---
product_id: 625540443
title: "Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health"
price: "€ 45.16"
currency: EUR
in_stock: true
reviews_count: 13
url: https://www.desertcart.at/products/625540443-blind-spots-when-medicine-gets-it-wrong-and-what-it
store_origin: AT
region: Austria
---

# Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health

**Price:** € 45.16
**Availability:** ✅ In Stock

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health
- **How much does it cost?** € 45.16 with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Yes, in stock and ready to ship
- **Where can I buy it?** [www.desertcart.at](https://www.desertcart.at/products/625540443-blind-spots-when-medicine-gets-it-wrong-and-what-it)

## Best For

- Customers looking for quality international products

## Why This Product

- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Description

An Instant New York Times Bestseller Choice 2025 Outstanding Academic Title From Johns Hopkins medical expert Dr. Marty Makary, the New York Times- bestselling author of The Price We Pa y - an eye-opening look at the medical groupthink that has led to public harm, and what you need to know about your health. More Americans have peanut allergies today than at any point in history. Why? In 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a strict recommendation that parents avoid giving their children peanut products until they're three years old. Getting the science perfectly backward, triggering intolerance with lack of early exposure, the US now leads the world in peanut allergies-and this misinformation is still rearing its head today. How could the experts have gotten it so wrong? Dr. Marty Makary asks, Could it be that many modern-day health crises have been caused by the hubris of the medical establishment? Experts said for decades that opioids were not addictive, igniting the opioid crisis. They refused menopausal women hormone replacement therapy, causing unnecessary suffering. They demonized natural fat in foods, driving Americans to processed carbohydrates as obesity rates soared. They told citizens that there are no downsides to antibiotics and prescribed them liberally, causing a drug-resistant bacteria crisis. When modern medicine issues recommendations based on good scientific studies, it shines. Conversely, when modern medicine is interpreted through the harsh lens of opinion and edict, it can mold beliefs that harm patients and stunt research for decades. In Blind Spots , Dr. Makary explores the latest research on critical topics ranging from the microbiome to childbirth to nutrition and longevity and more, revealing the biggest blind spots of modern medicine and tackling the most urgent yet unsung issues in our $4.5 trillion health care ecosystem. The path to medical mishaps can be absurd, entertaining, and jaw-dropping-but the truth is essential to our health.

Review: Well Done, Disturbing, and Thought Provoking - Peanut allergies were rare before health policy makers decided that children should abstain from eating any peanut products the first years of their lives to address those very infrequent occurrences. The result: peanut allergies exploded among children who never had any contact with peanuts during their early years. Silicone breast implants were satisfying many patients who needed reconstructive surgery or who wanted augmentation until some medical researchers (who it appears did not approve of cosmetic surgery) used very weak study linkages to proclaim them dangerous. Lawsuits exploded and millions of women had their implants removed. Later scienced proved that wrongheaded. The FDA reversed itself and today labels Silicone breast implants safe. Dr. Makary (at this writing, the nominee to run the FDA), has written an important book that is eye opening to the public and I imagine also many physicians. His book illustrates several medical policy positions beyond peanut abstention and breast implants taken by the medical establishment (AMA, AHA, FDA, leading medical journals) which have stood upon weak evidence, evidence that contradicts the policy position, or even the strongly held beliefs of medical policy gatekeepers who rely on their wisdom that certain causations “just make sense.” Almost all of these have been reversed or superseded - but usually only after years or even decades of existence guiding standards of care and medical interventions. Some of these did great harm to patients and people and some like over reliance on antibiotics reverberate today. This book is very well written and accessible to non-physicians and the public. He explains medical topics for the layperson. It is very much worth reading. In addition to those standards of care named above, Makary tells the stories of over prescribing of antibiotics and the effect on the gut biome, the lack of understanding that dietary cholesterol has little to no effect on body cholesterol levels, and how wrong thinking around many aspects of medical care related to childbirth led to premature babies having worse outcomes and children born of c-sections having altered gut biomes (due to lack of maternal germs gained through passage down the birth canal) which negatively influences other aspects of their development. Perhaps the most interesting to me is that science has recently concluded that ovarian cancer actually starts from cancerous fallopian tube cells that migrate to the ovaries. It appears generations of women who had ovaries removed as a preventive measure were removing the wrong organ to no benefit (and even to their detriment as ovaries provide important hormones for the body). Today due to studies that appear sound, many physicians recommend a fifteen-minute procedure to remove fallopian tubes for women who are either not having more children or past child baring age in some cases. What gives credence to Dr. Makary's examples is that in each case he goes back to the initial study that resulted in new and mistaken medical standards of care and explains poor data, lack of causation or just incorrect data assessments, or poor study structure that changed lives for millions because of physician adherence to promulgations by our medical standards gatekeepers. His arguments are greatly enhanced because he tracked down either the initial study authors or the AMA committee members or medical journal editors that blessed the care changes and talked to them about the data and study problems that underpinned these changed standards. These people either admitted they were wrong, or the studies were not conclusive, or defensively fall back on arguments of "needed to not upset the public," or "keeping consistent with our positions" as reasons for why they made or supported positions that turned out to be wrong. None of the original protagonists with whom he discussed these wrong turns did or were able to defend their original positions. Some of the conclusions the author makes which are important if we are going to get new standards of care right: 1. The data underpinning studies must be made available for review (shockingly to me they were not available in most cases) 2. Authors of studies should be blinded so reviewers / journal editors cannot play favorites among their colleagues or support studies done by their own institutions 3. The AMA, FDA and other gate keepers must become comfortable with saying “we don’t know” instead of perceiving a need to quickly solve frustrating and high visibility issues for public satisfaction 4. Leadership positions at medical societies and journals need to be rotated so fresh thinking can be injected into assessment processes and defensiveness minimized 5. Journals and associations and the government need to embrace studies related to care delivery more than they historically have. 6. Topic myopia – where grants go in large part to the same narrow topic areas and fresh ideas are shunted aside needs to be reduced so that new thinking can be tested and studied 7. Politics and extraneous considerations need to be removed from grant making, publication, and committee work. This is a captivating book that seems to show difficult to refute case studies (usually because in most cases the offending incorrect standard of care has been reversed or significantly altered). His prescriptions to improve the environment in which medical knowledge is advanced and standards of care embraced make a lot of sense and are worthy of open debate.
Review: Eye opening!!! Definitely recommend this, especially healthcare workers. - Let me start with I am a nurse in labor and delivery. My husband never wants to listen to my work stories, but one day, I came home and he had all kinds of work related questions for me, I was floored. He had heard the author speaking on a radio show promoting this book. He had me listen and asked me about some of things discussed related to the babies being born section. I listened and then I ordered the book! I have seen first hand some of things he talked about. Others were before my time, but shocking none the less to read how long things took to change because the "establishment" didn't want to believe. I used to be that person that went by the "literature." I didnt realize how much literature was being suppressed. There have been many things I have seen in my career that I at one time didn't believe in until I saw it firsthand. So I am aware the dogma exists to not believe, but after seeing it for myself, I now keep an open mind to new ideas. The section on skin to skin contact with mom is a perfect example. What sealed it for me was when I was caring for a mom whose baby had a congenital condition and birth defects that were incompatible with life, meaning the baby was going to die no matter what. Mom wanted to try to carry the baby to term, hopefully deliver a living baby, and hold him until he died in her arms. He was born and in doctors' hands, not doing well. I put him skin to skin with mom, and he immediately started improving. He was breathing and pink and like any otherwise healthy baby. He did so well that mom decided to let other family members hold him. In their arms he would stop breathing and turn purple, they would panic and ask me what to do, i would take baby and put him skin to skin with mom, reminding them, mom wanted to hold him while he died. However, every time he went skin to skin, he started breathing again and turned pink without any medical intervention at all. This went back and forth for hours as the various family members took their turns. In the end, the baby lived for 12 hours and eventually died in mom's arms as planned, but mom got 12 hours with her precious baby that she wouldn't have had without skin to skin contact. I had seen doctors recommend certain treatments or procedures that parents have refused, and everything turns out fine, to the point of me thinking, "miracles do happen." I now have changed my practice to side with patients and support whatever decisions they make. I stand up to doctors and routinely question the "why" when I dont agree. I share with them and my patients my experiences with "going against the norm." In many cases, it has strengthened my relationship and trust with patients and doctors. This book really opened my eyes to the politics involved in research studies that i was never aware of. It actually angers me to see how closed-minded and set in their ways some of these doctors are. I, too, was fired from a job for standing up for what I believed in when I didn't agree with how things were happening, and it turned into a blessing in disguise. I have very strong feelings on some healthcare concerns that are being politicized and just tried to "fly under the radar" and not share my thoughts with people with opposing views just to not rock the boat, but once i started opening up debate dialogue I found both sides have valid points. I agree with Dr. Makary that we need more studies. On any topic, there should be 2 independent studies to validate results. Politics has no place in scientific research. Doctors should be allowed to research what they want, and journals shouldn't be able to quash legitimate articles just because they don't like how the results turned out. Their job should be to review the methodology and statistics to ensure it was not an "altered outcome" but not reject it on topic alone. To think that so many people have died because of the politics involved in progressive doctors questioning the status quo and trying to make it better is appalling. As Dr Makary says, saying, " I don't know" is better than making something up or passing off opinion as fact. His discussion about studies being done or falsified just to push the agenda of an industry shows the bias in the medical community is not towards improving healthcare and looking for a better way to help people, but to uphold their own prior achievements. I grew up learning that the only thing constant is change. Things are constantly changing. It is ok for things to be one way and new discoveries to change those things multiple times. Hopefully those behind the scenes responsible for preventing good new research will read this and take the blinders off and open their eyes to new ideas, at least be open to legitimate debate and research to prove or disprove those ideas, and not just shut them down because they dont like the idea initially.

## Technical Specifications

| Specification | Value |
|---------------|-------|
| Best Sellers Rank | #38,982 in Books ( See Top 100 in Books ) #3 in Children & Adolescent's Allergies #41 in Food Allergies (Books) #44 in Sociological Study of Medicine |
| Customer Reviews | 4.7 out of 5 stars 1,595 Reviews |

## Images

![Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health - Image 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71lWhAlwKWL.jpg)

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Well Done, Disturbing, and Thought Provoking
*by W***H on February 13, 2025*

Peanut allergies were rare before health policy makers decided that children should abstain from eating any peanut products the first years of their lives to address those very infrequent occurrences. The result: peanut allergies exploded among children who never had any contact with peanuts during their early years. Silicone breast implants were satisfying many patients who needed reconstructive surgery or who wanted augmentation until some medical researchers (who it appears did not approve of cosmetic surgery) used very weak study linkages to proclaim them dangerous. Lawsuits exploded and millions of women had their implants removed. Later scienced proved that wrongheaded. The FDA reversed itself and today labels Silicone breast implants safe. Dr. Makary (at this writing, the nominee to run the FDA), has written an important book that is eye opening to the public and I imagine also many physicians. His book illustrates several medical policy positions beyond peanut abstention and breast implants taken by the medical establishment (AMA, AHA, FDA, leading medical journals) which have stood upon weak evidence, evidence that contradicts the policy position, or even the strongly held beliefs of medical policy gatekeepers who rely on their wisdom that certain causations “just make sense.” Almost all of these have been reversed or superseded - but usually only after years or even decades of existence guiding standards of care and medical interventions. Some of these did great harm to patients and people and some like over reliance on antibiotics reverberate today. This book is very well written and accessible to non-physicians and the public. He explains medical topics for the layperson. It is very much worth reading. In addition to those standards of care named above, Makary tells the stories of over prescribing of antibiotics and the effect on the gut biome, the lack of understanding that dietary cholesterol has little to no effect on body cholesterol levels, and how wrong thinking around many aspects of medical care related to childbirth led to premature babies having worse outcomes and children born of c-sections having altered gut biomes (due to lack of maternal germs gained through passage down the birth canal) which negatively influences other aspects of their development. Perhaps the most interesting to me is that science has recently concluded that ovarian cancer actually starts from cancerous fallopian tube cells that migrate to the ovaries. It appears generations of women who had ovaries removed as a preventive measure were removing the wrong organ to no benefit (and even to their detriment as ovaries provide important hormones for the body). Today due to studies that appear sound, many physicians recommend a fifteen-minute procedure to remove fallopian tubes for women who are either not having more children or past child baring age in some cases. What gives credence to Dr. Makary's examples is that in each case he goes back to the initial study that resulted in new and mistaken medical standards of care and explains poor data, lack of causation or just incorrect data assessments, or poor study structure that changed lives for millions because of physician adherence to promulgations by our medical standards gatekeepers. His arguments are greatly enhanced because he tracked down either the initial study authors or the AMA committee members or medical journal editors that blessed the care changes and talked to them about the data and study problems that underpinned these changed standards. These people either admitted they were wrong, or the studies were not conclusive, or defensively fall back on arguments of "needed to not upset the public," or "keeping consistent with our positions" as reasons for why they made or supported positions that turned out to be wrong. None of the original protagonists with whom he discussed these wrong turns did or were able to defend their original positions. Some of the conclusions the author makes which are important if we are going to get new standards of care right: 1. The data underpinning studies must be made available for review (shockingly to me they were not available in most cases) 2. Authors of studies should be blinded so reviewers / journal editors cannot play favorites among their colleagues or support studies done by their own institutions 3. The AMA, FDA and other gate keepers must become comfortable with saying “we don’t know” instead of perceiving a need to quickly solve frustrating and high visibility issues for public satisfaction 4. Leadership positions at medical societies and journals need to be rotated so fresh thinking can be injected into assessment processes and defensiveness minimized 5. Journals and associations and the government need to embrace studies related to care delivery more than they historically have. 6. Topic myopia – where grants go in large part to the same narrow topic areas and fresh ideas are shunted aside needs to be reduced so that new thinking can be tested and studied 7. Politics and extraneous considerations need to be removed from grant making, publication, and committee work. This is a captivating book that seems to show difficult to refute case studies (usually because in most cases the offending incorrect standard of care has been reversed or significantly altered). His prescriptions to improve the environment in which medical knowledge is advanced and standards of care embraced make a lot of sense and are worthy of open debate.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Eye opening!!! Definitely recommend this, especially healthcare workers.
*by M***E on September 22, 2024*

Let me start with I am a nurse in labor and delivery. My husband never wants to listen to my work stories, but one day, I came home and he had all kinds of work related questions for me, I was floored. He had heard the author speaking on a radio show promoting this book. He had me listen and asked me about some of things discussed related to the babies being born section. I listened and then I ordered the book! I have seen first hand some of things he talked about. Others were before my time, but shocking none the less to read how long things took to change because the "establishment" didn't want to believe. I used to be that person that went by the "literature." I didnt realize how much literature was being suppressed. There have been many things I have seen in my career that I at one time didn't believe in until I saw it firsthand. So I am aware the dogma exists to not believe, but after seeing it for myself, I now keep an open mind to new ideas. The section on skin to skin contact with mom is a perfect example. What sealed it for me was when I was caring for a mom whose baby had a congenital condition and birth defects that were incompatible with life, meaning the baby was going to die no matter what. Mom wanted to try to carry the baby to term, hopefully deliver a living baby, and hold him until he died in her arms. He was born and in doctors' hands, not doing well. I put him skin to skin with mom, and he immediately started improving. He was breathing and pink and like any otherwise healthy baby. He did so well that mom decided to let other family members hold him. In their arms he would stop breathing and turn purple, they would panic and ask me what to do, i would take baby and put him skin to skin with mom, reminding them, mom wanted to hold him while he died. However, every time he went skin to skin, he started breathing again and turned pink without any medical intervention at all. This went back and forth for hours as the various family members took their turns. In the end, the baby lived for 12 hours and eventually died in mom's arms as planned, but mom got 12 hours with her precious baby that she wouldn't have had without skin to skin contact. I had seen doctors recommend certain treatments or procedures that parents have refused, and everything turns out fine, to the point of me thinking, "miracles do happen." I now have changed my practice to side with patients and support whatever decisions they make. I stand up to doctors and routinely question the "why" when I dont agree. I share with them and my patients my experiences with "going against the norm." In many cases, it has strengthened my relationship and trust with patients and doctors. This book really opened my eyes to the politics involved in research studies that i was never aware of. It actually angers me to see how closed-minded and set in their ways some of these doctors are. I, too, was fired from a job for standing up for what I believed in when I didn't agree with how things were happening, and it turned into a blessing in disguise. I have very strong feelings on some healthcare concerns that are being politicized and just tried to "fly under the radar" and not share my thoughts with people with opposing views just to not rock the boat, but once i started opening up debate dialogue I found both sides have valid points. I agree with Dr. Makary that we need more studies. On any topic, there should be 2 independent studies to validate results. Politics has no place in scientific research. Doctors should be allowed to research what they want, and journals shouldn't be able to quash legitimate articles just because they don't like how the results turned out. Their job should be to review the methodology and statistics to ensure it was not an "altered outcome" but not reject it on topic alone. To think that so many people have died because of the politics involved in progressive doctors questioning the status quo and trying to make it better is appalling. As Dr Makary says, saying, " I don't know" is better than making something up or passing off opinion as fact. His discussion about studies being done or falsified just to push the agenda of an industry shows the bias in the medical community is not towards improving healthcare and looking for a better way to help people, but to uphold their own prior achievements. I grew up learning that the only thing constant is change. Things are constantly changing. It is ok for things to be one way and new discoveries to change those things multiple times. Hopefully those behind the scenes responsible for preventing good new research will read this and take the blinders off and open their eyes to new ideas, at least be open to legitimate debate and research to prove or disprove those ideas, and not just shut them down because they dont like the idea initially.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Eye Opening
*by J***L on November 10, 2024*

I was very impressed with the quality of the evidence described in this book. This author is clearly at home with current “evidence based” medicinal care. He is not afraid to go against the groupthink ideas of Western medicine. As a retired medical doctor, I have been through the pressures applied by Big Pharma, to promote their new drugs. The “drug reps” visit your office, often carrying copies of “ papers, recently published in peer reviewed medical journals “. They use them as a means of promoting their new drug. I learned over time to be skeptical about these results. Medications such as statins, calcium channel blockers, and anti- inflammatory agents were, in many cases not effective or found when used by large numbers of patients to have serious and potentially lethal side effects. Medicine has turned into robotic encounter in which providers try to find a diagnosis/ disease and then gleefully prescribe the “right drug”- often times the drug just promoted by Pharmaceutical Company X. There is no attempt to sort out other issues going on in the patient’s life and therefore put the current stress in their life in the proper context. One disease and one drug is the magical solution, all done in under 10 minutes, and your out the door. I trained at McGill University and McMaster University, in Family Medicine in the early 1970s. I was trained during my residency by Dr. Dave Sackett who as you described was always pushing “evidence based” medicine but who still very seriously felt the need to have a relationship with the patient. I felt then, as I do now, that a lot of the positive outcomes in my specialty were as result of the relationship with the doctor- a placebo like effect. The patient felt better, long before the “pill” had a chance to work. Remember, we are basically “energy fields “ these fields can be modified in an instant. Thank you to Dr. Makary for your time and effort in writing this book. I will be reading your other books in the future. Dr. J. Bell.

## Frequently Bought Together

- Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health
- The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care--and How to Fix It
- Good Energy: The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://www.desertcart.at/products/625540443-blind-spots-when-medicine-gets-it-wrong-and-what-it](https://www.desertcart.at/products/625540443-blind-spots-when-medicine-gets-it-wrong-and-what-it)

---

*Product available on Desertcart Austria*
*Store origin: AT*
*Last updated: 2026-11-11*