Health Conditions
You are an Experiment of One and the only one that mattersTM
 
     
   
     
 

Archive for August, 2009

Choosing medical treatment on what “evidence”?

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

The most common argument against the “alternatives” to what is deemed by the AMA to be “legitimate” treatment is that nothing else is “evidence-based.”  When the U.S. is, at last, considering overhauling the health care system to reduce costs and improve health outcomes, this premise of “evidence-based” medicine needs to be carefully examined.

What evidence is there for the medicines and methods practices by the AMA?  Whose evidence is considered?  The following is from WMB’s Articles “Research & Regulation” section; nothing much has changed since this was written in 2002.

Editors of the New England Journal of Medicine (September 1998) and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, November 1998) have both proclaimed that there cannot be two kinds of medicine–conventional and alternative, that there is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not been tested.  The imminent physicians aruge, in effect, that only orthodox medicine has been tested and proven effective.

In reality, only an estimated 10 to 20 percent of all conventional medical intervention have been proven empirically according to reports of the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment in 1978, again in 1990, and it is true today.  The editor of the British Medical Journal also found about 15 percent of medical interventions to be supported by solid scientific evidence. The only known controlled test of the effectiveness of surgery was recently done by a Houston surgeon, Dr. Bruce Moseley, who “pretended” to perform knee surgery on a number of patients; the outcome was that there was no difference in satisfaction (patient reports of improvement) whether knee surgery had actually been performed or not.  (Reported in New England Journal of Medicine, July 2002)

Threatened by a proposed law to make vitamins and supplements controlled by prescription in the early 1990s, an outraged American public pushed Congress to pass the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, which essentially eliminated the FDA from regulating herbs and vitamins. While we do not need the government (i.e., the FDA, AMA and pharma companies) granting us permission to take care of our own health, this law abdicated all responsibility from the FDA for the public’s health regarding actual product ingredients. The law prohibits medicinal claims not approved by the FDA and bans warnings about possible side effects. The result has been in the US “no rules, no standards, no analyses, and no oversight,” as reported by Joe and Teresa Graedon in The People’s Pharmacy.

Other countries, such as Germany, Australia, and Canada, treat healing herbs differently. In Germany, the production of herbs is standardized and regulated by the government. The German government accepts traditional medicinal claims of herbs and requires only cautionary labeling about potential side effects. As a result, mainstream German physicians are as likely to prescribe valerian-based sleep aids as pharmaceutical sleeping pills. Canada has established a Natural Health Products Directorate; over 50 percent of Canadians consume traditional herbal products, vitamins and mineral supplements, traditional Chinese, Ayurvedic and other medicines, and homeopathic preparations.”

Expand Research Sources

The sources for “evidence” of the usefulness of herbs and supplements needs to be expanded to beyond American shores.  Other nations carry out double-blind studies of the efficacy of the traditional medicines their populations use, and we need to track their research. The U.S. government–rather than pharmas–should sponsor research on supplements and herbs, and the researchers should know the difference between natural and synthetic vitamins (such as E)!

Educating the public to take better care of themselves cannot be training them to “ask your doctor” about another drug. The data on the value of nutrition and herbs IS KNOWN, despite the FDA disclaimers, and public knowledge of these “alternatives” to take care of their health needs to be expanded. Improving our nation’s health (and reducing costs) absolutely requires using alternatives to the drugs.  With nearly one million Americans every year either killed or sent to ERs due to use of pharmaceuticals, our lives and our national well-being depends on knowing and using alternatives.

Until then, the WMB mantra is so very true: You are an Experiment of One with everything you take, and you are the Only One that matters!

Salud!

Beverly A. Jensen, Ph.D.

President, www.WomensMedicineBowl.com

Only you should define “health”

Saturday, August 1st, 2009

Years ago on a radio talk show regarding health, the host asked the guest, an M.D., “What is pain?” The doctor’s response, “Whatever the patient says it is.”

Hallelujah! Only the patient is experiencing the pain and knows his/her body. Likewise, only the patient, that is you and me, know–or at least have a clue–when we’re well or not, in other words if we’re feeling “healthy.”

H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at Dartmouth, wrote an essay in the NY Times this week (7/28/09) on the need to redefine what is “health”. Professor Welch, who is an MD, writes that what constitutes “health” for years has been defined by health professionals who have a financial interest in the answer.

These are health professionals who are invested in or are on the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies, biotech firms, manufacturers of medical devices and diagnostic technologies, labs, surgical centers, clinics, hospitals, etc. The editor of The New England Journal of Medicine labeled this some 30 years ago as the “medical-industrial complex”. I will call the band of them MIC.

This band, MIC, now defines health as the absence of abnormality as ever-new technologies are developed and ready to measure us. Dr. Welch writes that people use to seek health care because they were sick. Now MIC seeks patients so every little ache or twitch should be checked out and “labs are needed”.

Doctors and public only know drugs
A major contributor to drawing in the patients has been direct-to-the-consumer (DTC) advertising, especially on television. There were years of heavy pharmaceutical ads, and who couldn’t eventually identify some little twitch or pain they could use that drug for? New Zealand is the only other country that allows DTC advertising of drugs, but the education of our MDs in drugs being the sole healing modality and the American public’s lack of alternatives to drugs has resulted in our four percent of the world’s population using 50 percent of the world’s pharmaceuticals.

But MIC also defines what is “normal” so this potential patient can fit into the “abnormal” category, of course. When I was having my children in my thirties, as many Boomers did, my obstetrician commented that the statistics of “high-risk age” for maternity would be changing with my generation. And it’s these statistics of what is “normal” that MIC manipulates. If over half the population is living quite well with blood pressure above the “norm” of 120/80, common sense would indicate the statistics should be revised. Since cancer cells are our own cells gone haywire, couldn’t we all be labeled by MIC as in pre-cancer condition? And if those babies were born a hefty 8 pounds plus or you have an extra 10 pounds, you’re surely pre-diabetic. (Following this logic, we’re all pre-deceased!)

Tests are costly and ineffective
This definition of health only serves the financial interests of MIC. The irony is that often the tests they do use–and then prescribe drugs to treat the phantom ailment–aren’t measuring anything significant. If half of those who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol, then what does managing cholesterol have to do with cardiovascular risk and why would you take a drug to reduce cholesterol? A new radiology test that captures internal views of every blood vessel in the body has found patients with lifelong very high cholesterol didn’t have a pinhead of plague in their vessels. (It’s dislodged plague that causes cardiovascular “events”.)

For the most part, the tests done by MDs don’t measure excesses or deficiencies until we’re in critical condition. They fail to keep us even close to optimal health. A friend who has occasional wakes-me-up pain in the kidney (and she’s had kidney stones so she knows PAIN) and scant blood in urine (she’s a nurse so observes things), went to the doctor for tests. His test indicated “everything’s normal”, and to quit complaining was his advice. She needs to seek nutritional and herbal support for her kidneys.

Another individual did just that. A complete physical and blood tests didn’t indicate causes for slightly swollen ankles or lower than normal energy. That was the MD’s assessment. “Everthing’s fine,” was the diagnosis. The TCM naturopath, in a 90-minute visit vs. 10-minute exam, through examining the six pulses and the tongue, saw that her heart was sluggish. With a herbal complex prescribed, within two days the ankles were no longer swollen and energy levels boosted so that an afternoon nap wasn’t a necessity.

Open system to all practitioners
So while the MDs and the medical-industrial complex manipulate the definition of health, and resulting costs have skyrocketed, their medical devices and lab tests also fail to detect non-optimal health conditions. To improve individuals’ and the nation’s health all the varied health practitioners must be brought into the health system. The education of our MDs has to be expanded beyond pharmaceuticals, and the population needs education in nutrition, herbs, and medical systems other than drugs.

The WMB mantra stands: You are (indeed) an Experiment of One with everything you take, and you are the only one that matters!

Salud!
Beverly A. Jensen, Ph.D.
President, www.WomensMedicineBowl.com

 
 
  Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact  
  WomensMedicineBowl.com is an independently owned company incorporated in the State of Nevada.
Copyright, Womens Medicine Bowl, Inc., 2003-2009