"If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." I don't know if I've got that exactly right, but put that way it fits my thinking about the medical profession these days. A few weeks back, I went to a specialist regarding my breathing problems. She recommended surgery. This despite the fact that my online research showed that other, noninvasive treatment options could be pursued first. Would it surprise anyone here to reveal that her specialty is a surgical one, that she probably thought she'd be doing the surgery on me?

Internists (a general name for MDs who aren't surgeons) follow the same general pattern: they try any number of medications -- typically available only by prescription, thereby ensuring repeat business as one must make appointments at regular intervals to get the valued permission slip again. In some cases, if the nostrums don't work, the person gets passed along to a surgeon to see if cutting will solve the problem. But cutting also creates problems, as I discovered after I had a tonsillectomy.

I've a friend who's an MD, but who's strayed from the allopathic model to focus on nutrition. He isn't opposed to using prescription meds where necessary, but he's highly skeptical of the medico-pharmaceutical system that dominates American medicine. Do you know how Premarin (one of the first estrogen drugs many women took for menopausal symptoms) got its name? The estrogens come from mares' urine. (Which do you think would work better in a woman's body -- horse-derived hormones or human ones? Or ones that are "bio-identical" -- meaning they come from plant sources, but are the same molecules as in our bodies?) That's just one example of how monopolistically-protected medicine is created, but they all have to be given some unique twist -- a special procurement process, or something extra added to the natural substance, like a hydroxyl molecule tacked on somewhere -- so they can be patented. Those extra ions or molecules may seem like a small thing, but who knows how much havoc they can wreak in a body that has never experienced that configuration before?

That's not to say that all things natural are healthful to every indivdual. My hyperactive immune system is proof that isn't true, as it complains about many natural substances when they enter my body. But it makes sense to me to keep things as simple as possible; and it also makes sense to me that industrial processing of foods -- even if they're "fortified" with vitamins and minerals in that processing -- messes with the chemistry of the food, and possibly diminishes its nutritive value to us. A recent article at Lew Rockwell reminded me of the Weston A Price Foundation, which I'd discovered some time ago. As far as I've read, it's pretty persuasive to me. It largely fits into my preference to make foods from scratch ... but I'm increasingly wondering how nutritious my meals are, when they rely on processed pastas, canned or frozen vegetables, and highly processed milk. John Mackey's comments on industrialized farming in my interview with him also set me to wondering about possible nutritional differences in vegetables ... the taste difference between a supermarket-bought tomato and one grown in one's garden surely arises from more than just picking the former before it's fully ripe.

Yet I hear from other medical professionals whom I know that those like my aforementioned friend are, at best, a step above oldtime snake oil salesmen. The major charge against them seems to be that they "push" their own formulations. Anybody else see the catch-22 here? We can't have the state meddling into medicine, but we can't have all these people creating and hawking their own wares ...

It's very confusing, even for a scientifically literate, smart snake like myself. Despite my enjoyment of gardening, I've little desire to return to an entirely pre-industrial mode of food-gathering and preparation; I've too many other interesting things I want to do. Yet there's got to be a better balance than I have now. I do know that the state's interference is much more harmful than beneficial -- for a somewhat-related take on this, see this interesting article on the meth-epidemic-that-really-isn't from the good folks at Stop the Drug War. Or the evidence that the anti-steroids hype is simply that. It's crystal clear that the state's interest is control, not my or my family's health. I intend to stay as far away from that as I can.

I don't know to what extent nutrition is the basis of poor health and disease; but it makes sense to me that it's an ongoing contributing factor. And if I can fairly safely stave off some of the undesirable effects of aging, I'm willing to give that a try, too. I'm not looking to get my twenty-something body back ... just to forestall the frailty and disease that often accompanies aging. So I've decided to give my nontraditional MD friend's approach a go. He may be another variant of the hammer-nail situation I described at the outset, but I've not given his hammer a thorough try yet.

My trust in him is based on three years of knowing him, hearing him speak on his approach and methods, and one personal datum: when I told him that I'm currently controlling my asthma fairly successfully with vitamin C, he smiled and said that's what he'd've recommended to me. He didn't try to sell me his vitamin C product(s), or his newsletter; we spoke of general nutritional issues and new medical research that might offer help for me. (Not that I'm opposed to his selling his products; it is, after all, how he earns his living.) His combined focus meshes well with what I want in a medical professional, so I'm going to place my trust in him and see what happens. I bet I won't have to worry about my medical records from his clinic being assimilated by the medicrats, either. Heh.