Health
Medical Groupthink Makes People Sicker, Analysts Argue
From Heartland Daily News
Medicine has a huge “blind spot” that has led to an explosion of childhood obesity, diabetes, autism, peanut allergies, and autoimmune diseases in the United States, says Martin Makary, M.D., author of the bestselling book Blind Spots.
“We have the sickest population in the history of the world … right here in the United States, despite spending double what other wealthy countries spend on health care,” said Makary during a September 20 presentation at the Cato Institute, titled “Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health.” Also on the panel were Cato scholars Jeffrey A. Singer, M.D., and David A. Hyman, M.D.
Makary became well-known during the COVID-19 lockdowns as one of a small group of prominent physicians who publicly questioned the government’s response to the virus. Makary is a professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins Medicine, where he researches the underlying causes of disease and has written numerous scientific articles and two other bestselling books.
Chronic-Disease Epidemics
Makary said the rates of some diseases have reached epidemic proportions. Half of all children in the United States are obese or overweight, with 20 percent now diabetic or prediabetic. The rate of children being diagnosed with autism is up 14 percent every year for the last 23 years, one in five U.S. women have been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease, and gastrointestinal cancers have doubled in the last two decades.
“We have got to ask the big questions,” said Makary said in his remarks. “We have developed blind spots not because we’re bad people but because the system has a groupthink, a herd mentality.”
Health care has become assembly-line medicine, with health professionals pressured to focus more on productivity and billing output than on improving overall health, says Makary.
“We need to look at gut health, the microbiome, our poisoned food supply; maybe we need to look at environmental exposures that cause cancer, not just the chemo to treat it; maybe treat diabetes with cooking classes instead of throwing meds at people; maybe we need to treat high blood pressure by talking about sleep quality,” said Makary.
Sticky Theories
Hyman says cognitive dissonance can cause blind spots, highlighting an example of a surgeon initially resistant to trying less-invasive antibiotics before surgically removing an appendix, as recounted in Makary’s book.
“Easy problems are already fixed, so how do we fix this hard problem?” said Hyman at the presentation, pointing out unjustified medical opinions can persist for decades.
Such opinions include the ideas that “opioids are not addictive, or antibiotics won’t hurt you, or hormone therapy causes breast cancer even though the data never supported it, the dogma of the food pyramid,” said Makary.
“We love to hold on to old ideas not because they’re better or more logical or [more] scientifically supported than new information, but just because we heard it first,” said Makary. “And it gets comfortable. It will nest in the brain, and subconsciously we will defend it.”
Peanut Allergy Mixup
Singer asked Makary about the peanut allergy dogma the American Academy of Pediatrics pushed in 2000, recommending children not eat peanuts before the age of three. It turned out to be wrong, said Singer.
“We have peanut allergies in the U.S. at epidemic proportions, [yet] they don’t have them in Africa and parts of Europe and Asia,” said Makary. The United States “got it perfectly backward,” said Makary. “Peanut abstinence results in a sensitization at the immune-system level.”
An early introduction of peanuts reduces the incidence of people identified with peanut allergies at a rate of 86 percent, Makary told the audience.
Makary said he confronted those who argued for peanut abstinence, noting there were no studies to back up the recommendation. They replied that they felt compelled to weigh in because the public wanted something done, said Makary.
‘Demonized’ HRT
The recommendation against hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for older women because of breast cancer risk is another example of misguided groupthink, Makary told the audience.
“It is probably the biggest screw-up in modern medicine,” said Makary.
“HRT replaces estrogen when the body stops producing it,” said Makary. “Women who start it within 10 years after the onset of menopause live on average three and a half years longer, have healthier blood vessels, they will have 50 to 60 percent less cognitive decline, the risk of Alzheimer’s goes down by 35 percent. Women feel better and live longer. The rate of heart attacks goes down by half. And their bones are stronger. There is probably no medication that has a greater impact on health outcomes in populations than hormone therapy.”
A demonization campaign against HRT began 22 years ago when a single scientist at the National Institutes of Health held a press conference saying HRT was linked to breast cancer, Makary told the audience.
“The incredible back story is that no data were released at that announcement,” said Makary. “And today there is no statistically significant increase [of breast cancer].”
Political Challenges
Among the broad range of topics in the 75-minute discussion, the panelists considered how medical groupthink affects government policy.
“Agencies make decisions in the shadows of how [they think] Congress will react,” said Hyman. “Congress can make your life really miserable if you’re a federal regulator. They can cut your budget, call you in, and yell at you because you haven’t taken aggressive steps to protect the American public.”
Makary said doctors must avoid making recommendations based on “gut feelings.”
“We spend a staggering amount of money on delivering health care, and very little money on what actually works,” said Hyman.
AnneMarie Schieber ([email protected]) is the managing editor of Health Care News.
Health
Organ donation industry’s redefinitions of death threaten living people
From LifeSiteNews
Playing fast and loose with the definitions of death for the sake of organ donation must stop.
Another congressional committee is investigating more whistleblowers’ complaints regarding the organ transplantation industry. United States House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert are seeking answers from Carolyn Welsh, president and CEO of the New Jersey Organ and Tissue Sharing Network (NJTO), regarding multiple allegations of legal and ethical violations on her watch.
The complaints include the horrific case of a “circulatory death” organ donor who reanimated prior to organ retrieval. Despite the fact that the patient had regained signs of life, NJTO executives actually directed frontline staff to continue the organ recovery process. (Thankfully, hospital personnel at Virtua Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Camden, New Jersey, refused this request.) NJTO is also accused of pressuring the families of potential donors by falsely implying the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles had registered a consent to donate when that was not known to be the case. NJTO apparently also continued to insist that people were registered donors even after they had removed their consent to donate from their driver’s licenses. The official complaint further states that NJTO allegedly tried to delete evidence pertaining to the committee’s investigation.
Since 1968, when 13 men at Harvard Medical School redefined “desperately injured” people as being dead enough to become organ donors, organ procurement has continued to push the boundaries of life and death in a never-ending quest for more organs. When the first and only multicenter prospective study of brain death discovered in 1972 that a brain death diagnosis did not invariably correlate with a diffusely destroyed brain, principal investigator Dr. Gaetano Molinari pointed out that “brain death” was a prognosis of death, and not death itself. Dr. Molinari wrote:
[D]oes a fatal prognosis permit the physician to pronounce death? It is highly doubtful whether such glib euphemisms as ‘he’s practically dead,’… ‘he can’t survive,’ … ‘he has no chance of recovery anyway,’ will ever be acceptable legally or morally as a pronouncement that death has occurred.
But despite Dr. Molinari’s doubts, history shows this is exactly what has been accepted, and the rising numbers of people who have been taken for organ harvesting while still alive bears this out. Even though “brain dead” TJ Hoover III was still looking around and visibly crying such that two doctors refused to remove his organs, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates ordered their staff to find another doctor to perform the procedure. “Circulatory death” donor Misty Hawkins was found to have a beating heart when her breastbone was sawed open for organ procurement. And Larry Black Jr. was rescued from the operating room table just minutes before having his organs removed, and went on to make a full recovery.
Given that we have been stretching the definitions of death for nearly 60 years, is it any wonder that organ procurement personnel appear to be thinking “he’s practically dead,” “he can’t survive,” “he has no chance of recovery anyway” as they push still-living people towards the operating room?
But it’s not just organ procurement teams that are pushing these new definitions of death. Just three weeks after failing in their attempts to broaden the legal definitions of death by revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) published a new brain death guideline that explicitly allows brain death to be declared in the presence of ongoing brain function. Since this obviously does not comply with the UDDA, which requires “the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain including the brain stem,” the AAN has been trying to get around the law by contacting state health departments, medical boards, medical societies, and hospital associations requesting that they acknowledge the AAN’s brain death guideline as the “accepted medical standards” for declaring neurological death.
The AAN has also just published a position statement of additional guidance on brain death discussing how to handle objections to the brain death diagnosis. Even though the AAN’s brain death guideline does not comply with U.S. law and has been proven to be unable to predict whether or not a brain injury is irreversible, the AAN still wants to make the use of their guideline mandatory. If a family’s objection to a brain death diagnosis cannot be overcome, the AAN says that life support may be unilaterally withdrawn – over the family’s objections. The AAN also says that clinicians are professionally obligated to make a brain death determination, and that they should be credentialed to do so according to the standards of the AAN guideline. Laughably, the AAN recommends the Neurocritical Care Society’s brain death determination course, which consists of a one-hour video, followed by unlimited attempts to correctly answer 25 questions, following which a certificate of completion can be had for as little as six dollars.
The Dead Donor Rule is an ethical maxim stating that people must neither be alive when organs are removed nor killed by the process of organ removal. Redefining neurologically injured people as being “brain dead” and redefining people who could still be resuscitated as being dead according to “circulatory death” standards have for too long allowed organ procurement teams to meet the letter of the Dead Donor Rule through sleight of hand. Playing fast and loose with the definitions of death for the sake of organ donation must stop. Patients with a poor prognosis must not be considered “dead enough” to become organ donors. People registering as organ donors must be given fully informed consent as to the risks involved.
Even utilitarian philosopher Dr. Peter Singer has called brain death an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact. Imposing mandates that force patients and doctors to accept these questionable ethical choices is NOT the best way to establish trust.
Heidi Klessig MD is a retired anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who writes and speaks on the ethics of organ donation and transplantation. She is the author of “The Brain Death Fallacy” and her work may be found at respectforhumanlife.com.
Alberta
Alberta introducing dual practice health care model to increase options and shorten wait times while promising protection for publicly funded services
Enhancing access through dual practice
If passed, Bill 11, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (No. 2), would modernize physician participation rules to give doctors flexibility to work in both the public system and private settings. Dual practice would allow physicians to continue providing insured services through the provincial health insurance plan while also delivering private services.
Alberta’s government has looked to proven models in other jurisdictions to guide the development of a model that strengthens access while safeguarding the public system. Dual practice exists in New Brunswick and Quebec and is widely used in countries with top-performing health systems, including Denmark, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain and Australia.
“For years, governments across Canada have tried to fix long wait times by spending more money, yet the problem keeps getting worse. Alberta will not accept the status quo. Dual practice gives us a practical, proven tool that lets surgeons do more without asking taxpayers to pay more. It means shorter waits, better outcomes and a stronger health system for everyone.”
If passed, this dual practice model would be closely monitored to protect Alberta’s public health care system. The government, for example, would ensure that dual practice physicians maintain separate records for the services they provide, so no public funding subsidizes private services.
Bill 11 would include provisions to restrict participation, which could include:
- Mandating that surgeons in dual practice must perform a dedicated number or ratio of surgeries in the public system to be eligible to perform surgeries privately.
- Restricting specialties to public practice if shortages would compromise public care.
- Potentially restricting private practice to evenings, weekends or to underutilized rural sites, as required.
Alberta’s government remains committed to its public health guarantee: No Albertan will ever have to pay out of pocket to see their family doctor or to get the medical treatment they need. These proposed changes comply with the Canada Health Act.
Alberta’s government is also committed to getting Alberta’s dual practice model right and to taking a thoughtful approach to ensure the best path forward. At this time, family medicine providers will not be eligible to be flexible participants within this new model. The priority is to focus on making sure all Albertans have access to a primary care provider. Additionally, surgeries for life-threatening conditions such as cancer and emergency procedures will remain entirely publicly funded with no private option available.
“Albertans are waiting too long for the health care they need, so we are taking bold and decisive action to shorten wait times, increase access and give Albertans more choices over their own health care. At the same time, we will continue building a strong public health system where no one is denied access to the services they need because of an inability to pay.”
If passed, Bill 11 would create new options for doctors and patients. It would expand Alberta’s health system to provide more care by allowing doctors to treat more patients. Each time a patient chooses to pay for care in a private clinic or a clinic operating on evenings and weekends, for example, resources would be freed up so another patient could receive publicly funded care. This proposed new model would also support physician attraction and retention.
“As dual practice enhances flexibility for Albertans, physicians and medical professionals, safeguards will be established and utilized to protect and grow hospital and public health system capacity.”
“Albertans deserve choice and timely access to safe care, whether in a private or public setting. With the creation of the dual practice model, we can extend treatment options to patients while helping hospitals focus their resources on the highest-acuity patients.”
“I believe all options to improve access to health care for Albertans should be on the table. Therefore, the government’s dual practice legislation is a welcome option. Appropriate guardrails must be in place to ensure the spirit of the Canada Health Act is maintained.”
Quick facts
- Physicians would continue to bill the provincial plan for public services and may offer private services separately.
- Physicians may still choose to work entirely in public or entirely in private settings.
Proposed legislation would modernize physician rules, drug coverage, food safety and health cards while improving oversight and administration in Alberta’s health system.
If passed, Bill 11, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (No. 2), would amend several pieces of legislation to reflect Alberta’s evolving health needs, strengthen the ability of health care professionals to deliver care and improve accountability and efficiency across the system.
“This legislation represents a new era for health care in Alberta. By putting patients first and supporting providers, we are improving transparency, flexibility and access. With modernized physician rules, stronger drug coverage, enhanced food safety and better health information sharing, Albertans will have world-class care.”
Protecting drug coverage for Albertans
If passed, amendments would improve coordination between public and private drug plans, ensuring taxpayer-funded programs are used efficiently and remain available for those who need them most.
Private plans would become the first payer for individuals who have them, with public programs acting as a safety net. The legislation would also protect older Albertans by ensuring employers cannot reduce or terminate health benefits for employees aged 65 and older who remain actively employed.
“People shouldn’t be punished for getting older – it’s that straightforward. With this legislation, we’re protecting Albertans by ensuring employers can no longer kick folks off their health benefits when they need them most.”
Ensuring consistent billing and remuneration practices
Alberta’s government is also proposing amendments to the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act to ensure health care providers and clinics are not engaging in improper billing practices and making inappropriate claims. The proposed amendments would strengthen accountability and transparency while generating cost savings by introducing penalties for systemic non-compliance.
Strengthening food safety in Alberta
If passed, amendments to the Public Health Act and related regulations would strengthen food safety across all establishments by improving training for staff, increasing transparency of inspection results and giving inspectors new tools for oversight and investigation.
The changes would also update the Food Regulation, Food Retail and Food Services Code, Institutions Regulation and create a new Public Health Investigator Regulation, ensuring consistent standards, better reporting and increased public confidence in Alberta’s food safety system.
“Enhancing food safety in Alberta is an important step to making sure Albertans have the safeguards and protections in place to keep them healthy and well. If passed, these amendments to the Public Health Act will ensure food establishments are following best practices and that enforcement measures are in place to support proper food safety.”
Improving health cards and information sharing
If passed, the legislation would create a new process for health card renewal, prevent card misuse and allow cards to be seized or suspended if tampered with. The changes would also permit information sharing with the ministries of Technology and Innovation and Service Alberta and Red Tape Reduction to support continued efforts to modernize health cards.
Amendments to the Health Information Act would support a more integrated health care system and seamless patient experience to help improve care for Albertans who are accessing the system.
It would also add new authority to enable health foundations to better connect with patients to support innovation and advancement of care in their community in an appropriate manner, in accordance with the requirements set out in regulations.
“Albertans generously support enhancements to health care delivery, innovation and research in their communities each year. We look forward to working with our health partners across the continuum to better communicate with grateful patients. With these changes, we will join other Canadian jurisdictions in connecting patients with health foundations in their community while ensuring the strongest protection of Albertans’ private health data.”
Advancing a new era of health care
If passed, proposed amendments to the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act and the Provincial Health Agencies Act would support operational changes to implement previously announced objectives like transitioning Alberta Health Services to a hospital-based acute care service provider.
The proposed amendments would also result in the repealing of the Hospitals Act, as all hospital governance and operational provisions would be moved into the Provincial Health Agencies Act.
New dual practice model to increase access and choice
The Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (No. 2) includes proposed amendments to the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act that would modernize how physicians participate in Alberta’s publicly funded health insurance plan. The changes would introduce a new dual practice model, giving physicians greater flexibility to provide care in both public and private settings while maintaining safeguards to ensure Albertans continue to have access to publicly funded health services.
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day agoGoogle denies scanning users’ email and attachments with its AI software
-
Business2 days agoIs affirming existing, approved projects truly the best we can do in Canada?
-
Alberta24 hours agoPremier Danielle Smith says attacks on Alberta’s pro-family laws ‘show we’ve succeeded in a lot of ways’
-
Business2 days agoTaxpayers paying wages and benefits for 30% of all jobs created over the last 10 years
-
MAiD1 day agoHealth Canada suggests MAiD expansion by pre-approving ‘advance requests’
-
International1 day agoTrump closes in on peace in Ukraine
-
Health1 day agoOrgan donation industry’s redefinitions of death threaten living people
-
Daily Caller1 day agoEXCLUSIVE: Here’s An Inside Look At The UN’s Disastrous Climate Conference


