Word of the Day: Don’t Say “Covid Pandemic.” Say “Covid Syndemic”!

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

The scale of our ongoing, worldwide Covid pandemic is so enormous that it can be hard to imagine it’s part of a larger whole. For example, we might see outbreaks of measles or whooping cough as knock-on effects of mass Covid infection due to immune dysregulation, but we don’t really have a word to classify these outbreaks in relation to Covid. Generally, when I link to such a knock-on effect, I label it with the catchphrase “‘Tis a mystery!” and move rapidly along. This post is an attempt to introduce a little more rigor into the discourse by popularizing the term “syndemic.” The Covid pandemic, placed in relation to spikes of measles or whooping cough, would then be classified as a syndemic (although matters are not quite so simple, as we shall see). There are other syndemics, too, that are not related to Covid.

In this post I will first define syndemic (this is the “matters are not so simple” part), explain the origin of the term, present some candidates for syndemic status, along with the pandemic Covid and of similar scale, and conclude with a short discussion of the problems in deploying the syndemic approach.

Syndemic: Definition

Let’s start with the prefix, syn-: “From Ancient Greek συν- (sun-), from σύν (sún, ‘with, in company with, together with’).” Synaesthesia, synagogue, synthetic, and (verging on the woo) syncretic, synchronicity (woo), as well as (beloved of stupid money) synergy. When we place the Covid pandemic in relation to measles, a syn- word is therefore to be expected, in this case syndemic.

Here is an overly simple definition of syndemic:

Interestingly, Professor Carpiano oversimplifies by erasing essential characteristics of the concept, as we can see by going to the source to which he links. From Cureus:

In a population with biological interactions, a syndemic is the accumulation of two or more concurrent or sequential epidemics, which significantly worsens the situation. Disease concentration, disease interaction, and their underlying social forces, such as poverty and social inequality, are the fundamental concepts. Extensive political, economic, and cultural factors have contributed to cluster epidemics of several infectious diseases, particularly HIV and tuberculosis.

Here is another overly simple definition:

Ostale, a Twitter personality, commits the same error as Carpiano (although in good faith, as the rest of this thread shows. Nevertheless, he defined the term as he defined it). Going to his source, Wikipedia:

Syndemics combine the synergies of epidemics to evaluate how social and health conditions travel together, in what ways they interact, and what upstream drivers may produce their interactions.The idea of syndemics is that no disease exists in isolation and that often population health can be understood through a confluence of factors (such as climate change or social inequality) that produces multiple health conditions that afflict some populations and not others.

Now let’s see how epidemiologists define and use the term; there seems to be no one defintion, and no one source, but all the definitions have a clear family resemblance. From the Lancet (2017, in an issue devoted to the topic):

The syndemics model of health focuses on the biosocial complex, which consists of interacting, co-present, or sequential diseases and the social and environmental factors that promote and enhance the negative effects of disease interaction. This emergent approach to health conception and clinical practice reconfigures conventional historical understanding of diseases as distinct entities in nature, separate from other diseases and independent of the social contexts in which they are found. Rather, all of these factors tend to interact synergistically in various and consequential ways, having a substantial impact on the health of individuals and whole populations. Specifically, a syndemics approach examines why certain diseases cluster (ie, multiple diseases affecting individuals and groups); the pathways through which they interact biologically in individuals and within populations, and thereby multiply their overall disease burden, and the ways in which social environments, especially conditions of social inequality and injustice, contribute to disease clustering and interaction as well as to vulnerability.

Nature (2022):

The theory of syndemics has received increasing attention in clinical medicine since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the synergistic interactions of the disease with pre-existing political, structural, social and health conditions. In simple terms, syndemics are synergistically interacting epidemics that occur in a particular context with shared drivers. When policymakers ask why some communities have higher death rates from COVID-19 compared with other communities, those working from a syndemics framework argue that multiple factors synergistically work in tandem, and populations with the highest morbidity and mortality experience the greatest impact of these interactions.

Journal of Comorbidity (2024):

Syndemic theory recognizes that social factors create the conditions that support the clustering of diseases and that these diseases interact in a manner that worsens health outcomes. Syndemics theory has helped to facilitate systems-level approaches to disease as a biosocial phenomenon and guide prevention and treatment efforts.

BMJ (2024):

The increasing burden of non-communicable diseases, such as hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia, presents key challenges to achieving optimal HIV care outcomes among ageing people living with HIV. These diseases are often comorbid and are exacerbated by psychosocial and structural inequities. This interaction among multiple health conditions and social factors is referred to as a syndemic.

Synthesizing, then, syndemic relates (multiple) disease clusters[1] to and through (multiple) social relations[2], [3].

Syndemic: Origin

From Encyclopedia, a trans-disciplinary journal, “Syndemic: A Synergistic Anthropological Approach to the COVID-19 Pandemic“:

We believe that we are living in a “syndemic pandemic.” The term “syndemic” was originally developed by the medical anthropologist Merrill Singer in the 1990s in order to recognize the correlation between HIV/AIDS, illicit drug use, and violence in the United States.

From Singer’s 1994 article, “AIDS and the health crisis of the U.S. urban poor; the perspective of critical medical anthropology“[4]:

Syndemic, as we can see, has been completely erased as a lesson of the AIDS crisis by the public health establisment, very much including CDC[5].

Syndemic: Candidates

Candidates for recognition as syndemics include, but are not limited to, the post-Columbus Americas, post-Covid non-communicable diseases, monkeypox, antimicrobial resistance, and the Global South. Let us consider each in turn.[6]

The Post-Columbus Americas. From LibreTexts, “Syndemics and the Ecological Model“:

When Columbus “discovered” the New World in 1492, he unleashed one of the first waves of infectious disease that decimated Native American populations in the centuries to follow (Crosby 2003), eventually killing 90% of the population, an estimated 20 million people (Diamond 1997). The devastation of native communities was the result of a combination of factors. One was the very different histories of Europe and the Americas. With no history of animal domestication beyond dogs, turkeys, ducks, guinea pigs, llamas, and alpacas, Native Americans did not fall prey to zoonotic pathogens that produced highly contagious infectious diseases, leaving them with no resistance. Also, in spite of their profound differences in culture, language, subsistence, and political and economic systems, Native Americans were genetically very much alike (Crosby 2003). This was due to the small number of individuals who crossed the land bridge, which then closed, leaving them in genetic isolation for 10,000 years or more. This meant there was not a high degree of variation for natural selection to act upon in the midst of the severe evolutionary pressure of smallpox and other infectious diseases introduced by Europeans. Native Americans had also not benefited from the technological developments associated with warfare in the Old World, including steel swords, guns, and fighting on horseback, that had been perfected over centuries of conflict (Diamond 1997). European conquest also toppled existing political and social systems already crippled by epidemics of disease, leading to social disorder and cultural and economic disruption. To compound the situation, European colonization included the enslavement and forced labor of native populations to serve European interests, resulting in injury, starvation, and other mistreatment and leading to further loss of life. This complex of epidemiological, technological, social, political, and economic factors (a syndemic) combined to nearly exterminate Native Americans in the centuries following European contact, but this need not have been the case. Alfred Crosby (2003) points out that although epidemics among immunologically unprepared populations produce high mortality rates, some individuals survive, and the population will recover if left alone. He reminds us that Europe, for instance, lost one-third of its population to the Black Death in the fourteenth century and recovered in time. If the Black Death had been accompanied by the arrival of Genghis Khan’s hordes, miraculously plague-proof, the story would have been very different.

Post-Covid Non-Communicable Diseases. From the Lancet (2020), “COVID-19 is not a pandemic“:

The “science” that has guided governments has been driven mostly by epidemic modellers and infectious disease specialists, who understandably frame the present health emergency in centuries-old terms of plague. But what we have learned so far tells us that the story of COVID-19 is not so simple. Two categories of disease are interacting within specific populations—infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and an array of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). These conditions are clustering within social groups according to patterns of inequality deeply embedded in our societies. The aggregation of these diseases on a background of social and economic disparity exacerbates the adverse effects of each separate disease. COVID-19 is not a pandemic. It is a syndemic. The syndemic nature of the threat we face means that a more nuanced approach is needed if we are to protect the health of our communities…. A syndemic is not merely a comorbidity. Syndemics are characterised by biological and social interactions between conditions and states, interactions that increase a person’s susceptibility to harm or worsen their health outcomes. In the case of COVID-19, attacking NCDs will be a prerequisite for successful containment.

Covid’s vascular and neurological sequelae, then, can be reconceputalized from “knock-on effects” to components of a syndemic.

Monkeypox. From HIV.gov (!!) (2022) “Addressing Monkeypox Holistically“:

From day one of the Biden Administration’s response to the Monkeypox outbreak, we have recognized that Monkeypox is not a virus that lives in isolation. It exists as a part of a number of acute and chronic outbreaks and health challenges that interact with each other and can be impacted by social circumstances that worsen disease outcomes. Such interacting epidemics, or ‘syndemics,’ require responses beyond traditional disease-specific healthcare delivery and to also address associated social determinants of health. That’s why we have worked closely—and successfully—within the Administration and with our partners in public health, the LGBTQI+ community, and with community-based organizations—to combat and treat this virus using a holistic approach, that takes all of these factors into consideration.

HIV and Monkeypox are examples of syndemic outbreaks that interact with each other and therefore require specific action for both diseases in order to mitigate the impact of both. Recent epidemiology has shown that people with HIV continue to be over-represented in cases and severe manifestations of Monkeypox disease. In one study published by the CDC, nearly 40% of people diagnosed with Monkeypox had HIV infection, and over 40% had been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) in the year prior to their Monkeypox diagnosis.

Syndemics are not just about viruses and bacteria; social circumstances like systemic inequities in the health care system and social determinants of health like housing interact with infections to worsen or deepen their impact. In this same report of severe Monkeypox outcomes, nearly 70% of patients were Black and 23% were experiencing homelessness.

Too bad the Biden Administration doesn’t apply the same thinking to Covid.[7] Wrong silo, I guess.

Antimicrobial Resistance. From the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, “Report highlights role of socioeconomic, sociocultural factors in antimicrobial resistance“:

A policy brief published yesterday by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies suggests antimicrobial resistance (AMR) policies need to take socioeconomic and sociocultural factors into account.

The brief notes that while efforts to understand AMR have focused on the biomedical model, interactions between socioeconomic and sociocultural determinants of health and AMR, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, have not been studied extensively. Among the factors the authors highlight are gender, living situations, healthcare access, educational access, poor governance, mobility, conflict, and climate change.

Although how these factors contribute to the spread of AMR are complex, the authors say that understanding them could inform development of interventions. Such interventions could address, for example, why women are more likely than men to experience exposure to drug-resistant infections and be prescribed antibiotics, why people in urban and overcrowded environments are associated with a higher risk of AMR, how limited access to healthcare can result in more inappropriate antibiotic use, and how human mobility and conflict can lead to the introduction and spread of new strains of drug-resistant organisms.

The term is not present, but the concept is.

Global South. From BMJ, “Guinea’s response to syndemic hotspots“:

The Guinean health system has been severely overstretched this year. It has to deal with several concurrent (re-)emerging infectious diseases—Ebola, Lassa fever, measles, meningitis, yellow fever, vaccine-derived poliomyelitis—as well as a second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A case of the highly infectious Marburg viral disease was also detected in August.

These multiple concurring epidemics reflect contextualised ‘syndemic hotspots’ whereby (re-)emerging infectious diseases, existing socioeconomic inequities, a fragile health system, chronic malnutrition and security constraints interact and cluster in marginalised and impoverished populations. At the same time community resistance has been observed against the epidemic control measures (related to the Ebola virus disease (EVD) and COVID-19, mostly) across the country. This had implications on population health, among others through injuries and deaths as a result of police intervention. This securitisation of epidemics response almost inevitably deepens community mistrust in public services, aggravates social inequalities and hinders efforts to combatting ongoing epidemics in the country. This syndemic situation is not unique to Guinea and is observed in many other countries, and specifically in countries with similar socioeconomic and health system constraints such as DR Congo. The ecological reservoir for lethal emerging diseases like viral haemorrhagic fevers has expanded in recent years. The risk that multiple epidemics occur at the same time in the nearby future is high in countries like Guinea, DR Congo and others. The potential for international expansion, and thereby for longstanding chronic ‘syndemic hotspots’, is considerable because of economic globalisation and the international trade nexus in which West and Central Africa play a role.

* * *

For grins, here’s a big list of other candidate diseases:


I think that, conceptually, syndemic theorizers have got hold of the right end of the stick (and everybody running our response to the Covid pandemic have got hold of the wrong one). My concerns are that although epidemiology is hard, syndemic investigation looks to be an order of magnitude harder. Merrill Singer was a medical anthropologist; are we really going to need an army of Trisha Greenhalghs and David Graebers to move forward? With nimrods like the Brownstone Institute fighting them tooth and nail, not to mention the so-called public health establishment? JAMA suggests some of the difficulties in “Applying Syndemic Theory to Acute Illness” (2021):

Acute health conditions exist within complex, community-specific, syndemic relationships. To leverage this insight and convert it into actionable improvements in the prevention and treatment of acute health conditions, medical and public health communities should employ the following steps:

  1. Identify the fundamental social and biological conditions involved in the complex systems of acute illnesses within specific contexts of place and time. This will require linking multiple individual- and community-level data sources. Administrators of major health plans and state and federal government agencies will be essential in facilitating this type of data linkage and in fostering data access and collaboration. Clinicians have an important role in working with patients to identify the key social and biological processes affecting their patients’ health.
  2. Evaluate key relationshipsbetween and among these conditions, including causal mechanisms and feedback loops, using community-informed research methods. Multilevel modeling is a well-established approach for the evaluation of syndemic relationships. Agent-based modeling, a simulation model in which outcomes are determined by the local actions and interactions of agents within an environment, and geospatial analysis may be particularly helpful methods. Researchers and clinicians must collaborate across disciplines and traditionally siloed fields of medicine to assess important disease-disease interactions.
  3. Investigate ways to shift the complex system of risk factors and forces that influence acute health conditions, and introduce new ways of thinking about prevention and intervention. These evaluations may reveal that prioritizing key elements of the system could have significant downstream effects on other components without having to address them all at once, with some elements essentially acting as levers or blockers. Through new research and community collaborations, it may become clear that a seemingly ineffective intervention tested in one population or with one outcome may actually be effective when tested in a different set of circumstances.

    Syndemic frameworks can help identify or improve the efficacy and efficiency of new medical or policy intervention and can be powerful tools for social justice in health.

That’s an big agenda with enormous policy implication, and I doubt very much JAMA has the leverage to achieve it, important though clinicians are. Take this one sentence: “Administrators of major health plans and state and federal government agencies will be essential.” So we’re doomed then? CDC is opposed to “data linkage”: It doesn’t track positivity, has shut down mandatory hospital reporting, does not emit timely data on deaths — and remember that hospitalization and deaths, not infection, are the only numbers CDC cares about — and has corrupted and polluted the wastewater reporting system. And those “elements essentially acting as levers or blockers.” Like, for example, profit?

The problems of political economy are the problems of the political economy itself. My thought, given the evident correctness of syndemic conceptually, is that most JAMA’s research program can be taken as read — for example, we don’t need any more studies to know we need to clean the [family blogging] air, not least because the rich are already doing it for themselves. Perhaps we need to do less “agent-based modeling,” and more work with actual agents?


[1] Some defintions went with pandemics; I went with clusters, since clusters might grow into pandemics.

[2] I would expect “social determinants of health” discourse to overlap with “syndemic” discourse, but it seems not to. But perhaps I haven’t done enough reading.

[3] Note that in the above quotations, The Lancet (2017) adds “environmental.” The others (2022 and 2024) do not. Treating environmental factors as distinct from social relations might, given the dominance of private property, be seen by some as problematic.

[4] I cannot find an online copy of the 1992 Singer article cited in footnote [23] in the Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, “Generations of suffering: Experiences of a pregnancy and substance abuse treatment program,” where apparently the term was coined)

[5] Here is the result of a search on “syndemic” at CDC’s site. The CDC-coined neologism “tripledemic” — Covid, RSV, flu — could be regarded as an erasure of the very concept of syndemic, since it considers only diseases in isolation; even leaving aside social factors, “tripledemic” fails to consider the possibility that immune dysregulation from Covid renders infection by RSV and flu more likely. (Of course, the concept also implies that Covid is seasonal, which is false.)

[6] I wish I could include measles, but the only article is paywalled.

[7] I would speculate this rational, as opposed to sociopathic, approach is a testimony to the continued strength of AIDS activism.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Globalization, Guest Post, Health care, Income disparity, Pandemic on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


  1. JBird4049

    Another good post, but I am tired of more good posts explaining why we no longer have the same fairly disease free environment of my childhood AKA forty and fifty fucking years ago. Really, none of this is new as the disease burden 150 years ago even among the most well off, knowledgeable, and protected populations was several times (at least) greater than most of today’s populations excluded the poorest in the most economically undeveloped countries. If you doubt this and just do not want to study the historical statistics, just read the biographies, histories, diaries, and the many, many tombstones of those who died before they reached puberty of anytime, anywhere before the 1950s.

    This burden was systematically cut down one disease at a time until just before AIDS made its fun filled debut in the United States despite the greater lack of knowledge and resources as well as then greater levels of extreme poverty in much of the West even with the current increase in absolute poverty. We can dance around the exact causes of why we are back to the 1920s or 30s and look to hitting the 1910s anytime now. When a twitter post can realistically point to AIDS, tuberculosis, and yellow fever, diseases successfully eliminated or suppressed/treated during my, my parents, and my grandparents lifetimes as possibly making a comeback, we have gone past reasonings and excuse making.

    Deliberately cultivated greed, ignorance, cruelty, and stupidity is what it is all about, which includes creation of an ideology and a corrupt political economy that not only justify and enables it all, it creates a profitable lack of will.

    We know how to provide drinking water free from diseases and lead again in a number of American cities, how to end lice, trench fever, and tuberculosis again in Californians, how to crush Covid, and how to prevent a reoccurrence of yellow fever. This is something multiple American governments across the political spectrum for at least a century succeeding in doing. Crying about a lack of knowledge or money is just lying and justifying, which I no longer have the desire or the energy to listen to, and deserves as harsh a condemnation as possible.

  2. Tom Stone

    I suspect that the recent ‘Flu outbreak in CA is related to Immune Dysregulation, something that will have increasingly dire effects as time passes.
    TB is definitely on my list of likely candidates since the Millions of migrants who have entered the USA recently have not been screened for TB or any other diseases that are common tho their countries of origin.
    Since no rich people use undocumented aliens as Nannies or Maids this will only affect people that don’t matter…

  3. Reify99

    Bravo!! +1000!!

    Thank you for providing the complexity we deserve and have inflicted upon ourselves (multiplied) since forever.

    I will share this as far and wide as I can.

    Although, I admit, it is still hard for me to let go of the ingrained belief that two viruses don’t meet, go out to dinner, invite each other home to meet the family, and after (at least some months, and with the blessing of viral friends)- decide to ceremonially overlap and re-assort!

  4. Giovanni Barca

    I must protest on behalf of syncretic “verging on the woo.” How else does one ddescribe Hermanubis? Serapis? St. George and St. Demetrius for that matter?

  5. ambrit

    Most of those who read the posts here will understand that one major cause of morbidity etc. is Neo-liberalism. Add Neo-liberalism to almost any other socio-economic stressor and we can guarantee a syndemic. So, to finesse doom and gloom, all we have to do is severely curb Neo-liberalism.
    It sounds like what we need now is, to steal from the Masters, a ‘Vanguard of the Deplorables.’
    Of note is the fact that, through the past years of dysfunction and “benign neglect,” our Elites have turned an otherwise manageable medical problem into an existential threat, generally aimed squarely at the “lower classes.”
    This will not end well.

    1. reify99

      JBird4049 and Ambrit,

      Oh, it’s willful all right. Neoliberal deception.

      I’ve been thinking about an example of the similarity between the macro and micro environments. (Warning: Scientifically imprecise.) On the macro level,–Talking Trash: regarding right thinking, NPIs, inequality, anything that might benefit the common good. And cost $$. Hiding behind a cloud of “reasonable” sounding BS, eg. “Curing patients is not a sustainable business model”. (Goldman Sachs)

      In the micro environment it’s also trash left around to distract, confuse and redirect the immune system. Apoptic Mimickry
      Uses Phosphotidylserine, which usually is found on the inside of a cell wall but hangs on the outside when the cell dies. A signal that the cell is trash, (dead), and needs to be picked up by the garbage detail.
      HIV hides behind a could of it, TB uses it. Pathogens wear it to throw the immune system off. Makes it hard to see what’s really going on. Mimicking trash. Nothing to see here. Move along T cells. The garbage detail (phages) will collect it.

      I do think that we are in a better place than in the past. Public Health is no longer a few noble but sacrificial nuns.
      And, so far, we seem to have moved past the miasma.

      We’re going to have to pierce the “profitable” lack of will that neoliberalism has manufactured.
      Meanwhile Nature keeps adding new entries to the syndemic. One of them is going to get traction.

      We know some stuff that works. Will we use it? Or will we just try to remember all this some day in the future when we gather round the Plague Stone to swap stories from a safe distance?

      1. Lambert Strether Post author

        > Nature keeps adding new entries to the syndemic. One of them is going to get traction.

        Probably…. What I wish is that union leadership was demanding air quality in the workplace. They certainly should be.

  6. Kalen

    I generally oppose attempts of changing reality by relabeling things quite in Orwellian fashion. In 2020 we learned that pandemic does not have to have high IFR or that vaccines don’t have to actually prevent infection and don’t have to stop infection spread among people or that social distancing worked or didn’t or depending where we were and what air circulation actually was and that masks didn’t or did or most of them promoted by authorities not really. It seems that our grandma advice of eating plenty healthy nutritious food, outdoor exercise, frequently opening windows at home regardless of weather nearly completely describes WHO epidemic preventing policies at least regarding endemic infections.

    In 2022 CDC declared COVID endemic joining a slew of diseases that are worldwide endemic like seasonal flu. What it meant was that we all are exposed as we are exposed to dozens of other diseases declared endemic. What it likely means moreover for us today is simply one thing that we as a population acquired herd immunity in statistical sense while specific individuals if exposed will succumb to them. Either they are clinically one or two or three is not consequential to population what although is is general population state of immune health. If weak than infectious comorbidities in addition to other comorbidities become much more dangerous with global consequences.

    In my take Syndemic is simply epidemic among population that is immunologically weaken
    and that must be a focus of major direct effort to mitigate. Healthy food, low social stress amid economic stability is what must be a key effort not necessary loading people with Big Pharma drugs which in my options is focused not on healing but to maintain patient ability to pay for these expensive drugs motivated by what they call euphemistically prolonging life.

    What we are told that new germs/diseases somehow emerged conveniently when medicine made a technological leap of progress into molecular biology and as we have acquired new zoo of germs. However there can be alternative view that they always existed and were simply not specifically identified especially if they had in fact similar set of symptoms. In other words we could’ve been facing Syndemics in the past unable to identify them as only one component was detected. Inability of epidemiology to unequivocally determine origins of diseases lends support for such argument.

Comments are closed.