15/12/2025
Drug companies create avatars of doctors because that’s who has the prescribing authority and, by extension, the purchasing power.
They know all the buttons to press to get doctors to adopt the world view presented to them and they know where to go to influence doctors. Because they know doctors better than they know themselves.
So, drug companies do research that’ focuses on presenting avatars of patients to them.
Unlike the ICA that drug companies create of doctors, these patient avatars are often not accurate depictions of them. There are enough elements of the truth for them to be believable. But in essence, they’re straw men designed to sell products.
Patient experiences that deviate from the avatars are easily discounted, labelled as psychiatric or psychological and the patient experience subtly and imperceptibly undermined. Real patient feedback that steps outside the carefully crafted patient straw-man is interpreted as “health anxiety.”
Doctors’ focus is directed nimbly toward studies that rely on outcomes that don’t matter much to patients but are convincingly portrayed as being pivotal to patient wellbeing and outcomes. Surrogate markers and diagnoses dependent upon the patient straw-man.
Meanwhile, the things that patients genuinely care about, like their all-cause mortality, risk of admission to hospital, functional level, quality of life, happiness, ability to participate in society the way they want to, career progression and ability to work that isn’t impacted by fatigue, memory and cognitive issues and brain fog… Drug companies use misdirection in some of the finest examples of smoke and mirrors that you’ll come across to discredit these patient-centred outcomes and avoid addressing them while simultaneously claiming that their own “research” supersedes these. That numbers and images are the be-all and end-all. And that to question these numbers is heresy.
Drug companies use the power of authority and social proof to enforce internalisation of the patient straw-man until it becomes a doctor’s ideal patient avatar. The doctor’s apparent“true north” set by a broken compass.
If patients don’t automatically fit the straw-man, doctors will prescribe drugs that will alter their metabolism to force them to change enough until they do. Drugs that impair metabolism and create a cascade of side effects resulting in new symptoms and abnormal lab results that need more drugs to manage them. And if that doesn’t work, surgeons will take their scalpels and shave off enough to make them fit.
Drug companies jealously curate the walled garden that is nothing more than a cult based on unassailable faith in an industry that truth cannot reason with.
The goal of most modern medical and dietary research is not to improve health outcomes.
It’s not to further scientific proof. Make the unseen seen.
Instead, medical research is about marketing and profit.
It’s about power, status, and influence.
It’s a greed-based system that leaves ruined lives its wake , stepping over the bones of patients while cementing universal compliance and unquestioning belief.
Those who question will be asked to provide the evidence for anything they claim. Of course, the evidence will only be accepted if it comes from randomised controlled trials. Trials that cost millions to run. Trials that only drug companies and government funding can afford. Trials that neither the drug companies nor government want to see the light of day. See the problem?
Insisting on being presented with brand new evidence that runs contrary to drug companies for hypotheses that are already supported by many other lines of evidence that already exist isn’t usually about wanting to discover something new. It’s usually a defensive strategy pulled out when you can’t think of a good counter argument. And it’s certainly not scientific or sensible. Theoretical physicists focus on generating hypotheses. Experimental physicists design and perform the experiments to prove them. Good (and bad) ideas are patented because in real life, industry will take innovative concepts that aren’t protected and use them to make a mint.
Observations should be taken seriously. Hypotheses that fit with them should be proven. Anyone with the funding and interest in that field should want to do the research on it. The responsibility for doing and funding all the experimental proof isn’t up to the person who has the hypothesis. Even if they have the funding, it still doesn’t mean that they have the skill set necessary to plan and perform the experiments as well as others. If what we’re genuinely interested in is scientific truth, then we won’t create impossible hurdles to reach it.
And yet because money, power, status, legal repercussions, and egos are at stake, those who question the scientific dogma will often be called science deniers, ridiculed and ostracised.
The truth gets buried.
Science advances one funeral at a time.