QROT-048: A treatment for a correlated condition of the body is not the same as a treatment of the original problem

Last emphasis and analysis mined from the JRE John Abramson appearance. 1. How did a drug that had no clinical effect, and had ZERO votes of "yay" from the FDA Clinical Advisory board, get a positive public perception?2. And, speculation, with a real-life example, of how the company MAY just market decreasing the allegedly related body condition (amyloid plaque). It may be that eventually the mere association of decreased plaque is the arguing point. And so there is "treatment" just for decreasing plaque. Because through marketing it may be that it is NEVER proved that there is a true cause and effect. So short of proving that (and if they make the marketing point enough, why would they even need to),  2a. There have been previous examples of this, where the indication of the related body environment condition (cholesterol) becomes the culprit that you treat.2b. With some analogies mixed in - Like... a brick house in disrepair needs some fresh mortar. So if you "see fresh mortar," does it mean that it is cause and effect? Is your answer to addressing a house in disrepair that you should decrease fresh mortar? =================================================Thanks for listening! Please feel free to email me at [email protected] with requests for appearances, thoughts, feedback, questions, observations, or show ideas! Please like my episodes and follow my show if that is what feels right to you!