The more we examine and research, the more we learn about certain questionable practices of modern medicine. The late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn was one of the first to expose modern medical practice as a false religion:

“‘Modern Medicine is neither an art nor a science. It’s a religion,’ he [Mendelsohn] wrote in his book, Confessions of a Medical Heretic (Contemporary Books), ‘Just ask why? enough times and sooner or later you’ll reach the Chasm of Faith. Your doctor will retreat into the fact that you have no way of knowing or understanding all the wonders he has at his command. Just trust me’” (What Doctors Don’t Tell You, McTaggart, 1998, p. 7).

Although doctors publicly speak with confidence about the accomplishments of modern medicine, many privately express doubts and disagreements. Rarely does the public learn of the real dangers they are subjected to.

The following account covers one of those rare occasions: “Recently, an alarming piece of information came to light about vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, discovered that children receiving the triple jabs for diphtheria/tetanus/whooping cough or for measles/mumps/rubella were three times more likely to suffer seizures. Nevertheless, this information was announced to only nine scientists and was never otherwise publicized” (Ibid., p.12, emphasis ours).

Not only have the facts been shaded and slanted, but they have also been intentionally misrepresented. After extensive studies demonstrating the superiority of mother’s milk for infants by natural breast-feeding, the favorite response from medical doctors became, “Breast-feeding is best, but bottle feeding is just as good.” Dr. Mendelsohn called this twisted logic “Alice-in-Wonderland” reasoning. He was convinced of the superiority of mother’s breast feeding and knew that other doctors were, as well. Yet they refused to acknowledge the truth when it contradicted their medical philosophy, which placed their puny innovations on an equal par with God’s creation.

There was another area where the medical field refused to acknowledge results of a scientific study. It occurred in the Netherlands in the 1990s, proving the overwhelming link between the use of the contraceptive “pill” and breast cancer. Since all international medical associations disagreed with the outcome of the extensive study, they merely dismissed it as inconclusive (Ibid., p. 9).

This was as outrageous as the American Dental Association’s initial response to the danger of mercury poisoning from silver amalgam dental fillings. It reported that silver amalgam fillings contained no mercury. Yet, amalgam means mercury! Unfortunately, the public is viewed as gullible and incapable of understanding the truth. A reluctant admission by the ADA surfaced later.

On the other hand, the modern medical profession has served a tremendous need for humanity. The discovery of penicillin and cortisone after World War II has saved millions of lives. The problems with modern medicine are not so much the “carpenters” as the “tools.” Many of their treatments simply do not work, and have never been proven to work or even be safe. It is now understood that both penicillin and cortisone have disastrous side effects when used as indiscreetly as was the case throughout the 1950s and afterward to a lesser extent. Only at the price of many casualties were these dangerous drugs reined in and reserved only as a last means of defense.

The following sums up much of the duplicity of medical science:

“Medical science is, in the main, a triumph of statistics over common sense. When bumping up against unpalatable truths in the study, medical scientists, who again always assume a medical treatment to be beneficial, are inclined to put the best face on the whole exercise, or cut and paste, refine and edit, to fit the premise or explain away an undesirable result…

“The greatest reason that medical research is tainted is that the majority of it is funded by the very companies who stand to gain by certain results. These drug companies not only pay the salaries of researchers, but they can often decide where—indeed, whether—they get published. It’s wise to keep in mind that this industry, in a sense, has a vested interest in ill health: If drug companies found cures, rather than lifelong ‘maintenance’ therapies, they’d soon be out of business.

“The constant exposure of medicine to the pharmaceutical industry, and the reliance of future medical research on these companies, has bred a climate in which much of mainstream medicine refuses to consider any other treatment options besides drugs and surgery, even when copious scientific evidence exists to support those options. Many conventional doctors are especially vituperative [disapproving in a vocally offensive manner] in their dismissal of important work by innovators, while uncritically embracing many surgical or drug-based solutions that are little more than modern-day snake oil. This has bred a climate into which healers are polarized into ‘alternative’ and ‘orthodox’ camps, rather than into one common group approving of anything that has a solid basis in science or clinical practice” (Ibid., pp. 9, 12-13, emphasis ours).

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of a prescribed home-based walking exercise intervention with usual care in older women receiving hormonal treatment for breast cancer, and to examine relationships among levels of the cortisol, serotonin, interleukin-6, and bilirubin biomarkers and fatigue, sleep disturbances, and depressive symptoms. DESIGN: Longitudinal randomized clinical trial. SETTING: A National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in the southeastern United States. SAMPLE: 20 women (aged 55 years or older) with breast cancer receiving hormonal treatment. METHODS: Participants were randomized to a walking exercise intervention or usual care. Laboratory samples and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Piper Revised Fatigue Scale, and the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale were collected at the initial clinic visit and at 12 weeks from the groups. Questionnaires also were collected at weeks 2 and 14. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Fatigue, sleep disturbances, depressive symptoms, biomarkers, and exercise. FINDINGS: Effect of the exercise intervention on sleep scores was highly significant between groups. Exercise group scores on the PSQI decreased significantly over time (indicating improved sleep quality), although scores did not change significantly within the control group. Sleep actigraphy also showed significantly shorter actual wake time and less movement in the exercise group. Serotonin levels also were significantly affected by the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that a walking exercise intervention improves sleep in older women receiving hormonal treatment for their breast cancer. Serotonin levels may be a useful biomarker when assessing sleep disturbances in this group. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Clinicians need to be aware that older women receiving hormonal treatment for their breast cancer may experience fatigue, sleep disturbances, and depressive symptoms. Homebased walking activity may reduce symptom severity in this group.

PMID: 18591167 [PubMed - in process]

Sabotaging Voice: Those cookies smell so good!
Logical Voice: You know you’re not supposed to have them.
Sabotaging Voice: But other people are eating them.
Logical Voice: It doesn’t matter. You’re dieting.
Sabotaging Voice: I don’t know if I can resist them!
Logical Voice: You’ll be sorry later.
Sabotaging Voice: Oh, I just don’t care. I’m going to have one anyway.

This internal struggle is unpleasant. Many times dieters end the struggle by giving in and eating. They get momentary pleasure, but then feel terrible afterwards.

One of the many techniques in The Beck Diet Solution to handle situations like this is learning how to say, “NO CHOICE.” If you think about it, you probably have put many things in your NO CHOICE category. When you walk through the mall, don’t you see dozens of things you wish you had? Why isn’t it a struggle to keep yourself from buying them? Because you don’t give yourself a choice.

Imagine how difficult it would be if you struggled over every item you wanted! “Oh, that big screen television looks great! I wish I could have it. I know I don’t have the money for it but I really want it. I know I have to pay for essentials first, but I don’t know if I can stand not having it!” Imagine if you struggled not only over this television, but also over items of clothing, electronics, DVDs, appliances, watches, furniture…It would be torture.

Fortunately, you don’t struggle over every item that calls your name. You don’t fight with yourself. Whether you’re aware of it or not, you’ve put these items in your “NO CHOICE” category. You need to do the same with food that you haven’t planned in advance to eat. Did your coworker offer you a brownie-but you brought low-fat yogurt for a snack? NO CHOICE. Is lasagne on the dinner menu at the restaurant-but you planned to have a salad topped with chicken? NO CHOICE.

Dieting will become so much easier when you do two things: When you accept the fact that you can eat whatever you want OR you can be thinner, but you can’t do both. And when you become proficient at saying, “NO CHOICE” to any food you hadn’t planned in advance to eat.

Judith S. Beck, Ph.D. is the Director of the Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research and a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychology in Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania. Listen to her interview on Healthful Living’s Reality Sandwich Radio where she speaks in detail about The Beck Diet Solution.