3-9-25 DailyBriefs.info MP3 OF BRIEF PDF OF BRIEF PODCAST REVIEW OF ARTICLE PDF OF ARTICLE MP3 OF TED TALK ARTICLE REFERED TO
Review of Article: Broken Doctors for a Broken Medical System by Ambrose Kane • March 6, 2025
The provided article from The Unz Review, "Broken Doctors for a Broken Medical System," critically examines the American healthcare system, asserting that it prioritizes profit over patient health and is hampered by doctors who lack critical thinking and courage, exemplified by their compliance during the Covid-19 pandemic. The author contends that the system fails to effectively treat chronic diseases like heart disease and type 2 diabetes due to a focus on pharmaceutical interventions and a neglect of the crucial role of diet and nutrition. Furthermore, the piece argues that patients should become more informed and less reliant on the current medical establishment, "undoctoring" themselves to advocate for their own well-being. Ultimately, the article portrays a healthcare system riddled with financial incentives that undermine effective treatment and genuine healing.
Date: October 26, 2023 (Based on the provided context of future HHS Secretary RFK Jr.) Source: "Broken Doctors for a Broken Medical System," Ambrose Kane, The Unz Review (March 5th, 2025 - Note: This date is in the future from the current date, suggesting a hypothetical future scenario being analyzed).
Executive Summary:
Ambrose Kane's article presents a scathing critique of the American healthcare system, arguing that it is fundamentally broken and driven by profit rather than patient health. The author contends that many doctors are complicit in this broken system, lacking critical thinking skills and the courage to challenge established norms due to fear of repercussions from the medical establishment. The article highlights the ineffectiveness of the current medical model in treating chronic diseases like heart disease and type-2 diabetes, attributing this to a focus on symptom management via pharmaceuticals rather than addressing root causes through diet and lifestyle. Kane advocates for individuals to "undoctor themselves," becoming knowledgeable and proactive in their own health to avoid dependence on a costly and ineffective system.
Main Themes and Important Ideas:
The Profit-Driven Nature of the Healthcare System:
Kane asserts that the American healthcare system prioritizes profits over patient well-being. He suggests that a healthier nation less reliant on medical interventions would significantly reduce the financial gains of the "medical industrial complex."
He anticipates that any meaningful reforms proposed by a figure like a hypothetical future Secretary of Health and Human Services RFK Jr. would be met with strong resistance from medical associations due to potential profit losses.
Quote: "The health of patients plays little importance when huge profits are at stake, and one must always remember that modern medicine is a business first and foremost. Health care in America is enormously costly because it’s designed to be that way."
The "Broken Minds" of Many Doctors:
Drawing on the perspective of Dr. Suneel Dhand, the article argues that many doctors have been trained to be "complete followers" who lack critical thinking skills and the courage to question established medical practices.
Quote (Dr. Dhand): "large numbers of practicing doctors, maybe even the majority, their minds are completely broken as well . . . What I mean by this is that the way doctors have been trained to think, the fact that most doctors are complete followers, they lack critical thinking skills, and they certainly lack the courage to step out of line and ask questions when they need to."
The COVID-19 pandemic is presented as a prime example of this compliance, where doctors largely adhered to the official narrative and dismissed alternative viewpoints or treatments, even when evidence suggested otherwise.
Example: The article mentions the downplaying of the potential link between the COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis and the dismissal of treatments like ivermectin as "horse medicine."
Ineffective Treatment of Chronic Disease:
Kane argues that the current medical approach, focused on treating symptoms with pharmaceutical drugs, is fundamentally flawed for addressing chronic diseases.
He emphasizes the importance of a "wholistic approach" that considers the interconnectedness of the body and the significant role of diet and nutrition, areas in which most doctors are allegedly poorly informed.
The lack of nutritional education in medical schools is attributed to the fact that curing chronic disease through diet is not as profitable as managing it with drugs.
Quote: "If one’s diet or nutrition, then, plays a major role in chronic disease, why do so many doctors know little about the subject? Why are medical students given only one or two classes on nutrition if diet plays such a central role in chronic disease? The answer lies in recognizing that curing chronic disease through diet is not particularly lucrative."
The Symptom Management vs. Healing Paradigm:
The article draws a parallel between the healthcare system and the prison system, arguing that both focus on management rather than true rehabilitation or healing.
Quote (Dr. William Davis): "'Health care is no more about healing than gambling on horse races is about preparing for retirement. In the doctor’s mind, handing you a prescription for insulin may be her version of ‘healing,’ but you know better: There is no healing that can come from handing out pharmaceutical Band-Aids while ignoring the cause of a health problem.'"
Kane contrasts the practices of typical doctors with "doctors who are healers," who prioritize diet, nutrition, and lifestyle interventions over the immediate prescription of drugs.
The Fallacy of the Lipid Hypothesis and Statin Over-Prescription:
The article critiques the long-standing "Lipid Hypothesis," which blames saturated fat and cholesterol for heart disease. It highlights evidence suggesting that refined sugars and processed carbohydrates are more likely culprits.
The continued emphasis on lowering cholesterol with statins is attributed to the enormous profits generated by these drugs, exceeding $20 billion annually in the U.S.
The potential side effects of statins are mentioned, and the article suggests that the true prevalence of these side effects might be underreported due to financial incentives.
Quote: "Despite these truths, the medical industrial complex is unlikely to jettison their cholesterol-is-bad view of heart disease any time soon because statin sales in the U.S. exceeds 20 billion dollars annually. There’s just too much money to be made in selling cholesterol-lowering drugs..."
The Reversibility of Type-2 Diabetes and the Failure to Inform Patients:
Kane argues that type-2 diabetes can often be reversed through dietary changes, particularly a low-carbohydrate diet. However, he claims that most doctors fail to inform their patients of this possibility.
The standard dietary advice given to diabetics, which often includes consuming significant amounts of carbohydrates, is described as "ass-backwards" as it encourages the very foods that contribute to the condition.
The continued reliance on drugs like Metformin for managing diabetes is linked to the significant profits generated by these medications.
Quote (referencing Sally Hallberg): "'reversing Type-2 diabetes starts by ignoring the guidelines that patients are given.' That’s because the guidelines often contribute to and even exacerbate diabetes."
The Need for Individuals to "Undoctor Themselves":
The article strongly advocates for individuals to take responsibility for their own health by educating themselves about nutrition, supplements, and available treatment options.
Blindly following doctors' recommendations without personal research is deemed "foolhardy."
Kane suggests that doctors have a legitimate but limited role, primarily in treating acute injuries and conditions requiring surgical intervention.
By becoming more knowledgeable and less dependent on the medical establishment, individuals can reduce the flow of money into the current system and challenge the authority of doctors based solely on their medical degrees.
Erosion of Trust in Doctors:
The author contends that the reputation of doctors has declined due to their perceived complacency, unwillingness to challenge the system's greed, and their role in events like the COVID-19 pandemic response.
The insurance system is also criticized as being "ripe for corruption," encouraging overuse of medical services due to third-party payments and a lack of upper limits on costs.
Quote (Robert Yoho): "'The insurance system was conceived in good faith to supply vital care. But the gargantuan fountain of tax and insurance loot cannot be monitored. Third-party payment combined with free-market profits encourages overuse of anything a provider can stick a bill on.'"
Conclusion:
Kane's "Broken Doctors for a Broken Medical System" paints a bleak picture of American healthcare, portraying it as a profit-driven enterprise where patient health often takes a backseat. The author criticizes the training and mindset of many physicians, their reliance on pharmaceutical solutions, and their alleged failure to address the root causes of chronic diseases through nutrition and lifestyle interventions. The article urges readers to become informed consumers of healthcare, to "undoctor themselves," and to question the recommendations of medical professionals in order to protect their own health and well-being from a system the author deems fundamentally flawed and self-serving.
Key Themes:
The American healthcare system prioritizes profit over patient health.
Many physicians are complicit in this system due to their training, fear of repercussions, and lack of critical thinking.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed widespread physician compliance with questionable narratives.
Conventional medical approaches often focus on treating symptoms rather than addressing the root causes of chronic diseases, particularly regarding diet and nutrition.
The financial incentives within the healthcare system discourage preventative and holistic approaches that could reduce reliance on medication and procedures.
Patients are encouraged to become informed and advocate for their own health, recognizing the limitations of the current medical model.
Specific examples of ineffective treatment in the areas of heart disease (cholesterol and saturated fat misconceptions) and Type-2 diabetes are discussed.
Key Arguments:
The medical industrial complex actively resists reforms that would reduce its profits.
Doctors are trained to be "followers" and are often unwilling to question established protocols.
The focus on pharmaceutical interventions and procedures drives up healthcare costs and doesn't necessarily improve health outcomes for chronic diseases.
Diet and lifestyle play a crucial role in chronic disease, yet most doctors have limited knowledge in these areas.
The "Lipid Hypothesis" regarding saturated fat and cholesterol is outdated and potentially harmful, influenced by industry interests.
Type-2 diabetes can often be reversed through dietary changes, but this information is not widely promoted by the medical establishment due to financial disincentives.
Patients need to "undoctor" themselves by becoming knowledgeable and questioning medical advice.
Medical Industrial Complex: A term used to describe the interconnected network of healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and other for-profit entities that prioritize financial gain over patient well-being.
Wholistic Approach (to medicine): A method of treating illness that considers the entire person, including physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects, as well as lifestyle factors like diet and exercise, rather than focusing solely on symptoms.
Lipid Hypothesis: The long-standing theory that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol raise blood cholesterol levels, leading to the build-up of plaque in arteries and increasing the risk of heart disease.
Paradigm Shift: A fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions. In the context of the article, it refers to a changing understanding among some health researchers regarding cholesterol and its role in health.
LDL (Low-Density Lipoprotein): Often referred to as "bad cholesterol," it carries cholesterol from the liver to the body's tissues. The article discusses how its negative association is being re-evaluated.
HDL (High-Density Lipoprotein): Often referred to as "good cholesterol," it helps remove cholesterol from the arteries and transport it back to the liver. Higher levels are generally considered beneficial.
Triglycerides: A type of fat in the blood that can contribute to heart disease at high levels. The article suggests they are a better indicator of health than LDL alone.
A1C Numbers: A blood test that measures a person's average blood sugar levels over the past 2-3 months. It is a common test for diagnosing and managing diabetes.
Statin: A class of pharmaceutical drugs commonly prescribed to lower cholesterol levels.
Metformin: A commonly prescribed oral medication used to lower blood sugar levels in people with Type-2 diabetes.
Low-Carbohydrate Diet: A dietary approach that restricts the intake of carbohydrates, such as sugars, grains, and starchy vegetables.
Ketogenic Diet: A very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet that forces the body to use fat for energy, producing ketones.
Undoctor Yourself: The act of taking proactive responsibility for one's own health through education, critical thinking about medical advice, and prioritizing lifestyle factors like diet and nutrition.
Why does the author believe the American healthcare system is failing in its effectiveness, particularly with chronic diseases? The author argues that the current healthcare system prioritizes profit over patient health. The medical industrial complex, including pharmaceutical companies and medical associations, benefits financially from a sicker population dependent on drugs and medical interventions. This profit motive, according to the author, hinders the implementation of common-sense reforms and effective preventative measures.
What evidence does the author provide to suggest that many doctors are complicit in the perceived failures of the healthcare system? The author points to the widespread compliance of doctors during the Covid-19 pandemic, where questioning official narratives or the safety and effectiveness of vaccines often resulted in threats to their medical licenses. The dismissal of potential alternative treatments and the downplaying of vaccine side effects are cited as examples of doctors prioritizing the establishment line over scientific inquiry and patient well-being.
According to the author, how does the training and mindset of many modern doctors contribute to their inability to effectively treat chronic diseases? The author contends that medical education focuses on treating symptoms with pharmaceutical drugs rather than addressing the root causes of illness through a holistic approach. Doctors are often portrayed as lacking critical thinking skills and the courage to deviate from established protocols, particularly regarding the significant role of diet and nutrition in chronic disease development and reversal.
Why does the author claim that the healthcare system is not truly focused on healing patients? The author draws a parallel between the healthcare system and the prison system, suggesting that while both provide services (treating illness vs. incarceration), neither effectively rehabilitates or prevents the underlying issues. The focus on managing symptoms and maintaining long-term patients dependent on medication, rather than seeking cures and promoting genuine health, is seen as evidence of this lack of focus on healing.
What are the author's criticisms of the prevailing medical advice regarding heart disease and cholesterol? The author challenges the long-standing "Lipid Hypothesis" that blames saturated fat for heart disease. He argues that the focus on lowering cholesterol through diet and medication (like statins) is misguided and potentially harmful. Instead, he suggests that refined sugars, processed carbohydrates, and seed oils are more likely culprits in inflammation and heart issues, and that cholesterol plays a beneficial role in healing the arteries.
How does the author explain the medical establishment's reluctance to embrace dietary and lifestyle changes as primary treatments for conditions like Type-2 diabetes? The author asserts that the current system is highly profitable from managing chronic diseases like Type-2 diabetes through medication (e.g., insulin, Metformin). Promoting dietary and lifestyle interventions that could potentially reverse the disease would significantly reduce these profits. The author criticizes the standard dietary advice given to diabetics as counterproductive and driven by financial incentives rather than patient well-being.
What does the author mean by "undoctor yourself," and what steps does he recommend individuals take? "Undoctor yourself" refers to becoming less dependent on the conventional medical system and taking greater personal responsibility for one's health. The author advises individuals to educate themselves about health, nutrition, and supplements, and to become their own advocates by researching medical conditions and treatments and not blindly following doctors' recommendations.
What is the author's overall assessment of the current state of the medical profession and the healthcare system in America? The author presents a highly critical view, characterizing the system as profit-driven, corrupt, and ineffective at promoting genuine health and healing, particularly for chronic diseases. He suggests that many doctors are either unwilling or unable to challenge the status quo due to their training, fear of repercussions, or even complicity in a flawed system. This has led to a decline in public trust in doctors and the healthcare system as a whole.
Discuss Broken medical system.
Based on the provided source, the American healthcare system is described as broken and ineffective, particularly in helping people with chronic diseases1 . The author, Ambrose Kane, argues there's little reason to be optimistic about serious reforms due to the influence of the "medical industrial complex"1 . This complex allegedly prioritizes monetary profits over the health of patients2 .
Here are some key aspects of this "broken medical system" as detailed in the source:
•
Profit-Driven System: The source asserts that modern medicine is a business first and foremost, designed to be enormously costly2 . This financial incentive allegedly shapes the approach to healthcare, favoring treatments that generate revenue, such as pharmaceutical drugs3 ....
•
Ineffective Treatment of Chronic Disease: A major criticism is that doctors are trained to treat symptoms rather than considering the "whole person" and addressing the root causes of chronic diseases, which are often related to diet6 . The article claims that the emphasis on pharmaceutical drugs overshadows the importance of nutrition and lifestyle changes3 ....
•
Physicians as Part of the Problem: While some might expect doctors to support reforms, the author doubts this will happen on a large scale because many physicians are themselves "part of the problem"7 . Dr. Suneel Dhand is quoted stating that many doctors' minds are "completely broken" due to their training, lack of critical thinking, and lack of courage to question the system8 . The response of most doctors during the Covid pandemic, allegedly blindly following authorized messages and dismissing alternative treatments, is presented as evidence of this compliance9 ....
•
Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry: The source suggests that the medical system's reliance on pharmaceutical drugs is driven by the enormous profits they generate3 .... The author implies that this financial incentive leads to the downplaying or denial of information that challenges the effectiveness or safety of drugs, such as the Covid vaccine or statins14 ....
•
Ineffective Treatment of Specific Diseases:
◦
Heart Disease: The prevailing "Lipid Hypothesis" blaming saturated fat is questioned, with the author suggesting that refined sugars and processed carbohydrates are the major culprits17 .... The continued promotion of low-fat diets and statins, despite emerging evidence and potential side effects, is attributed to the profitability of these interventions12 ....
◦
Type-2 Diabetes: The article states that Type-2 diabetes can be reversed through diet, yet this is rarely mentioned by doctors, possibly due to the significant profits associated with diabetes medications like Metformin13 .... The standard dietary advice given to diabetics is even described as counterproductive25 .
•
Corruption and Financial Incentives: The author cites retired medical doctor Robert Yoho, who describes the healthcare system as convoluted and ripe for corruption, fueled by third-party payments and free-market profits that encourage overuse and fraudulent billing26 ....
•
Call to "Undoctor Yourself": Given the perceived failings of the medical system, the author urges Americans to "undoctor themselves" by becoming knowledgeable about health, nutrition, and supplements, and to become their own advocates28 . Patients are advised not to blindly trust doctors' recommendations without doing their own research28 .... The author suggests that doctors are best suited for treating serious injuries and acute conditions, but many minor ailments attributed to poor diet can be reversed without medical intervention29 ....
•
Erosion of Trust in Doctors: The source concludes that doctors have lost some of their former reputation due to their complacency and unwillingness to resist the greed within medical institutions, contributing to unaffordable healthcare31 .
In essence, the source paints a picture of a healthcare system more focused on financial gain than on genuine healing, where doctors are often cogs in a machine driven by profit, and patients are encouraged to become informed and proactive in managing their own health2 ....
Discuss Ineffective chronic disease treatment.
The provided source, "Broken Doctors for a Broken Medical System," argues that the American healthcare system is ineffective in treating chronic diseases due to a variety of interconnected factors1 ....
One of the central arguments is that modern medicine operates as a business first and foremost, where the health of patients is secondary to monetary profits3 . This profit-driven model influences how chronic diseases are approached, favoring treatments that generate long-term revenue, such as pharmaceutical drugs, over solutions like dietary and lifestyle changes that could lead to actual healing4 ....
The source contends that doctors themselves are often part of the problem6 . While some physicians may recognize the flaws in the system, they may be hesitant to speak out due to potential threats to their medical licenses and professional status6 .... Furthermore, Dr. Suneel Dhand is quoted as saying that many doctors have "broken minds," lacking critical thinking skills and the courage to question established medical narratives, as evidenced by their widespread compliance during the Covid pandemic7 ....
The source highlights that doctors are trained to treat symptoms rather than considering the whole person and addressing the root causes of chronic diseases2 . They often reject a holistic approach that recognizes the interconnectedness of the body and the significant role of diet in chronic illness2 . Despite the crucial role of nutrition, medical students receive limited education on the subject, primarily because curing chronic diseases through diet is not as profitable as prescribing drugs4 .... This leads to a cycle where patients are given pills for their ailments, and then more pills to combat the side effects, turning them into "walking pill boxes"10 .
The article uses heart disease and Type-2 diabetes as specific examples of ineffective chronic disease treatment11 ....
•
Regarding heart disease, the source criticizes the prevailing "Lipid Hypothesis" that blames saturated fat for clogged arteries13 . It suggests that the focus on lowering cholesterol through drugs like statins, which generate billions in revenue14 ..., distracts from the more significant role of refined sugars and processed carbohydrates in causing inflammation and heart problems16 .... The article even cites research suggesting that higher cholesterol levels may be associated with longevity in older adults18 .... Despite this, the medical industrial complex is unlikely to abandon the "cholesterol-is-bad" view due to the immense profits from statin sales and heart procedures14 ....
•
In the case of Type-2 diabetes, the source states that this condition can often be reversed through dietary changes, yet most doctors fail to inform their patients of this possibility12 .... Instead, diabetics are often advised to consume a moderate amount of carbohydrates, the very foods that contribute to the disease22 . This ineffective advice aligns with the profitability of diabetes-related medications like Metformin, with a global market projected to reach over 6 billion dollars annually23 .
The author concludes that the current healthcare system "doesn't provide health in any meaningful way" but instead produces "forever patients" dependent on pharmaceutical drugs24 .... The language of "healing" is rarely used by doctors who see themselves as managers of pain and disease rather than healers24 .
To combat this ineffective system, the author urges Americans to "undoctor themselves" by gaining knowledge about health, nutrition, and supplements, and becoming their own advocates26 . Blindly following doctors' recommendations without conducting independent research is deemed "foolhardy"27 . While acknowledging that doctors have a legitimate role in treating serious injuries and acute conditions27 ..., the article argues that many common ailments are rooted in poor diet and can be reversed through lifestyle changes, making frequent doctor visits unnecessary in such cases28 ....
The author believes that doctors may feel threatened by "undoctored" individuals who are less dependent on their expertise, leading to less money flowing into the healthcare system29 .... Ultimately, the erosion of the public's trust in doctors is attributed to their complacency and complicity with a greedy medical system30 .... The system is described as convoluted and rife with corruption, where financial incentives encourage overuse of medical treatments, even if ineffective or damaging11 ....
Discuss Compliant doctors.
Based on the source, a significant issue within the "broken medical system" is the prevalence of compliant doctors1 .... The author, Ambrose Kane, argues that many physicians readily conform to the established medical norms and protocols, often to the detriment of patient health and genuine healing2 .
Here's a breakdown of the discussion on compliant doctors in the source:
•
Lack of Independent Thought and Courage: Dr. Suneel Dhand is quoted stating that a large number of practicing doctors have "broken minds" in the sense that they have been trained to be "complete followers"2 . They reportedly lack critical thinking skills and the courage to question established norms or deviate from the accepted medical narrative2 .
•
Fear of Reprisal: The source suggests that doctors may recognize the flaws within the healthcare system on a theoretical level, but they often "dare not speak out because of the threats this may bring to their medical license and status as a physician"1 . This fear of professional repercussions discourages dissent and promotes compliance.
•
Behavior During the Covid Pandemic: The author highlights the Covid pandemic as a stark example of this widespread compliance3 . According to the text, almost all doctors "fell in line like obedient soldiers" with the authorized messages regarding the virus and vaccines3 . Physicians who questioned the safety or effectiveness of the Covid vaccine or deviated from the official narrative faced threats to their medical licenses and were ostracized by the medical establishment3 .... The dismissal of potentially effective treatments and the downplaying of vaccine side effects are presented as further evidence of this compliance4 ....
•
Contribution to Mass Deception: The author likens these compliant doctors to Anthony Fauci, accusing them of contributing to "one of the greatest mass deceptions in human history" during the pandemic6 . Their adherence to the official line, even when evidence suggested otherwise, allegedly undermined public trust in the medical profession5 ....
•
Impediment to Reform: The author doubts that a large number of physicians will support public policy reformers like RFK Jr. due to this inherent compliance within the profession1 . The fear of challenging the status quo and the potential impact on their careers are seen as significant obstacles to widespread support for meaningful reform.
•
Role in Maintaining the Profit-Driven System: The compliance of doctors is also linked to the financial structure of the healthcare system9 . By adhering to treatment models that heavily rely on pharmaceutical drugs and procedures, even when less costly and more holistic approaches might be beneficial, compliant doctors inadvertently support the profitability of the "medical industrial complex"10 .... They are described as potentially being "cogs in the machine"14 .
•
Contrast with "Healers": The source contrasts these compliant doctors with "doctors who are healers," who are characterized by their willingness to focus on diet, nutrition, and addressing the root causes of disease, even if it means deviating from standard pharmaceutical-centric approaches15 ....
In summary, the source portrays a significant portion of the medical profession as overly compliant, driven by fear and adherence to established, often profit-driven, protocols. This compliance is presented as a major factor hindering meaningful reform and contributing to the ineffectiveness of the healthcare system, particularly in treating chronic diseases18 .... The author suggests that this behavior has eroded public trust in doctors and underscores the need for individuals to become more informed and proactive about their own health7 ....
LM AI PODCAST REVIEW
Summary
This audio excerpt introduces a podcast episode reviewing Ambrose Kane's article, "Broken Doctors for a Broken Medical System," which critically examines American healthcare. The discussion highlights Kane's central argument that the system prioritizes profit over patient well-being, drawing a stark comparison to the prison system. It delves into Kane's assertion that many doctors have become unquestioning participants in this flawed system, particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, and his skepticism towards conventional treatments for chronic diseases like heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Ultimately, the podcast explores Kane's concept of "undoing yourself," advocating for patients to become informed, proactive, and empowered in their health journeys by questioning medical norms and prioritizing diet and lifestyle.
TRANSCRIPT OF LM AI PODCAST REVIEW
Welcome to the Lenny and Maria review of the article Broken Doctors for a Broken Medical System by Ambrose Kain Deep Dive podcast show produced by the website dailybriefs.info.
Yes.
Today we're diving into
diving deep.
Yeah. Diving deep into Andrew Kane's broken doctors for broken medical system from the review. Right.
This article, it really shakes up how we think about American healthcare.
Oh yeah.
It asks these like really tough questions about the system itself and the role doctors play in it.
It's Definitely a thought-provoking piece. Kane doesn't shy away from controversy.
No, he doesn't.
And that's what makes it so compelling.
Yeah. And right from the start, Kane throws down a pretty bold statement. He argues that American healthcare is designed more for profit than for actual healing. He even compares it to the prison system. Good at containing the problem, but not at actually solving it. That's a pretty striking image, isn't it?
It is. And it really gets you thinking about the incentives at play within the system. If healthcare is treated like a business, then the focus shifts from patient well-being to generating revenue.
Yeah. And that leads into his critique of doctors,
right?
He argues that many doctors have become like compliant cogs in the machine, afraid to challenge the status quo or think critically, especially during the CO 19 pandemic.
Yeah. His examples from the pandemic are particularly interesting. He talks about how many doctors readily accepted things like the six-foot rule and dismissed alternative treatments without much push back. If raises the question, were they truly acting in their patients best interests or were they more concerned with following the prescribed guidelines?
Yeah, that's a tough question and it makes you wonder how much pressure are doctors under to conform. Could speaking out against the accepted narrative jeopardize their careers or even their licenses?
It's certainly possible. Kain argues that questioning the system can lead to being labeled an antivaxer or science denier. Even if your concerns are legitimate, that kind of envir environment can make it really difficult for doctors to voice dissenting opinions even if they believe it's in their patients best interests.
It seems like Kane is suggesting that doctors are caught between a rock and a hard place trying to do what's right for their patients while also navigating a system that may prioritize profit over people.
That's a good way to put it. And this tension between patient care and systemic pressures, it really comes to the forefront when we look at Kane's critique of how conventional medicine handles chronic diseases.
Yeah, he seems particularly critical of the way we approach heart disease and type 2 diabetes, arguing that the focus is on managing symptoms with medication rather than addressing the root causes.
One of his key arguments here is that we've become too fixated on cholesterol as the villain in the story of heart disease. He challenges the lipid hypothesis, which suggests that high cholesterol is the primary driver of heart disease.
So, if cholesterol isn't the main culprit, what is what does Kain see as the real driving force behind these chronic conditions? He points to our modern diet, specifically the overconumption of refined sugars, processed carbohydrates, and unhealthy fats. He argues that these dietary factors create a cascade of negative effects in the body, leading to inflammation, insulin resistance, and ultimately chronic disease. He's essentially saying that we're treating the symptoms of chronic disease without addressing the underlying cause, which is often our diet. It's like putting a bandage on a wound without cleaning it first,
right? Okay, that makes sense. So, if our diet is the root of the problem, what does Cain suggest we do about it? He talks a lot about this idea of undoing yourself. What does that even mean?
It sounds more radical than it is. He's not saying you should dish your doctor entirely. It's more about becoming an informed advocate for your own health. It's about understanding that you have agency in your health journey and that you don't have to blindly follow every doctor's order.
So, it's about being proactive and doing your own research, not just passively accepting whatever your doctor tells you.
Exactly. It's a about asking questions, seeking second opinions, and really digging into the information to understand your options. For example, let's say your doctor diagnoses you with high cholesterol and immediately prescribes a statin. Kane would encourage you to take a step back and really understand what that diagnosis means.
He's particularly skeptical of statins, isn't he? He seems to think they're overprescribed and that the potential side effects outweigh the benefits in many cases.
He does raise some valid concerns about statins. He points out that they can cause muscle pain, fatigue, and even memory problems.
Wow.
And he questions whether the widespread use of statins is truly driven by health concerns or by the profit motives of the pharmaceutical industry.
It's interesting because he makes a comparison between the modern health care system and the prison system.
Right?
Arguing that both are good at managing problems but not at solving them. How does that analogy relate to statins?
He's suggesting that statins, like prisons, are a way to contain a problem without addressing the root cause. Statins lower cholesterol numbers, but they don't address the underlying dietary and lifestyle factors that contribute to high cholesterol in the first place.
So, it's a band-aid solution rather than a cure. And he seems to think that this approach creates a system of dependence where patients become reliant on medications and doctors to manage their health instead of taking control themselves.
Exactly. And that's where the idea of undoing yourself comes in. It's about breaking free from that cycle of dependence. and becoming an active participant in your own health journey. It's about empowering yourself to make informed decisions and to explore alternative approaches to health care that might be a better fit for you.
So, what are some of those alternative approaches? What does Kain suggest people do to start undoing themselves?
He places a lot of emphasis on diet and lifestyle changes. He argues that many chronic conditions can be prevented or even reversed through proper nutrition, exercise, and stress management.
He seems particularly passionate about the potential for reversing type 2 diabetes through dietary changes. He even criticizes the conventional medical advice that encourages diabetics to consume carbohydrates in moderation, saying that it's counterproductive and might actually be contributing to the problem.
He presents a pretty compelling argument. He cites research showing that low carbohydrate or ketogenic diets can be highly effective in managing blood sugar levels and improving insulin sensitivity in people with type 2 diabetes.
That's interesting. So, he's essentially saying that what we've been told is the standard medical advice for diabetes might actually be making things worse.
That's what he's suggesting. And he connects this back to the profit-driven nature of the health care system, arguing that there's not much financial incentive to promote dietary changes that could potentially cure a patient. After all, a cured patient doesn't need ongoing medication or expensive treatments.
That's a pretty sobering thought. It makes you wonder if the system is truly set up to keep us healthy or to keep us as paying customers. But is it realistic to think that people can reverse chronic conditions like diabetes simply through diet.
It's certainly not a quick fix and it requires commitment and effort. But Ka argues that it's more possible than we've been led to believe. He points to the growing body of scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of dietary interventions for chronic disease.
So, it's about empowering ourselves with knowledge and taking ownership of our health. It's about questioning the status quo and exploring alternative approaches that might better serve of our well-being.
Exactly. It's about becoming our own health advocates and making informed decisions based on the best available evidence, not just blindly following what we're told.
But let's be honest, not everyone has the time or resources to delve into the science and become a health expert. So, how practical is this idea of undoing yourself for the average person?
That's a valid concern. It can feel overwhelming to take on such a huge responsibility. But Cain doesn't suggest we do it alone. He emphasizes the importance of finding support. and connecting with others who are on a similar journey.
So, it's about finding a community of like-minded individuals who can share their experiences, knowledge, and support.
Exactly. He also encourages us to be discerning about the information we consume. There's a lot of misinformation out there, so it's crucial to be critical of your sources and to look for evidence-based information backed by scientific research.
So, it's about being a savvy health consumer, not just blindly accepting everything you read or hear. But even with the right information and support, it can still feel daunting to challenge the conventional medical wisdom. How do we know when it's appropriate to question our doctor or seek a second opinion?
That's a great question and something I think a lot of people struggle with. You know, we're conditioned to trust our doctors and for good reason. But Kane seems to be suggesting that blind trust can sometimes be detrimental to our health.
Yeah. He's not advocating for distrust,
but rather for informed trust.
He wants us to be active participants in our healthcare, not passive recipients,
right?
So, when should you question your doctor or seek a second opinion?
Well, a good rule of thumb is to trust your gut.
Yeah.
If something doesn't feel right, if you're not comfortable with a diagnosis or a treatment plan, it's perfectly okay to speak up.
So, it's about listening to your intuition and not dismissing your own concerns.
Exactly.
But what if you're not sure what questions to ask or how to even begin challenging your doctor?
That's where doing your own research comes in. The more you understand about your condition, the better equipped you'll be to engage in a meaningful conversation with your doctor. And remember, you can always seek a second opinion from another healthare professional.
It seems like Kain is advocating for a more collaborative approach to healthare where the patients and doctor work together as partners rather than one being the authority and the other being the subordinate.
Precisely. He envisions a system where patients are empowered to make informed decisions about their health with doctors serving as guides and advisers rather than dictators.
But let's be realistic. Our current health care system isn't really set up for that kind of collaborative approach, is it?
No, it's not. And that's one of the biggest challenges Cain highlights. We have a system that often prioritizes speed and efficiency over patient centered care. Doctors are often rushed and they may not have the time or the resources to fully address their patients concerns or to explore alternative approaches.
So it seems like undoing yourself, right,
requires a certain level of privilege. You need the time, the resources, and the knowledge to navigate the system effectively.
That's a valid point and it's one of the limitations of Kane's argument. Access to quality healthcare and reliable information is not equal. However, he believes that even small steps towards taking ownership of your health can make a difference.
So, even if you can't completely overhaul your approach to healthcare, there's still things you can do to be a more informed and proactive patient.
Absolutely. It starts with being curious, asking questions, and not being afraid to challenge the status quo. Oh, it's about recognizing that you have agency in your health journey, even within a system that can feel disempowering.
And it's about remembering that health is not just the absence of disease. It's a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being.
Well said. And achieving that state of well-being often requires us to take a more active role in our health, to move beyond simply relying on doctors and medications, and to explore the full spectrum of options available to us.
This deep dive has been incredibly thoughtprovoking. Kane's article challenges us to reconsider our assumptions about healthcare, to question the status quo, and to ultimately take ownership of our well-being.
He reminds us that we have more power than we realize to shape our health destinies. And while undoing ourselves may not be easy, it's a journey worth taking for those who seek a more empowered and holistic approach to health.
Thank you for listening to another session of the Lenny and Maria Deep Dive podcast show.
TRANSCRIPT OF MP3 LISTEN TO TED TALK Type 2 Diabetes BY Sarah Hallberg
I have the best job in the world. I'm a doctor. No, believe me, that's not why. I'm an obesity doctor. I have the honor of working with a group of people subject to the last widely accepted prejudice, being fat.
These people have suffered a lot by the time they see me. Shame, guilt, blame, and outright discrimination. The attitude that many take, including those in healthcare, is that these people are to blame for their situation. If they could just control themselves, they wouldn't be overweight, and they're not motivated to change. Please let me tell you, this is not the case.
The blame, if we've got to extend some here, has been with our advice, and it's time we change that. Obesity is a disease. It's not something created by lack of character. It's a hormonal disease. And there are many hormones involved, and one of the main ones is a hormone called insulin.
Most obese individuals are resistant to this hormone, insulin. So what does that mean exactly, to be resistant to insulin? Well, insulin resistance is essentially a state of pre pre type two diabetes. Insulin's job is to drive glucose, or blood sugar, into the cells where it can be used. In a nutshell, when someone is insulin resistant, they are having trouble getting blood sugar where it needs to go, into those cells.
And it just can't hang out in the blood after we eat, or we would all have a diabetic crisis after every meal. So when someone is resistant to insulin, the body's response to this is to just make more of it, and insulin levels will rise and rise, and for a while, years even, this is going to keep up and blood sugar levels can remain normal. However, usually it can't keep up forever. And even those elevated levels of insulin are not enough to keep blood sugar in the normal range. So it starts to rise.
That's diabetes. It probably won't surprise you to hear that most of my patients have insulin resistance or diabetes. And if you're sitting there thinking, Whew, that's not me, you actually might want to think again, because almost fifty percent of adult Americans now have diabetes or prediabetes. That is almost one hundred and twenty million of us. But that's hardly everyone who has issues with insulin.
Because as I was saying, people have elevated insulin levels due to insulin resistance for years, even decades, before the diagnosis of even prediabetes is made. Plus, it's been shown that sixteen to twenty five percent of normal weight adults are also insulin resistant. So in case you're keeping track, this is a heck of a lot of us. So, the trouble with insulin resistance is, if it goes up, we are at great risk for developing type two diabetes. But also, insulin makes us hungry, and the food we eat much more likely to be stored as fat.
Insulin is our fat storage hormone. So we can start to see how it's going to be a problem for diseases like obesity and metabolic issues like diabetes. But what if we trace this problem back to the beginning, and we just didn't have so much glucose around that insulin needed to deal with? Let's take a look at how that could be. Everything you eat is either a carbohydrate, a protein or a fat.
And they all have a very different effect on glucose and therefore insulin levels, as you can see on the graph. So when we eat carbohydrates, our insulin and glucose are going to spike up fast. And with proteins, it looks a lot better. But take a look at what happens when we eat fat. Essentially nothing.
A flat line. And this is going to wind up being very important. So, now I want to translate that graph for you into a real world situation. I want you to go back and think about the last time you ate an American version of Chinese food. We all know there's rules associated with this, right?
And the first rule is: you're going to overeat. Because the stop signal doesn't get sent until you are literally busting at the seams. Rule number two is: in an hour, you're starving. Why? Well, because the rice in that meal caused glucose and insulin to skyrocket, which triggered hunger, fat storage and cravings.
So, if you're insulin resistant to begin with, and your insulin levels are already higher, you really are hungrier all the time. And we have this set up: eat carbs, your glucose goes up, your insulin goes up, and you have hunger and fat storage. So, how do we recommend to these people to eat? Because it seems like that would be really important, and it is. Let's focus just on type two diabetes, because the general recommendations are to tell patients with type two diabetes to consume 40 to 65 grams of carbohydrates per meal, plus more at snacks.
Trust me on this, that's a lot of carbs. And remember what's going to happen to glucose and insulin, blood sugar and insulin, when we eat them? Yes, we are essentially recommending that they eat exactly what's causing their problem. Sound crazy? It really, really is.
Because at its root, diabetes is a state of carbohydrate toxicity. We can't get the blood sugar into the cells, and that causes a problem in the short term, but the long term consequences are even greater. And insulin resistance is essentially a state of carbohydrate intolerance. So why, oh why, do we want to continue to recommend to people to eat them? The American Diabetes Association guidelines specifically state that there is inconclusive evidence to recommend a specific carbohydrate limit.
But those guidelines go right on to say what we all know: carbohydrate intake is the single biggest factor in blood sugar levels and therefore need for medication. These guidelines then go on to say, Hey, look, if you're taking certain diabetic medications, you actually have to eat carbs. Otherwise, your blood sugar can go too low. Okay, so let's take a look at the vicious cycle that that advice just set up. So, it's eat carbs, so you have to take medicine, then you have to eat more carbs, so you avoid the side effect of those medications, and around and around we go.
Even worse is that nowhere in the ADA guidelines is the goal of reversing type two diabetes. This needs to be changed, because type two diabetes can be reversed in many, if not most situations, especially if we start early. Not only do we need to let people know this, but we have to start giving them the practical advice so they can do this. Consider carbs. First, here's a shocker for you: we don't need them.
Seriously. Our minimum daily requirement for carbohydrates is zero. We have essential amino acids those are proteins essential fatty acids, but nope, no essential carb. A nutrient is essential if we have to have it to function and we can't make it from something else. We make glucose, plenty of it, all the time.
It's called gluconeogenesis. So, we don't need them, The overconsumption of them is making us very sick. Yet, we are continuing to recommend to patients to consume close to, if not more than half of their total energy intake every day from them. It doesn't make sense. Let's talk about what does.
Cutting carbs. A lot. Yes, in my clinic we teach patients to eat with carbs as the minority of their intake, not the majority. So how does that work? Well, when our patients decrease their carbs, their glucose goes down, and they don't need as much insulin.
So those insulin levels drop and fast. And this is very important because a study looking at our National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, better known as NHANES, showed that the single biggest risk factor for coronary artery disease is insulin resistance. It is responsible for a whopping 42 of heart attacks. Low carb intervention works so fast that we can literally pull people off of hundreds of units of insulin in days to weeks. One of my favorite stories is a very recent one.
A young gal, but who had an almost twenty year history of type two diabetes, came in when a physician from another clinic told her she was just sick and should probably get used to it. It. Her diabetes was way out of control. This despite the fact that she was on multiple medications, including almost three hundred units of insulin that was being injected into her continuously, every day via a pump. All of this, remember, blood sugar is still out of control.
So, we put her on a low carb diet, and now let's fast forward four months. She lost weight, yes, but better than that, sick no more. Her blood sugar levels were now normal all of the time. This on, get this, no diabetes medication. Gone was the three hundred units of insulin, no more insulin pump, no more pricking her finger multiple times each day.
Gone. All of it. No more diabetes. One of the greatest joys of my job is to be able to tell a patient like this that they no longer have diabetes, and we ceremoniously take it off their problem list together. So, are they cured?
Is this a miracle? We'll leave that grandstanding to Doctor. Oz. Cured would imply that it can't come back. And if they start eating excessive carbs again, it will.
So, no, not cured. But they don't have diabetes any longer. It's resolved. And it can stay that way as long as we keep away the cause. So, what does this look like then?
How does somebody eat this way? Well, first let me tell you what it's not. Low carb is not zero carb, and it is not high protein. These are common criticisms that are so frustrating because they're not true. Next, if we take the carbs out, what are we going to put in?
Because remember, there's only three macronutrients. If one goes down, one has to go up. My patients eat fat, and a lot of it. What you say, what's going to happen when you eat fat? Well, let me tell you, you're going to be happy because fat tastes great and it is incredibly satisfying.
But remember, fat is the only macronutrient that's going to keep our glucose, blood sugar and insulin levels low. And that is so important. So, I want you to now hear my simple rules for eating. These rules, you have to remember, are even going to be more important if you are one of the tens of millions of Americans who have trouble with insulin levels. Rule number one: if it says light, low fat or fat free, stays in the grocery store.
Because if they took the fat out, they put carbs and chemicals in. Rule number two: eat food. The most important rule in low carb nutrition: real food does not come in a box, and no one should have to tell you real food is natural. You should know that when you look at it. Don't eat anything you don't like.
And eat when you're hungry, don't eat when you're not, no matter what the clock says. And number five is a simple way to remember what we want to avoid. No GPS. No grains, no potatoes, and no sugar. That last one is a biggie, right?
No grains? Yeah, no grains. But we have to have them! Nope, they're a carb. But whole grains are so good for us.
Well, first of all, there are actually very few foods out there that are truly whole grain, even when they say they are. Most foods that purport themselves to be whole grain are highly processed and the fiber benefit ruined, or they're coming with highly refined flour. Usually both of these things. So if you are one of the truly insulin sensitive people, you can eat real whole grain. But if you are in the enormous slice of our population with insulin issues, it's making things worse.
So, what if you are one of the real insulin sensitive people? Can you still eat this way? Yes! I'm a great example. Over a year ago, I decided I would cut my carbs as low as I recommend to my diabetic patients.
Now, it's not mandatory for my health like it is for theirs. I'm not insulin resistant, so would this be a problem? No! That's just the thing. Unless you have an exceedingly rare syndrome, then cutting carbs is going to be good for you, even if it's not necessary.
I want to show you a couple pictures of my radical food. So, this is a common breakfast in my house. So, does it look like I just broke my own rule? I didn't, because this muffin is made with coconut flour. I bake all the time still.
I just use non grain based flours: coconut, almond, hazelnut, flax, they make delicious things. And this is a typical dinner in my house with a typical starch, that would be the sauteed mushrooms. Now, my patients and I eat delightful food all of the time and enjoy it. But what about the research on this? I mean, is this just anecdotal evidence now from my clinic?
No. There are dozens of randomized controlled trials looking at low carb intervention for things like diabetes, cardiovascular risk factors, obesity. They're consistent. It works. There are even a large numbers, number of studies showing that low carb nutrition decreases inflammatory markers, which is making it really exciting for diseases like cancer.
We just finished a study in our clinic, and what we did is we took 50 type two diabetic patients that were treated with our low carb, high fat based program, and we compared them to 50 patients who were treated with the ADA guidelines. And after six months, not only did we find a significant metabolic advantage for the low carb group, but and let's face it, this is important a huge cost savings. Our analysis showed that our patients could save over $2,000 a year just on the diabetes meds they were no longer taking. Just think how fast that adds up in our diabetes epidemic now that we are spending $250,000,000,000 a year on in this country. So, I want to show you a slide now that demonstrates where that savings is coming from.
So, this is looking just at the insulin difference in the two groups after six months, and what we can see is that the low carb group was able to decrease their insulin by almost 500, whereas in the ADA treated group, they had to increase their insulin by almost three fifty units a day. Two important things: number one, insulin's expensive. And number two: Not all the people in this study were even on insulin, which makes these results even more impressive. But what I would say is that this graph really represents two different approaches to treating this disease. The first, our group with the goal of reversing disease, meaning they need less medicine.
And the second group, which very clearly aligns with the ADA guidelines, which states that diabetes is a progressive disease requiring more medicine over time. Progressive, unless we take away the cause. So, what's the problem then? Why is this not everywhere? Why isn't low carb the norm?
There's two big reasons. Number one: status quo. It is hard to break. There are many agendas involved. We got this notion that low fat was the way to go decades ago.
But a recent study just came out showing that there was zero randomized control evidence to recommend to Americans to remove the fat from our diet, and that's how the carbs got added in. It was essentially a huge experiment on millions of people, and it failed miserably. The second reason we don't see it everywhere is money. Don't be fooled. There's a lot of money to be made from keeping you sick.
And what we see is with these specialty guideline panels, they are stacked with conflict of interest. So, the solution to the diabetes epidemic in my clinic is exceedingly clear: Stop using medicine to treat food. And for a disease whose root cause is carbohydrates, take away the carbohydrates or at least cut them so we can remember what we used to know. We knew it a long time ago. This was said thousands of years ago.
And we need, in this day and age, to get back to that notion. Thank you.