I'd love to read what you wrote about this. My husband and I read "The Cholesterol Delusion" and really found that informative. It's astonishing to me how gullible Americans are. I think what we're talking about is "disease mongering". Every time some new "fill-in-the-blank Syndrome" hits the news I search for the wonder drug ads that wi…
I'd love to read what you wrote about this. My husband and I read "The Cholesterol Delusion" and really found that informative. It's astonishing to me how gullible Americans are. I think what we're talking about is "disease mongering". Every time some new "fill-in-the-blank Syndrome" hits the news I search for the wonder drug ads that will surely cure that. Like "Restless Leg Syndrome". There's gold in them thar hills!
I agree with your points generally. But “restless leg syndrome” is a bad example as it is unfortunately very real. I had it for a while and it’s pretty awful. I was able to treat it through a combination of medication and addressing food allergies.
I've had restless legs myself. It is horrible. For me it was a result of meds for asthma. My point was that once pharma zeros in on a "syndrome", the patent meds will appear that are directed specifically at that "syndrome'" and they won't be cheap. And they may not be necessary at all. It's just another way to come up with products that can be directly advertised to consumers who will be encouraged to "ask your doctor about ____,".
Disease mongering is a very accurate term. I will quote part of the article I referred to: Creating Disease Through Redefinition.
The first part pointed out that the government likes to "solve" problems by redefining them and I used unemployment statistics and inflation figures as typical examples. Following that introduction:
"Redefinition is thus a useful tool for "solving" certain problems. But it can also be used to create the appearance of a problem where none really exists. Nowhere has this technique been more profitably employed than in the medical field.
Probably the most flagrant use of fraudulent redefinition can be seen in the history of blood cholesterol levels. Forty years ago the normal range for an individual's blood cholesterol level was 150-350 mg/dl. Over the past 20-30 years this "normal" level has been ratcheted down so that the highest number considered to be normal or "acceptable" is now 200 mg/dl or less. Of course the net effect of this is to create a large number of "patients" out of the normal healthy population. And, of course, all of these new patients need treatment in order to reduce their cholesterol numbers down to the new acceptable levels. Most people naturally assume that these changes were made in response to new scientific data showing that these lower levels would significantly reduce the risk of heart disease. Nothing could be further from the truth.
These changes were wrought by panels of "experts" usually convened under the auspices of the National Institute of Health (NIH), a government bureaucracy that is responsible for funding the great majority of what passes for medical research in this country. On the cholesterol question a number of "consensus conferences" were held and out of these came the recommendations to ratchet down the normal or acceptable cholesterol levels to where they are today----considerably below the mean level of the normal population. Of course the participants invited to the consensus conferences did not include any of those who seriously questioned the veracity of the cholesterol theory of heart disease. Excluding such troublemakers and heretics assured a smooth and easy path to a proper consensus. The panel members were mostly those whose careers were closely tied to the cholesterol theory and many had financially remunerative relationships with drug companies and other groups with a vested interest in expanding the public's anxiety over cholesterol and heart disease.
Many people put the bulk of the blame on the pharmaceutical companies. These companies certainly put out a lot of misinformation and promote it to a fare-thee-well but they didn't really instigate it. That was mostly done by academics and researchers who tied their reputations and careers to the cholesterol theory and were aided and abetted by organizations such as the NIH and the American Heart Association who have a vested interest in exaggerating the extent of heart disease and fooling people into thinking that they are on the front lines fighting it.
But medical redefinition is not confined to cholesterol and heart disease. The so called "epidemics" of obesity and diabetes were also created this way.
A few decades back a person was diagnosed as diabetic if their fasting blood sugar (FBS) was greater than 160. Much like the cholesterol story, this has been ratcheted down to where people with FBS levels as low as 110-120 are being told they are diabetic and often put on medication. In addition a whole new category of "pre-diabetics" has been created to provide an even larger number of people in need of close medical monitoring. And just as with cholesterol, there has been no compelling scientific data to justify any of these changes. Diabetic researchers, drug companies and groups like the American Diabetes Association and some endocrinology trade organizations that all have a vested interest in creating more diabetics have driven the process.
Years ago a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than 30 would earn a person the label of "obese", Now one's BMI must be below 25 in order to avoid being branded with this derogatory label. Since a substantial proportion of the population over the age of 35 have BMIs in this 25-30 range, it has naturally swelled the ranks of the obese by quite a bit. Just like heart disease and diabetes there are analogous interest groups who profit from creating this "epidemic". Obesity researchers and anti-obesity organizations abound. The internet is full of people describing themselves as "anti-obesity activists". It is ironic that so many people who are properly critical of the role that drug companies play in these fraudulent schemes are helping to promote the interests and profits of an enormous diet and weight loss industry that dwarfs the pharmaceutical companies in size and scope
Ths same techniques of redefinition have been used to increase the number of those with hypertension, autism, and many other conditions. And we mustn't forget the pseudo-diseases such as attention deficit disorder, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and a whole litany of addictions. They all have their own advocacy groups and hordes of researchers trying to get on the research grant gravy train."
I agree with many of your points. As someone who has had chronic fatigue syndrome (also known as ME/CFS) since 1987, I strongly disagree with your characteristic of it as a “pseudo-disease.” This is misinformation that has been circulated for many years (HHS was one of the main perpetrators). I know many people with ME/CFS - in addition to my personal experience - and this disease is all too real, and very disabling.
Perhaps the term "pseudo-disease" was a poor word choice on my part. I didn't intend it to be insulting. I just wanted to show that it didn't fit my definition of disease which is something that can be diagnosed via biochemical testing and/or physical observation. Perhaps some of those I listed will be shown to be diseases in the future but, at this time, they don't fit the definition. There are lots of things that bother people for which there is no known cause and that doesn't mean they are not real; they just don't fit the definition of disease.
Thanks! You sum it up pretty well. My fasting glucose was 101 last test I took and that got flagged. I've read enough to know how asinine that is but along with the flag came the "consider metformin" notice. My A1c was 5.8 and you know that got flagged. My BMI is 25 but I'm a weight lifter so that means nothing but I still hear mention of "that's an upper bound" for normal weight. I feel really bad for people who trust the various organizations, the AHA etc, and live in fear, and discomfort because of the horrible meds. Now here comes semaglutide and it's stunning how it's trumpeted as just what we need. At some point no one is going to listen to any advice from doctors.
You are very welcome. It is a pleasure to communicate with people who have their head on straight. It gives me some hope for the future for my children and grandchildren. I think the medical profession lost a lot of whatever credibility they had with the Covid scam. I'm glad I got out when I did. And thank you for the kind words about my book. It was the first thing I ever wrote and that was several years after I retired from active medical practice. So I'm glad that you found it to be fairly coherent.
I'd love to read what you wrote about this. My husband and I read "The Cholesterol Delusion" and really found that informative. It's astonishing to me how gullible Americans are. I think what we're talking about is "disease mongering". Every time some new "fill-in-the-blank Syndrome" hits the news I search for the wonder drug ads that will surely cure that. Like "Restless Leg Syndrome". There's gold in them thar hills!
I agree with your points generally. But “restless leg syndrome” is a bad example as it is unfortunately very real. I had it for a while and it’s pretty awful. I was able to treat it through a combination of medication and addressing food allergies.
I've had restless legs myself. It is horrible. For me it was a result of meds for asthma. My point was that once pharma zeros in on a "syndrome", the patent meds will appear that are directed specifically at that "syndrome'" and they won't be cheap. And they may not be necessary at all. It's just another way to come up with products that can be directly advertised to consumers who will be encouraged to "ask your doctor about ____,".
Disease mongering is a very accurate term. I will quote part of the article I referred to: Creating Disease Through Redefinition.
The first part pointed out that the government likes to "solve" problems by redefining them and I used unemployment statistics and inflation figures as typical examples. Following that introduction:
"Redefinition is thus a useful tool for "solving" certain problems. But it can also be used to create the appearance of a problem where none really exists. Nowhere has this technique been more profitably employed than in the medical field.
Probably the most flagrant use of fraudulent redefinition can be seen in the history of blood cholesterol levels. Forty years ago the normal range for an individual's blood cholesterol level was 150-350 mg/dl. Over the past 20-30 years this "normal" level has been ratcheted down so that the highest number considered to be normal or "acceptable" is now 200 mg/dl or less. Of course the net effect of this is to create a large number of "patients" out of the normal healthy population. And, of course, all of these new patients need treatment in order to reduce their cholesterol numbers down to the new acceptable levels. Most people naturally assume that these changes were made in response to new scientific data showing that these lower levels would significantly reduce the risk of heart disease. Nothing could be further from the truth.
These changes were wrought by panels of "experts" usually convened under the auspices of the National Institute of Health (NIH), a government bureaucracy that is responsible for funding the great majority of what passes for medical research in this country. On the cholesterol question a number of "consensus conferences" were held and out of these came the recommendations to ratchet down the normal or acceptable cholesterol levels to where they are today----considerably below the mean level of the normal population. Of course the participants invited to the consensus conferences did not include any of those who seriously questioned the veracity of the cholesterol theory of heart disease. Excluding such troublemakers and heretics assured a smooth and easy path to a proper consensus. The panel members were mostly those whose careers were closely tied to the cholesterol theory and many had financially remunerative relationships with drug companies and other groups with a vested interest in expanding the public's anxiety over cholesterol and heart disease.
Many people put the bulk of the blame on the pharmaceutical companies. These companies certainly put out a lot of misinformation and promote it to a fare-thee-well but they didn't really instigate it. That was mostly done by academics and researchers who tied their reputations and careers to the cholesterol theory and were aided and abetted by organizations such as the NIH and the American Heart Association who have a vested interest in exaggerating the extent of heart disease and fooling people into thinking that they are on the front lines fighting it.
But medical redefinition is not confined to cholesterol and heart disease. The so called "epidemics" of obesity and diabetes were also created this way.
A few decades back a person was diagnosed as diabetic if their fasting blood sugar (FBS) was greater than 160. Much like the cholesterol story, this has been ratcheted down to where people with FBS levels as low as 110-120 are being told they are diabetic and often put on medication. In addition a whole new category of "pre-diabetics" has been created to provide an even larger number of people in need of close medical monitoring. And just as with cholesterol, there has been no compelling scientific data to justify any of these changes. Diabetic researchers, drug companies and groups like the American Diabetes Association and some endocrinology trade organizations that all have a vested interest in creating more diabetics have driven the process.
Years ago a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than 30 would earn a person the label of "obese", Now one's BMI must be below 25 in order to avoid being branded with this derogatory label. Since a substantial proportion of the population over the age of 35 have BMIs in this 25-30 range, it has naturally swelled the ranks of the obese by quite a bit. Just like heart disease and diabetes there are analogous interest groups who profit from creating this "epidemic". Obesity researchers and anti-obesity organizations abound. The internet is full of people describing themselves as "anti-obesity activists". It is ironic that so many people who are properly critical of the role that drug companies play in these fraudulent schemes are helping to promote the interests and profits of an enormous diet and weight loss industry that dwarfs the pharmaceutical companies in size and scope
Ths same techniques of redefinition have been used to increase the number of those with hypertension, autism, and many other conditions. And we mustn't forget the pseudo-diseases such as attention deficit disorder, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and a whole litany of addictions. They all have their own advocacy groups and hordes of researchers trying to get on the research grant gravy train."
I agree with many of your points. As someone who has had chronic fatigue syndrome (also known as ME/CFS) since 1987, I strongly disagree with your characteristic of it as a “pseudo-disease.” This is misinformation that has been circulated for many years (HHS was one of the main perpetrators). I know many people with ME/CFS - in addition to my personal experience - and this disease is all too real, and very disabling.
Perhaps the term "pseudo-disease" was a poor word choice on my part. I didn't intend it to be insulting. I just wanted to show that it didn't fit my definition of disease which is something that can be diagnosed via biochemical testing and/or physical observation. Perhaps some of those I listed will be shown to be diseases in the future but, at this time, they don't fit the definition. There are lots of things that bother people for which there is no known cause and that doesn't mean they are not real; they just don't fit the definition of disease.
Thanks! You sum it up pretty well. My fasting glucose was 101 last test I took and that got flagged. I've read enough to know how asinine that is but along with the flag came the "consider metformin" notice. My A1c was 5.8 and you know that got flagged. My BMI is 25 but I'm a weight lifter so that means nothing but I still hear mention of "that's an upper bound" for normal weight. I feel really bad for people who trust the various organizations, the AHA etc, and live in fear, and discomfort because of the horrible meds. Now here comes semaglutide and it's stunning how it's trumpeted as just what we need. At some point no one is going to listen to any advice from doctors.
You are very welcome. It is a pleasure to communicate with people who have their head on straight. It gives me some hope for the future for my children and grandchildren. I think the medical profession lost a lot of whatever credibility they had with the Covid scam. I'm glad I got out when I did. And thank you for the kind words about my book. It was the first thing I ever wrote and that was several years after I retired from active medical practice. So I'm glad that you found it to be fairly coherent.