Of course it's wrong! Any good student the 19th-century knows that
*electricity* cures everything.  ;)

In the 19th-century, doctors did sometimes prescribe toxic
substances--like arsenic and strychnine--to their patients. And
unlicensed quacks promoted tonics containing turpentine and alcohol.
However, that was over 100 years ago. Medical science has advanced
since then, as has our understanding of chemistry, physiology and
microbiology. Today, all prescription pharmaceuticals (in the US, and
many other developed countries) are subject to lengthy pre-clinical and
clinical trials to *try* to ensure both safety and efficacy before
they're made available to the public.

If you want to argue that the process isn't perfect, you'd be correct.
Yes, many medications have unpleasant side-effects, and yes, sometimes
the side-effects are unexpectedly toxic or deadly. OTOH, advances in
pharmacology have saved many lives, and made many others significantly
more bearable.

If someone who is really sick followed the "natural hygiene" movement
in search of cure, the most likely outcome would be a quicker, more
painful death. What a wonderful recommendation for your side.

Wrong!

R. T. Trall, /The True Healing Art: Or, Hygienic vs. Drug Medication/,
(speech given in 1862). New York, Fowler & Wells, Publishers, Reprinted
1880.
http://www.whale.to/v/trall.htm

"There are several branches or sects of the Drug Medical System--the
Allopathic, Homeopathic, Eclectic, Physio-Medical, etc. But they are
essentially one and the same. They all differ in certain secondary and
unimportant problems and theories; but they all agree in primary
premises. They are all reducible to the fundamental proposition of
"curing one disease by producing another[i.e., side-effects]." They are
all based on the principle of inducing a drug disease[i.e.,
side-effects] to cure a primary disease. It is true that Eclecticism
and Physio-Medicalism do not recognize this principle; but it is true
nevertheless.

Drug Medication, no matter in what disguise nor under what name it is
practiced, consists in employing, as remedies for diseases, those
things which produce disease[i.e., side-effects] in well persons. Its
materia medica is simply a list of drugs, chemicals, and dyestuffs--in
a word, poisons. They may be vegetable, animal, or mineral, and may be
called "apothecary stuff" or medicines; but they are, nevertheless,
poisons. They may come to us in the shape of acids, alkalis, salts,
oxides, earths, roots, barks, seeds, leaves, flowers, gums, resins,
secretions, excretions, etc., but all are subversive of organic
structures; all are incompatible with vital functions; all are
antagonistic to living matter; all produce disease[i.e., side-effects]
when brought in contact in any manner with the living domain; truly all
are poisons.
...
I would reject drugs if there were no other remedial agents in the
universe, because, if I could not do good, I would "cease to do evil" I
would not poison a person because he is sick. No physician has ever yet
given the world a reason that would bear the ordeal of one moment's
scientific examination, why a sick person should be poisoned more than
should a well person; and I do not believe the world will endure until
he finds such a reason. The medical profession may prosecute this
inquiry another three thousand years, and destroy other hundreds of
millions of the human race in experiments with drugs and doses, but
they will never arrive any nearer to a solution of the problem. They
will never be able to give a satisfactory answer to the question, for
none exists.
...
Who has not heard of Dr. Jennings, now of Oberlin, Ohio? Some years ago
he practiced medicine in Derby, Conn. Being a close observer and a very
conscientious man, and, withal, something of a philanthropist, he
became a "reformer," and what all true reformers must be in the world's
estimation, a "radical," an "ultraist," a "one-idealist," a "fanatic,"
etc. He became fully convinced that the system of drug medication was
all wrong; that drugs, instead of curing persons, or aiding Nature to
cure them, really hindered the cure, or changed the primary malady to a
drug disease[i.e., side-effect] as bad or worse; and to put the matter
to the proof, he practiced for several years without giving a particle
of medicine of any kind. But his patients did not know it. The people
did not mistrust that they were humbugged out of their diseases;
cheated into health; deceived into saving the greater part of their
doctor's bills, all of their apothecary's bills, and the better part of
their constitutions. Under Dr. Jennings' administration, diseases
seemed to have lost all of their malignancy and danger, and to have
assumed a singularly mild and manageable form, type, and diathesis. He
gave harmless placebos--colored water, sugar pellets, and starch
powders, to keep up confidence and furnish the mind with some charm of
mysteriousness to rest its faith upon and then he directed such
attention to Hygienic conditions as would enable Nature to work the
cure in the best possible manner and in the shortest possible time.
...
To give drugs is adding to the causes of disease; for drugs always
produce disease[i.e., side-effects]. Indeed, they cure one disease,
when they cure at all, by producing others[i.e., side-effects]. Can
causes cure causes? Can poisons expel poisons? Can impurities deterge
away impurities? Can Nature throw off two or more burdens more easily
than one? No, never."

I stand by this statement of mime. :)

And, by the way 'or whatever' does NOT refer to taking prescription
medication indefinitely even if you pay a physician to hold your hand.
Not even, if the fruit tells you that you are NOT at fault.

You are.  People are responsible for their actions.  And, that includes
their health choices.

Who says so?  I do. Hell, even Jesus told me so. :)