparently healthy population will be
turned into regular pill takers. The profits for the international
drug companies will run into billions.
Some trials seem to suggest that simply lowering the blood
cholesterol level may not always be wise. For example, a low
cholesterol level may be linked to death from injury or suicide. Some
doctors have even argued that a cholesterol level that is too low may
lead to a high cancer risk. But doctors, encouraged by drug companies,
are nevertheless busy writing out prescriptions for drugs to lower
blood cholesterol levels.
Let us now look at 'surgical experiment' which involves male
patients vasectomy - and one which involves female patients - breast
enlargement - as two examples of widely used medical techniques of
doubtful safety. Both experiments are surgical procedures which are
performed on healthy, young adults.
Vasectomies have been popular for several decades and around the world
many millions of men have already had the operation. It is a fairly
quick and simple surgical procedure and the number of men having the
operation is steadily increasing. The tubes which lead from the testes
(where the sperm are produced) to the penis are simply cut or sealed
and so sperm cannot get through. By the end of 1991 approximately 50
million young and healthy men around the world were believed to have
had the operation.
In recent years, however, some doctors have started to have
fears about the safety of the operation, as independent studies have
indicated that the operation may be linked to cancer of the testes or
prostate, to heart disease, to immunological disorders, to a lack of
interest in sex or to premature ageing. The possible links to cancer
are particularly worrying. For example, a study of 3,000 men in
Scotland who had undergone vasectomy showed that 8 developed
testicular cancer within four years of the operation.
Likewise the fact that there might be real dangers associated
with breast enlargement operations using silicone gel implants
exploded into public view in early 1992 although the operation to
increase breast size had, like vasectomy for men, been popular for
several decades - and worries about the operation had been voice many
years before.
Right from the start surgeons had realised that the widespread
fashion for large breasts could become big business and they struggled
hard to justify what come cynics saw as little more than an
opportunity to make money.
In the early 1980's, the American Society of Plastic and
Reconstructive Surgeons argued that there is a substantial and
enlarging body of medical information and opinion to the effect that
these deformities (small breast) are really a disease. Plastic
surgeons gave the disease a name - micromastia - and did their best to
stamp it out. It is estimated that in the last 30 years over 2 million
victims of micromastia have been identified and 'cured' by plastic
surgeons in America alone.
To start with, surgeons injected silicone directly into the
breast but when it became clear that this might cause problems as the
silicone wandered around the recipient's body and started to trigger
all sorts of reactions and possible problems (not least the fact that
the enhanced breast quickly started to shrink as its silicone boost
disappeared), surgeons started to install their silicone breast
enlargers in small plastic bags which were thought to be safer.
At the end of 1991, however, a huge controversy blew up over
the safety of these implants. On January 6, 1992, the FDA asked
doctors to stop using silicone gel implants while they reviewed new
evidence suggesting that the gel might cause autoimmune reactions or
connective tissue disorders leading to weakness, immune system damage,
poor memory, fatigue, chronic flu-like illness and so on.
The absence of scientific evidence supporting medical
practices is apparent in all areas of medicine. With a very few
exceptions there are no certainties in medicine. What the patient gets
will depend more on chance and the doctor's personal prejudices than
on science. This problem isn't a new one, of course. In the preface to
this play The doctor's dilemma George Bernard Shaw points out that
during the first great epidemic of influenza which developed towards
the end of the 19th century, a London evening paper sent a journalist
posing as a patient to all the great consultants of the day. The
newspaper then published details of the advice and prescriptions
offered by the consultants. Despite the fact that the journalist had
complained of exactly the same symptoms to the many different
physicians, the advice and the prescriptions that were offered were
all different. Nothing has changed. Even in these days of apparently
high technology medicine there are many - almost endless - variations
in the treatments preferred by differing doctors. Doctors offer
different prescriptions for exactly the same symptoms; they keep
patients in hospital for vastly different lengths of time, with
apparently identical problems.
In America, each year, 61 in every 100,00 people have a
coronary bypass operation. In Britain only 6 in every 100,00- have the
same operation. In Japan 1 in 100,000 patients will have a coronary
bypass operation. In America and Denmark 7 out of 10 women will have a
hysterectomy at some stage in their lives, but in Britain only 2 women
in 10 will have the same operation. Why? Are women in America having
too many hysterectomies or are women in Britain having too few? In
America one in five babies are born by Caesarean delivery. In England
and Wales the figure is 9%%. In Japan it is 8%%.
Even within individual hospitals one sees enormous variations
between the beliefs of different consultants. Some ear, nose and
throat consultants still believe that tonsils and adenoids should be
removed at the earliest possible opportunity while others believe that
the operations is useless or harmful and should hardly ever be done.
Some surgeons remove gall bladders through tiny incisions, others
prefer massive incisions. Some doctors still recommend that ulcer
patients follow a milky diet while others claim that such dietary
advice should have been abandoned as a piece of pre-history. Despite
all these variations in the type of treatment offered, most doctors in
practice seem to be convinced that their treatment methods are beyond
question.
But, you may say, even if treatments are not selected with
scientific precision, surely diagnoses are made in a scientific
fashion? Again, the evidence does not support that contention. After
one recent survey two pathologists reported that after carrying out
400 post-mortem examinations they had found that in more than half the
patients the wrong diagnosis had been made. This presumably also means
that in more than half the patients the wrong treatment had been
given. And since so many modern treatments are undeniably powerful it
also presumably means that a large proportion of those patients died
because of their treatment. The two pathologists reported that
potentially treatable disease was missed in one in seven patients.
They found that 65 out of 134 cases of pneumonia had gone unrecognised
while out of 51 patients who had suffered heart attacks doctors had
failed to diagnose the problem in 18 cases. Ignorance has become
commonplace in medical practice.
Doctors go to great lengths to disguise the fact that they are
practising a black art rather than a science. The medical profession
has created a 'pseudoscience' of mammoth proportions and today's
doctors rely on a vast variety of instruments and tests and pieces of
equipment with which to explain and dignify their interventions. This,
of course, is nothing new. The alchemists of the middle ages and the
witch doctors of Africa realised that words and spells reeked of gods
and sorcery and so they created a secret and impenetrable structure of
herbs, songs, dance, rattling of special bones, chants and ceremonial
incantations. Today's clinicians have much more sophisticated mumbo
jumbo to offer. They have laser surgery and psychotherapy, CAT
scanners and serum manganese assessments to substantiate their claims
to be scientists. But however good the impenetrable pseudoscience may
sound or seem to be, and however well based on scientific principles
the equipments and the techniques is still little more than mumbo
jumbo. Doctors may use scientific instruments but that doesn't make
them scientists any more than a witch doctor would become a scientist
if he wore a stethoscope and danced around a microscope!
Now, if doctors were aware that medicine was not a science and
that they were pulling what is undoubtedly the largest and most
successful confidence trick ever tried the damage would be fairly
minimal. But the problem is compounded by the fact that the vast
majority of doctors believe the lie that they are taught; they believe
that they are scientists, practising an applied science.
One result of this false faith is that doctors use the
technology that is available to them with little or no thought for
their patients: they have been taught to ally medieval authority and a
godlike sense of superiority with 20th century gadgetry. The result is
therapeutic chaos. Patients are wildly and dangerously over-
investigated and treatment programmes, which vary from one doctor to
another, are planned and defined by guesswork rather than a scientific
analysis of possibilities and consequences. In order to protect
themselves from the anxieties which would otherwise accompany their
ignorance and their lack of knowledge, doctors seek assurance and
comfort by immersing themselves in technology. Doctors are taught that
investigation is an end in itself rather than merely a signpost
towards a therapeutic end. The needs of the patient are forgotten as
doctors glory in their knowledge. Too many doctors obtain satisfaction
not by making patients better or relieving their discomfort but by
playing a series of intellectual games in which the collecting and
analysis of test results is regarded as far more important than the
support and comfort of a patient. Too often patients are over-
investigated, over diagnosed , over treated and under cared for.
'Curing' not 'caring' has become the sole criterion and success is too
often measured in the laboratory rather than the sickroom. What has
happened? Why has medicine failed to become an authentic science?
The answer is a simple one. In the last century the practice
of medicine has become no more than an adjunct to the pharmaceutical
industry and the other aspects of the huge, powerful and immensely
profitable health care industry. Medicine is no longer an independent
profession. Doctors have become nothing more than a link connecting
the pharmaceutical industry to the consumer.

Leo Rebello's note:

Doctors and Drug industry have jointly killed thousand times
more persons in peace than all the war-time casualties put together in
the last 500 years. There is a graphic book titled Doctors, Drugs and
Devils, which traces the grotesque history of modern medicine. There
is another equally damning evidence titled America the Poisoned, which
records the evil effects of deadly chemicals destroying our
environment, our wildlife and ourselves. And then there is that all-
time famous treatise by Dr. Ivan Illich called The Medical Nemesis (or
Limits to Medicine), which the drug companies bulk-purchased and
burnt. The intelligent readers of Amrit Manthan may read these
scholarly books to advantage and unite to protect their own health
which is in great danger.

Dr. Vernon Coleman, M.D., D. Sc., has written 75 books which are sold
in more than 50 countries and translated into 22 languages. I met him
at a conference at the Royal London Hospital in June 1992, at which
both of us were main speakers.

By dr. Vernon Coleman - Lynmouth, Devon EX35 6EE, England - Source:
Amrit-Manthan - International Journal devoted to Holistic Healing Arts
by Leo Rebello.