Runny nose

How to raise a healthy child Mendelssohn. How to raise a healthy child despite doctors, Robert Mendelssohn

Robert Mendelsohn is an American pediatrician who has gained worldwide fame thanks to his deep medical knowledge, rich practical experience and unconventional approach to the treatment of children. Dr. Mendelsohn actively promoted his views, despite the fierce opposition of official medicine, which had long ago turned into a monstrous money machine and manipulating the consciousness of patients to achieve its own material benefits. Mendelsohn risked losing his medical license and the right to engage in private practice, but did not stop fighting for the health of his patients. He has participated in many educational shows and television programs, telling the truth about the negative consequences of conventional treatment. In 1986, the brave doctor was awarded the prestigious R. Carson Award for his services, and his books were repeatedly published in many countries in hundreds of thousands of copies.

In his work “How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Doctors,” Mendelsohn reveals the problems and vices of official medicine. According to the firm conviction of the author, doctors themselves are victims of the system, suffering from “regulated stupidity”, which future doctors are taught in institutes. At the same time, while criticizing pediatricians, Dr. Mendelson did not make an exception for himself. He admitted that for many years he remained hostage to conventional medical philosophy, and began to doubt its principles only when he himself began teaching.

Although Mendelssohn was not a homeopath, he perceived disease close to the homeopathic point of view, believing that the human body is inextricably linked with his psyche, and disease is a natural reaction to the dynamics of life and helps move towards health. Modern medicine, as a rule, is aimed at suppressing the symptoms of the disease, so standard treatment often leads to various side effects, and ultimately to chronic diseases. Supporting homeopathy, Dr. Mendelssohn wrote the introduction to the famous.

The main advice that Robert Mendelsohn gives in the book “How to Raise a Healthy Child Despite the Doctors” is that you should not consult a doctor unless necessary, since most childhood illnesses do not require medical intervention at all. The author’s conclusions and recommendations are based on the following:

at least 95% of typical childhood illnesses go away on their own;
the risk of unnecessary medical procedures often exceeds the harm from the consequences of the disease;
pediatricians often strive to meet the expectations of parents, and therefore prescribe treatment unnecessarily, just to reassure anxious mothers and fathers;
the body’s natural desire for self-healing usually heals better than any doctors;
at least 90% of medications prescribed by pediatricians are unnecessary and also have a toxic effect, so their abuse can lead to loss of health. In addition, the idea formed in childhood of the existence of a “magic pill” for any disease eventually develops into a tendency to turn to medication even for minor ailments;
at least 90% of surgical interventions on a child’s body are performed without sufficient grounds, and any operation puts the life of a small patient in danger;
not all pediatricians are well versed in dietetics and pharmacology; for this reason, children treated by them often suffer from the doctor’s inability to select appropriate nutritional therapy and from ignorant prescriptions that do not take into account the side effects of medications;
Parents, as a rule, are not able to assess the situation when a child is ill in order to understand whether a doctor is needed in this particular case, or whether they themselves will be able to support the child’s body in order to help him overcome the disease.

After reading the book “How to Raise a Child Healthy in Spite of Doctors,” parents will learn how to distinguish conditions that require medical attention from conditions when medical intervention is not advisable, but good rest, parental care and care are needed. The author talks about various medications and procedures, noting those that are not beneficial and those that can lead to dangerous consequences. Mendelssohn convincingly speaks about the primary importance of parental skills and knowledge when helping a sick child, as well as the need for proper baby nutrition that promotes the healthy development of a growing organism. Many readers call Dr. Mendelson’s book “the alphabet for parents,” where important and complex things are explained in simple and understandable language.

You can buy the book “How to raise a healthy child in spite of doctors” from the publishing house “Homeopathic Book” (we published this book and sell it at the lowest price). Place an order on the website, using the tips given in the section, and very soon you will have in your hands a unique guide that will allow you to learn how to properly care for children, increase self-confidence and, thanks to this, raise children strong and healthy. You will find detailed information about delivery options and payment methods in the and sections. If you have any questions, you can call the phone number listed on the website - qualified publishing staff will be happy to provide the necessary assistance.

890 RUB

Robert S. Mendelsohn (1926-1988), leading American pediatrician, was born in Chicago, Illinois.

He received his Doctor of Medicine degree after graduating from the University of Chicago in 1951.

Known for his radical views on modern medicine.

He especially criticized pediatric practice, vaccination, obstetrics, and the dominance of male doctors in gynecology.

In the early 80s he was president of the National Health Federation. He chaired the Illinois State Medical Licensing Board. Actively promoting his views, he spoke at conferences and meetings of the National Federation of Health, wrote a news bulletin and the “People's Doctor” column in several national newspapers, and participated in more than five hundred talk shows on television and radio.

ordinary

Weight (in grams):

384

	about the author	7
	Molly Kaliger. My Mendelssohn	8
	Introduction	15
Chapter 1.	Most troubles go away in the morning	20
Chapter 2.	Parents are wiser than doctors	25
Chapter 3.	How doctors make healthy children sick	36
Chapter 4.	Protecting the child before birth and in the first days of life	47
Chapter 5.	Child nutrition	65
Chapter 6.	What can you expect from your child?	76
Chapter 7.	Temperature is the body’s defense against illness.	85
Chapter 8.	Headache: most often from emotions, but the most real one	98
Chapter 9	“My tummy hurts!”	108
Chapter 10.	Cough and runny nose	116
Chapter 11.	The mystical threat of streptococcal sore throat	126
Chapter 12.	Ear infections: painful but usually not dangerous	140
Chapter 13.	How to protect your child's vision	151
Chapter 14.	Skin problems - the curse of adolescence	158
Chapter 15.	Skeletons in the orthopedist's closet	177
Chapter 16.	Accidents and injuries	184
Chapter 17.	Asthma and allergies: diet instead of medications	203
Chapter 18.	A child who never sits still for a minute	209
Chapter 19.	Vaccinations against diseases: a ticking time bomb?	218
Chapter 20.	Hospitals: where to go to get sick	239
Chapter 21.	How to choose a doctor for your child	245
	Subject index	248

Preface

My Mendelssohn

Our first meeting with Robert Mendelsohn took place not in a doctor's office, but at his home in the upper-middle class suburb of Chicago. A week before, I gave birth to my first child.

By the end of my pregnancy, I came to understand some important things. I saw that natural life processes were being driven into artificial frameworks, and I was convinced from my own experience that in order to prevent drug effects on pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period, young parents need to make titanic efforts. I have seen how exhausting it is to protect yourself and your children from social pressure to do things “the right way.”

Going to meet a certain Dr. Robert Mendelson, I did not yet know that he was an idol of the Natural Health Movement. On that sunny May day, almost twenty years ago, I knew only one thing: I have a daughter and I must protect her from all diseases. Only later did I realize that God himself brought us together.

Dr. Mendelsohn did not examine his daughter, but invited us into the living room. We drank tea, and he talked about his pediatric practice, about his teaching at the University of Illinois School of Medicine, about the harm caused to children by modern medicine. For the first time in my life, I heard from a doctor an unexpected call that stunned me to avoid doctors at every possible opportunity. Whatever he said went against generally accepted medical practice. Within three hours, all my stereotypes about medical monitoring of children were turned to dust. In accordance with the doctor’s position, I, as a mother, had to take full responsibility for the health of my child and not entrust his care to anyone.

When we left his house, my head was spinning. Everything solid and true, which until now had given me support and confidence, disappeared, leaving in its place emptiness and uncertainty. This feeling haunted me for quite some time. It took time to understand that no one but me would protect my child.

Soon after our first meeting, my fears for my daughter's health gave way to a fierce instinct to protect her from medical intervention. This began a fundamental restructuring of my consciousness on principles that later became the essence of my life. Then, of course, I could not yet feel the immeasurable value of the wealth that, through the providence of the Lord God, Dr. Mendelssohn handed me.

What was this man like, in the past an ordinary pediatrician, who became a symbol of hope, freedom, truth and faith for thousands of people? What did he do to deserve their deep respect and love? How did he do it?

Robert Mendelsohn was a charming conversationalist. I wanted to listen to him endlessly. Even his most serious lectures were marked by liveliness and brilliant wit. He loved life. His powerful confidence in the child’s initial health was involuntarily transmitted to those around him. For thousands of parents, it served as the foundation on which they built relationships with their children. He was principled and categorical. He never sat on two chairs and was not a servant of two masters. Twenty-five years of medical practice convinced him that modern medicine practices the dirtiest “religion”, which, first of all, sacrifices defenseless and innocent children.

Going against this “religion” in America in the second half of the 20th century, he risked losing his license and the right to practice medicine, and was subjected to direct persecution. An American doctor (and now most doctors in the world) acts like a member of an elite club: he sacredly guards corporate secrets and is bound by mutual responsibility. American medicine has long turned into a monstrous Machine, crushing everyone who stands in its way. It is supported by politicians and authorities, owns a significant part of the national capital and, directly or indirectly, manipulates the consciousness of a huge number of Americans. She arrogated to herself the authority to interfere in a person’s life and manage his health. Nowhere are her self-inflicted claims expressed as clearly and terribly as in pediatrics. The child has not yet been born, and his fate has already been predetermined by doctors.

Pediatricians are guaranteed a truly inexhaustible flow of patients, from the moment of birth doomed to regularly scheduled examinations, vaccinations and medications. Playing on the natural fear of parents for the health of the child, children's doctors subjugate them completely and completely. Often they are ready to take the place of God. The child becomes a victim of medical kidnapping, a hostage. And the parents become completely dependent on the kidnapper-pediatrician. And they agree to any conditions and procedures, shell out any money, just to get a “guarantee” of their child’s health.

The principle “the more the merrier” always has a hypnotic effect. Parents for the most part are convinced: the more examinations by “narrow” specialists, vaccines, tests and pills, the healthier the child. But the time has come, and the first daredevils set off against the tide, rebelled against the herd instinct. They were immediately declared insane, unable to care for their children. In the United States, there are many cases of deprivation of parental rights only on the grounds that parents refused vaccinations and conventional treatment prescribed for their children. Their children were handed over to foster parents appointed by the government for further education!

Doctor Robert Mendelsohn appeared in the midst of this obscurantism like a knight on a white horse. Risking his career, he bravely said what he was sure of at numerous conferences and meetings of the National Federation of Health, gave lectures, and wrote books about the invisible secrets of health. For those who sought truth and justice in medicine, he became a liberating hero.

Liberation is not easy. The long path to rethinking “traditional” values goes through many doubts and mental suffering. I also went through this path. I remember how, at the invitation of Dr. Mendelson, I first attended an anti-vaccination conference. To my great surprise, almost all the speakers were experienced doctors of various specializations.

An even stronger shock awaited me during the break. At the tea table, Dr. Mendelssohn introduced us to a group of people, among whom were several disabled people. These were parents with children injured by vaccinations. I remember one family well - a father, a mother and their twenty-year-old son in a wheelchair. The mother gave the young man tea, and every sip was given to him with great difficulty. The father explained that a normal, healthy child became disabled after being vaccinated against diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus and polio. Other parents told similar stories. Many of them had thick folders with publications about the dangers of vaccination and photographs of maimed children. All of these children had damage to the central nervous system.

In the first year of our acquaintance, we saw Dr. Mendelson regularly, but not about my daughter’s illnesses; she was not particularly ill, but for educational purposes. Thanks to his encouragement, I began my education in home midwifery and then homeopathy. Not immediately, but soon enough I realized the harm of scheduled visits to pediatricians and medical recommendations. But still, I did not have complete confidence that I could cope with any childhood illness on my own. I was calm because Dr. Mendelsohn was always nearby.

When, already at home, and not in a hospital room, I gave birth to my second child, I called Dr. Mendelsohn - told the good news and asked him to meet. He congratulated me warmly and said that he would be waiting for me at any time. But we never saw each other: a month and a half later he was gone. He always said that a person should be born and die at home. And he died the way he wanted - in his bed, in the presence of his wife. His death was announced on all Chicago radio programs, and more than a thousand people came to see him off on his last journey.

The death of Dr. Mendelssohn plunged me into despair. While he was alive, I knew who to rely on in any threatening situation. Now that he was gone, I had to look my fears in the eye. I had to overcome the feeling of sudden uncertainty, taking a leap over the abyss of fear of death. This period lasted a year for me, and Dr. Robert Mendelson helped me get through it. I never tired of learning from him unconditional trust in a person’s life force; in difficult moments, his living image appeared before me. His departure, his absence, served as both a test of my strength and a catalyst for internal transformation. Everything he said took on real meaning and significance.

Dr. Mendelsohn did not offer magic pills for all occasions. He had nothing ready - methods, formulas, schemes, courses of treatment. He did not practice herbal medicine, acupuncture, massage or iridology. Denying modern medicine, he did not invent a panacea. He lived by faith in God, perceiving life as it was. One day, when I was visiting him, I saw him standing in the kitchen, eating peanut butter straight from the jar. “My doctor says it’s contraindicated for me,” he said with a smile. “And I like it!”

Mendelssohn knew that science could not explain the cause of the disease. He knew that the body and psyche of a complete person are inseparable, that they cannot be considered separately from each other. The essence of his teaching is extremely simple: a person must change his attitude towards the fact that it is common for him to get sick. He was not a homeopath, but he thought “homeopathically” because he perceived illness as a resolution of conflict that brings a person to balance. When we understand this, illness becomes an assistant in our movement towards health, and not a terrible harbinger of an inevitable nightmare.

Our children must get sick, because illness is a reaction to the dynamics of life. Disease is an inevitable and natural stage of development. Our trouble is that we have taken upon ourselves the right to interfere in incomprehensible processes, as if we are wiser than the Creator. Well-meaning parents suppress symptoms, being in the illusion that the child’s body is not able to cope with a simple runny nose. All medicine is aimed at suppressing external reactions. How wonderfully we treat, doctors say. And gullible parents have no idea that they are not treating at all, but are simply sweeping garbage under the carpet. The vital force of a person constantly strives to resolve the conflict in the most optimal way for the body and, when it encounters artificial obstacles on its way, it finds a less successful solution. This is how our chronic diseases appear, which doctors certainly cannot cure, or rather, they “treat” all their lives, enriching the pharmaceutical industry.

Life force, alas, sooner or later runs out. And modern medicine does everything to speed up this process, turning children born healthy into their patients, depriving them of natural protection. It “plugs” the channels of manifestation of vital force, “hooking” a person on pharmaceuticals from early childhood, not to mention the bombardment of vaccines. All her treatment is aimed at suppressing symptoms. But the absence of symptoms does not equal health.

Modern medicine proceeds from the fact that overcoming diseases and almost eternal life on Earth is achievable (it is, they say, only a matter of time); that health consists in the absence of suffering and a comfortable feeling of self; that all illnesses arise due to external influences or due to “problems” in the body. A network of clinics is something like a network of car service centers. The body, it turns out, can be repaired, worn-out organs can be replaced, and their owner can be convinced that his engine after a major overhaul will last much longer when using chemical additives.

Our view of illness and health reflects our worldview. Without understanding our basic internal attitudes, without defining value orientations for ourselves, without understanding ourselves, we will not be able to fully clarify our attitude towards health and illness. The materialistic thinking of the 20th century led people to identify disease with the influence of an aggressive external environment - the invasion of microbes, the occupation of bacteria - or perceive it as a consequence of genetic defects. The fear that a child will get sick and die prevents you from perceiving every moment of communication with him as unique and priceless, from enjoying him and your life. Let's think about it: why are children born? In any case, not in order to please the vanity of their parents - either with brilliant examples of perfect health, or with the successes of a respectable citizen with an enviable income.

The fundamental question that every parent should face is: what do I mean by my child’s health? Try to understand the essence of human destiny. Both we and our children are much more than a collection of cells, organs and body parts with hair and nails for cutting. Each of us has an immortal soul and has a powerful life force that can overcome any failures. There is no need to hope for miracles of medicine and look for idols for yourself - neither traditional nor alternative. You just need to dare to believe in the child’s strength and your own and rely on God. And thereby gain freedom.

Eighteen years ago, I sat at my kitchen table in Chicago, pondering the life and death of Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, and trying in vain to put into words the priceless gift he left behind. Then I could not even imagine that I would do this on another continent many years later. That I will tell not my compatriots, but the citizens of Russia, how much I have gained thanks to this man. I really hope that Dr. Mendelsohn will become your friend, as he has become a friend to the thousands of Americans who still read his books.

Molly (Melania) Kaliger, Doctor of Homeopathy
Pos. Bolshaya Izhora, Leningrad region

Publisher: Homeopathic book, 2007

From an interview with Dr. Mendelsohn:

What will replace the religion of modern medicine?

P.M.: In response, let me formulate for you the essential components of the new medical school, in my opinion. The new medical school would have two characteristics: first, it would focus on the education of general practitioners, which contrasts sharply with the old specialist focus. The second is a commitment to ethics, as opposed to modern medicine; The problem with modern medicine is that it completely ignores ethics. Let me list just half a dozen of the most important issues in medicine: contraception, abortion, euthanasia, experimental drugs and surgeries, gender reassignment surgery, artificial insemination, the ethics of tranquilizers. All ethical approaches to these issues are contained in traditional religions, as well as in most modern religions. If we take the issue of abortion as an example, medical students of the future will have to study the approaches of Jewish ethics, Catholic ethics, other Christian denominations, the approach of the “humanists,” the approach of Eastern religions, the approach of people like Joseph Fletcher with his situational ethics. Medical students will have to study these ethical systems in relation to each issue and as a whole, and then they will have to decide whether it matches their own ethical system. The most dangerous person is the one who says that he "does not make ethical decisions" to patients, because he makes the most important decision. Lack of ethics is also ethics. This fact must be brought home to doctors so that they decide what they will do and what they will not do.

The book is written as a lecture; most likely, it is a collection of speeches; the text has a conversational style. There is a lot of pathos and categorical statements, but also a lot of common sense.

But what worries me more is that doctors use charts to determine the normal weight of babies. How can one determine the normal weight for children who feed on mother's milk if it does not exist at all? The development of “infants” differs from the development of “artificial” babies, and there is nothing abnormal about this. That's actually good. We have no evidence that God made a mistake in filling a mother's breast with milk rather than formula. Although many pediatricians don't seem to think so. If the weight of “infants” does not reach the table figures, they insist on feeding with formula. And it is harmful for all children without exception. I want to talk about this in particular. For now, I’ll emphasize that I consider breastfeeding to be an essential condition for children’s health, not only in infancy. The standard growth charts used by pediatricians are an example - and American medicine is rich in such examples - of the predominance of quantitative nonsense over qualitative common sense. Do not succumb to the pediatrician’s arguments when he convinces you that your child’s growth allegedly does not meet all sorts of “standards” and “norms.” Remember that these “norms” were created arbitrarily. How doctors make healthy children sick but, many years ago, and people who do not see the difference between “infants” and “artificial children”, but often compare apples with oranges. The pediatrician knows absolutely nothing about the normal growth rate of a breastfed child. By saying that the baby is growing slowly, he misleads parents. If growth retardation is the only symptom of “ill health,” do not switch your baby to formula milk. Please note that the doctor drew his conclusion from a meaningless table! I know that it is not easy for you to come to terms with the absurdity of using height and weight tables in medical diagnostics, because not a single medical appointment is complete without them. I assure you, I am not alone in the opinion that these tables do more harm than good. This opinion is shared by many colleagues who have freed themselves from blind faith in everything they were previously taught and objectively evaluate the results of their practice.

The author is absolutely right about one thing: we should not blindly trust doctors - we should trust wisely. Blind trust is often not necessary, as in the case of taking any medications “for prevention” during pregnancy. It overwhelms a person who wants to relieve himself of responsibility for what is happening - and shift it to someone who is smarter and stronger. The consequences of taking medications may be more critical than the results of the course of the disease. As one of our famous pediatricians said: the doctor is obliged to prescribe a pill, and he will prescribe it, that’s why he is a doctor.

Bilirubin is the pigment of bile in the blood. Many doctors believe it can cause brain damage because they believe it can enter the central nervous system. In fact, bilirubin is a common breakdown product of red blood cells, which gives the baby's skin a jaundiced tint. There is no need to fear this condition, except in rare cases when the concentration of bilirubin is too high or rises sharply on the first day of life, which is usually due to Rh conflict and requires blood transfusion (replacement) or treatment with a bilirubin lamp. The light of the lamp, located in the blue part of the spectrum, quickly oxidizes bilirubin, which ensures its excretion by the liver. The same effect can be achieved naturally - by ultraviolet radiation from the sun. If jaundice is not a disease of the first day of life, the risk of its treatment is greater than the benefit. In a week or two, bilirubin will be completely eliminated on its own, and under the influence of sunlight this will happen even faster. Although newborn jaundice is a normal and non-life-threatening condition in most cases, doctors usually insist on treating it with bilirubin lamps. Thus, a harmless physiological condition is treated with harmless phototherapy! Why not let the sun's rays have the same effect? According to medical services, phototherapy for neonatal jaundice may cause an increase in mortality from pulmonary diseases (respiratory failure) and hemorrhage. There have also been cases of infants suffocating from pads designed to protect the eyes during sessions. Doctors often claim that treatment with bilirubin lamps does not cause any harm. But is it possible to believe that they know nothing about the consequences that appear immediately after a course of phototherapy - irritability, lethargy, diarrhea, lactose intolerance, intestinal upset, dehydration, digestive problems, riboflavin deficiency, imbalance of bilirubin and albumin, etc. deterioration of visual orientation with a possible decrease in reaction, DNA changes? But no one really knows about the possible delayed consequences of this treatment.

The author of the book collected all the “stumbling blocks” that arise between doctors and parents: breastfeeding, complementary feeding, the potty, the reasons for children’s crying. Everything that mothers should think about themselves, focusing on the uniqueness of their child. Everything that is not a pathology, even if all the neighbors in the sandbox loudly repeat that something is completely wrong with them. There are many controversial points in the book, but there is no one to argue with (Dr. Mendelsohn died in 1988). For example, you can skip diagonally through the article on complementary feeding; it was written for American parents with an emphasis on their national traditions - our children are not fed bananas, bread and sweet potatoes from six months of age.

A child cries when he is hungry, tired, wet, or when he is lonely or in pain. People who have a sense of compassion do not refuse to console crying adults, no matter what the reason for their crying. So why - in the name of all saints! - Should loving parents refuse to console their crying child? If the child starts crying, take him in your arms and try to understand what is bothering him. If this happened at night (is his crying due to loneliness or fear?), the best thing is to move the baby to your bed. When I give such advice, psychologists and psychiatrists are most unhappy with it. I remember the Phil Donahue show, to which I was once invited along with the author of the book “The Family Bed,” Tine Thevenin, a psychiatrist who frightens parents sleeping with their children with the Oedipus complex and other theories favorite in psychiatry circles. The presenter asked my opinion about the “family bed”, and I said that psychiatrists should never sleep with children, but for parents this is quite normal. In the first years of a child’s life, parents are also concerned about bowel movements, diarrhea, constipation and potty training. Mothers of first-born children, especially those who are breastfeeding, are overly concerned with the appearance and condition of their babies' stool. The color and consistency of an infant's stool largely depends on nutrition. Thus, infants' stool most often looks like beaten eggs. This is not diarrhea, as many people think, but a completely normal stool. And the only danger in this situation is the pediatrician, who can transfer the child to artificial nutrition. Under no circumstances should parents allow breastfeeding to stop. If the child grows and gains weight, the consistency of his stool (whether it is liquid or hard) does not matter. It’s another matter when the child’s growth stops, body weight decreases, and blood is found in the stool. You can't do without a doctor here. And if it is not possible to establish a diagnosis, one must be wary of drug prescriptions: pediatricians - incorrigible stool watchers - strive to treat diarrhea with opiates like Lomotil. The cause of these symptoms may be a food allergy. Recognition and elimination of the allergen (often it turns out to be cow's milk) does not require medical supervision. The cause of constipation lies in the child’s diet. There is no "magic formula" for how many bowel movements a day you need, and if your baby's bowel retention is occasional, there's nothing to worry about. The child should be shown to the doctor only when defecation is accompanied by pain or there is blood in the stool.

What then is the role of the doctor?

P.M. I think the main role of a doctor is to tell the truth. Of course, if he does this, he will get into trouble, because what he says is a way to get rid of pediatric practice. Let's imagine that a pediatrician tells a mother things that are proven, such as that bottled milk makes her baby more likely to get sick, and so she should breastfeed if she wants to protect his baby's health. If he says this, the mother will feel guilty. But those mothers who are guilty usually change doctors, so they will go to someone who tells them that bottled milk is as good as breast milk, or even better. When this happens, the first doctor is left with only breastfed children who never get sick! The end of pediatric practice. I would say that the only remaining role of a physician is emergency management, and that is primarily acute medical and surgical care. The achievements of modern medicine in the treatment of chronic diseases are very meager; in general, modern medicine has been a complete failure in the areas of cancer, paralysis, heart disease and obesity. I am not sure that doctors played any role at all in eradicating diseases, since there is no way to demonstrate that the benefits of medical care for these diseases outweigh the risks of treatment. You know what Oliver Wendle Holmes said: “If all the medicine were thrown into the ocean, it would be worse for the fish and better for the patients.”

Whether to call an ambulance or not to call, whether to give antipyretics - or whether it is enough to cool and give the child something to drink, which can lead to a high temperature - even doctors of science cannot give accurate answers to these questions. Our body is a complex thing, many processes have not yet been fully studied. Everything goes to the point that a mother should sharpen her intuition, learn super-feeling, super-understanding, because no one knows her child better than she herself. So that in case of difficult situations she could help him no worse, or even better, than a doctor.

Most cases of fever are associated with viral and bacterial infections, which the body's defenses cope with without any help. Colds and flu are the most common causes of fever in children of any age. The temperature may rise to 40.5 degrees, but even then there is no cause for concern. The only danger is the risk of dehydration from the accompanying processes of sweating, rapid pulse and breathing, coughing, vomiting and diarrhea. It can be avoided by giving your child plenty of fluids. It would be nice if the child drank a glass of liquid, preferably nutritious, every hour. This could be fruit juice, lemonade, tea and anything that the child will not refuse. In most cases, viral and bacterial infections are easily recognized by the accompanying symptoms of fever: mild cough, runny nose, watery eyes, and so on. These diseases do not require the help of a doctor or any medications. The doctor will not be able to “prescribe” anything more effective than the body’s defenses. Medicines that alleviate the general condition only interfere with the action of vital forces. I will talk about this in more detail in one of the following chapters. Antibiotics are also not needed: although they can shorten the duration of a bacterial infection, the risks associated with them are very high. There is no clear connection between the child’s body temperature and the severity of the disease. The common misconception regarding this is unfounded. In addition, there is no consensus on what is considered a “high temperature” either among parents or even among doctors. The parents of my patients, and I had a lot of them, had diametrically opposed views on this matter. Research has shown that more than half of the parents surveyed consider a temperature between 37.7 and 38.8 degrees “high” and almost all call a temperature of 39.5 degrees “very high.” In addition, all respondents were convinced that a high temperature indicates the severity of the disease. It's not like that at all. In the most accurate way, by the clock, the measured temperature says absolutely nothing about the severity of the disease if it is caused by a viral or bacterial infection. Once you realize that the cause of the fever is an infection, stop taking your temperature hourly. Monitoring its increase in such an illness will not help; moreover, it will only increase your fears and tire your child.

Another subject of debate: the Mantoux reaction.

Parents have the right to rely, as many do, on the accuracy of the results of tests performed by doctors. The Mantoux test is a striking example of the lack of such accuracy. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics, which rarely criticizes procedures practiced by its members, issued a statement critical of the test. It says: “Recent research casts doubt on the sensitivity of some TB tests. The Bureau of Biology panel recommended that manufacturers test each lot on fifty known positive tuberculosis patients to ensure that the drug is sensitive enough to detect all cases of active tuberculosis. However, because these studies were not double-blind or randomized and involved multiple skin tests performed simultaneously (which creates the possibility of response suppression), interpretation is difficult.” The statement concludes: “Screening tests for tuberculosis are imperfect, and clinicians should be aware that both false-positive and false-negative results are possible.” In short, a child can have tuberculosis even if the tuberculin test is negative. Or it may not be there, despite a positive test. With many doctors, this situation can lead to dire consequences: the child will almost certainly be subjected to unnecessary and unsafe fluorography - one or more times. In addition, they may prescribe dangerous medications, such as isoniazid, for many months “to prevent the development of tuberculosis.” Even the American Medical Association admits that doctors indiscriminately and overprescribe isoniazid. This is a shame because this drug has a long list of adverse reactions affecting the nervous, gastrointestinal, hematopoietic and endocrine systems, as well as affecting the bone marrow and skin. It should also be taken into account that others may shy away from a child with such a diagnosis - due to a deep-rooted fear of this disease. I am convinced that the possible consequences of a positive tuberculin skin test are much more dangerous than the disease itself, and I believe that parents should refuse tuberculin tests unless it is known for sure that the child has been in contact with a sick persontuberculosis.

The book is a must-read for future parents, as many important facts described in it are still unknown or incomprehensible to young mothers. And they are really very important so that the next childhood sore, which most often is not a sore at all, does not cause panic and the desire to urgently, urgently erase with an eraser “ugly” symptoms, such as a slight fever or a runny nose, with the help of completely harmless medications.

The review uses materials from the website of the publishing house “Homeopathic Book”.

14. Skin problems - the curse of adolescence
15. Skeletons in the orthopedic closet
16. Accidents and injuries
17. Asthma and allergies: diet instead of medications
18. A child who never sits still for a minute
19. Vaccinations against diseases: a ticking time bomb?
20. Hospitals: where to go to get sick
21. How to choose a doctor for a child

In his book, written in 1984 and a success among readers, the largest American pediatrician criticizes the evils of modern medicine from the standpoint of common sense. The author not only reveals carefully guarded corporate secrets to readers, honestly talks about the shortcomings of modern medicine, but also gives a lot of specific advice in cases of possible threats to the health of a child (from the moment of conception), teaches clear, simple technologies for parental care for childhood illnesses. Dr. Mendelson argues that pediatric intervention is often unnecessary and sometimes even dangerous, and encourages parents to take their children's health into their own hands.

The book has been translated into Russian for the first time. Addressed not only to parents, medical workers and teachers, but also to everyone who wants to see.

Robert S. Mendelsohn (1926-1988), leading American pediatrician, was born in Chicago, Illinois. He received his Doctor of Medicine degree after graduating from the University of Chicago in 1951. Known for his radical views on modern medicine. He especially criticized pediatric practice, vaccination, obstetrics, and the dominance of male doctors in gynecology. He opposed coronary bypass surgery, regular X-rays to detect breast cancer, and water fluoridation.

He taught at the Northwestern University School of Medicine for twelve years, then was an associate professor of pediatrics, public health and prevention at the University of Illinois for the same period. In the early 1980s, he was president of the National Health Federation. He was also national director of the Medical Advisory Service at Project Head Start, a position he was forced to leave after being attacked due to harsh criticism of school education. He chaired the Illinois State Medical Licensing Board.

Actively promoting his views, he spoke at conferences and meetings of the National Federation of Health, wrote a news bulletin and the “People's Doctor” column in several national newspapers, and participated in more than five hundred talk shows on television and radio.

In 1986, the National Health and Nutrition Association of the United States awarded him the Rachel Carson Memorial Award "for his services to consumer freedom and the health of Americans." He is the author of a number of popular science books that have gone through several editions in the USA and other countries.

Our first meeting with Robert Mendelsohn took place not in a doctor's office, but at his home in the upper-middle class suburb of Chicago. A week before, I gave birth to my first child.

By the end of my pregnancy, I came to understand some important things. I saw that natural life processes were being driven into artificial frameworks, and I was convinced from my own experience that in order to prevent drug effects on pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period, young parents need to make titanic efforts. I saw how exhausting it is to protect yourself and your children from social pressure to do everything “the right way.”

When we left his house, my head was spinning. Everything solid and true, which until now had given me support and confidence, disappeared, leaving in its place emptiness and uncertainty. This feeling haunted me for quite some time. It took time to gain understanding that no one but me would protect my child.

Soon after our first meeting, my fears for my daughter's health gave way to a fierce instinct to protect her from medical intervention. This began a fundamental restructuring of my consciousness on principles that later became the essence of my life. Then, of course, I could not yet feel the immeasurable value of the wealth that, by the providence of the Lord God, Dr. Mendelssohn handed me.

Robert Mendelsohn was a charming conversationalist. I wanted to listen to him endlessly. Even his most serious lectures were marked by liveliness and brilliant wit. He loved life. His powerful confidence in the child’s initial health was involuntarily transmitted to those around him. For thousands of parents, it served as the foundation on which they built relationships with their children. He was principled and categorical. He never sat on two chairs and was not a servant of two masters. Twenty-five years of medical practice convinced him of this. that modern medicine practices the dirtiest “religion”, which, first of all, sacrifices defenseless and innocent children.

Pediatricians are guaranteed a truly inexhaustible flow of patients, who from the moment of birth are doomed to regularly scheduled examinations, vaccinations and medications. Playing on the natural fear of parents for the health of the child, children's doctors subjugate them completely and completely. Often they are ready to take the place of God. The child becomes a victim of medical kidnapping, a hostage. And the parents become completely dependent on the kidnapper-pediatrician. And they agree to any conditions and procedures, shell out any money, just to get a “guarantee” of their child’s health.

In the first year of our acquaintance, we saw Dr. Mendelson regularly, but not about my daughter’s illnesses; she was not particularly ill, but for educational purposes. Thanks to his “incitement”, I began my education in home obstetrics and then in homeopathy. Not immediately, but soon enough I realized the harm of scheduled visits to pediatricians and medical recommendations. But still, I did not have complete confidence that I could cope with any childhood illness on my own. I was calm because Dr. Mendelsohn was always nearby.

When, already at home, and not in a hospital room, I gave birth to my second child, I called Dr. Mendelsohn - told the good news and asked him for a meeting. He congratulated me warmly and said that he would be waiting for me at any time. But we never saw each other: a month and a half later he was gone. He always said that a person should be born and die at home. And he died the way he wanted - in his bed, in the presence of his wife. His death was announced on all Chicago radio programs, and more than a thousand people came to see him off on his last journey.

Dr. Mendelsohn did not offer magic pills for all occasions. He had nothing ready - methods, formulas, schemes, courses of treatment. He did not practice herbal medicine, acupuncture, massage or iridology. Denying modern medicine, he did not invent a panacea. He lived by faith in God, perceiving life as it was. One day, when I was visiting him, I saw him standing in the kitchen, eating peanut butter straight from the jar. “My doctor says that it is contraindicated for me,” he said with a smile, “But I like it!”

Modern medicine proceeds from the fact that overcoming diseases and almost eternal life on Earth is achievable (this is, they say, only a matter of time): that health consists in the absence of suffering and a comfortable feeling of self: that all illnesses arise due to external influences or for “problems” in the body. A network of clinics is something like a network of car service centers. The body, it turns out, can be repaired, worn-out organs can be replaced, and their owner can be convinced that his engine after a major overhaul will last much longer when using chemical additives.

Our view of illness and health reflects our worldview. Without understanding our basic internal attitudes, without defining value orientations for ourselves, without understanding ourselves, we will not be able to fully clarify our attitude towards health and illness. The materialistic thinking of the 20th century led to the fact that people began to identify disease with the influence of an aggressive external environment - the invasion of microbes, the occupation of bacteria - or perceive it as a consequence of genetic defects. The fear that a child will get sick and die prevents you from perceiving every moment of communication with him as unique and priceless, from enjoying him and your life. Let's think about it: why are children born? In any case, not in order to please the vanity of their parents - either with brilliant examples of perfect health, or with the successes of a respectable citizen with an enviable income.

The fundamental question that every parent should face is: what do I mean by the health of my child? Try to understand the essence of human destiny. Both we and our children are much more than a collection of cells. organs and body parts with hair and nails for cutting. Each of us has an immortal soul and has a powerful life force that can overcome any failures. There is no need to hope for miracles of medicine and look for idols for yourself - neither traditional nor alternative. You just need to dare to believe in the child’s strength and your own and rely on God (Add “cross your fingers” - also very “good” for health - H.B.) . And thereby gain freedom. Eighteen years ago, I sat at my kitchen table in Chicago, pondering the life and death of Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, and trying in vain to put into words the priceless gift he left behind. Then I could not even imagine that I would do this on another continent many years later. That I will tell not my compatriots, but the citizens of Russia, how much I have gained thanks to this man. I really hope that Dr. Mendelsohn will become your friend, as he has become a friend to the thousands of Americans who still read his books.

Molly (Melania) Kaliger, Doctor of Homeopathy
Pos. Bolshaya Izhora, Leningrad region

Molly Kaliger was born and raised in the USA. In 1983 she graduated from the anthropology department of the University of Iowa. In 1986, after becoming a mother, she became interested in alternative medicine. In 1990, she received a diploma as a professional home midwife and came to Russia for the first time to help establish mutual understanding and friendship between Americans and Russians by exchanging experiences in obstetric practice. In 1992, she created the public organization “Childbirth in Russia” (The Russian Birth Project), which provided internships for American home midwives in maternity hospitals in St. Petersburg. About one hundred trainees have already completed their training as part of this project. Their activities contributed to changing the approach to childbirth in official medicine in Russia. In 1998 she graduated from The School of Homeopathy in Devon (UK), receiving a doctorate in homeopathy. Since 1992, she has lived alternately in the USA and Russia, and since 2002 she has lived with her family in the village of Bolshaya Izhora in the vicinity of St. Petersburg, where she practices and teaches obstetrics and homeopathy.

I would not have written this book if I were not convinced that American pediatrics, as well as other areas of medicine, are not doing well. This does not mean that doctors are less honest or lack the capacity for compassion than other people. It’s just that the shortcomings are inherent in medical philosophy itself. In the essence of the teaching, and not in the personality of those who learn.

Doctors are not criminals. They are victims of the system, just like their patients. They are the first to suffer from the medical school obsession with intervention instead of prevention, drugs and technology, meaningless rituals, customs and selfish medical behavior. All these approaches are imprinted in the mind of every student who goes through a rigorous and often useless training program. Upon completion of their studies, the heads of young specialists are so filled with regulated stupidity that there is simply no room left for common sense.

I make no exception for myself when I criticize pediatricians. I admit that I believed most of what I was taught when I started my practice, and my patients have paid for it over the years. Fortunately, perhaps because I began teaching medical students myself, I learned to question many of the medical principles drilled into my head, suspecting every new drug, surgical procedure, and medical innovation. I soon discovered, indeed, that for the most part these novelties did not stand up to serious scientific criticism. A surprisingly high percentage of “miracle cures” and “revolutionary procedures” disappeared as soon as it turned out that they did more harm than good.

In my previous books, Confessions of a Medical Heretic and Male Medicine: How Doctors Mutilate Women, I tried to warn readers about the dangers of blind faith in American medicine. But it was never my goal to dissuade them from applying for necessary medical assistance. Despite gaps in education and skills, doctors still save lives and make sick people healthy. They do this best in cases where medical intervention is truly unavoidable; worst of all, when they are asked (or taught) to treat people who are not sick.

I wrote these books to provide insight into the shortcomings of the medical system and to protect people from unnecessary and dangerous medical interventions. At the same time, I reasoned that if patients began to doubt the orders of their doctors, it was possible that someday the doctors themselves would doubt them.

This may be nothing more than a coincidence, but there is compelling evidence that these goals are being achieved. Other critics inside and outside my profession are also to thank for this progress. Many doctors are forced to question their beliefs by the media and by patients themselves. I often hear about this from colleagues. And surveys of doctors convince us that an increasing number of patients refuse to accept their opinion as the ultimate truth.

Patients no longer bow down to their doctors; they are less submissive and accommodating. In the minds of many of them, the doctor ceased to have scientific infallibility. He increasingly has to find convincing answers to difficult questions about the medications he prescribes, the tests he orders, and the surgeries he recommends. When a doctor is constantly forced to look for non-existent arguments to justify himself, the results exceed all expectations.

Many of my colleagues welcome these changes, while others are confused when they cannot justify many of the drugs and procedures routinely prescribed in the past. In any case, widespread awareness of the shortcomings of traditional medicine leads to constructive changes. When a doctor doubts his own course of action, he objectively reconsiders much of what he has been taught and pays more attention to prevention diseases instead of intervention. And this has a beneficial effect on the health of patients.

There have been many reforms over the past few years that represent belated recognition. Recognition that the side effects of some drugs are more dangerous than the diseases they are supposed to cure. That surgical intervention without vital indications is not always necessary and always dangerous. That often the risk of routine tests, x-rays and other studies is more dangerous than the diseases that they are designed to detect. We have these last few years to thank. To be grateful that the reputations of a number of favored medical procedures have been damaged by being subjected to critical public scrutiny and failing to withstand it.

The dry list of these changes alone cannot but be encouraging. Here is the list.

* Cumulation is the accumulation in the body and summation of the effects of certain medicinal substances and poisons, sometimes leading to serious complications. (Editor's note)

“This academy also revised its position regarding mass tuberculin tests, leaving them intact only in areas of high incidence. I hope that this will be the first step towards eliminating all dangerous and unnecessary mass tests and vaccinations that benefit the doctors performing them more than their patients.

— The American Medical Association has abandoned its recommendation for annual physical examinations for all healthy people.

— The American Cancer Society no longer recommends annual Pap smears. There was even a period when it did not recommend regular mass mammography examinations. Later, this society again changed its decision - without any motivation, except for the complaint of unemployed radiologists. It is now argued that mammograms every one to two years are safe and almost mandatory for asymptomatic women between forty and fifty years of age.

This is contrary to a 1977 National Cancer Institute guideline that places restrictions on radiological testing for women in this age group if they have a personal or family history of breast cancer. In my opinion, annual mammograms for women without worrying symptoms are a form of diagnosis that comes true. If carried out regularly over a long period of time, they will lead to that same breast cancer!

“Mass chest X-rays, once considered so necessary that mobile X-ray stations were created to provide widespread coverage, are a thing of the past.

“Although the pharmaceutical industry continues to produce new drugs, patients are increasingly concerned about drug abuse. Therefore, not as many such drugs are prescribed as before. The number of cases in which new drugs were prescribed decreased by 100 million in 1980 compared to 1974. Perhaps as a result, drug companies are putting increasing pressure on the Food and Drug Administration to allow prescription drug advertising not only to doctors but also to consumers.

— The number of prescriptions for tranquilizers fell from 104.5 million in 1970 to 70.8 million in 1981. Use of Valium, a drug responsible for many overdose deaths, fell by half in 1975 from its peak of 62 million prescriptions.

— There are statistics confirming that more and more women are turning away from hormonal and intrauterine contraceptives due to the real risk of harming their health.

“Even though obstetricians and pediatricians still do not properly encourage breastfeeding, more and more women are breastfeeding. This is for the benefit of both mothers and their children.

— Obstetric procedures are being criticized and revised, and there is a slow but steady movement toward natural and even home births.

These remarkable changes in traditional medical practice show that medicine responds to growing criticism. However, in pediatrics, my specialty, things are different. Here almost everything remains unchanged and unshakable. In the pages of this book, I intend to subject pediatrics to the same critical analysis that other areas of medicine have been subjected to in my previous books. But since pediatrics is my profession, which I have practiced and taught for more than a quarter of a century, I decided to go beyond simply exposing shortcomings. I provide advice to parents on how to avoid the risk of unnecessary interventions and their associated costs, while still providing the treatment and care needed to keep their children healthy.

Without pretending to be encyclopedic in scope, I offer specific advice in case of possible threats to the health of a child from the moment of conception to the day when he leaves the parental nest. Parents will learn to recognize when he is seriously ill and in which cases it is not worth calling the doctor; will receive a method that will answer the question of whether the medications prescribed for their children are really necessary and safe.

With this basic information, any parent can be more involved in their children's health. This does not mean, however, that they will have to perform the functions of a doctor, doing poorly what the doctor will do well. Doctors, despite the costs of education, still know some technical techniques that it is better for parents not to try to use on their own.

My book will teach you what you need to know for most illnesses that a child suffers: it will teach you to recognize situations when it is prudent to use the doctor's expertise. If you read it carefully, most of your doubts and fears about your child's health will dissipate. And you can prepare your child for a long, healthy and happy life!

American pediatrician Robert Mendelsohn called himself a medical heretic; his principles are very different from traditional ones. He taught pediatrics at the University of Illinois College of Medicine at the turn of the last century, was senior consultant in pediatrics to the Illinois Department of Mental Health, chairman of the Illinois Medical Licensing Board, and national director of Project Head Start's Medical Consultation Service. Dr. Mendelsohn sharply opposed the methods of his colleagues; he was an ardent opponent of medical intervention in natural processes: pregnancy, childbirth, and the physiological conditions of newborns. And further in the text: childbirth in a maternity hospital, vaccinations, switching a child to formula, the pointlessness of antipyretics and antibiotics... in short, the whole list of topics that have excited the minds of the population in recent years, thanks to “newfangled trends.”
The book is written as a lecture; most likely, it is a collection of speeches; the text has a conversational style. There is a lot of pathos and categorical statements, but also a lot of common sense. The author is absolutely right about one thing: we should not blindly trust doctors - we should trust wisely. Blind trust is often not necessary, as in the case of taking any medications “for prevention” during pregnancy. It overwhelms a person who wants to relieve himself of responsibility for what is happening - and shift it to someone who is smarter and stronger. The consequences of taking medications may be more critical than the results of the course of the disease. As one of our famous pediatricians said: the doctor is obliged to prescribe a pill, and he will prescribe it, that’s why he is a doctor.
The author of the book collected all the “stumbling blocks” that arise between doctors and parents: breastfeeding, complementary feeding, the potty, the reasons for children’s crying. Everything that mothers should think about themselves, focusing on the uniqueness of their child. Everything that is not a pathology, even if all the neighbors in the sandbox loudly repeat that something is completely wrong with them. There are many controversial points in the book, but there is no one to argue with (Dr. Mendelsohn died in 1988). For example, you can skip diagonally through the article on complementary feeding; it was written for American parents with an emphasis on their national traditions - our children are not fed bananas, bread and sweet potatoes from six months of age.
The book is a must-read for future parents, as many important facts described in it are still unknown or incomprehensible to young mothers. And they are really very important so that the next childhood sore, which most often is not a sore at all, does not cause panic and the desire to urgently, urgently erase with an eraser “ugly” symptoms, such as a slight fever or a runny nose, with the help of completely harmless medications.