A normal diagram of the Patient-Doctor relationship:
Patient-> Medical Information/Research -> Doctor
A parasitical dysbiosis:
Patient - > Government Entity -> Doctor
How strange that people who are so concerned about foreign substances in their food and water would allow such a foreign entity into their relationship with their doctor.
The misinformation about Crohn’s disease treatment is a good study of this point. The FDA has approved Remicade to treat intestinal swelling in Crohns patients, among other drugs. But patients know that Remicade only treats a symptom, not the causal problem, so they go in search of alternative medicine therapies. Alternative products do not sell themselves as medicines, for risk of coming under the FDA, and misinformation about their virtues is common. I was only able to find one group of people in the United States looking into mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, as the causal factor in Crohns. Unfortunately because they do not have the partnership of the FDA their ability to continue their research and spread information is limited.
see
Dr Shafran M.A.P. Research
Spreading information about medical advancement is also risky. Anyone making medical claims is subject to new federal trade commission(FTC) scrutiny. Notice the disclaimers about medical advice that have quickly popped up on even some personal web-pages. See
FTC Crackdown
Furthermore because the FDA/FTC/and Dept Health and Human Services are viewed as authorities on medical information, it is difficult for private distribution of information to succeed. If you don't accept the governmental authorities then you hide in the 'Alternative Medicine' umbrella. As a result we have a flurry of spurious products like 'Coral Calcium' making outrageous claims. Of course this provides more fodder for the FDA to crack down on. It becomes a viscious cycle, with geniune medical innovations as the losers.
Government funded research is highly politicized. It is well documented that noisy demands for particular areas of research (usually along established lines) dominates the money that the government dispenses.
see Pharmacracy
Medicine and Politics in America
By Thomas Szasz (published by Greenwood Publishing, 2001)
Employer subsidized health plans are also slow to take on new therapies. They only pay for tried-and-true treatments, meaning that cutting edge research will have to be financed by someone else.
All the more reason why the medical field needs a free market to allow the better doctors and therapies to spread. In a completely free market information about the best therapies would spread and people would be able to spend their money on the best doctors, increasing business demand for the better products. The cure for the medical field dysbiosys is freedom from government interference.