I have written or posted several articles on healthcare issues. A series of links has been provided at the bottom of these articles for your convenience.

John D. Rockefeller significantly changed the American medical system by funding the Flexner Report, which professionalized and standardized medical education by promoting allopathic, science-based medicine over holistic approaches. Through his philanthropic efforts, including the creation of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University), he fostered scientific medical research, the development of pharmaceutical treatments for diseases, and the establishment of a pharmaceutical-based health industry, ultimately shaping the modern, science-driven medical paradigm.

Shaping Medical Education

The Flexner Report: The Rockefeller Foundation, in partnership with the American Medical Association (AMA), funded the Flexner Report (1910), which thoroughly reviewed medical schools in the U.S. and Canada.
Standardization: The report led to a dramatic reform and standardization of medical education, emphasizing scientific rigor and discouraging natural or holistic practices.
University-Affiliated Hospitals: Rockefeller’s funding for medical schools often required them to affiliate with hospitals and ensure teaching staff were dedicated full-time to education and research rather than private practice.

Advancing Medical Research and Pharmaceuticals

Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research: In 1901, Rockefeller founded America’s first research institution dedicated to experimental medicine, leading to significant medical discoveries.
Funding for Research: His philanthropies, including the Rockefeller Foundation, provided substantial funding for promising medical researchers and institutions, fostering the development of the pharmaceutical-based treatments.
Shift to Pharmaceutical-Based Treatments: Rockefeller’s focus aligned with his business interests in the chemical industry, promoting pharmaceutical-based treatments for diseases over natural remedies.

Marginalizing Alternative Medicine

Discrediting Natural Therapies: The emphasis on allopathic medicine and the funding of the Flexner Report contributed to discrediting and marginalizing traditional and holistic medicine, such as homeopathy.
Corporate Influence: Critics argue that Rockefeller’s actions were partly driven by a desire to create a monopoly in the medical industry by eliminating competition from natural and holistic practitioners, according to The Radiant Mission and takeyourpotion.com.

How Western Medicine Was Founded

In 1872, Rockefeller bought up, shut down, or bankrupted 95% of the oil companies. Our Constitution came into play and in 1911, the Supreme Court found Rockefeller in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and split Standard Oil into 34 independent companies.

Rockefeller said, “If we can’t have a monopoly on this, you’re done.” Did that change who he was? The answer is no. He promised to Bankrupt America. At that very same time, they were learning how to turn petrochemicals, which is exactly what he had at his fingertips with his oil, into pharmaceuticals. Now, John D. Rockefeller’s biggest threat was natural health. So what does he do? As a businessman, he donates money to medical schools because he wants to influence the healthcare system. So what do you do when you want to control someone or something? You give them money. And then he hired a guy by the name of Flexner to study the school’s curriculum to figure out what they were teaching everybody and to persuade the government to establish allopathic medicine, which uses unnatural substances to treat diseases. This is how Western medicine was founded.

When you start asking the right questions, the truth becomes hard to ignore. The way our modern world is structured – especially in areas like healthcare, food, and the environment – seems less about wellness and more about profit. 💰

Let’s break it down:
Our medical system often focuses on managing symptoms – not solving root causes.
Pharmaceuticals are overprescribed, and chronic illness is treated like a business model.
Our food is overloaded with preservatives, chemicals, and GMOs – leaving our bodies stressed and undernourished.
The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil we grow food in are polluted with metals, plastics, and toxins.
Many everyday products contain substances never tested for long-term health effects.
It’s no surprise that millions rely on medications, feel constantly fatigued, and struggle to feel truly well.

The cycle is clear: Get sick buy treatment manage symptoms stay sick repeat. The cost? Our health, vitality, and peace of mind.

But what if there’s another way?
A path rooted in prevention, nourishment, hydration, and balance – not just prescriptions.

If you’re ready to explore practical, natural strategies for restoring energy and health – without relying on the broken system – let’s talk.

How Rockefeller Created the Business of Western Medicine

As an alternative medicine practitioner I have a lot of conversations with patients who are disenchanted with the current Western medicine system. This disenchantment is both related to the quality of care they receive and also the way in which the business of Western medicine is conducted. This post is a brief historical look at the business of Western medicine. This article will not directly address aspects of patient care, instead it will focus on the origins of our current medical business model.

As someone who has been practicing medicine for over 10 years, I try to keep an open mind and appreciate both the good and bad that coexist in the Western system. In order to understand our current medical system it is helpful to take a look back at the history of medicine in the America. The business story of Western medicine, in the modern sense, starts with John D. Rockefeller (1839–1937). Rockefeller is “widely considered the wealthiest American of all time, and the richest person in modern history.” Rockefeller is probably most famous for securing a monopoly in America’s oil market, but many people haven’t heard the rest of the story.

By the turn on the 20th century, Rockefeller controlled 90% of all petroleum refineries in the America through ownership of the Standard Oil Corporation (later split into Mobil, Chevron, Exxon, etc.) Concurrently, around 1900, the science world was getting excited about new “petrochemicals” and the ability to create a variety of new of compounds from oil. Some of the first products derived from petrochemicals were plastics, but organic chemists knew that oil had the potential to create far more than plastic toys.

test tubes icon representing laboratory science

During this same era (early 1900’s) scientists were doing groundbreaking work to understand the basic mechanics of life and human health. It was during this time that most of the essential vitamins were discovered, including B1, B2, Biotin, Vitamin C, Vitamin A, Vitamin D, etc. By identifying these vitamins science took a huge step forward and enabled simple vitamin remedies to cure conditions that were cause by vitamin deficiencies (such as scurvy and rickets). And of course, scientists were also involved in research to re-create synthetic versions of these vitamins in a laboratory. In 1935, Vitamin C became the first vitamin to be artificially synthesized in Switzerland. Rockefeller was smart enough to see this as a big opportunity, with the possibility that vitamins and medications could be developed from petroleum. He saw the chance to control and monopolize multiple industries at once: petroleum, chemical and medical. And of course, petrochemicals were ideal from a business perspective because they could be patented, owned and sold for high profits.

But there was a big problem with Rockefeller’s plan. Natural and herbal medicines were very popular in America during the early 1900s. Almost one half the medical colleges and doctors in America were practicing holistic medicine, using extensive knowledge from Europe and Native American traditions. Rockefeller knew that to get total control of the medical industry he would have to expunge the competition. Rockefeller’s first move was to use his vast wealth (from oil) to purchase part of the German pharmaceutical company I.G. Farben. (look up Farben’s involvement in WWII). Now that he controlled a drug manufacturing company he could move forward with his plan to eliminate the competition.

In the early 1900’s there were a variety of doctors and healing modalities in America. Some of the medical specialties included chiropractic, naturopathy, homeopathy, holistic medicine and herbal medicine. To eliminate the competition Rockefeller he hired a contractor named Abraham Flexner to submit a report to Congress in 1910. This report “concluded” that there were too many doctors and medical schools in America, and that all the natural healing modalities which had existed for hundreds of years were unscientific quackery. The report called for the standardization of medical education, whereby only the AMA (another monopoly) would be allowed to grant medical school licensure in the U.S.

Certainly, Flexner’s report did have some valid points, but unfortunately the motives for the report were entirely driven my Rockefeller’s desire for complete control of the medical system. Based on the report, congress acted upon the Flexner’s recommendations and changed laws related to medical practice. Incredibly, allopathic medicine became the standard modality, even though at the time its main treatment methods where blood-letting, surgery (quite barbaric at the time) and the injection of toxic heavy metals (lead and mercury) to supposedly “displace disease”!

With new laws in place, Rockefeller teamed up with Andrew Carnegie and started funding medical schools all over America on the strict condition that they only taught allopathic medicine. Through the power of their huge “grants”, this powerful team systematically dismantled the previous curricula of these medical schools, removing any mention of the healing power of herbs or natural treatments. Teachings on diet and other natural (non-drug) treatments were also completely removed from medical programs.

map of America created with various drug capsules

After removing traditional medicine from medical schools, Rockefeller made sure to secure his monopoly by launching a targeted smear campaign against his competitors. Homeopathy and natural medicines were discredited and demonized through the newspapers and other media of the time. Some doctors were even jailed for using natural medicine treatments, including treatments that had been used safely and effectively for decades before. In a very short time, medical colleges were all homogenized. All the students were taught the same allopathic system and medicine was now defined as a process of prescribing patented drugs. “A pill for an ill” became the mindset of American medicine.

One shocking fact that I found while researching this post was that Rockefeller didn’t stop at U.S. borders. He actually went into China to spread Western Medicine. Upon hearing this I actually got chills down my spine! Rockefeller wasn’t content with just wiping out traditional medicine in America, he saw a bigger market on the other side of the world and wanted to remove Traditional Chinese Medicine from China! Luckily, his venture in China mostly failed and the practice of Traditional Chinese Medicine was preserved for centuries to come. To quickly summarize what happened in China: The China Medical Board (CMB) was created in 1914 by the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) and provided with a $12 million grant. The RF’s goal was to “modernize medical education and to improve the practice of medicine in China”. They started by building a hospital in Beijing (Peking Union Medical College, opened in 1919), but they were unable to expand to other locations (as planned) due to mounting expenses.

In short, the diligent work of Rockefeller and Carnegie was a smashing “success”. They crushed the underfunded, grassroots competition and created our current medical system. This system continues today wherein “Big Pharma” makes large “donations” to medical schools in exchange for teaching the medical students to use their patented drugs. As part of this system, many alternative treatments are criminalized. For example by law, it is illegal to treat cancer with any modality except chemotherapy, surgery or radiation. It is actually a criminal felony for a medical practitioner to treat cancer with anything but these three modalities. Why is this the case? Follow the money. The average cost of cancer treatment is $150,000, so clearly Rockefeller and his precedents were keen to keep the monopoly on this one. And of course, the American Cancer Society was founded by none other than John D. Rockefeller in 1913.

Hopefully this post will shed a bit of light on the history of our current medical system. At the very least we can all be less surprised when “patients” are treated like “customers” and when medications cost thousands of dollars per month. We should also not be surprised we are faced with the fact that the COST of medical care in America rated #1, yet the QUALITY of our medicine care is rated at #37, just below Costa Rica! [1, 2]. Unfortunately, these are the natural effects that occur when our medicine system is run like a mega corporation instead of a service to the people.

On a final note, you may notice that there are no grainy black & white pictures of John D. Rockefeller in this post. Perhaps you can guess why – all images of Rockefeller are all “owned” and their use must be paid for. The monopoly stands. In closing, below is a picture of Rockefeller Center, NYC:

Below is yet another view of how Rockefeller affected our healthcare system. As you well know I like to be thorough.

How Rockefeller’s Money Rewired Medicine: The Controversial Origins of Modern Medical Education and Big Pharma

In the early 20th century, John D. Rockefeller, the oil magnate and one of the wealthiest men in history, played a pivotal role in shaping modern medicine. Through strategic investments in medical education and research, Rockefeller revolutionized the healthcare system in the United States, laying the foundations for the pharmaceutical industry we know today. However, this transformation was not without its controversies. While Rockefeller’s efforts undoubtedly professionalized medicine, they also fostered a healthcare system focused more on pharmaceuticals and profits than on holistic healing. This legacy continues to shape how medicine is practiced and perceived today, raising questions about the need for reform.

The Flexner Report and the Overhaul of Medical Education

The turning point in modern medical education came with the Flexner Report of 1910. Abraham Flexner, a former schoolteacher, was commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation, with significant financial backing from Rockefeller, to conduct a comprehensive review of medical schools in the United States and Canada. At the time, medical education was highly inconsistent. Many medical schools were considered substandard, offering little more than basic training in anatomy and surgical techniques with minimal scientific rigor.

The Flexner Report recommended closing over half of the existing medical schools, emphasizing a standardized, science-based curriculum that prioritized research, laboratory work, and clinical experience. This shift moved medical education away from apprenticeship-style training to a more rigorous academic model, modeled after the German system of research-driven medical education. By promoting this change, Rockefeller effectively steered medical education toward a more professional and standardized approach, aligning with his broader vision of medicine as a scientific and highly regulated field .

Building the Pillars of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Rockefeller’s influence didn’t stop at medical education. In 1901, he established the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University), a center dedicated to advancing biomedical research. The institute was instrumental in pioneering various medical treatments, including vaccines, antibiotics, and synthetic drugs, which would become the cornerstones of the burgeoning pharmaceutical industry.

Rockefeller’s strategy was clear: focus on pharmaceutical-based treatments rather than natural or holistic approaches. This focus aligned with his business interests, particularly in the chemical industry, which provided the raw materials for many of the drugs being developed. By promoting a pharmaceutical-centered approach to medicine, Rockefeller helped create a market for chemical-based treatments, establishing a system in which drugs, rather than preventive or holistic care, became the primary method of addressing health issues .

Critics of the Rockefeller Model: A System Designed for Profit?

While Rockefeller’s contributions to medicine are often lauded, critics argue that his influence steered healthcare toward a model that prioritizes pharmaceutical interventions over holistic approaches to health. The focus on pharmaceuticals created an environment where the primary objective became treating symptoms rather than curing diseases. Critics contend that this system fosters dependency on medications, generating ongoing profits for the pharmaceutical industry, which continues to be a powerful economic force today.

Many natural and holistic forms of medicine were marginalized or even eradicated as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations and the subsequent restructuring of medical education. Homeopathy, naturopathy, herbal medicine, and other alternative therapies were labeled as “unscientific” and pushed to the fringes of healthcare. This shift had long-lasting consequences, as it reinforced a medical system heavily reliant on pharmaceuticals .

Relevance Today: A Healthcare System in Need of Rethinking

The legacy of Rockefeller’s influence is evident in today’s healthcare system, where pharmaceuticals play a dominant role in medical practice. The modern pharmaceutical industry, often referred to as “Big Pharma,” wields immense power over healthcare, influencing everything from medical research to patient care. While pharmaceutical advancements have undoubtedly saved countless lives, the system is often criticized for prioritizing profit over patient well-being.

The COVID-19 pandemic has reignited the debate around the pharmaceutical industry, highlighting issues such as drug pricing, access to treatment, and the role of preventive healthcare. As the world grapples with new and emerging health crises, there is a growing call to rethink the way medicine is practiced and delivered.

Many argue that the current model, which emphasizes treating illness rather than preventing it, is unsustainable. There is a need to explore more integrative approaches that combine the best of modern medicine with holistic, preventive practices that address the root causes of disease. This shift would require a rebalancing of the healthcare system, moving away from an overreliance on pharmaceuticals and toward a more comprehensive view of health and wellness .

Conclusion: Time to Rethink Medicine

Rockefeller’s legacy in shaping modern medicine is undeniable. His investments helped to professionalize the medical field and gave rise to the pharmaceutical industry, which has become a dominant force in healthcare. However, the system that was built largely around his vision has led to a healthcare model that often prioritizes pharmaceutical interventions over holistic health solutions.

As healthcare challenges continue to evolve, there is a pressing need to rethink the way medicine is practiced. This involves not only embracing new technologies and treatments but also reconsidering the balance between pharmaceuticals and preventive, holistic care. By doing so, we can build a healthcare system that truly serves the well-being of patients, rather than just the bottom line.

Below is a possible solution to our healthcare woes. It is an article written by Charles Silver

The Entire U.S. Health Care System Must Be Torn Down and Rebuilt

Social Security offers a model that would benefit Americans.

n “We’ve Got You Covered,” Liran Einav and Amy Finkelstein describe America’s existing patchwork of health care payment arrangements as a “teardown.” I agree. I support downsizing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), eliminating many programs, rolling back regulations, and creating a new system modeled on Social Security that will be simpler, less administratively burdensome, more affordable, and more effective at improving Americans’ health.

At the highest level, existing arrangements should be repealed because the health care system costs too much and delivers too little. STAT readers surely know that the U.S. spends twice as much per capita on health care as other developed countries but gets worse results. Spending more doesn’t buy better outcomes for many reasons, some of which are discussed below, but the inescapable conclusion is that the system is grossly inefficient.

To understand why existing arrangements deliver little bang for the buck, one need only take Political Economy 101. Special interests dominate our federal and state political systems, and they want ever-growing piles of money. Existing arrangements satisfy their desire by making health care more and more expensive. Health care businesses don’t want to be held responsible for improving Americans’ health, however, so doing that is not a condition for receiving money. Every year, billions of dollars are wasted on services that are unlikely to help patients live longer or better.

Social Security offers a model that would benefit Americans.

It is hard to think of anything that might be done to make health care expensive that isn’t being done already. The landscape abounds with price-increasing supply constraints, including excessive educational and licensing requirements for physicians and other providers; Certificate of Need laws and other impediments to expanding facilities; scope of practice restrictions; and restrictions on the ability of foreign doctors to practice in the U.S. Arrangements that encourage reliance on third-party payers — including tax breaks for dollars spent on employer-provided insurance, Affordable Care Act premium subsidies and coverage mandates, Medicare, and Medicaid — eliminate the pressure to reduce prices that consumers ordinarily generate by shopping for bargains. By insulating consumers from the real cost of procedures and treatments, these arrangements also spur demand.

The political economy story also explains why fraudsters are able to suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the payment system every year. Providers want their bills paid, not audited. The federal government keeps them happy by paying first and chasing dollars later when it has concerns about fraud. This ineffective strategy permits providers to use upcoding and other schemes to increase their revenues.

It also enables criminals to steal mind-boggling sums.

Medicaid money laundering schemes fit the political economy story perfectly. Working hand in glove with providers and insurers, states use these schemes to extract tens of billions of dollars from the federal treasury every year. The federal government knows it is being robbed, but it allows the money laundering to continue because its desire to spend money is stronger than its desire to save it.

Political Economy 101 also accounts for the government’s tolerance of other schemes, such as those that drug and device makers, pharmacy benefit managers, hospitals, infusion centers, and others use to inflate prices. The practice of spending lavishly on intensive treatments for seniors with short life expectancies also makes sense from this perspective. STAT readers undoubtedly know about other scams and misplaced priorities that could be added to the list.

The takeaway is clear, indeed, obvious. As long as existing arrangements remain in place, the health care system will continue to be grossly inefficient. Spending will keep rising, results will be mediocre, and health care costs will continue to inflate the deficit and impoverish consumers.

Health care businesses have been able to rig the system in their favor because it is politically controlled. By employing lobbyists, offering high-paying jobs, and other means, they have convinced elected officials and appointed bureaucrats to do their bidding.

There is another reason to minimize public control. The greater the involvement of governments, the more access to medical services is subject to the whims of voters and politicians. At present, elections have scary potential to leave people in the lurch. That is why in 2020 and 2024, the New England Journal of Medicine ended its 208-year tradition of neutrality and urged readers to vote for Democrats. Rather than give Trump an opportunity to deprive millions of people of insurance coverage by “destabiliz[ing] the Affordable Care Act [ACA],” the editors, like the Democrats, wanted more spending, more regulation, and larger insurance subsidies — more of everything that comprises the teardown-worthy system we currently have.

The Democrats won in 2020 and lost in 2024, and the swings in health care policy have been enormous. When Joe Biden was president, spending on Medicaid and Medicare grew by leaps and bounds, as did the population covered by policies sold on the ACA exchanges and the cost of premium subsidies. Had the Democrats won in 2024, the expansion would have continued, as coverage for weight loss drugs and regulations calling for between $68.5 billion and $134.8 billion in new federal spending were put in place.

But the Republicans prevailed, so Biden’s plans for the future have been scotched, his executive orders are being reversed, and the budgets for federal health programs are on the chopping block. The GOP reportedly wants to reduce future increases in Medicaid spending by $880 billion over a decade, to introduce work requirements and eligibility audits that will knock millions of people off the rolls, and to exclude coverage for gender-affirming treatments. Sales of insurance policies on the ACA exchanges will also plummet, as the enormous premium subsidies that motivated people to purchase coverage expire at the end of 2025. And Trump has already announced that neither Medicare nor Medicaid will cover weight loss drugs.

Health care payment arrangements should not be subject to swings like these. Health care businesses need to be able to make plans. Patients need to know that the services they want will be available when needed. Minimizing public control of health care financing arrangements will help with both.

Treatment options should not be politically controlled, either. Because medical services affect mainly the people who receive them, recipients should be free to choose what they want. Voters, who are often shockingly ignorant and motivated by religious and other unscientific beliefs, should have no say in whether a person can use contraception, receive medical assistance in dying, remove a feeding tube or a ventilator, enjoy hallucinogens, receive gender-supportive care, or access the supply of organs. Because these services (and most others) pose little or no danger to the public, voters have no valid interest in controlling them.

Americans are far too accepting of political control of health-related decisions, first and foremost because governments have no demonstrated ability to make better decisions than consumers. Public control also infantilizes consumers by treating them as incompetents who can’t be allowed to make important decisions. In turn, infantilization breeds ignorance and dependency. People who believe that the government is looking out for them have little reason to educate themselves. The truth, of course, is that the government has other priorities. It wants to maintain the appearance of protecting consumers without actually doing so because real protection would reduce the flow of dollars to health care businesses.

Consider the Food and Drug Administration. It wants consumers to think that it protects them from drugs and devices that are ineffective or unsafe, but it lets manufacturers sell products that do not work, and it lets providers deliver treatments that are untested. It also lets manufacturers skate on commitments to perform post-marketing research that would bring defects to light. The agency thus gives patients a false sense of security and inhibits the development of private regulators whose assessments would be more reliable. Political Economy 101 also explains these consequences.

President Trump started his second term in office by downsizing the federal government, including HHS. The staff cuts were warranted, as Cato’s Michael Cannon has explained. The reduction in force might have been implemented more thoughtfully, of course. For example, the decision to fire reviewers while leaving FDA approval requirements in place delayed Americans’ access to new technologies.

The need to act quickly was obvious, however. If Trump had sought public comments on his plans before implementing them, special interests would have mobilized their forces and frustrated him at every turn. Remember Paul Ryan, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives who ran for vice president on a ticket led by Mitt Romney? When he suggested reforms to the Medicare program, a left-leaning interest group ran a wildly popular attack ad that showed him pushing an elderly wheelchair-bound woman over the edge of a cliff. Because Trump is downsizing the federal government across the board, the scare tactics used to thwart his agenda would have been even worse.

Does Political Economy 101 explain what President Trump is up to? Apparently not. Many of the changes he has made or wants to make have the potential to reduce the flow of money to health care businesses. This is the opposite of what Political Economy 101 predicts. We appear to be living through a moment in American politics that is truly exceptional.

Whether those of us who believe that the existing system is a teardown must applaud Trump’s efforts depends heavily on what he intends to replace it with. Einav, Finkelstein, and I all believe that there must be a safety net. They propose the creation of Medicaid for All, a set of arrangements that would provide everyone with security against financial costs associated with essential health care needs. I have criticized their proposal already.

I would base a new system on Social Security, a popular program that gives people cash to spend as they wish. In 2023, the federal government spent $1.9 trillion on health care, an average of more than $5,600 per American man, woman, and child. If the government deposited these funds into interest-bearing savings accounts, most people would quickly accumulate sufficient wealth to meet their medical needs. I prefer the old Finkelstein who explained “Why Cash Is Better” to the new Finkelstein who would give everyone insurance.

Social Security isn’t a political football. Since 1975, payments have risen automatically at the rate of inflation. In the words of Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the benefits are “untouchable.” Even today, with Republicans searching for ways to reduce federal spending, talk of cutting Social Security benefits is “the third rail. … Any party that touches [the program] is likely to get zapped come Election Day.”

A program modeled on Social Security would also reduce the public’s ability to interfere with health care decisions that should be made privately. It would let consumers decide which services to purchase and how much insurance to buy. With luck, a norm of consumer sovereignty will arise, as patients push back against public officials and bureaucrats who try to stick their noses where they do not belong.

Many types of fraud would disappear. Scams like upcoding and Medicaid money laundering work because the federal treasury is exposed. Under a system modeled on Social Security, that will no longer be true.

Finally, even Americans who want to condition Medicaid eligibility on work requirements are likely to find the proposed arrangement acceptable. Because everyone pays into Social Security throughout their working lives, Americans regard the benefits the program distributes as having been earned, not as welfare, even though many people take out more dollars than they put in.

Continuing the teardown and implementing a better payment system will not be easy. Resistance from hospitals, physicians, drug and device makers, insurers, and other health care businesses will be fierce. Every dollar saved in the future will be a dollar less in revenue for some health care business, and a deregulated system modeled on Social Security would save hundreds of billions. Health care businesses also know that when consumers are in charge, markets will exert serious pressure on them to improve their offerings and lower their prices. They do not want that either.

But if we are at the point where existing arrangements can be torn down and replaced with something better, we should take the plunge, while strenuously resisting the efforts that special interests are bound to make to rig the new payment system in their favor.

Resources

–https://meridianhealthclinic.com/how-rockefeller-created-the-business-of-western-medicine/, “How Rockefeller Created the Business of Western Medicine.” By Eric Schmidt, LAC;

-linkedin.com, “How Rockefeller’s Money Rewired Medicine: The Controversial Origins of Modern Medical Education and Big Pharma.” By Henri Nyakarundi;

-cato.org, “The Entire U.S. Health Care System Must Be Torn Down and Rebuilt.” By Charles Silver;

How Rockefeller Created the Business of Western Medicine

The Flexner Report and the Overhaul of Medical Education

Building the Pillars of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Critics of the Rockefeller Model: A System Designed for Profit?

Relevance Today: A Healthcare System in Need of Rethinking

Conclusion: Time to Rethink Medicine

Share this:

Like this:

Discover more from Common Sense and Ramblings In America