Saturday, May 3, 2008

When State Medical Boards Attack, You Know You Want Some of What They're Going After

Headline: Medical panel: Restrict doctor "In response to criticism about prescribing weeks of intravenous infusions for three advanced cancer patients, Buttar explained he doesn't treat cancer, but rather the conditions that allow cancer to thrive."

Why is the state medical board going after a doctor who doesn't treat cancer, but addresses the underlying terrain that allows cancer to thrive? You would think that such a doctor would be lauded and embraced as a good example for the medical profession, representing its best and most innovative.

Unfortunately, the cult of mediocrity reigns supreme among the licensed medical representatives of the state. I suppose that one explanation for this attack is that it's a threatening embarrassment to much of the medical profession, particularly those who are too cowardly to protect their patients from the toxic and failed treatments of BIG PHARMA. Especially for cancer.

A government founded to protect individual liberty and maximize freedom would protect innovative doctors and the patients whom rely upon them from the petty, envious and pharmaceutically-biased collectivists on state medical boards (and in government). What would the North Carolina Constitution have to say about this abridgement of such a foundational freedom as to determine which medical practitioner and method is best?

"We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness."

Did North Carolinians turn over their medical sovereignty to a bunch of unelected cowardly medical bureaucrats with the intention of destroying doctors who dare to practice holistically? I think not. So who do these bozos think they are? State medical boards are evidently inhabited largely by vile creatures too abhorrent to serve in condominium associations, much less government.

I suspect that J.R.R. Tolkien must have patterned his Auks on current board members, especially them that feel it is their duty to protect the public from the likes of natural medicine and the doctors who would dare employ it. I tip my hat to Dr. Rashid Buttar and all those brave doctors willing to risk their livelihood to do right by those for whom they are dedicated to help.

To the medical boards inhabited by the vile creatures which go after doctors merely because they have leapt the electrified fence keeping you a slave to FDA-approved toxic medicines -- may you wake every night to the cries of family members who have lost loved ones to your blind allegiance to multi-national drug companies. What about the standard of care? The medical boards can cry me a drug infested river for all I care about what they claim to be a standard of care. They can't even define it. Let me help:

When the journal BMJ Clinical Evidence investigated the certainty of "Conventional Medicine," what they discovered is nothing less than shocking. Here is what is known about 2,500 treatments offered by conventional medicine:
  • 13 percent are beneficial to the patient
  • 23 percent are likely to be beneficial
  • 8 percent is a trade-off between benefits and harm
  • 6 percent are unlikely to be beneficial
  • 4 percent are likely to be ineffective or harmful
  • 46 percent have unknown effectiveness
What say the BMJ?

…the figures above suggest that the research community has a large task ahead and that most decisions about treatments still rest on the individual judgments of clinicians and patients.

State medical boards go after practitioners of holistic and integrative medicine. Based upon what? Based upon the BMJ revelations:

"...if you believe conventional medicine is based on scientific, cold hard facts, think again."

Even though most state boards of medicine have obviously overdosed on Ambien, we finally have a definitive definition of the standard of care:

It’s a crap shoot -- a 64 percent chance that the treatment will be either harmful, ineffective, or gee, we have no idea what might happen.

Just how scientific are the drugs that medical boards insist are the standard of care?

If these medical boards were not so hopped up on FDA approved medication power trips, then they would rightly go after 2/3 of all doctors, particularly those that still practice government-sanctioned allopathic medicine. That way, the only doctors left standing would be ones like Dr. Rashid Buttar, Dr. Nicholas Gonzales, Dr. Stephen Sinatra and Dr. Carolyn Dean, just to name a few.

There would be a lot less people dying from modern medicine. I could live with that. So would millions of others.

No comments:

Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.