Regimentation in Medicine and the Death
of Creativity
Russell L. Blaylock, MD
Until quite recently, the practice of
medicine was considered an art, which incorporated a significant modicum of
science, yet was itself not a pure and applied science, such as physics,
astronomy, biology and chemistry. William Osler, one of our greatest me
the science of medicine, but more so the art of medicine,
has written:
What, after all, is education but a subtle, slowly-affected
change, due to the action of the externals – of the written record of the great
minds of all ages, of the beautiful and harmonious surroundings of nature and
of art, and of the lives, good or ill, of our fellows? -these alone
educate us, these alone mould the growing mind.
It used to be accepted that the aim of medical education was
to produce physicians that would be well rounded, not only in the particulars
of their specialty, but also, as members of a cultured and intellectually
engaged society of men; men who could think critically and with a depth that
brings wisdom. Osler recognized that medical education was a complex
insertion of “varied influences of art, the highest development of which can
come only with that sustaining love for ideas which “burns bright or dim as each
are mirrors of the fire for which all thirst”.
In an essay on medical education, Doctor Osler goes into
great detail as to what is necessary to train a young medical student in the
“art of medicine”. He points out that in the “old days” a medical student was
nothing more than an apprentice who worked with a seasoned physician. Yet,
through their close association, the elder physician was quite adept in
teaching his art to the young student, not just by depending on textbooks and
rote memorization, but by carefully studying people suffering from a variety of
diseases. I emphasize “people”, since so often, especially among specialists
and the young physician, the human aspect of what we do escapes them.
I can remember in medical school we were told that our
assigned patients were not the “gallbladder in bed 17” or the “adenocarcinoma
of the breast in ward three”. Rather, they were human beings –somebody’s
mother, or brother, or son. They had feelings and fears, just as we did. As a
result, I got in the habit of always thinking of my patients from the viewpoint
of either being myself or a member of my family and it helped keep me more
empathetic.
Of great concern to Osler was how the art of medicine would
be taught. He states:
Ask any physician of twenty years’ standing how he has
become proficient in his art, and he will reply, by constant contact with
disease; and he will add that the medicine that he learned in the schools was
totally different from the medicine at the bedside.
As a consequence, Osler says:
Teach him how to observe, give him plenty of facts to
observe, and the lessons will come out of the facts themselves. … The whole art
of medicine is in observation, as the old motto goes, but to educate the eye to
see, the ear to hear, and the finger to feel takes time, and makes a beginning,
to start man on the right path, is all that we can do. … Give him good methods
and a proper point of view, and all other things will be added as his
experience grows.
This is the antithesis of what is taught today. Because of
the rise of scientism, that is science as a religious faith, medical students
are taught to rely on their technology and “hard” science. To the modern
physician, every statement must be supported by accepted double-blind, placebo
controlled, randomized, cross-over studies, ad nauseam. This is so deeply
ingrained in our medical professionals, that they cannot bring themselves to
believe what their experience demonstrates to them, often in shocking displays.
For example, I have advised a number of people on natural
ways to treat their cancers. Most have been under the care of a “traditional”
oncologist, usually receiving chemotherapy and/or radiation. In one case I
remember very well, a patient was being treated at one of the quite famous
cancer treatment centers and when she returned for her follow-up visit, her
oncologist was quite surprised to see that not only was she feeling very well,
but her metastatic tumors were shrinking significantly. He exclaimed to her that
in his thirty years of practice he had never seen a tumor of her type respond
so well.
The interesting part, is that when she told him what she was
doing with her nutrition, he just shrugged and said-”I don’t want
to know what you are doing, just keep doing it.” And this is one of the more
positive responses. Most take on a look of shock as if they just sat on a tack
and angrily tell the patient that they should stop immediately, because the
antioxidants might interfere with their treatment.
In both cases we see just the opposite spirit Dr. Osler was
discussing. Despite the fact that neither oncologist had ever seen his patients
respond so well to the chemotherapy, it in no way interested either of them. It
has been said that it is the anomalies of medicine (and of all natural
sciences) that leads to new discoveries. Virtually every great advance in
medicine was by men (and women) who noticed something all others had
overlooked. That is, because of regimentation of thought, they were merely
overlooked.
As humans, we tend to think that all discoveries have
already been discovered, or will be discovered by the abstract “great minds”.
We tend to think of the discoverer as some distant (always distant) person, who
is essentially beyond our intellect and posses powers of observation almost
god-like. In fact, many of our greatest discoveries were made by ordinary men,
who though sharpened powers of observation and deep thinking, saw what escaped
others- even the so-called giants of the profession.
The Case of Dr. Barry Marshall and Dr. Robin Warren
While many examples abound in scientific and medical
history, there is one contemporary example that is most instructive; that of
Dr. Barry Marshall. Dr. Marshall, like all great discoverers, was a keen
observer and listener. Another medical iconoclast, Dr. Robin Warren in the
1980s, in fact, suggested the link between an infectious organism and stomach
ulcers. A pathologist, Dr. Warren observed that stomach specimens from patients
with inflammatory stomach disorders, including ulcers, frequently contained a
microbe, later identified as helicobacter pylori.
Dr. Warren tried to
inform his colleagues about this connection, but they instead made him the butt
of their jokes. After all, I am sure they concluded, how could some obscure,
local pathologist from Perth, Australia solve the riddle of stomach ulcers when
the best experts in the world concluded otherwise.
Dr. Barry Marshall didn’t laugh, instead he listened and
conducted carefully controlled experiments to see if Dr. Warren was correct.
His evidence should have convinced anyone, but the power of the preconceived
notion, especially one that emanates from the elite members of the medical
establishment, is a very difficult thing to overcome.
As occurs so commonly in our modern world, he had great
difficulty overcoming the reticence of the medical establishment to at least
give him a respectful audience. His articles were rejected by the major
gastroenterology journals and he was refused an audience at respected
gastroenterology meetings. Except for his dogged determination, as admitted by
his friend Dr. Warren, the theory would never have seen the light of day, which
even then took 10 years.
It was only through one influential doctor’s assistance that
he was given the audience he sought; the rest, as they say, is history. Yet,
that is not the end of the story. In the year 2005, Dr. Marshall and Dr. Warren
shared the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine for their discovery. Today,
there are thousands of articles confirming their findings and we now know that
this same organism is linked to cancer of the stomach and possibly
atherosclerosis.
There are several lessons to learn from this sordid episode
other than the obvious one- the medical elite’s resistance to ideas outside its
control. First, Dr. Marshall himself admitted that his training in medical
school left him with the impression that “ everything had already been
discovered in medicine”. Most of us who attended medical training were given
this same impression, that we were just ordinary “doctors” and that only the
elite of the medical centers held sufficient intellect to formulate meaningful
discoveries, and then only from the “chosen medical centers”.
One of the other lessons is that in most areas of medicine
today there are powerful, most often financial, forces that have a vested
interest in maintaining the status quo. One of these forces is the entrenched
elite of the medical world, usually subdivided among each of the specialties of
medicine. In the case of Dr. Marshall and Warren, it was the
gastroenterologists.
To have spent one’s life in the study of a particular
problem and arrived at no new discoveries is painful enough, but to have some
young upstart suddenly appear on the scene proclaiming to have the “answer” is
especially disconcerting to those holding prestigious positions.
A second, less obvious force to the casual observer, is the
financial influence on rigidity in medicine. The pharmaceutical companies were
making a fortune in selling antacid medications for the treatment of ulcers. Cimetidine
(Tagamet) and ranitidine (Zantac) were the leading ulcer medications at the
time and to the CEO makers of these medications, they were the dream drugs of
the industry-primarily because they did not cure ulcers and therefore, required
a lifetime of the medication.
The largest pharmaceutical companies are major funding
institutions of research in the medical centers, especially the more
influential medical centers. Consequently, the leaders of specialty societies
are often financially connected to the pharmaceutical manufacturers, which
affect their decision-making, both consciously and subconsciously. Even the
ethically centered physician will come under this influence. It took me a long
time to admit this myself when I was practicing neurosurgery.
When pharmaceutical detail men and women are giving you
abundant supplies of free medications for your office, treating you and your
staff to lunches and office parties, and offering free trips to meetings in
exotic places, one has a propensity to, even subconsciously, yield to their
influence. Why else would pharmaceutical companies spend billions on such
programs to influence doctors prescribing habits?
Drug
detail personnel used to be mostly men. Yet, over time they found it very
difficult to get appointments to see the doctor. Quickly catching on, the
pharmaceutical companies began to hire women, mostly young, very attractive
women. It worked like a charm; suddenly doctors made time to see the pretty
drug detail lady. More than a few left their wives and married the drug rep.
Medical history is littered with such episodes, yet we learn
nothing. I like to say that the medical profession’s learning curve is a flat
line. As Arthur Schopenhauer has stated, “Every truth
passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is
ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as
self-evident.”
What Medical Education Should Teach
The arrival of science as the preeminent mode of
understanding the universe can be traced to the 18th and 19th centuries,
according to F.A. Hayek in his magnificent book, The
Counter-Revolution of Science. Studies on the Abuse of Reason (Liberty
Press, 1979), with Paris being its center. Growing from logical positivism,
science became imbued with its power and became resentful towards those it
envisioned to be its enemies-primarily in the areas of theology and
metaphysics. This is despite the fact that, as many have observed, science owes
its very existence to theology, mainly that the universe is an ordered and
logical creation.
Over time, scientists become convinced that their view of
the universe was not only the most accurate, but the only one that should be
allowed. This tendency of a discipline to demand that its intellectual
competitors yield the public forum is legendary. Many today are of the opinion
that if something cannot be verified by the scientific method, it is not to be
accepted as valid and is labeled as speculation or worse (in their lexicon), a
superstition.
Wiser men of science have long recognized that there are
things in this universe that cannot be understood by utilizing a scientific
viewpoint, that is, that science can only tell us about material phenomenon or
forces that have a repetitive nature, which then lends itself to examination
and measurement. In fact, outside the realm of science there exist a tremendous
number of phenomenon that will remain unknown and that contain many secrets
that only God can know.
Early educators of physicians knew this very well and
accepted that the best man could do was use his powers of observation to
approximate the truth as closely as possible to the prediction of reality.
Medical history teaches us that often times we can effect treatments based on
little knowledge of underlying mechanisms. For example, 100 years ago herbalist
didn’t know why hawthorne lowered blood pressure and made people with “dropsy”
(heart failure) do better, yet it still saved hundreds of thousands from a life
of suffering and early death. Only now do we understand the “science” behind
this early observation.
Today we have turned it around- treatments are not to be
used, despite demonstrated usefulness or even their ability to save lives,
until we have a scientific explanation as to how it works and proof-positive
double-blind, placebo controlled studies proving that it is efficacious. I
would wager to say that millions are dying every year because of this worship
of the scientific method and imagined scientific purity.
Dr. Osler hints at the danger of this narrow-minded view of
medicine by his advice to the medical student:
The hardest conviction to get into the mind of a beginner is
that the education upon which he is engaged is not a college course, not a
medical course, but a life course, ending only with death, for which the work
of a few years under teachers is but a preparation.
Further he says that the student must have an “ absorbing
desire to know the truth, and unswerving steadfastness in its pursuit, and an
open, honest heart, free from suspicion, guile and jealousy”. Yet, most
graduates of medical schools and residency programs are not given this valuable
advice, rather they are told that the elite of medicine will inform them of
what they need to know and how they will treat their patients, and do so by a
series of preconceived prescriptions.
This becomes especially frightening when you consider the
mindset of the elite in medicine already elucidated above –that is, that
nothing is true until “our” science says it is true. The bodies continue to
pile up while we are told to wait patiently for their anointed approval to
magically appear.
The Origin and Modern Appearance of Regimentation in
Medicine
As with most ideas making their appearance as “new” and
”progressive”, regimentation of society is not new. Writers and philosophers
from antiquity toyed with the idea of a structured and a centrally ordered
society, but it was not until the arrival of the gnostic prophets of the
Enlightenment philosophies of Helvetius, Comte, Turgot, d’Alembert and later
Marx and Lenin that we observe the development of this philosophy of
collectivism. For an excellent analysis of the modern positivist ideology I
would suggest Eric Voegelin’s book From Enlightenment to Revolution (Duke
University Press, 1975).
Richard Weaver has
crystallizes for us the modern dilemma:
The modern knower may be compared to an
inebriate who, as he senses his loss of balance, endeavors to save himself by
fixing tenaciously upon certain details and thus affords the familiar
exhibition of positiveness and arbitrariness. With the world about him
beginning to heave, he grasp at something that will come within a limited
perception. So the scientist, having lost hold upon organic reality, clings the
more firmly to his discovered facts, hoping that salvation lies in what can be
objectively verified.
In essence, he is saying the scientist, because he has
abandoned true understanding and wisdom, must concentrate his efforts with
greater tenacity upon what he does best, and that is to break the material
world into smaller and smaller pieces, never quite seeing even a glimpse of the
whole. This is exactly what medicine has done with its inordinate divisions of
its science into smaller and smaller degrees of subspecialization. As Osler has
observed, the man of medicine must be much more than science and textbooks, he
has to have an intuitive sense of the effects of disease upon the whole human
being and be able to respond to that intuitive sense appropriately, that is,
with a certain degree of extra-scientific understanding based on reason and
spirituality. In essence, we must not see our patients as merely part of a
collective, but rather as individuals.
It has been the contamination of past generations, primarily
by prophets of positivism and the levelers (appropriately characterized
as identitarians or egalitarians), who have infected medicine with this
collectivist world-view. In essence, this view expresses the idea that man
should have a uniform existence, and in the case of intellectual pursuits, one
opinion. To the collectivist, there is no such thing as objective truth, one
must rely rather on the wisdom of the elites to bring us approximations and
declared truth. It is in their positions as “anointed experts” that they
receive their authority.
Blake has observed: “one law for the lion and the ox is
oppressive”. Yet, this is exactly where we are moving in medicine, as well as
the rest of society. Uniformity has taken the name of “evidence-based
medicine”, which implies that their prescriptions for diagnosis, disease
classification, and treatments are the final word on the matter- that is, all
questions have been answered, and no further discussions from below are needed.
Dissent, we are told, is useless, as it would be in arguing against, say, a
mathematical principle.
I have heard a number of doctors remark –how can you argue
with the science? Scientific pronouncements have become the final
arbiter of all disputes, the court of last resort if you will. This is
because of the preconceived idea that science deals purely in “facts”, not
opinions. Yet, anyone familiar with scientists, know this just isn’t true.
Subjectivity flows though most of science, and could not be otherwise, since
human beings are doing the science. A number of subconscious prejudices
infiltrate their way into even the most honest and forthright of the
scientists. We want to see our theories and ideas prevail over our intellectual
competitors, even if subconsciously.
Again, we must not lose sight of the most powerful of the
corrupters of man-the love of money. An old Spanish proverb states that “money
and honor are seldom found in the same pocket”. Money seeks the ones who have
the greatest influence and in medicine, that is the elite, primarily those in
the halls of academia and sitting on controlling boards of specialty societies.
A number of studies and investigations have shown that elite members
of the boards controlling standards of treatments, such as vaccine boards,
are often populated by those receiving remunerative rewards from the pharmaceutical
companies.
Whatever the impulse- a desire for power, arrogance,
financial reward or a true belief that what they are doing is correct and
beneficial for society, the risk of widespread harm is always present, because
it institutionalizes their ideas and punishes competing ideas. In essence, it
demands obedience.
With the idea of “evidence-based medicine” being the final
word, dissenting doctors are treated as charlatans and as a danger to society.
Likewise, the very name-“evidence-based medicine”-implies that dissenting
viewpoints are not based on the evidence. What we often see is the refusal to
accept the evidence of those outside the orthodoxy, no matter how strong. With
the elite controlling the definition of what constitutes “evidence,” their
intellectual competitors find themselves in an untenable position often
expressed as –heads, I win; tails, you loose.
Whose Evidence?
One must appreciate that there exist all kinds and degrees
of evidence in medicine. To eliminate the competition, all that is necessary is
to make the evidence so stringent that the opposition can never meet the
requirements for proof. I find it ironic that in most cases the orthodoxy
insist on the weakest form of evidence, but the form most subject to
manipulation –the epidemiological study. Most statisticians agree that this is
the weakest type of study.
What astounds, for example in the case of cancer studies, is
that evidence based on an assortment of types of studies- in vitro, a variety
of in
vivo
animal experiments and even human experience, can show powerful evidence of
effectiveness, yet the proposed treatment is still rejected on the flimsiest of
excuses.
For example, curcumin may show a powerful ability to
suppress a number of cancer types in cell cultures of human cancers in doses
easily attainable in humans, yet the evidence is rejected. Sometimes based on
good reasoning, sometimes not. For example in the case of in vivo evidence,
they might state that the effect could be species specific, which is certainly
true. When repeated in a number of species, they are still not satisfied.
Later, an abundance of studies clearly demonstrate the exact
mechanism of curcumin’s effect on cancer cells, that is by dissecting out its
effects on critical enzymes systems and cell signaling systems required by the
cancer. Still it is rejected. One can show that the product in question has no
toxicity and a wide margin of safety, still to no avail.
One of the dreams of the chemotherapists has been a drug
that only attacks the cancer cells and not normal, rapidly dividing cells;
something called the “magic bullet”. Curcumin, as well as a number of other
nutrients, have shown this property. Yet, it can do something far beyond this
–it has been shown in a number of studies to protect normal, rapidly dividing
cells against the toxicity of most chemotherapy agents, especially those
associated with the highest incidence of serious side effects. Despite this, we
see absolutely no interest among practicing oncologists, despite much interest
among cancer researchers. Remember, curcumin has essentially no toxicity and
has never been shown to interfere with conventional treatments. Even more
astounding, it can enhance the effectiveness of conventional treatments, such
as chemotherapy and radiation therapy, significantly.
Again, we find ourselves revisiting the case of Dr.
Marshall. In essence, we have overwhelming evidence, from a multitude of kinds
of studies that a group of nutrients can dramatically reduce the growth, spread
and lethality of a large number of cancers, yet it is met with overwhelming
opposition.
In seeking an answer as to why this should be so, I do not
accept the commonly heard answer from the lay public-that doctors do not want
to cure cancer because it is a big moneymaker. The average practicing doctor,
because of regimentation, has been conditioned to accept the treatment
protocols of the elite, mostly in their respective specialty societies. They
are what have been called in political philosophy, “true believers”- that is,
they trust the elite, and hence, many truly believe in what they are doing.
Osler warned his students to “Get accustomed to test all sorts
of book problems and statements yourself, and take little as possible on
trust.”. I have witnessed a number of doctors who trust only a handful of
journals, most often of which includes the New England Journal of Medicine.
Outside of this narrow range of approved topics and reading material, they read
very little. I am puzzled by this thinking, since one must ask- How could they
assume that of the tens of thousands of studies reported in thousands of
high-quality journals, only the studies within 3 or 4 journals are worthy of
reflection and application to their patients’ care?
Another defect we have in medical education is that doctors
know little concerning readings and critically analyzing journal articles and
studies. Some are quite adept, but many are no better than the layman. Many
read only the abstract of an article and others only the discussion or
conclusion. A number of respected scientists have observed that many scientific
articles contain conclusions that do not match their data. I have seen this
many times. Yet, it is the conclusion that many doctors and virtually all of
the media cling to and quote ad nauseam.
Manipulation of Words and the Power of Propaganda
Richard Weaver, one of the greatest students of human
language in the 20th century, notes in his masterful book, Language is
Sermonic, that certain words are almost “god-like” (he used the
label-“god-term”) in their position among the mass of words used in human
communications. That is, they convey a sense of such absolute goodness and
unassailable truth, that no one ever questions their authority. These include
the words “progress” or “progressive”, “science”, “fact” and “efficient”. He
notes that : There is no word whose power to move is more implicitly trusted
than “progressive”.
Rarely is it that anyone, even among the most analytical
intellectual, questions something that is referred to as “progressive”. This
isolates the idea as sacrosanct. It is as through the use of this “god-term”
protects the idea from further analysis and signals that all further discussion
will extend from this basic understanding. This is how societies have come to
accept collectivism; it was anointed as “progressive”.
Another “god-term” is “science”. We often hear the phrases-
“The science says…” or “The science convinces us that…”, which are meant to
convey to us that the matter is settled. This brings us to the next “god-term”,
which is “fact”. Science, we are told, is closer to truth because it is based
on “facts”, which are provable by a method called, most appropriately, the
scientific method.
A “fact” implies to us, or at least is understood as meaning
something that is beyond dispute –accepted by all rational minds. Weaver tells
us that the word “fact” was inserted into our language during the Renaissance,
based on the rise of the scientific method as the new mode of arriving at
verification of truth. Prior to this time, truth was derived from either divine
revelation or a use of dialectics, that is, the use of logical laws and reason.
One must appreciate that despite much assurance from the collectivists, these
sources of knowledge have not been discredited.
Like “science”, they inform us, one does not argue with the
“facts”. Weaver makes a very important observation. He notes that – “Possibly
it should be pointed out that his “facts” are frequently not facts at all in
the etymological sense; often they will be deductions several steps removed
from simply factual data.” We see this commonly in our modern, progressive
society.
Take for example, the often-quoted “fact” that statin drugs
prevent heart attacks by lowering cholesterol levels. This statement is not a
“fact” at all but an assumption based on a cleaver manipulation of data. In
fact, the “data” in no way supports such a broad statement, and likewise, there
is no hard evidence that elevated cholesterol causes heart attacks and strokes.
Yet, most physicians repeat this mantra as if it were established fact, that
only a fool or charlatan would deny. In essence, the case is closed to further
discussion. All future discussions are to emanate from this established “fact”.
We see similar examples throughout much of what is accepted
as “evidence-based medicine”. The danger of using words to justify constricting
inquiry is that soon it becomes institutionalized. This sets the stage for a
transition from voluntary acceptance to compulsion by the State or the medical
societies. Physicians will, in essence, accept the dogma or, like heretics, they
will be excommunicated from the profession, since the elite making the rules
also control their licenses.
We must understand that when the State takes over the reins
of medical care, as it will most assuredly do, offenses against the orthodoxy
will be punishable by severe penalties, including jail sentences. We are
already witnessing this in the Medicare/ Medicaid system, where a number of
doctors are serving long prison sentences and massive fines for violating the
rules of regimentation of medical care.
The Price of Regimentation in Medicine
When I was in training, we used to hear horror stories about
the coming “cook-book” medicine in which doctors would be given a list of
preordained methods for diagnosing and treating various diseases handed down by
medical elites. This relegates the physician to little more than a cog in the
wheel of the State, obediently following orders handed down from the
bureaucrats above.
Again, we come to the question of -Whose evidence? As
physicians, we were taught the art of observation, use of intuitive sense,
drawing on our experiences and most importantly, personal interaction with
patients on an individual basis. The collectivists see patients, as they see
all humanity, as a collective of human beings, with no one individual being
really that important.
While many elitists in medicine will find that statement an
affront, a closer examination finds this to be true. Based on present thinking,
a treatment should not be implemented until there is accepted proof that the
treatment works and that it is reasonably safe. Despite this laudable goal, we
see that when alternative treatments have shown extreme safety, sound
scientific justification and considerable rational evidence that it is
effective, the elite of the orthodoxy more often rejects its use.
At this stage we must examine the effect of such a decision
by those in positions of power and responsibility. Lets say that disease-X has
been very resistant to attempts at conventional treatment and that the drugs
used to treat this disease are associated with a considerable number of side
effects. Additionally, disease-X affects some 10 million people a year. Then
lets assume that a physician, which we shall call Dr. Bob, a family
practitioner practicing in Clayton, Alabama observes that when he gives his
patients with the disease-X high doses of Ginkgo biloba, most get well and many
others are dramatically improved.
Yet, when Dr. Bob tries to get the results of his
observations published in the medical literature, he is rejected on the basis
that the conventional scientific opinion sees no benefit to be had from Dr.
Bob’s treatment. Because of his status as “just a practicing physician in a
small rural Alabama town,” he is looked down on and never invited to present his
ideas before other physicians.
Then 10 years later, medical scientists find that indeed
Gingko biloba cures most people with disease-X. Suddenly, Ginkgo is the
medication of choice for this dreaded disease. What is forgotten is what
happened to the 100 million people who suffered or died of disease-X during the
period the “scientists/physician elite” needed to confirm what Dr. Bob observed
much earlier.
In essence, I am saying we are paying a heavy price for our
worship at the alter of pristine “science”. Another rarely mentioned
topic is the unrecorded aspects of disease. Most physicians and surgeons who
have practiced more than 20 years have noticed that often times diseases
present in ways contrary to textbook descriptions or in ways never described
during medical training. I once had a neurosurgical friend who told me he
wished someone would write a book on the unreported manifestations of disease,
since it seemed that most patients presented in ways contrary to that described
in the textbooks. In fact, there are a few such textbooks, but even then they
are quite limited in scope.
The disaster that can result from forced regimentation of
treatment methods becomes evident when we witness the millions of children who
have been harmed by the vaccine program. Literally millions have been affected
by an antiquated vaccine policy that in no way is based on any scientific
principle, study or examination of the data. Political and financial influence
are driving the program and not the health and well being of our population. It
is also a study in collectivist thinking, since they reply to criticism by
saying –certainly some children are harmed by the vaccines, but we are averting
an epidemic disaster.
Studies now indicate that 1 in 65 male children born today
will be autistic and an even greater percentage if we count all
neurodevelopmental disorders. The evidence is overwhelming that the major
factor is the vaccine program. Despite this, parents all over this country are
forced by law to drag their children to the pediatrician for their assigned
vaccines. Even families with one or more autistic children are being forced to
have subsequent children vaccinated, despite accepted studies showing that to
do so greatly increases the risk of the child becoming autistic.
To the collectivist, there is no problem, since they are
focused only on their objective –that is, “to protect the masses”, which
endorses the idea that the “end justifies the means”. The individual is subject
to being sacrificed to the “plan” and is really not an object of their concern.
We not only see this with the vaccine program, but recently we have witnessed
children, even as old as 18 years of age, being forced by court order to
undergo cancer chemotherapy, not only against the will of the parents, but of
the elder child himself. This is all part of the mentality of collectivist
regimentation, that is, the “orthodox treatments” are so sacrosanct in the eyes
of the medical elites that individuals must be forced against their will to
submit to them. The problem will only get worse, once the paradigm is accepted.
The Source of Creativity
Scattered across America, there are literally thousands of
small town doctors who have developed new and innovative techniques,
alternative healing treatments and other specialized ways to improve diagnosis
and treatment of disease that will never see the printed page.
The history of science should have taught us that creativity
and innovation often come from the most unsuspecting quarters of society and
not always from the ivory towers of academia. One of my favorite stories is how
a janitor working in a museum informed the quite famous paleontologist that he
had the wrong skull on the assembled brontosaurs skeleton. Naturally, the
paleontologist thought he was not only nuts, but also quite arrogant to
question his expertise. It turned out the janitor was correct. You see, he was
a person who, on his own time, studied dinosaur bones. Such stories are
endless.
The idea of regimentation in medicine necessarily means that
an elite body of physicians (usually specialists) will make the
“evidence-based” protocols that physicians will be expected to follow. In the
beginning it was the insurance companies and government programs that pushed
such regimentation, but now we see medical societies and other physician groups
joining the collectivist destruction of creative, humane medicine.
The medical schools, as well as intern and resident training
programs, are also joining the collectivist bandwagon. When budding young
doctors are trained from the beginning to adhere to collectivist thinking and
accept the view that the individual doctor has nothing to contribute to the
intellectual growth of medical care, we will rapidly descend into an age of
darkness. Doctors will be forced to watch helplessly as their patients die or
are harmed by impersonal regimenting protocols.
On many occasions I have been able to save a patient because
I used my ability, experience, intuitive sense, creative ideas and individually
developed solutions to a problem instead of relying on the rote learning from
my years in training. The historical lesson we must keep in mind is that each
practicing physician has something to contribute.
I wish to make it clear that I am not opposed to protocols
as suggestions or voluntary guidelines. What I object to is rigid enforcement
of regimentation either by the State, the medical societies or hospital boards.
Under such a system, doctors become nothing more than automatons; cogs in an
all-embracing collectivist machine. This stifles creativity, innovation and the
development of better ideas on how to effectively, safely and successfully
treat patients and treat them as individual human beings, not as statistical
tables or collectives.
Ludwig von Mises, in his book Bureaucracy, points out
not only the stifling effect of regimentation generally, but focuses on the
devastating effect on the human intellect, especially genius.
A creative genius is precisely a man who defies all schools
and rules, who deviates from the traditional roads of routine and opens up new
paths through land inaccessible before. A genius is always a teacher, and never
a pupil; he is always self-made. He does not owe anything to the favor of those
in power. But on the other hand, the government can bring about conditions
which paralyze the efforts of a creative spirit and prevent him from rendering
useful services to the community.”
We should not lose sight of the fact that while the elitist
create the protocols, it is the bureaucrats who will enforce them. And as von
Mises notes: “Their main concern is to comply with the rules and regulations,
no matter whether they are reasonable or contrary to what is intended. The
first virtue of an administrator is to abide by the codes and decrees.”
In addition, we must appreciate that it is the physician who will become the
bureaucrat, since under such a regimented system he becomes the enforcer. Also
sacrificed on the alter of the collective is initiative, since regimentation
discourage personal “displays of talents and gifts”.
Once the spirit of the truly creative physician is broken by
the collectivist system, those remaining will become little more than apathetic
workers making their way through the day, hoping they haven’t in some way
offended the system. They become little more than pharmacists dispensing pills.
The Growth of Collectivism in Medicine
One way to promote the idea of collectivist regimentation in
medicine is through support by major foundations. One such foundation seeking
to influence the behavior of practicing physicians by using the god-term
“evidence-based medicine” is the UnitedHealth Foundation, which
states its goals as two fold. First, to establish a “scientific based”
codification of medical practice and second, to make medical care more
“accessible”, which also approaches the definition of a “god-term”. After all,
who could argue with better access to health care? Weaver refers to such
terminology as a “prestige name”, that is, connecting a concept with something
readily recognized as a name of good standing among the public.
In fact, this umbrella organization is a powerful supporter
of “universal health care”, which in truth, striped of its comforting “
prestige name”, means socialized medicine, i.e. socialism. The foundation
distributes to all physicians, free of charge, a yearly-updated book of
accepted dogmas on diagnosis and treatments called appropriately, Clinical
Evidence. The International Source of the Best Available Evidence for Effective
Health Care”.
In fact, within the
limited scope of orthodox medical care, it is a very useful book. The problem
is that it contains no references to alternative treatments; even those which
have passed the stringent demands of “evidence-based” review. In truth,
it gives the impression that the only treatments available include surgery or
pharmaceutical treatments, primarily the latter.
As with most such collections, the studies chosen as
acceptable are selected by a board of elitist physicians and “experts”. The
exact criteria for accepting some studies and rejecting others, is never fully
described. We see this same tactic among a number of government studies, most
recently with vaccine, fluoride and mercury safety. Once the elite reviewers
announce their conclusions, the popular media pronounce the question settled,
implying that the best minds in the world have spoken. In essence, they are
saying again –who can question the “facts” of the “science” ? The reader may
want to refer to my analysis of such a study on mercury in dental amalgam to be
found on the website www.iaomt.com. And as
stated earlier, voluntary “guidelines” have a nasty way of becoming law, enforced
by those in positions of power.
Role of the Media
This brings us to another problem and that is the
dissemination of false ideas and conclusion via the media. A number of medical
journals, New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the AMA for example,
have a sweetheart deal with many media outlets to provide them with conclusions
of what they consider important studies, before they appear in the journal,
that is, before doctors and researchers can see and analyze the study. Usually,
the media gets a condensed, sanitized version of the material, which is then
reported by the media in a way that, more often than not, in no way resembles
the actual study findings.
We see headlines such as –Study finds beta-carotene causes
cancer…;
or Eating
vegetables may actually cause colon cancer…, Study finds
vitamin E causes higher death rate in heart failure patients! A careful
analysis of the studies, once it comes out in the journal, usually finds that
the headlines were in no way justified. Yet, when dissenters attempt to
approach the media for a more accurate analysis they are told it is old news
and they are no longer interested. The question to be asked is –how many people
will die because of this inept reporting and deceitful methods by those supplying
the information to the media?
There is compelling evidence that a combination of natural
vitamin E, magnesium, ellagic acid, curcumin, resveratrol and quercetin can
dramatically reduce atherosclerosis even in those with the highest risk,
despite elevated cholesterol levels. This information is hidden from the public
and as a result, tens of thousands will die needlessly. When combined
with the Mediterranean diet, the results are even more dramatic. Yet
again, little of this life-saving information is included in
“evidence-based” protocols.
The idea that everything done by orthodox medicine has met
their own stringent criteria of proof they demand for alternative treatments is
an illusion. Most traditional medical treatments have little or no scientific
backing. I, as have many others, recognize that everything in medicine does not
require this level of proof. There is no evidence from double-blind,
placebo-controlled, randomized studies that hitting your thumb with a hammer
will cause damage and pain, but most of us accept it from experience. We have
no such studies to show that removing an acute subdural hematoma can save your
life, but our “antidotal “ experience convinces us it is true.
The contrary is also true. Many wrong ideas have persisted because
“the science” at the time convinced us it was true. One must appreciate that
science is not a finished discipline, that is, it has not yet arrived at a
final set of “truths”. While most will immediately react negatively to such a
statement, in fact, in their everyday behavior and dealings, they treat the
regimented programs containing “evidence-based medicine” as if it were not only
true and absolute, but final.
Under the system of collectivism, edicts handed down
to those below are slow to change, even those that conform to new findings or
better thought out ideas. One must have influence with the elite rulers to
effect even the slightest change and experience teaches us that this can be
quite difficult. Anyone who has dealt with bureaucracies of any form should
know this.
The Evil of Collectivism and the Idea of “Society” as an
Organic Entity
Historically, the acceptance of the idea that in society,
the individual is of less importance than the mass of men, slowly evolved among
influential philosophers of the Enlightenment, primarily among the logical
positivist. Such an idea is predicated on the notion that society is a living,
thinking and emotional being, that is, with all the characteristics of
individual person.
In the thinking of the positivist, “society” takes
precedence over the individual and one learns of the needs of this society by
appealing to special elite members of this society, the “anointed,” as
described by Thomas Sowell in his book, Visions of the Anointed. It is their
job to determine what this new being “society” is thinking and they do so by
determining its General Will, a term created by Rousseau.
We hear such things as – Society demands an accessible
health care system… or Society will not tolerate…. with such regularity that we
have come to accept such pronouncements as unassailable. One must appreciate
that any society is merely a collection of individuals, most often grouped as
families. Society has no personal existence and no powers of cognitive
function.
Within the public forum, we often see arguments couched in
terms that refer to the “will of society” or the “needs of society” and almost
never as similar concerns for individuals. One of the most frustrating
experiences for most people is to deal with organizations that treat them
impersonally. The most often used example has been the Post Office. Dealing
with any segment of the bureaucracy can trigger this frustration and more
recently we have seen this extended into the business world. Calling many
businesses today will not get you in contact with a living human being, but
rather an automated answering system.
The system of language used to speak for the collective has
been the tools of the statistician, which also gives it an air of “scientific
authority”. Often this is interspersed, as Weaver notes in his book –Language is
Sermonic, with an assortment of statements of much less assuredness
or even pure speculation. The abstract concept “General Will” of society
affords the elite members translating this will, an enormous degree of power
over individuals.
Frank S. Meyer points out in his book, In Defense of
Freedom,
the enormous danger of this process:
The empty abstractions whereby the General Will was
identified neither with the particular will of individuals nor groups nor even
the majority, but with an assumed underlying real will of the totality, enabled
each elite in turn to fill out the lineaments of the totality whose will was holy,
in such a manner that this will became what the elite wished it to be…The Volk
of the Nazis, the proletariat of the Communist, are but manifestations of this
totality whose will is the General Will, lay figures draped out to gain the
consent of the masses. These figures are presented as if they were indeed the
very image of the masses, but in reality they are only representations of the
will of the elite.
History should help us understand that this encroachment on
individual freedom is usually so insidious that most, in the course of their
busy lives, rarely see it. It has also been noted that the easiest time to stop
a despotic idea is in the beginning and not when it has become an accustom
habit of new generations. After a single generation, people cannot only forget
how things were done previously, but they can lose their cultural identity as
well.
The busier we become the more difficult it will be for the
average person to see these changes, much like watching your children grow;
grandparents, who see them less often, are more likely to observe their growth
as are their parents. In my lifetime I have seen such a dramatic alteration in
morals, common decency, and virtues that I find it nothing less than shocking,
as do many of our older citizens. These changes occurred not by a natural
evolution within society, but by the intrusion of harmful philosophies, such as
positivism, utilitarianism and Dewey’s educational theory.
Today’s physician is much more amenable to collectivist
notions and dogma than was the physician of the early to mid-19th century. To
argue from a stand of an individual viewpoint is so alien to such a physician,
that he has great difficulty engaging in a discourse. There is no common
ground.
The terms of communication have been so disrupted by
modernism and now post-modernism, that to speak of individual creativity or
imply that a common physician, that is outside of the elite circle, could have
something useful to contribute to the debate, would be not only considered
foolish, but even harmful to that abstract being, the society.
How often have we heard, usually among the anointed, that a
holder of certain ideas, because he lies so far outside modernist thinking,
“should be stopped”, as if he is a danger to the good of “society”, a public
enemy? In a Soviet State, such a person would risk containment in a gulag
or even being shot. In our society, one may suffer social ostracism, a loss of
licensure or, if challenging the State, a possible stint in the penitentiary.
One should not underestimate the power of social ostracism,
especially among medical professionals, which value their social standing in
the community above almost all other things. It is a very powerful system of
self-containment and as De Tocqueville noted in his visits to the United
States, it can be more oppressive than many governments.
Once the majority of physicians have been convinced of the
correctness of the regimenting proposals, resistance by the few who see through
the platitudes and assurances of success, will be forced by the power of social
ostracism into submission. After several generations, the new system of
thinking and performing one’s duties will become the norm and few will be left
alive who will remember the way it had been.
And, as we see in the highly regimented, socialist medical
systems of Canada and Great Britain, the suffering and deaths secondary to the
system will be explained away in new “god-terms”, so that more regimentation
will be called far, something always intrinsic to collectivist schemes. I find
it almost humorous when I read a London Times headline while visiting England
which stated in bold type that the British Health Service proudly announced
that waiting times for common surgeries had been cut from two years to sixteen months.
The masses, under such a system, wait hungrily around the
table of the State, hoping for a few scraps to fall to the floor.
No comments:
Post a Comment