What Is the Alternative?
Also available in
The responsibility of the governments of the European Union
The whole medical establishment is set up in such a way as to give the impression that there can be no question of any alternative. Whatever takes place in the medicine of the Western world today is directed by the medical establishment, or more precisely by pharmaceutical companies, who subsidise all university research and eventually bring to the market whatever they please in any way they wish. Control of such products is minimal in Europe and is backed by the wrong theory in North America in that long-term side-effects are never researched – as for example in the thalidomide affair.
Has the Ministry of Health of any European country ever instituted any form of research to find out how many patients suffering with chronic diseases are benefitted by conventional treatments, and how many by alternative therapies? Has any government made an inquiry into the fact that so many patients are turning to alternative methods of treatment? Is it not because of the failure of the conventional treatment?
The whole health policy of any government should be based on such research. Nothing should be taken for granted. I am sure that if there was such research amongst the people of Europe, it will be found that those people who have tried both systems have found substantial relief from alternative therapies. In any case, the fact that they turned to the alternative, itself is an indication that conventional treatment failed them.
I am positive that if such a direct question is asked to a specific public that has the experience of both therapies – the conventional and the alternative – the answer would be surprising and revealing.
- The health policy of any government should be based on such information.
- The state and place of alternative medicine.
Another ‘feat’ accomplished by the medical establishment has been to conceal from the public the fact that alternative methods of treatment do exist, and that such methods are effective in many cases.
In this, of course, the patients themselves have played a major part. These patients, once cured by some alternative form of medical treatment, do not dare to go back to the doctors who made them suffer, sometimes for many years, and tell them straight out that they should have been informed by them and much earlier. The patients do not dare to challenge the doctors.
Patients are afraid that one day they may need the attentions of their ‘official’ doctor, and so do not want to insult him. With this cunning approach, they fail to confront the doctor, and so do not help the spread of the right information.
Each patient acts like everyone of us, thinking of nothing else but his or her own narrow best interests. In spite of all this, alternative systems of medical treatment are flourishing, both in Europe and in North America.
When I speak about alternatives, I mean only homeopathy, acupuncture, osteopathy, chiropractic and naturopathy.
These therapeutic systems present great possibilities, on the condition, of course, that they are properly applied. Here too, as elsewhere, there is scope for makeshift practice and exploitation.
By using alternative medicine as leverage, the state could apply pressure on the medical authorities, reducing their power and simultaneously giving back to these traditional, alternative forms of medicine, their proper meaning and status.
A most dangerous game is however being played at this very moment within the European circles of conventional medicine, (except in Great Britain, Germany and Holland, where alternative methods of treatment have already been recognized and are freely practised). This game consists of an attempt on the doctors’ part to monopolize all alternative methods of treatment, even though these were not a part of their official studies, in the medical schools.
What kind of reasoning allows doctors whose studies at medical school have only covered conventional medicine to suddenly become the guardians of an alternative medical tradition? How is this possible, when in order to master just one method of alternative medicine, three, four or sometimes even five years’ intensive study and exclusive training are necessary?
How can a doctor – who will be the only person allowed to practice such methods under possible future laws – suddenly become a specialist in homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, osteopathy and chiropractic? Such doctors already exist, who claim to specialize not only in one but in many alternative methods.
There remains very little doubt nowadays that real and fundamental improvements in a patient’ s health are brought about not by conventional medicine, but by one of the forms of alternative treatment referred to above.
Naturally, surgery is not included in the above arguments.
The real argument that this article is trying to make is that medical doctors before they can claim they are specialising in one or other alternative methods they have to have proper training, and as far as homeopathy is concerned this training requires three to five years intensive studies, and this is the responsibility of the governments in Europe.