Great Construction

Dissection of Medical Science 

     Having written so far in general terms about the errors in medical science, I will now turn and apply a sharp scalpel to these errors and dissect them thoroughly. It is not my intention to censure medical science in particular, but only to point out as error that which is in error, to present the situation as it really is, so I hope that what I have to say is read with an open mind. Explanation will probably be served best by describing what actually occurs with a doctor and a patient. First of all, when patients inquire about their condition, doctors do not give decisive replies. Exceedingly vague and hazy, their responses are perfunctory. When talking to a patient, for example, they cannot make definite statements regardless the disease that happens to be involved. They say they think the patient will recover. You will recover, that is what the medical books say. The treatment I propose is known to be effective. There is no other therapy. Depending on how you recuperate, there is no way you will not absolutely recover. Since your condition usually occurs only in one out of ten thousand persons (or for some other reason), you should be hospitalized. “If I am hospitalized, will I recover?” asks the patient, but the doctor replies that no promises can be given. The language is indeed inconsistent. Doctors themselves probably know all too well how often their prognoses differ from what will actually happen.
     At the initial diagnosis, the usual procedures of percussion, ascultation, erythrocyte sedimentation testing, infusion reaction measurement, biopsy examination, the use of respirometers, thermometers, x-rays, and so on, that is, tests using mechanical techniques are conducted, and if medical science were truly scientific, these measures alone should be more than sufficient to make a proper diagnose. Still, doctors proceed further to inquire about the cause of death of parents, siblings, grand parents, even of great-grand parents, and case history, previous conditions, and other information concerning the patient are also deeply probed. Implementation of all these measures no doubt arises from a desire to be thorough, but to tell the truth it can be said that these actions are taken because medical science lacks in scientific validity. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that all requisite measures are taken and the patient still does not recover as expected means either that the diagnosis was not accurate or that the therapy was mistaken or perhaps even both. Indeed, probably not even ten out of a hundred patients truly recover. Even supposing that these individuals appear to have recovered, recovery is only temporary and peace of mind is not to be had. In most cases patients experience either a recurrence of their condition or come down with another malady. Truly doubtful could be said to be the number of patients who actually experience complete recovery. There is no need for me to spell out this situation. All of you who are doctors should be well acquainted with what happens to patients. One example of what I am talking about is the existence of the phrase “physician in charge.” If patients were accurately diagnosed and truly healed by the theories and therapies of medical science, there should be no use for concepts and expressions such as “physician in charge.”
     As the above shows, were diseases truly healed by medical science, the number of afflicted should gradually decrease, the profession of doctor disappear, hospitals fall into bankruptcy because operations had become uneconomical, and medical facilities should have to be sold off. But the reality is quite the opposite. Limiting observation to the conditions that involve tuberculosis, each year grow louder the cries about the lack of sanatoriums and beds. Expenses related to tuberculosis as reported by the government for both the public and private sectors roughly amount to over one hundred billion yen each year, truly an astonishing figure. When all these factors are considered as a whole, despite the reality that somewhere within contemporary medical science must be a great defect, it is mystifying that this point is not perceived. The world has been completely taken in by material science, so other theories and therapies are not examined.
     Given these circumstances, I have grave doubts about the scientific validity of diagnoses. In the case of one patient where several doctors may give various opinions, this means the diagnostic method is very low in scientific validity. If such a thing as a set scientific standard could be said to exist, there is no reason different doctors should come up with varying diagnoses. Were medical science truly effective, the families of doctors should have fewer cases of illness than members of the general public, they should be healthy, and doctors themselves be long-lived. But most people know that the reality is that doctors and members of their families are not simply the same as that of the general population, but rather that there is an even greater amount of unhealthiness among those affiliated with the medical profession. Moreover, there should be no such thing as “too late” for members of doctors’ families, since it is obvious that they have access to the latest therapies, so from any perspective it is hard to understand why doctors and their families should be so unhealthy. The inconsistencies do not stop here. When the members of a doctor’s family do get sick, in spite of the fact that one would think it only common sense that the doctor who is a husband or a father would want to treat the patient directly, the doctor has a friend or a colleague look after the patient. Such action is puzzling. If doctors were so concerned about family members, they should not be able to entrust their care to anyone else. In this regard is often heard the argument from doctors who say that when the patient is a family member, hesitation and doubt may arise, and diagnosis becomes difficult to make. If that is the case, their medical diagnoses possess no scientific validity whatsoever and are supported only by a large amount of estimate and conjecture.
    I once listened to the recollections of a certain doctor. He said that illness is not accurately understood by doctors at all and that assertion is borne out by results which can not even be publicly acknowledged from the autopsies performed at general hospitals where there is a large number in which the cause of death does not match the original diagnosis and that it is the case that treatment undertaken thinking it would heal, rather made the condition worse, often to a dangerous point, taking life. How to explain such a situation to the patient and to the family often occupied his thoughts, making for many sleepless nights. He said that this dilemma was what gave all doctors the most distress which I found quite persuasive.
     The science of medicine is said to have made tremendous advances, but as diagnoses and results differ so greatly, there are even some doctors who do not trust medical treatments and rely on mental or spiritual techniques, a tendency seen in older more, experienced practitioners. Quite well known is the deathbed poem of Dr. Tatsukichi Irisawa, “The medicine I thought wouldn’t / Work, I gave to my patient / Anyway, thinking it / My duty to do so, and now / I have to take it myself.” In another instance, a doctor with whom I occasionally visit and enjoy pleasant conversation comes to see me when he or some member of his own family becomes ill and he believes he cannot heal the condition. He is very happy because I can effect a cure right away. In the past, there was a professor of medicine at a certain well-known university whom I was able to heal in a short time of his chronic neuralgia as well as the pulmonary disease of his daughter. The wife was so happy that she urged her husband to quit his work as a doctor and cooperate with me by channeling Johrei. The doctor, however, was not able to make such a decision for reasons dealing with position, reputation, and income, and even now continues as before as a doctor. Another interesting episode occurred some ten odd years ago when I was asked to see the wife of an important businessman for the facial nerve paralysis which caused her face to appear extraordinarily hideous. At that time I cautioned that no form of medical treatment whatsoever should be performed, but some members of the family were rather insistent, and she went to a large general hospital for an examination only. During that visit, the head of the hospital, a well-known doctor who was also an acquaintance of mine, as a courtesy met with her and told her the condition would naturally heal in about two years if left alone, so the customary diathermic treatments should not be pursued. The doctor then asked if she had not been told to have the treatment performed at the hospital. To which she replied, “As you say, they recommended it, but I refused.” The doctor then said, “That is good.” I was impressed that in this world there are some great doctors. The woman recovered completely in two months.
     Next I will proceed to an explanation of the specific errors of medical science.

Creation of Civilization, unpublished manuscript, 1952
    translated by cynndd