Medical Groupthink Makes People Sicker, Analysts Argue

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.

Up Next

Canadians largely ignore them and their funding bleeds their competition dry: How the CBC Spends its Public Funding

Don't Miss

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Urges ‘Make America Healthy Again’

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data

Crime / 5 hours ago

‘Modern-Day Escobar’: U.S. Says Former Canadian Olympian Ran Cocaine Pipeline with Cartel Protection and a Corrupt Toronto Lawyer

Alberta / 9 hours ago

Carney government’s anti-oil sentiment no longer in doubt

Health

SPARC Kindness Tree: A Growing Tradition in Capstone

Published on November 19, 2025

SPARC Red Deer

Since 2021, thousands of wooden ornaments painted with messages of kindness and hope by local youth have adorned multiple trees in Capstone during the holiday season.

One of SPARC Red Deer’s Paint the Town Positive initiative, these kindness ornaments are created by youth from various schools, clubs and community groups.

Beginning on November 27^th, area residents are encouraged to visit Canada 150 Square in Capstone to select an ornament to take home – and gift another to someone in their community. This year, SPARC is continuing its partnership with the City, and is thrilled to expand its presence in Red Deer by sharing Kindness Ornaments in recreation facilities across the community.

Sharing kindness plays a meaningful role in supporting our mental well-being. It gives us hope, warms the heart, and fosters a sense of purpose. Acts of kindness can also inspire others to pay it forward – creating a ripple effect of positivity.

SPARC Red Deer is a local non-profit coalition dedicated to strengthening positive assets and resilience in communities. Paint the Town Positive – the youth-driven chapter – collaborated with Capstone to launch the Kindness Tree with the goal of giving back and spreading kindness throughout the community.

To learn more about SPARC, visit sparcreddeer.ca.

Alberta

Alberta on right path to better health care

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir

Alberta’s health-care system may be set for another positive move away from the failed Canadian model. According to leaked draft legislation by the Smith government, Albertans may soon be able to access physician care in a parallel private sector, with physicians permitted to work in both the public and private systems.

The defenders of the status quo were of course quick to frame the approach as unique in Canada, arguing it would harm our universal system. While this potential change may put Alberta’s policies at odds with those of other provinces, it would more closely align with universal health-care systems everywhere else in the developed world. And most importantly, it will make for better access to health care for all Albertans.

First, it’s important recognize just how unusual Canada’s approach to privately-funded health care is compared to other high-income countries with universal health care.

In every one of the 30 other developed countries with universal health care, patients are free to seek services on their own terms with their own resources when the universal system is unwilling or unable to satisfy their needs. One reason may be to avoid long waiting lists, while others simply want to receive more personalized health-care services, meet a personal health need or access newer medical technologies and procedures.

In the majority of these countries, including those with high-performing systems such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and Australia, physicians are also permitted to work in both the public and private sectors.

Canada’s deviation, and Alberta’s, from this international norm has not served patients well. Despite having the highest health spending among the provinces in one of the most expensive universal health-care systems in the developed world, Albertans endure some of the worst access to health care and wait in some of the longest queues for treatment.

A central explanation for why Canadians spend more and get much much less is the lack of a private competitive alternative to the universal public system.

Again, a private option gives patients an option to select care the government is unwilling to provide, either in terms of timeliness or in ways that may be personally important to them. Faster access could allow some people to expedite a return to work and support their family, or to re-engage in important activities without needing to leave the province or the country as they currently must.

By moving people willing to pay for services out of the public queues, the government can help reduce the wait times for patients in the public queues. It’s not surprising that Canada has the longest waiting lists in the developed world given we’re the only country that prohibits privately-funded health care.

Arguments that the private sector will starve the public system of resources (including doctors and nurses) misunderstand what’s actually happening in Alberta today.

Currently, surgeons spend a good deal of time waiting for access to operating rooms or hospital beds for patients. Meanwhile, nurses are leaving the profession in large numbers. Canada also has unemployed medical specialists who could be employed if new opportunities arose. Allowing private access to care or previously unavailable medical resources would increase the total volume of services available to Albertans.

Even beyond this, the opportunity to earn more by working extra hours in a private clinic could encourage physicians to use some of their now non-working hours to treat patients privately. In this regard, the focus on allowing physicians to work in both public and private sectors is a well-informed policy choice that makes better use of Alberta’s existing medical workforce.

Finally, a private parallel option creates incentives for better service in the universal system through competition. Shackling patients to a government monopoly with no alternative choices results in a more expensive system and lower standard of care than would be available otherwise. When no one is permitted to deliver timelier patient-focused care, there’s no pressure created to do so anywhere else in the system. The outcome is obvious just from looking at how poorly the public system in Alberta performs despite its world-class price tag.

While this new leaked draft legislation may have the defenders of the status quo frantically racing to defend the current Canadian model, it promises a better health-care system for Albertans. This change will more closely align Alberta’s policies with those of every other universal health-care country in the developed world. More importantly, it will improve access to health care for all Albertans, and provide Albertans currently stuck with poor service an option to choose differently for themselves without a plane ticket.