The Scandal of Medical Training

Medical training in the US at the beginning of the 20th century was very poor indeed. One could buy a medical degree by post or qualify with the minimum amount of study.

The AMA (American Medical Association) realised that changes were urgently needed and created a "Council on Medical Education". Soon, internal feuds and under funding made the Council's task impossible.

The Rockefeller-Carnegie foundations stepped in. Both foundations were looking for ways to extend their interest in the pharmaceutical industry. With superb timing, in December 1908, after a meeting between Henry Pritchett - president of the Carnegie foundation - and the AMA, an agreement was reached to include the Rockefeller-Carnegie foundations in the drafting of a new Report on necessary changes to Medical training.

In 1910, the Flexner Report was published. It pointed out the inadequacy of the current medical training and proposed a substantial amount of changes. Most changes were needed and welcome by most. Amongst these changes, was the "strengthening of pharmacology (use of drugs) and the creation of research sections at all approved schools".

The strengthening of pharmacology was the reason for the changes. Doctors from that time onwards were taught to prescribe drugs for the war against disease, thus enriching pharmaceutical companies. There was no mention of training for the prevention of disease and the importance of diet and a toxin free environment in the pursuit of health in the new curriculum.

At a cost of only $10,000 to them, the foundations had changed the course of medicine for the rest of the century and for many years to come. What a masterstroke this would have been if only it had not cost the lives of so many millions of sufferers.

By 1927, the number of "approved schools" (those that followed the guidelines laid out by the foundations to invest in drug research) had halved to eighty.

In the words of Joseph Goulden in his book "The money givers":

"Flexner had the ideas, Rockefeller and Carnegie had the money, and their marriage was spectacular. The Rockefeller Institute for the Medical Research and the General Education Board showered money on tolerably respectable schools and on professors who expressed an interest in research."

The stranglehold by the AMA on doctor's training is terrifying. A doctor has to be trained by a centre approved by the AMA and follow their curriculum. He cannot practice if the AMA does not approve his licence. Once qualified and in practice, he reads publications from ... the AMA.

In the words of Bernie Siegel in his introduction to 'When healing becomes a crime':

"The system needs to open up so that the pages of medical journals are not 50% pharmaceutical ads, thus closing minds and doors to alternative and integrative treatments. In the future, companies need to be rewarded for researching alternative treatments that cannot be patented".

And if you try to help others without a medical licence, you can be prosecuted for illegal practice of medicine. The Office of Technology United States Congress - Archive 1990 states:

"Because their practice falls outside of standard medical practice, physicians who offer unconventional cancer treatments are vulnerable to the civil charge of malpractice". Many have been thrown in jail for providing or using B17 Vitamin (laetrile).

Dr Schulze also states: "there are many people who are jailed every year, put there for disagreeing with medical doctors and their policies. Organised medical crime has gone so far, they have outlawed words for other health professionals to use. Such as "Diagnose" and "Cure". Just by using these words you can be arrested for practising medicine without a licence ."

To date, over a billion dollars have been invested by the foundations to control medical research.

The AMA has its own medical journal called the JAMA, sometimes referred to as the AMA journal. Who advertises in this journal? You have guessed: the Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Association is their largest customer.

The AMA spends millions every year in advertising to control public opinion, to lobby politician in Washington and to support politicians who favour their approach. It is also influential for the selection of Commissioners for the almighty Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA

This organisation is responsible for the approval of new drugs on the American market. In March 1973, they were forced to publish a Consumer report. Most were scandalised by some of its content:

* One rodent pellet was allowed per pint of wheat

* 10 fly eggs were allowed per 8.5 ounces can of fruit juice

* 50 insect fragments or 2 rodent hair for every 3.5 ounces of peanut butter

The FDA has also come to the rescue of the 3,000 chemical additives that flavour, preserve and colour our food today. Most of these additives are safe when ingested in small quantity. However, when these are part of most of the food we eat the amount we consume over a long period of time becomes too massive for our body to cope with and it is only common sense that a toxic reaction should occurs.

In order for a drug to be "accepted" by the, pharmaceutical companies must allocate a large team of technicians to the project. The paper reports generated stacks to a height of six feet and weighs several hundred kilograms. This process often requires an investment in excess of two hundred million dollars. Although pharmaceutical companies officially complain about this procedure, privately they are happy as only they can afford this type of money and this keeps competition from small firms out of the way.