The Dark Side of Modern Medicine
An Exclusive Interview with John Robbins

At one time, doctors were considered heroes. At our weakest moments, suffering and in pain, doctors were there to provide relief and solace. They saved people from life-threatening infections, fixed broken bodies, and imparted the sense of peace that comes from being taken care of by someone who seems to know what's best.

Doctors still do all those things, but something has changed. It is now becoming clear that there are safer, and sometimes more effective, alternatives to drugs and surgery. Instead of attacking illness with technology, in many cases it is better to harness and strengthen the body's own healing power in more natural ways. While there will always be an important place for conventional medicine, it is time for it to take its proper place as just one among many other healing modalities.

Modern medicine has been top dog in the healing world for a long time, and having to give away a big piece of the pie is proving hard for many in the medical establishment to handle. But the public is choosing alternatives in ever-increasing numbers, and there is no turning back.

For this issue, we have interviewed John Robbins, author of Diet for a New America. In that landmark book, John exposed the scandal of factory farming, and clearly showed the connection between diet, disease and environmental destruction. His new book, Reclaiming Our Health, comprehensively and irrefutably documents the failings of modern medicine, and shows us why and how we should now take charge of our health.

Spectrum: What prompted you to write about the medical profession and health care?

John Robbins: Every morning there are hundreds of thousands of men in this country whose cholesterol levels are dangerously high, and they know it. They eat their bacon and eggs for breakfast, and, afterwards, take their cholesterol-lowering pills, because that's what the doctor prescribed. They think they are being responsible patients for doing that.

There are millions of mothers who feed their kids junk food—hot dogs, donuts and so forth—and then take their kids to the doctor for an annual check-up. They think they are being responsible parents.

I've realized that there is operating in our culture what I call the medical myth—the idea that health comes from a doctor, or the hospital, or the drug store. What we need is to strengthen our understanding that health comes from our choices in the way we live, and health professionals have a part to play, but it's a secondary role for the most part.

Our medical system is based on intervention, not on prevention. It's not based on wellness or optimal functioning; it's based on waiting until a person gets sick.

You go to the doctor, and expect the doctor to fix you, but many people don't realize that doctors don't know everything. We're still stuck in this passive role relative to our own health. Our belief in Western medicine is stronger than our belief in our own body.

One of the great learnings of our time has to do with appreciating our human body as an exquisite instrument of incredible potential, rather than a machine that breaks down. It's a sensitive and extraordinarily finely tuned instrument with many, many dimensions of operation and functioning.

The medical system is compliance oriented. It defines responsibility in terms of compliance. There are many articles written in medical journals about the problem of patient non-compliance. They are really worried about the fact that people aren't doing what they are told. That paradigm defines the patient's role as following doctor's orders.

I think that the role of the patient is to get well, to grow as a human being in understanding, and take responsibility for their lives and destiny.

The underlying assumption is that the doctor is the health expert, and knows exactly what you should do. Therefore, you must obey to get better.

I think we should all become students of life and health, and become more self-reliant. Many of us go to the doctor with this mixture of terror and worship, and we don't know how to take responsibility for our lives. We have to reclaim our health and reclaim our lives. I think the medical establishment will only get off its pedestal when we get off our knees. That's why I wrote the book.

When you are speaking to people, how do you go about convincing them that there is a better way to approach health?

In New York City, 11 infants out of every 1,000 die before their first birthdays. In Shanghai, China, 10 out of every 1,000 die before their first birthdays. Life expectancy at birth in Shanghai is 75 years. In New York, for whites, it's 73 years, and for people of color it's around 69 years. I would ask an audience, how is it that Shanghai, a dilapidated, third-world metropolis, horribly polluted, in a country with a per capita income of $350 per year, can generate a better infant mortality rate, a better longevity record, a better health record than New York City.

Many people might think of New York City as having lots of slums, rats running around, heavy pollution, etc.

It's not nearly as polluted as Shanghai. For example, all the taxicabs in Shanghai use leaded gas, whereas the reduction of lead levels in U.S. children has been one of the great health victories we've achieved in this country.

When I see that China, which spent $38 a person per year on medical care, has such a better health record than the U.S., where the average per capita spending is over $3,000 per person per year, that raises some major questions. When you look at the international perspective, what you find is that those cultures and nations that channel what funds they do have into prevention and basic care achieve far better health results for their populations than those that are totally intervention oriented, as we are.

The U.S. is the only fully industrialized country in the world that doesn't guaranteed basic health care to its citizens.

Why do you think that is?

The medical establishment in this country has generated so much vested power, economically and politically, and that power is being misused. It's being used for selfish personal gain, rather than for the collective good. The AMA has tremendous power. It has a budget of nearly $500 million per year.

What do you see as some of the failings of modern medicine in terms of treatment?

Our birth practices are crazy. We have a Caesarean rate of 23%, which means that nearly a quarter of our newcomers is surgically extracted from their mothers' wombs. That's terrible.

Surgeries have saved lives, but they are only really necessary in emergencies. But, we create emergencies by surrounding a woman with fear and undermining her belief in herself and her body's wisdom and power. So many studies have shown that when a pregnant woman is cared for, and a laboring woman is being given constant physical, emotional and spiritual support, the birth is quicker, less painful and more satisfying and fulfilling.

We've taken birth, which is really a profound and even sacred experience, and we've medicalized it. We've made women feel incapable of the job, that they need an expert to get their babies out for them. We've surrounded them with fear. We've created a fear-dominated medical system—certainly it's true for birth.

There is a definite place for medical technology, but it's as a backup when needed.

I was on a talk show recently, and brought up the reality that obstetricians and hospitals are more highly reimbursed for surgical births than for vaginal births. The obstetrician I was talking with got very upset and angry, I think, because I struck a nerve. No one likes to think that babies are a business, and he didn't want it implied that his Caesarean rate, which was quite high, was a product of his selfishness or his self-seeking.

But here are some facts. In the state of Washington, the Caesarean rate in nonprofit hospitals is 20%, while the rate in for-profit hospitals is 36%. A few years ago a Kansas health maintenance organization (HMO) changed its policies and began to reimburse doctors equally for Caesarean and normal deliveries, so there was no longer a financial incentive to do Caesareans. The Caesarean rate dropped from 28.7% to 13.5% in one year.

There are more reasons why Caesareans are so common. Natural birth can take place anytime, day or night. There's no telling how long the labor will last, and there's no predicting when the baby will emerge. Caesareans, on the other hand, can be arranged to take place at the convenience of the hospital and the obstetrician.

There are also some major legal reasons. We live in a very litigious society, and there are many lawsuits around birth. We have this bias toward technology. The doctor is covered in the event of a court case if he's done a Caesarean. It might not have been necessary, and could have caused the woman great pain. It also could have sabotaged the bonding between the mother and the newborn, and sabotaged her own body and soul wisdom, but that won't come up in court. What will be brought out in a trial is, did the doctor do everything possible, and employ every technology. The current legal climate is pushing the Caesarean rate up because doctors are scared.

For normal births, studies find much higher Caesarean rates when obstetricians are in charge than when midwives are attending the birth. In this country, midwives attend 4% of births. In all of Western Europe, midwives attend 75% of births. The infant mortality rates are universally lower there than in the U.S., averaging half of what ours are. Their Caesarean rates are much lower, rates of all the birth technologies are much lower, and they have much healthier outcomes, i.e., lower rates of maternal mortality and morbidity, and lower rates of infant mortality and morbidity. All the various ways you can measure outcomes for normal births, midwifery-oriented childbirth gets better results.

But natural birth is more demanding of the mother. It's not like she checks into the hospital and checks out of her body. Some women want to be knocked out and handed the baby when it's over, because they don't believe in themselves, they don't believe that they're capable. I think it's the proper role of the health profession to help people; in this case, we're talking about women befriending their bodies.

What if women were told by their doctors that birth is essentially safe for both mother and baby, and that both are perfectly designed for the task? What would happen if doctors communicated a set of beliefs that would help women respect and appreciate the natural design? What if women were treated with trust in their ability to make informed and responsible choices? What if they were helped to understand that every birth is unique and precious? What if their needs for emotional support were validated?

Not every woman would choose a natural childbirth. Not all women would see labor as a dance with the great forces of life. Some would still want all the technology a hospital could offer them. But all could make informed choices that express their values and affirm their lives. They'd be in charge of their births. There would be a lot fewer operations, and a lot more celebrations.

What about the role of medicine in menopause?

It's another case of the medical profession medicalizing a natural transition. Hormones are being passed out like candy. I think a generation of women is being brainwashed, and their trust in their menopausal wisdom and their own bodies is being betrayed.

They're being told they can avoid symptoms, and protect themselves from some diseases. So they think, why not do it if the technology is there?

Because of side effects. Estrogen replacement increases the risk of breast cancer, for example. Women who take estrogen for a long time have been shown to have lower rates of heart disease, but this is primarily for women whose lifestyles are unhealthy.

Estrogen does lower the amount of cholesterol in the blood, and it increases the "good" high-density lipoproteins. But these benefits disappear as soon as women stop taking the drug, so they are stuck on it for life. And, women who eat vegetarian types of diets, low-fat diets, high-fiber natural food diets, and who don't smoke, who get regular exercise, who take care of themselves, obtain the same benefits. Their cholesterol levels are low and they have little risk of heart disease, but they don't use the drugs and they don't have the side effects. Dean Ornish has done outstanding work to make the connection between heart disease, diet and lifestyle well known.

It's not that estrogen doesn't reduce the risk of heart disease, it's just that there are other ways of going about it, natural ways, that don't have the dark side. There is a dark side to estrogen replacement therapy (ERT), and the medical profession doesn't talk about that very much.

If estrogen is just taken for a short time, it probably doesn't raise the risk of breast cancer significantly. But to obtain any benefits for osteoporosis or heart disease, it has to be taken for many years, and, then, there is a dramatic rise in breast cancer risk. When progestins are added to estrogen for 14 days of the month, as is quite common, most women experience "monthly" bleeding continually, requiring regular use of pads or tampons. When progestins are taken along with estrogen every day, the bleeding usually stops within two months, but there are other side effects of the progestins that are worse. One woman called these effects perennial PMS.

Many women in their 40s develop uterine fibroids or endometriosis. If they can hang in there and handle it with lifestyle, when they go through menopause the symptoms are almost always alleviated. But if they take ERT, this benefit doesn't occur, then they have to do other things to deal with the fibroids and endometriosis, such as surgery.

Have you ever seen an ad for one of the hormone replacement regimens? There is a woman, and she is saying, "I don't intend to grow old gracefully. I intend to fight it every step of the way." It's ironic that women who take estrogen in an attempt to assert control of their bodies and in their lives, rather poignantly, end up with higher medical expenses, greater dependence on the medical system and more alienated from their body's natural cycles.

The industry that sells these drugs plays off very deep fears and emotions of women, and exploits them. The implication is that if you don't take these drugs you're going to dry up and be sexless. You're going to have heart disease, vaginal dryness, hot flashes, mood swings, and all these kinds of things.

Women may want to use a little estrogen here or there, or natural progesterone, which is better in many cases.

Is that the wild yam products?

It's something that can be created from the wild yam.

There are wonderful elders who are accomplishing extraordinary things and living beautiful lives, and who derive benefit from taking small amounts of hormone therapy. But millions of women are taking these drugs today, unaware of the darker side, and equally unaware that there are natural alternatives.

If you live a healthy natural lifestyle, aren't some of the symptoms of menopause lessened, or non-existent?

That's true. They may still be there, but usually they're fewer, and they're manageable. A 1993 Gallup survey found that 84% of physicians' discussions with their patients about menopausal symptoms centered on ERT. But fewer than 2% mentioned natural approaches, such as diet, exercise, stress reduction or smoking cessation. These are approaches that can go a long way toward balancing the body's hormone production, and move life in a healthy direction.

There are a tremendous number of studies, for example, with hot flashes, that show women who exercise regularly and eat healthy diets have less frequent and less severe hot flashes. One study showed that women who take vitamin C regularly in high doses have far fewer hot flashes than do women whose intake of vitamin C is deficient. Other studies have found that a combination of progressive muscle relaxation and deep, slow breathing reduce women's hot flashes tremendously. Acupuncture, vitamin E, hypnosis, meditation, yoga, homeopathic remedies, ginseng and other herbs—there are so many natural remedies that have been clinically shown to be effective for relieving hot flashes.

I remember reading something to the effect that only a small percentage of Japanese women experience symptoms at the onset of menopause, and this was attributed to their diet

In many countries, there is not even a word for hot flash. I remember reading something by a cultural anthropologist who went and tried to talk to women about it, and they didn't know what she was talking about.

If women were supported in living according to their own faith, inner guidance and body wisdom, as they deserve to be, menopause for the majority of women would be what it was meant to be, what it has traditionally been—a safe transition into their wisdom years.

Our older women have an extraordinary wisdom to give this culture, and it's a wisdom that this culture desperately needs to regain its balance. But, it's a wisdom that this culture is frightened by and alienated from, and which it resists. One of the forms this resistance takes is drugging women, and not providing them the support that they deserve to go through this process and emerge stronger and more powerful.

When you talk about medicalizing different areas of life, I think about all the kids on Ritalin.

Nearly 5% of American school children take Ritalin, and most of those have been diagnosed with attention deficit disorders (ADD). When they take Ritalin, their actions tend to be more directed and on-task than before. They often become less distracted by things going on around them, and better able to stay focused. They become less aggressive, less apt to get in trouble and generally more docile and compliant. They follow rules.

Many teachers and parents are very pleased with the changes brought about by Ritalin, but there are no studies showing that the drug enhances learning or academic performance in the long term. There have been attempts, most of them funded by Ciba-Geigy, the manufacturers of Ritalin, to find evidence for advanced learning in children on Ritalin, but they've never been successful. It's not that good a drug.

It's real good if you want to control kids. But I've often thought, how can we tell kids to say no to recreational drugs, but be sure to take your mood-altering, mind-transforming pill every day. What happens to children when the medical profession, with all its weight and authority, tells them to take drugs to control their behavior? How will children learn to understand their emotions and deal with them constructively if they are told to take a drug to make them go away.

Ritalin can have some value in some cases. It can provide a semblance of normality and help, for the short term, unwinding some kids from behavioral patterns they've become caught up in. But it is vastly over-prescribed. It's also very profitable for the medical profession.

Again, there are alternatives. Ben Feingold, a very eminent pediatrician at Kaiser, developed a whole program for treating hyperactive kids by changing their diets. He removed the artificial colorings, preservatives and other adulterants from their diets, so, instead of eating Fruit Loops, they ate oatmeal, and so forth. He got tremendous results. In the various studies at the Feingold clinic, about 75% of the kids achieved dramatic results¾ measurable, consistent results. Now, not all of them did, and that fact has been used by some people to discredit the Feingold program, but it's an effective, natural, nontoxic approach.

Our schools are like maximum security prisons sometimes. They're run for the comfort and convenience of the administrators who work in them. The schools are mass-production assembly lines. What about the kid whose learning style is different, who doesn't fit into that mold?

Some kids are multi-scanners. They naturally absorb information through several channels at once, paying attention to many things at the same time. In many circumstances, that would be a great asset, but not in the classroom, where the system requires them to pay attention to one thing at a time. Their natural learning style does not involve organizing their experience in a linear way, and they can easily feel bewildered when asked to do so. Some of these kids, when they're exposed to integrated, thematic instruction programs, including the use of art, music, field trips and various multi-sensory approaches, emerge as capable, brilliant, imaginative and creative people.

Asking every child to learn in the same way, which our schools do, is really crazy. It's pathological. I think we ought to change our schools to respect the individuality and unique learning styles of each child as much as we can, rather than drugging those who don't fit into the system.

There are probably some negative health consequences from using these drugs for children.

Yes, there are definite side effects, and in some cases, they can be very frightening.

I often think what would happen if, instead of cozying up to the junk food industry, and taking money from them, our medical authorities stood up and called for our children to be fed a healthy, natural and uncontaminated diet. Maybe our children would have a better chance to grow up calm and clear. You might see fewer of them becoming trapped in substance abuse.

My neighbors have a child on Ritalin. I gave them some articles on alternative approaches, but I doubt that they even read them. I'm sure they're thinking, "Our doctors have all these incredible research facilities and resources, they certainly must have the best advice to deal with our child's problem."

The medical system is pharmaceutically oriented, and it doesn't look for natural alternatives. Natural substances aren't patentable, so they can’t be profited from, and natural approaches are much harder to convert into revenue than drugs.

The drug and junk food companies give a lot of money to the medical establishment organizations. The American Dietetic Association (ADA) promotes a consumer fact sheet on diet and health that focuses on attention deficit syndrome. They send out a booklet titled, "Questions Most Frequently Asked About Hyperactivity." One question asks, "Is there a dietary relationship to hyperactivity? Should I restrict certain foods from my child's diet?" They answer, "No," and go on to point out that sugar even has a mildly quieting effect on children. Then, they go out of their way to find fault with the Feingold program.

I researched these materials and found they were written and produced by the Sugar Association. In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) accepted $50,000 from the Sugar Association, and $70,000 from the meat board to fund a nutrition video for children.

What tends to happen in industries whose products are challenged for their health impact is that they carry out studies to try to vindicate their products. Many researchers paid to do these studies have to sign something at the beginning saying that the funder of the projects owns the research. The researchers cannot go public with the results on their own. What happens is this: If the Dairy Council, for example, funds research, and the results come back incriminating dairy products, they just sit on the studies. And, they keep doing studies, changing the study protocol or design until they come up with a study that vindicates their products, then that's the one they publish and make a big deal out of.

There have been a series of studies purporting to have found the Feingold program ineffective. I did some research to analyze those studies, and I found that most of the studies were undertaken by an organization called the Nutrition Foundation, which is funded by the makers of Coca Cola, C&H Cane Sugar, Fruit Loops, and the like. One study eliminated only eight of the more than 3,000 additives in our food supply, and when the children did not show major improvement, used that fact to write the Feingold program off as worthless.

Another study took hyperactive kids and gave them doses of either additives or placebos. The result was that there was little difference in children's responses. The conclusion drawn was that the Feingold theory was not valid. In 1980, the journal Science published an analysis of the controversy, and disclosed that the researchers had used doses of additives that were far too small to produce a noticeable effect, and far smaller than the average child got in an average day's typical American diet. In fact, when the amounts were raised to a level commensurate with children's actual eating habits, the hyperactivity/food additive link was confirmed. I think it was 85% of hyperactive kids that reacted adversely when they were exposed to artificial colorings, flavorings and other food additives.

I guess the dieticians who made up the ADA fact sheet must have missed that study.

The Sugar Association takes out an ad in the ADA journal every month, so they would never mention a study like that.

The pharmaceutical and junk food industries are very powerful, and there is a bond in the lack of support for natural approaches and wholistic healing.

What do you think about the way the medical profession handles cancer?

I think it's a tragedy. In cancer care, the flaws of our medical system are the most apparent. The whole conventional cancer treatment community sees cancer treatment as a military enterprise. The ill human body is not thought of as having the capacity to repair itself, to mobilize and restore balance, to work to eliminate accumulated toxins. If you're sick, you're not seen as involved in a potentially transformative experience, with your body as any ally or a friend. You are described as being attacked, and your body is a victim, and you are under siege. Illness is not a challenge to grow, an opportunity to heal—it's a war.

When diseases are seen as an attacking enemy, the body that spawns them is seen as an environment that must be controlled and subdued. It's not understood as a guide in the healing process, nor a wellspring of healing potential, but as a continuing source of danger. Disease is not a messenger trying to get your attention, or a life process that could activate you body's self-healing resources, instead it's an evil force in which your best hope is to enlist the full powers of organized medical technology. The role of medicine is not to champion your body's self-regulating and self-healing mechanisms, it is to intervene with an external agent to obliterate the enemy.

The implication of this battlefield thinking is that, if you're ill, it hardly matters what your experience might mean to you personally. There's no respect given to the role that emotional intelligence, prayer, or the human dimension can play on the healing journey. There is little honoring of the intuitive and the receptive modes of being. There's barely any appreciation of the contribution these states of mind might make to healing. Your experience of yourself and your feelings don't matter. What is happening within you is secondary to the battle being waged on your behalf by the heroic warriors of Western medicine. Their goal is to extinguish the disease, and sometimes they kill you in the process.

I'm speaking very strongly here, I know that, but the gross contrast between the actual results that chemotherapy gets for most forms of cancer, and the way it is sold and hyped, is just so painful. We've been on the chemotherapy bandwagon for so many years that we can't see how, in most cases, it's counterproductive. It's a toxic and even brutal procedure. Meanwhile, the vast numbers of alternative, immune-supportive cancer approaches are getting no support, because we are pouring all our genius, our dollars and our organized research mechanisms into the triumvirate of chemotherapy, surgery and radiation.

We're not only neglecting; we're sabotaging the alternative cancer potentials. When the history of this culture's medicine is finally written, the disregard for, the disdain for, and even the criminalizing of alternative cancer approaches will be seen as the scandal that it is.

Modern medicine seems to be failing on several fronts. Even the amazing success of antibiotics, medicine's crowning glory, is being threatened.

Antibiotics have saved millions of lives, but they do have a downside. The belief that modern medicine can solve anything was heightened by the advent of antibiotics. Suddenly, a whole raft of diseases, from meningitis, to pneumonia, to syphilis—just a tremendous number of diseases that had been fatal—could now be cured with a shot or a drug.

We were in awe. We began to put all of our hopes, dreams and money into the search for the pill for every ill—the equivalent of penicillin for cancer. But, it hasn't worked out. And, meanwhile, we've overused our antibiotics to the extent now that many of those bacterial infections we had pretty much controlled are beginning to reemerge in new and more virulent forms. The bugs have developed resistance to the antibiotics. We're having to go to second and third generation antibiotics that are more expensive and have worse side effects, and even they are losing their effectiveness now.

I don't think most people recognize the degree to which this is happening, and the degree to which antibiotics, which were the miracle medicines, are becoming impotent in an increasing number of cases due to our overuse of them. Some of the overuse has taken place in factory farms, where we continue to feed antibiotics to animals who aren't even sick. We don't provide them as a medicine to help cure the animal, we use them as feed additives in sub-therapeutic doses mixed in every meal that the animal eats during its entire life. That's the common practice in today's factory farm, and the industry does it to make more profit.

In what cases is modern medicine appropriate?

There are certain types of conditions that Western medicine is well suited for, and there are other kinds of conditions where I think Western medicine tends to run pretty dry. The best approach is a partnership where you get the best of both.

Cancer, in general, is one of those diseases that Western medicine is not good at treating. And, yet, there are a few types of cancer, including some of the childhood leukemias, where medicine does have some answers. There other forms of cancer where chemotherapy can be of some value, but it's still very brutal. If you have adequate nutritional and emotional support, maybe if you're using acupuncture, you need a lot less chemotherapy to accomplish the same result, and the side effects are less serious. So, the partnership approach is what I'm looking for, where they work together. I'm calling for us to integrate the two lineages. What would happen if we let patients have access to the best ideas and practices of both worlds?

In general, conventional medicine is good at managing trauma—broken bones, wounds from accidents, etc.—and at diagnosing and treating many emergencies. I think it still is the treatment of choice for acute bacterial infections. It has a good record with some parasitic and fungal infections. Its cosmetic and reconstructive surgery is amazing. The surgical technology is truly amazing when it comes to replacing damaged hips and knees. In a few other areas, too, Western medicine really shines.

But conventional medicine has not impressed me much with its ability to deal with viruses, or to cure most chronic and degenerative diseases. It's very strange in its approach to mental illness. It's not very good in curing most forms of allergic or autoimmune diseases.

What percentage of healing would you say falls into the category of being best dealt with by modern medicine? Something like 10%?

I would think more like 20%. That's a very rough number, however, and I'm not basing that on any kind of statistical analysis. What I do know is that, if I had a broken leg, or an inflamed appendix, a fractured skull, or was injured in an auto accident, I would want the best of orthodox care; and I would be grateful if such services were available to me, because, for many people, they are not.

I feel the same way—that medicine is the treatment of choice in some cases. But, if the truth comes out, and it becomes clear that only 20% of medicine is worthwhile, then that means that many doctors are going to be out of jobs.

I think we'd see a corresponding increase in the number of other health professionals. Medical doctors are just one form of health professional. They've dominated the healing industry to such an extent that the word "doctor" is now understood to mean a medical doctor. But there are doctors of chiropractic, naturopathy, homeopathy, etc., there are nurse practitioners—there is a whole gamut of people who can provide healing services, in many cases, far less expensively than medical doctors.

We can probably expect that trade groups representing doctors will not go quietly to a much diminished place in the pantheon of healing.

The AMA has never done anything quietly, and it is one of the great dinosaurs of our time. Thirty years ago, 80% of U.S. doctors belonged to the AMA, but it's fewer than 50% now. A lot of doctors are sick of the system, and feel like frustrated pawns. Many of them would like to offer wholistic treatments and alternative points of view to their patients, but, if they do, they risk censure from the various state medical boards, loss of their licenses, and being labeled as quacks. There are many insurance companies that will not provide malpractice insurance to physicians that provide backup for midwives. So, some doctors may be supportive of midwifery-oriented childbirth, but their hands are tied.

I don't blame doctors. For example, most doctors don't know very much about nutrition, yet nutrition is crucial to health. However, the average M.D. only gets two hours of nutrition in medical school, so how can they be expected to know about it?

Western medicine represents a certain point of view about life, and makes certain assumptions about the body, health, illness, and so forth. And, there are other philosophies that lead to different treatment approaches. Some of these are quite remarkable.

I was on a show recently, and a caller made reference to acupuncture. The host of the show called acupuncture a "new age" therapy, but, acupuncture is 5,000 or 6,000 years old. If anything should be called new age, it's Western medicine, which has only been around for a short while.

By and large, pharmaceutical drugs tend to have adverse effects, whereas the natural approaches tend to be more benign. They're more slow-acting, they take longer to work, but sometimes they actually deal with the problem at its root.

But no healing techniques substitute for a healthy lifestyle. If you're going to stay up all night every night, and you're worried sick about things, totally immersed in negative emotions, taking some ginseng isn't going to solve things anymore than taking aspirin is. But if you have a healthy lifestyle, and you're looking for supports, things you can do to further fortify and build your resistance to disease, strengthen your equilibrium, and clarify your focus in life, then, probably, ginseng and the like will be more useful for you than aspirin and other drugs, although there is a place for aspirin, too.

We've gone overboard on the patentable medicines, the pharmaceuticals. Often, natural approaches will work, though they take longer, and if we just have the patience to stay with them in an intelligent way, our lives can be a lot better.

Where do you see healing going in our society?

I see it going toward an integration of standard and alternative approaches.

A lot of people are unaware that there was a court case a few years ago that really opened the door to the future. The O.J. Simpson case has been called the trial of the century, but there was another trial that probably deserves that term.

In the early 80s, a group of chiropractors in Chicago, including a man named Chester Wilk, sued the AMA for conspiring to destroy and eliminate the chiropractic profession. The AMA fought them tooth and nail, and the battle went on in court for 15 years. Ultimately, the AMA was found guilty of intentionally conspiring to destroy their competition, and the verdict was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. During this lengthy and hard-fought case, the AMA spent over $20 million in legal fees to defend itself, and still lost.

Nearly 1 million pages of documentation entered the public record, and many of those documents were from the AMA's internal files. It was revealed quite clearly that, for many years, the AMA had deliberately and systematically conspired to destroy not only chiropractic, but midwifery, homeopathy, naturopathy, and herbalism. The whole collection of what we call wholistic and alternative medicine had been the AMA's target for destruction.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. My motto is to never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance. But, clearly, the AMA, whose motto is "Physicians dedicated to the healing of America" was deliberately undermining what it saw as its competition for the medical dollar.

Having been found guilty, the AMA has had to pull back a lot on what they were doing. As a result, suddenly we're seeing this resurgence of interest in alternative medicine. For example, Life Magazine runs a cover story in which they say, "Antibiotics or Acupuncture? Or Maybe Both." Andy Weil has become extremely popular, with the PBS documentary in which he does such a beautiful job, and his outstanding books becoming #1 bestsellers. A few years ago, the AMA would have destroyed someone like Andy Weil. They tried to do it with Deepak Chopra. A series of editorials were written that made Chopra look like a cross between Charles Manson and Timothy McVeigh. But they're having to stop that kind of thing now. I think we're going to see a lot more recognition of the value of wholistic medicine. The Wilk case really pried open the door, and a lot is going to rush through that door in the coming years.

Do you have any final comments?

As I've said before, the medical establishment will only get off its pedestal when we get off our knees.

Everyone is encouraged to freely make copies of this interview to pass along to family, friends, and, especially, to anyone facing illness. (Prior permission is required for publication in newsletters and magazines.)

[To order John Robbin's book, Reclaiming Our Health, send $25 to John Robbins, 1812 Cabo Court, Aptos, CA 95003. Contact EarthSave at (408) 423-4069 for a complete catalogue of books and videos.]