place over 100 years ago and subsequent research that supports the findings of
one of these scientists, a man unknown to most of us. If his discoveries and
their implications had become "establishment," the world would be a far health-
ier place to live, and health care would be a fraction of its present cost. And
there would be no vaccinations.

Part III, Chapters 10 through 14, deals with the implications of a monolithic,
coercive healthcare system for a democratic society. Chapters 10 and 11 tell
what happened to us when we tried to say "No thanks" to that system. Others
have told similar stories.

Because we are immersed in a sea of communications media--and are living
in a "moneytheistic" technocracy--propaganda and misinformation are primary
facts of life. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the area of vaccination.
Therefore, I included a chapter on propaganda and general semantics as applied
to health care. If we are to mature as individuals and as a nation, we need to
develop perceptiveness and discrimination. Recognizing propaganda and mis-
information is part of this process. In the healthcare field, it can be a matter of
health or disability--or even life or death. "If humanity is to pass safely through
its present crisis on earth," Buckminster Fuller reminds us, "it will be because
a majority of individuals are now doing their own thinking." ² This chapter--
and indeed this book--is a step in that direction.

Chapter 13 projects us into a multioptioned, open-ended healthcare system,
bringing together much of what has been implied throughout the book. If we
want change, we must have vision. We must be able to see and give energy to
"the way we want it to be." Chapter 14 outlines what we need to do to actualize
our vision and reclaim our heritage--freedom.

The subject of vaccination has been considered controversial. But what is
controversy? The word itself comes from the Latin meaning "turned opposite."
That which is controversial is turned opposite a dominating structure, in this
case, establishment medicine. In a free and open society, there would be no such
label as "controversial," only disagreement within an open forum of ideas and
options. There would be no one mainstream but many streams, each meeting
different needs.

Likewise with the word alternative as in "alternative" medicine. What if we
called Spanish "alternative English"? The enthnocentrism--or is it chauvin-
ism?--would be ovious.

A word about myself: I am a former high school English teacher with the Los
Angeles City Schools, not a healthcare professional. Ibis I consider an advan-
tage because I don't have years of indoctrination in a particular point of view to
unlearn, nor do I have a job or license that can be threatened for speaking out.
The late John Holt, a leading humanistic educator, took pride in pointing out that
he never took an education course. He felt he had the advantage of not having
his perceptions clouded with a lot of preconceptions--and misconceptions.

About some of the challenges in writing this book: First, the biggest chal-
lenge, of course, was making difficult, technical material easy and interesting to

-xviii-