Stop calling them 'side effects'

You don't get to pick and choose which 'effects' you'll get from medicines.

I don't know whether you've noticed this, dear reader, but I'm not a big fan of the medical-industrial complex. What, you might ask, could explain my lack of enthusiasm for this sprawling network of byzantine interactions between pharmaceutical and medical device corporations, conglomerates that supply health care-related products and services, contract research organisations, health care personnel and the institutions that train them, medical journals, and regulatory agencies charged with overseeing both the corporations and the health care personnel? You may, perhaps, guess that it's due to...

• The notorious serial criminality of pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical industry has racked up an eye-popping US$114,359,397,316 in civil and criminal fines in the United States alone since the year 2000 (second only to the financial services industry, which has accrued an incomprehensible-to-mere-mortals US$380,111,147,460 in fines and penalties over the same time period). Pfizer, which produces the most popular version of the novel transfection agents marketed as 'COVID-19 vaccines' in Australia, got the gong for the largest health care fraud settlement in US history, paying out a record US$2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing of their anti-inflammatory drug Bextra.

Or perhaps to...

• The regulatory capture of the agencies that are supposed to protect the public by ensuring the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) derives 96 per cent of its operating budget from fees paid by the industries it's supposed to be regulating. 89 per cent of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and 86 per cent of the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) budgets come from industry fees. Health Canada is the least compromised regulatory agency, with 50.5 per cent of its operating budget funded by industry fees.
  In addition, committees that decide on which drugs and biologics (including vaccines) will gain regulatory approval, routinely include individuals with financial conflicts of interest, such as having received money or gifts from an industry or being offered a lucrative corporate job or consultancy. Just as a for instance, five out of ten members of the TGA committee that decides which vaccines will be used in Australia admit to conflicts of interest with the vaccine industry; in its infinite wisdom, TGA does not routinely make declared conflicts of interest public knowledge.

Or what about...

• The complete failure of medical and scientific journals to facilitate the scientific process by publishing rigorously peer-reviewed studies that present a diverse array of evidence-based hypotheses, observations and analyses. The publication by two top-tier medical journals, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, of papers based on completely fraudulent data proved by Surgisphere, was a particularly low point of scamdemic-era Science™. However, as I have extensively documented in my 'Academia and the new dark age' series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6), we are witnessing the complete collapse of the institutions that are charged with promoting scientific progress. Junk papers gain publication in high impact journals while quality studies are retracted on specious grounds. We are scolded to 'follow the science' when, as philosopher Matthew Crawford has cogently argued, "science doesn’t lead anywhere." Our completely rational concerns are dismissed with the mantra that ‘the science is settled’. But science is never 'settled', because, as I wrote in Welcome to the Church of Scientism. Say a prayer for humanity, "science is a method for discovering truth that is founded on radical scepticism, not belief. The mindset with which scientists approach their work is that we can never know anything with certainty."

Or how about...

• The utter betrayal of the Hippocratic Oath, its successor, the Declaration of Geneva, and the Nuremburg Code by doctors and other healthcare professionals, and their regulatory agencies. The vast majority of healthcare workers (apparently willingly) abandoned their duty of care to patients by aggressively promoting experimental injections to all and sundry - including pregnant women and children - without even a semblance of informed consent. And the vast majority conformed to Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority (AHPRA) diktats to never criticise the magic COVID injections, like trained seals clapping for treats (or perhaps more relevantly, like 1930s German doctors enthusiastically joining the Nazi party and helping to develop and implement its genocidal programs).

But none of these factors, as egregious as they are, are the main driver for my lack of enthusiasm for the medical-industrial complex.

Intrigued? I'll break the suspense: The principle, fundamental reason for my rejection of the medical-industrial complex as a source - let alone the primary source - of solutions to the multitude of health concerns, both acute and chronic, that afflict human beings is that the model on which it is based is fundamentally flawed. That model rests on several faulty assumptions:

Faulty assumption #1: Symptoms and signs of illness are indicators of malfunction of biological processes. This fallacious assumption gives rise to the belief that fever is inherently dangerous, rather than “a highly conserved physiological response to infection that occurs in all mammal and bird species”. And the mischaracterisation of insulin resistance as a breakdown of glucose-regulation capacity, rather than the body’s self-defence mechanism to limit the entry of excess fat into tissues not adapted to store it, principally the muscles and liver. And the misunderstanding of acute inflammation as a cause of tissue damage, rather than the vital second step in initiating the wound or injury healing process.

(Orthodox or allopathic medicine, incidentally, does not have a monopoly on this faulty assumption. Dr Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, described symptoms as the results of "morbid derangement" of the vital force rather than as the manifestations of its intelligent operation, and averred that homeopathic remedies corrected this derangement of the vital force.)

Whether it emanates from allopathic or 'alternative' medical philosophies, this arse-backwards conceptualisation of symptoms leads to...

Faulty assumption #2: To treat an illness, you must suppress or modify its symptoms and signs. Out of this fallacious reasoning arises the use of anti-inflammatories which, while effectively suppressing inflammation, impair wound healing. And antipyretic drugs that reduce fever, but also reduce immune response to infection, prolong infectious illness, and increase the rate of serious complications and death. And hypoglycaemic drugs that effectively lower blood glucose without meaningfully decreasing the rates of diabetic complications or extending life (and in some cases, increase complication rates). And antihypertensive drugs that lower blood pressure but increase the risk of dying of coronary artery disease, and other types of cardiovascular disease. And anticancer drugs that do a bang-up job of shrinking tumours but don't help cancer patients live any longer.

I could give a zillion other examples, but I think I've made my point. Treatments that target signs and symptoms are more likely to undermine health than to help restore it, because they either work against the body's inherent intelligence, or fail to address - or even exacerbate - the underlying causes of illness, or (most often) both.

Faulty assumption #3: Side effects, or adverse reactions, are an unfortunate hazard of treatment, but a good doctor can devise a drug regimen whose benefits outweigh its risks. Finally, we get to the subject I hinted at with the title of this article. This one is more subtle than the previous two assumptions, and harder to grasp, but essential to understand. You see, there are no 'side-effects' of drugs. Every change that a drug causes is an effect. Some of those effects are desirable to doctor and patient; some are undesirable, but all result from interference with human physiology.

Many drugs block enzymes. For example, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors force blood pressure down by interfering with the enzyme that activates angiotensin, a blood vessel-constricting hormone. But ACE also breaks down a substance called bradykinin. When ACE's activity is blocked, bradykinin levels build up, causing a chronic dry cough and hyperalgaesia, an abnormally heightened sensitivity to pain.
Statins inhibit the activity of HMG-CoA reductase, an enzyme that produces cholesterol. But HMG-CoA reductase also catalyses the synthesis of other biologically significant molecules, such as coenzyme Q10, which is necessary for energy production within mitochondria.

Other drugs impede the breakdown and removal of biochemicals. For example, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) increase the amount of serotonin in the synaptic cleft (the tiny gap between adjacent neurons) by blocking the reabsorption of this crucial communication chemical by the neuron that released it. But as well as impacting mood (not necessarily for the better), the interference with serotonin metabolism caused by SSRIs also suppresses rapid eye movement sleep, and impedes genital arousal in women and erectile function in men.

Still other drugs simulate the activity of biochemicals. GLP-1 receptor agonists such as Wegovy and Ozempic, which were developed as diabetes treatments but are now being hyped as miracle weight loss drugs, mimic the naturally occurring hormone glucagon-like peptide-1. GLP-1 stimulates the release of insulin by the pancreas, helping to reduce blood glucose levels, and turns off hunger signals in the brain. But it also slows down the emptying of food from the stomach into the small intestine. When GLP-1 release is overstimulated, a distressing condition called gastroparesis - paralysis of the stomach - can occur, resulting in bloating, vomiting, heart burn, abdominal pain, and diarrhoea. GLP-1 agonists also dramatically raise the risk of bowel obstruction and pancreatitis, both potentially life-threatening conditions.

If you're thinking, 'Wow, having abnormally heightened pain sensitivity, sexual dysfunction and pancreatitis doesn't sound terribly healthy to me', you're damn right. I would argue that interfering with biological functions - which is what virtually all pharmaceuticals do¹ - is, by definition, inimical to health.

If you want to maintain or regain health, you need to support the normal operation of biological functions. How do you do this? The Six Pillars of Lifestyle Medicine, depicted in the diagram below, are a good place to start. I would broaden out the 'avoid risky substances' category to 'avoid risky exposures' such as excessive blue light from screens, hazardous chemicals in personal care products, offgassing paint and furnishings, and even toxic media.

And I would definitely add a seventh pillar: regular exposure to nature, including sunlight unfiltered by sunglasses and sunscreen, walking barefoot on (unsprayed) grass and sand, and taking in the richly diverse microbiomes found in both natural landscapes and organic gardens via your skin and airways.

Is there ever a role for pharmaceuticals? Obviously, there are some (comparatively rare) cases in which signs and symptoms emanate from a breakdown in the body's capacity for self-regulation. Traumatic brain injury or stroke, for example, can cause damage to the part of the brain that regulates body temperature, allowing fever to become life-threatening rather than helpful. The use of antipyretics to artificially lower body temperate is entirely appropriate in such cases. Tissue plasminogen activators, or 'clot-buster' drugs, limit brain damage in a person who has suffered a thrombotic stroke. Intramuscular epinephrine injections (Epipens) can save the lives of people afflicted by severe allergies.

But the overwhelming majority of pharmaceuticals prescribed, dispensed and consumed are for treatment of chronic conditions that result from poor lifestyle choices, exposure to hazardous substances and lack of exposure to nature. Nearly 30 years of clinical experience tells me that the vast majority of these chronic conditions resolve when their causes are removed and the biological requirements for proper functioning of human beings are supplied in their proper proportions.

And the bonus is... you don't get any nasty 'side effects'.

Want to learn more? My Be Your Own Doctor seminar is now available for you to view in the comfort of your own home. Use the coupon code Substack20 to get $20 off (valid until 31 October 2023).

1. The obvious exception is synthetic versions of hormones that are native to the human body, but are no longer being produced, such as injected insulin for type 1 diabetics, and levothyroxine for people who have had a thyroidectomy or whose thyroid gland is no longer producing adequate hormone.