Selling Snake Oil

[Sculptor]

Well, I will take a m oment to enjoy our common ground.
There are so many implicit and explicit poor assumptions and conclusions in that Philosophy Now essay.
First it assumes that phrama is run like honorable empirical science. It isn't. It's run by corporations whose goal is money. I am not saying that is the only goal of the people working there. Many I assume do want to do good. But the power there is seeking money and of course good products can earn money, but they are happy to twist and manipulate, research, data, doctors, and end-clients if it makes them money. And this happens with great regularity. Bad products, getting doctors to prescribe for off label uses, hiding data on dangers of drugs, suppressing information and even access to alternatives that work, and more. If a bad product makes money or will make money, they can and do work out the costs of later lawsuits. If they end up making money, fine.
The second faulty assumption is that there are no paradigmatic blind spots in pharma. That they will not rule out something on the wrong grounds. But they do. One can look at Japan's pharma to see paradigmatic differences. In Japan the use of medicinal mushrooms and other fungi. These have gone through empirical research and are effective against all sorts of things including cancers. But they are rarely used by regular doctors in the US. Why? Because of money issues and also because pharma companies generally want products that are single chemical based.
Let alone the lack of money in, as you say, diet, exercise and more.
Another faulty assumption is that if a plant based alternative treatment, for example, worked, then some company would go through the whole FDA process and market it. Nope. You can't patent that stuff. It costs a huge amount of money to get FDA approval. They are not going to waste time and money on something anyone can immediately put on shelves.

In his essay he quotes Sir Arthur Conan DoyleBut he is the naive person, buying into Pharma's pr - which has an unbelievable budget.

The danger would be to run away with a completely negative attitude to pharmacology. There is no doubt that the money motive is the most dangerous impediment to science. But that does not detract from the many benefits that pharmacological science has given us.
Type 1 diabetics would have had to look forwards to very short lives were it not for the isolation and distribution of insulin; were it not for Frederick Banting and others such as Langerhans who worked hard to uncover the workings of the pancreas.
It's a shame that Banting's knowledge about the effect of sugar on metabolism were not well understood by Ancel Keys who gave us the absurd fat/diet heart hypothesis that has led to bad advice and an epidemic of obesity T2D and insulin resistance.
Then there is the pioneering works of the likes of Pasteur, Koch and Ehrlich who built upon germ theory and gave their vaccination knowledge to the world for free. Flemming gave us penicillin.
I depend on daily doses of Allopurinol.


When did it all go wrong?

Before industrialisation most people lived under the hierarchical rule of the local gentry who believed the social order was ordained by God. Industrial development changed the labour force from compliant labourers(with a few honourable exceptions such as the Tolpuddle martyrs) to victims of Durkheimian anomie who , if they had not had to work so hard, would have become dissenters or outright heathens sooner than they did.

Mass education was not liberal and as far as the labourers were concerned was largely training at best and indoctrination at worst. So consumerism arrived in all its soul-less-ness. Big Pharma, same as Trump, same as Brexit, same as the Tories, has not enough intellectual competition.

Well that's s longer term perspective.
I was thinking more of our century. The transition from the first half in which research was freely shared.
Salk's polio vaccine
Fleming's penicillin.
To a situation where Pharma, despite getting government research grants paid for by the people, still miraculously have copyrights and can set their own price?
Insulin was isolated and developed for nearly 100 years yet California finds it has to sue Pharma for excessive pricing.
Canada sold the copyright for ONE DOLLAR to avoid profiteering, yet 3 drug companies are set to make 84 billion per year by 2030.
That is 84 billion of profit on human misery.

[Belinda]

The danger would be to run away with a completely negative attitude to pharmacology. There is no doubt that the money motive is the most dangerous impediment to science. But that does not detract from the many benefits that pharmacological science has given us.
Type 1 diabetics would have had to look forwards to very short lives were it not for the isolation and distribution of insulin; were it not for Frederick Banting and others such as Langerhans who worked hard to uncover the workings of the pancreas.
It's a shame that Banting's knowledge about the effect of sugar on metabolism were not well understood by Ancel Keys who gave us the absurd fat/diet heart hypothesis that has led to bad advice and an epidemic of obesity T2D and insulin resistance.
Then there is the pioneering works of the likes of Pasteur, Koch and Ehrlich who built upon germ theory and gave their vaccination knowledge to the world for free. Flemming gave us penicillin.
I depend on daily doses of Allopurinol.


When did it all go wrong?

Before industrialisation most people lived under the hierarchical rule of the local gentry who believed the social order was ordained by God. Industrial development changed the labour force from compliant labourers(with a few honourable exceptions such as the Tolpuddle martyrs) to victims of Durkheimian anomie who , if they had not had to work so hard, would have become dissenters or outright heathens sooner than they did.

Mass education was not liberal and as far as the labourers were concerned was largely training at best and indoctrination at worst. So consumerism arrived in all its soul-less-ness. Big Pharma, same as Trump, same as Brexit, same as the Tories, has not enough intellectual competition.

Well that's s longer term perspective.
I was thinking more of our century. The transition from the first half in which research was freely shared.
Salk's polio vaccine
Fleming's penicillin.
To a situation where Pharma, despite getting government research grants paid for by the people, still miraculously have copyrights and can set their own price?
Insulin was isolated and developed for nearly 100 years yet California finds it has to sue Pharma for excessive pricing.
Canada sold the copyright for ONE DOLLAR to avoid profiteering, yet 3 drug companies are set to make 84 billion per year by 2030.
That is 84 billion of profit on human misery.

Is there any scholarly thesis on the politics and personalities that were involved? I know nothing of this particular history, and I like modern history when it deals with the short duration and vivid primary sources.

[Sculptor]

Before industrialisation most people lived under the hierarchical rule of the local gentry who believed the social order was ordained by God. Industrial development changed the labour force from compliant labourers(with a few honourable exceptions such as the Tolpuddle martyrs) to victims of Durkheimian anomie who , if they had not had to work so hard, would have become dissenters or outright heathens sooner than they did.

Mass education was not liberal and as far as the labourers were concerned was largely training at best and indoctrination at worst. So consumerism arrived in all its soul-less-ness. Big Pharma, same as Trump, same as Brexit, same as the Tories, has not enough intellectual competition.

Well that's s longer term perspective.
I was thinking more of our century. The transition from the first half in which research was freely shared.
Salk's polio vaccine
Fleming's penicillin.
To a situation where Pharma, despite getting government research grants paid for by the people, still miraculously have copyrights and can set their own price?
Insulin was isolated and developed for nearly 100 years yet California finds it has to sue Pharma for excessive pricing.
Canada sold the copyright for ONE DOLLAR to avoid profiteering, yet 3 drug companies are set to make 84 billion per year by 2030.
That is 84 billion of profit on human misery.

Is there any scholarly thesis on the politics and personalities that were involved? I know nothing of this particular history, and I like modern history when it deals with the short duration and vivid primary sources.

Which Salk, Flemming or the Insulin problem

[Belinda]

Well that's s longer term perspective.
I was thinking more of our century. The transition from the first half in which research was freely shared.
Salk's polio vaccine
Fleming's penicillin.
To a situation where Pharma, despite getting government research grants paid for by the people, still miraculously have copyrights and can set their own price?
Insulin was isolated and developed for nearly 100 years yet California finds it has to sue Pharma for excessive pricing.
Canada sold the copyright for ONE DOLLAR to avoid profiteering, yet 3 drug companies are set to make 84 billion per year by 2030.
That is 84 billion of profit on human misery.

Is there any scholarly thesis on the politics and personalities that were involved? I know nothing of this particular history, and I like modern history when it deals with the short duration and vivid primary sources.

Which Salk, Flemming or the Insulin problem

Sorry, no I mean the history of how Pharma became so it profiteers from human misery.

[owl of Minerva]

People are not willing to make lifestyle changes or they do not know what a natural diet is and their doctor does not know either. Many doctors are unhealthy themselves. Alternative medicine that is genuine and engages the patient in lifestyle changes and proper nutrition, plus natural remedies, can alleviate a lot of health problems if the patient is willing to cooperate.

Otherwise Big Pharma rules with ever new remedies and ‘life saving’ drugs with side effects that make life not worth living. Old age can be a horror show, as anyone visiting a nursing home can attest. It does not have to be that way, people have to take back their power and not surrender it to Big Parma.

[Sculptor]

Is there any scholarly thesis on the politics and personalities that were involved? I know nothing of this particular history, and I like modern history when it deals with the short duration and vivid primary sources.

Which Salk, Flemming or the Insulin problem

Sorry, no I mean the history of how Pharma became so it profiteers from human misery.

I know of none. Whilst doctors and pharmacists have always tried to make a living, I think that the current situation is unprecedented.
I wonder if there are PhDs working on that now.

[Sculptor]

People are not willing to make lifestyle changes or they do not know what a natural diet is and their doctor does not know either. Many doctors are unhealthy themselves. Alternative medicine that is genuine and engages the patient in lifestyle changes and proper nutrition, plus natural remedies, can alleviate a lot of health problems if the patient is willing to cooperate.

Otherwise Big Pharma rules with ever new remedies and ‘life saving’ drugs with side effects that make life not worth living. Old age can be a horror show, as anyone visiting a nursing home can attest. It does not have to be that way, people have to take back their power and not surrender it to Big Parma.

Yes, and all attempts to convince people to alter their lifestyles have been based on very bad advice built on very poor and selective epidemiology resulting in dangerous advice to eat less meat, less cholesterol, less fat and more vegetable oils. The result is more carbs and sugar in the diet and an epidemic of obesity, T2D and heart disease.

Things are changing, but slowly, and the current idiots in charge of the country think this is "nanny state". LIz Truss's short stay in the job of PM did little other than wreck the economy, except the reverse the sugar tax. FFS

Glimmer of hope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QizJhk4DaUY&t=6s

[Belinda]

People are not willing to make lifestyle changes or they do not know what a natural diet is and their doctor does not know either. Many doctors are unhealthy themselves. Alternative medicine that is genuine and engages the patient in lifestyle changes and proper nutrition, plus natural remedies, can alleviate a lot of health problems if the patient is willing to cooperate.

Otherwise Big Pharma rules with ever new remedies and ‘life saving’ drugs with side effects that make life not worth living. Old age can be a horror show, as anyone visiting a nursing home can attest. It does not have to be that way, people have to take back their power and not surrender it to Big Parma.

Yes, and all attempts to convince people to alter their lifestyles have been based on very bad advice built on very poor and selective epidemiology resulting in dangerous advice to eat less meat, less cholesterol, less fat and more vegetable oils. The result is more carbs and sugar in the diet and an epidemic of obesity, T2D and heart disease.

Things are changing, but slowly, and the current idiots in charge of the country think this is "nanny state". LIz Truss's short stay in the job of PM did little other than wreck the economy, except the reverse the sugar tax. FFS

Glimmer of hope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QizJhk4DaUY&t=6s

There is a sociological word for how ideas become popular ideas but I've forgotten the word.

[Sculptor]

People are not willing to make lifestyle changes or they do not know what a natural diet is and their doctor does not know either. Many doctors are unhealthy themselves. Alternative medicine that is genuine and engages the patient in lifestyle changes and proper nutrition, plus natural remedies, can alleviate a lot of health problems if the patient is willing to cooperate.

Otherwise Big Pharma rules with ever new remedies and ‘life saving’ drugs with side effects that make life not worth living. Old age can be a horror show, as anyone visiting a nursing home can attest. It does not have to be that way, people have to take back their power and not surrender it to Big Parma.

Yes, and all attempts to convince people to alter their lifestyles have been based on very bad advice built on very poor and selective epidemiology resulting in dangerous advice to eat less meat, less cholesterol, less fat and more vegetable oils. The result is more carbs and sugar in the diet and an epidemic of obesity, T2D and heart disease.

Things are changing, but slowly, and the current idiots in charge of the country think this is "nanny state". LIz Truss's short stay in the job of PM did little other than wreck the economy, except the reverse the sugar tax. FFS

Glimmer of hope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QizJhk4DaUY&t=6s

There is a sociological word for how ideas become popular ideas but I've forgotten the word.

I'm hoping there is a real paradigm shift. But I think you mean on the other side of the equations like a mass hypnosis accepting an endemic assumption?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqbGXl5lxEg

[Belinda]

Yes, and all attempts to convince people to alter their lifestyles have been based on very bad advice built on very poor and selective epidemiology resulting in dangerous advice to eat less meat, less cholesterol, less fat and more vegetable oils. The result is more carbs and sugar in the diet and an epidemic of obesity, T2D and heart disease.

Things are changing, but slowly, and the current idiots in charge of the country think this is "nanny state". LIz Truss's short stay in the job of PM did little other than wreck the economy, except the reverse the sugar tax. FFS

Glimmer of hope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QizJhk4DaUY&t=6s

There is a sociological word for how ideas become popular ideas but I've forgotten the word.

I'm hoping there is a real paradigm shift. But I think you mean on the other side of the equations like a mass hypnosis accepting an endemic assumption?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqbGXl5lxEg

This word I have forgotten was like trickle down, but not about material benefits. It was about ideas trickling down. Anyway I don't really think the paradigm shift can happen without an active effort by sceptics and intellectuals.

[Iwannaplato]

This word I have forgotten was like trickle down, but not about material benefits. It was about ideas trickling down.

The Stickiness Factor? and/or the broader The Tipping Point which has three factors, Stickiness being one. It's not quite sociology, more Gladwell, but I think it, via it's own stickiness, is probably used by sociologists now.

[Belinda]

I guess Stickiness may be addressed in "Diffusion of Innovations" by Everett Rogers 1962. I copied the following:

According to Rogers, a new idea is diffused through a decision-making process with five steps:[3]

Knowledge - An individual first becomes aware of the new innovation, but lacks information and inspiration
Persuasion - The individual's interest in the innovation spikes, and he or she begins research
Decision - The individual weighs the positive and negative results of changing to the new idea
Implementation - The individual adds the innovation into the system. At this stage, he or she also begins to determine the innovation's usefulness.
Confirmation - The individual decides to continue with the new innovation.

Regarding adopting a sceptical attitude to persuasions of profiteering big Pharma I think most individuals are at the 'knowledge' stage . Similarly, regarding the imminence of extinction of life on Earth.

[Iwannaplato]

Regarding adopting a sceptical attitude to persuasions of profiteering big Pharma I think most individuals are at the 'knowledge' stage . Similarly, regarding the imminence of extinction of life on Earth.

It is scary taking responsibility for questioning authority. You have a health problem. You go to the expert. The expert diagnoses X and suggests treatment A. You do treatment A.
There can be all sorts of terror involved, depending on the illness, treatment and your own personality. But you can tell yourself you did the right thing, since the expert is saying you did the right thing. Who could question your approach to a problem here?
But if you think, hm...let me look into alternative treatment. Or, hm...I heard something about bad side effects with this.
And you start to take steps to gather, analyze and weigh information
then you may choose to go against authority. Even the mere choice to check puts you in the neighborhood of making that decision.
And that can be a whole new source of anxiety and fear.
And also it assumes that at least sometimes, you can't or shouldn't simply trust an authority.
And let's be clear: it is built into the system to get a second opinion. Even doing that might raise a kind of anxiety.
But to get a second opinion is generally not move outside mainstream medical consensus.
Once you move outside the main treatments of medical consensus or question them, you are taking on a great deal of responsibility.
Now I would say you are actually noticing that you have a lot of responsibility, but what you have been doing before that is choose to use doctors as THE authority, every time.

But regardless, on an emotional level it can feel quite frightening.

The grounds I have for considering and sometimes using other treatments are: 1) known problems with the mainstream treatment in quetion 2) paradigmatic biases in mainstream diagnoses and treatment 3) alternative interventions with less side effects or just plain old better results 4) marginalized but professional research 5) political analyses - knowledge about how pharma controls treatment and treatment approval (government industry oversight). 5) alternative views of health and illness and treatment.

[Belinda]

Regarding adopting a sceptical attitude to persuasions of profiteering big Pharma I think most individuals are at the 'knowledge' stage . Similarly, regarding the imminence of extinction of life on Earth.

It is scary taking responsibility for questioning authority. You have a health problem. You go to the expert. The expert diagnoses X and suggests treatment A. You do treatment A.
There can be all sorts of terror involved, depending on the illness, treatment and your own personality. But you can tell yourself you did the right thing, since the expert is saying you did the right thing. Who could question your approach to a problem here?
But if you think, hm...let me look into alternative treatment. Or, hm...I heard something about bad side effects with this.
And you start to take steps to gather, analyze and weigh information
then you may choose to go against authority. Even the mere choice to check puts you in the neighborhood of making that decision.
And that can be a whole new source of anxiety and fear.
And also it assumes that at least sometimes, you can't or shouldn't simply trust an authority.
And let's be clear: it is built into the system to get a second opinion. Even doing that might raise a kind of anxiety.
But to get a second opinion is generally not move outside mainstream medical consensus.
Once you move outside the main treatments of medical consensus or question them, you are taking on a great deal of responsibility.
Now I would say you are actually noticing that you have a lot of responsibility, but what you have been doing before that is choose to use doctors as THE authority, every time.

But regardless, on an emotional level it can feel quite frightening.

The grounds I have for considering and sometimes using other treatments are: 1) known problems with the mainstream treatment in quetion 2) paradigmatic biases in mainstream diagnoses and treatment 3) alternative interventions with less side effects or just plain old better results 4) marginalized but professional research 5) political analyses - knowledge about how pharma controls treatment and treatment approval (government industry oversight). 5) alternative views of health and illness and treatment.

Yes, all that is true, We do need doctors and pharmacists. I myself was a nurse and have seen some quite ordinary treatment regimes and medications come and go (a few were actually somewhat unhealthy) so I'm inclined to be sceptical. I also feel responsible for what I decide to swallow, so it's not hard for me to refuse a medication. Most doctors nowadays will consult with the patient when possible. Years ago I actually found it very easy to refuse statins when the doctor prescribed them, and he did not threaten or cajole but looked surprised.

[Sculptor]

There is a sociological word for how ideas become popular ideas but I've forgotten the word.

I'm hoping there is a real paradigm shift. But I think you mean on the other side of the equations like a mass hypnosis accepting an endemic assumption?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqbGXl5lxEg

This word I have forgotten was like trickle down, but not about material benefits. It was about ideas trickling down. Anyway I don't really think the paradigm shift can happen without an active effort by sceptics and intellectuals.

It's definitely happening.
David Unwin is a great example since he has been validated by the NHS is spread the word about low carb to combat diabetes. One of the keys factors is that he has shown how his practice saved lots of hard cash in drug prescriptions. I submit that this is much less likely to happen in a privatised system where there is an incentive to sell more Metformin (which increases the problem of insulin resistance over time).

Unwin, though is at the apogee of decades of thinking.
This is my reading list for last year on the topic.

2020, Taubes, Gary, The Case for Keto, Granta
2010, Taubes, Gary, Why We Get Fat, Anchor
2020, Macciochi, J., Immunity; the science of staying well, Experiment Pub.
2021, Lustig, Robert, Metabolical, Hodder & Stoughton
2013, Lustig, Robert, Fat Chance, Harper Collins.
2021, Specter, Tim, Spoon Fed,Vintage Books.
2021, Chatterje, Rangan, The Four Pillar Plan, Penguin.
2016, Fung, J, The Complete Guide To Fasting, Victory Belt Publishing.
2022 Johnson, Richard, Nature Wants Us to Be Fat, BenBella Books
2014 Perlmutter, Dr David, Grain Brain, Hodder & Stoughton.
2014, Teicholz, Nina, The Big Fat Surprise, Simon & Schuster.

What they all share is a skepticism of stains and the dangers of sugar.

But as we learn, especially from Taubes and Teicholz, the dangers of sugar were well known before Ancel Keys decided that cholesterol and saturated fat, especially animal fats were responsible for our ills. What happened back on the 1970s is that the mild mannered English thinker whose names escapes me for the moment who advocated reducing sugar was basically shouted down by the more charismatic Keys- the man who put the K in K-Rations.

There is also a major contribution by Prof Tim Noakes who was struck off for, going against the guidelines by prescribing meat and fat to children suffering from epilepsy. Later exonerated in court. I've followed his story on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJf8e2E5TsM&t=2113s

None of this, sad to say has managed to penetrate the Mainstream Media, and I watched in horror a few days again as the BBC falsely described the action of statins following the announcement of extending the prescriptions to more people.

And yes the whole issue of statins and sugar are closely linked.


Here's a summary of Keys.
https://carnivoreaurelius.com/ancel-keys/