The majority of the public has probably never heard this phrase, nor can they figure out its actual significance, since it is common practice not to question, let alone to oppose, the advice of a physician. However, a selected portion of the population follows what is called the “natural health” route, which in healthcare unfortunately and inevitably translates into an open war with the members of the medical establishment, or at least the majority of the group’s affiliates. For the natural health followers, the phrase: “You are wasting valuable time” becomes almost a refrain, accompanying every encounter with most mainstream health care providers.

So what kind of valuable time is being referenced with this phrase? Of course, the first assumption would be that it has some connection to the survival and well being of patients, considering that it is coming from a group of individuals who supposedly have chosen to dedicate their lives to assist and secure the public’s good health. Unfortunately, what people call reality is more often than not greatly disconnected from fundamental principles, expectations and even logic. As a result, the “Valuable Time”issue has more to do with the financial needs and wants of the provider, rather than the best interest of the recipients of health care.
When a patient goes to see a physician, he/she expects to hear the truth about what is ailing him/her, and because he/she is looking at the provider as a true and unselfish friend, who is going to make all of the pain, suffering and maladies disappear. They also expect for this to occur, possibly and preferably, with a single movement of the hand, as people with divine abilities are known to do. That is probably where the divinity complex of physicians finds its origin. However, humans are not divine creatures, especially not healthcare providers.

The roots of the present problems in the healthcare industry are found in many places; like hospitals, schools or drug manufacturers, but all of them have one common source, and that is GREED. So when a patient hears: “You wasted valuable time” by not coming to me/us first, it doesn’t really mean that the particular individual’s life would have benefitted from that choice. It simply means that you could have been subject to the standard taxing care at an earlier time, which would have benefitted me/us sooner, and possibly even help you, but not necessarily.

A reader might think that these are rather harsh words, and that is not what really happens in most cases; maybe occasionally, but not as a rule. To people following such a line of thought, we would like to point their attention to a few facts, to serve as evidence supporting our charges, and to that end, we would like to introduce the following questions:

In standard care, what is the difference between early versus late detection?
Aren’t both treated with the same sequence of so called remedies, maybe in various permutation of priorities, but never-the-less containing the same identical components? Early detection of any kind of cancer won’t save a patient from horribly scarring surgery, poisoning by legal drugs and burning by ionizing radiation. Of course, this is done under the pretense that early intervention translates into a life saving solution, because it increases your chances of survival.

The public should pay attention to details and realize that all you are hearing is “increased chances of survival”. Does that really have a meaning? Do chances of survival really sound promising? Especially when attached to many months of horrible suffering from “life saving” treatments?

Do they really save a patient who accepts and submits to them at a very early stage of the disease, when it isn’t even really clear if the dreaded malignancy is actually present? Does such a course of action really save the patient, or does it simply prolong the suffering?

Everyday we hear wonderful, inspiring stories of survivors; but what did they really survive? Take as an example a disease like prostate cancer, that might not have killed them in the first place so in the end, what did they survive; the disease or the treatment?

Still these examples constitute very happy stories, but for whom? Whose valuable time was not wasted? The patient‘s, whose disease was at such an early stage, he/she couldn’t even be sure he/she actually had it? Or was it the span of time during which the mainstream provider could enjoy large amounts of revenue from the misery of their patients?

Isn’t it true that the actual waste of time involves the acceptance of horribly damaging treatments that can shorten the patient’s life, or even some harmless but also worthless alternative remedies?

Isn’t it true that the real waste of valuable time comes into play when patients relinquish their right to think, forsaking the precious ability to make an educated choice?

Instead of buckling under the many surrounding pressures, accept what that little voice of common sense inside of you is telling you not to follow.