The Medicine of The Future

We have recently been considering what our perception, and desire, is for the ‘hospital of the future’ and the sort of changes, not just policy, but right down to the fundamental design and philosophical approach that we would like to see in our hospitals in the years to come.

This discussion was triggered by the article by Kimberly Steele, and so far quite a few of you have emailed us with your thoughts and suggestions. However, for us to seriously consider the changes that need to be made to hospitals, we first need to think about the changes we need to make to public health and medicine generally.

The reason why we need to take a few steps back is that if we want hospitals to shift their focus to – for example – easier transitions for dying patients, as proposed by Kimberly, national health services need to become much more focused on preventative health to reduce the scale and burden of chronic conditions.

Essentially we need to get back to the philosophy of ‘healthcare’ truly meaning a 100% commitment and focus on improving health and caring, instead of simply managing symptoms, which will eventually overwhelm any system which is not actually reducing or holding the number of sick and needy.

We all obviously have our own views on how we need to change the healthcare system to improve public health and what exactly we would like the medicine of the future to look like. But before we kick off this debate, it is worth looking at a ‘System Reform Brief’ that our friends at the World Council for Health (WCH) published on this very topic back in May 2025 titled ‘The Medicine of the Future’ which they describe as a ‘A comprehensive approach to reforming the physical, mental and social health and wellbeing of society.’

In this document they outline six general principles, being:

1. Priority of a Species-Appropriate, Disease-Preventing and Causal-Therapeutic Lifestyle
2. Systemic Approach Instead of Reductionism
3. The Laws of the Minimum and Maximum, Homeostasis and Synergetic Effects as the Foundation of Preventive Medicine
4. Respect for Personal Autonomy: A Pro-Human Health Policy Centred on Human Dignity and Sovereignty
5. Combating Corporate Corruption, and
6. Prevention of Disease and Protection Against Pharmaceutical Intoxication

We would encourage you to read them all, although, due to their relevance to our current debate we have copied the last three of these in full for you as follows…

Respect for Personal Autonomy: A Pro-Human Health Policy Centred on Human Dignity and Sovereignty 

Respect for human dignity and sovereignty is integral to pro-human health systems that focus on the natural needs of human beings. This respect encompasses the unrestricted right to lead a self-determined life, which includes the possibility of choosing an unhealthy diet or lifestyle of one’s own free will. However, it is essential to ensure that every person is informed about the decisive factors affecting their health and has the concrete opportunity to align their lives accordingly, whenever and to whatever extent they make this decision.

Central to this approach is the principle of informed consent, which empowers individuals to make knowledgeable choices regarding their health and treatment options. This means individuals must be fully informed about the potential benefits and risks of any medical intervention, enabling them to actively participate in decisions about their own health. Accordingly, no medical treatment or vaccination should ever be mandatory in a way that overrides personal autonomy. People must retain the freedom to accept or decline medical interventions based on their own values and beliefs.

Moreover, medicine should be understood as a cooperative endeavour between the individual seeking health and the one offering support—more accurately described as a health supporter, since true health can only be provided by nature. This partnership fosters open communication, mutual respect, and shared decision-making, ensuring that healthcare is tailored to each person’s unique needs and values. Such collaboration not only strengthens the therapeutic relationship but also leads to improved health outcomes.

Combating Corporate Corruption 

A major reason for the widespread failure in preventing and treating lifestyle-related diseases— including the purported prevention of infectious diseases through mass vaccination campaigns—is a fundamental flaw in health policy: the undue influence of profit-driven corporations on public health authorities and regulatory institutions.

This influence often results in scientific evidence being ignored, misrepresented, or manipulated to serve economic interests. Over the past decades, the pharmaceutical industry has increasingly brought health agencies, regulatory bodies, and political decision-makers under its control.

One striking example is the case of the genetically modified Covid-19 “vaccine,” where safety studies were not conducted independently, and regulatory agencies not only failed to uphold oversight but actively served industry interests—at the expense of public well-being. To protect public health, it is imperative that corporate influence over governmental and regulatory institutions be ended without delay.

Prevention of Disease and Protection Against Pharmaceutical Intoxication 

Our culture has been deeply shaped by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, which employs multilayered propaganda to implant a fundamental—and false—assumption about human nature: that humans are inherently flawed. From this perspective, illness is inevitable.

This misconception is insidiously reinforced by portraying a species-appropriate, health-promoting lifestyle as unrealistic or even absurd. As a result, personal responsibility is often dismissed—after all, “why change your lifestyle if it doesn’t matter?” This highlights the urgent need for widespread education as the foundation for a new health culture.

At the heart of this misdirection lies a dogma promoted by the pharmaceutical industry and instilled in medical students from the very beginning of their training. It is built on five axioms—unproven, often unprovable assumptions—accepted without question and rarely, if ever, challenged.

1. Illness is seen as a natural, inevitable process—one that simply becomes symptomatic with advancing age.
2. The tendency to develop certain diseases is often attributed to inherited genes—suggesting that the human body is inherently flawed by design.
3. Consequently, lifestyle is regarded as having little to no impact on health. Supplying the body with essential nutrients—even when they are clearly lacking in the diet—is dismissed as unnecessary, a waste of money, or even a potential health risk.
4. The question of which disease will ultimately develop—be it cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, or another—is left to chance, as if drawn from the roulette wheel of life.
5. As a logical consequence of these beliefs, only pharmaceutical research—and its arsenal of synthetic drugs—is seen as capable of protecting humanity from suffering and premature death.

In transhumanist thinking, the ultimate goal is nothing less than the abolition of death itself— achieved through technological means. Yet advocates of such views would do well to reflect on the fact that even the noblest of intentions often lead to the very opposite of what they seek to achieve.

While the number of preventable diseases continues to rise sharply, an estimated 882,000 people die each year in the United States alone as a result of prescription drugs—making them the leading cause of death.

Among these, psychotropic medications rank as the third most common cause, alongside painkillers. This alarming figure highlights the urgent need to shift focus toward natural and nature-based treatment approaches, to restrict prescriptions to truly essential cases, to establish independent oversight mechanisms, and to expand public education on healthy lifestyles and effective non-pharmaceutical alternatives.

In short: we must reestablish a culture of trust in the body’s innate capacity to heal—a process that should be supported, not overridden. In addition, all scientific studies and approval processes must be subjected to review by independent scientists with no ties to industry. For products already on the market, retrospective, industry independent evaluations must be conducted. Going forward, only health measures that are truly necessary and evidence-based should be recommended and publicly funded—everything else must be phased out. The financial resources thus freed must be reinvested in disease prevention and causal, system-based therapies.

To minimize the risk posed by harmful medications, manufacturers must be held fully accountable for the safety and consequences of their products.

Let us know if you agree with these three principles and what other recommendations you think we should consider, especially for our own struggling Canada healthcare system.

You can download the entire 17 page ‘Medicine of the Future’ document off the World Council for Health website at or click: https://wchweb.b-cdn.net/Web%20Content/Downloads/Legal/UD-red_Nehls%20PlotheHealthSystemReformProgram.pdf