THE GREAT SWINDLE

The 'homeopathic' approach to healing is almost the direct opposite of the allopathic approach. It is based upon the logic of fighting 'like' with 'like' or 'fire' with 'fire', rather than fighting a disease with something that opposes it.

In this approach, a medicine or potion, in a very small dose, is applied or induced, which is substantially similar to, or even the same as, the causative agent of disease, thereby triggering the body's own immune system to conquer the disease.

The story of the homeopaths is highly instructive with regard to the monopolization of the institution of the healing arts.

No more than a hundred years ago there were nearly as many homeopaths as there were allopaths.

And, although their basic philosophy toward healing was almost the opposite of that of the allopaths, their methodology was exactly the same. They, too, applied medicines and potions as did the allopaths.

And, at that time, their approach was just as inherently valid as was that of the allopaths. (Every time a person receives an immunizing vaccine today, be it for polio, tetanus, or the latest flu virus, he is being treated, in essence, according to the homeopathic approach).

Yet, the homeopaths, as a distinct school of thought and group of healers, has all but disappeared today.

And the only reason for this is that they didn't survive the competition with the allopaths for a share of the monopoly.

The allopaths simply swallowed up and absorbed the homeopathic approach, and put the homeopaths themselves out of business.

This is not to say that the art of healing has suffered as a result. It hasn't. The allopaths today put the homeopathic approach to full use, even though that approach is the direct opposite of the allopaths' own approach. If it works, it works, and with the homeopaths having been all but eliminated as competitors, there is no longer any good reason to quibble over the difference in fundamental philosophy.

Indeed, had the competitive struggle gone the other way, the homeopaths might now be the ones we automatically associate with the title 'doctor', and they would likely be making as much use of the contradictory allopathic approach as the allopaths are making use of theirs today.

The reason for pointing this out is not to denigrate the allopaths for having won the battle for monopoly as against the homeopaths.

Our point is to show that the competition for monopoly began at the very outset of the institutionalization of the healing arts, and that such monopoly can only take place within the context of such institutionalization. Had it not been for the institutionalization of the healing arts by way of governmental decree, and the governmental coercion that underlies it, neither the allopaths nor the homeopaths would have been able to put the other out of business.

That tendency toward monopolization is still very much with us today.

And, unlike the homeopaths, whom the allopaths no longer have any reason to 'quibble' with (because they virtually no longer exist, and to the extent they do are barely on the fringes), there are today still other approaches to healing with whom the allopaths do have reason to 'quibble', simply because they are still in business, and competing for a share of the monopoly.

The 'osteopathic' approach to healing, as it began, and in its fundamental essence still remains, is the external manipulation of body parts, so as to assist the body in healing itself.

But, as with allopathy, as osteopathy has developed, it too has seen the value of other approaches, and has incorporated both medicine and surgery into its overall approach as a supplement to its fundamental premise.

Indeed, to the extent that osteopaths make use of medicines and surgery, and allopaths make use of what they call 'physical therapy', the dividing line between the two, in actual practice, is all but invisible.

Yet, there is animosity between the two groups to the extent that many in the allopathic field look down upon the osteopaths as not being 'real' doctors.

One is justified in at least the suspicion that the reason for such animosity on the part of the allopaths has as much, or more, to do with the competition for monopoly, as it does with any actual deficiency in the osteopaths as healers.

Whatever, the osteopaths have proven themselves more durable in the struggle within the monopoly of the healing arts than did the homeopaths. The D.O.s comprise today a substantial minority within the healing profession as an institution.

The 'chiropractic' approach to healing is in a way similar to that of the osteopaths.

However, the chiropractor focuses primarily on manipulation and adjustment of the spine and skeletal structure as the means for preventing and curing disease, and, for reasons of either basic philosophy or legal restraint, does not make use of any medicines or surgery.

A 'purist' in the chiropractic field would not resort to the use of medicines or surgery simply because that is not what the basic philosophy of the chiropractic approach is about. Skeletal, and primarily spinal, adjustments and manipulation are the cornerstone of this approach, and anything else would be less than 'pure' chiropractic.

Nonetheless, there are those in the field who would like to expand the approach to include some elements of medicines and surgery as a supplement to their basic approach, just as the allopaths supplement their treatments with elements of the homeopathic and osteopathic approaches.

But, the allopaths, by way of their relative 'stranglehold' on the governmentally created and maintained institutionalization of the healing arts, have so far been able to exclude others, and the chiropractors in particular, from 'poaching' on these areas of its 'turf'.

Despite much resistance and opposition from those who were already well entrenched in the monopoly, the D.C.s have been able in recent years to establish a firm, if somewhat limited, foothold within the healing arts profession.

The 'naturopathic' approach to healing is a more 'wholistic' approach, and relies upon 'natural' substances such as herbs and roots, rather than artificially manufactured medicines, and upon redirecting one's lifestyle and thinking so as to enhance one's own inner wholeness and wellness, as being the best approach to dealing with disease.

Actually, the naturopathic approach has been with us from time immemorial, only in the less formal embodiments of 'folk' remedies (e.g., Aunt Mary's special tonic) and even so called mystics and faith healers.

That it has now become formalized in the title of 'naturopath' is silent testimony to the depth and pervasiveness of the institutionalization and monopolization of the healing arts. In order for this approach to be given its due credence, it had to get into the 'game' as a governmentally 'legitimized' separate competitor.

As with the chiropractors, the naturopaths have appeared only recently, have so far gained even more limited acceptance in the field than have the chiropractors (ie., Oregon, Arizona and perhaps a few other states), and are totally proscribed by law from making any use whatsoever of manufactured medicines and surgery as a supplement to their approach.

The relatively specialized field of surgery is particularly illuminating as to the artificiality of the lines of demarcation between the various approaches to healing, as they are actually being practiced today.

Both the allopath (M.D.) and the osteopath (D.O.), upon being licensed by the state, are licensed as both 'physician' and 'surgeon'.

(And, as we have already mentioned, the chiropractor and the naturopath are still too new on the scene to have established enough political 'clout' to be able to attain licensing as surgeons, and it remains to be seen if they ever do).

Surgery, as we all know, is the physical cutting of or into the body so as to effectuate repair and healing.

This has nothing to do with the fundamental premise of allopathy - the application or induction of medicines and potions.

Nor does it have anything to do with the fundamental premise of osteopathy - the external manipulation of body parts.

Yet, they both do it.

(That the allopaths and osteopaths have had the good sense not to allow some idea of philosophical 'purity' to restrict them from making use of any  approach that works , is certainly nothing to fault them for. They are better overall healers as a result).

So, we now have a situation in which the allopaths and osteopaths have borrowed from one another; have absorbed the homeopathic approach (eliminating the homeopaths in the process); have also borrowed elements of chiropractic, naturopathy and even faith healing; and have gone heavily into surgery; none of which have anything to do with their own fundamental approaches to healing, and in some instances are antithetical to those fundamental approaches. (And, as we said, this isn't bad, it's good).

But, if this is TRUE, and it is, then what REAL basis is left by which to distinguish between the allopathic approach and any other, and by which the allopaths can justifiably deny to others the right to do the very same things that they, themselves, have done and continue to do?

Why is it that an allopath can expand his repertoire of approaches and methods to include anything that he thinks might work, whether it has anything to do with allopathy or not; but he begrudges and demeans an osteopath for doing the same thing, and has insisted upon totally preventing chiropractors and naturopaths from doing it at all, and requiring them, by law, to remain as 'purists' within their particular approaches, whether they want to or not?

Can echoes of the word 'monopoly' be heard ringing somewhere in all this?

The field of surgery clearly underlines our point here.

As painful experience has taught us, and continues to teach us if we care to look, surgery can be just as inimical and damaging to health and healing, as it can be a 'miraculous' benefit.

That it has been a tremendous benefit there is no question.

That it is too often performed needlessly, and otherwise with horrendous results, is equally not in doubt.

And, the simple difference between what turns out to be 'miraculously' beneficial and horribly detrimental surgery, is the individual - the surgeon - who decides upon its need and actually performs it.

The good ones do good work.

The bad ones don't.

As with many things in life, what makes for a truly good practitioner are an inner motivation to be good at what one does, a natural born talent for the work, and the knowledge and skill that come from appropriate training and experience.

And, while the allopathic and osteopathic schools have produced some excellent, even brilliant, surgeons, they have also produced some truly horrible ones.

Regardless of the school one might have attended, the good ones are good, and the bad ones are not.

So, what prevents a chiropractor or a naturopath (or even a mystic), who possesses the motivation and natural talent for surgery, from using it just as brilliantly (or horribly) as a supplement to his approach to healing, as do the allopaths and osteopaths?

Well, they are lacking the appropriate training and experience.

And for this reason (and a good reason it is) the law says they can't.

But why are they lacking such training and experience?

Because the law also says that the only schools allowed to provide such training and experience are the allopathic and osteopathic schools.

And these are the very same schools, as we have already mentioned, which have been severely limited in number and in enrollment.

There is nothing inherent in allopathy or osteopathy which makes them any more appropriate for providing the necessary training for surgeons than chiropractic or naturopathy could provide, if the latter weren't outright prevented from being able to do so by laws that restrict the methods they can use and the very training they can provide.

We shall just briefly mention such specialized experts as the dentist and the podiatrist, etc.

These experts, while still a part of the overall institution of the healing arts as we have come to know it, deal only with a highly restricted area of the body. Their services seldom involve decisions of life and death or seriously life inhibiting disease.

Therefore, although they are, as a result of the monopolization of their own areas of expertise, a part of the overall Institutional 'Sting' of the Great Swindle as it manifests itself within the institution of the healing arts, they are not so in the same sense as are the general practitioners of the arts.

And, having dealt with the more general practitioners in some depth as a type example for this entire field, and in the interest of brevity, we will simply note the existence of these specialized types of healers, and move on.

Most recently there are yet other healing approaches coming on the scene, from the orient and otherwise. As with Chiropractic and Naturopathy, they are having to struggle in order to establish a niche for themselves within the overall healings arts scene, and, to a greater or lesser degree, for now remain on the margins of that scene. It remains to be seen how well they ultimately fare in this struggle within the overall monopoly. For our purposes here, we need only briefly mention them.

Acupuncture is an ancient oriental tradition involving the insertion of needles into to the skin at certain, precise locations on the body so as to realign the body's own 'natural energy flows' ('chi') in order to effectuate relief of pain and the cure of disease. (An even less well accepted offshoot of this is 'acupressure' which replaces the use of needles with simply the application of pressure at those same points on the body).

Hypnotherapy invokes the pain relieving and otherwise curative effects of hypnosis. Its acceptance as a legitimate approach to healing is mixed.

And there are yet more approaches well out on the margins of acceptability, of which there are too many to go into for our purposes here.

And finally, there are the mystics and the faith healers who rely totally upon the inner spirit, and one's inner connection with a higher level of being (or God, or spirits, or angels - however one wants to phrase it), as the method for curing and preventing disease.

And, while many of them (far too many) are actual and outright frauds, not all of them are, and there is very real merit to this approach.

Even the allopaths themselves acknowledge that there is something in the human 'mind' or 'psyche' (or something like that) that can work cures that medicine cannot, and, very often is what actually works the cure anyway, irrespective of what the physician does or does not do.

And, the 'placebo effect' is well recognized. The physician prescribes a sugar pill, of no medicinal value whatsoever, and yet the patient is 'cured', simply because he thought he had been given a "real" medicine.

Of course, the mystics and faith healers are totally excluded from the institution of the healing arts, and depend upon the even older institution of religion for a supportive societal framework within which to operate. Consequently one might fairly wonder if at least part of the reason for their total exclusion from the institution of the healing arts might not be the contention between the two institutions themselves.

Perhaps, if those in the overall institution of the healing arts could set aside the bias of their own particular institution, and look beyond the frauds and charlatans to the TRUE healers by way of faith (as few as they may be), they might find yet another useful, and even far more powerful, approach to healing by which to further supplement their current approaches.

The underlying point we have been trying to make here, is with respect to the Great Swindle itself, rather than simply the comparatively less important point of the monopolization and competition between the various branches of healing.

That is to say, the only essential difference between the various types of healers is the difference in the fundamental premise upon which each of their varying approaches to healing is based.

And, as experience, and the more dominant healers themselves, have clearly demonstrated, all  of the various approaches have merit to them, and, the more dominant healers, in fact, make use of all of them.

So, there really are no REAL differences left between them, other than the ones that they themselves have artificially created, and whose function would seem to have more to do with competition between them for control of the field, than the advancement of the healing arts or protection of the public health.

Most of us are likely aware, or at least suspicious, at some level in our thinking, of what the actual situation is.

Yet, many of us, too many of us, are not so aware, or even suspicious.

And, even of those of us who are aware, whether members of the healing institution or clients of it, tend too often to ignore or minimize these fundamental TRUTHS about the situation, as we have pointed them out here.

And it is in that way that we participate in the Institutional 'Sting' of the Great Swindle.

The TRUTH is right there in front of us, and yet for reasons of 'Who? Little Ole Me?' and the 'Need For Experts', we ignore it, and even try to convince ourselves that what is actually self-serving competition between the healers is not what it seems, and is, rather, the beneficence and altruism that some of them have convinced themselves it is, and would like us to believe as well.

In closing, none of this is to say that the members of the healing professions do not perform a valid and valuable service. They most assuredly do.

Nor is it to say that some system of regulation which ensures a minimal level of competency in the practitioners in a given field is not valid and desirable.

Our primary point is that when the value of these practitioners' services is determined and exacted by factors which have more to do with monopolization and trafficking upon their clients' IGNORANCE and FEAR rather than by less contrived and misdirected processes; and when, as a result, the 'high cost' of health care is spoken of as though it were some kind of natural phenomenon, like a flood or an earthquake, rather than simply certain people trying to become and remain very wealthy; and, we, as victims, acquiesce  in (and even encourage) all of this; that is a sure sign that a Swindle is going on, and to the detriment of us all.

In the last half of the 20th century in the United States, the high cost of health care had become, and still remains, a major issue in the land. And the manner in which this issue has been playing itself out is highly instructive, as a specific type example, with respect to how the Great Swindle plays itself out in general.

On the positive side, as the physician became entrenched in his exorbitant exaction of Money/Power/Status (due to his own deep immersion in this Grand Distractor) as to make his services so economically crushing - even impossible - for the average person, the Swindlous nature of the situation became apparent to a significant portion of the population. (Yes, when the Swindle becomes sufficiently onerous, people can and do see through it. This is one of several very hopeful signs as to our ability to ultimately reverse the Great Swindle in its totality.).

And attempts were made to correct for the negative effects of this aspect of the the Swindle.

However, on the negative side (and has so often been the case), these attempts were in a direction fraught with the peril and liklihood of simply, once again, restructuring the Swindle within societal institutions, rather than attacking the problem at its source - the Great Swindle itself.

In short, rather than de-Swindlizing the institution of health care, the concept of insurance was resorted to in order to ameliorate the serious negative effects of the Swindle.

The failing in this approach is twofold.

Firstly, spreading the risk of the exorbitant costs exacted by the physician does nothing to de-Swindlize those costs themselves. At least not until something else happens, which is now happening, as addressed in our next point.

Secondly, although insurance in its essence is a non-Swindlous concept (see discussion of insurance companies in the Co-Conspirators), when it becomes a Big-Business, as it has in this case, the result is simply displacing one aspect of the Swindle by another.

BIG-BUSINESSMAN

We are now deeply involved with insurance as being the primary (only?) appropriate way of dealing with the high costs of health care. And that insurance is now most definitely a Big-Business, which is a fundamental player in the Great Swindle as a Co-Conspirator.

And the result has not been a reduction in the Swindlous costs of health care, but a re-direction of significant portions of the profits of that care from the physician to the Big-Businessman (and his shareholders). Indeed, a significant portion of the physicians themselves have fallen under the control and employment of Big-Business as a result.

That the Swindle of the physician needed to be reined in was apparent (to everyone but the physician), and something happening to do that was a very good liklihood. The physician brought this situation on himself.

But using another aspect of the Swindle to rein in the physician's Swindle can lead to only one result - more Swindle. And that, to a significant extent, is where we are now.

And, the results of Big-Business insurance had, and have, become so Swindlously negative for a sufficiently large portion of the population, that the situation became, and is more and more becoming, ripe for yet another Co-Conspirator to step into the scene.

THE POLITICIAN

So, the physician's insistence on his Swindle brought on the Swindle of the Big-Businessman, and, the Big-Businessman's Swindle has already brought on the Swindle of his Co-Conspirator, the Politician, by way of governmental programs for paying the underlying exorbitant costs - Medicare, Medicaid, etc. And, there is now a good liklihood that the Politician will eventually do to the Big-Businessman what the Big-Businessman has already done to the physician, ie., displace him in the Swindle to a large extent, if not totally, and for the very same reasons.

Are governmental programs for providing health care Swindlous - in the sense of the Great Swindle as we are discussing it here?

Yes.

They do not eliminate the Swindle, they merely ameliorate some of its effects for some people, and in the process, restructure it.

While Medicare and Medicaid are no doubt beneficial to the elderly and disabled who qualify for it, they are no help whatsoever to others who are also being victimized by the overall health care Swindle (including young families with young children), who are not only receiving no help but are even paying for the help the Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries are recieving.

Once the Politician (government) gets involved, all the negative qualities of that aspect of the Swindle come into play, by way of the Swindlous process and with the Swindlous consequences that process inevitably leads to. (See The Politician).

In short, if we don't eliminate the Great Swindle itself, all of its negative consequences, including those involving health care, will simply continue. At best we can restructure it, but that is like moving the air around in a balloon. Push the bulge in here, and it simply pops out again over there.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS / EQUIPMENT

Another major factor in health care costs at this time, over and above the costs of the physician and insurance, are the costs of ever evolving and improving prescription drugs and medical equipment and devices.

That these drugs and equipment are a significant improvement in our ability with health care is no doubt. They are, indeed, almost 'miraculous' in what they can do.

However, these developments are all but totally enmired in the co-Swindle of the Big-Businessman and Politician, and, once again, the Money/Power/Status qualities of those elements of the Great Swindle.

Big-Business claims it requires high profits to justify the risks and expense of research and development in order to develop new drugs and equipment. This ignores the fact that much of the research and development is underwritten by the Politician (government), and the Big-Businessman simply takes the profit (a portion of which he returns to the Politician by way of campaign contributions and various other 'perks').

The Swindle of the Big-Businessman is what it is, whether in health care or otherwise.

OTHER EXPERTS

Finally, as we mentioned at the outset in this section, our in-depth discussion of healers was not only because they are the closest relative to the Shaman, but also to use this discussion as a type example for all other experts within the Institutional 'Sting' for whom the description fits.

If any other expert, or class of experts, have congealed into a more or less monopoly, and by way of their expertise traffic on the IGNORANCE and FEAR of others to enhance their personal Money/Power/Status, they are as much a part of the Institutional 'Sting' of the Swindle, and in the same way, as the healers.

Even if their share of the 'Sting' is not as pervasive or their personal enrichment as great as that of the physicians, if the Shaman-like qualities are present in their operation, and the victims victimize themselves by way of those qualities, then they are a blood relative of the Shaman in the Institutional 'Sting'.

If the description doesn't fit in any particular instance, then it doesn't.

But if it does, it can apply as easily to the accountant, the pharmacist, the economist and the college professor, as to the real estate broker, and even the plumber and the auto mechanic.

That it definitely fits the lawyer is certain. But we shall discuss him in yet another role in which he operates within the 'Sting', in the next section.