On the Cost of Traditional Opposition to Modernization in Clinical Medicine

The Modus of Opposition. There is an "Imost universally held view that medicine 13 and should be a prestigious profession. Sadly, in recent decades, significant erosion of this view has occurred. The general nature of the erosion and other published Saments are cited here. There is preponderant agreement among scientists and the lay public that medicine has an obligation to know what "is known" (i.e. that given modalities have been reported in the iitcratere by competent authors to be far superior to corresponding treatments of choice, but their adoption has been opposed without reason).

Work by Hotter and Pauling led to a fundamental principle oforthomolecular medicine which involves the adjustment. of levels of molecules that are normally in the body which can both prevent and cure desease with little toxicity or side effects compared to xenobiotic drugs. The theme detailed in this paper was developed by Pauling, Klenner (p.63), Shute (pp. 77-83, Appendices), Coca (pp.185-9)4 and others (hereinafter called Pauling et al.) who: (1) cite evidence they claim proves that virtually every disease can be treated with far greater safety and efficacy3-6 i.e. with less Morbidity & Mortality (M&M) and far less cost, with rejected modalities (frequently orthomolecular) alone, or adjunctively to standard care in some cases; (2) report that mainstream medicine has either ignored . r actively opposed adoption of these modalities by falsely condemning them without investigation or proper clinical trial; .