At the dawn of the 20th century, medicine stood at a crossroads. The Industrial Revolution had ushered in technological breakthroughs that promised to transform healthcare, yet medicine itself remained a fragmented and diverse field. In the United States, medical schools ranged from small institutions teaching traditional herbal and naturopathic remedies to emerging research universities experimenting with laboratory science. Patients could choose between a homeopath, an herbalist, or an allopathic physician. It was a messy, pluralistic system—but it offered choice.
This diversity,
however, was soon swept away by forces far removed from the clinic. At the
heart of this transformation were two powerful figures: Andrew
Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, titans of industry whose fortunes,
built on steel and oil, would reshape medicine in their image.
The Flexner
Report: A New Vision for Medicine
The turning
point came in 1910, with the publication of the Flexner Report, commissioned
by the Carnegie Foundation. Ostensibly a study of medical education, the report
was scathing in its critique of “substandard” medical schools, particularly
those teaching homeopathy, naturopathy, and other traditional practices.
Flexner championed a vision of medicine grounded in biomedical science—a field
that prioritized laboratory research, pharmaceuticals, and surgical
interventions.
The Rockefeller
Foundation played a decisive role in advancing Flexner’s vision. Aligning their
philanthropic goals with their business interests, they provided substantial
funding to medical schools that followed his recommendations. Institutions like
Johns Hopkins, Harvard, and Columbia received funds to modernize their
curricula and facilities. These schools adopted a standardized medical model
focused on pharmacology and synthetic treatments, sidelining traditional
approaches.
The
consequences were immediate and far-reaching. Hundreds of smaller medical
schools, many focused on natural and holistic medicine, were forced to close.
By the 1920s, the allopathic model Flexner envisioned had become the gold
standard, paving the way for pharmaceutical-driven medicine.
The
Rockefeller Connection: Oil, Petrochemicals, and Medicine
The Rockefeller
family’s interest in medicine was not altruistic. Their empire, built on
Standard Oil, had created vast quantities of petrochemical
byproducts—substances that, with the right research, could be transformed into
synthetic drugs. Petrochemical byproducts, once considered waste, offered
lucrative possibilities for the production of synthetic drugs. Early successes
like aspirin, derived from petrochemicals, demonstrated the potential of this
approach. Today, approximately 99% of pharmaceutical feedstocks and reagents
are sourced from petrochemicals, underscoring the industry's dependence on
petroleum-based resources.
By funding
medical schools that emphasized laboratory-based pharmacology, the Rockefellers
ensured a steady pipeline of physicians trained to prescribe synthetic
medicines. These doctors became the foundation of a healthcare system reliant
on drugs derived from petroleum.
Through their
"philanthropy," the Rockefeller Foundation also funded public health
campaigns and medical research that framed synthetic treatments as scientific
and modern while deliberately dismissing herbal and traditional remedies as
outdated or unscientific. This deliberate misinformation lead to a healthcare
model heavily reliant on pharmaceuticals, with little focus on prevention or
holistic approaches.
A Different
Path in Europe
Across the
Atlantic, a very different story unfolded. In Europe, medical education
remained under the control of governments and public institutions, rather than
private industrial interests. Countries like Germany, France,
and Switzerland preserved a strong tradition of integrating natural
medicine with modern science.
- In Germany, homeopathy and
herbal medicine coexisted with allopathic practices, and physicians were
often trained in both.
- Switzerland incorporated
complementary therapies like acupuncture and naturopathy into its national
healthcare system.
- France emphasized lifestyle
and dietary medicine, alongside conventional treatments.
This
pluralistic approach ensured that traditional and holistic practices retained
legitimacy and widespread use, even as biomedicine advanced. Unlike the U.S.,
Europe’s healthcare systems were not beholden to corporate interests, allowing
for a more balanced and integrative model of care.
The
Pharmaceutical Boom
By the mid-20th
century, the divergence between the U.S. and Europe was stark. In the U.S., the
pharmaceutical industry—fueled by Rockefeller investments and petrochemical
innovation—had become a dominant force. The rise of companies like Bayer and Pfizer turned
synthetic drugs into household names, while holistic medicine was relegated to
the fringes.
Meanwhile, in
Europe, a more cautious approach prevailed. While pharmaceutical companies
thrived, they operated alongside a rich tradition of natural
remedies and preventive care, and clinicians received training in
both. Patients in Europe could choose between synthetic drugs and herbal
treatments, often covered by national healthcare systems. The result was a more
balanced approach to health, one that valued both innovation and tradition.
The Legacy
of the Rockefeller Model
Today, the
consequences of the Rockefeller-backed transformation of U.S. medicine are
evident. The American healthcare system is a marvel of scientific innovation
but struggles with chronic disease, high costs, and a lack of focus
on prevention. Traditional medicine is often dismissed, leaving patients with
few options outside pharmaceuticals and surgery.
By contrast,
Europe’s healthcare systems demonstrate the value of diversity in
medicine. The integration of natural and holistic practices with cutting-edge
science offers a blueprint for a more balanced and sustainable approach to
healthcare.
The Ongoing
Influence of Big Pharma on Modern Medical Practices
In the United
States, Big Pharma’s influence continues to shape medical practice, even in the
face of updated recommendations from the FDA and the U.S. Preventive Services
Task Force (USPSTF). One clear example is the continued use of baby aspirin for
cardiovascular disease prevention, despite evidence showing limited benefit and
significant risks. In 2021, the USPSTF updated its guidelines, advising against
the routine use of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular
disease in healthy adults over 60. However, baby aspirin remains widely
recommended, due to outdated belief systems ingrained by decades of
pharmaceutical advertising and the lack of regulation requiring manufacturers
to update their recommendations.
Many patients
still believe aspirin prevents strokes and heart disease, unaware of its
bleeding risks and lack of efficacy for primary prevention in the general
population. The irony is that the belief in aspirin as a safe and effective
blood thinner persists, even though vitamin E has been known for decades to
offer similar benefits without the associated risks.
Rethinking
Statins and Cardiovascular Health
In a similar fashion,
statin drugs like Lipitor, which inhibit HMG-CoA reductase to lower
cholesterol, affect broader metabolic processes. HMG-CoA reductase plays a
critical role in synthesizing coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). CoQ10 is essential for
mitochondrial function, particularly in cardiac cells, where it supports ATP
production. Statins block CoQ10
synthesis throughout the body and impair mitochondrial function. This depletion
can cause muscle weakness and fatigue, and, if untreated, may progress to
cardiomyopathy. Many cardiologists are aware of this issue and recommend CoQ10
supplementation, but it remains outside the standard of care.
CoQ10 was
identified in 1957, and trials in the 1990s showed that statins depleted it in
the body. By the 2000s, it was well-established that supplementing CoQ10
reduced statin-related side effects, particularly muscle pain, weakness, and
potential cardiomyopathy. When Merck released the generic version in 2011,
multiple manufacturers requested that CoQ10 be added to the formula to address
this problem. Merck refused to make a simple adjustment to correct a known side
effect, yet there was no obligation to address the issue and no consequences.
This situation highlights how profit-driven priorities continue to shape
medical practice, with little accountability for the harm caused by their
products.
CoQ10 depletion
illustrates how statins can create additional risks for patients, raising
questions about cholesterol-lowering strategies that focus solely on numbers.
Cholesterol plays a critical role in brain function, nerve health, myelin
production, and the synthesis of vitamin D3 in the liver to support immune
function and repair. Lowering cholesterol too much disrupts vital processes
that contribute to oxidative stress and neurological damage. The irony is that
drug therapies to lower cholesterol inadvertently harm the very systems they were
intended to protect, leaving patients at risk for cognitive or motor decline.
It remains
standard practice in many European countries to recommend dietary changes, such
as increasing whole grains and fiber, to help eliminate cholesterol naturally.
Advocates of plant-based diets often find their lipid panels improve
significantly in a matter of weeks. These dietary strategies not only improve
lipid profiles but also support overall health without the risks associated
with pharmaceutical interventions.
As we dive into
the pattern associated with a chronic fight-flight-freeze response it becomes evident
that cholesterol levels reflect more than just diet—they are also a marker of
the body’s response to autonomic stress. Sympathetic dominance drives elevated
cholesterol by keeping the body in a prolonged state of high arousal. This
increases stress hormones (cortisol) which suppress digestive function in the middle
jiao. Elevated cholesterol becomes “a canary in the coal mine” for an overactive
autonomic nervous system.
A Story
Worth Telling
The history of
how medicine was shaped by industrial interests is a reminder of how economic
forces continue to shape public health in the US. Aspirin and statins are merely
two examples of thousands of interventions that not only bypass natural, safe
methods but also cause more systemic problems in the long run. This
reductionist, numbers-driven approach ignores the intricate feedback loops that
regulate the body and maintain balance.
Still, it
offers hope.
By
understanding the choices made in the early 20th century, we can imagine a new
path forward—one that integrates the best of modern science while avoiding
reliance on expensive and unnecessary pharmaceuticals. TCM providers and those
in ancillary care can harness the new insights from Polyvagal Theory and
neuroscience for our own nefarious purpose of providing patient care without
causing harm.
This is a story
that demands to be told—not only to illuminate the past but to inspire a future
where medicine serves people, not profit.
APA
Bibliography:
1.
Abelson,
Robert. The Rockefeller Effect:
The Creation of the Modern Pharmaceutical Industry. The New York Times, 2001.
2.
Baigent,
C., Blackwell, L., Emberson, J., et al. (2010). Statins and cardiovascular
disease: Evidence from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT)
Collaboration. Lancet,
376(9753), 1670-1681.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61350-5
3.
Bray,
G. A., & Popkin, B. M. (2014). Dietary fat intake does not appear to affect
obesity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(4), 930-933.
https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.114.088101
4.
Castillo,
M. J., & Carballo, A. (2013). Coenzyme Q10 and statins: A narrative review.
The Open Cardiovascular Medicine Journal, 7, 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.2174/1874192401307010001
5.
Fedunkiw,
M. (2005). Rockefeller Foundation funding and the development of medical
schools in Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. McGill-Queen's University Press.
6.
He,
L., Shen, X., & Liu, X. (2019). Statin therapy and coenzyme Q10
supplementation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International
Journal of Cardiology, 285, 31-38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.02.077
7.
Kaufman,
Michael. "The Rockefeller Family’s Influence on Global Health Care and
Medical Research." Journal
of Global Health 3,
no. 4 (2009): 25-38.
8.
Kearney,
P. M., Blackwell, L., Collins, R., et al. (2008). Aspirin for the primary
prevention of cardiovascular events in women and men: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. The Lancet, 371(9608), 1607-1617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60762-7
9.
McCarty,
M. F., & DiNicolantonio, J. J. (2014). Statin-induced coenzyme Q10
depletion: Mechanisms and potential consequences for human health. Journal
of Clinical Lipidology, 8(5), 505-510.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2014.06.012
10. Maki, K. C., & Rains, T. M. (2011).
Statins and coenzyme Q10: An evidence-based review. Journal of Clinical
Lipidology, 5(6), 412-417.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2011.05.003
11. Rader, D. J., & Daugherty, A.
(2008). Translating basic science into new therapies for atherosclerosis. Nature,
451(7181), 904-911.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06763
12. Rosenson, R. S., & Brewer, H. B.
(2015). Statin safety and side effects. Circulation, 131(1), e1-e7.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013494
13. Sesso, H. D., Cook, N. R., & Buring,
J. E. (2008). Aspirin and risk of colorectal cancer in women. The Lancet,
365(9454), 47-55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17443-5
14. Singh, R. B., & Saini, V. (2013).
Dietary fiber and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review. Journal of
Clinical Lipidology, 7(6), 563-567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2013.09.007
15. Starr, Paul. The Social Transformation of American
Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry. Basic Books, 1982.
16. Zanchetti, A., & Mancia, G. (2009).
Statins in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: Review of the evidence and
future directions. The Lancet, 374(9691), 238-246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61220-3
No comments:
Post a Comment