Physicians have had their day – A profession abolishes itself

Physicians have had their day. The physicians can go. A profession abolishes itself.

19. September 2022 von Dr. med. Gerd Reuther 11 Minutes reading time

From German- link. TKP.AT , Ärzte haben ausgedient. Die Ärzte können gehen. Ein Berufsstand schafft sich ab–

———-

“What is the reality we find ourselves in?

This is a new approach to reality. Understanding that the basis of all our actions is how we were introduced to reality orientation and on what premises we were told about what the real world really is.

Well, perhaps that is quite an important question?”

———-

Background info – Feelings are where consciousness begins

Human experiences (feelings -self regulation) are not only not considered in modern evidence-based medicine, but they are also explicitly eliminated by mathematical analyses when compiling the evidence of biology.

Feelings are where consciousness begins. Without them, consciousness is impossible. Consciousness results from the continued presence of homeostatic feelings, with radical implications for the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness and the future of; health, biotech, education, politics, education and AI. – link.

“Dangers that people don’t realize are dangers.”

1. A big danger to living organisms (also us humans) is Life Sciences which have a time-limited view of being human. (reductionism/dualism/machine-orientation)

2. Any Life Science that eliminate the evidence of feeling/life experience, the self regulation.

(what is self regulation? link )


Norwegian Medical Journal – Published 8 April 2011 – The human biology saturated with experiences/feelings.

Knowledge from integrative research projects reveals a need for theoretical and practical reorientation in medicine concerning understanding health on both the individual and the community levels.

Human beings are reflective, meaning-seeking, relational and purposeful organisms. Although experiences associated with such traits are of paramount importance for developing health and disease, medical science has so far failed to integrate these phenomena into a coherent theoretical framework.

The traditional scientific methodology of biomedicine fails to consider the self-aware, meaning-seeking, purposeful and relational nature of humans (1). Doctors, therefore, lack theoretical understanding of how life experiences and feelings associated with self-image, relations and values become and are «inscribed» in the body.

The recent developments in medical knowledge presented in this paper are incompatible with biomedicine’s traditional and pragmatic divide between body and mind (soma and psyche). Not only is the well-established theoretical distinction between somatic and mental disorders challenged (49, 50) and thereby the distance between psychiatric and somatic departments, but also the subdivision into somatic organ-based medical specialities. link.

———-
Medical Science – the biomedical model – An urgent need for a new functional theory – a paradigm shift in understanding the human organism

To understand “myself” as being nature alive, a form of appearance in nature, interacting with nature.- link
___

Medical Science

Although the underlying theories have dissolved, core assumptions and methods have remained unchallenged and unchanged. The centuries-long ideological adherence to the fear-based reductionistic machine-paradigmatic orientation in medicine and the associated one-dimensional and time-limited view of the human system.

In dealing with pandemics, looking purely at the material-biological aspect of the pathogen and prioritising measures aimed at eradicating the pathogen and isolating the host are bound to fail because they cannot match the complexity of the problem.

A paradigm shift in medicine, on the other hand, would place the complex interaction between pathogens, humans and the environment in the foreground of diagnosis, treatment and prevention of pandemics. It would make people more responsible and focus on their innate and acquired immunological protection and defence capabilities, which extend beyond the biological into the psychological and, social, even cultural spheres. Perhaps this would mean the end of pandemics as we know them today.

Prof DDr Christian Schubert, Innsbruck, Austria

Analysis of pandemics by Prof. DDr. Christian Schubert link
———-



Dr. Med. Gerd Reuther – Germany 2022 – A critical history of European medical science

At first glance, the successful staging of a “pandemic” may appear to be a triumph of medicine. Never before has so much money been pumped into the medical complex in such a short time. A closer look, however, reveals not only an epidemic of useless and harmful measures but unmasks the beginning of the end of the supposed demigods in white.
If it was the gods who demanded a diagnosis before every therapy, then since “Covid” at the latest, it is no longer the “demigods” who provide this diagnosis, but PCR tests. However, these tests are not only utterly unsuitable for detecting diseases but they are also carried out everywhere, even by pharmacists or licensed laymen. Since doctors recognise this humbug as a “diagnosis”, the medical privilege to declare people healthy or sick has fallen.

If these tested “diagnoses” also result in binding treatments that biased doctors have laid down in the form of guidelines in the interest of the pharmaceutical industry, a doctor’s consultation is superfluous. Diagnosis and therapy are determined by the medical-industrial complex. Pharmacists and support staff do the necessary handouts. Diagnoses have become the “worst diseases”, as the Austrian social critic Karl Kraus sarcastically put it 100 years ago. Doctors have had their day. Doctors can go.

Yet things had started off so well for the medical profession. Laboratory doctors were earning themselves silly with their largely automated test lines, which had been secretly upgraded to maximum throughput before “Covid”. Doctors in private practice were paid a five-digit sum every quarter for simply being on “Covid” standby. Clinics were flooded with money to keep empty beds available. And those who injected the poisons marketed as “vaccinations” earned up to 30,000 euros per month. Operators of a “vaccination centre” achieved monthly turnovers in the six-figure range.

These alone were the bait-and-switch tricks of the pharmaceutical industry, to which the medical profession has been sworn for over 100 years. Strictly speaking, the profession was financially fed by the elites for about 800 years, when it was instituted by the Catholic Church. (1) Until then, Europeans north of the Alps had not found this species necessary. Extending a line of tradition all the way back to the legendary Hippocrates in ancient Greece is a misnomer.

Until the Catholic Church got its way in the second half of the 12th century to allow church people to practise medicine, there were only herbalists, health craftsmen and a few Jewish physicians in Europe. Ostensibly, only the “Saviour” and “saints” could heal, and the church had invented “specialists” for every ailment in imitation of pagan gods. What was the point of creating competition through secular healing offers?

So healing was not the goal when the church superiors allowed their employees to perform medical procedures without bloodshed at the Council of Tours in 1163. It was about not simply leaving the therapeutic failures of the “saints” to Jewish doctors and thus losing control over the terminally ill. After all, property transfers and donations of money in the face of death were an essential source of income for the church.

Only with their own staff were they informed in time about a serious illness and could make the necessary arrangements. Any treatment of the new profession had to be reported and sanctioned. Presumably this also included possibilities of active euthanasia, since liquid opium was part of the standard equipment of priests.

In any case, it was decreed that it was better to die than to fall into the hands of a Jewish doctor. What the Church really thought of the medical activities of its new doctors can be read in the Old Testament: “He who sins before his Maker shall fall into the hands of the physician!” (2)

Medicinal herbs, placebo measures and mechanical therapies were already occupied by the established healers. Accordingly, the job description of physicians consisted mainly in the management of diseases with unwholesome and toxic remedies. Self-limiting and spontaneously healing illnesses as well as psychosomatic complaints remained the core business of the church princes at places of pilgrimage with the laying on of hands, relics and intercessions. When things got tight for the church elite themselves in terms of health, they preferred to call in the officially stigmatised Jewish doctors, who had a wide range of medical knowledge.

Only with the “reset” of the Renaissance did this change. Now there were more than enough doctors who wanted to be employed. Jewish doctors were harassed and expelled. The invention of a “pandemic” of “witches” at the time got rid of not only the contrarians, but above all the midwives and herbalists. Medical birth was introduced and with it began the infant and maternal deaths that resulted in millions of victims until the 20th century.

Disease and death through medical treatments were thus part of the programme from the beginning. What else could have been the effect of the toxic chemicals that doctors were left with as exclusive therapies? Antimony, mercury or tar – nothing was too toxic not to be used as therapy. For centuries, elevated body temperature was combated primarily with pills and powders containing arsenic. In 1786, the physician and chemist Samuel Hahnemann complained “that no fewer people have been executed and made miserable with arsenical fever remedies than with other toxic remedies put together.” (3)

The history of medical science is largely a history of harm. The withdrawal of large quantities of blood, poisonous emetics and laxatives, deviant sweating cures, prohibitions on drinking and breastfeeding – what was supposed to be salutary about them? Only the most resistant people survived these horse cures, which undermined self-healing from the start and always added therapeutic diseases to the existing illness. A sick person who survived therefore had to recover from at least “two diseases”, as the self-critical physician Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland noted 200 years ago. (4)

The price of this kind of medicine was always high, despite the harmfulness of the therapies. Health craftsmen and herbalists could only claim fractions of the doctor’s fee. When the child Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart fell ill with a fever, his father commented on the medical efforts in 1762 as follows: “In the meantime, this incident, calculated very slightly, has cost me 50 ducats in damages.” (5) For a few consultations, which were obviously unsuccessful, the Mozarts had to pay 50 times their daily living costs in Vienna!

Doctors therefore remained the personal physicians of the elite and service providers for wealthy clients for centuries. The medical damage to the population was thus kept within limits for a long time until the establishment of medical births. Only with the introduction of compulsory health insurance in the last quarter of the 19th century did the health risks of medical treatment expand to almost all classes.

When academic doctors took over surgical procedures in the 19th century – often without sufficient manual experience – and expanded the indications, the great dying in the clinics began. As early as 27 July 1872, a momentous surgical sin occurred: probably on this day, an organ was deliberately cut out for the first time without any pathological findings. The Freiburg surgeon Alfred Hegar removed both ovaries from a 27-year-old woman because of uncharacteristic lower abdominal pain. A few days after the operation, the 27-year-old woman died of peritonitis. (6) The starting signal for the business field of removing supposedly unnecessary organs had been given. And this at a time when, despite antiseptic measures, only one in seven women survived a caesarean section in Europe. (7)

From the beginning, naturopathy and medical science had little in common and developed more and more into opposites. The majority of doctors saw the water of the spas as unwanted competition for their chemical medicines. Medical approval was made dependent on a chemical analysis of the water, which did exist from the 1730s onwards. (8-10) Even then, the medical profession laid claim to as much of life as possible. A Dr. White warned against the “fatal consequences of bathing for healthy people” in the first English seaside resort and urgently advised bloodletting and bowel evacuation before every bath. (11) Today, doctors warn of the fatal consequences of breathing fresh air unmasked to justify FFP2 masks.

It is true that medicine, with its promise of a longer life before death, had replaced the Church, which had fallen behind, in the last third of the 19th century. Protective vaccinations instead of patron saints were the order of the day. But this did not bring real evidence. “Today, since the doctor has taken the place of the priest, (…) the compulsion to take the doctor’s remedies, no matter how poisonous they may be, has reached inconceivable proportions”. (12) As early as 1878, a medical conference participant declared: “Thus the gospel of the scientific method has long been proclaimed to us physicians. And whoever among doctors does not recognise this gospel no longer deserves (…) the name of doctor”. (13)

Social legislation, celebrated as an achievement, laid the foundation 150 years ago for societies to become increasingly medicalised. In 2020, a pandemic could be staged primarily where continued wage payments ensured the survival of those who tested positive in quarantine. This is the only reason why Europe became the supposed hotspot of “Covid”.

Doctors have seen themselves as servants of the elites for 800 years. Even at the price of harmful and deadly treatments. Those who have tried to explain this away until now should have been taught better on the occasion of “Covid”. But even before that, there were repeated treatment scandals because doctors unscrupulously prescribed what the pharmaceutical industry offered for sale. Approval studies for medicines were only established in Germany in 1976 after a tough struggle as a result of the Contergan® victims. And that was due to political pressure!

However, this did not change the fact that doctors prefer to prescribe drugs that are new and bring high profits to the pharmaceutical industry rather than substances whose benefits and harms can be better assessed. (14) The frequency of prescriptions by doctors reflects the marketing cycles of the pharmaceutical companies. After five years, most bestsellers have already disappeared from the market. (15) The principle “better to use a dangerous tool than none at all” (16) is part of the DNA of the profession. And even diagnoses were and are made more often when there is a commercial interest. This is the only way the “epidemics” of osteoporosis, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia or multiple sclerosis have come about in recent decades.

Regardless of the lack of benefit and the incalculable damage, doctors have become the first port of call for health problems in recent decades. With “Covid”, however, doctors have passed their zenith. If it is now obvious to everyone that neither diagnoses are correct, nor therapies that only benefit the pharmaceutical industry restore or maintain health, what is the point of doctors? Their prognoses on the course of disease were never better than a look into a crystal ball anyway, and very few doctors had an eye on the real causes of disease.

Should our world still exist after the “Great Reset”, it would probably have to be a world without academic doctors again in order to live healthily. A world with health artisans/ health craftsmen and healers. Science would not be lacking, since during the 800 years of existence of an academic medical profession, study evidence was only sought at all for about 50 years. Scientific studies worthy of their name only existed from the late 1950s until “Covid”. Scientific medicine has failed because of the corruptibility of its scientists. Today’s “bought research” (17) is no better than medieval scholasticism.


Further Extract from his book (1)

Servitude to the powerful and therapeutic helplessness have been constants of academic medicine since it came into being. In actual practice, however, for the majority of the profession, reasons of state count more than the well-being of patients.

Time and again, doctors made themselves subservient to the financial interests of predatory capitalists. The question in medicine was not effective or ineffective, but: allowed or forbidden. What was and is forbidden in medicine is what the rulers do not want.

In order not to come into conflict with the powerful, the medical profession ignored scientific working methods, the actual benefit to patients and even its own empiricism for most of the time,

An elevated social position and the associated prosperity seem to be worth this price for the majority to this day. Not everyone, however, could bear this: the proportion of addicts was always higher among doctors than in other professions.

Adherence to the status quo or the introduction of new methods can mostly be explained by the impact on the income of the medical profession.

No other professional group had such a high proportion of NSDAP members: even 45 years after the Nuremberg Trials, a complete publication of the doctors’ proceedings was blocked by the German Medical Association.

Yet the medical profession could have freed itself from the hostage-taking of power with the Declaration of Geneva as a contemporary version of the Hippocratic Oath in 1948. The most recent version, which has been adopted into the professional codes of conduct of doctors in many countries, stipulates that doctors “shall not use their knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties”, even under threat.

In practice, however, even in the 21st century, the majority of the profession puts the interests of the state before the well-being of patients.

People like to argue with a “consensus of science” or “consensus of medicine(s)”. When this becomes necessary, it is almost always an indication that the consensus is wrong. Nor do we remember those who were in the consensus, only those who fought against it. This will also be the case in the time after Corona.

Literatur:

1 Reuther G: Heilung Nebensache. Eine kritische Geschichte der Medizin von Hippokrates bis Corona. S. 37ff.Riva; München 2021

2 Die Bibel. Altes Testament; Buch Jesus Sirach; Sir:1-15

3 Hahnemann, S: Ueber die Arsenikvergiftung ihre Hülfe und gerichtliche Ausmittelung. S. 39; Crusius, Leipzig 1786

4 Hufeland CW: Die Kunst, das menschliche Leben zu verlängern. S. 633; Jena1797

5 zitiert nach: Kerner D: Krankheiten großer Musiker. S. 6; Schattauer; Stuttgart und New York 1986

6 zitiert nach Blech J: Die Krankheitserfinder. Wie wir zu Patienten gemacht werden. 6. Auflage; S. 131; S. Fischer; Frankfurt am Main 2004

7 zitiert nach Blech J: Die Krankheitserfinder. Wie wir zu Patienten gemacht werden. 6. Auflage; S. 141; S. Fischer; Frankfurt am Main 2004

8 Simpson W: Hydrologia Chymica: or the Chymical Anatomy of the Scarborough an other Spaws in Yorkshire. 1669

9 Shaw P: An enquiry into the contents, virtues and uses of the Scarborough Spaw-waters: with the method of examining any other mineral water. London1735

10 Anonymus: A dissertation on the Contents, Virtues and Uses of Cold and Hot Mineral Springs, particularly those of Scarborough. 1735

11 White R: The Use and Abuse of Sea Water Impartially Considered. 1775

12 Shaw GB; zitiert nach: http://www.nachdenken-bitte.de/medizin-uebersicht/

13 zitiert nach: Schipperges H: Utopien der Medizin. Geschichte und Kritik der ärztlichen Ideologie des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. S. 115f.; Salzburg 1968

14 Reuther G: Der betrogene Patient. 4. Auflage; S. 211ff.; Riva; München 2019

15 1997 und 2007 im Vergleich – Die umsatzstärksten Arzneimittel. a-t 2008; 39:65-6

16 van Swieten G: Erläuterungen der Boerhaavischen Lehrsätze von Erkenntniß und Heilung der Krankheiten. S. 497; Krauß; Wien 1769

17 Kreiß Ch: Gekaufte Forschung: Wissenschaft im Dienst der Konzerne. Europa; Berlin, München, Wien, Zürich 2015