The Politics & Economics
“The Strength Of Our Nation Is Directly Proportional To The Health Of Our People”...
The Health of Our People is Directly Proportional to the Health of Our Soil and the
Planetary Ecosystem... Pure Water, Clean Air, Healthy, Nutritous Organic Food is
the Foundation for Biological Health”...
Despite the fact that we as a nation spend over $1.2 Trillion on “disease care” each
year, we are facing an unprecedented “health crisis.”
The modern medical establishment with its reliance on technology, dangerous drugs,
unnecessary surgery and exorbitant escalating hospital costs has failed in its mission
to deliver safe, effective and inexpensive medical care.
Modern medicine does well with infectious diseases and works miracles with traumatic
injuries, yet it has virtually no effect on the major stress-related environmental
degenerative diseases of our time...
What’s Wrong With America’s Healthcare System?
Politics and cancer may be thought of as a contradiction in terms. Surely there can’t
be politics in cancer and healing; surely when breakthroughs are made, the medical
profession puts them to use. That’s the way it is, isn’t it? It would be nice if
it were that simple.
In most fields, competition usually arranges for the best product to prevail—not
always, but usually. In ten stories, “The Tragic Truth about Politics and Cancer”
shows that a free market in health products does not exist in the U.S. Effective
products (many for cancer) have been shoved aside during most of the 20th century.
Pushed forward in their stead have been “approved” therapies which did not win their
spurs in the open competition of a free market. Instead, approval was dictated and
administered from the top down by “Official Medicine.” Official Medicine consists
of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the American Medical Association
(AMA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which contain the National Cancer
Institute (NCI). In addition, there are the American Cancer Society (ACS), the Memorial
Sloan Kettering Hospital, the Mayo Clinic, the M.D. Anderson in Houston, Roswell
Park in Buffalo, NY, and others. These organizations constitute Official Medicine,
the American medical establishment. It decides, yes, pontificates what medicines
and therapies will be available to Americans, and harshly disciplines doctors who
venture outside its guidelines.
Politics in Healing is a collection of stories which should not have happened, stories
which will not be heard from Official Medicine, stories about dark undercurrents
in American medicine. Political patterns of misuse of both public and private power
are seen through what happened to ten stories of little-known healers of the 20th
century. Many of them produced breakthroughs of Nobel Prize quality. Most of these
therapies are no longer available to help with our numerous health challenges as
we begin the new millennium—not because they didn’t work, but for political reasons.
These stories show how governmental and prestigious private institutions have deliberately
misrepresented, held back, discouraged, ignored, and suppressed important inexpensive
and non-toxic healing breakthroughs. While government can be expected to be inept,
the decisions and actions described in Politics in Healing were intentional and deliberate,
and many people have died as a result.
Politics in Healing puts it as a postulate that there is a war going on (of which
the public is largely unaware) between toxic and non-toxic therapies, and that the
non-toxic ones have been getting clobbered. There has been a long attempt to sell
a bill of goods that the only real medicine is strong, toxic medicine, almost always
patented, and that only this should be used by doctors or paid for by health insurance
programs, either public or private. Key to maintaining this status quo is the FDA,
which tilts predictably and continuously against non-toxic medicines. Created in
1906 by the visionary Dr. Harvey Wiley, the FDA throughout most of the 20th century
had little in common with what Dr. Wiley intended. Its original purpose was to make
sure that foods are pure and drugs are safe, but it has drifted way off course. The
FDA frequently appears less interested in protecting Americans from harmful drugs
than from harmless ones, especially those capable of competing with prescription
Indeed, as we enter the 21st century, the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.
is from reactions to FDA-approved drugs. On April 14, 1998, the JAMA (Journal of
the American Medical Association) published a shocking report, a painstaking analysis
of 39 studies conducted over 30 years. The study showed that an average of 106,000
people die in hospitals each year—that’s one every five minutes—from drugs approved
by the FDA. The study does not include cases where drugs were mis-prescribed. When
considering deaths from the same cause outside hospitals, i.e., at home, the number
rises to around 140,000 a year according to Centers for Disease Control statistics.
These are not deaths from illegal street drugs; those cause only a small fraction
of the deaths from FDA-approved drugs, which kill three times the number dying each
year from automobile accidents.
And there’s more. The fourth leading cause of hospital admissions in the U.S. is
from the reactions to prescription drugs. About 2.2 million Americans suffer severe
side effects from FDA-approved drugs that some are permanently disabled or require
long hospital stays, reported USA Today on April 24, 1998. These side effects were
estimated to have cost $78 billion in 1997.
When ABC News Director Peter Jennings announced the JAMA study, he presented a doctor
whose wife had complained that her pain medication was not taking effect. “My words
have come back to haunt me,” he told Jennings. “‘Take another pill,’ I told her.
‘It won’t kill you.’” But it did; the next morning she didn’t wake up. Only then
did the doctor learn that the drug was capable of causing heart problems.
The cost of the American healthcare system has passed one trillion dollars per year—about
1/5 of the U.S. gross domestic product. We spend more per capita on healthcare than
any country on earth. Despite that, some of our statistics are embarrassing: the
infant mortality rate in the U.S. is higher than that in Cuba. The number of infants
who died before their first birthday is 13.3 per 1000 births in New York City but
10.9 in Shanghai (Townsend Letter, May 1998). A United Nations World Health Organization
(WHO) study issued in June 2000 measured a new concept: “healthy life expectancy.”
The WHO found Japan leading the world, with the United States, at #20, falling behind
almost every country in Europe as well as Canada, Australia, and Israel.
Perhaps its costliness results from the fact that the U.S. has one of the most beaurocratically
controlled and over-regulated medical systems in the world. Manufacturers are not
free to produce effective non-toxic products or to inform the public on what their
products can do. Doctors are only free to prescribe for their patients what has been
approved or accepted by Official Medicine.
Because of overuse of antibiotics, many strains of bacteria have developed resistance
against any antibiotics. When Jim Henson, creator of the Muppets, lay dying from
just such a bacterium, Official Medicine had nothing for him. In Texas in early 1998,
eight people were suddenly dead from a new strain of Strep A, and doctors were helpless
to save them. Old types of bacteria have mutated: new strains of the tuberculosis
bacillus do not respond to existing antibiotics. Of those who go into hospitals,
14% come out with infections they did not have when they were admitted. Some don’t
come out—21,000 die each year from such infections (USA Today, April 14, 1998). Do
effective medicines for such situations exist which could never make it out of the
closet in the current over-regulated environment?
The FDA tries to control more than it needs to. It claims regulatory authority over
drugs, but defines a drug as anything that is used for diagnosis or treatment of
disease. Carried to the logical extreme, prune juice could be considered a drug,
since it definitely affects the body. A 1997 study by Tufts University found that
the cost of getting FDA approval for a new drug costs upwards of $200,000,000 and
may take ten years or longer. In May, 2000, an article in the New England Journal
of Medicine stated that getting a new drug approved could cost between $300 and $500
million. The pharmaceutical industry is the richest in the world—yes, richer than
the oil industry. However, given such rules, even the richest drug company cannot
afford to introduce a new medicine without patent protection.
Consequently, more than ever before, we live in the era of Patent
Medicine, once not a very complimentary term. Securing FDA approval allows a manufacturer
to advertise what the approved product will do—i.e., to make health claims, which
are forbidden without FDA approval. For instance, it is well established through
clinical studies that the saw palmetto herb is more effective—and safer—at shrinking
a swollen male prostate gland than the “approved” brands whose advertisements are
everywhere (Health and Healing, June 1999). If a manufacturer of saw palmetto wished
to state this known truth on its label, the FDA would haul that manufacturer into
court in short order for having committed the sin of making health claims. The fact
that they might be true is beside the point, for the FDA has arrogated unto itself
the right to censor them. In a nation which finds it cannot censor pornography under
the free speech right of the First Amendment, the FDA finds it can censor the manufacturer
and prevent it from telling the public the truth about a product. On January 15,
1999, the U.S.D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FDA had violated the First
Amendment of the Constitution by denying four health claims conveying information;
the Court also held that the FDA cannot constitutionally deny a health claim conveying
Paying no attention to the Constitution or the Court, on November 30, 1999, the FDA
denied a health claim concerning the herb saw palmetto’s ability to reduce a swollen
prostate, stating that it considered the claim to be one requiring the filing of
a new drug application. Congressman Peter DeFazio wrote the FDA a stern letter protesting
its unconstitutional acts. For the FDA, if you want to make health claims the solution
is simple: get in line, spend your $200,000,000+, and in ten years or so perhaps
you can do so. Since the saw palmetto herb cannot be patented, the American male
consumer is out of luck at learning about that effective, harmless, and far cheaper
In many countries, people think that if they want the best medicine in the world,
they need to come to the United States. This is certainly the case for catastrophic
injuries. If you’re broken to pieces, you’ve got a much better chance of being put
back together properly in the U.S. However, most Americans do not die of accidents
but of degenerative diseases. One American dies of cancer every minute, 1,500 a day,
10,000 a week, 500,000 a year. This is the equivalent of three fully-loaded 747s
crashing and killing everyone aboard every day, all year long. An American Cancer
Society study of cancer mortality rates in 46 countries shows the U.S. as #25, just
a little below the middle. The cost of the cancer epidemic has risen to 2% of the
American gross domestic product (Newsweek, June 2000).
Pretty regularly, someone makes an appeal for more money for medical research. But
what about the effective, non-toxic therapies already discovered which have been
suppressed, discouraged, outlawed or driven out of the U.S. by Official Medicine?
Politics in Healing deals with those medicines, all non-toxic and mostly not available—not
because they didn’t work, but for political reasons. But if something is non-toxic,
why should the government (FDA) need to “protect” us from it? Or is the protection
for companies who do not want competition from inexpensive, effective, non-toxic
therapies? The FDA spent eight years of effort and untold millions trying to jail
Dr. Burzynski (Chapter 11), discoverer of an effective and NON-toxic cancer therapy.
The FDA’s involvement with pharmaceutical companies has been called the most notorious
“revolving door” in Washington; upon retirement, about 65% of FDA employees go to
work for drug companies. Upon hearing this, one person commented: “What’s wrong with
Eight of the stories in Politics in Healing deal with cancer therapies. These may
of interest to many, since one American dies of cancer every minute. Money for cancer
research goes to those trying to perfect “approved” therapies such as chemotherapy
and radiation, but both are very harmful. Those researching such therapies might
be out of business and have to find another way to pay the mortgage if an effective,
non-toxic therapy were to come on the market. As will be seen in Politics in Healing,
a great deal of effort has been made to make sure that doesn’t happen.
The possible loss of Health Freedom in the U.S. was foreseen by one of the signers
of the Declaration of Independence, Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia, one of the
most famous doctors in colonial America. Rush wrote:
“The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom
as well as religious freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class of men
and deny equal privilege to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science.
All such laws are un-American and despotic.”
While every other kind of freedom is fought for by both liberals and conservatives,
there’s strange silence when one brings up Health Freedom—freedom for anyone to consult
the doctor of their choice, to obtain any therapy of one’s choice, toxic or non-toxic,
and to have it paid for by one’s health insurance. Our talk and preaching about free
markets helped to bring down the Soviet Union. But we don’t practice what we preach,
for we have no free market in non-toxic therapies in the U.S.-in things which by
definition can’t hurt us. For a layman, it is hard to conceive that some of the most
basic organizations in our health establishment would lie and cheat, but lie and
cheat they have.
Political pounding befell some very remarkable medicines and their proponents, with
both governmental and non-governmental institutions brazenly lying as they squelched
them. The late Sen. Paul Douglas of Illinois declared on the Senate floor on December
6, 1963: “It’s a terrible thing that we cannot really trust either the FDA or the
NCI!” He was talking about Krebiozen (Chapter 5), one of the most shocking stories
of all. People picketed the Kennedy White House in 1963 demanding to retain access
to Krebiozen, lest they die. Having bemoaned listening to the “experts” after the
Cuban missile crisis, the President apparently was still listening to them, for Krebiozen
was lost and forgotten, and shouldn’t have been. And people died. Then there is the
story of Dr. William F. Koch of Detroit (Chapter 3). From the 1920s to the 1950s,
he was curing cancer with one shot of Glyoxylide, a substance he discovered.
While the cancer epidemic rages on, Dr. Koch is virtually forgotten. Persecuted relentlessly
by the FDA in two trials in the 1940s, he was repeatedly denounced as a quack by
the editor of the AMA’s JAMA after he refused to sell his discovery to the AMA. Yet
there are people still alive at the beginning of the 21st century who were expected
to die momentarily until treated with ONE Koch shot. With one American dying of cancer
every minute, many might wish that Official Medicine had not thrown away the Koch
therapy and the brilliant science that produced it. The National Cancer Institute
(NCI) steadfastly refused to test the Koch therapy, or the Hoxsey therapy, or Krebiozen,
but did test hydrazine sulfate (HS), a very cheap non-toxic chemical which cured
many terminal patients after conventional therapy had failed to do so. It might have
been better if NCI had not tested hydrazine sulfate, for it cheated in the trials.
Dr. Joseph Gold, the chief proponent of HS, has warned for years that certain substances
(alcohol, tranquilizers, and barbiturates) were incompatible with HS and would cancel
its effect—or even make a harmful combination with it. In the Soviet Union and in
four trials within the U.S., Dr. Gold’s warnings were scrupulously observed, and
the average results were 40-50% success in terminal cancer patients—people got better.
However, the NCI maintained that the “incompatibles” were a “non-issue” and gave
barbiturates to 94% of the 600 patients it treated with HS from 1989 to 1993. Instead
of the 40-50% recovery, there were more survivors of the Titanic than there were
of the NCI’s trials, where no one got better, all died. Penthouse magazine blew the
whistle on the scandal and suggested that the families of the deceased patients should
sue the NCI for genocide. As a cancer treatment, hydrazine sulfate costs about 60
cents a day. Dr. Gold estimates that the cost of one session of chemotherapy would
pay for a year’s supply of HS (Chapter 10). Chapter 7 on colostrum (a mother’s first
milk) tells how former Congressman Berkley Bedell of Iowa was cured of lyme disease,
after antibiotics proved ineffective, by a colostrum “targeted” against the spirochete
which causes lyme disease.
This was achieved by injecting a killed lyme spirochete into the udder of a cow three
weeks before her calf was born. The cow’s colostrum then contained antibodies against
the lyme spirochete, and this cured the Congressman. There is no known limit to what
can be produced by the targeted colostrum method; it presumably could provide a cure
for TB, or for various bacteria—even protection against anthrax. It has been used
successfully against cancer in animals. The NCI and the NIH have shown no interest
in this method, and the FDA discourages the private sector from developing it. When
a colostrum drink was shown to be effective against arthritis, the FDA squelched
it. The trial of the Minnesota farmer who helped Congressman Bedell to recover is
described. In fact, there is a trial in almost every chapter of the book, as the
stories tell what befell the protagonists of various non-toxic, non-pharmaceutical
The lessons of the ten stories show that there are two principal impediments to non-toxic
health breakthroughs: 1) the FDA, and 2) doctors’ fear of losing their licenses for
using unapproved medicines. There are two simple solutions: 1) remove the FDA’s regulatory
authority over anything no more toxic than aspirin (everything in the book would
pass that test) and 2) pass the Access to Medical Treatment Act, which is already
introduced in both houses of Congress. This bill was conceived by Congressman Berkley
Bedell so that all Americans might have access to the sorts of unconventional therapies
which he believes saved his life twice: lyme disease, as noted, and then from a threatened
recurrence of prostate cancer, described in Chapter 8. The “Access” Act provides
a procedure for putting on the market medicines not approved by the FDA and protects
from prosecution doctors who use them.
Doctors would need to obtain the “informed consent” of a patient, who signs a statement
that he/she realizes the treatment to be given is not approved by the FDA. Had these
two changes been the law of the land, Politics in Healing would not have been written,
for the stories that follow would not have happened. Legislating these two simple
changes would permit the return of most of the therapies described except for those
which have been lost. Since all were inexpensive, with their return and the appearance
of other breakthroughs waiting in the wings, the costs of American healthcare would
plummet. These changes would permit open competition and a free market in NON-toxic
therapies. The U.S. has had a rigidly controlled market in health products, including
non-toxic ones, (to “protect” us) for most of the past century. The results are a
high toll from cancer, the absence of effective medicine against many bacterial infections,
and the most costly health system on the planet. How could we do worse with Health
While American emergency medicine is indeed the best in the world, most Americans
do not die from accidents, but from degenerative disease. Many treatments for the
latter are excluded from the market, or their capabilities censored by the FDA, which
has usurped for itself the right to dictate to manufacturers what they can say about
their products. Gradually, before anyone realized it was happening, the FDA clamped
upon the U.S. a harsh regime of censorship and repression of anything that could
compete with the giant drug companies. Prescription drugs have become so expensive
that it has been proposed that the government pay for them, instead of forcing the
drug companies to reduce prices to the level charged in other countries such as Mexico
But there’s a better idea: let’s give the drug companies some real competition by
removing all governmental controls over anything non-toxic. Since this would permit
truthful advertising of what non-toxic medicines (nutritional supplements, herbs,
etc.) can do, it would not be surprising to see the cost of prescription drugs come
down, way down, corrected in the way that free markets and open competition regularly
do.We have been warned many times about socialized medicine. The problem, we’re told,
is that its overly centralized control stifles innovation. With too much dictation
from the top down, with over-regulation by the FDA, with doctors not free to use
effective non-toxic therapies, a form of socialized medicine is just what we have,
functioning just as badly as we were warned to expect.
While the computer industry is free to make breakthroughs that are the envy of the
world, and which happen so rapidly as to leave people breathless, no such freedom
exists in the medical field. Instead, such discoveries as the antineoplaston cancer
treatment of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski in Houston are discouraged: the FDA tried very
hard to put him in jail; in contrast to so many FDA-approved drugs, antineoplastons
never hurt anyone, but instead put many cancers in remission. In addition, here too,
the NCI cheated in trials of antineoplastons, diluting them to the point of ineffectiveness.
NCI even filed for and obtained a patent on one of Dr. Burzynski’s compounds when
it discovered he had not patented it (Chapter 11).
Open competition and a free market in non-toxic health products will solve a multitude
of problems. In such a market, wondrous things can and will appear, many returning
from the oblivion to which they have been cast. How could there be politics in cancer
and healing? Surely, one presumes, the best medical discoveries are adopted and the
doctors use them. The tragic truth is that it is not that simple.
Daniel Haley, Author of: Politics in Healing - The Suppression and Manipulation of
Published by Potomac Valley Press. To order: 800-898-0639 or www.politicsinhealing.com
Alternative Medicine and the Truth About Being
“Scientific” and “Proven”
Discerning citizens should demand of conventional medicine experts that they prove
the science behind their medicine by demonstrating successful, nontoxic, and affordable
patient outcomes. Alternative Medicine and the Truth About Being “Scientific” and
It’s time to revise the scientific method to handle the complexities of alternative
medicine. The U.S. government has belatedly confirmed a fact that millions of Americans
have known personally for decades-acupuncture works. A 12-member panel of medical
“experts” recently informed the National Institutes of Health (NIH), its sponsor,
that acupuncture is “clearly effective” for treating certain conditions, such as
fibromyalgia, tennis elbow, pain following dental surgery, nausea during pregnancy,
and nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.
The panel was less persuaded that acupuncture is appropriate as the sole treatment
for headaches, asthma, addiction, menstrual cramps, and others. The NIH panel reported
that, in their view, “there are a number of cases” in which acupuncture works. As
the modality has fewer side effects and is less invasive than conventional treatments,
“it is time to take it seriously” and “expand its use into conventional medicine.”
These developments are, naturally, welcome, and the field of alternative medicine
should, by rights, be pleased with this progressive step. However, underlying the
NIH’s endorsement and qualified “legitimization” of acupuncture is a deeper issue
that must come to light. I refer to a presumption so deeply ingrained in Western
society as to be almost invisible to all but the most discerning eyes. The presumption
is that the “experts” of conventional medicine are entitled and qualified to pass
judgment on the scientific and therapeutic merits of alternative medicine modalities.
They are not.
The matter hinges on the definition and scope of the term “scientific.” The mainstream
media is continually full of carping complaints by supposed medical experts that
alternative medicine is not “scientific” and not “proven.” Yet we never hear these
experts take a moment out from their vituperations to examine the tenets and assumptions
of their cherished scientific method to see if they are valid. They are not. Medical
historian Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D., author of the landmark four-volume history of
Western medicine called Divided Legacy, first alerted me to a crucial, though unrecognized,
distinction. The question we should ask is whether conventional medicine is scientific.
Dr. Coulter argues convincingly that it is not. Over the last 2,500 years, Western
medicine has been divided by a powerful schism between two opposed ways of looking
at physiology, health, and healing, says Dr. Coulter. What we now call conventional
medicine (or allopathy) was once known as Rationalist medicine; alternative medicine,
in Dr. Coulter’s history, was called Empirical. Rationalist medicine is based on
reason and prevailing theory, while Empirical med-icine is based on observed facts
and real life experience-on what works. Dr. Coulter makes some startling observations
based on this distinction. Conventional medicine is alien, both in spirit and structure,
to the scientific method of investigation, he says. Its concepts continually change
with the latest breakthrough. Yesterday, it was germ theory; today, it’s genetics;
tomorrow, who knows?
With each changing fashion in medical thought, conventional medicine has to toss
away its now outmoded orthodoxy and impose the new one, until it gets changed again.
This is medicine based on abstract theory; the facts of the body must be contorted
to conform to these theories or dismissed as irrelevant. Doctors of this persuasion
accept a dogma on faith and impose it on their patients, until it’s proved wrong
or dangerous by the next generation. They get carried away by abstract ideas and
forget the living patients. As a result, the diagnosis is not directly connected
to the remedy; the link is more a matter of guesswork than science. This approach,
says Dr. Coulter, is “inherently imprecise, approximate, and unstable-it’s a dogma
of authority, not science.”
Even if an approach hardly works at all, it’s kept on the books because the theory
says it’s good “science.” On the other hand, practitioners of Empirical, or alternative
medicine, do their homework: they study the individual patients; determine all the
contributing causes; note all the symptoms; and observe the results of treatment.
Homeopathy and Chinese medi-cine are prime examples of this approach. Both modalities
may be added to because physicians in these fields and other alternative practices
constantly seek new information based on their clinical experience. This is the meaning
of empirical: it’s based on experience, then continually tested and refined-but not
reinvented or discarded-through the doctor’s daily practice with actual patients.
For this reason, homeopathic remedies don’t become outmoded; acupuncture treatment
strategies don’t become irrelevant.
Alternative medicineisproven every day in the clinical experience of physicians and
patients. It was proven ten years ago and will remain proven ten years from now.
According to Dr. Coulter, alternative medicine is more scientific in the truest sense
than Western, so-called scientific medicine. Sadly, what we see far too often in
conventional medicine is a drug or procedure “proven” as effective and accepted by
the FDA and other authoritative bodies only to be revoked a few years later when
it’s been proven to be toxic, malfunctioning, or deadly.
The conceit of conventional med-icine and its “science” is that substances and procedures
must pass the double-blind study to be proven effective. But is the double-blind
method the most appropriate way to be scientific about alternative medicine? It is
not. The guidelines and boundaries of science must be revised to encompass the clinical
subtlety and complexity revealed by alternative medicine. As a testing method, the
double-blind study examines a single substance or procedure in isolated, controlled
conditions and measures results against an inactive or empty procedure or substance
(called a placebo) to be sure that no subjective factors get in the way. The approach
is based on the assumption that single factors cause and reverse illness, and that
these can be studied alone, out of context and in isolation.
The double-blind study, although taken without critical examination to be the gold
standard of modern science, is actually misleading, even useless, when it is used
to study alternative medicine. We know that no single factor causes anything nor
is there a “magic bullet” capable of single-handedly reversing conditions. Mult-iple
factors contribute to the emergence of an illness and multiple modalities must work
together to produce healing. Equally important is the understanding that this multiplicity
of causes and cures takes place in individual patients, no two of whom are alike
in psychology, family medical history, and biochemistry. Two men, both of whom are
35 and have similar flu symptoms, do not necessarily and automatically have the same
health condition, nor should they receive the same treatment. They might, but you
can’t count on it.
The double-blind method is incapable of accommodating this degree of medical complexity
and variation, yet these are physiological facts of life. Any approach claiming to
be scientific which has to exclude this much empirical, real-life data from its study
is clearly not true science. In a profound sense, the double-blind method cannot
prove alternative med-icine is effective because it is not scientific enough. It
is not broad and subtle and complex enough to encompass the clinical realities of
alternative medicine. If you depend on the double-blind study to validate alternative
medicine, you will end up doubly blind about the reality of medicine. Listen carefully
the next time you hear medical “experts” whining that a substance or method has not
been “scientifically” evaluated in a double-blind study and is therefore not yet
They’re just trying to mislead and intimidate you. Ask them how much “scientific”
proof underlies using chemotherapy and radiation for cancer or angioplasty for heart
disease. The fact is, it’s very little. Try turning the situation around. Demand
of the experts that they scientifically prove the efficacy of some of their cash
cows, such as chemotherapy and radiation for cancer, angioplasty and bypass for heart
disease, or hysterectomies for uterine problems. The efficacy hasn’t been proven
because it can’t be proven.
There is no need whatsoever for practitioners and consumers of alternative medicine
to wait like supplicants with hat in hand for the scientific “experts” of conventional
medicine to dole out a few condescending scraps of official approval for alternative
Rather, discerning citizens should be demanding of these experts that they prove
the science behind their medicine by demonstrating successful, nontoxic, and affordable
patient outcomes. If they can’t, these approaches should be rejected for being unscientific.
After all, the proof is in the cure.
Let’s Get Fiscal About the Cost of Health!