A viewer asks: “Dr. Bernard Lown, a Harvard cardiologist in the 1980s, criticized the rapid rise of surgical Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts (CABG), noting 20–40% were potentially avoidable, especially in stable angina, and many patients had uncertain survival benefit. He advocated medical therapy—nitrates, beta-blockers, lifestyle changes—for symptom control. How accurate is it to say that in 2026, evidence-based guidelines and trials have reduced avoidable CABG to <10% for high-risk, guideline-selected patients, and that for low-risk, stable patients, surgery rarely improves survival, and that beta-blockers, nitrates, ACE inhibitors, lifestyle changes are to be preferred?”

This is a good example among many, where medical excess is the order of the day. The bias is that more is better, despite the injunction to "first, do no harm." The dividing line in the criteria for moving forward to take medical action is always subjective and that will be further, and quite heavily, influenced by mind control manipulation as are all important matters in human society. There has been a heavy corruption to encourage overreliance on expensive invasive procedures of all kinds by making them extremely lucrative. Your channel recalls vividly the story of how coronary artery bypass surgery came into being, and because it was new and so daring, involving operating on the living heart, was viewed as a kind of miracle. When it came time to decide on the fee, someone brashly proposed, why not charge $10,000 and see what happens? As it turns out, even though this was an unprecedented high fee by a wide margin, the insurance companies did not balk and began paying it routinely, and the practice continued. Unfortunately, it is true that money corrupts, so this is one of the many ways medical excess becomes well entrenched.