Medicus, quo vadis? Physician, whither thou goest?
by Dr. Johann Georg Schnitzer
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).
Medicus, quo vadis?
Physician, whither thou goest?
Critical analysis and necessary change of course
by Dr. Johann Georg Schnitzer
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
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:
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.
1. Either the situation is hopeless.
2. Or the starting points are wrong.
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
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
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")
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
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
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
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"
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)