Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I picked this book from the shelf because the author's theory of health appealed to me. I am a doctor and agree that modern medicine is not successful in many areas, especially in prevention of diseases. However, this book left me disappointed. The book is biased. Facts are not selected objectively, but at author's convinience. Of course, traditional chapter on "doctor-bashing", totally distorted and presented one-sidedly. Many discussions are unscientific. Are patients with rheumatoid arthritis that are taking non-steroidal drugs do worse because of these drugs, or are they put on these drugs because their disease is more severe? Yes, aspirin can cause bleeding, but what about it reducing risk of heart attack, benefit that outweighs the risk, so that more lives are saved than lost? Yes, unnecessary prescription of antibiotics is very bad, but on the other hand many lives are being saved daily by giving these drugs to people. I have a feeling that most anti-allopathic references were taken from medical dissidents, similar to those who claim that AIDS is not caused by the virus. By the way, are there really more people employed by AIDS industry than AIDS sufferers? Source? Claims from Nobel laureate Linus Pauling about miracles of vitamin C were disproven in many scientificly conducted objective studies. Present opinion (based on science) claims that there are little benefits from taking high doses of this substance, and its preventative properties are at best marginal. Still, the author conveniently skips these facts in order to support his case, and recommends this drug for prevention of colds. By the way, the placebo effect, ascribed to medical treatments in the book, is well recognized and accepted in allopathic medicine. Every clinical trial measures effects of new treatments against placebo. Yes, many drugs help on the basis of placebo effect. But so are numerous supplements from "natural" medicine. In "natural" medicine, in fact, there are very few objectively conducted scientific studies on efficacy of health products, and most "natural" drugs are given on the basis of anecdotal evidence, i.e. vitamin C helped that guy to get rid of colds, and vitamin E cured that woman of cancer etc. My favourite is the editorial reference on the back cover, where woman treated by Ray Francis "returned to work, making a six-figure income". Does he have treatment for seven-figure salary? While thre are valid points in the book on health education and necessary emphasis on disease prevention, in general, it is biased, opinionated and, I agree with one of the previous reviewer, the title is arrogant. Health and disease is very complex subject. There is place and time for all modalities of prevention and treatment, including naturopathic medicine. However, claims and opinions must be substantiated by scientific methods and not preferences and opinions.