Thomas Kuhn proposed that scientific theories should be looked on not as not dealing with purely scientific facts, but also as systems of belief relating to a wider context, a frame of reference consisting of interlocking scientific, social and even political ideas. This ideological context, that Kuhn termed a paradigm, “Is implicitly agreed upon by scientists who subscribe to a particular theory and who share the same worldview.” Paul Feyerabend wryly noted that suppressing an authentic paradigm, in preference to one politically favored, could permanently damage society.

Over the past thirty years I have published nine articles on the immunostimulating and antimicrobial properties of lithium and antidepressants, and three articles on the anticancer properties of antidepressants, e.g.

Lieb, J.”The immunostimulating and antimicrobial properties of lithium and antidepressants.” Journal of Infection (2004) 49(2) 88-92

Lieb, J.”The multifaceted value of antidepressants in cancer therapeutics.” European Journal of Cancer (44 2008) 172-174

When therapeutic claims are made they are reinforced when the mechanisms are known. In this case, lipid signalers known as prostaglandins, when produced in excess, inhibit immune function, and lithium and antidepressants have complex inhibitory actions on prostaglandins. Immunostimulation is highly relevant to hospital-acquired infections, methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections, resistant tuberculosis, AIDS, West Nile encephalitis, bioterrorism, malaria and pandemic influenza. Many years ago I engaged in an productive collaboration with Rashida Karmali and David Horrobin, two leading pioneers in prostaglandin research. Do a literature search on David and you will not believe the abundance of his contributions to the field of prostaglandins.

In Western medicine, genetics, stem cells, biotechnology, and proteonomics have achieved the status of potential and profitable panaceas, while prostaglandins were omitted from a recent Medical College Admission Test (MCAT).

The drug industry is not the sole suppressor of the paradigm shifts, as it has been aided and abetted by countless medical schools on both sides of the Atlantic, the medical and lay media, teaching hospitals, government health agencies, scores of politicians, the medical community at large, and many others. By lavishing money on bogus claims, heath agencies and private foundations perpetuate hugely destructive paradigms, while preventing authentic paradigm shifts. Big pharma will not succeed when success has already been achieved, and improving on the immunostimulating properties of lithium and antidepressants is a pipedream. Few people realize that much that is disseminated as medical truth is propaganda. In suppressing landmark discoveries, big pharma and its fellow travelers may well destroy the health of society, if not society itself.

The candidates for the presidency are vying to come up with best plans for healthcare. In studying the role of politicians in healthcare, I have yet to encounter the simple question, ”What are our prevailing medical paradigms?” As a participant in many published paradigm shifts, no one has ever asked me, while all and sundry get airtime espousing their theories, any of whom have never examined a pathology specimen or taken a medical history. All the while Americans have been soaked of tens of billions of dollars with bogus nutritional claims and direct television advertising.
Society has a tulip mania that illness is caused by deficiencies, whereas in the case of prostaglandins excess production is at fault. Many of the world’s leading prostaglandin researchers have pursued primrose oil and now omega fatty acids with a vengeance, seemingly unaware that lithium and antidepressants act by inhibiting prostaglandins.

Politicians are presently weighing up which health plans will most appeal to the public.

Twenty years ago canny Harvard physicians proposed that the only hope of curing healthcare lay in reducing utilization through innovation. Precisely, and not with political shell games. However, as Horrobin pointed out in an essay in Lancet(1), innovation and ethics are complementary, at a time when the world of medicine is short on ethics.

Sincerely,

Julian Lieb, M.D

1. Horrobin, David F. “Effective clinical innovation: an ethical imperative.” Lancet 2002; 359:1857-58