Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

How the American Medical Association Got Rich

By Dana Ullman, North Atlantic Books. Posted April 10, 2008.


The "AMA Seal of Approval" on drugs and food becomes a legal form of bribery.
Advertisement

The following is an excerpt from "The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy" (Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2007) by Dana Ullman, MPH.

History reveals that the AMA was dictatorially led for the first half of the twentieth century by George H. Simmons, MD (1852-1937) and his protégé, Morris Fishbein, MD (1889-1976). Simmons and Fishbein both served as general manager of the organization and as editor of its journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). While these two leaders provided substantial benefit to the organization and to medical doctors, their methods of doing so have been severely criticized, with some historians referring to them as "medical Mussolinis."

When George H. Simmons began in 1899 what became a twenty-five-year reign as head of the AMA, it was a weak organization with little money and little respect from the general public. The advertising revenue from the medical journal was a paltry $34,000 per year. Simmons came up with the idea to transform the AMA into a big business by granting the AMA's "seal of approval" to certain drug companies that placed large and frequent ads in JAMA and its various affiliate publications. By 1903, advertising revenue increased substantially, to $89,000, and by 1909, JAMA was making $150,000 per year. In 1900, the AMA had only 8,000 members, but by 1910, it had more than 70,000. This substantial increase in advertising revenue and membership was not the result of new effective medical treatments, for there were virtually no medical treatments from this era that were effective enough to be used by doctors today or even just a couple of decades later.

Some critics of the AMA have called their seal-of-approval program a form of extortion because the AMA did no testing of any products. When George Abbott, owner of a large drug company, Abbott Biologicals (known today as Abbott Laboratories), did not provide "blackmail" money to the AMA and when none of his products were granted AMA approval, Abbott went on the offensive. He arranged for an investigation of the AMA president that revealed that Simmons had no credible medical credentials, that he worked primarily as an abortion doctor for many years, and that he had had sex charges brought by some of his patients as well as charges of negligence in the deaths of others. After this meeting, the drugs made by Abbott Laboratories were regularly approved, and the company was not required to place any ads.

Simmons was shrewd enough to have the AMA establish a Council on Medical Education in 1904. This council's mission was to upgrade medical education -- a worthy goal. The formation of the council seemed a good idea to homeopaths because surveys in JAMA itself had consistently shown that the graduates of the conventional medical schools failed the medical board examinations at almost twice the rate of graduates of homeopathic colleges. However, the AMA developed guidelines to give lower ratings to homeopathic colleges. For instance, just having the word "homeopathic" in the name of a school had an effect on the rating because the AMA asserted that such schools taught "an exclusive dogma."

In 1910, the same year that the Flexner report was published, the AMA published "Essentials of an Acceptable Medical College", which echoed similar criteria for medical education and a disdain for non-conventional medical study. In fact, the AMA's head of the Council on Medical Education traveled with Abraham Flexner as they evaluated medical schools. The medical sociologist Paul Starr wrote in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book: "The AMA Council became a national accrediting agency for medical schools, as an increasing number of states adopted its judgments of unacceptable institutions." Further, he noted: "Even though no legislative body ever set up ... the AMA Council on Medical Education, their decisions came to have the force of law". With the AMA grading the various medical colleges, it became predictable that the homeopathic colleges, even the large and respected ones, would eventually be forced to stop teaching homeopathy or die.

In 1913, Simmons and the AMA went on the offensive even more strongly by their establishment of the "Propaganda Department," which was specifically dedicated to attacking any and all unconventional medical treatments and anyone (MD or not) who practiced them. In this same year, Simmons hired Morris Fishbein, MD, as a publicity man for the AMA.

In 1924, Simmons was forced out of the AMA due to the many scandals around him, and he took home all his personal files and burned them, though Simmons was again wise enough to have trained his replacement, Morris Fishbein. Fishbein's specialty was publicity and the media, and he used the media to attack anyone who provided a real or perceived threat to conventional medicine. Besides severe attacks against anyone who practiced unconventional medical treatments, Fishbein and the AMA were also initially extremely antagonistic to those conventional medical doctors who supported pre-paid health insurance.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: health, medicine, homeopathy, ama

Dana Ullman is the author of seven leading books on homeopathy.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
AMA Now Trying To Do Better....
Posted by: drricklippin on Apr 10, 2008 10:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....but it is much too little-much too late.

Medical consumers remain way ahead of organized medicine on Alternative Therapies.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AMA Now Trying To Do Better.... Posted by: boydranchitos
Doesn't the AMA also hold the monopoly on accreditation of doctors?
Posted by: nightgaunt on Apr 10, 2008 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a rumor that the AMA carefully monitors the number of accreditations of doctors to keep the numbers low to maintain high standards of payment for them.
Certainly the AMA verse AHA would be an interesting what if to contemplate.
I believe that the American Homeopathic Association was formed just a few years before the AMA. I just can't locate the dates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Long on the AMA's ills, short on homeopathy's, er, "virtues"
Posted by: brachiator on Apr 10, 2008 9:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fortunately, this piece did not deliver what the sub-headline promised, namely, indications that the AMA was "unfairly attacking and discrediting homeopathic medicine." Nothing in the article addresses whether criticisms of homeopathy are "unfair" or unjustified.

In fact, the criticisms and labels of "quackery" seem to be justified. Homeopathy relies upon a dubious philosophy ("like cures like") and posits a mode of action that is not credible (mystical effects of compounds that were once in the potions but have since been radically diluted or entirely diluted out). In addition to these failings, homeopathic treatments do not seem any better than placebo in properly-run trials. Factor in a tendency of some homeopaths to counsel against medical treatment, and the net result is quite negative.

The AMA may be chock-full of incorrigible and corrupt bastards, but that isn't really relevant to whether homeopathy is a fraud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's Not Conflate
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Apr 11, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not conflate two things here that are unrelated: the AMA and medicine.

The two are NOT related.

In fact, this article seems to lean in the direction that homeopathic medicine ia superior to allopathic cures.

That is not true. Evidence is always required to prove something, whether it's our Iraq policy, the existence of Jesus, why a prism splits light or whether an almond a day will make you live to be 100 years old.

Evidence and proof.

I suspect that at the time the AMA was organized medicine was in its infancy. Indeed, herbal cures had been around for thousands of years before the germ theory of disease was PROVEN. Thus, the reason for homeopathic 'cures' being so popular.

Clearly, tho the originators of the AMA were simply doing what other barons of the day did: went with a hyper-capitalism model to make money.

Originally, the AMA was not a purveyor of truth or medicine. But it's evolved over the decades into something it wasn't originally intended to be.

But my point is to NOT believe that medicine is bad or is on the wrong track. After all, no homeopathic remedy will mend a broken bone, fix your deviated septum, prevent an infected appendix from bursting or stop your pancreatic cancer from killing you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's Not Conflate Posted by: kneuhaus
Slam the Opposition abut Don't rrevela Your Own FRAUD
Posted by: hadashito on Apr 14, 2008 3:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ullman's book is a hit piece aimed at the profession of which he would likely love to be a part because he could make more money bilking unsuspecting patients and hitting up Medicare for income. The "profession" of homoeopathy is a fraud. Do a little research and you will find numerous independent studies (not sponsored by the AMA) indicating with little doubt that homeopathic "medicine" is worthless - - as is chiropracty, despite the fact that the two "alternate medical" boonoggles are practiced widely in the USA and Europe, often with results that do much harm to patients who then fail do obtain proper care.
If you bother to check out the situation in Arizona, for example, the Arizona Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners, which is reponsible for "policing" and handing out homeopathic practice licenses is finally being audited by the Arizona legislature after a long series of violations allowing some of the most horrifyng malpractice cases on record to go unpunished, and the perpetrators allowed to continue thier practices.
Many of the homeopthic "doctors" now practicing do not in fact practice homeopathy at all, but instead perform illegal procedures such as injections of "alternate remedies", liposuctions, sell herbals of all sorts, run "spas", and everything and anything that will bring in the money. They prey especially on the elderly. AZ is a favorite location for the frauds (homeopthic, chiropractic, naturopathic, "holistic", and a raft of others) because so many gullible retirees live in the Phoenix area. Some are MD's who have lost their licenses but have very easily obtained homeopathic practice licenses in AZ from the most lax "alternate" medical practice boards imaginable. And a goodly number of those practicing now have once served jail sentences for malpractice as (former) MD's.
If you want a more detailed account, contact John Dickerson at john.dickerson@newtimes.com or read his extensive article entitled "DR. LOOPHOLE" in the Phoenix New Times, Vol 39, Apr. 10-16, 2008. Google the Phoenix New Times and learn something about the vast fraud that is homeopathy.
Ullman is their bag man and just as much a menace as the Arizona Homeopathic Board.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

self-medicating requires a lot of research
Posted by: ibivi on Apr 14, 2008 6:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too many people are attempting to treat themselves without doing their homework and that is dangerous. There are a lot of supplements that have harmful effects and most people just don't have the proper knowledge to ensure that they are treating themselves effectively and safely. Patients need all the information available to make appropriate decisions about their treatment. There is no magic tonic for anything. Lifestyle changes and good monitoring are crucial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do No Harm
Posted by: Urgelt on Apr 18, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My view of the AMA is that it is an entrenched and devoted promotor of special interests. And those interests do not often coincide with those of the medical consumer.

My view of homeopathy is that it is based on a pair of theories over 200 years old which are nonsense: established in an era when very little was known about chemistry and physiology. Those theories, paraphrased, are:

1) Find a chemical which produces the same symptom in a patient as the disease produces, and it will relieve the symptom and fight the disease.

2) If you dilute a solution, a "beneficial essence" of a chemical in solution remains potent, while harmful side-effects of that chemical are reduced. (In homeopathy, the dilution is very extreme.)

Obvious nonsense. And yet homeopathic doctors do often help their patients.

For one thing, they are not ignorant of the body of knowledge which guides modern medicine. They study it and use it, though they don't depend on the pharmaceutical industry as AMA doctors do. For another, homeopathic doctors study traditional herbal medicine - a body of knowledge too often ignored by AMA doctors. Too, the placebo effect is genuine. Patients who believe in them can be helped by solutions so diluted, instruments can detect only water.

But perhaps most important, homeopathic doctors try very hard to "do no harm." That's important in the practice of medicine.

I'm reminded of anecdotes coming out of the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu. The death rate for AMA doctors was hideous, while most patients of homeopathic doctors lived through it.

The explanation? AMA doctors freely prescribed aspirin, which can produce Reye's Syndrome in severe influenza cases and is the likely cause of much of the death toll. Homeopathic doctors avoided drugs, including aspirin, relying on their water remedies and traditional folk medicine (don't sneer - a cool cloth on the forehead can help you survive an extreme fever). Homeopathic patients didn't contract Reye's Syndrome; very few died.

Here's the thing we all need to know about modern medicine: it's primitive. We don't know how to do it right. Drugs especially are a blunt hammer on a Swiss watch; they often do more harm than good.

Science doesn't understand cellular biochemistry. Not understanding cellular biochemistry, we do not know what most drugs do. It doesn't help that each person is different; there are perhaps millions of variables in how a person will respond to a particular drug dose. Nor does it help that pharmaceutical companies routinely fudge their studies and reveal only half-truths about their drugs in advertising and educational seminars. Half-truths are lies, people. They lead to false conclusions.

It's a completely safe bet that 90% or more of the drugs on the market today will be withdrawn within 50 years for lack of efficacy or unacceptable risk.

The doctor who acknowledges his ignorance and follows the advice, "first, do no harm," will inevitably come out looking pretty good. Homeopaths take this dictum more seriously than AMA doctors, I think.

They also attempt to find uses for traditional herbal remedies, which I see as a good thing. Herbal remedies are a vast, largely untapped store of mecial utility. Science largely ignores it, because science's bill-payers are excited about patentable drugs (e.g. gold mines), not stuff you can grow in your back yard on the cheap.

All in all, knowing what I do of science and medicine, I can't dismiss homeopaths, however whacky their underlying theories. Those theories aren't any whackier than pharameutical-dominated medicine, and they're considerably more honest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE AMA HAS THE POWER TO ACCREDIT MEDICAL SCHOOLS OWNED BY THE TAXPAYERS.
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Apr 20, 2008 11:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moreover, they have the power to determine how many students the school can enroll. You don't suppose they might cause an artificial doctor shortage to keep the prices up?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ArroyoWash
Posted by: arroyowash on May 4, 2008 6:14 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Phoenix, Arizona. I attended the hearings at the state legislature concerning the homeopathic physicians. And I read the New Times article referenced in a prior post.

It appears the person who posted either has an unrevealed agenda or is utterly unfamiliar with the inaccurate nature of sensational weekly tabloids.

There was no malpractice to investigate. No accusations of preying upon the elderly. In fact, there were 7000 satisfied patients who submitted petitions in support of keeping the board that oversees Arizona’s homeopathic physicians.

Homeopathy was introduced to America in 1825. America of the 1800's was predominantly rural and most areas had no physician close at hand.

Mothers were able to treat their children's problems easily and inexpensively. Homeopathy spread like wild fire. Many people successfully treated typhoid, cholera, measles, mumps, tuberculosis, smallpox and other diseases with homeopathic remedies and without doctors. During the Influenza Pandemic of 1918, some 24,000 cases of flu treated allopathically had a mortality rate of 28.2% while 26,000 cases of flu treated homeopathically had a mortality rate of 1.05%.

But its success also triggered an ugly competitive turf war with the allopaths who had powerful friends. After the turn of the century, Rockefeller and Carnegie funded efforts to shut down the schools of homeopathy. The homeopaths did not use the drugs that the benefactors of the AMA wanted them to use.

Homeopathy survived competitive attempts to squash it; it is here to stay.

Classical homeopathy was developed by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann in Germany more than 200 years ago; the principles were expressed in Chinese medicine and in the ancient world over 2,000 years ago.

In Dr. Hahnemann's day, very powerful toxic substances were being used as medicines. For example, mercury was injected as a cure for syphilis. The fashionable treatments were more harmful than effective. Dr. Hahnemann stopped using them because he felt the effect of the medicine was worse than the effect of the disease which they purported to treat.

We are not so different today. We continue to inject mercury and viruses into the most vulnerable members of our society, the very young and the very old, in an effort to treat or prevent disease. In the process, we have inadvertently raised an entire generation of children with autism, pervasive developmental disorders, ADHD, asthma, diabetes and other chronic illness. We give antipsychotic medications to children, despite the side effects of extreme carbohydrate cravings and weight gain. Most high blood pressure is deemed to be "idiopathic" meaning it has no discernible cause. And it is suppressed with pharmaceutical medication alone, with no curiosity as to what is the source of the high blood pressure. A lot of what is done in the name of medicine is not understood.

Homeopathic physicians make use of homeopathic remedies and other methods of healing that are “outside of the box” of conventional western medicine. They were among the first to recognize that our environment has impacted our health to the point 7 out of 10 Americans today die of a chronic disease. At best, drugs manage chronic diseases. At best, homeopathy – and other alternative methods used by homeopathic physicians – heal diseases. At worst, drugs kill – Vioxx killed 60,000; chemo has killed countless more. At worst, homeopathy doesn’t work – finding just the right remedy is an art.

Many people today still do not understand how or why homeopathy works. If it were conventional medicine’s Standard of Care, more would. In the meantime, the American public is voting with their feet, increasingly walking away from conventional Standards of Care that all too often merely want to drug them and their children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]