My Polka Dot Apron

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

May 9, 2018 9:37 pm  #1

Misdiagnosed diseases, fake diseases

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 ( ).  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.



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:

  • chronic fatigue 
  • Lyme Disease
  • Rheumatoid arthritis
  • rheumatism
  • restless leg
  • Lou Gehrigs
  • hypothyroidism
  • Crohn's disease
  • IBS
  • depression
  • anxiety
  • anxiety and depression
  • ADD
  • ADHD
  • migraine
  • carpal tunnel
  • Reynaud's
  • indigestion

Let's skip the lab tests if possible and go right to the prescription.  Which is what you'll get if the tests are positive. Or even negative, because it will still be our best guess with these symptoms.

But we digress.  In the next month’s installment we will return to the subject of disease as normal adaptation to abnormal environmental stressors.


Good stuff, right?  Well, below you will find the info I mentioned above, from Jon Rappoport, which is also good stuff.

**Here's what I entered in the *comment section* at Jon's article:

>>> On the one hand . . . yeah but then again on the OTHER hand . . .

Wow. Talk about people who glow in the dark …………………………………………………..

FALSE POSITIVES – I’ve personally known at least four people who’ve been treated for cancers they weren’t sure they actually had. My Dad happened to be one of the ones who was misdiagnosed but he died of something else (a botched surgery for the SUPPOSED CANCER) before we were able to prove the doctor was wrong. Those doctors literally – – LITERALLY – – hid and/or destroyed the evidence.


** What about people who THINK they have cancer and go for treatment (whether mainstream or alternative) and they “get well” – – – what kind of “False Positive” does THAT lead to? OMG. How many people are out there schlepping their cause for a cancer that didn’t even exist???

I don’t even wanna think about it. >>>

In my Dad's case one of the leading factors in his death was that the doctors rushed into the surgery after my Dad had been without food (or nourishment of any kind) for the 4 or 5 days prior because of all the "testing" they were supposedly doing.  My entire family knew he was not in any condition to have surgery at that time and we also weren't convinced he had cancer much less needed to have surgery, but they would not hear us, they would not listen to us and they just acted as though we, as his family, had absolutely no say in whatever they wanted to do.  The family members were all so shook up we didn't even think about sueing the doctors or the hospital, but we found out later that we actually should have done just that.  To this day, whenever I drive by that surgeon's office it's all I can do not to stop the car and get out and strangle that bastard. 

My Dad died on May 5th and his funeral was on May 9th (today in 1996).  On this date for the past 22 years, I've been getting more and more angry all the time, every time I think about what happened so unnecessarily to such a good man as my Dad.  Idiot doctors, that's what happened to my Dad.  No doubt about it.

A government which robs Peter to
pay Paul can always depend on
the support of Paul.
-- George Bernard Shaw

Board footera


Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum