Also, there are plenty of morally reprehensible practitioners of modern medicine. Sometimes the facts are twisted or presented in a deceptive way. If risks to procedures or vaccinations are given a spin which hides important facts, then that's a violation of the core principle of informed consent as articulated in the Nuremburg code. A patient can't be informed if they don't fully understand or aren't aware of things. One example is the hype to promote influenza vaccination in the US, something Western medical practitioners in other countries perceive with more skepticism.
Source: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today. Twenty years ago, in 1990, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States. Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets—even some drive-throughs. This enormous growth has not been fueled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward, who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives. Through this lens, the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities,1 precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates.2 Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.
People who question the safety and value of vaccines are labeled as "antivax nutcases," yet there are also PhDs in immunology who do the same. I haven't read that book yet, but I intend to. [edit:] Here is part of an interesting inverview with the author:
source: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20...ne-frompovich/Vaccinated children are coming down with the same infectious diseases for which they have been fully vaccinated. Why do you think vaccine ‘immunity’—if we can call it that—is so short lived and not adequate?
We would expect that vaccinated individuals would not be involved (or very minimally involved) in any outbreak of an infectious disease for which they have been vaccinated. Yet, when outbreaks are analyzed, it becomes apparent that most often this is not the case. Vaccinated individuals are indeed very frequently involved and constitute a high proportion of disease cases.
I think this is happening because vaccination does not engage the genuine mechanism of immunity. Vaccination typically engages the immune response—that is, everything that immunologists would theoretically “want” to see being engaged in the immune system. But apparently this is not enough to confer robust protection that matches natural immunity. Our knowledge of the immune system is far from being complete.
The dogmatic stance on many medical and scientific issues is simply not warranted [edit: by the evidence]. Things are not as black and white as they first appear.