Medicus, quo vadis? Physician, whither thou goest?

Summary

The beginning of the 3rd millenium is an opportunity for the critical examination of the past and present course of the "modern medicine". Why is it in crisis, and which should be its new goals? Main fields of this crisis are pointed out - ethics and morals, tremendous costs exacted by the medicine, and their reliability. Why aren't physicians healthier than the population, for example?

.

Are the hypothesis and strategies of modern medicine wrong? The populations of many countries are more ill and more degenerated than ever before. Is the situation hopeless - or is only the basic conception wrong? Is the "modern medicine" a science, or rather a dogma, or even just a big business because living upon diseases, and therefore preventing health?

.

The hierarchical structure with "medical popes", "schools", predominant doctrines" is just as critically regarded as violent and persistent resistances against new, effective and curing therapies of chronic diseases, designated "incurable" by the medical system. Is it failure to render aid, knowing about an effective therapy of a certain disease, but not applying it on the patient suffering from it?

.

Also criticized is the arrogance, demonstrated by some physicians, who regard themselves as masters having power over life and death, and who claim to improve the Creation, that they think to be imperfect.

.

To serve the health of the population - or to earn from their diseases - which is the future course of the so-called "modern medicine"?

.

True medicine keeps humans healthy and cares for their healthy reproductive ability. The future will belong to a synthesis of high civilization and health - with or against today's "modern medicine".

.

Which way to go, you decide for yourself, dear Ms. and Mr. Colleague?

.

.

---

(Published in the German medical journal "Erfahrungsheilkunde", January 2000, Edition Haug, Heidelberg, Germany).

---

.
.

Medicine in the 3rd millennium

Departure for a new millennium: A special occasion for a critical checkup of the hitherto practiced course of "modern medicine". What has been and are its goals up to now? Which have been reached? What is the present position of this medical system? What went wrong? Why is it in crisis? How can it serve humans at its best in the future? Which course is the right one? What should be the new goals of medicine? 

The crisis of "modern medicine"

The crisis of "modern medicine" seizes several domains.

.

Ethics and morals. Is everything permitted that is feasible? Genetic engineering? Abortion? Use of feti (embryos) from abortion and use of patients in inanimate state as spare parts depots? Neglect of preventive maintenance of health, in favor of higher income from treatment of diseases not prevented?

.

Disease costs. The "modern medicine" did not succeed to maintain the health of population at justifiable costs; it did not accede at all. Predominantly it doesn't cure patients suffering from chronic diseases, but holds them ill longer alive - at exponentially rising costs. Thus, the disease costs have become economically intolerable. Dirigisme, haggling about fees, rationing of treatments are the untenable responses of a doubtful "health policy" to the inefficiency of "modern medicine" against the "modern civilization diseases".

.

Reliability. The "modern medicine" lost much of its reliability. An increasing percentage of people search for alternative methods themselves in order to cure their diseases, that have only been "treated" but not healed by this medical system.

Why aren't physicians healthier than the population?

If the "modern medicine" would have real knowledge about health, then at least the physicians themselves would have to be healthier than the population. It's not like that. Medicine doesn't even understand particularly much about the treatment of diseases. How else could it be explained that the usual treatment of the risk factor 1, hypertension (every other citizen of civilization dies from its consequences), still leads slightly more frequently to death, than non-treatment of hypertension does?

.

It explains at the same time, why not just 50 %, but an even higher 60 % of the physicians die from the cardiovascular consequences of hypertension. (This surprising fact was the topic of my opening lecture, 29 October 1978, on the congress of several medical associations in Baden-Baden, Germany, Congress House; published in the medical journal Biologische Medizin No. 2/1979, pages 339-349).

Starting points and strategies of "modern medicine"

The past and present starting points of the so-called "modern medicine" see diseases as the obstacles on the way to health; that diseases would cover health like the moon covers the sun during a solar eclipse. The "modern medicine" supposes: "Once all diseases would be combatted successfully, at last health would remain and come out again." Consequently, the strategy is to fight down all diseases by all means. Though, the result in most cases stays mediocre, and pretty often neither health nor the patient remain, because the patient didn't survive the "heroic combat".

Population as ill as never before

Facts are: The population of many "civilized countries" is as ill as never before. It's less the acute illnesses, although these lead to the fact that each day of the year 5 to 10 % of the entire working part of the population has to stay ill at home (the economical damage is accordingly high). Much more it's the increasing chronic and degenerative conditions, like allergies, liquefaction of the brain (Alzheimer disease), hypertension, arteriosclerosis, stroke, heart attack, embolism, diabetes, gout, cancer, leukemia, multiple sclerosis, renal atrophy, polyarthritis, rheumatism, tooth decay, malposition of teeth, celiaca, and hundreds of other chronic ailments.

.

The medical dogma tries to explain this by the higher "life expectancy", created by the "modern medicine". But the truth is: This medical system neither prevents nor cures most of these diseases. It only "treats" them, in average of all cases for about 25 years, until at last the patient dies from the not cured disease or its not prevented later consequences.

Situation hopeless - or only starting points wrong?

After such a giant expenditure - hundreds of billions of US$ per country - didn't result in more health and less diseases of population, even after the continuous increase of diseases and treatment costs couldn't be stopped, there are only two possibilities:

1. Either the situation is hopeless.
2. Or the starting points are wrong.

Fortunately, only the starting points are wrong, therefore the situation is not at all hopeless. It just was not the right way, to concentrate on the diseases control by all means, and to neglect the preconditions of health and recovery of health. Does water run the mountain up? No. Just as little are the chances of a patient to recover from a disease, whose derailed metabolism has a slant toward disease. Correcting a derailed metabolism would be the right point to start from. How? By offering the natural preconditions the human metabolism needs to run on its normal functions.

.

It isn't that there would be a lack of knowledge about the natural sources of human health. During the complete 20th century, scientists, researchers, explorers and practical experts have collected every knowledge and experience, necessary to prevent chronic diseases and degeneration of populations, to maintain a strong natural immunity against acute diseases and infections, and to secure a healthy reproduction (= the complete transfer of all genetic information to the offspring).

.

The point is: This knowledge, these findings and experiences are intentionally ignored, opposed, played down, not at all verified by additional experiments, and above all not applied, neither to help the ill patients, nor to prevent the healthy ones from getting those same diseases.

Science or dogma?

Such behavior despite the serious situation, in which the population is threatened both in their biological and economic existence, forces the question of whether at all the "modern medicine" is a real science, directing its efforts on knowledge and progress towards a natural, truly healthy population.

.

If it were like that, each new finding about maintenance of health and cure of diseases should find the highest interest of the medical system, initiate further research on it, and lead to its general practical application for prevention and cure of diseases.

.

Obviously, it isn't at all like that, in the opposite. Nearly each new finding at first, and as long as possible, is hushed up by the medical system. If not possible any longer, it's fought with all means, including the personal defamation and destruction of the economic existence of the discoverers in not rare cases.

.

According to a statement of Max Planck (1858-1947, laureate of the Nobel Prize of Physics in 1918), it takes about 50 years, until errors in science become replaced by new findings, because not only the influential professors, but also their students have to become extinct before. With regard to the "modern medicine", this prognosis seems to be rather optimistic. Because already since 1924, research results have been presented (e.g. by Prof. Dr. med Werner Kollath, Germany, and Dr. Weston A. Price, USA), which would have permitted avoidance of the complete worldwide misery of the chronic civilization ailments and degeneration of population and their offspring.

.

Obviously, the so-called "modern medicine" is rather less a science than a dogma, showing similarity with the structures of the church during the Middle Ages. Accordingly, the medical castes are organized like guilds, forcing their members into a subordination under the influence of the caste, and bringing them to heel, in case they should try to change or improve something of the strictly regulated caste procedures. During the Middle Ages, dissentient and progressive members were persecuted by the Inquisition and witch trials, and put to death by fire. In "modern medicine" such members are persecuted by professional disciplinary tribunals, in which the plaintiff and the tribunal are more or less personally interwoven. One of the results can be the destruction of the economic existence of the "dissident". The public (e.g. journalists) mostly is excluded from such disciplinary tribunal proceedings, although they call themselves "public-law corporations".

Medicine popes and "ruling schools"

Not what has proven evidence is valid in "modern medicine", but what has been "acknowledged". Acknowledged by whom? By the "ruling school", the "predominant doctrine". Is this criteria of an objective science?

.

In true, real science, a result or observation which has proven evidence is valid, being confirmed by leading to the same or similar results, if repeated under the same or similar experimental conditions.

.

In "modern medicine" partially it doesn't even come to such an objective verification, "because it cannot be what shouldn't be" - in cases the repeated proof of evidence (confirmation of a new result or observation mostly first found by an "outsider") would cause a collapse of the present dogma of the "ruling school".

.

What is an "outsider"? It's somebody, who doesn't continue to agree with the "ruling doctrine", because the person has found something that places doubts on its conclusions or even defeats the whole theory. Would somebody in chemistry become an "outsider", for having found a new substance or a new molecular structure? Not at all, because chemistry is a science.

.

The term of "ruling" of a doctrine has to be taken literally. No student of a medical branch would pass the medical examination, if expressing something else than the "ruling opinion" of the "ruling school" about the matter - even if being able to provide evidence for it. Later, working in their profession, still the examined physician is in the same subordinate position. So long as the physician treats the patients according to the "ruling school", the physician is on the safe side, even if the patient should die under the treatment. But should the physician try to help a patient in a hopeless situation with a new, not yet "acknowledged" treatment, and the patient (who was already told by the system to be a hopeless case) should then die, the physician could be sure the medical system would destroy the physician's economic existence. In any trial, the "experts" - being always exponents of the "ruling school" - would accuse this physician of having treated the patient by not acknowledged methods. Automatically this would cause the judge to condemn the physician because of  manslaughter.

.

Consequently, the protagonists of the "ruling doctrine" of a medical branch, not rarely are called "medical popes".

.

An example. In 1977, I was asked in a desperate case for advice. It was a 69 years old diabetic patient. For 6 weeks he had been in hospital, because his eyesight weakened by bleedings in his retina. During his stay in hospital, a diabetic gangrene had developed in one of his legs, and the physicians of the hospital finally told him, they should amputate his leg within 24 hours, otherwise he would die after 48 hours because of sepsis. He refused, and the family had to take him home on the backseat of their car (because the Red Cross Ambulance refused the transport).

Asked what could be done, I gave strict dietetic advices (everything raw, only plant food including germinated seeds), and asked a homeopathic physician to control the case. After only 2 days, the physician declared an amputation for not necessary, because the blood circulation in the leg had improved fundamentally. The gangrene healed up within some weeks, and after some months even the diabetes had disappeared completely. What a finding, rising hope for millions of other diabetic patients! So I published what I had found - with a strange result. One of the "diabetes popes" attacked me in a venemous editoral in a diabetes journal, threatening me with legal consequences. In spite of that, I offered him to verify my experience with his diabetic patients, I would instruct him exactly how we did it. He refused, giving as reason "that we are having different opinions about diabetes".

Consequently still now, nearly 3 decades later, each year in Germany about 33,000 diabetic patients get amputated one or both legs - unnecessarily in most of the cases, this is my opinion, substantiated by the practical experience not only in that case - but legalized by the "ruling doctrine" of the "ruling School"!

Just another big business, to live upon diseases, and therefore preventing health?

The first edition of my book "Biological Cure of Diabetes and its Later Consequences" was published in 1980. From 1980 to 2000, 73,000 copies were sold. Therefore, the "modern medicine" can't say this knowledge wasn't accessible, how to cure diabetes and how to save the legs of the diabetic patients from gangrene and amputation. Despite they ignored this therapy and prefered to continue with their leg amputations. During the 2 decades the first edition of my Diabetes book was available in the German book market, despite the German "modern medicine" carried out another 800,000 leg amputations in diabetic patients, most of them would have been avoidable.

Naturally, the doctors' honorary fees and the hospital bill for a leg amputation are of enormously higher dimensions, compared to the modest or even humble honorary fee for a single nutritional instruction of the patient and the prescription of that book to read, in which every knowledge and information is contained the patient needs to save and cure the leg and in most cases even recover from diabetes at all and for good.

For me, that proves a high evidence of the "modern medicine" to have become just another big business, that lives upon the diseases of the population, and therefore must prevent (avoid) health. Health has become the most dangerous enemy of the "modern medicine". This evidence even has been verified in many cases by many patients, when they searched support from their doctors not only to be treated for lifetime, but to recover from their chronic disease, and their doctors refused to support them. (E.g. read what some of the participants of the Hypertension Study report about the missing support or even opposition of their doctors:

"How they cured their Hypertension"
http://www.dr-schnitzer.de/hypertensionstudy-introduction.html

Could this business aspect be a subconscious reason, why the doctor says "Findings positive" when having found a treatable disease, and says "Findings negative" when nothing treatable found and therefore nothing to earn, except the bill for the checkup? At least this unveils the point of view the doctor is seeing the matter.

From the patient's point of view, the doctor's "positive findings" (of a disease and of a new source increasing his revenue) better should be labeled as "negative", because it means he will have to suffer and in addition even to pay for it - and this mostly for an unlimited time and with a doubtful prognosis. But, obviously, the patient's point of view doesn't have the priority in the strange world of the "modern medicine".

The false gods in white (or green or blue)

Physicians - "the gods in white" (or otherwise in green or blue), masters having power over life and death - to this awesome status "modern medicine" has been highly exalted. This didn't happen haphazardly. In the beginning, some excellent physicians, especially surgeons and discoverers of vaccines and antibiotics against deadly infections contributed to this image.

.

In the public however, this image gets continued in a subtle manner through countless articles, TV-series and reports - a permanent PR-(public-relations-)campaign, that doesn't find anything else to compare with it in the economy. Even the church can't compete with it.

.

This image of a godlike idol still is largely undamaged in the USA. There a physician can dare to say to their patient: "You have only 2 months to live"; some even say "I give you only 2 months to live". What an arrogance!

.

Not less arrogant is an opinion, nourished by the medical system: Insinuating God's Creation has not been perfect, and now the medical system has come to repair the mistakes of God! This manner of thinking is also a basis of many experiments of genetic engineering operations - operations carried out in sector ranges, without ever having understood the integral entity, not even having any starting point for it (and so "trying to repair a watch with a hammer").

.

In Germany, already this image of medicine as a godlike idol has suffered some deep scratches. An increasing percentage of the population carry doubts in the skill as well as in the unselfishness of the motivation, expected before from a physician. Especially many state to be disappointed, only to receive treatment, but no cure. In the opposite, their diseases often become worse by the side effects of medicaments or by a diet that makes the disease incurable (e.g. diabetes). At last they are told in blunt words: "You have to face the fact that you must live with this chronic disease up to the end of your life. It's incurable."

.

If then such a patient doesn't give up hope, starts to search and finds knowledge, that helps him to completely cure his/her so-called incurable disease - then the "twilight zone for the medical gods" has started in this patient. The false gods are overthrown, the confidence has disappeared.

.

Sometimes, such a patient revisits their former physician. Perhaps the physician reacts surprised, commenting that there is no explanation for the cure. But, up to now, never it was reported to me, that such a physician then would have asked: "How did you do it? Do you have something to read about your method? I would like to help my other patients with the same problem in the same way as you cured your disease ..." No, their defensive argumentation is like this: "Diabetes cured? Hypertension cured? Impossible. If it would have been a true diabetes (or hypertension), it wouldn't have been cured, because diabetes (hypertension) is incurable. If you cured it, it can't have been a true diabetes (hypertension), because then it wouldn't have been curable!"

.

If being a true scientist, a physician immediately would have become curious, wanting to know more, trying to reach the same positive result, to improve the methods, and to publish what he has found. But being a physician, surrounded and tied up by plenty of dogmata, predominant doctrines, and ruling schools, and last not least living upon chronic and incurable diseases, only an unbelieving surprise happens to him, that there are things that can't be explained; or he even becomes afraid of the shocking consequences: "If this would be true, if this chronic disease would become curable, I could lose most of my clientele and my income ...". His best protection from such risky changes: The "ruling medical doctrine".

Misleading use of terms

To protect the predomination of the ruling medical system, its protagonists are also not afraid to use terms in a misleading manner, to reach even a targeted misinformation.

.

Aren't we continually told, health is expensive? It's not true. Health is a costless gift of God. We only need to observe His rules (given in the Genesis), then health works perfectly, without costs, without pains, without physicians. What are in truth expensive, are the diseases!

.

Diseases are the opposite of health. Health policy? In truth it's diseases policy. Only the German word "Krankenhaus" (sick peoples house, in English hospital) is a true word: Sick you get in, and sometimes less sick, but sometimes even sicker or even not alive, you come out.

.

"Krankenkasse" (diseases insurance) also was a true term, but then it became changed to "Gesundheitskasse" (health insurance) - and at the same time they cancelled any payment of preventive measures which could serve to maintain health! This complete targeted misinformation serves to make the population believe that something is being done for their health, that's why they have to pay so much for the insurances and to the medical system (a mystification with weighty consequences).

Serve the health of population - but earn from their diseases?

In the regulations of the medical profession it's written: "The physician is called to serve to the health of individuals and of the population". But - does the physician learn at all during their studies, how he could serve to the health of of individuals and of the population?

.

Mainly the physician was taught how to treat diseases; already less, how to cure them; and not at all, how to prevent those diseases and maintain a natural health.

.

In case a healthy person comes for a checkup, the findings will be "negative".

.

In case this person asks the physician: "What can I do to maintain my health in future too?" - the person will not get much expert knowledge about health, except perhaps the hint "Continue to live as you did up to now."

.

More and more people have the impression, that the doctor feels less called to serve their health than to earn an income by their diseases.

Discovery of new therapies not welcome?

For more than 3 decades I didn't want to believe it, inspite of increasing experiences intensifying the impression: Discovery of new therapies, curing "incurable" diseases, is unwelcome at the "ruling school" as well as at medical colleagues.

.

The following examples represent only a small selection of my respective experiences:

.

Didn't I prove evidence in a 6 years scientific study in the Black Forest village Moenchweiler (1963-1969), that tooth decay can be prevented? Hostilities of and persecution by the respective pressure groups (especially dentists and the dentists' association) up to now, including heavy impairment of my economic bases of existence, have been the main reactions.

.

Didn't Dr. med. Helmut Weiss and me together, on the Medical Week of Baden-Baden (Germany) 1981, introduce children cured from diabetes type I, and later adult patients cured from diabetes type II, and 1987 former hypertonic patients, who were cured of their high blood pressure without pills?

.

Didn't I make these therapies available in books, as well for the patients as a therapy instruction for their physicians?

.

In spite of all that, none of those dentists and physicians used these prevention methods and therapies, to prevent tooth decay and to help patients, and none of them asked later me or Dr. Helmut Weiss for instruction or advice to start the prevention and the therapies.

Failure to render aid?

The question of "failure to render aid" arises, if the physician is permitted - or must - refuse to apply new therapies with proven evidence of efficacy in first cases, only because the "ruling school" didn't acknowledge the new therapy, yet. Indeed, legally the person is protected by their "experts", and the rejection would be justifiable in case of dangerous operations, or medicaments with not yet known side effects.

.

But how is the situation, if the matter is an existing damaging factor the physician has been informed about, and removing this damaging factor has already cured other patients, who were suffering before from the same "incurable" disease?

.

Practical examples are special diets and dietary recommendations, that - due to newer findings - lead the patients deeper into their diseases. This is e.g. the case with the common diabetic diet, that is rich in protein, so making the disease incurable and causing its "later consequences" (protein oversupply is one of the main causes of diabetes and its later consequences).

.

Or, how is it with the mercury intoxication of nearly the complete population from Amalgam fillings, in spite of my public warnings since 1963 - causing hostilities of my colleagues and the dentist's association and violent trials to reduce me to silence?

.

Here the conscience as a physician is called up. Each physician carries their own personal responsibility, to take over the new findings and knowledge to help their patients, or to leave it.

.

Later on, when questions arise, if the "leaving it" was in truth a failure to render aid, the "ruling school", the "experts" and one's professional association will leave him standing alone out in the cold. Already this happened in the Amalgam fillings matter.

Which course is the right course for the "modern medicine"?

Costly treatments of increasing diseases? During the last decades, this course led to an exponential growth of the complete economic sector living from diseases. But the matter got pulled over. Now the enormous costs (representing the enormous earnings of this sector from the diseases of the population) are felt as an intolerable burden, and the economy, suffering from it, tries to get rid of it. But for the national economy, the same rules are valid as for the single patient: To fight the evil doesn't remove it - it only produces additional, disagreeable side effects.

The only curing therapy for the suffering national economy would be this: To reduce the causes of the costs - by reducing the diseases - by reducing the causes of the diseases (the wrong nutrition and the wrong medical treatments of the diseases) - and to teach the population about the true causes of diseases and the true natural basis of health, a natural, man-appropriated frugivorous nutrition. This is the only curing therapy that could break (interrupt) this "circulus vitiosus" and so reduce the costs caused by diseases - and so cure the national economy. But where is the brave "doctor of true health politics and national economy", who would carry out this therapy?

Transplantation (spare parts) medicine? A true statement says, that surgery has to start actions, where the internal medicine failed. Now, with enormous research efforts and expenses, the techniques of transplantation are developed further. At the same time, new findings are ignored or even fought down, that could cure the original organ of the patient and prevent such events for the future, instead of verifying seriously the new findings and introducing them into the medical system.

.

Is the goal at last to breed brain-dead "zombies", to always have sufficient quantities of spare parts for such transplantations? And how shall candidates be selected, who will get this service, and who not? Will the criteria be the bank accounts of the patients?

.

Such a course makes the "modern medicine" increasingly burdening and intolerable; it's neither for medicine nor for the human society the right course.

.

True medicine maintains the natural health of the population

"The physician is called to serve the health of the population" - shouldn't it be possible to put this basic claim (that hopefully isn't only rhetoric and misleading) - into real life?

.

True medicine maintains the natural health of people, preventing diseases before they can develop. The instruments and methods for a precision control and management of health have been available for decades - they only have to be used.

.

Some examples. Nowadays it's possible to measure the biological age of a person, and to compare it with the age according to the calendar. Dys- and hyper-functions of organs and areas of the body can be measured and corrected, before any disease can start. Even a pre-disposition for tooth decay can be measured and documented before any damage can happen to the teeth, and measures can be taken to normalize the situation.

.

The healthy pregnancy conditions are well known, preventing malposition of teeth, chronic diseases and degeneration, prenatal damages to organs including the brain, and resulting in a strong, mentally and physically healthy next generation.

.

Homeopathy is one of the instruments for a precision management of all functions of the body, its metabolism and its organs - helping to correct malfunctions long before any damage and diseases could develop.

.

Without any doubt, it's the most important first step in the right direction, to take notice of the findings, research results, experiences of a complete century, about correlations between natural nutrition and natural health on one side, and denatured civilization food, chronic civilization diseases and degeneration of the population on the other side. It's urgently necessary for the medical system, to assimilate this knowledge by serious studies, and to give it on to others to help the people and truly to serve their health.

.

Is that asking too much? Creates it fear of an empty patients waiting room, if most of the chronically ill patients soon would be cured? On the other side: Could you personally, Ms. and Mr. Colleague, maintain your peaceful conscience, continuing to close your eyes to these possibilities of real cure, after you became informed about - only to maintain a full patient's waiting room, and own a stock of regular chronically ill patients?

Goal: Synthesis of high (advanced) civilization and health

One fact is for sure: The human society can't afford a diseases system anymore, existing from widespread endemic civilization diseases. This diseases system is on the road to becoming itself a cancer tumor with metastases, sucking out the vital force of the society.

.

Even the richest countries have become unable to pay the unlimited and rapidly increasing costs of this type of a medical system, and the poorer countries can't afford it at all.

.

The change of course must come. The question is only, if it comes from within the "modern medicine", or happens against this system.

.

In any case, the goal must be to overcome the ages of chronic civilization ailments and degeneration, to reach a higher level of civilization, a synthesis of high civilization and general health of populations and their environment.

.

This I've claimed publicly since 1963.

Medicus, quo vadis? Physician, whither thou goest, where you go?

Now this question is directed to you personally, as a physician and as a human.

.

Do you already have efforts in this direction, will you increase them now?

.

Or do you prefer to leave all the responsibility for the further development to "those up there", the "medicine popes", the "ruling school", and the professional functionaries, who bargain for you for higher fees and against dirigisme to limit medical treatments and its costs?

.

In fact, it depends on each single physician and so personally on you, if the "modern medicine" at the entrance of the 3rd millennium will be on the right course for the population and for the medical system.

.

For which course do you decide for yourself, Ms. Colleague and Mr. Colleague?

.

Uhldingen, Germany, December/January 1999-2000  Dr. Johann Georg Schnitzer

 

************************

No update Christmas / New Year 2000/2001.

Still no update September 2001, because no change yet of minds and goals of the medical system.

Updated in February 2004 with some additional information and argumentation. Still the "modern medicine" continues to follow the same wrong course at full steam.

Somehow, this uncorrectable "ruling school of modern medicine" reminds me on the teaching fate of the "Titanic", driving by full steam through the night on a wrong and dangerous course, even ignoring the colder air and upcoming fog as symptoms of a near gigantic iceberg, blindly relying on their "safe, unsinkable" construction from hard steel - having no idea how fragile this steel becomes in colder waters, how soon their complete luxurious ship will crash, break and sink within a few hours, taking down with it most of its passengers, no matter how important and rich or unimportant and poor they have been, into an eternal, cold, deep and dark silence of death ...

Do you still not hear my warning shout, colleagues, to slow down and change your dark, cold, dangerous and deadly course to the light of cognition and the warm waters of life and health?

Friedrichshafen, Germany, 2004

Dr. Johann Georg Schnitzer)

.