The medical world is full of dangers and less scientific than it occurs. You run all the risk as soon as you set foot over the threshold of the consulting your doctor. Chances are that you get a treatment where no scientific basis for it, and you can not heal. Side effects you get in for free. Dare you still go to a doctor? Probably not if you know that medical research padded out by the same industry that brings the resources on the market.
All research and surgical techniques with regret, the death rate among breast cancer patients is not going down. The number of heart attacks in the western world does not sink, despite the 'necessity' of anti-cholesterol agents, antihypertensives and low-cholesterol diets. Diseases such as asthma, arthritis, diabetes and cancer, actually almost all the chronic diseases that we know, remain in large numbers in our midst, the multitude of chemical preparations and computerized testing equipment notwithstanding. The statistics show much more despondent: Will you be in the hospital, then chances whopping six you just is because of a medical error. Chances are equally good that you incur during your stay injury or even croak. Half is accounted for by the doctor treating you, the other half by other staff, eg. Nurses.
For about the harmful effects of preventive action, but not to speak. Who does not know the harrowing vaccination cases that reached the media because they are 'safe' and automatic prick paid with death, or in less severe cases collapsed with a chronic condition? The controversial smear is another story. It was found that the death rate from cervical cancer has decreasing by barely, but the incredible amount of false positive test results is a fact. With all unnecessary treatments entail. In addition, this type of cancer is not the 'killer' under the female cancers, it is even fairly rare.
Did you know that a lot of the treatments your doctor does not work, in fact, that there has never been proven that it works and safety - especially in the long run - also unknown? You read that right. The vast majority of drugs do not cure but only suppress the symptoms. Some wonder drugs are, of course, tw insulin and antibiotics, but there are limitations. The power of antibiotics decreases due to the frequent prescription. A whopping 97% of prescriptions for antibiotics are completely useless because the infection is viral.
No clear evidence of effectiveness
Many deployed treatments are not based on science but on superstition, blind prejudices, experiments and tryouts. Treatments that we accept as normal is ever introduced and widely applied without even had a proper study that demonstrates the effectiveness or even proves to be safe. The "gold standard" that doctors take charge if any scientific evidence for the value of a drug or treatment is "double blind," ie, placebo-controlled testing. Although there often is no significant evidence of effectiveness and it means yet but is placed on the market now to come once the cost, it is even worse: Despite the thousands of studies, there are very few treatments for these 'high "- or any other - subject review. More: Placebo effect, the science over
Science and religion
The medical authorities recognize these facts openly. New Scientist showed on the cover that eighty percent of the procedures performed today never been tested properly. Physician and critic Dr. R. Mendelsohn dared to compare modern medicine with a church, a religion. In any case, science or even art, it said, in his book "Confessions of a Medical Heretic" the legendary words: 'Just ask often enough' why '? and eventually you will arrive at the separation of faith. Your doctor will hide behind the fact that you can not possibly know anything about all the wonders that he has at his disposal. Now trust me. " As long as medical treatments within their lane will fit doctors push a reasonable doubt on the effectiveness under the carpet. Because that is exactly what brings about a powerful faith.
There is a presupposition of the positive effects of a particular treatment method, whether it is "proven" or not. One goes to great lengths to facilitate the importation and application of treatments or medications if at first sight it seems to mean something. The passion you see for example in hormone replacement therapies where further investigation is suspended for safety for convenience. But at least five studies show that this is caused by an aura of beneficence papered means breast cancer. However, the provision continues.
This falls under serious scientific mistakes which you as a patient will not notice until you - if you're lucky - only the side effects of your medication or side effects read no longer accepting. Doctors also want to meet the wishes of the patient. Thus it is shown that the effect of chemo is much less effective in fighting cancer than the doctors and scientists want to believe you. Chemo is in most cases hot air, but doing nothing would not be an option. It would correspond to the "give courage". Severe nausea and hair loss are the consequences, but quantity above all. And the patient mistakenly thinks he 'treated' is.
From a large study of the Dutch Cancer Institute found that pill-popping, all women were at increased risk of breast cancer. Conversely, it is much more alarming: 97 percent of women under thirty-six developed breast cancer which swallowed the pill long or short time. Now it is bizarre that doctors pill thirty years cheered as safest possible way. With the outcome of the fifth and probably most convincing study, they looked ugly on their nose. The link between the pill and cancer is not something they and the entire industry could 'use' out. It was inevitable, there was a further specification of the researchers. Cancer would only occur in certain subgroups. Women in their late thirties would be spared, so all of a sudden there was good news: "Our findings show that oral contraceptives in women in their middle reproductive years are at risk of breast cancer does not affect." So the case was so twisted that both manufacturers, doctors and the patients came to contraception gasping best. Juggling with words, fiddling with test results.
In addition, there is another remarkable phenomenon: Medici reduce side effects and risks due to the risk of not using them difficult to exaggerate. By pregnancy as a risk to denote the masses feel compelled here to 'protect'. So you can according to medical authorities better run the risk of breast cancer, have a stroke or thrombosis, a baby, or simply use non-hormonal agents. The inflation of risk of a condition, or even a normal state, compared to the risks of the inventive drug is something that happens quite often. Create somewhere a deadly and dreadful affair of, and the risky medication suddenly has the perfect answer. Reverse logic are everywhere in the medical world. The amalgam-story, known to everyone, is receiving increasing attention. But still it is thought that chronic mercury poisoning in your mouth otherwise it is 'safe'. Why? Because not conclusively proven that it is not so. Thus we are all guinea pigs without realizing it.
Double standard, suspected medical research ... how does this all mean? Medical research is for the most part financed by the same pharmaceutical companies that profit from positive results or results that bring down the competition. Salaries of researchers will be reimbursed, and they also have the power to determine where the found research results are published, even if they actually have to be made public. Because the carpet is always an option. Increasingly should also be alert to the fact that manufacturers of drugs have absolutely no interest in the diseases of solution. Their importance lies in the lifelong maintenance treatment, so that the pipe continues to smoke. The result is that important innovation is often rejected in medical science, while doctors without any criticism continue prescribing drugs that barely exceed the value of a home remedy. There is a dichotomy emerged, orthodox and alternative.
An example of how one deals with evidence? All three scientific studies, including the gold standard test, the double blind system and the use of placebos, showed that operates a homeopathic treatment of asthma. Nevertheless wanted to know the leader of the study none of his own published report. He used to hide behind any false positive results. Also, The Lancet, a leading scientific journal, refused to reveal the results.
Their comment: "What could be more absurd than the idea that a therapeutically active substance is so ?? s high dilution that the patient is most likely not a single molecule in the body get? The whole dilution principle of homeopathy is absurd. The reason for any therapeutic effect should therefore be somewhere else. ?? In conclusion: the scientific method works only when used in connection with with things we believe in, but it does not seem to things we do not understand or where we do not agree. This is how today's "science", see: The limits of science
Can the poor doctor then do nothing? Well, so poor he is not. Retraining happen, but it is never enough. Will the doctor for a medical congress, he can be assured that it is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. All costs will be reimbursed, including beautiful gifts, junkets and manufacturer money. Of course, expect the manufacturer or by the doctor that he is prescribing his medication. But often, the physician should do only what the manufacturer writes about a new drug. And that's a positive story is clear. An agent is pretty much standard heaven been praised, adverse reactions are dismissed or minimized.
Lynne McTaggart, author of the work "What doctors do not tell", explains: "We tend anything a doctor prescribes - quite literally - to swallow. To the point of absurdity. The problem is that too few doctors also ask themselves what is or is not good. During their training is to enable them unlearned questions. Whoever adopts a critical, is ridiculed. If there is an empowered patient walks into their practice of all want to know about the side effects of the prescription drug, it feels such a doctor is attacked. " The medical training is similar in patients dealing especially so on an arrogance training.
And doctors give it far too. According to a neurologist doctors let himself be persuaded by the industry of new drugs that barely work, declaring that they do work. The links with industry are too great to deny. The Health Care Insurance Board, which advises the minister on the reimbursement of medicines, is familiar with the whole phenomenon. A spokesman: "I think that over two thirds of all new drugs do not add much to the existing medicines. Our problem is that we do not have enough independent information. We'd drugs must continue to follow when they are on the market. "
Is watching you so if you later get medication. Possibly they ever approved in the dim past. Possibly never. Perhaps the test group consisted of a set of men aged around thirty-five when you are much younger, or wife, or pregnant, or aged. Perhaps the agent is called safe because the opposite has never been proven. In fact, never been investigated. Chances are that you have been prescribed because the others' help would "or" might work. " But every individual is different and reacts differently. Finally, it may also be that you have got hold of the recipe as a medical sales could convince your doctor of the 'action'. Or who is there or not. And that determine ultimately.
"Doctors have a status comparable to God. It is made so much confidence in their authority. Who else gets it done for strangers to get just the clothes? " ~ Robert Mendelsohn