This is well known. Basically, the March to Death works like this:
The FDA will only approve a drug if it's to "cure" or reduce the symptoms of a disease. Therefore, it's in Big Pharma's best interest to lobby for the creation/recognition of more diseases.
When something is declared as a disease, only FDA approved chemicals/medicines can treat them. So, in effect, unapproved chemicals cannot treat diseases (via the FDA's legally-backed logic), and that's why natural supplement makers are legally prevented from making such claims.
Further, to get an FDA drug approved costs 100's of millions of dollars. A drop in the bucket to a patent holding drug maker, but an impossible hurdle for free-market supplement makers.
It's not in the FDA's interest to promote prevention, and they've been calling supplements "snake oil" since the early 60's, even making TV ads to that effect back then. The FDA never hires a director who is a known supporter of supplements. Never.
Is the system corrupt? Absolutely. Big Pharma sends millions of dollars of samples to doctors, and provides doctors incentives for prescribing Big Pharma drugs. Also, a majority percentage of FDA directors end up working at a pharmaceutical company, scoring a huge salary payoff. This is the golden end-game for anyone joining the FDA, and a giant conflict of interest, no?
Oh, there's a lot more to this crooked story. It's all about the money.
Ok, I have serious problems with your position here, on multiple levels.
First, we must realize that one way to look at "medicalization" is to see it as enhancement of humans from what could not be achieved through natural ways, rather than embracing the minor faults in people (say baldness or erection problems) as "richness of human variety" or whatever senseless crap fatalistic philosophies tend to make up as coping strategies. In this sense, I think it is pretty thoughtless of any Immortalist or Transhumanist to condemn medicalization, because it is in fact a very similar philosophy compared to what we work by.
On the other hand, it is completely illogical to condemn medicalization of certain states (like elevated cholesterol) and then start rambling that "the Big Pharma" does not want to prevent diseases. After the all, the whole purpose of , say, lowering cholesterol in people with not genetical hypercholestemia is to PREVENT heart disease. And unlike you claim Duke, there most definitely exists a testing path for preventative medications for FDA approval. Do not underestimate the potential of making money from disease prevention. Furthermore regarding FDA trials, it really agitates to me that people point out the high costs of FDA approval yet never consider that the money is mostly spent on extensive testing of the substance that the "natural" supplements JUST DON'T HAVE. And unlike often claimed, natural compunds CAN be patented like any other substance, and in fact many drug approved substances are derived from nature. The fact that many natural substances are NOT patented suggests that they might not be very effective in treating the condition they were intented to treat. Having said that, there certainly are some substances that cannot not be patended (been around for while) yet hold promise for new treatments, so unfortunately they do not get to enter the extensive testing cycle to verify the putative benefits. However, these are difficult societywide questions and definitely not of any fault of the drug companies, as some people seem to suggest.
Furthermore, it is pretty hypocritical to suggest that supplement companies are not in the same boat re:medicalization as "the Big Pharma". The supplements claim to do exactly the same things as drugs, only difference in my opinion being that they often magically seem to lack any side effects (in addition to lacking near the same level of scientific evidence). I mean come on, the supplements have to work through some pathway, why the hell would they lack the side-effects virtually all drugs have? Also, as an example, has anyone ever considered that the well known side-effects of aspirin or statin treatment would have something to do with the INCREDIBLE amount of studies there is about both substances rather than them being somehow much more dangerous than your average supplement with at best couple of weak-ass stage 1 clinical trials.
