Offline
I wish Dr. O'Shea provided links to his articles, but alas, he does not. Sooooo - - - I end up having to copy the whole thing and print it here (which is fine) but I like to have a link for people so they can look it up for themselves. The message below correlates well with a message from Jon Rappaport's blog from a couple of days ago and I will give the link for his article so you can read them both, if you wish.
If you want to look up Dr. O'Shea's articles, you'll have to wait for the May newsletter to come out and be printed in the archive section of his web site ( www.thedoctorwithin.com ). He calls this one "Part III" but I'm not sure why because I don't ever recall seeing a Part 1 or a Part 2, nor could I find anything similar in the archives on his site! Ah well, if I find something to that effect on his site, I'll post them here.
************************************************
DISEASE AS ADAPTATION, PART III
The longer you are in practice, the more likely you'll begin to suspect that many of the diseases people are always talking about - don't really exist.
So often either
1. the disease label itself is fake
or else
2. there is no evidence the patient actually has the disease
Let's look at some examples of the first instance: fake diseases. As you may know, the Physicians Desk Reference, available in any library, is more or less the bible of the drug industry. It lists all currently approved drugs, with a few paragraphs recommending each drug for specific diagnoses.
Sitting right here is the 1949 edition of this industry catalogue. It was only about 400 pages, and lists a few hundred diseases, for which it recommends specific drugs.
Fast forward now to 2013: the current edition of the PDR. Almost 3000 pages, there are now thousands of individual diagnoses, claiming to be discrete disease conditions, along with specific drug protocols for each.
Where'd they come from?
Over the years, the amount of clinical evidence required to prove not only that a disease exists, but that a specific drug will be effective for it - has declined radically. No more double-blind randomized clinical trials with years of statistical analysis, etc. to validate the conjuring up of a new disease.
Today a disease entit can be wanded into existence after a weekend fishing trip, or just a few weeks of imaginative literary composition. Couple that with some well extrapolated epidemiological "studies" which can show a causal relationship between any two events you can think of, and in a very short time --voila'--- a brand new disease magically appears.
Complete with its own ICD-9 billing code and of course its own individual pharmaceutical 'treatment' plan. Once invented, the disease has eternal life.
Were Koch Postulates invoked? Please. Medicine, with their WikiPedia-type substitute- for-science approach, doesn't require those any more. Why concern ourselves with worrisome traditional science that has set the standard for diseases for the past 2 centuries? All that paperwork is so tedious - and costs so much money. We don't have time for all that. These patients are sick now-- they need new drugs now. Forget about proving safety or efficacy before the drug goes on the market.
And if it should turn out to be dangerous or completely ineffective, well hey we'll just pull it off the market and plug in the next one on deck into that slot. Just like Vegas. Eventually one will hit big.
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn from time to time, right?
An experiment on the live population. What an exciting, adventuresome new world we live in.
OK, now for you patients with dubious diagnoses for which there is little evidence - no need to look very far to find examples. Been to your doctor lately - the one your plan allows for? How long was the visit - the actual face time? Five minutes? Eight?
This is the age of the blanket diagnosis - tell me a few of your symptoms and let's see how fast we can plug you into a label. Be brief please...
Some of the more popular: