"Take this, it's good for you!" Or maybe it isn't.

“Take this, it’s good for you!”

 You probably heard this growing up from your parents, or grandparents, or others, about lots of things. Medicines, foods, supplements, and even activities (“Do this, it’s good for you!”). You probably have continued to hear this from other people even if you are now grown: friends, family, people you have just met, and that most reliable of all sources, random posts (I was going to say “random people” until I realized that many or most of them could be bots) on the internet! So, should you take it? I mean, is it good for you?

I know my answer is going to be shocking: “It depends.”

On what? On a whole lot of things.

The whole idea that there is a general concept of things that are “good for you”, whoever you are and what you are hoping to achieve, is nonsense. What is good for one person – say an infant or a toddler – may well not be good for a middle-aged or older adult, and vice versa. And, of course, the most important question is “good for what?” What do you seek to have happen to you that this nostrum is “good for?” Do you even share the interest in achieving the end goal that the recommender presumably does? Lower cholesterol, lower weight, more muscle mass, stronger bones, having better balance or more stamina, improved sexual function, looking younger, better bowel movements, avoiding a deficiency disease like rickets, scurvy, or pellagra? Sometimes even cheap and easily available things from which big corporations or influencers do not make a lot of money, and that in fact do work well, are also unnecessary. Parents and grandparents may push things that their parents and grandparents told them were good for them, and they might have been, back once, but are not now. Back then, when our diets were often lacking in essential vitamins, scurvy, pellagra, and rickets were real issues in the US (and may still be in some parts of the world), but are not, generally, here now. In the not-too-distant past parents gave their kids castor oil, either as a treatment for a condition that the child might or might not have, like constipation or worms, but there are much better, safer, less unpleasant, and more effective treatments for both now. (That is not considering those who gave it as punishment!)

After you have answered the question of “good for what?” and decided that that “what“ is something you want to achieve or more toward, the next set of questions are “will it do that, does it actually work?”, “does it work for everyone the same or are there some groups of people (based on age, gender, health status, etc.) for whom it works better or not as well, and “what are the untoward effects that may, or even are likely to, happen, which may be far worse than the benefit?” Anabolic steroids, for example, do work to increase muscle mass, endurance, and power (see: sports stars) but also cause serious bad things (liver disease, testicular shrinkage, and a host of others). If it is legal and you are not competing in a sport where it is banned, it is up to you to decide whether the risk:benefit ratio is one you are willing to take (provided you are an adult, since in this area as many others, teens are poor judges of risk:benefit and do not have a good long view). Psyllium seed powders can be good for your bowels, lowering cholesterol, and helping to control your appetite, but some people have problems with the side effects. Testosterone, now being pushed by the Secretary of War who is competing with the Secretary of HHS and the President for being the administrations most macho ignoramus, can be good for some people who are deficient who should not be, but is far from a panacea that turns regular people into mindless Orcs (many medical professionals disagree, Doctors question evidence behind Pentagon testosterone plan). By the way, this is a good time to note the intrinsic contradictions in the “men’s health” movement. Its two big issues are prostate disease (especially cancer) and “low T”. Testosterone will not only make prostate cancer (or even benign prostatic hypertrophy) worse, blocking endogenous testosterone is the mainstay of treatment for prostate cancer. Oh, well, let’s see what it does for Pete Hegseth.

Some things generally are good for you. For example, age-appropriate vaccines are good for almost everyone (except those with known allergies to its components or previous severe reactions, by which I mean things like Guillain-Barre Syndrome, not a sore arm or short-term fever). Virtually all vaccines for children and adults (MMR, DTP, meningococcus, chicken pox, H. flu, influenza, Covid, shingles, polio, etc.) are really wonderful miracles that save thousands (sometimes millions, see: “Covid” and influenza) of lives, even more thousands or millions saved from serious morbidity, and with a very low rate of any significant negative effect. This is true. If you hear different information from your favorite TikTok star or Facebook friend, or Secretary of HHS, they are wrong.

Some things are generally bad for almost everyone, like taking dangerous drugs for unapproved indications (e.g., ivermectin for Covid), not to mention drinking or injecting bleach! The internet is full of recommendations for magic bullets that will cure whatever ails you or doesn’t even ail you but tells you it will or might if you don’t buy their solution. These claims are no more reliable than the clothes, makeup, hardware, and amazing items that will solve all your household worries. That is, some may be of value, for some people, in some circumstances, but often are not and even are dangerous, but all make money for those selling them (or in the modern world, selling their ability to influence others to the companies that make the products).

A big issue, it seems, is whether to take drugs, especially prescription drugs, manufactured by big, evil, pharmaceutical companies and heavily advertised by them, or to take “natural” over-the-counter drugs made by any-old-person or company and pushed by – any-old-person (or bot). Pharmaceutical companies are evil, as are most huge for-profit corporations (and they are usually the most for-profitable!) because their profits, not your health, is their main function. This does not mean that their products (or at least all of them) are not effective or safe when “used as directed”. They have two important characteristics non-prescription, even “natural” remedies, do not. First, they are tested, and approved after an extensive process, by the FDA (or were, before the FDA was decimated by the administration), which other remedies are not. Second, the doses are standardized, so you know what you’re getting. Even when plants (natural) are the basis for the drugs – say willow bark for aspirin – dosing is an issue. How much willow bark? From how old a tree? Growing in what setting? An aspirin tablet is standardized. Taking unregulated medication is akin to taking street opiates – you cannot be sure what, and how much you are getting. Plus, remember “natural” is not intrinsically good, safe, or protective. There are at least as many natural poisons as beneficial substances. If something you ingest, “natural” or manufactured, has a biologic effect that you desire, it also can (and likely does) have biologic effects that you do not desire (“side effects”, a term meaning biologic effects you don’t want). Testing and standardization are keys. Not that this in any way excuses the rapacious profit-taking of Pharma, but neither does it of those selling unregulated nostrums.

Finally, and I have said this before and will say it again, when thinking about whether something is “good for you” and whether you should take it, anything that sounds too good to be true probably is.

Drink more? Do more prostate cancer screening? I don't think so. But be careful about falls!

If the malignant lies and disinformation coming from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RFKJr) and his minions, whom he regularly replaces if they are too inclined to make decisions based on truth and science (see Susan Monarez, head of CDC for less than a month) were not enough, his psycho – but totally dangerous -- baloney regarding vaccines and other health issues provides cover for the re-emergence of other potentially dangerous “health” recommendations. This is par for the course for this administration, which is entirely focused on distracting us from important issues by focusing our attention on other things, brush fires (or sometimes major conflagrations). Trump is quite willing to arrest, brutalize, imprison, and deport people, to start wars across the globe, or whatever it takes to keep the Epstein files – which must contain truly damning information about him – from being made public. 

In the area of health this re-emergence has not been of the major blaze type, certainly nothing compared to the evil of RFKJr’s opposition to, discouragement of, and even blocking vaccines, but more of “well, we have an axe to grind and let’s bring it back out now that we have cover”. Who, after all will worry so much about the issues I address below when they can worry about the return of polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough, H. influenza, Covid, etc. And maybe even smallpox! But there have been several recent articles covering health issues which should be already settled. But, heck, if vaccines are not settled, why should these be?

On Sept 2, 2025, the NY Times Roni Caryn Rabin reports that Reduced Screening May Have Led to Rise in Advanced Prostate Cancer Diagnoses,  and follows that with the subhead “Changes in screening recommendations over a decade ago may have inadvertently resulted in later diagnosis of the most common cancer in men, a new study has found.” It sounds pretty scary, as it goes on to report that Black men are the least likely to be screened for prostate cancer and the most likely to die from it. Prostate cancer is being diagnosed at a later stage and the implication – no, the direct assertion in the article – is that it is because of a recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) which in 2012 began discouraging the use of routine screening with PSA (Prostate-Specific Antigen). The Times article, and the article it is based on, from CA: A cancer journal for Clinicians, and the comments of the chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society and one of the article’s authors, Bill Dahut, say “The pendulum may have swung too far in one direction, where we were afraid of overtreatment, and now we’re not finding these cancers early on, when they can be treated and are more curable, and we’re more likely to find metastatic disease that is not curable.” 

This conflates diagnosis of cancer at later stages with (implicitly) increase in death from prostate cancer. Well, doesn’t that make sense? Except that what makes sense is not always true. There is no data in the article that says more men are dying from prostate cancer, only that they are being diagnosed with further advanced cancer. Dr. Dahut says that finding the prostate cancer earlier would make it more curable, but if this were true, the decrease in screening would not only have led to cancers being diagnosed at a later stage, but in an increase in deaths from prostate cancer. How come it didn’t? There are basically two types of prostate cancer: the kind that kills you and the kind you die with, but not from. Medicine has yet to be able to find a test that can identify which kind you have. If diagnosing the kind that kills you earlier can make it curable, that’s great – but then we would see more deaths from prostate cancer as a result of not screening, and we don’t. What has historically happened is that the other, more indolent, kind has been treated and physicians have claimed “cures” – even though men don’t die from it without treatment. But they do suffer the morbidity of treatment (i.e., impotence, incontinence, radiation cystitis, etc.) This, along with the poor performance of PSA as a screening test for prostate cancer, is what led the USPSTF to recommend against screening. This issue has been addressed a number of times over the years on this blog (PSA Screening: What is the value?, March 21, 2009, PSA Screening: “One of Medicine's Great Success Stories"?, Oct 27, 2009,  PSA redux: The USPSTF finally recommends NOT getting it!, Oct 14, 2011, Prostate Screening and the Public’s Health, July 12, 2015, as well as other posts on the benefits – or not – of cancer screening), and essentially, nothing has changed. It is terrible that Black men die from prostate cancer. It is terrible that anyone dies from prostate cancer. If screening saved lives we should do it. But this article presents no new evidence that lives are being lost that could be saved.

A few days later (Sept 5, 2025) the Times had an article by the same reporter titled Federal Report on Drinking Is Withdrawn with the subhead “The upcoming U.S. Dietary Guidelines will instead be influenced by a competing study, favored by industry, which found that moderate alcohol consumption was healthy.” Yup. Favored by industry. Not only were the guidelines withdrawn by HHS and thus not, as planned, presented to Congress, but HHS promotes a “competing report” by a panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine that “came to a conclusion long supported by the industry: that moderate drinking is healthier than not drinking”. Yay for the alcohol industry! Of course, “Some panelists came under criticism for financial ties to alcohol makers,” but what the heck. It is perhaps surprising, as the article points out, that RFKJr’s MAHA (“Make America Healthy Again”) campaign does not include anything about the use of alcohol – or, even more amazingly, tobacco! When we don’t like the message, we kill the message (and sometimes the messenger), especially in the current administration. But despite the fact that “Science Over Bias, an industry-supported advocacy group, faulted the alcohol intake study for bias: “The Dietary Guidelines should be guided by a preponderance of sound science, not the personal ideologies of a handful of researchers,” it is the industry’s position that is based on bias rather than on evidence. With regard to physical health (not short-term mental health), there is no amount of alcohol that is good for you, and any amount is a little bad. No alcohol is better than moderate alcohol, except for the financial interests of the industry and the scientists on their payroll.

On a somewhat different issue regarding health, not about controversy (screen or do not screen for prostate cancer? Drink alcohol in moderation or not at all?), is the Times article from Sept 7 by Paula Span titled Why Are More Older People Dying After Falls? It doesn’t provide a definitive answer, but strongly implicates prescription drug use (“Some researchers suspect that rising prescription drug use may explain a disturbing trend.”) It’s important. Falls are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people. You can break your hip or your head, you can get a concussion or a brain bleed or die. No joke. The association with prescription medication is legitimate, especially certain ones, called FRIDs, or “fall risk increasing drugs”, that are more likely to cause falls though inducing drowsiness, dizziness, drops in blood pressure, etc. Older people are more likely to have more diseases and be on more medications to treat them, and they are also more sensitive to the side effects of these drugs. (Note that drugs do not know which of their effects are “side effects”; we define them as the ones we don’t like!) And they are more likely to suffer serious injuries from a fall. The take-away message is that physicians should carefully review the medications that their older patients (actually all patients) are on, make sure that there is a need for them, and that there is not another less risky (less FRID) drug that could be substituted. Psychoactive drugs “like benzodiazepines, opioids, antidepressants and gabapentin — that act on the central nervous system” should be especially assessed for need, with particular emphasis on the use of more than one drug with similar side effects that can lead to greater risk. The message should not be “stop taking my drugs because the pharmaceutical industry is greedy and trying to drug us all”. Sure, they ARE greedy, and we shouldn’t have to pay so much to them, but that is another issue. They also make drugs that are effective and in standardized doses (unlike “natural” herbs). And often it is the drugs that people like most (because they relieve pain and/or make them feel better) that are most likely to be FRIDs. Exercises to increase strength and balance are important. And, if the risks still cannot be significantly reduced, people may have to modify their lifestyles. For example, it may be necessary to stop walking a big dog.

These are 3 different issues. I included the first two, prostate cancer screening and alcohol use, because they represent efforts to peel back science-based policies that may have been deleterious to the profits of industry, which is like many of the policy changes across the administration over the last 8+ months. The falls issue is a little different; here the concern is to address the risks to the extent possible without overreacting and stopping all your medications!

Medicine and science are complex. But findings can be skewed to fit an agenda, and when that agenda is corporations making more money, a little skepticism is wise.

Pay primary care more: Kennedy may be getting this one right!

I have recently written strong criticisms of Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his positions on a number of issues, including most importantly vaccines (see RFK, Jr.: The Secretary of Health and Human Services is Dangerous to Your Health!). Not only is he wrong about vaccines being dangerous, he is in fact creating major danger by discouraging their use. The polio vaccine essentially eliminated a disease that was a major scourge in the US as well as the rest of the world, as did the measles vaccine. Many other vaccines protect our children – and adults – from other serious viral diseases like influenza, COVID, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, shingles, and human papillomavirus (HPV) which causes cervical cancer, as well as bacterial diseases including diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and Hemophilus influenza b. The last is something most people have not heard of, but early in my career was a major cause of morbidity and death in infants and young children from meningitis, pneumonia, and epiglottitis, which caused their throats to swell rapidly and choke off their breathing. Many others have articulately expressed this concern, including the pediatrician Perri Klass in the New York Times. While these diseases affected people of all social classes, they were more prevalent among the poor and minority groups such as the people I cared for at Chicago’s Cook County Hospital. Indeed, research has demonstrated tremendous benefits from vaccines on the health of children and other populations that go far beyond just the decrease in the specific diseases that they target to decreasing all-cause mortality!

Kennedy is wrong about many other things, if not all of as of such immediate potential danger as urging people to not get vaccinated. These include nonsense like suggesting that people who eat right and exercise won’t get disease, that raw (unpasteurized) milk is better for you, and that “natural” is always better (which, even if we could agree on a definition of “natural”, it isn’t). One recent example is his arguing for Coke to use “natural” cane sugar rather that high-fructose corn syrup, both of which are sugar and have calories and in large amounts are bad for you.

But there turns out to be one area where Kennedy and I seem to agree, which is the need to take concrete action to increase the number of primary care physicians. Lots of people, including politicians, healthcare providers, and health policy experts, express concern about the shortage of primary care, but have done nothing to address the real cause of this problem – that primary care physicians (and the nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants working with them) get paid a lot less than do physicians in other specialties. Kennedy appears to be doing something other than wringing his hands. On several occasions I have written about the RUC, the AMA committee that decides how to divide up the pie of Medicare dollars among specialists by deciding how much each thing doctors do is worth relative to other things that they do. (Changes in the RUC: None.. How come we let a bunch of self-interested doctors decide what they get paid? July 21, 2013, Doctors' incomes and patient coverage: both need to be more equal July 26, 2014, and most recently, Not enough primary physicians OR Nurse Practitioners: It's the money, stupid!, June 27, 2024).

Not to get too technical, there is a set amount of Medicare dollars and the RUC decides (or recommends to CMS, which almost always accepts those recommendations) how many physical exams, say, are equivalent to one gall bladder surgery, considering (theoretically) both difficulty and time. This makes a tremendous difference in physician income and, I would argue, specialty choice by medical students. And, over the years, the amount of time it takes for doctors to do some things, particularly procedures, changes. Colonoscopies used to be estimated to take an hour and a quarter, but now are routinely done in 30 minutes. Cataract surgeries take a fraction of the time that they once did. This can result in physicians billing for more procedures than the model assesses as possible in a day. In contrast, the time it takes for a physical exam, or to listen to an interpret a person’s story, hasn’t changed significantly. The composition of the RUC, according to the AMA, represents all specialties, but its membership has a low proportion of primary care doctors – five of the 32 seats. Unsurprisingly, then, specialist-performed procedures are valued more highly than cognitive work. And, very important, these rates (relative value units) do not affect only Medicare payments – virtually all insurers pay based upon Medicare rates, so it is the whole health system! Prior to this new regulation, alternative models for allocating payment have been developed, such as this 2025 publication from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

So, now, maybe, a change. The NY Times reports that, buried in an 1800-page HHS regulation, are proposed changes in the RUC methodology that would benefit primary care. This would be real action! In addition to reassessing these relative values, the action would also look at the current practice of reimbursing more for the same procedures done in a hospital than in a doctor’s office, a major way that hospitals make money. And, for those who think “of course it costs more to do something in a hospital”, this is a technicality; it simply means that the hospital owns the practice or clinic. So two, say, skin biopsies performed in similar doctor’s offices across the street from each other are now reimbursed at very different rates if one is owned by a hospital. This is absurd and inequitable, and getting rid of it makes terrific sense!

The diffusion of medical services to people and communities is primarily driven not by the health needs of the populations in different areas but by the potential to make the most money for health care providers. These are largely, and increasingly, hospitals and health systems, as well as enormous insurance-company and private-equity owned practices rather than individual or small group physician-owned practices. So, we get enormous hospital campuses and medical facilities in major cities and wealthy suburbs and little or nothing in poor neighborhoods and rural areas. This should change. The only reason for decisions about what healthcare services to provide and where to provide them should be the health needs of people, and not on how much profit can be made.

The new HHS regulation will be a big step in this direction if it redirects Medicare (and thus all insurer) funds to primary care, and does not preferentially favor hospital-owned practices. To the extent that he is responsible for it, Kennedy should be congratulated. However, while it is a big step, it is not a solution. The next, necessary, step is a universal health insurance program where every single person is covered and covered by the same system, and where establishment (and closure) of health facilities, and the services that they provide or do not, is entirely based on the health needs of the people. Of course, there will be a lot of resistance – highly paid specialists will resist the proposed HHS reimbursement changes, and the institutionalized powerful insurance companies and other big players who are making lots of money from “healthcare” will oppose more comprehensive changes. Indeed, they already are, with highly funded social media campaigns against universal health care.

We are glad for this first step, but we need to keep fighting to get a comprehensive health program – like those of every other wealthy country!

Slash the VA! Make our veterans pay for increasing corporate profits!

Given the heavy-handed, mean-spirited, cruel, anti-democratic, un-Constitutional, and penny-wise (maybe) but pound-foolish actions of the current GOP/Trump/Musk administration, it is hard to know where even to begin to discuss it. Certainly many, many intelligent and well informed people, including luminaries such as politician Bernie Sanders and historian Heather Cox Richardson, as well as many news sources such as the Contrarian (established by reporters and editors fired by or resigned from Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post and the New York Times). Even in the narrower realm of health, we have outrages like the vaccine denier and proponent of ineffective and even dangerous therapies, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. heading the Department of Health and Human Services, and Mehmet Oz, RFK, Jr’s fellow traveler, nominated to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, presumably so those services can continue to be slashed. And even more narrowly, in health and medicine and social justice – well, all of these actions and cuts tie to social justice!

So, let’s look at the Veterans Administration (VA). The VA is tasked with providing health care for our veterans, those who have served in the military, many of whom have suffered very serious, life-threatening injuries, physical and mental (of course not counting those never got to be veterans because their lives were lost). Veterans have also had higher rates of cancers and lung diseases linked to the use of burn pits (horrific incinerators used “in country” to dispose of garbage, waste, bodies, munitions, toxic materials, using jet fuel as the source of fire, running 24/7 close to camps). The death of President Biden’s son Beau was linked to burn pit exposure, and finally during the last administration Congress passed the PACT act (Honoring Our Promise to Address Comrade Toxic Exposure) to compensate and care for those veterans whose diseases were likely caused by such exposure, often called “the Agent Orange of the Gulf wars”.

The VA was already highly stressed by underfunding and understaffing due to previous cuts made by the pro-veterans-in-words-only GOP Congress and that stress was dramatically increased by the hundreds of thousands (at least a quarter million) claims under the PACT act. Amazingly the VA clinical operation, also very short-staffed, was able to continue to provide health care to veterans. Although there were many complaints of waits and slowdowns, they were in fact much less than the routine waits and slowdowns in the non-VA health care sector (anyone tried to get a doctor’s appointment lately?) and virtually every measure of quality has shown that the VA has outperformed the civilian sector. Of course, its mission is to provide health care for veterans, not to make a profit; this distinguishes it from the civilian sector in which profit is “Job One” and accessible, quality, effective health care a distant second. The NY Times’ recent article titled ‘Chaos at the V.A.: Inside the DOGE Cuts Disrupting the Veterans Agency’ notes that the VA

…treats 9.1 million veterans, provides critical medical research and, according to some studies, offers care that is comparable to or better than many private health systems. Even Project 2025, the conservative governing blueprint assembled by Trump allies, said the V.A. had transformed into “one of the most respected U.S. agencies.

Many of the VA’s successes, as well as its challenges, are documented by journalist Suzanne Gordon in journals including these in Jacobin, Veterans Starting to Mobilize, and the American Prospect.

Then came Trump, Musk, and DOGE. Under the banner of “cutting government waste” the already far-too-lean staffing of the VA is proposed to be cut by another 80,000 jobs! This will certainly result in major delays in accessing care, in lower quality, and unconscionable disservice to our veterans. It seems like heartless cruelty, and of course it is. But the nauseating thing is that while it certainly is not about cutting waste, it is not even about the heartless cruelty. It is about one thing: transferring “government” dollars – that is, YOUR tax dollars (not Musk’s, or his companies’, they don’t pay taxes!) – to private corporations. THAT is the goal.

Think about it. Slash funding and positions from the VA, which will naturally lead to complaints about inadequate service (even the VA can only do so much when cut not only to, but deep into, the bone) and protests from veterans’ groups and maybe even GOP members of Congress. So, what will they do? We don’t even have to guess – they’ll do their favorite thing and privatize it! Contract out the care of veterans to private corporations so they can have the wonderful experiences all the rest of us have in trying to access quality care. Of course, they won’t be able to, maybe even less than the rest of us, but heck, those companies will make a lot of money!

And that is the goal. It is not saving government money, it is about transferring it to private corporations, as acknowledged by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. This will cost more, be less efficient, and have lower quality. This is the consistent track record of almost every government service that has been privatized – they almost never either save money or work better, they put taxpayer money in private pockets. In health care, it is even worse; it is almost impossible to think of an example where privatization has not cost far more and had worse service, accessibility, and quality outcomes. If the funding is the same, it is always worse.

But, of course, this is not an accidental outcome, it is the intention. Privatization is sold as saving money, but it always costs more, and as increasing quality but it always goes down. What it is successful at is moving public dollars to the private sector. So, it doesn’t save money by eliminating waste, it eliminates basic care and then “solves” the problem by spending even more money! The heartless cruelty is not the goal; it is simply the byproduct. It hurts our veterans, but this is not a concern to the heartlessly cruel, non-empathic (Musk thinks empathy is “destroying Western civilization”) greedheads making these decisions.

Something can be done. Veterans can rise up and protest and contact their Congressional representatives. So can the various “veterans service organizations” (VSOs) including the American Legion, VFW, and many others. Maybe even some GOP Congresspeople will take the initiative and actually do something to help veterans instead of just flapping their gums! (OK, that may be a bridge too far…)