It's 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you that smoking poses no problem. He read it in a study. He's telling the truth: he really did read it. He doesn't know, or fails to mention, that this study was funded by the tobacco industry.
It's 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. This contestation doesn't appear in public health messages. The food industry has been very helpful in clarifying which findings deserved attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data saw their funding quietly cut. Ancel Keys makes the cover of Time magazine.
It's 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for her morning sickness. The drug is approved. Health authorities gave it their green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone, in an official capacity, acknowledges the problem. Families were told the drug was safe. The drug was approved.
It's 1972. Your doctor prescribes you Valium. Britain is gripped by a wave of benzodiazepines that will last two decades. The risk of addiction is known internally. It isn't disclosed. Your doctor isn't lying to you. He wasn't told either.
It's 1999. Your doctor prescribes you Vioxx for your arthritis. It's newer than ibuprofen, well tolerated, and Merck has a study showing its efficacy. Merck also has internal data suggesting this drug doubles the risk of heart attack. That data won't reach your doctor for another four years. It's estimated that fifty thousand people died in the meantime. Merck eventually settles for $4.85 billion. No criminal charges are filed.
It's 2002. Your doctor prescribes you OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its medical reps to tell doctors that the risk of addiction was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about terminal cancer patients receiving short-term doses in a hospital setting. Your doctor is a general practitioner whose patient has back pain. No one draws the distinction. No one is required to.
It's 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL level is high. You're prescribed a statin. No one mentions that the number needed to treat to prevent one all-cause death is probably close to infinite. No one mentions either that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than what it really is: a documented pattern affecting a significant percentage of patients.
And here we are today.
Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. A new consensus.
He's confident.
He's always been confident.
Confidence has never been the problem.
Confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem.
We are in 2020 and your doctor "recommends" an experimental injection against COVID called a "vaccine"...
What happens next?
Too long
X (formerly Twitter)
Resilients.news (@ResilientsTv) on X
"Nous sommes en 1950. Votre médecin allume une cigarette et vous dit que fumer ne pose aucun problème. Il l'a lu dans une étude. Il dit la véri...
