Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => Complementary Medicine => Topic started by: Andrew K Fletcher on 24/04/2005 09:19:50
-
http://www.mercola.com/ (Source)
Have heard many negative reports on complementary medicine, and thought this might put things in prospective
Andrew K Fletcher
Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the USA, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year
This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.
This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
12,000 -- unnecessary surgery 8
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals 9
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals 10
80,000 -- infections in hospitals 10
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs 2
These total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.
Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these numbers:
First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.1
If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).
Another analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings,with:
116 million extra physician visits
77 million extra prescriptions
17 million emergency department visits
8 million hospitalizations
3 million long-term admissions
199,000 additional deaths
$77 billion in extra costs
The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.
However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.
An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.2
This might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison,3,4 the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US on several indicators was:
13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall 14
11th for postneonatal mortality
13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males
10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males
7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males
3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
10th for age-adjusted mortality
The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.
There is a perception that the American public "behaves badly" by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating violence." However the data does not support this assertion.
The proportion of females who smoke ranges from 14% in Japan to 41% in Denmark; in the United States, it is 24% (fifth best). For males, the range is from 26% in Sweden to 61% in Japan; it is 28% in the United States (third best).
The US ranks fifth best for alcoholic beverage consumption.
The US has relatively low consumption of animal fats (fifth lowest in men aged 55-64 years in 20 industrialized countries) and the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among men aged 50 to 70 years among 13 industrialized countries.
These estimates of death due to error are lower than those in a recent Institutes of Medicine report, and if the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.
Even at the lower estimate of 225,000 deaths per year, this constitutes the third leading cause of death in the US, following heart disease and cancer.
Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing factor to the US's low ranking.
Among 29 countries, the United States is second only to Japan in the availability of magnetic resonance imaging units and computed tomography scanners per million population. 17
Japan, however, ranks highest on health, whereas the US ranks among the lowest.
It is possible that the high use of technology in Japan is limited to diagnostic technology not matched by high rates of treatment, whereas in the US, high use of diagnostic technology may be linked to more treatment.
Supporting this possibility are data showing that the number of employees per bed (full-time equivalents) in the United States is highest among the countries ranked, whereas they are very low in Japan, far lower than can be accounted for by the common practice of having family members rather than hospital staff provide the amenities of hospital care.
Journal American Medical Association 2000 Jul 26;284(4):483-5
Death is natures way of telling us to slow down.
-
Isn't a lot of the problem with the US that although on average it is an extreemly rich country there is still a huge amount of poverty at the bottom of the pile, and in a country where decent healthcare costs money this affects your access to medcine as well as your exposure to bad diet, atmosphere, stress etc.
I always mistrust data about the number of deaths, as if you accidently hasten someone's death by a few hours, surely that is a very different thing to killing someone who is 18 and can expect to live another 60 years. I would be interested in seeing how the numbers stack up on grounds of years lost.
Saying that I did hear that, on balance, in the Uk, medical interventions only had a net positive effect in 1920..
-
Hypocrites and co came to the conclusion that it was best to do nothing and let the body heal a long time ago, hence the Hippocratic oath sworn by medical practitioners all over the world.
Pity they cant adhere to an oath, and find themselves handing out lethal combinations of highly toxic drugs, which remain to be proven as effective treatments, or removed from the shelves when statistics reveal their true nature and side effects.
More money is earned by the Drug Cartel’s than from oil!
Hence their recent attacks on alternative food supplements, in a bid to bring them under the control of the drug administration industry.
I wonder how many people in the UK know that many of the vitamin and herbal supplements, which offer relatively few risks and many benefits to mankind, will soon be either removed from the shelves for good, or have their potency reduced to near useless levels, in the guise of preventing harm.
More information and an up to date source of “on the nail” medical reports can be found at Chris Gupta’s Home page. http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/
BRUSSELS SPROUTS MORE CONTROLS
http://www.healthfreedommovement.com/
Death is natures way of telling us to slow down.
-
Thanks Katharina, this is very old but it seems to be updated...and out
again as the FDA is under the gun...
Chris Gupta
Dear Chris,
please, post wherever you like.
Best,
Katharina
=================================copy:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/ppa/
All drugs containing PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE are being recalled. You may want
to try calling the 800 number listed on most drug boxes and inquire about
a REFUND. Please read this CAREFULLY. Also, please pass this on to
everyone you know.
STOP TAKING anything containing this ingredient. It has been linked to
increased hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in brain) among women ages 18-49 in
the three days after starting use of medication. Problems were not found
in men, but the FDA recommended that everyone (even children) seek
alternative medicine.
The following medications contain Phenylpropanolamine:
Acutrim Diet Gum Appetite Suppressant
Acutrim Plus Dietary Supplements
Acutrim Maximum Strength Appetite Control
Alka-Seltzer Plus Children's Cold Medicine Effervescent
Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold medicine (cherry or orange)
Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold Medicine Original
Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold & Cough Medicine Effervescent
Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold & Flu Medicine
Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold & Sinus Effervescent
Alka Seltzer Plus Night-Time Cold Medicine
BC Allergy Sinus Cold Powder
BC Sinus Cold Powder
Comtrex Flu Therapy & Fever Relief
Day & Night Contac 12-Hour Cold Capsules
Contac 12 Hour Caplets
Coricidin D Cold, Flu & Sinus
Dexatrim Caffeine Free
Dexatrim Extended Duration
Dexatrim Gelcaps
Dexatrim Vitamin C/Caffeine Free
Dimetapp Cold & Allergy Chewable Tablets
Dimetapp Cold & Cough Liqui-Gels
Dimetapp DM Cold & Cough Elixir
Dimetapp Elixir
Dimetapp 4 Hour Liquid Gels
Dimetapp 4 Hour Tablets
Dimetapp 12 Hour Extentabs Tablets
Naldec on DX Pediatric Drops
Permathene Mega-16
Robitussin CF
Tavist-D 12 Hour Relief of Sinus & Nasal
Congestion
Triaminic DM Cough Rel! ief
Triaminic Expectorant Chest & Head
Triaminic Syrup Cold & Allergy
Triaminic Triaminicol Cold & Cough .....
I just found out and called the 800# on the container for Triaminic and
they informed me that they are voluntarily recalling the following
medicines because of a certain ingredient that is causing strokes and
seizures in children:
Orange 3D Cold & Allergy Cherry (Pink)
3D Cold & Cough Berry
3D Cough Relief Yellow 3D Expectorant
They are asking you to call them at 800-548-3708 with the lot number on
the box so they can send you postage for you to send it back to them, and
they will also issue you a refund. If you know of anyone else with small
children, PLEASE PASS THIS ON. THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF!
DO PASS ALONG TO ALL ON YOUR MAILING LIST so people are informed. They can
then pass it along to their families.
To confirm these findings please take time to check the following:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/ppa/
PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO YOUR CHILDREN IN CASE THEY GIVE IT TO THEIR
CHILDREN OR TO FRIENDS WHO HAVE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.
Death is natures way of telling us to slow down.
-
Just as one's finger can heal itself, so can the rest of the body correct its maladies, given the necessary catalysts, enzymes, antioxidants, and building blocks for which the body was designed. Allowing the body to heal itself, in fact, is the basis of medicine according to the Father of Modern Day Medicine, Hippocrates, whose two key teachings seem to be ignored in our modern times of “above all, do no harm” and “let food be your medicine and medicine be your food.”
Our Western diet miserably misses the mark and would be unimaginable by Hippocrates! And in spite of his cautioning, “Above all, do no harm,” we poison ourselves with the often-horrendous side effects of man-made medicines that are promoted shamelessly on the airways by the pharmaceutical companies hoping that they can make the advertising enticement so powerful that people will in essence self-prescribe by going doctor shopping until they get what was promoted to them over the airways.
Hippocrates never envisioned that one medication would have to be prescribed to treat the side effects of another medication. And, who knows what the longterm effects or adverse interactions are of these poisons that have one particular value regarding a symptom and nine negative effects or more. How long will we continue like this? I learned through interaction with other participants in my Bible Study Fellowship program (BSF) (www.bsfinternational.org) that pharmakia translated from Greek means sorcery.
I am no doctor and cannot prescribe, diagnose, treat or cure anything, but my WALLET HAS EXPLODED SINCE I BEGAN SPAMMING WEBSITES WITH DETAILS ABOUT RUBBISH SUPPLEMENTS SQUEEZED OUT OF A FEW SPRIGS OF SEAWEED. MONEY FOR OLD ROPE, OR SHOULD THAT BE OLD HEMP ?
More information on this new tremendous immune boosting product is available on other threads, Noni Juice? and Usefulness of Glyconutrients. THAT'S RIGHT, TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE FORUM ADMIN HAVE DONE TO MY SPAMMY POSTS WHICH WERE JAM-PACKED WITH SELF-INDULGENT REFERENCES TO MY OWN WEBSITE, YOU'LL HAVE A BALL.
BY THE WAY, I LOVE SPAM, PLEASE DO SPAM ME AND SEND LOTS OF EMAIL JUNK TO MY INBOX, BUT DO PLEASE FEIGN INTEREST IN ME FIRST.
HERE'S MY EMAIL ADDRESS :
tfbail@sbcglobal.net
-
Yes because the point of view of someone from 2500 years ago is a great way to reflect on modern medicine. Hippocrates also believed in using hot irons to blister up someone’s leg to balance the black bile with yellow... I think I’ll have some Paracetamol thanks. In the UK GP's hardly ever give out drugs, all I have ever been prescribed is broad-spectrum antibiotics and Ibuprofen... with the advice take it easy for a bit. In America where everything is far more corporate and consumer directed I can imagine its far worse... but is it truly that bad? Another thing to remember is that no one is being forced to get medical attention or take a certain treatment, you always have a choice!
Blind statistics like that aren't helpful at all. Say I had terminal brain cancer. I get offered a very experimental operation that’s never been done before; the doctors clearly tell me I’m likely to die from the operation. Do I take the operation? YES! I'm going to die anyway this is a small chance at surviving. If I do die from the operation I imagine that, that would give some insight into how the process can be improved, or if it should be used at all. In addition I would have been saved from a fairly horrible demise trapped inside a rotting, malfunctioning brain where I wouldn’t even know who I was at the end. So yes doctors would have killed me in their intervention, but hey no worries I’m dead and I would have been otherwise. Sure there is the other perspective of malpractice where someone is pumped full of drugs they are allergic to, and this should have been noticed from the patients history, doctors are only human; and as you have mentioned medicine is by no means a mature science with all the answers.
12,000 -- unnecessary surgery 8
Does this include plastic surgery? Stomach stapling? What is an unnecessary surgery? Most surgeries performed on patient’s lungs are probably unnecessary if they didn’t smoke 20+ a day!
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals 9
Wow this is low! I would imagine with how busy hospitals are and how many people deal with one patient far more errors would arise. Is this across the whole of America? Or even better is this someone got the wrong placebo?
Notice that I’m twisting these statistics against your argument; I’m not saying that this is what I think it’s just a poignant way to illustrate how pointless they are. Statistics are a dangerous thing; they are nearly always used by the media in this way to create hype. In the UK statistics on crime are a great example, arrest rates are going up, so SURELY! Crime is going up?? LOL no the police are just at the point of no tolerance that they are arresting people left right and centre to try and get public opinion up. Petty crime is going down!!! However major crimes like murders etc. are not being attended properly because the police services are stretched so thin trying to boost public opinion thanks to the media and the public “reading” statistics.
wOw the world spins?
-
quote:
This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
I couldn't get through to read the actual JAMA Journal, but this is still quotation of statistics promoting one side of an argument the source is regardless. Also in future it would be of great help if you just linked to websites that you are quoting from or used
quote:
the quote tags
as it’s not clear where your post starts and finishes. As all you have said so far is:
quote:
http://www.mercola.com/ (Source)
Have heard many negative reports on complementary medicine, and thought this might put things in prospective (perspective?)
And everything else is just copy and pasted; what a well structured argument?
quote:
More money is earned by the Drug Cartel’s than from oil!
This is the kind of place I really want to see some detailed statistics! Considering America goes to war over oil, because their local stocks are fairly low and with the recent accident in Texas… oil prices must surely be rocketing? Or are you talking about all pharmaceutical companies across the globe versus oil? Some countries aren’t guzzling that much oil compared to the amount of money they make from research. India is a good example of this where lots of R&D is planted in India from outside, but India is hardly a largely developed country (yet, give it a couple of years). So in this case your statement is correct. In most other cases as with the USA I find that hard to believe.
wOw the world spins?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ultima
This is the kind of place I really want to see some detailed statistics!
http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/medicare/Articles/a2003-06-23-drugprofitsvsresearch.html/page=2
and
http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/2005/05/drug_makers_rea.html
The living are the dead on holiday. -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
-
Nice one Chimera :)
Ultima, just for you.
If you insist on figures about drug company revenues, well at least the ones that are transparent, here they are.
Drug profits
http://www.eriposte.com/health/other/prescriptiondrugs_US.htm#II
http://www.eriposte.com/health/other/prescriptiondrugs_US.htm
http://www.citizen.org/documents/fortune500_2002erport.PDF
Oil profits
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1003290.stm
For an understanding of the term transparency, see:
http://www.taxjustice.net/all/pdf/Fiscal_paradise.pdf
the last section involving a widget example reveals how the drug companies may manipulate their profit margins even further by avoiding taxes.
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew K Fletcher
Nice one Chimera :)
We surf to protract. [^]
-
I think the culture we live in influences our thinking very much, and we don't even realize it. We accept what we have been indoctrinated with, without question and even though it is contrary to what we can see to be true. For instance, most people have a great deal of faith in the medical profession, even though accurate and efficient diagnosis is often elusive. Getting a diagnosis is no guarantee that treatment will be successful, and really, the patient has to be the sole judge of what constitutes success.
The doctor and all those involved in testing and treatment get paid very well - irrespective of results. Why isn't the medical profession questioned more? This is something I often wonder about people who disregard spiritual healing or alternative healing practices, and attack those who practice these things as though they are fraudulent. Expectations of the medical profession are actually very low, and when something happens like, "the operation was a success, but the patient died", people just shrug it off and pay the bill. A spiritual healer seems to be held to a much higher standard, and unlike doctors, have a whole lot to prove. I think there's something wrong with this.
I don't entirely reject medical care and think it does have its place. In fact, when I had access to medical care, I got excellent care on occasion. I have also had and observed horrible medical practice, and I and others have survived in spite of it. Another thing is that the medical profession has changed drastically, from a noble profession that acknowledged a higher spiritual power, to an industry saturated with marketing where the higher power is carnal.
~Au Contrarienne~
-
Quackpot Watch
"THE LAST DAYS OF THE QUACKBUSTERS"...
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
I've been following the activities of the"Quackbusters" for about five years, ever since the name Stephen Barrett(quackwatch.com) came up, as a player, against a client of mine in California. I asked the question "why would this group be using a doctor from Pennsylvania, as their witness, when there are 300,000 health professionals in this State?"
Thus began my education. Now I'm going to educate YOU...
The "quackbuster" operation is a conspiracy. It is a propaganda enterprise, one part crackpot, two parts evil. It's sole purpose is to discredit, and suppress, in an "anything goes" attack mode, what is wrongfully named "Alternative Medicine." It has declared war on reality. The conspirators are acting in the interests of, and are being paid, directly and indirectly, by the "conventional" medical-industrial complex.
Millions of health freedom fighters, and members of the public, worldwide, know what I know. Public outrage and reaction is growing. After 25 years of unopposed success, the "Quackbusters"are now in real trouble... "The end" for them, has begun. They, themselves are being hunted.
The "Quackbuster Conspiracy" is in a desperate place now. They know they've lost the war, and are going to pay a terrible price for their actions. The fear is in their eyes...
CRACKPOTS?
Yes. When the self-named "Quackbusters" stumbled around to find a derisive name to call their victims, they picked the word "Quack," without ever bothering to discover it's origins. Its original meaning, from Europe, comes from the term "quacksalver" which was used to describe Dentists who were dumb enough to use mercury (a poison) as fillings for teeth. Look at propagandist, and "Quackbuster" king-pin, Stephen Barrett's website (quackwatch.com), and you'll find that HE IS IN FAVOR of mercury (amalgam) tooth fillings.
Barrett, his cronies, and minions, are not known to do intelligent research.
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/
http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_...-6-05_aetna.htm
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
OSLO (Reuters) - A Norwegian cancer expert made up fictitious patients for an article about treatment of oral cancer published in a leading medical journal, the hospital said on Sunday.
"The material was fabricated," said Trine Lind, spokeswoman of the
Norwegian Radium Hospital where Jon Sudbo has worked as a doctor and a researcher. "We are shocked. This is the worst thing that could happen in a research institution like ours."
Sudbo, 44, invented patients and case histories for a study of oral cancer that was published in the British medical journal the Lancet in October 2005, she said.
The Norwegian daily Dagbladet said that 250 of his sample of 908 people in the study all shared the same birthday.
Lind said Sudbo, who has not commented publicly on the hospital's charges and could not be contacted on Sunday, had admitted falsifying the data for the article.
The hospital has set up a commission to investigate why Sudbo falsified data and how his material passed a review by other experts.
The panel would also examine previous articles by Sudbo, including two in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The Radium Hospital had halted Sudbo's research at the department of Medical Oncology and Radiotherapy and was discussing whether he could continue treating patients.
The report in the Lancet was entitled "non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer."
It concluded that long-term use of the drugs could help reduce chances of oral cancer, including in smokers, but could also bring higher risks of death from heart disease.
Source: REUTERS
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Cancer data faked, researcher admits
Jan. 14, 2006. 09:31 PM
ASSOCIATED PRESS
STOCKHOLM, Sweden — A Norwegian cancer researcher has admitted fabricating data published in a renowned international medical journal, officials in Norway said today.
The researcher at Norway's Comprehensive Cancer Centre, who was not identified, used faked patient data in an article on oral cancer published in the October 2005 issue of the Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal, said Stein Vaaler, strategy director for the centre.
The article claimed that a certain kind of drug decreased the risk of getting oral cancer and referred to results seen in patients in two national databases, Vaaler said in an interview.
A colleague raised questions about the article when it was published, and when the researcher was confronted this week about the data, he acknowledged the fabrication, Vaaler said.
"All of it was fabricated," Vaaler said. "It was not manipulation of real data — it was just complete fabrication."
The Washington-based journal Science announced Thursday that it was unconditionally retracting two papers by South Korean stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk, who publicly apologized for faking data that purported to show the creation of stem cells from the world's first cloned human embryos.
Vaaler said the centre has informed the Lancet about the fabrication, and an external review committee will examine the researcher's methods and his previous publications.
A decision about whether the researcher should be fired will be made after the review committee issues its report, Vaaler said.
"This is a very serious situation for the hospital," the centre's director, Aage Danielsson, said in a letter to colleagues that was posted on the website of the Norwegian broadcaster TV2.
There was no immediate reaction from the Lancet.
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
I have seen my GP (family physician for our american cousins) once in the last 5 years and that was because I had horrendous D&V which I caught on a clinical rotation and I had it for 7 days so was starting to worry and needed fluid replacement. We live in a nation of hypocondriacs who want to see the doctor for even the slightest sniffle. One of the docs who I am currently appointing as medical director for my company said "medicine is about patting people on the back and saying there there!" I fully agree with this and observed this during my hospital placements.
Most people do not require the services of a doctor and simply need reassurance. The only time I would see my GP is if I needed a referall or an absolutely essential prescription or an immunisation. I get ill but I do not need a doctor. I need a couple of days rest, plenty of paracetamol (although sometimes I avoid it because a high temp is a good thing) and lots of sleep.
3 days later, back to work.
It's that thing again, you are not "really" sick unless you have a letter from the GP saying you are sick. One employer said to me "if you're not sick enough to go to the doctor then you can't be sick!!!!" What a load of crap!
Now I am an employer, if my staff are ill I take their word for it but call them to make sure they are ok and to see if they need anything. If they are faking then there is a reason for it and maybe it is my fault as their boss that they don't want to come to work.
How many of you can honestly say that you really need to go to the doctor when you are ill? I went once about 5 years ago because I had extremely bad chest pains and couldn't breathe properly. I knew it was viral but the inability to breathe worried me. The doc simply said "take paracetamol, there is nothing I can do for you!" I thought "great! I could have stayed in bed!"
So now I will self medicate unless of course I need a prescription in which case I usually tell my GP what I think is wrong and He usually agrees (although I have been wrong!) It is my opinion that GPs don't usually know what is wrong with someone they just follow the general trend (sorry Chris.)
Lots of GPs give out SSRIs as if they are smarties but mine is not like that, I have a good GP who is prompt, to the point and will tell you how it is.
Half the drugs I give as an ambulance practitioner are not really required. Adrenaline during CPR for example, it has been suggested that this doesn't actually do anything. Don't get me started on the other useless crap I have in my bag!
Placebos? Doing it because it has always been done this way? Maybe I don't know but I think half the BNF needs to be binned.
Live long and Love life
Kevin Fisher
-
Surely it's right that a goodly proportion of general practice should be reassurance? If someone has a cold, or a bit of a tummy upset, they need to drink plenty of fluids and wait for it to go away. That much is obvious and your boss who thought you weren't ill unless you needed to see a doctor clearly needed to get a grip.
On the other hand the overwhelming majority has never been on a clinical rotation, with or without contracting something nasty, and so is not in such a strong position as you clearly are to decide whether they are ill enough to warrant medical attention.
My feeling would be that it's better for someone with "flu-like symptoms" to get checked out if they're worried than to wait for the meningitis/TSS/Weil's disease to get a grip and then require attention from you and your ambulance-staffing (not sure what the umbrella term would be) colleagues.
One big issue here is the lack of understanding by the general public of what sorts of illnesses are and aren't amenable to treatment by antibiotics. That's a problem with the education system... if kids were taught at 14 the difference between a bacterium and a virus, and that the latter can't be got by beta lactones (or whatever) then doctors would be in a stronger position to tell people that there is no point in prescribing them anything other than painkillers, and indeed the sniffly would be less inclined to beat a path to the surgery door.
I'm sure some drugs are overused/used out of group habit, but there's no point in conflating that with the need of Joe and Josephine public to be patted on the head and told that no it really is only flu and they'd better go back to bed.
-
Rosy
I have been in the situation where antibiotics have been prescribed for viral infections, when the doctor or even the vet has qualified it is a viral infection.
They were surprised when I challenged them about their choice of medication for a viral infection.
They then covered their ass by stating the antibiotics are to combat any possible bacterial infection that follows.
Even dentists are prescribing the "just in case" antibiotics, when chewing on a small piece of lime is far more effective for a mouth infection or preventing a mouth infection.
Dr Kev. I bow to the honesty and integrity you have shown in your post. I agree that many of the drugs in use are useless, and may even be killing more people that they save. This was the reason for posting the fraudulent research from Oslo, which shows clearly why we should not believe everything we read on the labels.
Rosy, if kids were told the truth about what the side effects of these drugs are at school, the doctors would have to be looking at alternative treatments in order to lure people into their surgeries.
My old G.P's Dr Finch and Doctor Rugeasy from way back were brilliant. They seemed to know the whole family history and in particular fully understood each of their patients when they walked through the door. Everyone had lots of confidence and they were not afraid to recommend honey and lemons or a drop of whiskey or brandy in warm milk. They had all the time in the world to listen to you and Doctor Rugeasy unbeknown to everyone was dying at the time with a brain tumor and undoubtedly suffering a lot more them many of the people in his care.
Somewhere down the road, this level of care has lost its way and the reliance on the multibillion dollar drug companies to put patient care before profit is nothing less than a joke of the very worst taste. Something needs to be done and the best way for this to happen is for people to wise up to the possibility of locating a non-toxic alternative to the drugs that are known to have harmful effects.
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Suggest you read Ivan Illich's iatrogenesis
peace
Zerkzies [:o)]
-
http://www.mercola.com/ (Source)
Have heard many negative reports on complementary medicine, and thought this might put things in prospective
Andrew K Fletcher
Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the USA, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year
This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.
This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
12,000 -- unnecessary surgery 8
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals 9
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals 10
80,000 -- infections in hospitals 10
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs 2
These total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.
But how many were killed by terrorists?
-
But how many were killed by terrorists?
Very, very few.
-
http://www.mercola.com/ (Source)
Have heard many negative reports on complementary medicine, and thought this might put things in prospective
Andrew K Fletcher
Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the USA, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year
This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.
This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
12,000 -- unnecessary surgery 8
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals 9
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals 10
80,000 -- infections in hospitals 10
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs 2
These total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.
Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these numbers:
First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.1
If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).
Another analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings,with:
116 million extra physician visits
77 million extra prescriptions
17 million emergency department visits
8 million hospitalizations
3 million long-term admissions
199,000 additional deaths
$77 billion in extra costs
The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.
Could you pray tell us why these figures are never on television or on the front page?
-
I always get suspicious when statistics like this are thrown around without context.
It's easy to say "look at all these people that doctors kill!", but what you really need to ask is "how many of them would have died anyway?" Doctors treat sick people, and sick people tend to die. The idea behind seeing a doctor is not to guarantee good health and survival, but to improve your odds of having those things.
Of course, not all (or even most - i don't know the numbers) of the people who die from medical mistakes would have otherwise been done in by their illnesses. But that's hardly an indictment against the medical profession as a whole. Any time you elect to have surgery or take drugs, you're taking a risk, and it probably isn't possible to eliminate mistakes entirely. You shouldn't recoil in horror when you see large numbers of medicical treatment-related deaths; that's to be expected regardless of the quality of the medical profession, given the size of the population of a country such as the United States. It isn't sensible to say "these numbers are too high, they need to be lower!" without first establishing what, exactly, an acceptably low number of medical fatalities would be. This is necessary because the number will never be zero.
-
Andrew,
do you have any evidence for the assertion that "chewing on a small piece of lime is far more effective for a mouth infection or preventing a mouth infection." or is it just a biassed opinion?
-
I would think that there is some truth in the numbers. Just look at The late Michale Jackson. It is confirmed that he was taking Demerol.
According to http://www.drugs.com/demerol.html (http://www.drugs.com/demerol.html)
"Demerol is in a group of drugs called narcotic pain relievers. It is similar to morphine."
This was given to MJ on a regular basis.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/26/michael-jackson-drugs-doctor-missing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/26/michael-jackson-drugs-doctor-missing)
Now, we don't know why he was prescribed this drug, but I bet once the investigations are over, it would say he didn't need it.
Simon
-
"I would think that there is some truth in the numbers. Just look at The late Michale Jackson. It is confirmed that he was taking Demerol. "
That may indicate that the leading cause of death in Mr Jackson was his doctor (or it may not) .
It says absolutely nothing about everybody else.
-
I always get suspicious when statistics like this are thrown around without context.
It's easy to say "look at all these people that doctors kill!", but what you really need to ask is "how many of them would have died anyway?" Doctors treat sick people, and sick people tend to die. The idea behind seeing a doctor is not to guarantee good health and survival, but to improve your odds of having those things.
Of course, not all (or even most - i don't know the numbers) of the people who die from medical mistakes would have otherwise been done in by their illnesses. But that's hardly an indictment against the medical profession as a whole. Any time you elect to have surgery or take drugs, you're taking a risk, and it probably isn't possible to eliminate mistakes entirely. You shouldn't recoil in horror when you see large numbers of medicical treatment-related deaths; that's to be expected regardless of the quality of the medical profession, given the size of the population of a country such as the United States. It isn't sensible to say "these numbers are too high, they need to be lower!" without first establishing what, exactly, an acceptably low number of medical fatalities would be. This is necessary because the number will never be zero.
Could you pray tell us why these figures are never on television or on the front page?
-
As I told my doctor the other day when I went for my annual anal "digitizing",
"I was perfectly well until I came in 'ere."