“Drugs will be the last resort”, I said to my doctor this afternoon. He said he understands, and would prefer to prescribe drugs only when absolutely necessary. I’m glad we’re on the same page, for once.
A paradigm shift is a term coined by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (which I’m yet to read). A paradigm shift happens when a fundamental change in thinking occurs within a society, often after a long period of resistance and denial. One example of this is Galileo and Heliocentrism (1600s) – The shift from believing the Earth was the centre of the universe to understanding that it orbits the sun. There’s humour in there somewhere that we once believed that we were the centre of the universe (it’s giving main character syndrome), but it was the common worldview for a very long time thanks to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic model. Galileo challenged this after he used his telescope (1609) to observe Jupiter’s moons, the phases of Venus, and sunspots, providing strong evidence that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. In 1633, Galileo was tried for heresy and forced to recant, but his ideas persisted. Over the next centuries, Newton’s laws of motion (1687) and advancements in astronomy solidified heliocentrism as the accepted model. Which puts us where we are today, a point where it is undeniable that the Earth orbits the sun, which remains as a general consensus worldwide.
Challenging dominant points of view will always come with pushback, but it’s interesting to see where that pushback is coming from, and what it’s motivated by? The Catholic Church backed Aristotle and Ptolemy’s Geocentric theory, which at the time meant a great deal. Scripture from the Old Testament made reference to this idea, passages like Joshua 10:13 (“the sun stood still”) and Psalm 104:5 (“the Lord set the Earth on its foundations, it can never be moved”). They were taken literally, reinforcing the idea that Earth was fixed at the centre of creation. By challenging geocentrism, Galileo was contradicting divine revelation. In the context of the time, this was huge, explaining why he was put on trial. This was a key moment in the broader shift from religious authority to scientific reasoning, which later culminated in the Enlightenment (17th–18th century). Arguably, this changed the world as we know it. Science began to supersede religion when it came to the way we saw the world, pushing us towards secularism. Nowadays, in a Western context, religion or faith barely has a say over science or healthcare. One example I can think of is euthanasia, which I guess is what makes it such a polarising topic. Fractious subjects which stimulate debate and division often come back to the argument of science vs religion.
The shift of perception happened over approximately 200-300 years. Other paradigm shifts have occurred, in the 1800’s it was the Germ Theory of Disease (the shift from believing diseases were caused by "bad air" (miasma) to recognising bacteria and viruses as the cause) and in the 20th Century with Climate Change awareness (the slow realisation that human activity is driving climate change, despite decades of industry-funded denial). I’m not sure you can even call it ‘realisation’ if the disbelief came from lobbyists killing themselves over manipulating data to misinform the public. Speaking of, I went to see Kyoto (2024), a play written by Joe Murphy and Joe Robertson. It’s a political thriller that dramatises the intense negotiations of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the first legally binding international climate treaty. Set in the early hours of 11 December 1997 at the Kyoto Conference Centre, the play centres on the deadlock among global delegates, with American oil lobbyist Don Pearlman who uses strategic manoeuvres to obstruct progress. It seems as though every 200 years or so, we go through a paradigm shift, except in the last 200 years it’s happening much more frequently. I wonder what will come first, another paradigm shift or another mass extinction? Perhaps both at once, unless…
I mean when you think about it, the Climate Crisis straddles the intersection of paradigm shift and mass extinction. Which makes a lot of sense. I can’t believe I’m lucky enough to happen to exist in this very specific and chaotic series of events. It gives me something to write about, after all. Divine timing or whatever you want to call it.
Over the past few years I’ve found myself arguing with health professionals about my wellbeing. My rejection of pharmaceutical drugs as a first port of call has led me on a path of independent enquiry into other modes of health care. It’s key to understand that I do not believe in the complete disposal of biomedical practises. I got into an argument with a lecturer at Birkbeck University about this once. My goal is simply to acknowledge and challenge the system that controls our current healthcare system. Biomedical advancements have given us lifesaving treatments, but the moment profit becomes the primary motivator, ethical compromises follow. And I don’t think it’s wrong to simply challenge that. Think of me as a modern day, cooler, sexier Galileo.
A major factor which underpins my philosophy is education. And with education, you inform. And by informing, you open up the possibilities of choice.
“What I want for everyone is that they have agency, so that they are not subject to constant predatory marketing. They have true choice.” Dr Chris Van Tulleken, (2023) from an interview called The Junk Food Doctor
It’s as simple as that. The Pharmaceutical industry serves a very important role in the modern world. I believe it should continue to serve its purposes. It’s intended purpose, to heal people. What we’re witnessing now is the conflation of profit and public health. The effects of medicine being treated as a commodity rather than a universal right is killing people, and causing suffering that doesn’t need to happen. Those before us did so much to eliminate unnecessary deaths, only for it to come back in fashion, but for the sake of profit. And no, I don’t think the deaths are happening on purpose (in most cases), I just think it’s a symptom of the current state of things. The philosophy that underpins healthcare changed. There’s clearly a struggle happening between the ancient ethics and corporate profit in healthcare. The Hippocratic Oath is a code that sets out the following: patient well-being, do no harm (primum non nocere), and act in the best interests of those they treat. Where does profit sit within this? Can the two co-occur?
“Willow extract is derived from the bark of Salix species and contains salicin, a compound that the body converts into salicylic acid—the active ingredient in aspirin. Willow extract has long been used for its anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and anti-microbial properties in both traditional and modern medicine.”
I attended a lecture called Green Immunity – How Do Plants Fight Infection? hosted by Gresham College. Professor Robin May discussed how plants can heal other plants, like willow which is high in salicylic acid, an ingredient I recognise from my skincare labels. Horticulturalists use willow to promote root development, making it particularly effective for rooting plant cuttings and encouraging strong root systems in young plants. This got me thinking, if it has the power to do this in plants, what can it do for mammals in terms of regeneration on the inside? My inquiry led me to historical remedies using the plant, including wound healing and skin regeneration, cellular renewal and inflammation control. Last week I happened to be in a Middle Eastern supermarket in Deptford and I saw Egyptian Willow Water on the shelf next to the rose water. It was £1.39 so I thought I’d try it. On the bus home, I read how it is used in Iran in drinks primarily as a flavour enhancer, but also for its remedial properties.
I’ve had writers block for some time. I’ve drafted this text over and over, knowing I want to share my thoughts on my views around healthcare and the conflict between ethics and profit, but I’ve struggled to find the right words. What made me open my laptop to write this today was me simply finding out that the willow water on my shelf, which I’ve been putting in my juices since purchasing, is the main ingredient of aspirin. Bayer trademarked "Aspirin" in 1899 and marketed it as a revolutionary pain reliever, after a German chemist named Felix Hoffmann, working for Bayer, synthesised acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in the late 19th Century.
The etymology of Aspirin: The name "Aspirin" comes from a combination of different linguistic elements related to its discovery and chemical composition. Here’s how it was derived:
"A" – From Acetyl, referring to the acetylation process used to modify salicylic acid.
"Spir" – Derived from Spiraea ulmaria (now known as Filipendula ulmaria or meadowsweet), a plant that contains salicin, the natural precursor to salicylic acid.
"in" – A common pharmaceutical suffix at the time.
My boyfriend works in the built environment industry. He criticises architects for being ‘nothing but pens’, and the industry is smoke and mirrors hidden behind over-complex jargon for the sake of not allowing common people to understand things. Clearly, this is a method used in business. I wouldn’t know cause 1. I never studied business and 2. I’m not a raging capitalist.
The Victorians, as problematic as they were, they were on to something with their botanical drinks. They had things like dandelion and burdock, sarsaparilla, and tonic water which were extremely popular. Victorians had a deep interest in herbalism and natural remedies, influenced by folk medicine, apothecaries, and early chemistry. Many botanical drinks were marketed as tonics or health elixirs, believed to purify the blood, aid digestion, and boost vitality. These products declined as a result of the rise of mass-produced soft drinks, the shift from herbal medicine to pharmaceuticals, changing tastes and loss of botanical knowledge. The late Victorian era saw the rise of carbonated sodas like Coca-Cola (1886), Pepsi (1893), and Schweppes lemonade. These new drinks were cheaper to mass-produce, sweeter, and more addictive than herbal tonics. There’s something really insidious about getting the consumer addicted to something to increase profit. Addiction is innate to our biology because it is driven by the brain's reward system, particularly the release of dopamine, which reinforces behaviours linked to survival, pleasure, and habit formation. Which means these people are quite literally profiting off of our fundamental human mechanisms, making them traits that are difficult for us to identify and control— a reminder that we are animals.
I spend my days fighting against this current structure where my body is put to the test on a daily basis. My arsenal mostly lies in my kitchen. Obviously, with my understanding of wellbeing, the medicine cabinet extends to my fridge, my shelves and the entirety of my kitchen. And in fact across my home for that matter. I make a lot of what I eat from scratch, because I have the time (I prioritise health over profit, which makes me poor but at least I’m sexy, healthy and poor, rather than ill and poor. I’ll choose the former every time). I know the atmosphere and temperature is mostly good in here cause plants thrive (plants are an amazing litmus test for polluted environments, cause, after all, we are nature), and I limit how many mass-produced, ultra-processed things I consume which includes any products I use on or near my body. I use palo santo and essential oils instead of artificially scented air fresheners (which make me nauseous), I limit using harmful cleaning agents, but I’m aware that they are necessary to stay clean so I use them sparingly.
The bottom line is that medicine is a business, not just a public service. I struggle with the idea of any of our physiological needs being commodified. It leaves us very few options, which conflicts with my philosophy that we should have, at the bare minimum, choice. We are presented with merely an illusion of choice. The State has part to play in all of this. Markets thrive on the idea of consumer freedom, but choices are often shaped by corporate monopolies, advertising, and economic constraints. And it doesn’t help that the State gets involved, which I believe substantiates the motivations of these profit driven entities. We are taught to look to the State for protection and having us in their best interest. There’s criticisms of the concept of a Nanny State, and that mostly becomes an issue when the State’s priorities shift from people to profit. The State after all is who regulates industry and and approves products, which makes them complicit.
Some argue we’re in the midst of a shift, and perhaps I just can’t see. Like I said I am a sexier, cooler Galileo— I reckon with profit rather than prophet. Maybe I’ll get tried for heresy. If not, I’ll know I’ve done something right when the Pharmaceutical lobby come after me.