by Sayer Ji
delivery of 'good' medical care
is to do as much
nothing as possible''
The House of God
Medicine is undergoing an existential crisis today.
Its core value
proposition - to help and not hurt - is failing to manifest.
Patients are suffering.
Doctors are suffering. The only exuberant party on the battlefield
against disease is
the pharmaceutical industry. An
annual casualties far exceed the
death total from our two decade long involvement in the Vietnam
The entire system is on the precipice of a collapse, if not for
economic reasons alone, then certainly for ethical and intellectual
The irony is that the
system has become so ineffective and dangerous that
avoiding medical treatment (excluding perhaps emergency care) has
become one of if not the best healthcare strategy you can
implement to protect your health and well-being.
Nowhere is this clearer than in
the realm of cancer.
Over the past few
decades, billions have been spent on screening asymptomatic
populations to "prevent cancer," with the result that millions have
been assigned with
questionable diagnoses (e.g.,
"early stage-" or "stage zero-cancers") and then
shepherded into chemo, radiation
and surgery treatments as if watchful waiting, or better yet, making
significant nutritional and lifestyle modifications, would be a
suicidal approach vis-à-vis the inexorability and presumed lethality
of genetically-determined cancer.
We needn't detail the misery this approach has produced, but suffice
it to say that despite the industry's claims of thousands of
"lives saved" from the detection of "early cancers," breast and
prostate cancer specific mortality has at best stayed the same, and
may have actually increased in some cases.
In light of the fact that
the financial costs of misapplied treatment in some cases is so high
that the uninsured, their families, and society as a whole, face
bankruptcy, the situation is dire indeed.
Even after the cat was let out of the bag in 2013, and a National
Cancer Institute commissioned expert panel concluded that
labeling screening detected lesions known as ductal carcinoma in
situ (DCIS) and high-grade intraepithelial neoplastic
hyperplasia (HG-PIN - colloquially labeled as "breast cancer"
and "prostate cancer," respectively) as carcinomas ("cancer") is no
Instead they opted for
redefining what were previously considered potentially lethal
"benign or indolent
lesions of epithelial origin."
Yet, you hear virtually
no mention of this change anywhere.
Tens of thousands are
still being diagnosed with the same "cancers" and being cut,
poisoned and burned, without informed consent.
The lack of acknowledgment and discussion about these tremendous
diagnostic "errors" is less surprising when you consider that about
1.3 million U.S. women were
wrongly treated for breast cancer in the past 30 years, with
prostate and lung cancer representing two additional icebergs upon
which the Titanic cancer industry is presently running itself
aground upon, regardless of whether the medical establishment will
Ignoring the truth that
millions suffered needlessly, it would seem, is less painful than
admitting wrong, and dealing with the psychological and financial
fallout that inevitably follows.
But is it possible to
stem the tide much longer against the inevitable transformations
If you check the pubmed.gov statistics, interest in "overtreatment"
and "overdiagnosis" has grown exponentially from only a few decades
ago, when the terms were rarely mentioned.
A new editorial, titled,
Is Overtreatment, Not Overdiagnosis," points out the real
issue behind the epidemic of cancer over-diagnoses:
The most widely
accepted definition of ''over-diagnosis'' is ''diagnosing a
person without symptoms with a disease that will (ultimately)
never cause symptoms or death during the person's lifetime''.
It should not be
confused with misdiagnosis or false-positive findings, which are
completely different entities and outside the scope of this
As the generally
accepted definition encapsulates downstream effects (i.e.,
''would otherwise not go on to cause symptoms or death'', the
real issue lies with ''overtreatment'' of these accurate
diagnoses rather than over-diagnosis itself.
Overtreatment does not
happen in a vacuum.
The very industries that
produce the treatments also create and supports the "awareness
campaigns" that not only use fear to corral the population into
screening, but also "pinkwash" away their true causes, i.e. breast
cancer awareness month talks about needing a cure but not the causes
right under our noses (i.e. carcinogens).
Therefore, the more
diagnoses that are generated, the more treatments will be
"recommended," resulting in greater revenue and profit
- an economic growth model that itself can only be described as a
malignant process at least as violent, if not more, than the disease
it is claiming to treat and manage.
The editorial concluded:
"The effects of
treating inconsequential lesions, rather than their diagnosis
per se, result in increased morbidity and cost without added
Society as a whole
should strive to treat individuals who should be treated and not
those who would not benefit. The 13th law of Shem, true in 1978,
remains true today."
medicine has become our most
Orwellian institution, with
"detecting cancer early" the biomedical equivalent of the Thought
Police detecting crime before it happens...
itself, is a highly toxic process (nocebo: e.g., "You have cancer
and 6 months to live.") that can contribute to evoking
cancer-promoting physiological reactions, as well as inflicting real
psycho-spiritual wounds that have been determined to dramatically
increase the risk of heart-related deaths and suicides.
Medicine has also adopted
the metaphorics of another powerful global force: the military
industrial complex, with the cancer "prevention" being equated to
"striking first," eerily similar to the Bush doctrine of preemptive
war to secure peace.
Here, the precautionary
principle is co-opted and inverted from its true meaning.
Instead of "doing no
harm," unnecessary medical intervention is considered the only
non-violent solution even when the collateral damage is so great
that the patient often dies from the violence of "treatment" with
weapons-of-mass-destruction grade radioisotopes and chemicals and
not the condition.
We need to completely rethink medicine's role in
What happens when
we return to the fundamentals of an entity - the human, soul
and body together - whose self-healing capabilities are so
powerful that even the suggestion through sugar pill or kind
word of a health practitioner that a disease can attenuate
or disappear actually causes significant improvement?
What if given the
right conditions - clean air, water, food and a healthy
environment, physically and emotionally - the conditions for
disease were suddenly removed, and replaced with an opposite
environs promoting health?
If medicine makes it
through the birth process of its own existential crises, these
principles will invoke an entirely new medical model where
the placebo effect is not to be "controlled for," but liberated and
expanded by educating the patient to the fact that they can and do
heal themselves, mainly by avoiding medical treatment
and doing the right amount of nothing...
30 August 2015
The reason for this situation lies not in medicine, but outside
the field of medicine, in the non-existence of the science of
Medicine offers us two solutions, as discussed in this article,
to treat, or not to treat. Missing the third. To create and
Our science of health is so weak that, to quote this article,
"avoiding medical treatment (excluding perhaps emergency care)
has become one of if not the best healthcare strategy you can
implement to protect your health".
We need do do more than 'protect' our health, we need to create,
to grow, to improve our health. Medicine offers nothing in this
person without symptoms with a disease that will
(ultimately) never cause symptoms or death during the
person's lifetime', is searching for illness, instead of
trying to understand health.
The search for
illness continues - so that medicines can be sold to treat
illness that does not exist, with medicines that do not prevent,
and do not cure.
We have tools to
diagnose illnesses that do not exist, but we have no tools, no
techniques to study health, to measure healthiness.
We need to go beyond the statement,
"We need to
completely rethink medicine's role in healing."
We need to widen our
view, to include not just illness, not just prevention of
illness, not just healing the damage caused by illness - to
include studies of health.
The best preventative is health. The best cure, for many
illnesses, is health. The reason we have so many chronic
illnesses, so many illnesses that are 'incurable' (with
medicines) is that we don't attempt treat them with health.
When someone does
treat an incurable illness with health, and succeeds in curing
it, it becomes - not an important case to study - it is simply
anecdotal evidence, safely ignored.