Welcome to episode 15 of the Energy Balance Podcast. I'm Jay Feldman and joining me again today is my good friend Mike Fave. Today's episode will be part one of a two part series where we're going to be talking about the failures of the modern medical system. And before we get into this episode, I do want to mention that we're not anti-medicine or anti-modern medicine. We just want to make sure that we're acknowledging the flaws with this system.

In today's episode, we're going to start by talking about some of those flaws and basically where this system is really great and where it's not so great. So we'll be talking about why this modern medical system is effective for working with acute issues and injuries and infectious diseases, but why it really fails when it comes to working with chronic health conditions and preventing the degradation of our health.

We'll also be talking about some of the evidence that suggests that the modern medical system isn't as successful as it's maybe made out to be. And we'll also be talking about the influence of industry in medical research and medical education. And then we'll also be talking about a bit of a recent history of various treatments and medications that have really been pretty destructive to the health of those who have taken those medications and they've really been rather dangerous. So we'll be talking through some histories of some of those failures as far as modern medicine goes. To check out the show notes for today's episode, head over to JFeldmanWellness.com/podcast, where you can check out the links to any of the studies or articles or anything else that we referenced throughout today's episode. And if you are dealing with any low energy symptoms, whether that is fatigue and tiredness throughout the day, if you're noticing an energy dip around midday or in the afternoon.
If you're dealing with brain fog or having trouble sleeping, or you've got all sorts of gut inflammation and bloating, maybe you're also dealing with weight gain. If you are experiencing any of those symptoms or any of the chronic health conditions that we'll be talking about today, make sure you head over to jfeldmanwellness.com slash energy, where you can sign up for a free mini course where I will walk you through the main things that you'll want to focus on as far as nutrition and lifestyle go in order to support your energy producing systems to help relieve yourself of those symptoms and conditions that you're dealing with. So to sign up for that mini course, head over to jfeldmanwellness.com/energy. And with that, let's get started.

So this is really a topic that we can only skim the surface of in a single episode because there's so, so much to go through that we could have a ton of different episodes on any of these individual points that we'll be talking about. So it'll be more of an overview, but basically, the modern medical system is built around, or guess a lot of people following it, whether it's doctors or people in favor of using conventional medicine, it's all built around this extreme dogmatism. And it's really pervasive. We kind of see it everywhere where you have this very strong-minded or
people who are very strong in their beliefs in the mainstream and anybody who doesn't think the same way that they do gets labeled as being anti-science or peddling pseudoscience or a conspiracy theory or some sort of misinformation and that anything outside of the mainstream view, whether it comes to nutrition or medication or an illness or a chronic condition or even things outside of medicine, but specifically as far as health and the medical system goes healthcare system. Anything that is alternative to that is dismissed. And I honestly think that this is the most, this is probably like the most harmful thing as far as anything related to healthcare and probably the largest thing that's hurting people and stifling the progress of medicine and science because what it encourages people to do is to blindly trust authority.

Jay
And this can be the scientists in the lab coats or the doctors in their white coats. And we're supposed to blindly trust these experts and essentially follow them as opposed to thinking for ourselves. And any sort of thinking that's alternative to what's being said in this mainstream is really discouraged. And we're supposed to rely on consensus, this idea of consensus where this is what everybody thinks. So if you think differently, then of course you're missing it. You know, you're just you're missing what's right. And all doctors agree on this one thing or all scientists agree on this one thing when in reality that is almost never the case. And that's really one of the like weakest arguments to fall back on is that, you know, everybody believes this. So you should just believe it. And what all of this really does is stifle science and stifle progress, because in order to progress
in any way as far as science goes and health goes, we need to be open to the possibility that what we currently think is wrong. And that's been the main thing that has that has allowed for progress in science. You know, if we were still believing the beliefs that everybody once held, we would still think that the Earth is flat or that it's in the center of the universe and, you know, the sun revolves around the Earth kind of thing. And, you know, gravity wouldn't exist and we would still be using all sorts of barbaric treatments and things like that. Because obviously we need to allow for people to have conflicting points of view in order to allow for any sort of progress and we have to give those conflicting views credence rather than blindly dismissing them because that will inherently stifle the progress of science and humanity but also especially medicine and healthcare.

Jay
What I'd like to do is just kind of using that as a jumping off point, talk through what kind of things go on in the medical industry as far as that kind of points to the fact that the mainstream is not always correct and actually is influenced by a lot of things other than science. It's influenced by all sorts of industry and business and economical incentives and profits. And that a lot of times that comes at the expense of our health. And we have this assumption that maybe some company doesn't have our best interests in heart, but when it comes to health care, you know, everything is based around making us as healthy as possible. And we don't see it as the business that it is, even though we see the advertisements, you know, at any time you're watching TV, advertisements for which drug you're supposed to ask your doctor to use so that you can feel as good as they want you to feel based on these these commercials, which, yeah, I mean,
which may also be worth pointing out that in other countries, it's not legal. Like it is illegal to advertise for medications like that because the idea being that you should be, your doctor should be choosing medications for you based on what is best for you, not based on which one influenced you the most when you were watching TV and made you feel like if you took it, then you would feel better. So it's, mean, really absurd that that's, that even so goes on.

I mean, I think it's important for people to realize that medicine is a business more than anything else. And it's a huge industry in the country and that it's not a objective industry currently. A lot of things are interpreted, created, adjusted so that they have a particular result to support a particular point of view.

A lot of the industry works on incentive and you can see that, or you hear anybody in research or any of the, any professors or anything that universities, part of their jobs involve securing a grant for their research. And a lot of, and you can, you'll see some stuff where basically researchers will basically research topics that they can secure grants for and they won't.

Jay
And for topics that are currently popular and things like that. And they won't go and try and secure grants for things that they know that they probably won't get grants for. So there's a lot of that going on. And then there's also a lot of direct industry, like pharmaceutical industry interest within the industry, pushing research in a particular direction and skewing results or interpreting results in a particular way to get to see a particular effect.

We'll be talking about those types of things. And then a lot of people don't realize that, and a lot of people want to get mad at doctors for the things that go on. And I think that they don't realize that the doctors are educated within a particular paradigm. So they want to say, well, why doesn't my doctor knows what causes this or how to fix that? Because that's not their education. That's not the point of view that they look through. That's not their frame that they're trying to understand things from. When you go through school or you go through any type of medical program, you basically get a set of characteristics or symptoms and signs that go with a particular disease and then certain diagnostics that you can use to determine the disease and then after that you match it with some underlying pathway for pathophysiology of the disease and then they use a drug to adjust the pathway.

A lot of times the question isn't why, what has caused it from the start and in school, in schools, especially in specifically in nursing programs and things like that, or nurse practitioner programs, or can't speak about what they do within actual MD programs. But you don't really, like there's some talk about lifestyle factors, you know, do you smoke, do you exercise, do you have a good diet?

But that's the max amount that it goes. It doesn't go anywhere else after that. It's very service level, okay, don't smoke, okay, eat your vegetables, things like that, but don't eat at McDonald's. And any very generic health information that, yeah, you'll do better if you don't do those things. There's no arguing that, but there's no direction to anywhere else.

Jay
As far as like adjusting lifestyle, what specifically to do and things like that. And the reason is because there's not interest in that because you can't patent a drug on lifestyle. You can't patent a product or a diet and things like that for people. So it's not big money. Whereas if you have a specific drug, and we can get into maybe we'll talk a little bit about the patent stuff, but when you have a specific drug that has a specific effect and it's not a natural compound, you've adjusted the structure, then you can claim it as something that you have created and it is your property and then you can charge for it. And I think a lot of that is what's guiding what's going on with the industry very directly, more so than people realize how direct it is. And as you were talking about before, you can see it with ads on TV advertising this or that drug. So and another thing that I think is important to bring up within this entire context is a lot of people don't a lot of people think these diseases were here forever or people weren't living long enough to experience these diseases in the past and I think that those are misnomers. I think in general people and you're starting to see it now at least if you work in some of the health care industry but the lot of people you're finding a lot of people getting sick younger. There's a lot of people coming in in hospitals and stuff like that. 40 year old with heart disease already. Whereas those diseases used to be diseases of older age and autoimmune diseases exploding and they have they weren't seen before things that hadn't hadn't been seen earlier in previous previous decades in the earlier part of the century.

So just all of sudden coming now and so then a lot of people will want to know which genetics. Well, the thing is, is if it is genetics and you assume that random mutations are leading to this, these courses of, of disease process, according to the theory, it shouldn't happen over the course of a few decades. You're not all of a going to see massive increases in cancer, heart disease and autoimmune diseases and psychiatric disorders through genetics over the course of what? 50 years.

Jay
Those mutations should occur over hundreds of years. Thousands. Thousands, yeah. the fact that it's... And not all of them should be so malignant. Right. So the... Yeah, it's a huge proportion of the population to have randomly been now getting all these diseases, you know. In specific areas of the world. Right, right. Yeah, it's not like, again, even if you... Like, it makes no sense to blame it on genetics, but if you were to say... its genetics than why 200 years ago wasn't 50 % of the population overweight or diseased in some other way or, you know, dealing with diabetes or autoimmune issues or heart disease. And come every, how come every nation that starts adopting Western lifestyle characteristics starts to develop diseases that were unheard of before? And they're talking about, can go, you can go on PubMed, you can go on PubMed and you can look up, you can just type in obesity incidents in Africa obesity incidents in China obesity incidents in India and all these places and you'll see over the past few decades 10 20 30 years since the advent of or the introduction of Western agriculture and Western food production and Western techniques into their systems people are getting becoming obese and getting heart disease and getting strokes and getting cancer and things that were not seen before in these areas and so when you start to see that, when you start to see in just a few generations and then you have, you even have groups like, you have nutrition and physical degeneration by Weston A. Price. You look at some of his documentation, it didn't take decades. It didn't take multiple generations. It was within one generation of introducing the different foods that they started to develop issues. just to provide context there, he was looking at different tribal populations. What was this, 100 years ago?

I think Almost 100, yeah, because was around the 19... from the early 1900s to, I guess, mid 1900s. In the 1930s, I think some of his stuff was happening. He was looking at some stuff. Yeah. Yeah. And so he was looking at these cultures, some that were not yet Westernized or introduced to anything Western. And then some that were. And he was seeing that within a single generation, they were noticing degradation in their health, presence of disease and all sorts of signs like that.

Jay
Exactly and it was it was not even different cultures sometimes it was the same cultural group and some proportion of that group had moved to a Western lifestyle and another portion had stayed traditional depending upon geographic location or you had the older the older family members in the group grandma and grandpa who still maintained the traditional lifestyle and then their grandchildren or even their own children when adopting the Western lifestyle or becoming more Westernized. And this included incorporating vegetable oils, white flour, refined sugar, margarine, and canned food into their diet. that's what they would, anything that was going to some of these more isolated areas had to be able to be stored for long periods of time. A lot of rice and beans and grains, wheat. Yeah. But all in very refined, a lot of refined forms and it wasn't even it was most it it was in the refined forms and basically you would see that the children and the grandchildren of the grandparents would get diseases and the grandparents weren't getting them and they because the grandparents maintained the traditional diet and you'll see things that I think there was one account in the book where they had a there was fat there was grandchildren and grandma was living in that or grandpa were living in the house together  and grandma and grandpa didn't have tuberculosis, but the children did. And they're living together and it's a highly communicable disease.

And so the question is what's the difference? And a lot of it comes down to, I would say a lot of it is diet and lifestyle. And then you can even, there's some talk even with some of the, and then a lot of people will say, well, we've eliminated those diseases with vaccines and things like that. But there's some evidence to show that a lot of the diseases were already on a significant downtrend prior to the introduction of vaccination. And that was due to increase in nutrition and increase in sanitation before that stuff even occurred. Yeah. Yeah. And we've like, this is all relevant, but we've kind of gone off on a little bit of a tangent. to circle back, you were talking a little bit about the education that doctors receive and how there's a very small amount on nutrition and what they are learning is really just a matching of symptoms, diseases and medications essentially. And that's of course an oversimplification.

Jay
There is physiology that is taught as well, but what isn't looked at typically, whether it's as an MD or a nurse or whatever it is, is actually looking at the research firsthand. So there's this assumption that we should be listening to the people with these credentials as if they have such a good understanding of what's going on. But all of the education is filtered through the industry that then leads to the textbooks that they're reading. So it's not like they're sitting with their nose in research books or nowadays, you know, on a computer looking through PubMed all the time and learning about what evidence has led to the current paradigm. They're just taught that current paradigm and taught it as if it's true. But in reality, that is not, that's not necessarily the case at all for a lot of these things. And so there's, there's really a lot less education on, on what I would say matters more.

A lot of times after schooling, the education stops entirely. or they they'll tend to get a lot of doctors will receive a monthly journal. And it comes the monthly journal will come through a specific journal like New England Journal of Medicine. And then a lot of the focus in a lot of the medical research or some a lot of journals is not necessarily lifestyle modification as much as the use of different drugs or different different diagnostic techniques or things like that. So the focus is still not on lifestyle stuff. And even within nursing journals, a lot of nursing journals or nurse practitioner journals that nurse practitioners would read and stuff like that is dedicated around clinical practice, not so much outside of clinical practice. may be a few articles here and there about it, but a lot of it focuses on using different drugs or different diagnostic criteria or things like things along those lines, things within specifically within the clinical setting. So the entire education is geared around yes, you understand some pathophysiology of things, but it's within the context of using a drug to alter the pathophysiology. So the frame of the drug and the diagnostic and the disease process within the entire frame of it being genetic and mostly genetic or has some slight amount of environmental impact is the basis for which things are formed. you have this idea that most people are having genetic, it's a genetic effect why they have heart disease or they have different models or theories that they use whereas high cholesterol causes heart disease. And then essentially from there, you have this basis taught to you in school and then from there you're given continuing information on how to modify these processes the starting dominoes in the line of dominoes is already set from the beginning, from school. You're given this particular foundation. And then from there, research is filtered in within that foundation, within that context. And even within research, you see researchers hold certain beliefs in place. And then from there, they guide their research. So the point is, is the underlying assumption correct?

That the underlying assumptions or the foundations correct. And then I think that what we'll get into here is that, well, they're not really so solid, these underlying assumptions. And then there's research, there's a lot of gray area within the research and it's constantly unfolding. And to be fair to doctors and nurses or anyone in clinical practice, to keep up with it is ridiculous. There is just so much in all areas especially depending on, a lot there's research in so many areas. It's kind of hard to figure out where do I focus for what's going on? And then the other thing to keep in mind is most professionals in clinical practice are highly specialized. So you have nurses who work, if you have a nurse in the ICU or you have a doctor who works in critical care, he's not necessarily going to be able to manage you in a, in a primary care situation.

Or a nurse won't be able to manage you in a med surge situation as well, or be a labor and delivery nurse or anything like that. So it's so specialized that the research that these groups, different groups are reading are specialized towards that area. There's sort of a lack. You have the underlying theories in school, but they eventually get glossed over by what you deal with every single day. And so the entire industry is set up to, to compartmentalize people and they focus on those specific areas and they don't really have an overarching picture of what's going on. And so it creates a very fractured system that is focused specifically on the trees and not on the forest. Yeah, yeah.

Jay
Yeah, there's, I mean, even as far as the research goes, there's a lot of issues there that will touch on just the influence of industry and how the bias that goes into research because of the results that we're trying to attain and how there's favor, favoritism towards research that shows potential new findings and, as opposed to negating older findings or other new findings. And, and there's a lot of issues as far as the, journals go as well. You had mentioned like, knowing the Journal of Medicine or any of the other research journals that are considered to be more of like the top tier journals, there's a lot of bias there going on and there's people who have been editors for those journals and they've come out and spoke about how heavily the admittance of different studies and just the whole process, how much it's influenced by money and the pharmaceutical companies the influence that goes into that. So yeah, even if a doctor is reading the research in their individual area and it is in some of these top journals, it's still very much skewed through that same paradigm that they were looking at originally and that's been taught the entire time. And again, to reiterate, none of this is to blame any individual doctor or nurse. It's a system that's broken. The entire way that it's gone about is broken.

Money is really the biggest reason for that, it's, especially from pharmaceutical companies, but also insurance companies and things like that, just how lucrative all of this is and how much, commercialized it is and how much it's allowed for industry to influence these things has led it to be really heavily skewed. And so the point being that we have so much blind faith in the system that is essentially broken and we'll talk through some examples, some pretty astonishing examples of medications that have been approved and used for decades and then have been found to be incredibly damaging, cause all sorts of cancers or heart disease or not, you know, or just leave unnecessary risk as opposed to benefits. it's, you know, we have this assumption of conventional medicine being infallible and we, but we just, we easily forget history and It's not only us forgetting. I that's part of a product of marketing that goes on. So we'll talk through some of those examples, but the point being here that this blind dogmatic belief that anything that is supported by mainstream conventional science and medicine is right is really damaging and dangerous. And you and I experience this a lot comments on my articles or podcasts or things where, you know, people will, it's funny the kind of thing, the kind of tactics that are used to accuse people in this scenario where it's never about the information itself. Normally what it is is just going through all sorts of different ways to dismiss the information so that that's not even discussed where it'll be, you know, some of the really common tactics used is any study that doesn't fit with other ones is considered to be cherry picking as opposed to just considering. both sides of a topic or research. They'll also consider that any study that's not on humans is irrelevant, as if other animals are so distinct from our physiology. And that's not to say that us and rats don't have any differences, for example. But in reality, our physiology is very similar and a lot of the same things apply between different species. And it's important to note those differences, but it doesn't mean that studies that aren't on humans are not valid or worth considering. 

There's also a recency bias where any study that's considered to be old, which you might think is 60 years or something, but even studies that are more than 10 years old are sometimes not considered to be valid. I know of people who are in school and in master's programs and PhDs and things where they've had assignments where they're only supposed to use research in the past four or five years as if that's all that matters. When in reality, a lot of the older studies are much less biased and much less heavily influenced by industry. But and yeah, and then we talked about kind of or mentioned the the bias towards the top journals as if anything that's not accepted by one of those journals is not valid. Which again, these are all really, they're baseless ideas, baseless criticisms as a way to deflect and avoid actually considering that alternative ideas or points of view do have validity. Or trying to figure out where the, like how to connect the dots.

Jay
So why in this context something happens and why in that context something happens and then trying to understand the underlying mechanisms instead of just, cause I don't even think a lot of people read the studies altogether. Read abstracts or they were somebody else's interpretation of a study. And a lot of times, you know, you really have to go through the study. You have to go through what the methods were. Cause I mean, even a very common example is and a lot of studies now will compare saturated fats to polyunsaturated fats, but the saturated fat source still uses lard. And if you know what goes on in the current industry for producing lard, you'll know that lard is no longer predominantly a saturated fat source. It can be predominantly polyunsaturated, or it could be mostly monounsaturated with some...

With some saturated fat and a decent amount of polyunsaturated fat. you're not really, you may, they may say we compare to saturated fat source, but it may not actually be a saturated fat source. You know, there's, there's a lot of that that goes on or what they'll compare in, different art in different articles is the control group, you know, it'd be, well, we did better than, than the control. It's like, well, what was the control? Yeah.

If you have a poor control and it does better than the control, then of course, yes, the results look favorable, but the question is always what are you comparing it against? And that's really important. And then the other thing is how are you doing the analysis on your model? What are you looking at and how are you determining? And a lot of people will pull up association studies and they'll you'll look at certain aspects in the study and it'll account for certain effects, but like there's other things that go with those effects beyond the association. So there's a lot at play and there's a lot of inter related factors that you have to consider when you're looking at the results of different studies and you can get away with a lot. You can really get away with a lot with a study. The other thing that's important to people to look at is what is, and a lot of people are getting onto this now, but where is the funding or the resources coming for the production of this study. You know, I just read two, we were just talking about, we just read two studies talking about the dangers of saturated fatty acids. And then the authors of this study are funded by different pharmaceutical companies. One was Novo Nordisk and the other one's AstraZeneca. And it's like, well, both these companies make drugs dealing with diabetes and dealing with heart disease and things like that.

So they are vested in the interest of determining that the cholesterol heart disease theory is correct. There's a lot of factors in looking at one study. can't just read the abstract and all of a sudden, you got it. There's way more, and a lot of times the abstracts don't even match up with the results. Right, right, yeah. In one of Ray Peete's articles, he was talking about that with the study with aspirin where they were suggesting that aspirin causes a certain type of cancer. And yet when you look at the data that they're using, they were comparing people who were on one a day aspirins versus people who weren't. And saying that the people on the one a day aspirin were much more likely to get cancer. But when you look at the median ages, or I think it was just the average age of the two groups, the ones with aspirin were like 15 years older. And they found that...

Yeah, there was like a few different areas where the data was entirely skewed. You know, there's this huge confounding variable of age and also gender going on where the people who essentially, the people who are prescribed the aspirin are in worse health, essentially. They're older, they're more likely to have heart disease, whatever else. And so that's why they were more likely to have the cancer. And it was just another example of the abstract not really matching the data or the conclusion not matching the data, depending on how it's interpreted. Another example, you were talking about control groups.

And so in a lot of the, there's a couple of good examples here. One is in a lot of caloric restriction studies, they look at caloric restriction as the treatment group. Experimental group. Yeah, experimental group. Yeah. the caloric restriction is the experimental group or the treatment group and the control group that will use an ad libitum feeding, which means that they can eat as much as they want. So they're not looking at caloric restriction versus a normal diet. They're looking at caloric restriction versus essentially way overfeeding because the hunger signals are just regulated based on the terrible food that they feed the rats typically. The other thing is you're looking at caloric restriction in a crap diet versus overfeeding in a crap diet. Right. So less crap, you'll live better. Yeah, exactly. there's been researchers who have considered that. And when they look at the data, they basically see that all of the supposed benefits that are given to the caloric restriction group are due to the negatives in the adlobitum group, in the control group. they just aren't effective controls. And there are some blood thinner medications who they were approved by the FDA, like well-known ones, like Xarelto was one of them. And it was approved based on research where in the control group, they were using a too high of a dose of another blood thinner and saying that they had about the same incidence of side effects and other issues. But the doses were not like equivalent, basically.

So yeah, there's a lot of issues with the research and I don't want to just, you know, if we were to just talk about interpreting research, that's a whole topic on its own. And most people aren't even considering the research and looking into it. And that's fine as long as you're not also dismissing it and dismissing these other points of view and saying that the research doesn't count for all these reasons. And yet you aren't actually looking at the research with a critical eye. And there's studies showing how so much of the research and extraordinarily high number, I've seen some numbers this high as 40 % or more, is essentially either wrong, like it's false, or it's when it's... And some of that is based on the fact that when it's retested, they don't find the same results. So a lot of it, a lot of them... a lot of the reason... What's that? It's not retestable. Right, it's not reproducible.

Part of the reason for that too is because in order to publish research, you're looking for essentially a positive result. And so you might do a trial several times and only apply with the trial that got the result that you were looking for. And so that could have been one out of seven trials. And so in reality, you're just trying to get one that works by chance. And there's all sorts of bias like that because that's what allows for researchers to get grants because that allows their research to be accepted in journals. And it's this whole corrupt system.But the point in talking about the research like that is just that we'll be so dismissive of some ideas and then so tightly attached to others. And we're not actually looking at it with any sort of critical eye. And we're relying on this some research that is the more mainstream research, let's say, whatever it is without considering all these other factors and all this bias that's introduced.

But we don't even have to, like looking beyond research, we can see so many examples, which a lot of them are based around the research, but so many examples where modern medicine or conventional medicine has really led us astray. know I'm too, yeah. So there's, you we've talked about, there's all this blind trust and this dogmatism towards these beliefs. But in reality, when we look at history in medicine, there's, a lot of areas where conventional and modern medicine has failed. And so we know this when we look farther back in history for sure, where, know, bloodletting was a very common technique or we look at all these other treatments that we consider to be like barbaric now and how, you know, we consider how little they knew about the human body. And but a lot of this has happened more recently as well. So even as early as the early 1900s and the late 1800s, there was all sorts of really dangerous treatments being used like arsenic and mercury and lead. baths for what was it? Was it syphilis? Yeah. And yeah, so these were, I mean, these are extremely toxic chemicals that were used to treat disease. There's also like using for children, they would use all sorts of different medications and things to keep them calmer. For women as well who they said had hysteria. So they would use like chloroform or morphine or heroin or like opiates or cannabis to keep people calm. This was just regular medicine that was used on children, for example, so that they could behave better. And we look at those things and we think, well, that was so long ago and we would never do such ridiculous and barbaric things now. But even looking throughout the 1900s and closer to the 21st century, closer to the early 2000s, you can see a lot of these same things happening in the same way.

Jay
So one, another,good example is lobotomies, which started, you know, which went on throughout the entire 20th century, essentially. The vast majority of them were performed in the 40s and 50s, but they continued on as long as into the 1980s in France, where they were still performing lobotomies on people, which is basically removing or destroying parts of the brain in order to cure psychiatric symptoms and illnesses. With extreme, extreme side effect profiles. Yeah. Including death.

Right. Or like basically, you know... Mental retardation, complete loss of personality and abstract thinking and everyday function. Yeah. And this was like, this was medical treatment that was used all the way up through the 1980s. And so there's, and there's a ton of examples like that. So another one would be as far as radiation and x-rays go, where a lot of this was essentially...

A lot of this research was essentially skewed because of the atomic bomb testing and basically there was a bias towards wanting radiation to appear safe. And so because, you know, it was not wanting, they didn't want to acknowledge the dangers of it because of atomic bomb testing from the government and things like that. so x-rays, for example, were then used for a long time to treat acne or to treat rheumatoid arthritis and arthritis, like other forms of arthritis among other conditions, they would just use X-rays and it would work. It would get rid of the acne. And it wasn't until, I mean, and there was research all throughout suggesting how dangerous this was. And I don't know how long it went on for, but pretty relatively recently, I X-rays haven't been around that long. then, you know, then they happened to find that, like they happened to find that that was giving people thyroid cancer among many other different types of cancer. And so then those kinds of things have stopped. that's using something like x-rays to treat acne is almost the equivalent of a lobotomy or of using heroin to make a child behave better. It's just as absurd based on what... The most absurd aspect of it is there was research on this during the times to say that it was terrible, but because it didn't support the industry point of view, it was suppressed or it was ignored or it didn't get funding or there wasn't as much being put out about it.

Jay
It's did they have we done a lot of things in mistaken sense? Yeah, is that part of the process? Yeah, but the problem is is a lot of this stuff is done in a mistaken sense, but it is known that is that it is toxic that it has terrible side effects that it's not good in the long run and it gets rid of whatever symptom you're having but it makes the problem worse overall. So or makes the physiology of the individual worse overall. So it and it was known. That's the problem. It's known and it's just because it doesn't support the industry influence that it's still it's continued to be pushed. And a lot of it is marketing. A lot of the stuff is marketing and what the research stuff, a lot of the studies are actually marketing more so than they are science. And that's a huge issue. And we see that going forward with everything. It's everything is to push a particular agenda. And the research is not the research is not free of that.

And neither is the medical industry and what your doctor prescribes and the nurse, what your nurse treats you with and things like that. It's a lot of it really comes down to industry. I'm not, this is not to say that the doctors and nurses know that that's what's going on. Cause a lot of them really don't. lot of, a lot of the medical industry really thinks it's doing the best that it can for people. But the thing is, is the people behind the industry and the people directly within the research and things like that.

There's a lot of corruption going on in those areas and pushing of particular agendas that lead to really terrible effects for a lot of people and damage people down the line without any significant repercussion. And at least especially for those people who are involved. mean, even the most recent one, had the, the Martin. So we have a current example of what's going on is you have the whole opiate crisis in the United States and it's the opiates were known to be highly addictive.

Opiate medications have been known to be highly addictive for a long period of time to induce euphoria and things like that. But the makers of Oxycontin, Purdue Pharma, and this is a current lawsuit going on, they basically advertised and created marketing campaigns showing that Oxycontin, which is long-acting oxycodone, which is an opiate that has a pain-reducing effect, is less addictive and has a good pain profile and things like that and doesn't spike blood concentration, the plasma concentration of oxycodone to the same extent as regular oxycodone. So therefore it produces less euphoria and then it's less addictive and that hasn't been found to be true. And they know that, they know that it's not true. was literally, the lawsuit against them is for false advertising. It is a felony charge for false advertising if I'm not mistaken.

And essentially, they created an epidemic. hooked a bunch of people on opiates across the country and made a lot of money doing it. I mean, why wouldn't you want to legally sell narcotic drugs to people that are extremely addictive, especially with the interest and profit in mind? that's the biggest problem with it. These things are known to be problematic, yet they are still pushed for an industry benefit. It's not for the sake of science.

And then any sort of idea that's put out in direct opposition to these things is called quackery or is called woo woo or alternative or things like that. it's when in reality and then a few years down the line, well, maybe they happen to be right. yeah. mean, after yes, after 40 years of injuring or killing people. Yeah. After they've already made their profit. Yeah. You guys were right. We messed up, you know, happens because science and it's like the information was known.

And that's the really upsetting part about a lot of this stuff. There was no indication for these things. They weren't even working. A lot of things weren't even working to solve the problem. They got rid of whatever side effects were going on, but they didn't solve the underlying problem. And in a lot of times, the side effect profile was much worse. You get rid of your acne and then you just get cancer. A years later, you get cancer. It's like, well, I would rather have the acne. Yeah. and curing problems, or creating real solutions is nowhere near as lucrative as treating symptoms that continue forever. So from just an economical standpoint, it makes much more sense to have somebody that is basically forced into using a drug for the rest of their lives and then multiple other drugs because of the side effects of that first drug, as opposed to being able to give them something that actually cures or heals them in a way that they don't need it anymore. that the entire, regardless of whether it's nefarious or not, like we can assume that everybody has good intentions here, but that is still an inherent bias as far as a system that's driven by money goes. That is the consequence of having any sort of system that is driven by money, by capital. so another good example of just talking about like the research and how it was known.

Is estrogen and all the estrogen therapies that have happened since the 1940s, like the hormone replacement therapies and DES and- For DES for miscarriages. Yeah, so, and menopause. So this has been probably one of the worst industries is like women's health throughout menopause and miscarriage and birth control and things as far as medications and research goes. So for these medications, for example, to prevent miscarriage in the 1940s, when they were first approved to be used,
there was research suggesting that they caused cancer. just like, just like you were saying this, was, it's not even that it was like unknown. It was just discounted and it was somewhat argued upon probably more so than now. Like it was probably, I would say it was arguably less dogmatic then than now where there was at least some dispute about it, but it was just that industry won out. Whereas nowadays it's, it's industry has such power and marketing has had such control that it's not even a conversation anymore.

Like you are anti-science and you are a quack and you are talking conspiracy theory if you question the efficacy of any of these things. Well, the thing is the women's health stuff still hasn't ended. No. synthetic progestins and progestins and different estrogens that they're using in birth control for women now has massive increases in things like stroke and blood clotting and different types of cancers you know, they had to go to low dose for a lot of the, the birth control remedies because of things like stroke and pulmonary embolisms and blood clotting issues. They all go hand in hand, obviously. So it's like, so it hasn't changed. mean, it's slightly adjusted, but we're still doing the same thing. We're, we still have the same problems at hand. You can look, you can look in the literature. It's directly there where they use certain therapies that are, and they find a negative result, yet they are still in practice.

Jay
And it's still going on. And the current ones is the arguments with progesterone and then synthetic progestins and synthetic progestogens. And then the effects that they have were the synthetic progestins and progestogens have increased risks of different types of cancer and whereas progesterone isn't showing those effects. Yeah. And there's some confounding variables there too where progesterone is often, and Ray Pitas talked about this, it might be injected using polyunsaturated fats or using different excipients and things that have their own effects that are damaging. even when we're supposedly looking at progesterone, we're not even looking at progesterone, which is also worth mentioning. But yeah, I mean, as far as this estrogen industry goes, so they knew for 40 years that DES increased the risk of cancer considerably and it wasn't taken off the market until, I don't know, 1970s, 1980s.

And it was pretty heavily prescribed to women to prevent miscarriages. And then it also ended up causing defects to the baby as well, to the fetuses. Not only the babies directly after, but generations after had effects from the drug with increases in cancer and then different increases in malformations, I think in males. In the second or third generation after DES usage. Yeah.

And so and then all they do is they they say, OK, we were wrong about DES. Let's just use this other estrogen medication instead. And maybe they'll market it towards something else, which they did. They started using them for osteoporosis instead of to prevent miscarriages. And then now they've shifted towards things like birth control. And there's been a few other things in between. But they take just a variation of what's already there, which we know is just as damaging and is not even effective. So for osteoporosis, for example, these things weren't shown to be effective, yet they were still used for a long time and are supposed to not be used anymore, but it still goes on. yeah, now birth control is like the next usage for these things. And it's pretty funny when you think that we've now come to the point where these are used to prevent pregnancy, yet originally they were used to supposedly support pregnancy and prevent miscarriage. it's just like, and you can see just how skewed.

Jay
This entire history is and this is something that's still going on and has been going on in very recent history. And all the while, there are people who are saying that these things should not be happening and they are dismissed and they are considered to be the quacks and still are. Like people saying these things, including us, still get looked at in that way. Well, you can't even have these conversations with people. That's the thing. can't sit there and talk about, especially certain health professionals, you can't talk them about it.

They won't talk to you about it because they know what they know. that and it's there, the expert or there's this consensus on things and consensus. mean, that's just a laughable concept. Consensus. It's like, well, all these people think this. It's like, okay. Based on also based on what? Like they say that for all sorts of of the main theories that they're pushing right now that they're peddling is that this is consensus and all scientists agree on this as if they're all pulled or something when it's

When if there's somebody is citing that that typically is a red flag and is very often not true If you need consensus to drive your argument, then you don't have an argument If you can't supply mechanisms and data to support where the argument is going and you have to say well There's consensus then you don't have an argument. There's no argument there doesn't matter what somebody else thinks I don't care if they're an expert. What is the Where is the data?

Where is the overall data and if you don't have that then there's no conversation. You need to have the information present and mechanisms to explain the information or proposed mechanism or hypothesis or something. It needs to be there. can't just say well, well my science teacher thinks this and it's like okay. Well this is what the textbook told me. All right we're going to end this episode there and pick back up in part two of this series on the failures of modern medicine.

And in part two, we're going to be talking about the role that dogmatism plays in the modern medical system and the tendency for so many people within this system and following the conventional side of medicine to dismiss any alternative views, consider them as quackery or conspiracy and how this dogmatism really ends up stifling science and medical progress. So we'll be talking about that in part two. We'll also be talking about the current medical mishaps

Jay
That are going on and this includes the over emphasis and misuse of labs and screenings. It also includes various treatments and medications that are currently in use that are dangerous or ineffective. It also includes talking about medical error and how that's one of the leading causes of death right now. And then we'll also be talking about what we can do about the system and how we can navigate it in a way that is best for our own health.

So if you did enjoy today's episode, please leave a review or a like or comment wherever you're listening. It really does a lot to help support the podcast and to check out the show notes for today's episode, you can head over to jfeldmanwellness.com slash podcast where I'll be linking to any of the articles or studies or anything else that we mentioned throughout today's episode. And if you are dealing with any low energy symptoms, if you're struggling with brain fog or fatigue, you're tired throughout the day, just don't have the energy that you used to If you're struggling with low libido or gut issues in any way or weight gain, or if you're just looking to optimize your health, make sure you head over to JFeldmanwellness.com/energy and sign up for a free mini course where I'll walk you through the main things that you want to focus on as far as nutrition and lifestyle go in order to support your health and support your energy producing systems. And I'll also be talking about the things that you want to avoid that directly block our ability to produce energy or waste the energy that we're producing, all of which contributes to all of those symptoms and then all sorts of other chronic health conditions. to sign up for that free mini course, head over to jfeldmanwellness.com/energy, and I will see you in the next episode.