The "Semmelweiss Syndrome"

Candace Pert and others have laid the foundation for a new science called psychoneuroimmunology (PNI). Candace Pert, says about herself, "First and foremost, I am a truth-seeker." Unfortunately, Pert lost out on a Nobel Prize for her early work when three male superiors nominated themselves to get the credit for her brilliance and hard work and left her out. Since Pert thought this was not fair, the ensuing fuss caused the Nobel Prize to be awarded elsewhere. As Pert details her story in the book Molecules of Emotion, the resistance to change has been enormous. [3] Pert demonstrated that in addition to neurotransmitters the brain is modulated by numerous chemicals many of which are informational. In a key paper on her theory in the Journal of Immunology in 1985 she stated that: 'Neuropeptides and their receptors thus join the brain, glands and immune system in a network of communication between brain and body, probably representing the biochemical substrate of emotion.' The prefix neuro implies it relates to the brain but in reality these informational substances describe a bodywide communication system. The brain or neuro component was only one part of a hierarchical system to gather process and share information. The implications of Pert's observations were far reaching and considered paradigm-smashing and revolutionary - the part played by the mind. The old-paradigm insisted on the separateness and autonomy of the individual disciplines but Pert's approach was interdisciplinary in complete violation of all kinds of traditional boundaries between scientific fields, bureaucratic departments and medical specialities. Her work in cancer she describes might have provided 'a useful therapeutic, a magic bullet', but it would take ten years before it would be taken seriously and investigated as her ideas were originally thought to be 'too wild'.

Similarly her book describes how she tried to get a promising new drug to market to alleviate the suffering of AIDS victims, but she could not get a major backer interested long enough to make her discovery a reality. Pert felt that one of the reasons was that there was a prevailing belief that major diseases could not be treated without major side effects. She postulated that the 'idea of a non-toxic therapeutic could well have been a complete enigma to most of their top scientists' and there was too much preconception of what a winning drug for such a deadly disease should act like. At least Pert was comforted by the results of phase I clinical trials that were conducted in 1989 on a group of 30 men and women at the Fenway Clinic in Boston. The clinical trials were to test for toxicity and improvements that lasted six months were considered too good to be true, as there were no side affects and the disappearance of some AIDS symptoms could be documented. Instead funding was channelled towards the extremely toxic drug AZT, which was a chemotherapeutic drug originally used for cancer in the sixties. It fitted the standard belief that in attempting to destroy a virus, healthy cells had to be sacrificed too, particularly those of the immune system. AZT did show some promise in reversing symptoms of AIDS and giving patients time but it could not be considered a "cure", since like chemotheraphy in cancer treatment it causes the virus it attacks to eventually develop resistance so that the disease usually reoccurs. Candace believes that her drug for AIDS could have saved many lives if it had been brought to market quickly. Interesting enough, Pert does mention that the drug actually did go underground and was manufactured and sold in the United States. If you the read the story the solution Candace came up with, appeared to be channelled from a higher source. This example demonstrates that if you are open to truth and you intentions are pure, the Universe will respond and provide solutions and there are many many recorded instances of this type of 'inspiration' in many fields of endeavor.

Another pioneer who made a great discovery to be met with opposition is Barbara McClintock who was ridiculed by her peers, and more so because she is a woman, for her 1950 discovery that genes often switch location on chromosomes during the process of procreation (meiosis). And it was not until 30 years later that she was awarded the 1980 Nobel Prize for her landmark discovery. Since then, her "jumping genes" have become a cornerstone of modern genetics.

In the 1960s Kilmer McCully a physician and scientist, was on the faculty at Harvard Medical School. Because of his insistence that homocysteine was one risk factor for heart disease, he was forced out of the school because everybody knew cholesterol in the blood was the big risk factor (even though everybody knew at that time there were other major risk factors). It took until about 1995 for the medical sciences to realize that he had been right all along. All of a sudden, and 40 years later, homocysteine has now been recognized as a major risk factor, and some studies show it is as predictive as serum cholesterol for heart attacks. There are many many more examples to clearly demonstrate this 'irrational resistance' is prevalent throughout science and medicine.

There have been many voices of dissent in the medical world that have made it their mission to warn and enlighten. I like to give tributes to two campaigners who brought attention to the many discrepancies between hype and reality. Dr Mendelsohn, a world-famous physician and patient advocate, was a pioneer in the movement toward truth in the medical profession.[3.5] He was President of the National Health Federation, former National Director of Project Head Starts Medical Consultation Service, and Chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee of the State of Illinois. He appeared on over 500 television and radio talk shows, and is the author of Confessions of a Medical Heretic (1979), Male Practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women, and How To Raise a Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctor (1984). His best seller 'Confessions of a medical Heretic' was written in order to provide readers with the information needed to help make their own medical decisions. He explained why Modern Medicine's methods were often more dangerous than the diseases they are designed to diagnose and treat and courts controversy by detailing unnecessary surgery and so-called preventative medicine. The back cover of 'Confessions of a medical Heretic' states 'Historically, when doctors have gone on strike, the mortality rate has dropped. Dr. Mendelsohm states, 'Doctors in general should be treated with the same degree as trust as used car salesmen. Whatever your doctor says or recommends, you have to first consider how it will benefit him.' This man obviously had a serious issue with his own profession and the following quote sums up his attitude.

Another doctor in the UK who is also well known campaigner for medical truth is Doctor Vernon Coleman, he has been a campaigner for 30 years and has authored over 90 books which have sold in more than 50 countries into 22 languages. Over two million copies of his books have sold in the UK alone. His stories have appeared in hundreds of leading publications around the world. On the front page of his book 'How To Stop Your Doctor From Killing You', (1996, 2003) it states

"The person most likely to kill you is not a burglar, a mugger, deranged relative or a drunker driver. The person most likely to kill you is your doctor. This book explains how to protect yourself from this serious threat to your life and good health."[4]

His book The Story of Medicine is packed with examples illustrating the way that the medical establishment has acted in the interests of the profession but against the interests of patients. Furthermore Dr Coleman says,

"The real tragedy is that absolutely nothing has changed. The medical establishment is still responsible for protecting medical procedures which do not work and have never worked (and which expose patients to great risk) while at the same time it opposes and suppresses treatments which do work and have been proved to work. Anyone who dares to offer warnings which don't fit in with the specific requirements of the medical establishment will get the Semmelweiss treatment."

Dr Coleman has been vociferous critic and over a thirty year period has published many warnings, most of them 'commercially inconvenient'.

"Although I was widely attacked by governments, the medical establishment and many parts of the media for making these warnings, the accuracy of many of the forecasts, predictions exposés and warnings on the list is now widely accepted by the medical profession and the media."

In 2000, the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), decided to publish a report that doctors where the third leading cause of death in America, causing 250,000 deaths a year. [5] This was also considered a conservative estimate! The World Health Organization (WHO) considered the report (and presumably other reports around the world) with the implications and decided to step in and launch an initiative aimed at 'reducing medical mistakes'. In October 2004, they announced an initiative to create a "culture of safety" in health care. The initiative, the World Alliance for Patient Safety, will bring together governments, civil society organizations, scientists and researchers to develop and share strategies for reducing medical mistakes. Among the major partners are the United States, Britain and Australia.[6]

In the aftermath of the Vioxx scandal in the US, any thinking person cannot be in any doubt whatsoever, that the reputation of the U.S. Food and drug Administration, FDA has been severely damaged. (The United States can be considered the pharmaceutical drug basket of the world, so this is a very serious loss in credibility). The FDA were caught in collusion with a major pharmaceutical company to promote a drug as 'safe', when in fact their own researchers were telling them the drug was dangerous and should be taken off the market. Dr. Horton, editor of The Lancet, a well respected medical journal was outraged, after reading the Merck insider emails published in the Wall Street Journal.[7] They showed how Merck sought to distort drug trials to hide evidence of heart disease. Horton after reviewing the same clinical trials on the drug that the FDA reviewed before approving it, he called for FDA reform: he stated,

"...with Vioxx, Merck and the FDA acted out of ruthless, short-sighted, and irresponsible self-interest."

The Independent newspaper in the UK, has reported that scientists think Vioxx could be responsible for 140,000 heart attacks in US patients, of whom 44 per cent died, making it the world's worst drug disaster. This newspaper said that doctors on both sides of the Atlantic have warned of a public health emergency over other painkillers in the same class. [8] For the increasingly aware public, the Vioxx gave a true insight into the motives of a government organization that has always sought to suppress the use of beneficial and normally cheap drug alternatives.

Now in the 'New Energy', tables are quickly turning and now we have websites which teach CAM practitioners how to deal with 'Quackbusters'. Consumer advocates maintain that the 25 year "quackbuster" operations aim to discredit CAM practitioners to maintain the conventional medical stronghold. Hence, we now have the specter of 'Health Freedom Fighters' and 'The battle between "Health and Medicine" on Planet Earth'. [9] A major victory was reported in March 2005 by a landmark Supreme Court decision. This occurred when Quackwatch.com failed to take away a doctor's license to practice medicine, whose only transgression was to successfully cure patients using Chelation Therapy.[10] Here is what one of the Missouri Supreme Court Justices said about the State's action against the Doctor:

"Physicians are afforded considerable leeway in the use of professional judgment to decide on appropriate treatments, especially when applying the negligence standard… "Negligence" does not seem an appropriate concept where the physician has studied the problem and has made a treatment recommendation, even though that is not the prevailing view of the majority of the profession. The lack of general acceptance of a treatment does not necessarily constitute a breach of the standard of care……

"One could argue that because chelation therapy is not accepted by mainstream medicine and is an off-label practice not approved by the FDA, it is therefore harmful and dangerous. If that were the board's position, the licensing statute would thwart advances in medical science. A dramatic example is the treatment of stomach ulcers, which were long thought to be caused by stress. In 1982, two Australians found the bacterium helicobacter pylori in the stomach linings of ulcer victims. Because helicobacter pylori is a bacterium, some physicians -- a minority to be sure -- began prescribing antibiotics to treat stomach ulcers as an infectious disease. The National Institutes of Health did not recognize antibiotic therapy until 1994; the FDA approved the first antibiotic for use in treating stomach ulcers in 1996; and the Centers for Disease Control began publicizing the treatment in 1997. Today's physicians accept as fact that most stomach ulcers are primarily caused by helicobacter pylori bacteria infection and not by stress. (FN6) But, by the chronology of this discovery, if a physician in the late 1980s or early 1990s had treated ulcers with antibiotics, that treatment would have been "negligent" as the board in this case interprets that term because inappropriate use of antibiotics can be dangerous."

We are witnessing a shift in consciousness towards increasing balance. You could put this another way, some commonsense has started to prevail! Hopefully, this will be one of many steps that humanity is making towards greater freedom, love and higher consciousness.