Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
Click Here To Peruse The Bibliography Entitled
"Medical Politics Versus Alternatives And Innovations"
Click Here To Peruse Bibliography Entitled
"Medical Politics Versus Koch's Therapy"
Click Here To Return To The Home Page
ABOUT THE PERSECUTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Copyright 2000 by Thomas Lee Hesselink, M.D.
All rights are reserved.
This article may not be reproduced in whole
or in part without written permission from the author.
- The information presented within these articles and accompanying communications is offered for legitimate educational and research purposes only.
- This exists as an exercise of the author's constitutional rights to freedom of speech and to freedom of the press.
- Nothing herein may be construed as providing:
medical advice, manufacturing advice, business advice, nor any advice whatsoever, nor endorsement of any kind.
- No claims nor promises of suitability for any purpose nor of efficacy are made.
- The reader is further required and should agree not to aid nor to abet any deceptive, fraudulent, or illegal activity pertaining to any information obtained herein.
One should hope: 1) that the suppression of Koch Therapy or
of other worthy alternative therapies were just a anomalies,
and 2) that this in no way represents a typical response to medical
innovation. Unfortunately, such tragedies have been quite common.
Social and political malfeascence is not the main topic of these
presentations. Nevertheless, such issues must be addressed to
justify the need to reexamine "officially" rejected therapies.
SOME COMMON PRESUMPTIONS
A comment often made in this regard is, "If a new therapy is
really so great, then society would be using it."
This statement depends on four presumptions:
- everyone will hear about the new therapy
and receive an accurate description of it
- everyone upon hearing will automatically believe in it
and want it whenever needed
- most doctors will readily accept it and start offering it
- there exist in society no contravening interests whatsoever
Presumption 1) is unlikely because it takes great wealth to publicize
and promote anything. Only big business has the funds sufficient to undertake
such a grand publicity campaign as to inform everyone. Air time, especially
major television network time is phenominally expensive. Many commonly used
household products are not brought to the home without an advertizing
budget in the millions. The news media will sometimes pick up a story and
publicize it for free. However, this presumes the media will first be interested
in the alternative, will not find a detractor to disparage it, and will
accurately portray it. In reality the media are often not so supportive.
Presummption 2) is unlikely because a high percentage of people reject
new information out of hand and will not investigate for themselves.
In my personal observation as a physician, I have found it to be quite
common for people to reject word of mouth suggestions from family members,
coworkers, friends, and other associates. There are exceptions,
but most of the time good news is rejected even when the success was notably
substantial. Many will disbelieve if their personal doctor has not advised
in favor of the alternative in question. This is true even when another
doctor has repeatably positive experiences and highly advocates the alternative.
Many will disbelieve even if their own doctor advocates the alternative
just because it is different.
Presumption 3) is rarely true. Doctors are generally extraordinarily
skeptical, especially of new therapies. They tend to reject everything except
what they are themselves already very familiar with. Many will not admit to
lack of knowledge pertaining to a new therapy and so will claim to know it
is "not good". Few will take the time or effort to conduct a personal
investigation and so develope an experienced view. Most will reflexly reject
new suggestions if they heard or read of just one other doctor who is against it.
Many will emphatically deny the value of a medical innovation, if it competes
with the therapies they presently offer. Much of the above described
closed-mindedness and antagonism towards alternatives and innovations is not
all the fault of individual doctors. They all fear law suits and adverse peer
review. To condone an innovation is to take many great legal risks.
Few new therapies ever get past this hurdle.
Presumption 4) fails to consider the great power and vested interests
of society's professional, private, and public institutions. If a new
therapy in any way threatens the power, wealth, or prestige of any of
these institutions, it will be highly unlikely for it to ever be
allowed, much less to become commonplace.
A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MEDICAL MALFEASENCE
The following bibliography will provide the reader with a good
understanding of the idealogic conflict between medical politics and
health freedom. Alarming facts have been extensively reviewed by other
authors. The suppression of alternatives by the medical establishment
is explained in detail and well documented. Check out what really
happens behind the scenes within the medical institutions and
bureaucracies which control society. The reader will discover that
what is truly best for patients is often subjected in priority below
other vested interests. The truth is frequently distorted, good physicians
and researchers are punished unjustly, and good therapies are disparaged
as quackery. As a result, needy patients are denied access to beneficial
health care. It is the sincere hope of the author that the following
references will:
- well inform the reader
- exonerate those who have been falsely vilified
- inspire action, which will gain freedom of access
to inappropriately suppressed therapies.
Click Here To Peruse The Bibliography Entitled
"Medical Politics Versus Alternatives And Innovations"
Click Here To Peruse Bibliography Entitled
"Medical Politics Versus Koch's Therapy"
Click Here To Return To The Home Page
