An iconoclastic medical professor would have to confirm this, but think about it...
Medical practice basically consists of diagnosis & treatment. Outside of surgury, treatment usually consists of DRUGS. Therefore, the illnesses, diseases, disorders, etc. are actually defined and coceptualized according to the pharmaceutical perspective; i.e., they're viewed as of bodily conditions that require xenobiotic attenuation. E. g., if a patient suffers from cardiovascular dysfunction due to calcium buildup (due to deficiency in enzymes needed to facilitate calcium uptake & utilization, and/or improper form of calcium in the diet), the presence of the buildup will have a diagnostic name linked to an "indicated" drug. A doctor will probably prescribe a drug that poisons the body's process for delivering calcium to the site. From the outset, his diagnostic investigation is into which drug-category a condition falls, and the actual nomenclature used to denote and distinguish diseases implicitly refers to symptomology that can be altered chemically. I submit that doctors are indoctrinated to identify "diseases" in terms of perspectives contrived by pharmaceutical co's to support and rationalize the application of their products, and that beyond the level of basic anatomy, medical textbooks are actually written by pharm co's. Russ Rosser Dietary Minerals: Sea Salt, Seaweed Juice -- Tastes GOOD enough for kids! (256) 546-5945 or 547-7850; cel. (256) 390-1439 On Mon, 21 May 2001 08:13:25 EDT rogalt...@aol.com writes: > List: I thought some of you might be interested in one example of how > Pharm > Inc. begins to influence the medical profession's objectivity, even > BEFORE > they become licensed practitioners. Roger
