#44: The Sickness/Disease based paradigm
The Sickness/Disease based paradigm
In this training
I’m going to explain why our medical culture has become it’s own monarchy in America and describe the truth about the standardization of medicine…
Listen, if you’re serious about improving your health, living pain-free or you just don’t want to be sick anymore, here’s how to find out if I can help you. Call us at 219-769-5433, mention this show and we can begin together to find out today!
- What is the sickness/disease paradigm
- The difference between Western science and Natural science; and chiropractic’s role
- The Flexner Report and how it tried to end natural health
I am really excited to start you on this journey and I hope to add a lot of value to your life as a whole.
Nutrition is remarkable in its ability to have people with completely opposite views saying they have science to support completely opposite views.
Frustrating isn’t it? What are we suppose to believe?
Welcome to Dynamism Biohack, my name is Dr. Matt Hammett Wellness & Nutrition Expert, Lifestyle Trainer and Movement Enthusiast. In each week I’m going share with you how to make the right nutritious choices despite conflicting expert opinions where I help you to discover how to unlock your inner aborigine or your inner greatness. Thank you for spending this time with me today, so let’s get into the training.
The prevailing sickness/disease paradigm teaches a misleading concept that is shaping our modern culture toward an expression of life I call “living without the consequence.”
The cliché of this culture believes that we are sick because of predetermined genes, harmful germs, or bad luck. People who “go with the flow” tend to believe that they are born weak with bad genetics. That mentality makes them into a “caged” person, a lifelong victim and a lifelong dependent of medical drugs and surgeries.
Therefore, as long as this misconception continues to propagate within our society and cultural norm there is no reason to develop a lifestyle program if we are victim to our genes. Thus, the western scientific approach may step in and create more drugs and surgeries to override our bodies own regulatory system due to these weaknesses and errors in our genetic makeup.
Wellness expert Dr. James Chestnut tell us “they rationalize this theory and think that if genes do cause illness and if we are born genetically predetermined to get sick then we can never prevent it. Therefore doctors feel it’s a waste of time, energy, and resources to create or refer their patients to a lifestyle preventive health program. This is exactly why medicine spends no time, energy, and resources on wellness and prevention.”
This theory is what they use to rationalize biotech companies that destroy the natural nutritional content in our foods destroy our microbiomes. Chestnut explains that “this theory and rationale states that if your scientific model is that the human being in front of you is sick because of pathological cell function or because of genetic predetermination then it makes no sense to spend any of your time, money, energy or resources on preventing that illness or getting that person well. Under this model, the best chance you have to improve the quality of life, which is genetically predetermined to be sick, is to cover them up with a drug and override the system as long as you can for the remainder of their life”.
The underlying difference between the medical point of view and the chiropractic perspective can be answered with this question: “Do people who get a chronic illness and go on medication ever get well?”
After my family members’ tragic deaths, I asked myself that question. These were three terrible deaths that could have been prevented; this didn’t need to happen. While I sifted through the science, seriously considering leaving chiropractic and entering medical school, I discovered in science that’s it is not even their argument. It is not their argument; they do not even pretend to believe that a person with chronic illness gets better with medication. The literature is very clear, which even has a specific term called palliative care, which means, “to cover up, relieving pain without dealing with the cause of the condition.”
The prevailing western sickness/disease culture spends most of their resources convincing us that we are born genetically weak and sick. They have convinced the popular culture that your best chance is to cover up (blame it and tame it with a drug) and to override your body’s abilities since they mistakenly theorize that you and I are inherently incapable of regulating ourselves.
Chiropractors recognize the fact that we are self-healing and self-regulating. God is not capable of making mistakes, spontaneous mutations, and genetic defects. However, our free will undoubtedly allow us to make terrible choices that have horrific consequences down multiple generations. These concepts are espoused by one profession only: chiropractic; that is why I am so proud to be a chiropractor, and why we have such ability to save lives. Believe me, the purpose of this book is to verify that last statement, that chiropractic care is the answer to our “disease of civilization.” Although these things are espoused by chiropractic, above all else we did not create these ideas. Chiropractic simply has been the only health care profession that recognizes them, having withstood the onslaught from Rockefeller in the Flexner Report. We have refused to adapt into the prescriptions of drugs, the way the osteopathic profession did, as I will explain in a moment.
We need to stop blaming our genes or lack of intelligence for our problems and start taking responsibility. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps this is the reason behind the rise of huge biotech food companies, which are chemical companies? Pharmaceutical companies got so powerful, even immune to the law, as a result! The worst thing that can happen to a system which depends on customers who have no power and live in total dependence is for them to become empowered, inspired by the idea that they can take responsibility for their health and educated in how to eat, move, think, connect and cope so we can leave this planet well. That was the way our ancestors lived, how our genes are programmed to express health and that is how we need to express our genes. This book is dedicated to all of the billions of peoples who have died, misguided by that system, and to the future generations. You do have the power to change your health outcome, and we know through science exactly how to do it. That is empowerment. That is inspiration. That is New Life.
Since you are listening to this training, chances are you have watched or read some of the documentaries on food, nutrition, biotech companies and GMO’s. But have you heard of the Flexner Report and its influence over natural medicine?
THE STANDARDIZATION OF MEDICINE
The Flexner Report is a book-length study of medical education in the United States and Canada, written by the professional educator Abraham Flexner and published in 1910 by the Carnegie Foundation. The Flexner Report called on American medical schools to enact so-called higher admission and graduation standards and to adhere strictly to the protocols of so-called mainstream science in their teaching and research. This mainstream science mostly theoretical rat, mice, and laboratory research protocols were funded primarily by Rockefeller and benefited the pharmaceutical companies.
A great deal of American medical schools fell short of the standard advocated in the Flexner Report, and after its publication, nearly half of such schools merged or were closed outright. The Report also concluded that there were too many medical schools in the United States of America and that too many doctors were being trained. A repercussion of the Flexner Report, resulting from the closure of university training, was a reversion of American universities to male-only admittance programs to accommodate a smaller admission pool.
Since classical antiquity, science as a type of knowledge has been closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern period the words “science” and “philosophy of nature” were sometimes used interchangeably. By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called “natural science”) was considered a separate branch of philosophy.
In modern usage, “science” most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe. In the 17th and 18th centuries, scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge regarding laws of nature such as Newton’s laws of motion. And over the course of the 19th century, the word “science” became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought other types of knowledge.
In 1904 the AMA established the Council on Medical Education (CME) whose objective was to restructure American medical education. At its first annual meeting, the CME adopted two standards: one laid down the minimum prior education required for admission to a medical school; the other defined a medical education as consisting of two years training in human anatomy and physiology followed by two years of clinical work in a teaching hospital. In 1908, the CME asked the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to survey American medical education, so as to promote the CME’s reformist agenda and hasten the elimination of medical schools that failed to meet the CME’s Standards. The president of the Carnegie Foundation, Henry Pritchett, a staunch advocate of medical school reform, chose Abraham Flexner to conduct the survey. Flexner was not a physician, scientist, or a medical educator.
At that time, the 155 medical schools in North America differed greatly in their curricula, methods of assessment, and requirements for admission and graduation. Flexner visited all 155 schools and generalized about them as follows: “Each day the students were subjected to interminable lectures and recitations. The Report became notorious for its harsh description of certain establishments, for example describing Chicago’s 14 medical schools as “disgraces to the State whose laws permit its existence… indescribably foul… the plague spot of the nation.”
Flexner carefully examined the situation. Using the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine as the ideal, he issued the following recommendations:
1. Reduce the number of medical schools (from 155 to 31) and poorly trained physicians;
2. Increase the prerequisites to enter medical training;
3. Train physicians to practice in a scientific manner and engage medical faculty in research;
4. Give medical schools control of clinical instruction in hospitals
5. Strengthen state regulation of medical licensure
By 1920, 92% of U.S. medical schools required this of applicants. As a consequence of the report, each state branch of the American Medical Association has oversight over the conventional medical schools located within the state.1 As a result, the cost of health care has vastly increased, and medicine in the US and Canada has become a highly paid and well-respected profession.
When Flexner researched his report, “modern” medicine faced vigorous competition from several quarters, including osteopathic medicine, chiropractic medicine, eclectic medicine, naturopathy, and homeopathy. Flexner openly doubted the scientific validity of all forms of medicine other than that based on scientific research (rat research), deeming any approach to medicine that did not advocate the use of treatments such as vaccines to prevent and cure illness as tantamount to quackery and charlatanism. Medical schools that offered training in various disciplines including eclectic medicine, physiomedicalism, naturopathy, and homeopathy, were given two choices: they were told to drop these courses from their curriculum, or lose their accreditation and underwriting support. A few schools resisted for a time, but eventually, all complied with the Report or shut their doors.
Although almost all the alternative medical schools listed in Flexner’s report were closed, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) was able to bring some osteopathic medical schools into compliance with Flexner’s recommendations and produce an evidence-based practice. The curricula of DO- and MD-awarding medical schools are now nearly identical, the chief difference being the additional instruction in osteopathic schools of osteopathic manipulative medicine.
This dramatic convergence of osteopathic and biomedical training demonstrates the sweeping effect of the Flexner Report, not only in the closure of inadequate schools but also in the standardization of the curricula of surviving schools.
The chiropractic profession survived and stood alone against this new philosophy of standardized medicine. Many chiropractors went to jail to fight for the right of the people to a natural approach to healthcare. As a result, over 50% of Americans visit a Doctor of Chiropractic, and its growing popularity is on the rise. We ultimately have the power to change our health outcome; now let us explore the How to…