Another sick people make more profit for the investors rant

Occasionally I resonate quite a bit to Joh Rapport's rants. Most of them I don't, but they are colorful writings and I see his viewpoints and OK he thinks it is accurate enough to rant about, yet I know better. And I can rant too although when I do no one cares, point here is that I understand the frustration being expressed by the writer-ranter. The referenced article by Rapport, much as another recent one, goes well in many - but not all - respects. Thus is worthy of some ranting of my own here in the wilderness where no one hears.

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/would-the-us-government-let-jesus-cure-cancer/ makes some very important points. Maybe I do not agree where the blame entirely rests all the time. Yet it seems like an important viewpoint that Rapport over-empathises (to get awareness from those dulled by too many commercials) as usual.

My own experience shows that "conventional medicine" is deliberately ignoring some very functional healing modalities that could help lots of people be well and at far lower cost. I know the validity of that. I strive to comprehend the "people-stuff is complicated" behind that.

And it is really complicated people-stuff. The strangest part is that it all exists. There is a book out, which I have only heard about, which probably describes the phenomenon, titled something like "Dead Doctors Don't Lie" and supposedly points out that even doctors follow unworkable protocols to their death to protect their profession that supported them well, but did not provide the wider variety of options for enabling people - including doctors - from living better healthier lives. All were sacrificed to the god of maximum profit (and perhaps demanded by needing to pay the enormous bills.)

Healthy people do not generally provide income to the medical industry. Sick people do.

A clever industry does not work itself out of a job.

Non-healthy people are good for the profit of the medical industry. Implications may be brutally apparent to the CEO's of the medical industry. Comply or lose your job.

Many corporations get started with a great product line that provide the customer base with really great new products. But - in time there is an evolution going on. The investors in the company want more dividends, not better products. Management that survives to the top realizes that. It has become profit, dividends, that matters to their investors in general. The numbers of the stock market have hypnotized the investors into forgetting the need for better products for the customers including they themselves.

The principle of efficacy, too often gets ignored in the health industry. The excuse it that it is too hard to prove the snake-oil con artists, thus anything not "licensed" per Rapport's article, and therefore all that is not from the approved corporations, is snake-oil and to be trashed.

The Scientific Method is touted as the foundation on which the conventional medicine system is based. I could point out that the majority of conventional medical practice has never been subject to the Scientific Method's methodical process. But far more importantly I point out that Conventional Medicine does not allow the use of the Scientific Method to test the validity of the "alternative protocols" of well being.

The way this happens is that by making it cost enormous money to do FDA approval, only corporations have such money. And Corporations sometimes become guided by restricting what they do to only that which increases the investor's income the most. No one is there to fully utilize the Scientific Method to evaluate the efficacy of the alternative health protocols, to separate the rare con folks from the actual high achievers.

Again note the disconnection from the goal of wellbeing and the improvement of the customers, all sacrificed to the bottom line of the corporations.

And the "Dead Doctors Don't Lie" principle shows we have painted ourselves into this terrible priced corner. Something went wrong somewhere.

Maybe we can fix it. Do we want to.