PG: There won’t be resentment because there will be nothing to cause that resentment, and when there is nothing to cause that resentment, then under the changed conditions there will be no reason to strike out at people who have not hurt you first. The same goes for war. War is not that difficult to prevent, once this law is put into effect. I can’t cut and paste this chapter because it is over 100 pages long.
This correspondence is closed.
PG: I’m curious as to what I said that upset you? If you didn’t like something I said, you could have given me the decency to tell me what it was and what was bothering you in the post. I never said anything to be nasty. So whatever you interpreted to be unacceptable is not something I did intentionally. What an unfortunate ending to a promising discussion. Take care.
A-huh…huh. Ah-huh-huh-huh-huh…hey Beavis…
…ah-huh-huh…“come on baby light my fire”…a-huh-huh-huh!!!
Yeah, yeah…mm-mm…fire! fire! FIRE!!!
Ummm…
Nevermind.
Dear Peacegirl, you are part of change in progress. In the past cultures have risen, flourished, solidified and fallen. At other times the solidification gives rise to the seeds of a new direction for a culture (re: Fritjof Capra’s “Turning Point”). Our culture is rapidly approaching the Turning Point. The Old has solidified and must decay. The new shoots of the future direction (yourself included) spring up at an ever-increasing rate. We flow with it doing what we MUST do and being who we MUST be. Do not cling to the aspect of the future you have witnessed or you may solidify. But if you do cling, you were always going to anyway. Just as I was always going to send this message.
My own vision concerns time - it doesn’t exist - and the repercussions of this for mankind. I constantly fall back into who I am, a condition I would dearly love to transcend and find myself clinging to the “importance” of my vision.
Time for the New Shoots to gather
Mosassam
Thanks for your thoughts Mosassam. I am in absolute agreement that we are reaching a turning point, and it is happening rapidly. We have no control because we are gravitating toward this New World, this Golden Age of man, where there are no wars and no hatred but still in accordance with the laws of our nature. But the universe must be ready for change and until we can wrap our minds around that fact that a peaceful world is not only possible, but inevitable, we will be angry at anyone who makes claims of this magnitude. I am just a messenger bringing knowledge that I have studied for a long time, and I feel a commitment to it because I know it is undeniable.
Until the world recognizes the scientific nature of what is being presented, we will live in the world of free will with the concomitant blame and punishment, and the misery that we have experienced since time immemorial. But I have hope that very soon there will be a quantum leap in understanding, and when this occurs the world will never be the same. I hope you continue to dream and trust your vision that a new world is coming, because it is God’s will which only means the laws of our nature including the law of greater satisfaction. I hope you continue to question and learn from this knowledge, because it is undeniable. Sincerely, peacegirl
For anybody who is still curious about this knowledge, I will give you a glimpse into another chapter just to help you clear up any misunderstandings. I am not here to argue; I am here to share. It’s as simple and as pure as that, and regardless of what anyone thinks about this discovery, the truth always comes to light when it’s intended to, and not a second sooner. I will not defend this knowledge anymore. If anyone has questions about it, fine, but I will not answer someone who tells me that it is wrong, when it is not, unless he can prove that 1+1=3.
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE WISDOM OF SOCRATES
Many years ago Socrates was crowned the wisest man of his time
when he discovered that the primary difference between
himself and others was that he knew he did not know whereas
the others did not know either, although they thought they did. In fact,
Socrates demonstrated to all the intelligentsia of his time that they didn’t
know the truth at all, only thought they knew. There is quite a difference
between the knowledge resulting from the perception of mathematical
(undeniable) relations, and that which arises from syllogistic reasoning or
observation. People who do not know the truth but think they do are
projecting some kind of fallacious standard upon a screen of undeniable
substance, and because they see with direct perception, with their very eyes,
what gives their knowledge the appearance of truth, they are convinced they
know whereof they speak. The fact that these [educated] people are
unaware that they don’t know isn’t what concerns me; what does concern
me is that they could hurt innocent people by convincing them that they
know when they really don’t. In our present world there exists a form of
hurt different than any other in that it is done by us to ourselves when our
fear that we will only get worse or at least not better unless something is
done immediately compels us to consult doctors who, in their effort to earn
a living by selling their services, convince us that they are fully capable of
handling our problem, but instead make us worse. You see…a person who
considers himself very educated starts out with an assumption that his
knowledge is more accurate than someone without this formal training. If
someone dares to disagree with him, he uses his background as a standard
to determine who is most learned of the two and is then given justification
to reject any disagreement as being unsound.
When a student of medicine studies certain subjects at a recognized
university and receives a diploma, he is given a right by the school and state
to open an office and charge a fee to anyone who consults him for his
knowledge. He knows that he has this legal right because he has received a
diploma from a recognized university and a license from the government.
He also knows that this right is not given to those who did not study for
eight years and pass all the necessary requirements. Furthermore, there are
all kinds of word relations he can project to make himself feel that he is all
the more qualified. This occurs when the word ‘unqualified’ is attributed to
those who are considered charlatans. To reinforce this belief many in the
medical profession have indignantly exclaimed, “Doctors can’t harm you,
only quacks can, those unscrupulous charlatans, the pushers who sell their
products without a prescription and tell you there is no real danger – how
dare them!â€
Their reasoning concludes that since they are doctors, the term
‘unqualified’ does not apply to them otherwise they would never have been
given the right to open an office. It is taken for granted that because of this
diploma, the title of doctor and the syllogistic reasoning that is always
unconsciously at work, these individuals have actually acquired the
knowledge to treat and heal. Their reputation does not originate in accurate
knowledge but in the fact that there are those who are not entitled to
practice by virtue of never having acquired the necessary credentials, in the
fact that it is assumed a doctor knows what is better for the patient, and
because the patient fears getting worse unless he abides by the doctor’s
recommendations, which elevates the value of doctors. This happens all the
time, even when a doctor says to his patient – “You don’t know what you
are talking about because you’re not a doctor.†The doctor’s opinion may
take precedence over the patient’s own intuition regarding a particular
diagnosis only to have confirmed many tests later, and sometimes too late,
that this individual was absolutely right. How many times does someone
give advice and say it is reliable because it comes from a doctor? And how
many times does a drug firm advertise the value of its products by saying it
is recommended by doctors, which gives the buyer a false sense of security
that the products being sold are safe. The average person has been taught to
depend on the doctor’s judgment because of the belief that only the
physician has access to the wealth of information that can diagnose and
treat. Today, the medical profession has so much more knowledge and they
have so many more words to describe our ailments that it is no wonder there
is an undercurrent of uneasiness that has grown in equal proportion, sending
many with just the slightest ache to the emergency room for fear that if they
don’t have their condition checked out immediately, they could get worse or
even die. This exact situation occurred years ago when a cousin of mine, in
his fifties, went to his doctor for a six month check up. After giving him a
thorough examination the doctor stopped, looked quizzically at the floor,
tapped a pencil on his forehead and said, “I don’t know.†“What don’t you
know?â€, said my cousin with a worried look on his face. “I’m trying to
make up my mind whether you have Xyczeghusites or Idykfyjffkskdls.â€
The poor guy became so frightened by hearing names he couldn’t
understand, that together with his high blood pressure he had a heart attack
three days later worrying about it.
I learned this from his wife on the day of
the funeral.
My mother, being brought up to believe that the body can recuperate if
given the proper ingredients to facilitate the body’s natural healing
properties never did trust the knowledge of doctors. I’ll never forget the
time she had a doctor come to the house even though she was perfectly
well, in order to teach me a lesson. She pretended she was very sick and
told the doctor she didn’t know what was wrong. After examining her, the
doctor prescribed some medicine which she ordered right away. He
instructed her to follow the directions carefully so that the medicine would
take immediate effect. Otherwise she could get sicker, he warned. When
the medicine came she said, “Now watch sonâ€, as she poured the entire
bottle right down the drain. “Why did you do that, mom, you wasted it?â€
She replied, “The doctor and pharmacist have to earn a living and I helped
them in this respect, but I certainly don’t have to follow their advice. I
wasn’t even sick but the doctor prescribed medicine anyway. The
difference between him and I is that he has more faith in the medicine, and I
have more faith in my body’s natural healing power. †A friend’s mother,
who felt the same regarding the danger of doctors, took medicine prescribed
when she was well, and then vomited. She had actually replaced it with
some kind of emetic. Then she turned to her son and said, “You see, just
imagine what would have happened had I taken the medicine when my
body was too sick to eject that stuff. Montaigne observed this even in his
own time when he said that in trying to make him well, his doctor nearly
killed him. Why does the public hand over so much power to the doctors?
The word doctor itself is an unconscious standard for it is a justification
that symbolizes a logical assumption, and the fear that exists in the minds of
those who accept this assumption that they will only get worse if they do
not consult this individual is the lever upon which unconscious ignorance
further justifies its existence while being granted a legal right to hurt others
with impunity. In other words, just supposing that the doctor does not have
this knowledge, that in spite of all he was taught he really doesn’t know, he
just thinks he does, then he is in a position to hurt others with impunity
since he was told by the school that he is a qualified physician. Only fear
makes an individual pretend to knowledge he does not possess, but doctors
were compelled to do this as the lesser of two evils when their income
depended on this self-deception and dishonesty. How is it humanly
possible to be honest with yourself when this depends on being honest with
others, and how is it possible to be honest with others when this results in a
hurt to yourself. Because you get well after swallowing all kinds of
medicine or because you are able to overcome a fear after consulting a
psychiatrist for years does not prove the doctor is responsible for your
recovery. In fact, there is the very strong possibility that in his effort to heal
he may actually be causing harm. It must be remembered that there is this
other side of a doctor’s unhappiness. If I reveal that the medical profession
itself is partly responsible for a great percentage of all the sickness that
exists and that one day their services will no longer be necessary, the
doctors could not be elated over this news because their livelihood would be
at stake. The physician is out there to make a living, just like anybody else,
and he must believe that what he is giving to the patient is necessary in
order to receive compensation for his services. When you tell him that you
aren’t feeling well he will prescribe something in order to get paid and will
justify his treatment on the grounds that there are people to whom he will
not prescribe anything, which is equivalent to a surgeon justifying the
removal of tonsils on the grounds that he doesn’t remove everybody’s. A
doctor must always be in a position to shift his responsibility just in case
something goes wrong and his patient gets worse, and he must always be
able to justify that what he prescribes will not make him worse. If he
cannot meet these requirements he will be forced out of business. Let me
draw up a comparison for better understanding.
As we have seen, a salesman is able to justify telling white lies in order
to earn a commission because he needs this money for his livelihood, but if
the product he was selling could do serious harm to the buyer then he would
need a stronger justification otherwise he would be compelled to look for
another product to sell. If he couldn’t find another product, then he would
risk the consequences as the lesser of two evils. To show you how
confused is our thinking, we ask doctors to help us but force them to carry
malpractice insurance just in case we are not satisfied with the results. How
is it possible for them to stay in business so they can help us when we need
them if we do not wish to accept the responsibility of the risks involved?
By imposing the need to carry this insurance which blames them in advance
for the risks they must take to earn a living and make us well, they cannot
help but react with resentment towards us because there is no way they can
offer 100% guarantees. This is somewhat equivalent to a mother who
cannot swim offering money to bystanders if they would jump in and save
her son from drowning, and then blaming them for his death because they
declined the offer or were unsuccessful in their effort. It would make no
difference what type of employer we are, if mistakes are made by those we
hire how is it possible to blame them when they could never have hurt us
had we not employed them? It is true that we may have gotten hurt still
more had they not been employed, but in either case this is our
responsibility which reveals another great fallacy and form of injustice that
exists today. There is no way a doctor can be held responsible for our
getting worse or dying, and the fact that we do blame only reveals once
again how utterly confused we are. Their next justification comes from the
fact that there are malpractice laws which means that if they conform to the
Hippocratic Oath and stay away from those things that could cost them their
license, they are qualified to do everything allowed within their particular
field. If some are general practitioners, they are allowed to prescribe any
medicines that they think will help their patient. In most cases the patient
gets over his cold, cough, fever or stomach ache after taking the medicine
prescribed and he credits the doctor with the cure, but is this proof that the
doctor knows what he is doing? All we know for sure is that he could get
better or worse because of the treatment, or he could get better or worse in
spite of the treatment. In primitive times, when medicine men used to
mumble incantations to exorcize the spirit of illness, the patient used to get
well in spite of the treatment although his belief that they knew what they
were doing put his body in a more favorable condition to combat the
disturbance so the patient was partially helped because of the treatment.
This is similar to the placebo effect in modern terminology. When he
recovered, credit was given to the medicine men but in those days when the
patient did not recover the doctor was often hanged and quartered.
To be a qualified doctor, it is important to know the actual cause of the
disturbance before treatment is administered and to be absolutely certain
that the body is not fully capable of taking care of this matter itself. Some
patients have died only because a doctor did more harm in trying to find out
what was wrong than the harm that could have been done were they left
completely alone. I know a case of a very healthy boy who cut his hand on
a tin can. Ordinarily there would have been no excitement, but the mother
was up to date on the latest medical information and she rushed her child to
the doctor for the purpose of getting a tetanus shot. That evening the child
came down with a high fever and again the mother called her doctor. This
time he prescribed something else, but after taking the medicine he began to
develop unexplained rashes. One problem led to another, leaving the
doctors perplexed because they weren’t sure exactly what was causing the
boy’s symptoms. Believe it or not, it took the boy three months to get well.
Now the question arises, “What would have happened had she not rushed
him to the doctor for a tetanus shot, couldn’t he have died?†“Certainly he
could have died just as you can die from various causes, but whether he
would have died had the doctor not given him the shot is questionable.
Besides, what about the other side of the picture. Was the boy’s sickness
due to the tin can or was it a reaction to the medicine?†Today we have a
different kind of problem because the medical profession can injure or even
kill with impunity while doctors blame everything but themselves. There is
absolutely nothing today, that is, up until now, that can stop a doctor from
hurting others through this unconscious ignorance, consequently, to make
himself believe that he knows even though he doesn’t he must constantly
resort to his title, this syllogistic reasoning concealed in words as a
confirmation of his knowledge which compels him to reply to anyone who
disagrees with what he does, “You are not a doctorâ€, which means when
translated, “I know what I’m doing because I am the doctor.†However, this
is not a criticism of the medical profession because everything developed
out of mathematical necessity…and that is how everything will continue to
develop.
Below is a typical dialogue between doctor and patient which
underscores the sentiment expressed by doctors.
Patient: “Do you mean, doc, that unless I take this medicine you are
prescribing I will only get worse?â€
Doctor: “This is the risk you would be taking.â€
Patient: “But is there no risk the other way; are you absolutely certain
that I will not only get well but not get worse?â€
Doctor: Getting irritated, he curtly replies, “Certainly I’m certain, I’m
the doctor, right?â€
Are you beginning to see that the fear of getting worse unless you abide
by what he prescribes is the lever by which he multiplies this need for his
services? But you can’t blame him because he, like the rest of us, is
compelled to earn a living and if he didn’t justify what he did, he would
have to go out of business. In order for him to continue practicing he must
believe he is not making his patient worse, although this is often the case.
The following story is another case in point of how the term ‘doctor’ is
often used to justify legitimate treatment because of the fallacious standards
employed to determine the accuracy of the advice offered. The fact remains
that help can come from those who are not considered qualified doctors and
can often do a better job at helping their friends and loved ones recover, as
this next example illustrates.
A friend of mine had a nervous breakdown and consulted a psychiatrist
who made no promises as to the length of time it might take to discover the
cause of her illness and restore her mental balance. She went to him for
several visits. One day she came to me for my advice, asking if it was
possible for me to help her. I told her that I would treat her on one
condition, that she stops seeing all psychiatrists. She agreed and told her
psychiatrist the reason she was not going to see him any more. “Do you
realize what you are doing?†he asked in an angry tone of voice. That man
is not a doctor, and you could very easily get worse.†Well, to make a long
story short, inside of two weeks she was completely well and to this day has
never had any nervous disorders. When she paid this psychiatrist a visit to
tell him of her good fortune he was not too happy over it and, above all,
was not the least bit interested in discovering what I knew that could make
his patient well so quickly. Shouldn’t a psychiatrist welcome any
knowledge that would help him in the treatment of his patients? If you are
having a difficult time changing a tire and I walk over to lend you a hand,
wouldn’t you appreciate this? I certainly would. Why shouldn’t a
psychiatrist, or any kind of doctor, welcome my services if I can get rid of
illness on a large scale? Once again, there is this conflicting problem which
prevents the ability of the doctor to be completely honest with himself, for
who likes to lose a source of income by having to admit that he may not
have all the answers. What if he believes he is really helping his patients
when all the while he is only making matters worse, how can you correct it?
Ninety-nine percent of what psychiatry treats are words, and the increase in
mental patients can be easily traced to psychiatrists themselves who have
unconsciously multiplied the heads of this diseased hydra by tacitly blaming
the possibility of mental illness, which justified and drove many to consider
themselves in need of what must have come into existence for their welfare.
They start out with the assumption that their patient will not get well unless
he does what they prescribe, and though in years gone by they used
themselves as guinea pigs to test the reaction of a new drug so that they
could be of help to their patient, today they are afraid to find out what
would happen if they didn’t prescribe 90% of the medicines in constant use.
Isn’t it possible that the patient would have gotten well without the
medicine – or is this the actual cause of returning health? Supposing the
drug is actually harmful to the body when taken often enough over so many
years and instead of the patient getting better he gets worse because of it,
and then after doctors have nearly killed him he gets better in spite of it?
And what if he develops long term side-effects; the doctor must then justify
his therapy on the grounds that the patient would have been much worse off
had he not taken the drug. In the following passages the authors attempt to
expose the corruption that has gone rampant in a world of phantom
diseases, patient abuse, and illegal kickbacks.
In his book Insane Psychiatry: A Profession Run Amok, Nicholas
Regush states, February 16, 2002 – “There is no drug that can cure
modern psychiatry. This is a profession that is close to routinely practicing
medical terrorism by shamelessly over-prescribing drugs to people of all
ages, often for phantom diseases and for purposes that have no rational
basis in science. What’s needed is something akin to a War Crimes
Tribunal to investigate psychiatry’s relationship to major pharmaceutical
companies. Haul all the big product champions and psychiatry
associations in and determine their involvement with money-grubbing
schemes and the abuse of patients. And let me re-emphasize this point: this
is a medical specialty that is second to none in ripping off and abusing
patients. It is no longer a matter of a few bad apples screwing everyone left
and right. It’s become a full-scale assault on humanity.â€
“Many articles written by psychiatrists exaggerate the role of
psychopathology, plug disproved theories and perpetuate myths. The
situation has long been out-of-control. A non-disease that was once
attributed to errant brain chemistry is disproved over and over again.
Perhaps many drugs will be seen as just another toxic chemical that was
added to the bodies of unsuspecting individuals in an attempt to put a lid on
behaviors that were not deemed ‘appropriate.’ Obviously, the drug
companies aren’t going to change things. It is up to the general public to
step into the fray; get involved, stand up and be counted. The drug
companies aren’t going to do it. They’re busy estimating the size of their
potential markets. They’re building their chemical pipelines into the minds
and bodies of the young. Every great revolution starts with a foothold.â€
Guylaine Lanctot, a M.D., the author of “The Medical Mafia: How To
Get Out of It Alive and Take Back Our Healthâ€, has this to say: “The
medical establishment works closely with the drug multinationals whose
main objective is profits, and whose worst nightmare would be an epidemic
of good health. Lots of drugs MUST be sold. In order to achieve this,
anything goes: lies, fraud, and kickbacks. Doctors are the principal
salespeople of the drug companies. They are rewarded with research
grants, gifts, and lavish perks. The principal buyers are the public – from
infants to the elderly – who MUST be thoroughly medicated and vaccinated.
. . at any cost! They cannot patent natural remedies. That is why they push
synthetics. They control medicine, and that is why they are able to tell
medical schools what they can and cannot teach.†The selling of drugs has
become a conspiracy of omission by pharmaceutical companies that often
do their own research. In legal parlance, this is a definite conflict of
interest. The results that are published are often misleading in order to
make a new drug appear safe, and any reports of serious side effects are
kept out of sight. Below are quotations from medical doctors who not only
disagree with mainstream medicine that drugs can cure illness, but that the
risks far outweigh the benefits in most cases.
“The cause of most disease is in the poisonous drugs physicians
superstitiously give in order to affect a cure.†Charles E. Page, M.D.
“Medicines are of subordinate importance and because of their very nature
they can only work symptomatically.†Hans Kusche, M.D.
“Drug medications consist in employing, as remedies for disease, those
things which produce disease in well persons. Its materia medica is simply
a lot of drugs or chemicals or dye-stuffs, in a word poisons. All are
incompatible with vital matter; all produce disease when brought in contact
in any manner with the living; all are poisons.†R.T. Trall, M.D., in a two
and one half hour lecture to members of Congress and the medical
profession, delivered at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C.
“Drugs never cure disease. They merely hush the voice of nature’s protest,
and pull down the danger signals she erects along the pathway of
transportation. Any poison taken into the system has to be reckoned with
later on even though it palliates present symptoms. Pain may disappear,
but the patient is left in a worse condition, though unconscious of it at the
time.†Daniel H. Kress, M.D.
“The greatest part of all chronic disease is created by the suppression of
acute disease by drug poisoning. Every drug increases and complicates the
patient’s condition.†Henry Lindlahr, M.D.
“Every educated physician knows that most diseases are not appreciably
helped by medicine.†Richard C. Cabot, M.D.
“Medicine is only palliative, for back of disease lies the cause, and this
cause no drug can reach.†William Osler, M.D.
“Medical practice has neither philosophy nor common sense to recommend
it. In sickness the body is already loaded with impurities. By taking drug-
medicines, more impurities are added, thereby the case is further
embarrassed and harder to cure.†Elmer Lee, M.D., Past Vice President,
Academy of Medicine.
“Our figures show approximately four and one half million hospital
admissions annually due to the adverse reactions to drugs. Further, the
average hospital patient has as much as thirty percent chance, depending
on how long he is in, of doubling his stay due to adverse drug reactions.â€
Milton Silverman, M.D. (Professor of Pharmacology, University of
California).
“Why would a patient swallow a poison because he is ill, or take that which
would make a well man sick.†L.F. Kebler, M.D.
“What hope is there for medical science to ever become a true science
when the entire structure of medical knowledge is built around the idea that
there is an entity called disease which can be expelled when the right drug
is found?†John H. Tilden, M.D.
“The necessity of teaching mankind not to take drugs and medicines is a
duty incumbent upon all who know their uncertainty and injurious effects;
and the time is not far distant when the drug system will be abandoned.â€
Charles Armbruster, M.D.
These doctors are in a minority since most physicians use drug therapy
as their main protocol and will pull out their prescription pad at the first
sign of illness. Patients have been led to believe that if the doctor
prescribes a drug for their condition, then it must be good for them. And
the doctor is also convinced that the drug is helping his patients. How else
could he justify prescribing it? Nowadays it is expected that the doctor will
write a prescription the minute the patient steps foot in his office, and he is
under pressure to give the patient what he wants. Worse still, how many
doctors give drugs to a child not because they know that this is best for his
health or even because they know the cause of the illness, but only to allay
his fears and that of his parents. Innumerable drugs are prescribed every
day to treat symptoms without the medical profession having any inkling of
what is the actual cause of a disturbance, and the only justification for this
lies in the fact that the doctor believes there is really no harm, and there
may be some good. But are the doctors absolutely certain that drugs have
no relation to the ill health of the body? Perhaps they are equally as certain
as governments are that the efforts to remove crime and war through threats
of retaliation and punishment have no relation to the ill health of society.
No one knows, at this point, how certain drugs will affect the tissues and
organs of the body (although we will know soon enough) and the long term
complications that could result; and how can doctors be certain that many of
our ills are not caused by their efforts to make us well? The very moment
the majority of doctors stop practicing it might be discovered that a number
of illnesses were the result of their therapies. The body is a balanced
equation with tremendous recuperative powers that will adjust in most cases
when it gets out of balance. However, there are times when it is incapable
of restoring this balance and only then is the knowledge of a physician
necessary providing he really knows what to do, otherwise he could make
matters ten times worse. Let us carefully analyze the following for further
understanding.
There are five possibilities of what could happen as a result of a doctor
prescribing something or nothing. The first is that patients could die or get
worse from their illness unless the doctor prescribes certain drugs or
operations. The second is that they could die or get worse in spite of the
treatment. The third is that they could die or get worse because of the
treatment. The fourth is that they could get better in spite of the treatment.
The fifth is that they could get better without any treatment. My father died
in a hospital as a result of an experiment, and the doctors adduced the
second possibility to satisfy their conscience. An hour before he took his
last breath I asked the doctor what the condition of my father was. “He’s
doing pretty well, but we’re trying a new drug and we only hope his body
can withstand it.†The first, second and third possibilities are what the
doctors resort to for justification, but just in case something goes wrong and
the patient gets worse or dies, they must be able to shift the responsibility
away from themselves, and in that case the second allows them to say –
“We did everything possible. If the patient had been brought to us sooner,
we might have been able to save his life, his kidney, his leg, his eye, his
lung, etc.â€
I am not implying that the doctor did not make the best decision
in a situation such as this because I am also unsure and truly do not know
the best course to take when there are so many possibilities, but regardless,
the patient believes the doctor knows the truth and because he does, he
credits the doctor with the cure. In view of the fact that the patient
invariably gets well in the majority of cases, sooner or later, and never
seems to get worse as a result of the treatment, the doctor derives renewed
confidence in his qualifications to heal the sick. But whereas the general
practitioners don’t need too strong a justification to prescribe drugs,
surgeons do, because they are about to perform an invasive procedure that
could lead to a serious risk of complications. One patient, because the
various tests showed nothing as to why she was spitting up blood, was
operated on so the surgeon could explore, and died under the knife. Even
after a doctor has arrived at a certain diagnosis, one which allows no
disagreement, it is essential for him to know exactly what to do, not what he
thinks should be done. Many operations, apparently successful, have killed
many a patient months later because of unforeseen complications. This
justification is derived from three primary sources: One, if the operation is
not performed the patient will surely die. Two, even though they are not
absolutely certain he will not die, the possibility exists, and since the
removal of a particular organ will not in itself endanger his life because it
was already proven that man can live without these various parts of his
body, especially when he has two of many things, they justify it on the
grounds that it is the best procedure under the conditions. Lastly, they use
Darwin’s theory of evolution to justify the removal of vestigial organs even
when there is no danger to the patient’s life. They tell parents that the
tonsils are more trouble than they are worth, as with the appendix, and the
one sure way to prevent tonsillitis and appendicitis is to remove these
useless organs that are left over from an earlier time in man’s evolution.
But just supposing Darwin is not right, and these are not vestigial organs
left over from the last mutation, what then? Then the surgeons would not
be able to justify the removal of these organs unless the patient’s life was
definitely in danger. The word vestigial implies that evolution is a proven
fact, which it is not.
A doctor doesn’t advocate removing a finger when it
becomes infected because he doesn’t classify it as vestigial, but when the
tonsils or appendix get infected he tells the parents right away that they
should come out sooner or later because they do more harm than good. In
order to remove a part of the body the medical profession must have
absolute proof that a person’s life is at stake unless it is removed, or that his
existence will be worse if he continues without the operation.
According to recent statistics, approximately 2.4 million operations
performed every year are unnecessary and cost about 12,000 lives. In six
New York hospitals, 32 % of performed hysterectomies reviewed were
found to be unjustified. In fact, it has been estimated that less than 10% of
hysterectomies are absolutely necessary due to cancer of the uterus and
more than 90 % of hysterectomies are unnecessary. Authorities agree that
although 90% of the procedures are elective, there are alternatives in 90%
of the cases. Even when there is cancer, in fact more so, the patient needs
to know all the ramifications of surgery which can have unforeseen
complications which could seriously affect a woman’s health and well-
being. Often, the mainstream medical establishment fails, through ignorance
or complacency, to warn patients of possible side effects. One woman,
after having a complete hysterectomy which involved the removal of a large
portion of lymph nodes, developed a debilitating condition called
lymphedema which causes massive swelling, usually in the arms and legs.
When she complained that she should have been told that this surgery might
cause this condition, the doctor responded, “Well you’re still alive, aren’t
you?†But the question remains: Why did he take it upon himself to leave
out important information regarding possible side effects which should have
been disclosed before the operation took place? She would have then been
informed as to the complications that could result, allowing her to make up
her own mind whether she wanted to take the risk. It is incumbent upon
every patient to get more than one opinion and to carefully research their
options before going under the knife. To date, about 20 million American
women have had their uteruses removed. In Europe the proportion is only
one seventh, perhaps because medicine is socialized in several European
countries and there is less of a profit motive, as some have speculated.
Historically, when doctors have gone on strike, the mortality rate has
dropped.
To give you another example of the type of reasoning that justifies
certain procedures, let us look at circumcision which has become standard
practice.
Every year millions of babies are blamed for being born with a
foreskin and the only proof that this is of no value to the body is the fact
that its removal is sanctioned by the medical profession which lays its
arguments not on why this is better or healthier, but on who says it is.
Since there is no valid foundation for this operation when all religious and
medical justification has been removed, it is obvious that written and verbal
knowledge as to why it is healthier is completely fallacious. In other words,
there must be a mathematical line of demarcation but there is no such line
where the foreskin, the tonsils, and the appendix are concerned.
Supposing
a young doctor has only developed a practice of removing 1,000 foreskins a
year, and he was aiming for a record of 10,000. How can he be happy at
those who argue against this procedure when this upsets his opportunity to
break a record? Besides, his income could increase at this profession and
he wouldn’t have to move on to another field. Don’t misunderstand me,
these doctors can continue removing the foreskin if they want to, but how is
it possible for them to want to when this would only reveal their ignorance,
not their knowledge. The Jews justified circumcision on the grounds that it
was a religious covenant between man and God.
The fact that the baby was
momentarily in pain and suffocated with wine was unimportant because this
ritual was commanded by God himself. And since this piece of skin was
also vestigial, it was something man was better off without. But many
parents began to question the dangers of such an operation and since man
was becoming less and less religious, the medical profession was consulted
for its opinion on removing the foreskin and sure enough it could be seen
that not removing it was less healthy. Do you see how easy it was to make
the shift from a religious justification to a medical one? The Jews developed
this ritual from their ancient past and because superstitious reasons only
revealed ignorance it was then justified on the grounds that it is healthier.
But why is it healthier? It has now become standard practice for babies to
be circumcised even before leaving the hospital.
My friend not quite sure
what I was getting at asked this pertinent question: “Are you trying to tell
me that tonsils cannot be removed along with the appendix, nor can a leg
when gangrene sets in? According to what you just said, a doctor cannot do
anything because this blames God’s handiwork, so to speak. Is that what
you mean?â€
“My answer is yes and no. It is obvious that certain things need
clarification. In order to remove a part of the body the medical profession
must have absolute proof that a person’s life is at stake unless it is removed,
or that his existence will be worse if he continues without the operation.
Remember, there must be a mathematical line of demarcation but there is no
such line where the foreskin, the tonsils, and the appendix are concerned.
In some instances the removal of tonsils and the appendix are absolutely
necessary otherwise the patient would die, but what about all the other
times? Many doctors advocate the removal of these organs only because
they are classified as vestigial which means that Darwin’s theory of
evolution has been accepted as a fact for the purpose of justifying certain
operations. I am not interested in what came first the chicken or the egg, or
in a discussion as to the origin of man. However, just as long as this is a
theory, a doctor is not justified in removing an organ by calling it vestigial
for this word implies that evolution is a fact – and it is not. Therefore, since
this knowledge is based upon an assumption, a doctor henceforth will treat
the appendix and the tonsils as just another part of the body. Should these
organs become infected and the body incapable of taking care of this matter
itself, then a doctor will try to treat the infection and remove the organ only
as a last resort.â€
The following story shows how a common but serious
procedure is often used not as a last resort, but as a first line of defense in
many hospitals. Being informed of the potential complications and fearful
of the outcome this individual decided to give his body a chance to heal
before agreeing to an operation. This experience illustrates how easy it is
for doctors to justify their medical advice in order to make a living, for
which they cannot be blamed. The patient writes:
[i]I had about 3 good attacks. The pain would double me up and didn’t
want to go away. The first one occurred while I was at work which sent me
to Urgent Care. They were not sure what it was. Diagnosed as possible
ulcers, he wanted me to go for other tests. He gave me an ulcer medicine
which got rid of the pain. I was contemplating over time whether I wanted
to go for that type of surgery where they look into your stomach. Then
while on a business trip, I had another good attack. It started at 3:00 AM
and at 8:00 a.m. I was still in very much pain. I went to a nearby hospital
emergency room. There they took EKG’s, chest x-ray’s, blood tests and
ultra sound. The tests showed that my lungs were fine, and no problems
with my heart or blood though the ultra-sound showed around 3 small
gallstones, which the doctor said was probably causing my pain. He said
he could give me morphine. I did not want to get goofy since I had
important work to do and opted for the pain medication.
I had not had another attack since before May, 2002. In late
October, I had another attack. Back to Urgent Care and more pain
medication. I said, “What do I need to do to get rid of this problem?†The
doctor said she would give me a referral to a surgeon who would put a
telescope down my throat and look into my stomach to see if I had any
ulcers. I said, “This is unacceptableâ€. We already know that I have
gallstones from the ultra-sound. Since I have not changed my diet at all,
don’t you think that I would have had an attack within 5 months or so, if it
were ulcers? The doctor somewhat agreed. I said well, lets take care of
what we know is causing a problem and then if I still have pain, we will
assume it may be ulcers and go from there.
I got a referral to a vascular surgeon and saw him early this
November. I was not prepared for what I was about to hear. I explained to
him that when I got these attacks that the pain radiated from what appeared
to be my solar plexus region to the back in-between the right shoulder
blade. He said uh-hah. He asked me to cough. No… cough harder. I did.
He said you have a hernia in your belly-button too. He asked me to come
into his office and we would talk about what I need to do. He mentioned
dissolving the stones, but the treatment doesn’t work all that well and more
gallstones would be made. He told me that for you, this is a done deal. I
would recommend having your gallbladder removed, he said. He told me
that it is no big deal; he stated this is relatively easy and he does about
three to four of these a week. He said nothing about alternatives to surgery
or possible problems that would or could appear from having this type of
surgery. He made it seem in and out. I told him I would contact him when
I decided to have it. He did not want me to wait long. I wonder why? ($$).
This was a real wake up call. When did a medical degree become a license
to remove our organs in order to make a profit? Even as we speak, there
are doctors who state, “I have to find a way to do more procedures!” That,
my friends, is an actual quote and it makes my skin crawl.
On the way home I thought the last thing I want to do is to have a
part of my body removed. This is SERIOUS!!! Any surgery is a major
thing and for a doctor to state otherwise is irresponsible. We are born with
these organs for a reason. If not, we would not have them. I researched as
much as I could to find other alternatives, so I could keep my gallbladder
that I was born with. Don’t let the medical profession lead you to believe
that you do not need this ORGAN, or that it is no big deal. It is a big deal.
It could be your LIFE. From all my research I have found many bad things
that have come from having this surgery. Removal of an organ should be
the absolute last thing that is ever done. And this should only be
considered after you have exhausted every other option.[/i]
You may ask, “What about other specialties within the medical field
such as obstetrics and pediatrics, don’t they render a useful service to
mankind?â€
“These services will still exist but doctors will not advise their
patients in the same manner. You will understand the reason for this as we
proceed.â€
“Will there be a need for prenatal care?â€
“Yes, prenatal care will still exist to help ensure the health of mother
and baby, as well as identify high risk pregnancies, but doctors will not
insist that their patients consent to all kinds of tests unless there is a
compelling reason. We can see, once again, that the medical profession has
established a tremendous fear in the minds of women that if they don’t do
exactly as recommended, their health may be at risk. When a woman is
pregnant and goes into labor, her pain can be magnified so tremendously by
fear that she is scared half to death. She will demand that the doctor give
her something so she won’t feel the contractions because she doesn’t
believe she can handle the pain. Certain medications can slow down
delivery time, which might lead to fetal distress. Suddenly there is a need
for a Caesarian section, which has its own set of risks. When a delivery is
not going as planned, a Caesarian section may be justified for very good
reason, especially if there is an unexpected emergency. But it has been
reported that a large percentage of C-sections are unnecessary [the Cesarean
delivery rate rose 6 percent in 2004 to 29.1 percent of all births, the highest
rate ever reported in the United States. The rate has increased by over 40
percent since 1996] and are done for the doctor’s convenience rather than
medical necessity.
Following the birth, the new mother comes home from
the hospital with a list of do’s and don’ts and a warning that she must
follow the doctor’s instructions exactly or she could have serious problems
healing. Although the delivery was uncomplicated and she is healing
quicker than expected, she has lost confidence in her body’s ability to
recover. Having this mind-set is not uncommon; in fact the idea that
‘healing’ belongs exclusively to those in the medical field has been
inculcated into young minds at a very early age.
As a result, this mother is
now dependent on the doctor’s advice over her body’s natural intelligence.
This learned dependency which is encouraged by doctors (often on a
subconscious level) may prevent a new mother from handling the most
routine of situations where all that is needed is her motherly intuition.
Although they cannot be blamed because of the need to earn a living, the
medical profession, along with the pharmaceutical companies, have
manipulated women’s purse strings by appealing to their sense of fear in
order to promote their products and services.
Many tests and procedures (some containing serious risks) are
justified on the grounds that they will help detect a serious condition early
enough to be treated, or to ward off a potentially serious problem later on.
We all can agree that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and
sometimes screening for various conditions is warranted, but how can
patients know which tests are necessary and which ones aren’t when
doctors are getting paid handsome fees for referrals with ever increasing
financial incentives and perks? Going back to our previous example,
circumcision is one of those procedures that is justified on the grounds that
it is healthier for the baby. But when millions of dollars are at stake, where
is this line of demarcation? Although there will no longer be malpractice
insurance, doctors will be reluctant to perform any kind of invasive
procedure unless they feel it is absolutely necessary, otherwise, they would
be unable to justify their decision if things didn’t turn out as planned. In the
new world, doctors will have only themselves to answer to, consequently,
all operations will be treated with extreme caution and performed only if
there is a life threatening danger to the mother or baby.
When it’s time to go to the pediatrician, he checks the baby’s weight
and height and reassures the mother that everything is fine. He might
suggest a special formula, as if the mother’s milk is not the best formula in
the world. The baby will survive not because of the formula, but in spite of
it. Some babies might require only what the mother herself can give and if
this is not present in the formula then the body of the child must overcome
this handicap or else get sick. His immune system is already compromised
because he is not getting the antibodies from the mother’s breast milk.
As
early as two months, the baby is receiving a series of immunizations that are
given on schedule with more and more being added to the list. There has
been a lot of concern regarding the immediate and long term effects, but
there is always a way the doctor can convince the mother that it is for the
baby’s well-being by reassuring her that the benefits far outweigh the risk.
He may tell her that without these vaccinations the baby is not protected
and the disease that once killed so many could easily come back. Because
she wants to do what is best for her child, she concedes. In some cases,
however, a child could have a bad reaction and be injured by the
vaccination that was intended to help him.
Following the initial visit, there are the well check-ups that are
absolutely necessary, according to the doctor, in order to make sure the
baby is reaching certain milestones. But is this absolutely necessary, or are
there other motivating factors involved? Mothers are very astute when it
comes to their children’s health and would be the first to notice if
something was wrong. If the mother was the slightest bit worried, she
wouldn’t need the doctor to tell her to bring her child in for observation.
Although pediatrics will continue as a branch of medicine, these specialists,
as well as those who set national guidelines, will have no choice but to be
completely honest with themselves for the very first time. They will need
to be extremely careful what they advise because they would never want to
be responsible for an injury to a child that was a direct result of their
recommendations. Remember, honesty will be the best policy even if they
have to admit they really don’t know what is the best treatment. Mandatory
vaccinations will no longer be enforced due to severe reactions in a small
percentage of children, some of which are fatal. This also means that the
parents will have to decide for themselves whether the end justifies the
means, especially when there is no way of predicting which child will have
a life threatening reaction. The following story illustrates the lack of
options many patients and their guardians are faced with when it comes to
questionable interventions and therapies.
[i]Our 2 ½ year old son, Alexander, who was diagnosed with a pediatric
brain tumor on August 10th 1998 and passed away after three months of
chemotherapy on January 31st 1999. We believe that it is important that
parents have information (that we didn’t have) about the safety and efficacy
of chemotherapy that have been administered to children with brain cancer
for the past 20 years. We believe that parents should be told the truth –
that these therapies are ineffective and dangerous to the majority of young
children with malignant brain tumors.
“Children should be allowed access
to the best therapy and the best quality of life.†Every child with a terminal
disease should have the right to have access to the best treatment available
and the therapy that provides the best quality of life. Since medical
orthodoxy has yet to discover a cure for aggressive pediatric brain cancer,
parents should be permitted to use other therapies prescribed by their
medical doctor.
The FDA’s policy of not permitting children to have access
to any other therapy except chemo and radiation must stop. Children who
are labeled ‘terminal’ should be allowed access to any treatment that is
safe and could potentially save their life. The FDA stopped Alexander and
continues to stop hundreds of other children from having access to a non-
toxic cancer therapy that has proven to be both effective and safe.
“Oncologists must be stopped from using children for experimentation. In
their journal articles, oncologists admit that their therapies for young
children with malignant brain tumors are still experimental, toxic and
relatively ineffective. Therefore, oncologists should not be permitted to
take children from their parents in order to use them as guinea pigs in such
unproven therapies.
A child with brain cancer is still a child and deserves
to be treated with basic human dignity and respect. “Parents must be
entitled to informed consent.†‘Informed’ means being given the truth
regarding the benefits and risks of a medical intervention administered to
your child. But the history of chemotherapy in respect to its toxicity,
carcinogenicity, and ineffectiveness in aggressive pediatric brain tumors, is
not shared with parents. That is why most parents submit their children to
this insidious therapy because they are not informed of the truth. ‘Consent’
means being permitted to agree to or refuse a medical intervention.
However, if a parent discovers the truth about chemotherapy and decides
that she does not want this ‘treatment’ for her child, her refusal may be
meaningless. Oncologists may use persuasion, threats and the law to take
her child from her even if she says ‘no’ to these toxic poisons. In this way,
some oncologists have replaced ‘informed consent’ with ‘unscrupulous
coercion’ and that must stop. Oncologists should not be permitted to use
our children as laboratory mice.[/i]
What happened to Alexander demonstrates how easy it is for the FDA
and the medical profession to endorse the use of unproven therapies in the
name of progress and do irreparable harm to their patients when things take
a turn for the worse. Parents are not always given all the facts regarding the
possible side-effects of the procedures they are asked to consent to, and
therefore they don’t have the necessary information to make an informed
choice. To add insult to injury, they are often denied the right to decide
which course of treatment they feel is the best for their child. This situation
could never occur in the new world because doctors would not want to bear
this responsibility unless they knew for a fact that by administering the
drug, the patient would not get worse, or by not administering the drug the
patient would surely die or live a painful existence. Justification for any
experimental or invasive procedure would only be possible if all other
treatments were exhausted first, and this was seen as a last resort. If the
doctor agreed to take on the case, parents would have the final say.
Durant, in his book Mansions of Philosophy, discusses the mistake he
made in trusting doctors when his own child became very sick. He writes,
“In the first three months we were guilty of a grave blunder for we allowed
our child to be used as a laboratory for a new form of desiccated milk. It is
a crime which many years of parental solicitude cannot quite clear from our
memories. We believe now, with Ben Franklin, that the human race should
beware of young doctors and old barbers.†Now isn’t this a perfect
example of a child getting well in spite of the doctor who prescribed what
the child’s nourishment should be? Following a medical mistake, a chain
reaction of blame follows because nobody wants to assume responsibility.
He blamed himself first for this grave blunder, but then shifted his
responsibility to this young doctor, who blamed the manufacturer, who
blamed the chemist, who blamed the assistant, who blamed the shipper,
who blamed the farmer, who blamed somebody else. The surgeon blamed
the anesthetist, who blamed the nurse, who blamed, and so on. When these
things occur they are usually hushed up, and since the doctors are never
responsible, otherwise, they could not practice, the possibility exists that
they have been allowed to hurt others with impunity, as the expression goes.
Just as doctors advise parents on the best formula for their child, they
often advise mothers to wake their babies for a feeding. As we extend our
basic principle we see that their advice is misinformed. It is important to
remember that we are using a mathematical principle to guide us in
determining what our response should be. Since we cannot blame the child
for anything according to God’s corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, it is
obvious that all knowledge that tries to teach that it is healthier to wake
children for a feeding is mathematically wrong. It is quite clear that if you
wake a child for anything at all, you are blaming him for sleeping. A doctor
may say that in order for the child to regain his health it is necessary to
wake him for a feeding and a regimen of medicine. They use this
syllogistic reasoning when they want to make it appear that they know –
when they really don’t. Right now if you called in a physician who
prescribed a regimen of medicine around the clock and you told him that
your friend, the discoverer of certain knowledge that will change the world,
said that sleep was more important than to be awakened for medicine, this is
what he would say:
Doctor: “Who is your friend, is he a doctor?â€
Patient: “No he isn’t.â€
Doctor: “Well there you are; that is your answer. Don’t listen to those
who are not licensed to give medical advice. They don’t know, they think
they know. You’re in very good hands; not only am I licensed, but I am
also Board Certified. You take this medicine religiously every four hours,
even if you have to set the alarm for your doses at 2 and 6 a.m.
Patient: “How much do I owe you, doc?â€
Doctor: “Let me see…I was here last week two times, and then there
was that injection. The week before I…do you have an adding machine?â€
Patient: “It is right over there.â€
Doctor: “Thank you…that comes to $80 even.
Patient: “That’s pretty reasonable.â€
Doctors are compelled to do everything they do and it must be
remembered that only when the conditions change, when they understand
that man’s will is not free and what this means, will they be able to be
honest with themselves. After all, doctors must also earn a living. In order
to demonstrate why this great change is compelled to come about (God is
giving us no choice), I shall resort to a personal experience in my life.
I know of several clinical studies involving children and non-radiation based treatments for cancer.
I am terribly sorry for your loss, but I have to ask whether you contacted the nearest University hospital or looked up who was researching his disease and contacted them.
I know that is a terrible burden to place on someone undergoing a tragedy, but all too often clinicians have their hands full and are unable to spend the time necessary to make such connections. It falls to the people involved who, sadly, don’t always know what their options are. A sad but true statement of how things are.
This is not my personal story, thank goodness. I am not sure what options this mother knew of, but her hands were tied since they made this therapy mandatory. The point being made here is that in the new world a doctor will allow a mother or guardian to make the final decision, and will not hold back any knowledge that would help her make a decision that is in the best interest of her child. This is not to say that there aren’t wonderful doctors out there, but because of the need to earn a living doctors have been forced to skew the facts regarding the dangers of an operation or drug, and they are often compelled to be dishonest with their patients and themselves. This will be prevented when their salaries are guaranteed never to go down (this is explained in the economic system) and when no one will ever blame them for making matters worse, or causing more harm than good.
About two and a half decades ago a friend, 22 years of age, was advised to
have his tonsils out and died right on the operating table. He never came
out of the anesthesia. The doctors involved did not break any malpractice
laws, so they were not punished for this. “Sometimes these things will
happen†was the reply, which is why they make it very clear that they will
do everything in their power to help you but they cannot guarantee
anything. The risk may be very small, but this is the price you must pay if
you want their services. “Is everything all right, doctor?†the mother asks.
“I don’t know how to break this to you any easier, but your son didn’t make
it off the operating table.â€
When the parents of this boy heard that their son
had died during a tonsillectomy they were overwhelmed with grief and
accused the doctor of negligence. It certainly did not satisfy him to be
accused of this, and he defended himself vehemently blaming everything
but himself. I never did find out what actually caused my friend’s death.
Now that the case is closed, no one will ever know the truth of what really
happened that day. Although there is nothing that can be done to change
the past, it is not God’s will that these things continue, and when the
knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free is thoroughly
understood by the medical profession, and the transition gets officially
launched, you will see for the very first time an honest admission of
genuine ignorance.
In the new world when an individual leaves a university he will not
depend on any graduation, but on whether he thinks he is ready for his
chosen occupation. Our slide rule demonstrates that when he is not given
the right by the school and state to use drugs, perform operations, and give
other kinds of treatment, then he must be absolutely honest with himself
about how much he really knows regarding the long term and immediate
effects of medicine, surgery, tests, etc., because it becomes mathematically
impossible for him to shift his responsibility to anyone but himself. If he is
unfamiliar with a group of symptoms, he will tell his patient that he really
doesn’t know. This will prevent the possibility of making the wrong
diagnosis that could send a patient home prematurely and delay lifesaving
treatment. On the other hand, a doctor will be prevented from prescribing
medicine that a patient may not need or perform an operation unless he is
absolutely certain he knows what he is doing, for if a patient should be hurt
as a consequence of his ignorance he knows he will never be blamed for
this hurt.
He knows that his patients are putting every confidence in his
knowledge and that he could very easily take advantage of this for his own
remuneration. But when he fully realizes that he might be responsible for
people getting worse as a result of his treatment who will never blame him
for this, he is compelled, of his own free will (of his own desire), to think
like he never thought before otherwise he might be placing himself in a
position that affords no satisfaction. In the new world no diplomas will
ever again be issued because the right to practice medicine on the bodies of
people will be granted to anyone who considers himself qualified.
Each
person will judge his own qualifications and if he wishes to risk hurting
others who will not blame him, this is his business. If someone wishes to
open an office and hang out a shingle (in the new world, that is) no one is
going to question him, but the full responsibility of hurting others with his
treatments must rest on his own shoulders once the school pulls out the
props that allowed him to shift his blame. When a student has learned all
that the school is able to teach of genuine knowledge, he will also have
drawn a mathematical line of demarcation between this kind of learning and
the knowledge that is a matter of opinion.
When you consult a doctor for help, you will pay the same for his advice
whether he prescribes something or just plainly tells you he doesn’t know
what to do. He may choose not to charge you for the consultation, but it is
important to remember that the doctor must support himself – even if it is
just to give his advice – or else he will be forced out of business. As was
previously mentioned, honesty will always be the best policy in every case
that is presented to him. The statement ‘I don’t know’ is not a sign of
ignorance when you really do not know, but a sign of wisdom.
Consequently, when he knows that everybody must excuse him this means
that if he cannot see the mathematical (undeniable) relations that reveal a
prognosis of death or of a life worse than death unless he operates
immediately, he will be compelled to refrain from advocating an operation
because he will never be able to blame anybody but himself should his
patient get worse or die. Many patients are so accustomed to getting
medicine for everything from colds and fever to immunizations for the flu
that they are not satisfied until the doctor gives them a prescription in order
to feel that their visit was warranted. Once again, we are able to see the
pressure the doctor is under to give the patient what he wants so he won’t
go elsewhere. In the new world the doctor will tell his patient what he knows
about certain drugs and where they can be purchased but he will not take a
chance prescribing drugs to anybody because he will not be sure how they
will react in each case, and he would never presume to have this knowledge.
Now, let us observe a fantastic change that is compelled to come about out
of absolute necessity by paying close attention to what happens when we
imagine the death of a child from a tonsillectomy described earlier that will
not occur with doctors who are citizens of the new world, so we can see
why it will not.
All four family members are crying bitterly having just received the
news of their child’s death from a tonsillectomy. It has come as such a
shock because this was supposed to be a routine operation; but no one
points the finger of blame at the doctor or his assistants. They know there
is absolutely nothing the doctor could have done to prevent their child’s
death and they are not blaming him even though they are in excruciating
pain over their tremendous loss. If it was the fault of the medical team, no
one is blaming them. Each person, therefore, needs only to convince
himself that he was not responsible in any way. For example, if an assistant
was positive it was not her fault she would have no reason to feel guilty, but
if she wasn’t quite sure that something she may have done or neglected to
do might have contributed to this child’s death, she would have to live with
this nagging uncertainty, which would be very difficult to live with. The
only way she can prevent this is to be aware at all times so that she knows
exactly what she is doing.
The truth of the matter is that regardless of the
number of times surgery has ended well it is not an exact science and there
may be risk factors unbeknownst to the doctor, which is why he won’t
desire performing operations that are not absolutely necessary.
Consequently, when all judging ceases, when the doctor has nobody to
convince but himself as to whether he is qualified, he is not too anxious to
assume the risk of hurting someone which can no more be justified by
saying this is what he was taught in school simply because the teachers in
the universities will go only by facts, not theory. If a doctor learns that
what he has been taught is mathematically undeniable, then he need not be
afraid of hurting another. It is impossible for someone to know everything
that takes place within the body which has the amazing power to adjust to
almost any condition, even those imposed by the medicines a doctor may
prescribe.
My friend interrupted, “But that was years ago. Today the doctors have
much greater knowledge of the body.â€
“You mean they think they have greater knowledge, don’t you?â€
“I really don’t know what I mean. If I didn’t have confidence in the
knowledge of a doctor, how could I consult one? Besides, I certainly don’t
know what to do when I’m sick.â€
“If it gives you greater satisfaction to call in your doctor, you should
definitely do what you think is better for yourself. However, under the
changed conditions the doctor himself will be compelled to refrain from
prescribing anything that he is the least bit uncertain of because it cannot
satisfy him to risk hurting others when there is no way it can be justified,
that is, of course, once the medical schools stop making him think that he
does know when he doesn’t. Furthermore, when it comes to the decision
whether to operate, there will be no way for a doctor to justify the
possibility of making matters worse except to avoid any invasive procedure
that could have unknown complications unless it is seen as a last resort in
which death is imminent, or without it the quality of life would be severely
compromised.
Remember, what stops him from taking these risks is not the
fear of being slapped with a lawsuit for malpractice, for there will be no
such thing, but the fact that he knows in advance that everybody must
excuse his actions which means that unless he sees the mathematical
(undeniable) relations that reveal a prognosis of death or of a life worse
than death unless he operates immediately, he will be compelled to refrain
from advocating surgery because he will be unable to blame anybody but
himself should his patient get worse or die. He will be compelled to be
absolutely honest with himself and his patients, and if he is uncertain that
an operation is the best course he will tell them that he really doesn’t know
what is best. This might not satisfy the patients who are in pain or scared
half to death but unless he can justify to himself that an operation is
absolutely necessary, what choice does the doctor have in the new world
when he will never be blamed for the mistakes he could incur because of his
therapy?
This does not mean that the doctor doesn’t have the best of
intentions when he advises certain procedures; it only means that he will be
prevented from taking any unnecessary chances when no one will blame
him for making matters worse. Because there is always the possibility that
in correcting one problem a more serious problem could develop, the doctor
will be extremely conservative before resorting to any type of aggressive
treatment. In our present world if a child should die, parents would be told
that there was absolutely nothing that could have been done to prevent it,
which may not be true since it is so easy for a doctor to lie even to himself.
But in the new world the doctor, for the very first time since he stated the
Hippocratic Oath, has no choice but to recognize that it is not God’s will
that a person die this way because over the desire to operate he has
mathematical control; and when it fully dawns on him that he will never be
blamed for someone’s death should this occur even though it would be his
responsibility, he is compelled of his own free will to advise an operation
only if by not operating the patient will surely die, or the quality of life will
be so poor that it will be a life worse than death.â€
The great need to earn the money necessary to sustain his standard of
living which compelled the doctor to justify anything the least bit
questionable was the first blow of hurt, because the law of nature is self-
preservation. Therefore, when doctors become citizens, receive a guarantee
that their standard of living will never go down, and know for a fact that
they will never again be blamed no matter what happens, allowing them to
drop their malpractice insurance and increase their net income, they are
compelled to move in a different direction for greater satisfaction. In our
present world it is necessary for them to convince us that they can handle
our problem otherwise we would not employ them and they would not get
paid for their services, but under the changed conditions they do not have to
convince us, only themselves, that they know what they are doing, and if in
their professional opinion there is the slightest doubt that their treatment
might make matters worse for which they know there would be no blame,
their only justification to take this risk, since they cannot be financially hurt
or blamed for refusing to take on the job, is when it appears to them that we
would be worse off if they prescribed nothing.
By refusing to question their
qualifications or hold them responsible for our mistake in hiring them, they
are compelled to hold themselves responsible for hurting their patients
unless they can convince themselves that our getting worse or dying was not
because of anything they did. Remember, when you consult a doctor in the
new world you will pay the same for his advice whether he prescribes
something or just plainly tells you he doesn’t know what to do, and honesty
will be the best policy. This means that if they have to choose between two
risks, to advise us in some way, even if this means telling us to leave the
body completely alone to handle its own problem, or to tell us that they
really are uncertain of what to do and therefore will not take on the job,
they are forced (of their own free will or desire) to move in the latter
direction because there is no way it is possible to blame themselves for not
knowing what to do whereas if we should get worse because they advised
us, which implies they do know what they’re doing, it becomes impossible
not to blame themselves when we will never hold them responsible while
guaranteeing their standard of living.
Today there is so much confusion as
to what is genuine knowledge and what is an opinion that doctors
themselves don’t know the difference, and they justify what they do by the
fallacious argument that they know what is right for a patient because they
are members of the medical profession, as if an opinion is any less of an
opinion because it comes from a doctor. In fact, the greater the unconscious
ignorance, the greater is the danger when it is not controlled. All this will
be changed when the transition gets underway. Remember, only fear makes
an individual pretend to knowledge he doesn’t possess, but doctors were
compelled to do this as the lesser of two evils when their income depended
on this self-deception and dishonesty. Shakespeare said, “Above all, to
thine own self be true, and it shall follow…†Unfortunately, he didn’t
know what he was talking about, although he thought he knew. How was it
possible for man to be true to himself when this honesty would only hurt
him in the end?
Strange as this may sound to your ears, ninety percent of
the people who have been treated by doctors got well in spite of the
treatment, not because of it; and how many were killed and crippled with
impunity would amaze you, for which these doctors are not to blame since
it was necessary to learn what was learned about the body. However, in the
new world when a doctor realizes that his income will not decrease or stop
by being absolutely honest with his patients, then he can afford to be
absolutely honest with himself. In our present world doctors are forced to
be dishonest because they are blamed for not having the answers the
moment they are consulted, and no one wishes to pay them for admitting
they really don’t know. It also gives them great satisfaction to be admired
for possessing the knowledge of how to restore a person’s health;
consequently, your belief that they have this knowledge only makes them
keep up the pretense.
You must remember that everybody, including the
doctor, is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Consequently, it will give them no choice under the new conditions but to
prescribe something only when they have convinced themselves that to do
otherwise is definitely worse for us, which means that they would have to
possess a tremendous amount of genuine knowledge. They would have to
know all of the side, distant, and accumulative effects of drugs to make
certain that in correcting one problem they do not create others still worse.
In addition, they would have to know all the complications that could arise
from an operation, whether it is from the anesthesia or the removal of
certain parts of our body. If someone should die during an appendectomy,
tonsillectomy, or from other surgery, the only way it is possible to clear
their conscience of responsibility is to know that the patient would have
been worse off without the operation – but, again, they must only convince
themselves of this.
They can no longer use the theory that our tonsils and
appendix are vestigial organs to justify the operation unless they can
convince themselves that we are better off without these parts of our body.
A young girl just recently had brain damage and died a few days later
from the general anesthesia used to extract a wisdom tooth. Now how does
a dentist in the new world convince himself that he was not responsible for
her death when no one blames him and he knows there was a risk in using
general anesthesia especially? How is it possible for him to justify her
death? If she was in pain and needed this tooth removed, why did he
choose a general anesthetic without knowing whether she was allergic to the
drug itself or when combined with other drugs already in her system?
It is
obvious that he prescribed this anesthetic without knowing these risk
factors. How is it possible for him to face the parents of this girl to tell
them of her death when they will simply break down in tears and not blame
him in any way for what he knows they must excuse because they hired
him, while he also knows there is no way he can ever shift his responsibility
unless he can convince himself that the use of this general anesthesia and
the operation itself was the lesser of two evils? If he cannot, he is forced to
go through life with the death of this girl on his conscience. Now why
should doctors take these risks when it is no longer necessary for the
purpose of earning a living, unless they can actually see that these risks
must be taken as the lesser of two evils, or else the patient may not survive?
A patient when faced with a choice to have medical intervention that could
possibly help a serious condition would have to take full responsibility for
that choice because a doctor would not want to under the new conditions. It
would also be up to the individual doctor to determine the type of cases he
or she would be willing to accept. Let us see what happens when someone
consults a doctor who has become a citizen of the new world to find out
what is best, to breast or bottle feed a baby.
Husband: “Doctor, my wife’s breasts are sore and tender and she would
like to know if you would prescribe some formula for our baby?â€
Doctor: “My friends, I honestly don’t know what is better for this infant, a
formula or mother’s milk, consequently, I cannot advise you. If you want
me to make up some formula so you won’t have to use your breasts, I will,
but I cannot say it is better or safe. Most babies do not have any problem
but I cannot assume this responsibility to tell you that it is the better choice.
This is a decision you will have to make all by yourself.â€
Wife: “Maybe I’d better stick with my breasts. Is there a charge for
this?
Doctor: “No, there is absolutely no charge for this consultation.â€
Should a mother not wish to use her breasts for one reason or another,
which is her business, she will have to make the decision to take whatever
risks there might be in the use of available formulas because the only time a
doctor will suggest them is when her breasts are not functioning and any
formula is better than starvation. How can a doctor possibly know that the
formula might not cause severe colic, cramps, diarrhea, etc., when every
child is different to a degree; and how is he going to feel when something
happens and he can blame no one but himself? Why should he take the
risk? There is no reason, which forces a mother to choose between using
the milk developed with and specifically for her baby, or to play doctor
herself. Now what choice does she have when the fear of certain risks gives
her less, not greater satisfaction?
In the previous example where Durant
allowed the doctors to advise his wife, in the new world they would have
been compelled to make their own decision. Since Durant would not dare
to advise his wife because he certainly doesn’t know, otherwise, he would
never have gone with her to the pediatrician in the first place, she is left
completely alone to make this decision herself because these are her breasts.
If she can find someone to prescribe a formula or wet nurse her baby, this is
entirely up to her. The fact that she still doesn’t know which is better, for
in order to know she would have to have a tremendous amount of
knowledge, she is afraid to go in the other direction therefore she is given
no choice as to what she believes is better for herself and her baby. Even
though it is likely the baby would survive in either case, the possibility of
cramps, indigestion, colic, call it what you will, which could be a headache
to mom is also to be weighed. Regardless of the choice she makes in the
long run, she must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction.
As
far as the administration of drugs, when patients consult a doctor who has
become a citizen, he will know that his patients will have many questions
regarding these medications and whether they are safe, which he will be
unable to answer. Let us listen to the following conversation.
Patient: “Doctor, I don’t feel good and need you to do something for
me, but are you absolutely positive that this medicine you’re prescribing
will not have any side effects, that it will not hurt me in any way? Doctor,
tell me the truth, are you absolutely certain that many years from now
should I continue to take these various drugs you always prescribe for my
ills I will not get cancer, heart disease, and many other things that have
become commonplace? I need to make an informed decision and in order to
do this I need the facts. I know that my cold always clears up when you
give me an injection but is it possible that it would clear up without the
needle, without the drugs; and if this is possible why should I continue
taking the needle and other things if you are uncertain of their distant
effects on the body? Is it advisable to take this pain killer, or could this
eventually have some cumulative effect? Please understand doctor, I am
willing to pay heavily to know the truth but don’t take my money unless
you really know what is better for my body.â€
Doctor: “My friend, the only thing I can tell you about drugs is what I
do know. I know that this medicine can eliminate your tension headache
but I have no way of knowing what distant effects an accumulation of drugs
can have on the cells of the body. I also have no way of knowing what is
healthier, to use drugs to get rid of your aches and pains, or let the body try
to correct this itself. I don’t know if by not using drugs, or by using them,
your body will get worse. The most I can do is show you what immediate
effects we know certain drugs to have but I will not prescribe their use
because I cannot assume such responsibility. In all major chains, the
pharmacies have all of them, including heroin, LSD, and the whole
shebang, and you will not need a prescription. The pharmacist won’t advise
you either as to what to take but he will sell them to you if you want to buy
them.â€
Patient: “But doctor, you didn’t give me a straight answer and you
certainly didn’t relieve my anxiety about taking medicine.
Doctor: “If I knew what was truly better for your body I would
definitely tell you but since I have no idea what is the safest or most
effective course of treatment, I cannot advise you here.â€
Patient: “Are you implying that there could be a connection between the
drugs we take today and diseases that may not show up until years later?â€
Doctor: “I really don’t know, but the possibility exists.â€
When doctors become citizens and have their standard of living
guaranteed and know that they will never be blamed for any possibility of
hurt done to a patient who must excuse what they can no longer justify, they
will definitely be forced to think long and hard before prescribing anything,
except for those who can guarantee results without the slightest possibility
of making matters worse. Wouldn’t it be coincidental if certain cancers
completely disappear along with this surplus of the medical profession and
the pharmaceuticals they prescribe?
The guarantee and basic principle will
force doctors to become like Socrates. If you recall, he was proclaimed the
wisest man of his time for discovering that one of the differences between
himself and other men was that he knew he did not know the truth, whereas
they didn’t know either but thought they did. The doctors in the majority of
cases when we consult them will respond like Socrates by saying – “I do not
know what is better, to leave the body alone to heal itself or to prescribe
something therefore I cannot take on the job of treating your problem.
“But if doctors cannot give 100% guarantees when they prescribe drugs
or surgery, and if they will feel guilty should they recommend something
that makes matters worse for their patient, and if they are going to be
guaranteed their standard of living, why should they prescribe anything
when it is not to their advantage?â€
“Where drugs are concerned they will tell their patient what these drugs
are supposed to do and what side effects there might be, but the patient will
make the decision whether or not to use them. This also applies to
injections of any kind. Remember, there will be no laws controlling the
sale of drugs and a drugstore can carry all kinds if the pharmacist feels there
will be buyers. No one will tell you what you can and cannot take into your
system because this is your business, and you will never be blamed for the
misery you might cause yourself. But you will be prevented from blaming
the druggist or the doctor because they are not forcing you to take anything.
The doctors will show someone how to administer an injection but the
patient will have to decide if he wants to take the risk. As for operations,
since this is something a patient cannot perform on himself, the doctors will
only operate when they are convinced that the patient will get worse unless
it is done.â€
“Under these changed conditions isn’t it true that very few people would
desire to become a doctor?â€
“That is true, but those who choose this profession will be dedicated to
learn the truth and nothing but the truth about the human body. You must
bear in mind that even though the human body obeys invariable laws, the
curative power of these laws is still unknown. Because doctors have never
known the curative power of the body alone, I am firmly convinced that
75% of the world’s patients got better not because of what the doctor
prescribed, but in spite of it. However, doctors had no better choice
because, they too, were under the pressure of earning a living and meeting
their bills. When this pressure is removed, along with the blame, they will
let us make the decision as to what we should take into our system. This
will force most of us to give the body a chance to do its work, and I believe
it will be discovered that in the majority of cases, if not in all of cases, the
body will do the job.
Bear in mind also that when the pressure is removed
not only from the doctors but from the patients to sustain their standard of
living; and the moment it is fully understood what it means that man’s will
is not free, 99% of what now disturbs the body will be warded off because
of the perfect condition of the mind, and a great many illnesses will be
wiped from the face of the earth. As a consequence, approximately 75% of
what is prescribed today will be stopped by the doctors themselves which
means that approximately 25% of the hospitals, doctors and nurses that are
now in existence will suffice for our needs in the new world. If a doctor’s
standard of living is $500 a week and after using up all his cash reserve his
income starts to decrease because of a lack of patients, we will continue to
supply the difference while he is still in practice just as long as it is
impossible for him to get a new job paying more than what his income has
been reduced to. But if he can get a job paying $200 a week, and his total
receipts from his patients are now less than this, then he would be
compelled, of his own free will, to take the new job because the difference
between this and the amount we have to give him would cost us (the taxpayers) less.â€
(this is explained in Chapter Six, the New Economic System).