Letter in response to “Alternative medicine: dangerous irra­tion­al­ism”

Letter to the editor concerning ZM 12/2000

In ZM of 16 June 2000

Dear Sir or Madam,

One might perhaps be annoyed by the above article if it did not contain so many half-truths, prejudices, prejudgments, misinterpretations and dogmatic doctrines.

expose the tendentious reporting of this “scientific-academic” contribution. If such an article represents science, then: poor science.

I find it more troubling, however, when ZM, as a journal received by every colleague, whether they wish it or not, apparently neglects to inform colleagues impartially and allows itself, repeatedly, to be misused for “opinion-making” against a branch of medicine used by approximately 80% of the population.

Just how incapable of independent judgment and how stupid does so-called conventional medicine consider the population, when it acts against their wishes with a system that has itself contributed to this polarisation through its dogmatism, one-sidedness and outdated linear thinking, and still operates with, or clings to, a nineteenth-century worldview—a system that denies the modern findings of quantum physics, whose research confirms the alternative medicine being denounced, an information and quantum medicine?

One must then ask which medicine is actually contemptuous of humanity, when the individual is viewed, scientifically correctly, only in statistical terms; when the side effects of allopathic medications have become legion, killing tens of thousands every year; when ever more people die in hospitals from hospitalism because antibiotics fail; and when restricting medicine to rational science (left brain) allows psychosomatic illnesses to increase because the “irrational” (right brain) is excluded.

No wonder, then, if the rational becomes irrational, deranged.

Why does ZM not report on this in equal detail?

Or on the fact that people's sensitisation to allergens is worsening because of ecological catastrophes (caused, among other things, by the uncritical use of scientifically tested, and therefore harmless (!), substances) and chemical “sledgehammers”? Or why does ZM not depict in similarly extensive detail what happens if the only antibiotic of the latest generation still effective against resistant pathogens fails?

So please: how about a little more objectivity? Otherwise I shall soon need to read only the “dental Bild newspaper”.

With a request for publication of the entire letter,

Yours faithfully,