Positive Health Online

Advances in medical science, diagnostics and therapies, are nothing new. Since the birth of allopathic medicine, claims of fantastic improvements in their healthcare services are a constant feature of the information that is made available to the public. Decades of health campaigns never stop to impress us with what has become possible. However, while working in that medical system, I was mainly struck by the number of recommended therapies – which I believed in and unreservedly implemented – that, within the space of five or ten years, were changed or even taken of the market because of serious risks to the patients. It made me question the validity of the way they established safety and efficiency. Most of you will still remember – at least, I hope you will – the thalidomide story. This is what happened.

The Thalidomide Debacle

Thalidomide is a compound that was developed in the 1950s by the West German pharmaceutical company Chemie Grünenthal GmbH. It was originally intended as a sedative or tranquilizer but was soon used for treating a wide range of other conditions, including colds, flu, nausea and morning sickness in pregnant people. The drug was deemed to be harmless to humans. Thalidomide was licensed in July 1956 for over-the-counter sale (no doctor’s prescription was needed) in Germany. By the mid-1950s, 14 pharmaceutical companies were marketing thalidomide in 46 countries under at least 37 different trade names. It took five years for the connection between thalidomide taken by pregnant women and the impact on their children to be made. One tablet is enough to cause significant impairments, and this might not always be visible. One reason why researchers and doctors were slow to make this connection was due to the wide range of changes to foetal development. The first time the link between thalidomide and its impact on development was made public was in a letter published in The Lancet from an Australian doctor William McBride, in 1961. The drug was formally withdrawn by Chemie Grünenthal on 26 November 1961 and a few days later, on 2 December 1961, the UK distributors followed suit. However, it remained in many medicine cabinets under many different names. In the few short years that thalidomide was available, it's estimated that over 10,000 babies were affected by the drug worldwide, potentially increasing to 20,000. Around half of these died within months of being born. The babies who survived and their families live with the effects of the drug. End of story? No, not really. In 1964, doctor Jacob Sheskin at Jerusalem’s Hadassah University Hospital, gave one of his patients thalidomide to help with a severe complication of leprosy. – Why the hell would he do that, knowing the high toxicity level of the drug? – As a result, the World Health Organisation (WHO) ran a clinical trial on the use of thalidomide for leprosy in 1967. And after more positive results, thalidomide was used as a treatment for leprosy in many countries. More recently, it has been used successfully to control some AIDS-related conditions, and as a targeted cancer drug for treating the symptoms of cancers such as multiple myeloma. Never discard a medication you have invested a lot of money in!

How was it possible this dramatic effect of the drug was completely missed in the testing trials before approval was given to bring the drug on the market? It appears that the studies published by the company developing the drug, Chemie Grünenthal, were not rigorous. There was no placebo group and no indication of how long treatment had gone on for. None of the studies were double-blind. There was also no measurement of how much thalidomide there was in the blood or tissue of the patients taking it. Widukind Lenz, one of the doctors who investigated thalidomide in the aftermath of the tragedy, said: “The papers published in 1956 … on animal experiments and … on clinical experiences with thalidomide have so little scientific value that in my opinion they should not have been accepted for print.” – 1 Rely on non-scientific studies - Thalidomide was marketed in several countries and was called Distaval in the UK. It was prescribed as a totally safe sedative and was used in treatments for flu and also for morning sickness and insomnia associated with pregnancy, despite the fact that no safety testing had been done on pregnant animals. By the late 1950s, babies were starting to be born with missing or shortened limbs. Doctors expect to see a small level of birth defects – Really? – but the numbers were much higher than normal. Investigations began to try to find the cause. Thalidomide was suggested, but its proponents argued that it couldn’t be blamed because some women who had taken it during pregnancy had children without abnormalities, while some mothers whose babies were born with the defects said that they could not remember taking Distaval (or any of the other brand names for thalidomide used around the world). – That is also the case with the said cause of health problems such as infections, Lyme disease, lung cancer and skin cancer. - In June 1961, an Australian doctor, William McBride, succeeded in getting the Women’s Hospital, Sydney, to stop prescribing thalidomide to pregnant women after he and midwife Sister Pat Sparrow saw several cases of birth defects and connected them to the drug. McBride wrote to The Lancet to describe his findings. He also asked a professor of pharmacology at the University of Sydney to run a study in laboratory animals to try to prove his theory, but his request was turned down. When animal tests did finally happen, they showed the range of effects that thalidomide could have – from miscarriage and re-absorption of the foetus in the womb, to damage to the eyes, the heart, the brain, and the distinctive limb malformations – depending on the stage of pregnancy. Some have argued that some of the animal experiments did not result in malformed offspring, so animal tests would have failed to prevent thalidomide being marketed. Closer examination shows that this was because most animals give birth at night and many species will cannibalise a baby that is born with deformities. So, when technicians arrive in the morning, only healthy offspring are visible. Caesarean sections and monitoring of animals through the night found that animals given thalidomide during the particular stage of pregnancy did give birth to babies with malformations. Another problem with some of the studies using pregnant animals was that the drug was dissolved in water or another solution in order to inject it into the animals, rather than being given in tablet form. Many of these animals did not produce malformed offspring, but it was later found that the active ingredients in thalidomide will break down and become inactive in solution. – 2 Don’t consider all possible influences - As the evidence against thalidomide kept mounting, the manufacturer’s position that it was not to blame became untenable.

Even today, the true mechanism of action of thalidomide remains controversial. They do not know what it does to the cells and systems of the body but the drug is licensed to be used in cancer and leprosy treatments. It is an immunomodulating and anti-angiogenic agent now, no longer a sedative. In other words, it alters the immune response and it prevents or slows the growth of cancer by starving it of its blood supply. Put this knowledge in a wider perspective and it means that your body won’t be able to rely on its normal immunity strength to keep it healthy; the drug also reduces the blood supply to the tissues, thereby reducing the potential to deal with local difficulties and to keep the tissues clean and healthy. Makes sense now?

https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2025/10/13/13/54/doctor-9892173_1280.png

Image by Tanrica from Pixabay

The story highlights several issues with regards to the medical profession, the industry and the research. It’s all about marketing. It’s all about producing and publishing ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’, that is not being independently tested or verified. It’s not about adhering to scientific procedures and methods. It’s not about protecting the public and withdrawing treatment at the first hint of possible serious problems. It’s all about protecting investment and potential profit. It’s not about discarding dangerous products. It’s all about recycling dangerous products as ‘potential’ breakthrough treatments based upon further non-scientific research. However, the medical profession tells us that they have learned so much from their historic mistakes and that legislation and protocols have been adjusted accordingly. All for the better. All for the protection of the public. And then I think, why were these companies not inclined ‘to protect’ the public in the first place? And how is the past different from giving the pharmaceutical industry ‘emergency use authorisation’ for new untested vaccines?

Medical Errors a Leading Cause of Death and Injury

A substantial body of evidence points to medical errors as a leading cause of death and injury. The USA publishes statistics on causes of death and injury, and they include medical errors. Most other countries refrain from such a confrontational approach. Iatrogenic causes, effects caused by medical examination or treatment, have been considered the third leading cause of death in the USA, figures compiled by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and even published in the British Medical Journal, accounting for as many as 251,000 deaths annually in the United States. In other countries, iatrogenic causes are not on the list. – 3 Select and present preferred data -

• Sizeable numbers of Americans are harmed as a result of medical errors. Two studies of large samples of hospital admissions, one in New York and another in Colorado and Utah, found that the proportion of hospital admissions experiencing an adverse event, defined as injuries caused by medical management, was 58 percent in New York and 53 percent in Colorado and Utah;
• Preventable adverse events are a leading cause of death in the United States. When extrapolated to the over 33.6 million admissions to U.S. hospitals in 1997, the results of these two studies imply that at least 44,000 and perhaps as many as 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors;
• Total national costs (lost income, lost household production, disability, health care costs) are estimated to be between $37.6 billion and $50 billion for adverse events and between $17 billion and $29 billion for preventable adverse events. Health care costs account for over one-half of the total costs;
• In terms of lives lost, patient safety is as important an issue as worker safety. Although more than 6,000 Americans die from workplace injuries every year. In 1993 medication errors are estimated to have accounted for about 7,000 deaths. Medication errors account for one out of 131 outpatient deaths and one out of 854 inpatient deaths;
• Medication-related errors occur frequently in hospitals; not all result in actual harm, but those that do are costly. One recent study conducted at two prestigious teaching hospitals found that almost two percent of admissions experienced a preventable adverse drug event, resulting in average increased hospital costs of $4,700 per admission or about $2.8 million annually for a 700-bed teaching hospital. If these findings are generalised, the increased hospital costs alone of preventable adverse drug events affecting inpatients are about $2 billion for the nation as a whole;
• Hospital patients represent only a fraction of the total population at risk of experiencing a medication-related error. In 1998, nearly 2.5 billion prescriptions were dispensed by U.S. pharmacies at a cost of about $92 billion. Numerous studies document errors in prescribing medications, dispensing by pharmacists, and unintentional non-adherence on the part of the patient. Medication errors have the potential to increase as a major contributor to avoidable morbidity and mortality as new medications are introduced for a wider range of indications.

Of course, you are free to believe this is not happening in the healthcare provisions near you. Synthesising and interpreting the findings in the literature pertaining to errors in health care is complicated due to the absence of standardised nomenclature. If you don’t agree on what to call it, you ensure that things can’t be categorized and consequently can’t be studied or compared properly. However, the terms ‘error’ and ‘adverse event’ are defined as follows:

• An error is defined as the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended (i.e., error of execution) or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim (i.e., error of planning).
• An adverse event is an injury caused by medical management rather than the underlying condition of the patient. An adverse event attributable to error is a ‘preventable adverse event’. Negligent adverse events represent a subset of preventable adverse events that satisfy legal criteria used in determining negligence (i.e., whether the care provided failed to meet the standard of care reasonably expected of an average physician qualified to take care of the patient in question).

The medical establishment – comprising of doctors, regulatory authorities, licensing bodies, patenting offices and of course the pharmaceuticals – is often seen as the last word on health practices. It is considered an infallible institution immune to error. However, its track-record is littered with fatal blunders, which call into question its credibility.

• 1850 - When life-saving practices are rejected: Dr Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian obstetrician who theorised in 1850 that physicians transferred puerperal disease – known as childbed fever – to women in the maternity ward due to the common practice of doctors at the hospital delivering babies after conducting barehanded autopsies on diseased corpses. He came to that conclusion after observing a high rate of deaths in the hospital maternity ward in comparison with the low death rates at the clinic where babies were delivered by midwives. Semmelweis went on to implement a handwashing protocol in the maternity ward, which proved successful. It resulted in death rates declining from 18% to 2.2%. Though he was armed with numbers on his side, he only received minimal support. Most colleagues resented him for suggesting they were the cause of their patients' deaths. Eventually his mental health was called into question and his colleagues had him admitted to a mental hospital where he was beaten. He succumbed to his injuries just days later. – 4 Oppose counter-evidence at all cost;
• 1937 - Elixir Sulfanilamide: This antibiotic’s main ingredient – diethylene glycol – is now used in brake fluid. More than 100 people died after taking it for everything from sore throats to gonorrhoea;
• 1930s and 1940s – Lobotomy: This Nobel Prize-winning treatment was used for conditions from moodiness to schizophrenia. One practitioner even used a kitchen ice pick. Results varied from slight personality changes and intellectual impairments to paralysis and death. – 5 Introduce invasive therapies on a theoretical basis;
• 1930s to 1950s - Promotion of smoking by doctors: Tobacco companies paid physicians, throat doctors in particular, to recommend smoking as a remedy for throat irritation and to perpetuate the notion that smoking was healthy. Cigarette advertisements in medical journals were the norm;
• 1990s – Fen-Phen: Part appetite suppressant, part stimulant, this diet drug was prescribed to more than 18 million people in one year alone, then banned when it was found to cause heart valve problems and pulmonary hypertension;
• 1999 - The Vioxx scandal: A painkiller that led to the death of 60,000 people in the US. The Archives of Internal Medicine reveals American pharmaceutical company Merck concealed data for years that proved Vioxx (rofecoxib) caused an alarming increase in the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Merck's revenue from Vioxx was 2.5 billion dollars. In 2004 the drug was removed from the market. – 6 Introduce new treatments with a population as study material ;
• 2016 – Flossing and tooth brushing: A new report officially knocked flossing off its pedestal, a practice universally taught alongside brushing. Dental Associations have been promoting flossing since 1908, however, it has recently emerged there was never any scientific basis for the recommendation. For years they were adamant flossing prevents the build-up of plaque, gingivitis and tooth decay. In an analysis of 25 studies on floss, it was found that most of the studies used unreliable methods, carried a ‘moderate to large potential for bias’, and sometimes tested few participants. One study tested 25 people after only a single use of floss. Some studies lasted a mere two weeks, not a sufficient duration for a cavity or gum disease to develop;
• 2020 - War on dietary fat: The idea that saturated fats cause heart disease, called the diet-heart hypothesis, was introduced in the 1950s, based on weak, associational evidence. Subsequent clinical trials attempting to substantiate this hypothesis could never establish a causal link. However, these clinical-trial data were largely ignored for decades, until journalists brought them to light about a decade ago. Subsequent re-examinations of this evidence by nutrition experts have now been published in more than 20 review papers, which have largely concluded that saturated fats have no effect on cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality or total mortality.

So far, we have identified a number of serious shortcomings in the way the medical profession is operating. These are all fundamental obstacles in a serious search for truth in health issues and in a serious attempt to care for the individual.

1. Rely on non-scientific studie
2. Don’t consider all possible influences
3. Select and present preferred data
4. Oppose counter-evidence at all cost
5. Introduce invasive therapies on a theoretical basis
6. Introduce new treatments with a population as study material

Wrong Recommendations by the Medical Profession

Recommendations, almost carved in stone, made by the medical profession have a track record of often being completely wrong and sometimes dangerously so. In spite of this historic perspective, the medical profession fights its corner to be seen as righteous and ‘the’ authority on health with a vigour that smells of Darwin’s survival of the fittest, a fight, literally, for survival. When time proves time and time again that their recommendations and treatments cause more harm than they do good, they demand we continue to believe in them as the guardians of our health and wellbeing. They continue to showcase ground-breaking developments with the potential to revolutionise healthcare practices and significantly impact patient outcomes.

• Regenerative medicine is a rapidly growing field that seeks to restore, replace, or regenerate damaged tissues and organs using a variety of approaches, including cell therapy, tissue engineering, and gene therapy. This field has the potential to revolutionise the treatment of many diseases and injuries that are currently incurable or difficult to treat. – There are no agreed standards the industry has to adhere to. It’s a free for all! – 7 Experiment without any form of regulation - Also, the cells, tissues, and organs used for regenerative medicine are complex and difficult to manufacture at scale. Other challenges to manufacturing include a lack of infrastructure and difficulty ensuring quality and consistency.
• Various replacement or augmentation devices for organs, such as the eyes, kidneys, heart, muscle, liver, skin, and brain have been developed due to the creation of implantable artificial organs. Artificial organs can be developed from a number of substances, such as polymers and biological tissues, and are intended to mimic the shape and functionality of actual organs. - While all organs have the potential to fail, artificial organs could have an even higher chance. Patients must be aware of the risk that many man-made organs have. People make mistakes and could easily make an error while constructing an organ, while playing with chemical structures. Also, there is a transplant rejection reaction from the body to artificial organs. Success rate is measured in one year survival! – 8 Choose preferential setting for success evaluation -
• Another fast-expanding and highly promising area of use for nanotechnology is in the field of medicine. Drugs and other therapeutic substances can be delivered directly to a disease site using nanoparticles because they can target particular cells or tissues in the body. This technology may improve the efficacy of therapies, lessen their negative effects, and potentially enable the treatment of previously incurable diseases. Current developments in nanotechnology have demonstrated considerable promise for the medical field. - The safety and efficacy of nanomedicines can be influenced by minor variations in multiple parameters. No reliable results have been achieved on the bio-distribution, targeting to intended sites, and potential immune toxicities. And there is generally a lack of regulatory standards in the examination of nanoparticle-based medicines as a unique category of therapeutic agents.
• A rapidly developing technique called gene editing could revolutionise medicine by enabling researchers to change cells' genetic makeup. CRISPR-Cas9, a promising method for gene editing, allows for accurate targeting and editing of particular regions of the genome. Genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anaemia, which were once thought to be incurable, could potentially be cured because of this technique. Also, scientists are looking at its therapeutic potential for a number of illnesses, such as Alzheimer’s disease, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and cancer. - In fact, the research on CRISPR/Cas9 technology is still in its infancy and its lack of efficiency and specificity raises uncertainties regarding the application of the technology in human embryo gene editing. At present, the legal frameworks for gene editing of human germ-line and embryo in different countries are not the same. There are many drawbacks and ethical concerns surrounding its application in human embryos and germ-lines. Its recently exposed potential shortcomings, including off-target effects, increased mosaicism, the unknown nature of all genes and genetic diseases, and further ethical concerns, call for caution in using CRISPR/Cas9 technology in embryos and germ-line gene editing.
• Recent years have seen considerable advancements in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning in the health care industry. In order to find trends and forecast health outcomes, AI systems can evaluate enormous amounts of medical data, including images, test results, and patient records. This may result in more accurate diagnosis, individualised treatment strategies, and effective patient monitoring. –9 Rely on models rather than on life -
• Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, a form of immunotherapy that employs T cells to recognise and target cancer cells, depends heavily on genetically transformed T cells. Very serious complications are seen as a result of this technique, including toxicities like cytokine release syndrome (causing widespread inflammation and can lead to multiple organ dysfunction, potentially becoming life-threatening) and neurotoxicity, off-target effects, tumour recurrence, and difficulties in treating solid tumours. While promising, it is also associated with potential long-term side effects and logistical hurdles in manufacturing and administration.
• The development of mRNA vaccines has been a significant milestone in the fight against COVID-19. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines have demonstrated remarkable efficacy and safety profiles in preventing COVID-19 infection and its complications. The mRNA technology used in these vaccines has several advantages over traditional vaccine production methods, including faster development and manufacturing times, lower production costs, and greater flexibility in responding to emerging viral variants. – Lower production cost and fast track production are certainly extremely important benefits to the industry. A host of multi-systemic side-effects are being reported by the vaccine recipients, such as anaphylaxis, antibody-dependent enhancements, and deaths. Storage and transportation require fastidious temperatures, rendering it substantially inaccessible to a great number of countries. The biggest jolt, however, was the unfolding of the biases in reporting vaccine efficacy, as only the attractively high numbers of relative risk reduction were reported while keeping at bay the meagre numbers of the more important absolute risk reduction. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events, including coagulation disorders, acute cardiac injuries, Bell’s palsy, and encephalitis. This risk is 1 in 550 individuals, which is much higher than other vaccines.
• The development of complex anatomical models, prostheses, implants, and drug delivery systems has been made possible by advances in 3D printing technology. 3D printing has enabled the development of custom-made implants, reducing the need for invasive surgeries and improving patient outcomes. - 3D printing in medicine faces challenges in regulation, cost, material limitations, and achieving consistent quality. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of 3D printing processes. Health and safety hazards vary, but can include volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and ultra-fine particles. Solvents, which may be flammable, create hazardous or explosive vapours, cause eye or respiratory irritation, or potentially cause cancer. Heat may cause burns from contact with hot surfaces.
• Over the past few years, telemedicine – the use of technology to deliver medical treatments remotely – has grown in popularity, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine allows health care providers to offer virtual consultations, monitor patients remotely, and provide access to medical services in areas with limited health care resources. Telemedicine was linked to better health care access and outcomes for patients with cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. – Challenges include potential diagnostic errors due to limited physical examinations, privacy and security concerns with data transmission, technological barriers like limited access to reliable internet and devices, and reimbursement issues. A study published in JAMA Dermatology tested the accuracy of virtual diagnoses by having physicians identify skin diseases based on uploaded photos. Researchers concluded that physicians misdiagnosed everything from skin cancers to herpes to syphilis. Dr. Fuller noted that many doctors overlooked asking basic questions, and some prescribed medications without acquiring substantial information on the patient’s history.
• Medical students can practice and hone their skills in a safe and controlled environment with the help of virtual reality (VR), which has grown in popularity in recent years. Students can practice medical procedures and scenarios using VR technology, which helps them become more adept at diagnosing and treating patients. - There are mandatory requirements for the integration of virtual reality into medical curricula, addressing challenges related to finances, technical limitations, and didactic aspects. There is a lack of standardised and validated guidelines for evaluating VR training. A virtual world, created by computer programmes, is preferred over a natural world as a much better representation of reality.
• The development of wearable health monitoring technology has completely revolutionised how people track and manage their health. Individuals can receive real-time feedback on their health state by using wearable devices, such as fitness trackers and smartwatches, which can gather data on physical activity, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, sleep habits, and other health markers. – Several limitations include variability in measurement, potential for bias and confounding issues with sensitivity and specificity, and the cost and acceptability of testing. Furthermore, the interpretation of biomarker results can be complex, and they may not always accurately reflect the underlying disease process or predict treatment response. Recently, even some long-established biomarkers have been discredited. Prostate Specific Antigen testing (PSA) for routine screening of prostate cancer, and the cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) blood test, which detects a protein that ovarian cancer cells produce, aren’t sensitive or specific enough to distinguish between aggressive cancer and benign changes. Hence, the primary question is, “what is the true value of a biomarker as a predictor of a future illness?” – 10 Rely on a chosen health detail rather than on the complete health picture -
• Vagina on a chip. Ingber has created a device that functions much like an artificial vagina. The inch-long, clear silicone chip contains human cells and effectively replicates conditions in the real-life organ. Ingber says that the chips, which are being mass produced by Emulate Inc. (a Boston-based company he founded), will enable researchers to test numerous substances and theories, including whether probiotics boost vaginal health. – An artificial device, programmed by a computer and algorithms, will provide all information that is required to understand real life interactions, and the medical profession will recommend action protocols based on this information.

Everything the medical industry is pouring money into is hailed as a major enhancement of the healthcare provided, irrespective of which direction such development takes us into. The rhetoric is spiked with words and phrases such as ‘has the potential to’, ‘is promising’, ‘may improve’, ‘could revolutionise’, ‘can potentially cure’, ‘may result in’. All promises and the industry’s expectations for the future. None of these claimed ground breaking developments are realities. It would have been nice if the medical authorities had adopted a strategy to actually evaluate the real outcomes, rather than to continue to brag about new promises, presented as realities. To conduct an effective evaluation, it is important to clearly define programme objectives (to cure a disease or to reduce symptoms), choose appropriate evaluation methods, collect high-quality data, use a comparison group (placebo group), and involve stakeholders in the evaluation process (in this case, patients).

But before we explore the possibility of monitoring the effectiveness of a medical action plan, let’s remind ourselves of the points we have picked up so far.

1. Rely on non-scientific studies
2. Don’t consider all possible influences
3. Select and present preferred data
4. Oppose counter-evidence at all cost
5. Introduce invasive therapies on a theoretical basis
6. Introduce new treatments with a population as study material
7. Experiment without any form of regulation
8. Choose preferential setting for success evaluation
9. Rely on models rather than on life
10. Rely on a chosen health detail rather than on the complete health picture

Effectiveness of an Action Plan

The effectiveness of an action plan can be measured in several ways. One way is to compare the actual results with the expected results. If the actual results meet or exceed the expected results, the action plan can be considered effective. Another way is to assess the level of goal achievement. If the goals set in the action plan are achieved, the plan is effective. Let’s first of all illustrate, once again, how the medical authorities operate.

In the early ‘80s, a growing number of interesting cases, collectively known as ‘gay men’s cancer’, became the focus of the medical profession. It was said that these patients were immunocompromised. In September 1982, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) uses the term ‘AIDS’ (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) for the first time, and releases the first case definition for AIDS: “A disease at least moderately predictive of a defect in cell-mediated immunity, occurring in a person with no known cause for diminished resistance to that disease.” It is said to be caused by two lentiviruses, human immunodeficiency viruses types 1 and 2 (HIV-1 and HIV-2), as a result of multiple cross-species transmissions of simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) naturally infecting African primates.

Science – Nobody has ever isolated a virus from diseased tissue and nobody has ever proven a causal link between any named pathogen and the specific disease they are said to cause. Nobody has ever proven any crossover pathogenic infection in the natural world, not from animal to human or from human to human.

The pharmaceutical technology that was initially used to combat HIV was discovered some 20 years before AIDS appeared. Azidothymidine (AZT) was developed in 1964 as an anticancer drug by Jerome Horowitz of the Michigan Cancer Foundation (Detroit). But because AZT was ineffective against cancer, Horowitz never filed a patent. As far as AIDS was concerned, the number of infected people was considered too small to justify the cost of new drug development, and most scientists thought retroviruses were untreatable (based on observations that no so-called viral infection improved as a result of any treatment ever used). However, Sam Broder, a physician and researcher at the National Cancer Institute (USA), thought differently. As clinical director of the NCI’s 1984 Special Task Force on AIDS, Broder was determined to do something. Needing a larger lab, Broder went to the pharmaceutical industry for support. As Broder canvassed the drug industry, he promised to test potentially useful compounds in NCI labs if the companies would commit to develop and market drugs that showed potential. 

There is a long road between in vitro efficacy and shipping a drug to pharmacies, a road dominated by the laborious approval process of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency’s mission is to keep dangerous drugs away from the American public. However, with the advent of AIDS, many people began to question that caution. AZT was risky. It could be toxic to bone marrow and cause other less drastic side effects such as sleeplessness, headaches, nausea, and muscular pain. Even though the FDA advocated the right of patients to knowingly take experimental drugs, it was extremely reluctant to approve AZT. Calls were heard to reform or liberalise the approval process, and a report issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO) claimed that of 209 drugs approved between 1976 and 1985, 102 had caused serious side effects, giving lie to the apparent myth that FDA approval automatically safeguarded the public. The agendas of patient advocates, ideological conservatives who opposed government ‘intrusion’, and the pharmaceutical industry converged in opposition to the FDA’s caution. Intense public demand (including protests by AIDS activist groups such as act up) and unusually speedy testing brought the drug to the public by the late 1980s. AZT was hard to tolerate and, despite misapprehensions of its critics, it was never thought to be a magic bullet that would cure AIDS. It was only claiming to slow down the course of the disease. Its approval process also had ramifications. The case of AZT became the tip of the iceberg in a new world where consumer pressures on the FDA, especially from disease advocacy groups and their congressional supporters, would lead to more and rapid approval of experimental drugs for certain conditions. The medical industry now had the means to create a willingness amongst the population to take untested drugs, which would bypass any regulation previously put in place.

But it is actually possible to know what is real and what isn’t by looking at the effects nature creates in response to what we are doing. Then the picture doesn’t look that complicated anymore! New developments in the West in the late 1980s had particular implications for drugs and pharmaceutical technologies. Diseases that were thought to have been eliminated in developed countries reappeared in the late 1980s with a frightening twist: they had developed drug resistance. The reappearance of diseases that therapies had ‘eliminated’, as a result of acquired therapy resistance, should alert us to the fact that our initial approach to the disease problem was wrong and we consequently should abandon the treatment. Or at least, that is what a smart person would do! In the early 1900s, eminent physician Sir William Osler characterised heart disease as rare. By the 1980s, in many Western countries some 30% of all deaths were attributed to heart disease, and for every two people who died from a heart attack, another three suffered one but survived. All this in spite of many significant medical advances in the treatment of heart disease. Should the conclusion be that our approach to the heart disease problem has been wrong all along?

Comparing the actual results of an action plan with the expected results is one way to evaluate the effectiveness of that plan. If you expect not to see a particular infection in a specific group of people after you have injected them with a vaccine and that is what you observe, it proves your action plan has been effective, even if, without the injection, no infection would manifest either. This information can only come to light by using a comparable placebo group, not by comparing the real observation with the prediction of a computer simulation programme. The other way to evaluate effectiveness is to assess the level of goal achievement. You set out a goal you expect to achieve and you measure the actual outcome in relation to that expectation. If you set out that a cancer cure is a five year survival irrespective of the cancer being present or not, starting from the date of the diagnosis, then you set out to make the diagnosis as early as possible to achieve great effectiveness, and you base the diagnosis on as little evidence as you possibly can because you don’t want to miss what later turns out to be a cancer, which you haven’t ‘cured’ as a result of missing the diagnosis earlier on. Both action plans assure you of a great effectiveness rate in cancer cures, except of course the minor detail that you never set out to cure the cancer problem itself. You make it about a set time for survival, not about curing the disease.

If you set out to slow a disease process down, as the medical profession does with regards to cardiovascular disease, stroke, chronic respiratory diseases (like COPD and asthma), diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, chronic kidney disease, obesity, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, depression, Parkinson’s disease, Crohn’s disease, irritable bowel syndrome, epilepsy, dissociative identity disorder, bipolar syndrome, schizophrenia, Huntington chorea, Guillain-Barré syndrome, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, … then you have control over the evaluation of the effectiveness of your action plan. Measuring an improvement can be done on the basis of ‘how are you feeling?’ or on the basis of reducing the level of ‘disease marker’ in a laboratory test. The value of such a disease marker has to be accepted by the profession, and consequently by the population, on the recommendation of that same industry, whose performance is being evaluated. Control how the evaluation is carried out and you control the result of the evaluation. - 11 Control every evaluation of the effectiveness of the medical action plan -

If you set out that the action plan should lead to the disappearance or the diminishing of the symptoms then you will achieve a high effectiveness as can be seen in the treatment for allergies. The cure for allergies, as recommended by the medical profession, is to avoid the trigger for the allergy, and presto, no more symptoms. Extremely successful. The fact that, over time, these people develop allergies to different triggers and that the list of products and situations to be avoided grows steadily, is, according to the medical profession, simply bad luck. They refuse to concede that it is, however, a generally observed phenomena, just as treatment resistance is a real occurrence.

If you set out that the cure of an infection consists in reducing the inflammation signs then the use of antibiotics and steroids deliver great effectiveness. Once you have established this effectiveness, treatment resistance becomes an additional problem, which you will have to overcome as it is reducing the effectiveness of a ‘known’ effective treatment. Curing a disease can really only be done by having a significant impact on the cause of the disease. Recurrence of the disease should indicate to you that your cure was not effective. In order to avoid such a confrontation one can implicate convenient influences as the cause, even without any real, scientific, evidence. When we name pathogens and transference of pathogens from one being (animal or human) to another as the cause of infections, then we can measure effectiveness of treatment in the reduction of the number of pathogens present. If, however, this were the case then our effective treatment would reduce the number of pathogens present in all of our environment, which would make, over time, the transference less and less likely as fewer pathogen would be available to be transmitted, resulting in fewer and fewer infective diseases. Observation shows us that the opposite is true.

Considering the fantastic advances the medical profession has made since its inauguration as the allopathic healthcare system about two hundred years ago, we have learned something about how that system operates. There are some conclusions we can draw, but the key point is that we should remember those points, and that we should adjust our attitude towards the system that is delivering our healthcare. That is, if you truly want to search for the most effective cures. Let’s remind ourselves.

1. Rely on non-scientific studies
2. Don’t consider all possible influences
3. Select and present preferred data
4. Oppose counter-evidence at all cost
5. Introduce invasive therapies on a theoretical basis
6. Introduce new treatments with a population as study material
7. Experiment without any form of regulation
8. Choose preferential setting for success evaluation
9. Rely on models rather than on life
10. Rely on a chosen health detail rather than on the complete health picture
11. Control every evaluation of the effectiveness of the medical action plan

And when there is a real possibility the floors in your action plan become exposed, you refocus the minds of everyone watching you. Instead of busying ourselves with finding cures for diseases we should be focussing on the prevention of diseases. We should concentrate on those individuals who are not showing any signs of illness and making them aware of the potential of becoming ill. All of the sudden, everyone is at risk of becoming ill. The more risk factors we nominate, the stronger the perception becomes that such a potentiality is not very farfetched. And here is the clever point in this approach to diseases. It is impossible to prove that any influence does not have the potential to adversely affect somebody’s health. Not finding a direct link doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible! From this point onwards, the medical profession has full control over the health of the population by subjecting the people to an indefinite array of tests and monitoring devices in order to identify ‘early warning signs’. The medical profession determines what these signs are and how to identify them. We are now geared up to treat the non-diseased, and on top of that, we are able to hold on to our old action patterns in spite of the danger that those patterns could be exposed as fraudulent. But hey, there is a possibility that …

1. Rely on non-scientific studies
2. Don’t consider all possible influences
3. Select and present preferred data
4. Oppose counter-evidence at all cost
5. Introduce invasive therapies on a theoretical basis
6. Introduce new treatments with a population as study material
7. Experiment without any form of regulation
8. Choose preferential setting for success evaluation
9. Rely on models rather than on life
10. Rely on a chosen health detail rather than on the complete health picture
11. Control every evaluation of the effectiveness of the medical action plan
12. Treat the non-sick by claiming that they potential might become ill

A dozen rules to adhere to if you want to be successful in entertaining a supreme position of knowledge and power with regards to healthcare. On the other hand, the same dozen rules you must never forget when personally evaluating any information reaching you from that supreme body of knowledge and power.

Copyright Acknowledgement

July 2025

Originally published on https://www.activehealthcare.co.uk/literature/medical/268-improvements-in-healthcare