At its core, the physician-patient relationship is an individualized one.
Both the physician and the patient come into that relationship with unique characteristics, experiences, and perspectives.
And mostly, there are no perfect relationships.
There are always discussions. The ability to be open and promote a discussion, the ability to explain plainly as to the rationale for a particular course of action determines the quality of the doctor.
Trust is important ONLY in an individual doctor-patient relationship.
Trust is NOT as important when dealing with systems that promote one dogma over another, while censoring and stifling dissent by vetted and earnest professionals who have a contrary opinion.
I think it is important to remember Hollywood is loyal to the Democratic Party. During COVID, there was intense social pressure within elite media and Hollywood circles to get the vaccine and support mandates. I rarely see any shows where it's mentioned and when I have it's all about all of the deaths during Covid. Also there is the issue of Big Pharma being involved in these shows. For instance, you mentioned Doctor Odyssey. That show incorporates pharmaceutical promotions into its content. There was an episode where they featured the drug Remdesivir. "A group of attorneys representing over 1,500 individuals issued a cease-and-desist letter to ABC, demanding the removal of references to Remdesivir, alleging that the network falsely advertised the drug as a “miracle cure” while ignoring evidence of its alleged dangers and ineffectiveness." The political bias and Big Pharma make it very difficult for anyone in the industry to speak up. The only person I could see going against the narrative is Taylor Sheridan. Other show runners are for the most part too afraid. I think some in medicine are too. (Just some) We have a long way to go.
Great questions! Your premise is common sense and if we lived in a world where Biotech, Medical Academia, Healthcare providers (ie - hospitals, physicians and support staff) #1 objective was the positive outcome of patients we would have all of them doing that all day, every day as the Hippocratic Oath calls for. But alas, we don't have a system like that. All financial incentives are set up for these stakeholders to act in their own interests and so they do. Add to that the helping hand of a corrupt government and the FDA who allowed Big Pharma to avoid liability from all claims against them by those who have been injured, and you arrive at today!
No one who's reading this didn't go through the pandemic, and that's important, because it means none of us can fail to have a take on what happened. In addition, it makes the pandemic important enough to be making content about for TV. The question then is, are the two mutually incompatible? In order to formulate a unifying narrative that responds in all the right quarters to the experience of each of us? Is that even to be hoped for?
The delight of TV is to transport the viewer somewhere else than his own mundane little home. Producers risk improbability in outer space, tropes with foreign cultures, or shocking us with crime. When they get it right, generally the ratings tell them.
Born On The Fourth Of July takes viewers on the intimate journey of an idealistic young man who enlists for Vietnam and learns that the Path to Glory is very mud-splattered and soul destroying. The film's subject, Ron Kovic, wrote after he'd published the autobiography the film was based on: “Convinced that I was destined to die young, I struggled to leave something of meaning behind, to rise above the darkness and despair. I wanted people to understand. I wanted to share with them as nakedly and openly and intimately as possible what I had gone through, what I had endured … not the myth we had grown up believing. I wanted them to know what it really meant to be in a war.”
I wanted people to understand.
The film was the 10th-highest-earning film worldwide in 1989. The director won an Oscar. Some commented on his departure from events as described in Kovic's book. It was a good film, about true events, against a controversial backdrop. If Kovic is to be taken at his word, Stone fulfilled in visual format the desire he'd expressed of his book. To know what it really means.
Still, it split opinion, a gulf that divides protestors from those who see merit in the war, or in war without the article, or even in the attitudes of the police in Syracuse, New York. I enjoyed the film, because I am an outsider. Not a blank canvas to be written upon with something unrelatable, but, if I am to like what I view, the producer must win me over as an audience member with - in your case - a pre-formed and - I'll admit - constantly shifting prejudice on the entire sorry episode. They do so at their own risk. The risk of the ratings.
Once we realize these programs have their genesis possibly 10 years ( in not longer) prior to actual production and release dates?
Thus a TON of planning, writing and prepping including the 'proper' time to release such 'timely' programs to the average consumer.
Let's say most of these shows began production in 2015...
Let's chew on that for a moment and ponder what influences AI, and media control: conditioning along with psyop -pre/programming have to do with the cycle of events!
UK Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, in a BBC interview, was being badgered about why she didn't watch the popular show Adolescence (about a white boy murderer)-- despite the fact that the vast majority of murderers in the UK do not fit that demographic at all.
In the Sensible Medicine community, declining trust is frequently disproportionately attributed to COVID mandates. Featuring this article is an example.
I’m a full time PCP. Trust has been declining long before COVID. Because evidence based medicine is not sexy and often uncertain.
Many articles are devoted to the mistakes made by the majority voice during the pandemic. The audience eats it up— finally someone willing to speak up!
The problem is a vast majority of comments with misinterpretations, extrapolations and falsehoods go unchecked. A “Like” can be interpreted as an endorsement of the full statement rather than say encouragement for commenting or agreeing with some but not all of the comment. This leads the audience believing they can finally trust Sensible Medicine for being the truth.
I paraphrase Dr. Prasad’s recent quote that the writer is not responsible for the readers. Perhaps not, but it’s misleading for readers to think they can’t trust mainstream medicine but they can trust Sensible Medicine as their views go unchallenged.
For example, RFK Jr’s claim that they will find the cause of autism. As astute as Sensible Medicine’s readers are on study design and criticizing COVID trials, I’m curious if the same level of scrutiny will come from them or SM’s writers. This is not “whataboutism”— the people in charge of COVID deserved full criticism, and now the new people in charge deserve the same level of criticism. That is if you want to approach this with good faith. I subscribed to SM thinking this was the case.
90k subscribers is a lot of attention and money. Perhaps that’s why Dr. Prasad will bury a line like “anyone recommending ivermectin is an idiot” so he can play both sides: mention it to claim deniability but not make it a headline as to alienate the majority readership.
I would love to eat my words when Dr. Prasad writes an article explaining the study design RFK Jr. should pursue, then when they finally release the results, critiques it with the same passion and intelligence he does everything else.
"This leads the audience [into] believing they can finally trust Sensible Medicine for being the truth."
Actually, I would take issue. It led you to believe that the audience believe this. How do you measure what other readers of the article perceive in terms of "likes"?
I have a scale:
1-5: the writer has an earnest endorsement for what they have written here
6-10: the writer is on a roll
11-100: a healthy flock of ardent followers
101+: a populist: beware.
Now, I shall like your comment, as an earnest endorsement of (most of) what you've written here.
RFK seems to be proposing a retrospective study regarding his claims. Vinay has likened this type of study to painting a bullseye around an already fired arrow. I predict that Vinay won't like the study design or put a lot of stock in the results. I hope he breaks it all down for us when the time comes regardless of what the design and results are.
I don’t know of any protocol that was implemented to prevent the spread of covid that killed anyone; masking and distancing were effective particularly during the early stages of the pandemic when the virus was new to humans. mRNA vaccines were in development for many years before the covid pandemic which is what enabled the rapid ramping up and distribution of it and helped to save many lives. The vaccines were never sold as being 100% effective in preventing covid, they were described as being highly effective (but not 100%) in preventing severe disease and death. I worked as a front line health care provider throughout the covid pandemic and I am grateful for the protocols that were implemented by well intentioned health professionals. Did we learn a lot, yes as we should have. If you worked in an environment with portable refrigerator trucks to house the dead bodies because the hospital morgue could not accommodates them, you might have a different perspective.
Look at the rates of "deaths of despair" and drug overdoses and suicides, esp. among youth. Causation can't be easily proven, but it's naive to think that extended lockdowns did not affect those numbers.
alternate reality on Substack. And you sure have your fellow travellers. This is far from “common sense” and hardly “original thinking”. The old/fashioned expression “balderdash” comes to mind.
Frank, Frank, Frank . . . . . as with so many of your type who have ordained yourselves the experts on COVID, mRNA gene therapy and other diseases you give yourselves away with your arrogance and gaslighting of any view contrarian to your own (like you have clearly demonstrated above). This is a hallmark of all those who abhor honest and open debate of any kind, but most certainly on issues of personal health. Here's the deal . . . . . you either believe human beings are sovereign and have the right to reject any health intervention (drugs, medical procedures and or forced health confinement as well as forced vaccinations of any kind) or you believe the state regardless of the reason has the right to force any and all of these forced interventions on any member of society they want. If you believe we are all sovereign (and I hope you do) then you shouldn't worry your little self over the vaccinations details of others as you can if you so wish line up for as many JABS or interventions as you want. But you may just want to review the tens of thousands of reports and dozens of studies showing the correlation and causation of serious injuries and or death from said mRNA gene therapies goes up with each additional jab. You see in a country that is governed by a constitution that guarantees individual sovereignty you nor any health provider or government bureaucrat get to tell others they must too or punish them for not complying! This is and has already been litigated in the courts. Thus far the courts have rules 100% of the time that the government has no right to compel citizens against their will to take an experimental drug or vaccine.
In fact, my “little self” read the science and felt the vaccine and the masks were warranted by the data. Yes, some mistakes were made, as is true at any point on the scientific journey. Did the government have the right to *compel* anyone to take the vaccine. No. Did they have the right as the elected leaders of our collectivity to make vaccination and masks a mandatory condition for attending school, working in hospitals and public places etc. Of course they did. The government is “us”, something you libertarians don’t seem to get. They were acting in what they believed to be in the public interest. You and your radical pals had the right to keep your sovereign asses at home, barter food and circulate bullshit with each other on the internet. But now the government is you or you-adjacent, so happy days I guess.
Thank you Frank . . . YOU PROVED MY POINT about Fascists like you. You failed the first test. You failed to respond to any of my points. Agree or disagree it always come down to defending the people (in this case the government) who created the problem (ie - COVID virus) and then without proper debate fed us all more lies while gaslighting the very experts who were trying to save lives. After 5 yrs of evidence of maleficence and preventable injury and death of millions of humans you choose to defend the people who allowed it to happen in real time. By the way employers and government can require one to put a mask on in a private setting (like a hospital or workplace) but they don't get injure people in the process with out legal accountability and due process. That is now being litigated in the courts and large settlements are being paid out. Furthermore, the moronic employers (including hospitals) who stupidly forced their employees to get unnecessarily vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy are now paying the price in both lost employees (some quit, some got fired and some got injured or died from the mRNA poison). That has left most healthcare systems under manned with inexperienced nurses, doctors and technicians. You see what they won't tell us is many very highly experienced and tenured health care workers are now gone. How do I know? Because I was one for 34 yrs. I had a front row seat to the insanity with my own eyes all thru COVID in hospitals all over the Northeastern part of the USA.
Your over simplistic response that this is all ok because in your words not mine "we are the government " and this is what we voted for dismisses the concept of accountability and is exactly why the pandemic happened and why the response by governments were so inappropriate. You need to stop labeling people who don't agree with you as Libertarians or that my points are illegitimate or based on some crackpot tin hat conspiracy. Everything I have presented here has be verified by many in and out of government. That you dismiss all of it as an acceptable outcome of an unpredictable and unpreventable pandemic demonstrates your lack of objectivity or ability to critically analyze the massive amount of evidence to the contrary.
Apologies, I got stuck at: "Proclamations that lockdowns work, mask mandates reduce the transmission of COVID, and COVID vaccines stop transmission seemed laughable to anyone living in the real world whose response to the pandemic was not utter panic. "
Vaccines didn't "stop" transmission completely but they surely reduced it, right? (Not sure any vaccines are 100% effective....) Just checking...?!
You miss the points! We were blatantly lied to about everything, and people's lives were destroyed unnecessarily because of it!
1. COVID originated from a pangolin, not a lab leak- LIE
2. COVID was not chimeric (created by splicing viruses together in a lab by virologists)- LIE it was created in a LEVEL 4 Bioweapons lab, most likely in China but with funding by ECOhealth Alliance, a shell company Anthony Fauci created to hide his involvement.
2a. wearing MASK's stops the transmission of viruses so everyone MUST wear them or be prepared to be removed from society. LIE, LIE, LIE - There has NEVER been any properly designed studies in an open society that proved that masks stop transmission and if we were to ever get to HERD immunity enough people need to get infected to stop the spread.
3. mRNA technology was 100% safe - LIE (100% of the animals tested died violently prior to human testing and an alarming number of children were harmed in the initial tests but that was hidden from the FDA
4. mRNA is a vaccine (not gene therapy) - LIE. mRNA doesn't meet the definition of vaccine but is rather a gene therapy (ie - mRNA (messenger RNA) which is a spike protein that attaches itself to your DNA and takes over your immune system.
5. mRNA is 97% Effective - LIE (it is still not known the actual effectiveness however many scientists involved in the development of the COVID mRNA gene therapy have reported at most the vaccine was 15-20% effective.
6. COVID was different and as such herd immunity was not possible - LIE (COVID although chimeric was a common coronavirus) which always resolves thru herd immunity over time. the mRNA vaccinations only prolonged the pandemic and allowed the virus to mutate over and over.
7. the mRNA needed to be administered to everyone all the way down to infants and pregnant women - LIE - This group had some of the worst injuries and deaths. Pfizer, Moderna and J&J had no data supporting the use of these poisons on children and pregnant women.
8. the mRNA vaccines did not cause harm to teenage boys - LIE - % of reported cases of severe myocarditis and death in men 14-40 yrs of age was higher than had ever been seen in any mass vaccination.
9. Our system of developing vaccines is safe and effective - LIE - Sadly our FDA has allowed the drug companies to run rampant with little oversight before approving new vaccines. The VAERS (vaccine adverse reporting systems) are abjectly flawed and ONLY catch approximately 1-3% of all injuries making impossible for the system to catch and correct injuries. Additionally, the drug companies (thru their lobbyist) have been able to skirt accountability by removing all liability from injuries caused by their negligence) since 1989 when President Reagan signed a bill into law that protects them. Hopefully this worldwide tragedy and genocide will force governments and industry to change the way we handle drug approvals and vaccinations.
The freedom from liability especially caught my eye. The path of logic seems to be "We know this is asked in a bit of a rush, so we appreciate that you may actually kill everyone instead of preventing their demise, so, given that, you're absolved of all liability."
There's supposed to be a rule of law, one that applies to everyone, for everyone. But, here, in a case literally of life and death, the government waives the liability of pharma companies for mistakes they make in relations with the government's citizens.
Gosh. Shouldn't pharma be putting its mouth where its money is?
According to the CDC 95% plus of Americans have had Covid, back in 2013. The mandates and masks reduced transmission like soldiers in a trench holding their breath in a cloud of mustard gas---check back in 5 minutes and you see no apparent effect.
My trust in the medical establishment AAP, ABIM, and the ABOG is forever broken. Until doctors free themselves from the influence of pharmaceutical companies and become free to actually care for patients and not the hospitals bottom line, I will be very cautious of trusting them. ABOG recommended Covid vaccines in pregnancy with zero evidence of benefit and still births increased with no one bothering to try to understand why. What ABIM did to Dr Pierre Kory is just one of many stories of their malfeasance. AAP continues to add more shots to their recommendations with such a paucity of evidence that it is laughable. And just take a look at the commercials that air during those medical shows to see that they are just propaganda vehicles. I have doctors that I trust, but they have earned that trust by treating my questions as valid and working with me to address the issue rather than treat the symptom. But the establishment as a whole is broken, and Hollywood is definitely not the answer.
I wasn't sold on Pitt - loved the cases and medical traumas, but Dr. Robby is borderline abusive and the show still has a lot of "woke" in it. The Covid flashbacks made me think of him as weak, I have to say, and he is portrayed as genuinely intolerant and unstable. But the show is definitely selling the pro-mandate narrative; I just wonder how many people find this grating. (I couldn't finish the last season of The Resident for the same reason, although the first season that was obviously filmed pre-Covid was terrific.)
My nostalgia for medical drama led me to re-watch ER reruns, and that is still the GOAT medical show - cast is authentically diverse and problems are not reduced to harangues on one ideology in modern society. Hopefully Pitt will improve next season.
(I do read - I just have always had a weakness for medical dramas!)
NeverDull, you see the Dr. Robby character as “weak,” “intolerant” and “unstable?” From my own four decades of experience as a PA, I see Noah Wylie’s portrayal as an honest reflection of the fact that the patient population often expects medical providers to be superhuman - tireless and infallible fonts of knowledge and compassion - at all times and under any circumstances. And the funny part is that, just as portrayed in The Pitt, medical professionals typically strive to meet those expectations, even at what can be a significant personal cost.
Dear Andrew. Thank you for your insightful reflection.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been more than a health emergency — it has become a mirror, reflecting the condition of our civilization, our social structures, and the current medical paradigm. While we must recognize the many scientific and technological advances, it is equally clear that modern medicine faces significant limitations in delivering truly effective and lasting solutions to complex public health challenges. More concerning still is its struggle to promote genuine, sustainable health.
Consider that only 7 out of every 100 adults in the United States meet the criteria for metabolic health [ 1]. This stark reality raises a troubling question: Are we, as a species, becoming victims of our own progress? Medicine, rather than being purely a source of solutions, at times appears complicit in — or even reinforcing — the very problems it is meant to address. For instance, medical error has been identified as a potential third leading cause of death in the U.S., following heart disease and cancer [2].
In such a context, it's perhaps unsurprising that irrational yet compelling narratives emerge — narratives that obscure systemic flaws and are upheld by what Robert Proctor called “agnatology”, the culturally driven production of ignorance. These narratives are often institutionalized, suppressing critical voices through appeals to authority. They permeate our media, education systems, and cultural symbols — from idealized portrayals like Marcus Welby, M.D. (1969), the dark wartime humor of MASH* (1972–1983), to the romanticized heroics of Trapper John, M.D. (1979–1986) — known in Latin America as “Hombres de Blanco” — and the glamorous chaos of ER (1994–2009). More recently, series like The Pitt (2024) and New Amsterdam (2018–2022) attempt to reclaim a more humanistic role for medicine through characters like Dr. Max Goodwin.
Curiously — and perhaps tragically — New Amsterdam unfolds in the largest hospital in New York, placing its well-meaning protagonist amid the very real chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic. The show’s later seasons reflect the challenges, contradictions, and consequences of the crisis — including the realization that, for children, face masks may have provided little benefit. According to media reports (unverified), in a rare act of solidarity, the show’s producers allegedly donated all the set’s medical equipment to support pandemic relief efforts.
But the narrative doesn’t end there. Soon, we may see fictional portrayals in which a full-body scanner uses AI to diagnose over 2,599 diseases and conditions from the comfort of home — selecting interventions based on probabilistic evidence, launching a “standard gamble,” and managing complex decisions autonomously. Such utopian visions suggest a world where medicine not only addresses what lies within its scope, but also what lies far beyond it — a world where all problems are seemingly solvable by technology.
Yet we have, in many ways, been collectively misled — both the public and the medical profession — about what it truly means to live a healthy life. Even major health institutions often promote lifestyle recommendations that conflict with what we know about prevention and the creation of health. In this critical review, I expose a global falsehood built on half-truths — about our health, our nutrition, and our way of living [3]: https://bit.ly/EcheverryJ_2024_Falsehod_origin_diabesity_pandemic
That is why I believe it is time to consider a profound shift in perspective. My recent work, grounded in a narrative review, advocates for the transition toward a Salutogenic model of medicine — one that focuses not just on the treatment of disease but on the active promotion of health, resilience, and human potential. This model calls for a more integrative, sensible approach to health — one that honors the biological and sociocultural determinants of well-being.
It is no coincidence that, from the earliest days of the pandemic, 8 out of 10 individuals with severe or fatal outcomes shared common metabolic features — including elevated HbA1c levels and notably low levels of vitamin C and the hormone vitamin D [4]. These findings underscore the urgent need to shift away from the distorted and glamorized "movie version" of medicine — the kind so often portrayed by cinema and television — and toward crafting our own, more truthful and holistic “health narrative.” One that moves beyond pathology, focusing instead on the real-life conditions that allow health to emerge, develop, and thrive — however unglamorous or non-commercial they may seem.
Warmest regards,
Dr.Jairo Echeverry-Raad
References:
1. O'Hearn, M., Lauren, B. N., Wong, J. B., Kim, D. D., & Mozaffarian, D. (2022). Trends and Disparities in Cardiometabolic Health Among U.S. Adults, 1999-2018. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 80(2), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.046
2. Makary, M. A., & Daniel, M. (2016). Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 353, i2139. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139
4. Kalichuran, S., van Blydenstein, S. A., Venter, M., & Omar, S. (2022). Vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity. Southern African journal of infectious diseases, 37(1), 359. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajid.v37i1.359
My view of how we got into this mess: we had less-than-fabulous scientists, themselves very scared, who made over-the-top decisions governing the actions of almost everyone on the planet. Many of us obeyed out of fear, and passed judgment on everyone who didn’t do exactly as we did. Democrats SEEMED to agree with the overzealous medical practitioners, while Republicans TENDED to align with the opposite extreme. There was so much vitriol among scientists, that once it became clear that some of them were wrong, they wouldn’t admit it. Reading the MedTwitter discussions was like listening to your parents fight.
Now, we’re left with an enormous amount of resentment regarding the government overreach that was supposed to protect everyone with ridiculous NPIs and vaccine mandates, even after it became crystal clear that those actions didn’t prevent disease transmission. I get it, I have resentment about it too, but I’m afraid it’s clouded many people’s judgment regarding political decisions. I’m afraid that the narrative of Dems = vax mandates and GOP = anti-vax is a false one, and has really gotten out of hand. My conclusion: there’s been a lot of lying and sloppy science combined with anchoring bias (cognitive bias causing us to rely too heavily on the FIRST things we learn about a given topic) combined with many voters not being well-read about Covid (relying too much on the crap put out by poorly-trained mainstream press health reporters).
It’s very depressing, and I hope we can straighten things out, one day.
Perhaps, it’s best that “trust” is not restored.
At its core, the physician-patient relationship is an individualized one.
Both the physician and the patient come into that relationship with unique characteristics, experiences, and perspectives.
And mostly, there are no perfect relationships.
There are always discussions. The ability to be open and promote a discussion, the ability to explain plainly as to the rationale for a particular course of action determines the quality of the doctor.
Trust is important ONLY in an individual doctor-patient relationship.
Trust is NOT as important when dealing with systems that promote one dogma over another, while censoring and stifling dissent by vetted and earnest professionals who have a contrary opinion.
I think it is important to remember Hollywood is loyal to the Democratic Party. During COVID, there was intense social pressure within elite media and Hollywood circles to get the vaccine and support mandates. I rarely see any shows where it's mentioned and when I have it's all about all of the deaths during Covid. Also there is the issue of Big Pharma being involved in these shows. For instance, you mentioned Doctor Odyssey. That show incorporates pharmaceutical promotions into its content. There was an episode where they featured the drug Remdesivir. "A group of attorneys representing over 1,500 individuals issued a cease-and-desist letter to ABC, demanding the removal of references to Remdesivir, alleging that the network falsely advertised the drug as a “miracle cure” while ignoring evidence of its alleged dangers and ineffectiveness." The political bias and Big Pharma make it very difficult for anyone in the industry to speak up. The only person I could see going against the narrative is Taylor Sheridan. Other show runners are for the most part too afraid. I think some in medicine are too. (Just some) We have a long way to go.
Great questions! Your premise is common sense and if we lived in a world where Biotech, Medical Academia, Healthcare providers (ie - hospitals, physicians and support staff) #1 objective was the positive outcome of patients we would have all of them doing that all day, every day as the Hippocratic Oath calls for. But alas, we don't have a system like that. All financial incentives are set up for these stakeholders to act in their own interests and so they do. Add to that the helping hand of a corrupt government and the FDA who allowed Big Pharma to avoid liability from all claims against them by those who have been injured, and you arrive at today!
No one who's reading this didn't go through the pandemic, and that's important, because it means none of us can fail to have a take on what happened. In addition, it makes the pandemic important enough to be making content about for TV. The question then is, are the two mutually incompatible? In order to formulate a unifying narrative that responds in all the right quarters to the experience of each of us? Is that even to be hoped for?
The delight of TV is to transport the viewer somewhere else than his own mundane little home. Producers risk improbability in outer space, tropes with foreign cultures, or shocking us with crime. When they get it right, generally the ratings tell them.
Born On The Fourth Of July takes viewers on the intimate journey of an idealistic young man who enlists for Vietnam and learns that the Path to Glory is very mud-splattered and soul destroying. The film's subject, Ron Kovic, wrote after he'd published the autobiography the film was based on: “Convinced that I was destined to die young, I struggled to leave something of meaning behind, to rise above the darkness and despair. I wanted people to understand. I wanted to share with them as nakedly and openly and intimately as possible what I had gone through, what I had endured … not the myth we had grown up believing. I wanted them to know what it really meant to be in a war.”
I wanted people to understand.
The film was the 10th-highest-earning film worldwide in 1989. The director won an Oscar. Some commented on his departure from events as described in Kovic's book. It was a good film, about true events, against a controversial backdrop. If Kovic is to be taken at his word, Stone fulfilled in visual format the desire he'd expressed of his book. To know what it really means.
Still, it split opinion, a gulf that divides protestors from those who see merit in the war, or in war without the article, or even in the attitudes of the police in Syracuse, New York. I enjoyed the film, because I am an outsider. Not a blank canvas to be written upon with something unrelatable, but, if I am to like what I view, the producer must win me over as an audience member with - in your case - a pre-formed and - I'll admit - constantly shifting prejudice on the entire sorry episode. They do so at their own risk. The risk of the ratings.
Dude, just think...
Once we realize these programs have their genesis possibly 10 years ( in not longer) prior to actual production and release dates?
Thus a TON of planning, writing and prepping including the 'proper' time to release such 'timely' programs to the average consumer.
Let's say most of these shows began production in 2015...
Let's chew on that for a moment and ponder what influences AI, and media control: conditioning along with psyop -pre/programming have to do with the cycle of events!
Very creepy when put on a timeline!
Yikes!
UK Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, in a BBC interview, was being badgered about why she didn't watch the popular show Adolescence (about a white boy murderer)-- despite the fact that the vast majority of murderers in the UK do not fit that demographic at all.
What don't they fit: the white bit or the boy bit?
In the Sensible Medicine community, declining trust is frequently disproportionately attributed to COVID mandates. Featuring this article is an example.
I’m a full time PCP. Trust has been declining long before COVID. Because evidence based medicine is not sexy and often uncertain.
Many articles are devoted to the mistakes made by the majority voice during the pandemic. The audience eats it up— finally someone willing to speak up!
The problem is a vast majority of comments with misinterpretations, extrapolations and falsehoods go unchecked. A “Like” can be interpreted as an endorsement of the full statement rather than say encouragement for commenting or agreeing with some but not all of the comment. This leads the audience believing they can finally trust Sensible Medicine for being the truth.
I paraphrase Dr. Prasad’s recent quote that the writer is not responsible for the readers. Perhaps not, but it’s misleading for readers to think they can’t trust mainstream medicine but they can trust Sensible Medicine as their views go unchallenged.
For example, RFK Jr’s claim that they will find the cause of autism. As astute as Sensible Medicine’s readers are on study design and criticizing COVID trials, I’m curious if the same level of scrutiny will come from them or SM’s writers. This is not “whataboutism”— the people in charge of COVID deserved full criticism, and now the new people in charge deserve the same level of criticism. That is if you want to approach this with good faith. I subscribed to SM thinking this was the case.
90k subscribers is a lot of attention and money. Perhaps that’s why Dr. Prasad will bury a line like “anyone recommending ivermectin is an idiot” so he can play both sides: mention it to claim deniability but not make it a headline as to alienate the majority readership.
I would love to eat my words when Dr. Prasad writes an article explaining the study design RFK Jr. should pursue, then when they finally release the results, critiques it with the same passion and intelligence he does everything else.
"This leads the audience [into] believing they can finally trust Sensible Medicine for being the truth."
Actually, I would take issue. It led you to believe that the audience believe this. How do you measure what other readers of the article perceive in terms of "likes"?
I have a scale:
1-5: the writer has an earnest endorsement for what they have written here
6-10: the writer is on a roll
11-100: a healthy flock of ardent followers
101+: a populist: beware.
Now, I shall like your comment, as an earnest endorsement of (most of) what you've written here.
RFK seems to be proposing a retrospective study regarding his claims. Vinay has likened this type of study to painting a bullseye around an already fired arrow. I predict that Vinay won't like the study design or put a lot of stock in the results. I hope he breaks it all down for us when the time comes regardless of what the design and results are.
I don’t know of any protocol that was implemented to prevent the spread of covid that killed anyone; masking and distancing were effective particularly during the early stages of the pandemic when the virus was new to humans. mRNA vaccines were in development for many years before the covid pandemic which is what enabled the rapid ramping up and distribution of it and helped to save many lives. The vaccines were never sold as being 100% effective in preventing covid, they were described as being highly effective (but not 100%) in preventing severe disease and death. I worked as a front line health care provider throughout the covid pandemic and I am grateful for the protocols that were implemented by well intentioned health professionals. Did we learn a lot, yes as we should have. If you worked in an environment with portable refrigerator trucks to house the dead bodies because the hospital morgue could not accommodates them, you might have a different perspective.
Look at the rates of "deaths of despair" and drug overdoses and suicides, esp. among youth. Causation can't be easily proven, but it's naive to think that extended lockdowns did not affect those numbers.
I am interested in that data too. Can you share it? TY.
Wow. If that was a legal delivery, it came out of left field.
I always thought that the most true-to-life medical TV show was Scrubs . . .
Wow, libertarian anti-vaccine, “they-totally-fucked-it-up”
alternate reality on Substack. And you sure have your fellow travellers. This is far from “common sense” and hardly “original thinking”. The old/fashioned expression “balderdash” comes to mind.
Frank, Frank, Frank . . . . . as with so many of your type who have ordained yourselves the experts on COVID, mRNA gene therapy and other diseases you give yourselves away with your arrogance and gaslighting of any view contrarian to your own (like you have clearly demonstrated above). This is a hallmark of all those who abhor honest and open debate of any kind, but most certainly on issues of personal health. Here's the deal . . . . . you either believe human beings are sovereign and have the right to reject any health intervention (drugs, medical procedures and or forced health confinement as well as forced vaccinations of any kind) or you believe the state regardless of the reason has the right to force any and all of these forced interventions on any member of society they want. If you believe we are all sovereign (and I hope you do) then you shouldn't worry your little self over the vaccinations details of others as you can if you so wish line up for as many JABS or interventions as you want. But you may just want to review the tens of thousands of reports and dozens of studies showing the correlation and causation of serious injuries and or death from said mRNA gene therapies goes up with each additional jab. You see in a country that is governed by a constitution that guarantees individual sovereignty you nor any health provider or government bureaucrat get to tell others they must too or punish them for not complying! This is and has already been litigated in the courts. Thus far the courts have rules 100% of the time that the government has no right to compel citizens against their will to take an experimental drug or vaccine.
In fact, my “little self” read the science and felt the vaccine and the masks were warranted by the data. Yes, some mistakes were made, as is true at any point on the scientific journey. Did the government have the right to *compel* anyone to take the vaccine. No. Did they have the right as the elected leaders of our collectivity to make vaccination and masks a mandatory condition for attending school, working in hospitals and public places etc. Of course they did. The government is “us”, something you libertarians don’t seem to get. They were acting in what they believed to be in the public interest. You and your radical pals had the right to keep your sovereign asses at home, barter food and circulate bullshit with each other on the internet. But now the government is you or you-adjacent, so happy days I guess.
Thank you Frank . . . YOU PROVED MY POINT about Fascists like you. You failed the first test. You failed to respond to any of my points. Agree or disagree it always come down to defending the people (in this case the government) who created the problem (ie - COVID virus) and then without proper debate fed us all more lies while gaslighting the very experts who were trying to save lives. After 5 yrs of evidence of maleficence and preventable injury and death of millions of humans you choose to defend the people who allowed it to happen in real time. By the way employers and government can require one to put a mask on in a private setting (like a hospital or workplace) but they don't get injure people in the process with out legal accountability and due process. That is now being litigated in the courts and large settlements are being paid out. Furthermore, the moronic employers (including hospitals) who stupidly forced their employees to get unnecessarily vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy are now paying the price in both lost employees (some quit, some got fired and some got injured or died from the mRNA poison). That has left most healthcare systems under manned with inexperienced nurses, doctors and technicians. You see what they won't tell us is many very highly experienced and tenured health care workers are now gone. How do I know? Because I was one for 34 yrs. I had a front row seat to the insanity with my own eyes all thru COVID in hospitals all over the Northeastern part of the USA.
Your over simplistic response that this is all ok because in your words not mine "we are the government " and this is what we voted for dismisses the concept of accountability and is exactly why the pandemic happened and why the response by governments were so inappropriate. You need to stop labeling people who don't agree with you as Libertarians or that my points are illegitimate or based on some crackpot tin hat conspiracy. Everything I have presented here has be verified by many in and out of government. That you dismiss all of it as an acceptable outcome of an unpredictable and unpreventable pandemic demonstrates your lack of objectivity or ability to critically analyze the massive amount of evidence to the contrary.
Apologies, I got stuck at: "Proclamations that lockdowns work, mask mandates reduce the transmission of COVID, and COVID vaccines stop transmission seemed laughable to anyone living in the real world whose response to the pandemic was not utter panic. "
Vaccines didn't "stop" transmission completely but they surely reduced it, right? (Not sure any vaccines are 100% effective....) Just checking...?!
You miss the points! We were blatantly lied to about everything, and people's lives were destroyed unnecessarily because of it!
1. COVID originated from a pangolin, not a lab leak- LIE
2. COVID was not chimeric (created by splicing viruses together in a lab by virologists)- LIE it was created in a LEVEL 4 Bioweapons lab, most likely in China but with funding by ECOhealth Alliance, a shell company Anthony Fauci created to hide his involvement.
2a. wearing MASK's stops the transmission of viruses so everyone MUST wear them or be prepared to be removed from society. LIE, LIE, LIE - There has NEVER been any properly designed studies in an open society that proved that masks stop transmission and if we were to ever get to HERD immunity enough people need to get infected to stop the spread.
3. mRNA technology was 100% safe - LIE (100% of the animals tested died violently prior to human testing and an alarming number of children were harmed in the initial tests but that was hidden from the FDA
4. mRNA is a vaccine (not gene therapy) - LIE. mRNA doesn't meet the definition of vaccine but is rather a gene therapy (ie - mRNA (messenger RNA) which is a spike protein that attaches itself to your DNA and takes over your immune system.
5. mRNA is 97% Effective - LIE (it is still not known the actual effectiveness however many scientists involved in the development of the COVID mRNA gene therapy have reported at most the vaccine was 15-20% effective.
6. COVID was different and as such herd immunity was not possible - LIE (COVID although chimeric was a common coronavirus) which always resolves thru herd immunity over time. the mRNA vaccinations only prolonged the pandemic and allowed the virus to mutate over and over.
7. the mRNA needed to be administered to everyone all the way down to infants and pregnant women - LIE - This group had some of the worst injuries and deaths. Pfizer, Moderna and J&J had no data supporting the use of these poisons on children and pregnant women.
8. the mRNA vaccines did not cause harm to teenage boys - LIE - % of reported cases of severe myocarditis and death in men 14-40 yrs of age was higher than had ever been seen in any mass vaccination.
9. Our system of developing vaccines is safe and effective - LIE - Sadly our FDA has allowed the drug companies to run rampant with little oversight before approving new vaccines. The VAERS (vaccine adverse reporting systems) are abjectly flawed and ONLY catch approximately 1-3% of all injuries making impossible for the system to catch and correct injuries. Additionally, the drug companies (thru their lobbyist) have been able to skirt accountability by removing all liability from injuries caused by their negligence) since 1989 when President Reagan signed a bill into law that protects them. Hopefully this worldwide tragedy and genocide will force governments and industry to change the way we handle drug approvals and vaccinations.
The freedom from liability especially caught my eye. The path of logic seems to be "We know this is asked in a bit of a rush, so we appreciate that you may actually kill everyone instead of preventing their demise, so, given that, you're absolved of all liability."
There's supposed to be a rule of law, one that applies to everyone, for everyone. But, here, in a case literally of life and death, the government waives the liability of pharma companies for mistakes they make in relations with the government's citizens.
Gosh. Shouldn't pharma be putting its mouth where its money is?
According to the CDC 95% plus of Americans have had Covid, back in 2013. The mandates and masks reduced transmission like soldiers in a trench holding their breath in a cloud of mustard gas---check back in 5 minutes and you see no apparent effect.
My trust in the medical establishment AAP, ABIM, and the ABOG is forever broken. Until doctors free themselves from the influence of pharmaceutical companies and become free to actually care for patients and not the hospitals bottom line, I will be very cautious of trusting them. ABOG recommended Covid vaccines in pregnancy with zero evidence of benefit and still births increased with no one bothering to try to understand why. What ABIM did to Dr Pierre Kory is just one of many stories of their malfeasance. AAP continues to add more shots to their recommendations with such a paucity of evidence that it is laughable. And just take a look at the commercials that air during those medical shows to see that they are just propaganda vehicles. I have doctors that I trust, but they have earned that trust by treating my questions as valid and working with me to address the issue rather than treat the symptom. But the establishment as a whole is broken, and Hollywood is definitely not the answer.
I wasn't sold on Pitt - loved the cases and medical traumas, but Dr. Robby is borderline abusive and the show still has a lot of "woke" in it. The Covid flashbacks made me think of him as weak, I have to say, and he is portrayed as genuinely intolerant and unstable. But the show is definitely selling the pro-mandate narrative; I just wonder how many people find this grating. (I couldn't finish the last season of The Resident for the same reason, although the first season that was obviously filmed pre-Covid was terrific.)
My nostalgia for medical drama led me to re-watch ER reruns, and that is still the GOAT medical show - cast is authentically diverse and problems are not reduced to harangues on one ideology in modern society. Hopefully Pitt will improve next season.
(I do read - I just have always had a weakness for medical dramas!)
NeverDull, you see the Dr. Robby character as “weak,” “intolerant” and “unstable?” From my own four decades of experience as a PA, I see Noah Wylie’s portrayal as an honest reflection of the fact that the patient population often expects medical providers to be superhuman - tireless and infallible fonts of knowledge and compassion - at all times and under any circumstances. And the funny part is that, just as portrayed in The Pitt, medical professionals typically strive to meet those expectations, even at what can be a significant personal cost.
You neglected the new series Pulse which portrays MDs as hysterically entitled and self absorbed while undoubtedly not intending to do so.
Could it be we on the other side of entertainment see things as they really are?
Will a few years of pap change that? It certainly hasn't to date.
Dear Andrew. Thank you for your insightful reflection.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been more than a health emergency — it has become a mirror, reflecting the condition of our civilization, our social structures, and the current medical paradigm. While we must recognize the many scientific and technological advances, it is equally clear that modern medicine faces significant limitations in delivering truly effective and lasting solutions to complex public health challenges. More concerning still is its struggle to promote genuine, sustainable health.
Consider that only 7 out of every 100 adults in the United States meet the criteria for metabolic health [ 1]. This stark reality raises a troubling question: Are we, as a species, becoming victims of our own progress? Medicine, rather than being purely a source of solutions, at times appears complicit in — or even reinforcing — the very problems it is meant to address. For instance, medical error has been identified as a potential third leading cause of death in the U.S., following heart disease and cancer [2].
In such a context, it's perhaps unsurprising that irrational yet compelling narratives emerge — narratives that obscure systemic flaws and are upheld by what Robert Proctor called “agnatology”, the culturally driven production of ignorance. These narratives are often institutionalized, suppressing critical voices through appeals to authority. They permeate our media, education systems, and cultural symbols — from idealized portrayals like Marcus Welby, M.D. (1969), the dark wartime humor of MASH* (1972–1983), to the romanticized heroics of Trapper John, M.D. (1979–1986) — known in Latin America as “Hombres de Blanco” — and the glamorous chaos of ER (1994–2009). More recently, series like The Pitt (2024) and New Amsterdam (2018–2022) attempt to reclaim a more humanistic role for medicine through characters like Dr. Max Goodwin.
Curiously — and perhaps tragically — New Amsterdam unfolds in the largest hospital in New York, placing its well-meaning protagonist amid the very real chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic. The show’s later seasons reflect the challenges, contradictions, and consequences of the crisis — including the realization that, for children, face masks may have provided little benefit. According to media reports (unverified), in a rare act of solidarity, the show’s producers allegedly donated all the set’s medical equipment to support pandemic relief efforts.
But the narrative doesn’t end there. Soon, we may see fictional portrayals in which a full-body scanner uses AI to diagnose over 2,599 diseases and conditions from the comfort of home — selecting interventions based on probabilistic evidence, launching a “standard gamble,” and managing complex decisions autonomously. Such utopian visions suggest a world where medicine not only addresses what lies within its scope, but also what lies far beyond it — a world where all problems are seemingly solvable by technology.
Yet we have, in many ways, been collectively misled — both the public and the medical profession — about what it truly means to live a healthy life. Even major health institutions often promote lifestyle recommendations that conflict with what we know about prevention and the creation of health. In this critical review, I expose a global falsehood built on half-truths — about our health, our nutrition, and our way of living [3]: https://bit.ly/EcheverryJ_2024_Falsehod_origin_diabesity_pandemic
That is why I believe it is time to consider a profound shift in perspective. My recent work, grounded in a narrative review, advocates for the transition toward a Salutogenic model of medicine — one that focuses not just on the treatment of disease but on the active promotion of health, resilience, and human potential. This model calls for a more integrative, sensible approach to health — one that honors the biological and sociocultural determinants of well-being.
It is no coincidence that, from the earliest days of the pandemic, 8 out of 10 individuals with severe or fatal outcomes shared common metabolic features — including elevated HbA1c levels and notably low levels of vitamin C and the hormone vitamin D [4]. These findings underscore the urgent need to shift away from the distorted and glamorized "movie version" of medicine — the kind so often portrayed by cinema and television — and toward crafting our own, more truthful and holistic “health narrative.” One that moves beyond pathology, focusing instead on the real-life conditions that allow health to emerge, develop, and thrive — however unglamorous or non-commercial they may seem.
Warmest regards,
Dr.Jairo Echeverry-Raad
References:
1. O'Hearn, M., Lauren, B. N., Wong, J. B., Kim, D. D., & Mozaffarian, D. (2022). Trends and Disparities in Cardiometabolic Health Among U.S. Adults, 1999-2018. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 80(2), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.046
2. Makary, M. A., & Daniel, M. (2016). Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 353, i2139. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139
3. https://bit.ly/EcheverryJ_2024_Falsehod_origin_diabesity_pandemic
4. Kalichuran, S., van Blydenstein, S. A., Venter, M., & Omar, S. (2022). Vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity. Southern African journal of infectious diseases, 37(1), 359. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajid.v37i1.359
My view of how we got into this mess: we had less-than-fabulous scientists, themselves very scared, who made over-the-top decisions governing the actions of almost everyone on the planet. Many of us obeyed out of fear, and passed judgment on everyone who didn’t do exactly as we did. Democrats SEEMED to agree with the overzealous medical practitioners, while Republicans TENDED to align with the opposite extreme. There was so much vitriol among scientists, that once it became clear that some of them were wrong, they wouldn’t admit it. Reading the MedTwitter discussions was like listening to your parents fight.
Now, we’re left with an enormous amount of resentment regarding the government overreach that was supposed to protect everyone with ridiculous NPIs and vaccine mandates, even after it became crystal clear that those actions didn’t prevent disease transmission. I get it, I have resentment about it too, but I’m afraid it’s clouded many people’s judgment regarding political decisions. I’m afraid that the narrative of Dems = vax mandates and GOP = anti-vax is a false one, and has really gotten out of hand. My conclusion: there’s been a lot of lying and sloppy science combined with anchoring bias (cognitive bias causing us to rely too heavily on the FIRST things we learn about a given topic) combined with many voters not being well-read about Covid (relying too much on the crap put out by poorly-trained mainstream press health reporters).
It’s very depressing, and I hope we can straighten things out, one day.