Re: Death By Medicine

I just happen to have written this deeper and more impartial review of the
matters raised in Mercola's piece. Read his site first, if you can stomach
it.

In terms of the management of more serious illnesses this piece is patently
rubbish, because of the trade-off that exists between benefit and risk .
However, at the "softer" end of medicine, where the public wants nurture for
innumerable minor and often self-limiting complaints, evidence-based
pharmacology and physical medicine does have a problem.

This is the arena that "alternative" practitioners such as the authors
mostly have in mind when they use the word "medicine". They never
acknowledge that the more serious illnesses of their clientele are
invariably under management elsewhere and have never been their direct
responsibility. Nor do they acknowledge that it is medicine's own
self-examination and quality control (and breast-beating?) that provides
them with the material for these distortions and exaggerations.

It is not that scientific medicine doesn't have a sound record of coming up
with effective treatments for almost any symptom, but they are typically not
safe enough to be used for myriads of minor symptoms, and the things on the
health want lists of essentially well persons enduring the normal stresses
of life. The ill-effects may not be frequent or serious, but when they occur
they may be out of proportion to the gravity of the conditions being
treated, and we are talking here about remedies that will be used wholesale
by an unsupervised population.

Examples of what I mean --- Valium and its derivatives were brilliantly
effective treatments for anxiety, an extremely common complaint from which
relief is sought, but where are they now? Nothing better existed before or
since. You would also not find a better temporary relief from most kinds
of fatigue or tiredness (the commonest complaint of all - affecting 40% of
us at some time or other) than the amphetamines, but who would want them to
be over-the-counter? There would also be few better appetite depressants.

The over-prescription and inappropriate usage of antibiotics and other
powerful pharmaceuticals by doctors is I believe in part due to a lack of
simple evidence-based "alternatives" for minor ailments, ones that also have
some street credibility. It may be in response to this that 30% or so of
Australian doctors are now using "alternatives" with some patients. One
example of probable misuse of drugs is the massive and prolonged use of
expensive antidepressants. There is now little else in the "evidence-based"
cupboard for psychological distress, now that cocaine, opiates, the
barbiturates, phenothiazines and other remedies that actually worked have
been, mostly justifiably, thrown one by one into the dustbin.

Meanwhile the public demonstrates that its wants are fairly easily satisfied
by spending billions upon billions upon junk medicines yearly in the US
alone. This should be read alongside studies showing an extreme prevalence
of benign symptomatology within the community, even in apparently healthy
young people (fatigue in 40%; see .

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band115/b115-4.html )

Is there a psychosocial/cultural, as much as a biomedical need for lots of
simple remedies for benign symptoms? Do they facilitate highly evolved ways
of coping with symptoms, such as placebo-related effects? Or do they largely
merely satisfy that urge to "do something" while most benign conditions get
better by themselves, with the treatment always getting the credit?

In either case, it is not overridingly important that they actually have any
intrinsic biomedical activity. If it is inevitable that any biologically
active remedy is going to have occasional major ill-effects, then it is
probably better that they don't. All they need is some credibility with
the patient, which mainly just means someone recommending them.

This has major implications for how we approach healthfraud in relation to
over-the-counter remedies and also treatments that are commonly widely
applied by practitioners for a range of minor symptoms, such as neck
manipulation. One requirement is that of near-absolute safety. With more
life-and-limb threatening conditions the equations are different.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Death By Medicine
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 11/27/2003 8:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

I just happen to have written this deeper and more impartial review of the
matters raised in Mercola's piece.

Yes, Peter we all know how impartial you are.

Quoted message said:

rubbish

Quoted message said:

distortions and exaggerations.

Quoted message said:

unsupervised population.

Quoted message said:

placebo-related effects?

Quoted message said:

conditions get
better by themselves, with the treatment always getting the credit?

Hmm. So it bothers you that something other than *organized medicine* is
getting credit.

Ho Hum.

Jan

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Death By Medicine
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 11/27/2003 8:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

<[email hidden].

au>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I just happen to have written this deeper and more impartial review of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

matters raised in Mercola's piece.

Yes, Peter we all know how impartial you are.

Quoted message said:

rubbish

Quoted message said:

distortions and exaggerations.

Quoted message said:

unsupervised population.

Quoted message said:

placebo-related effects?

Quoted message said:

conditions get
better by themselves, with the treatment always getting the credit?

Hmm. So it bothers you that something other than *organized medicine* is
getting credit.

What, no marks for pointing out the problems that evidence-based medicine
has in satisfying certain health care wants? Or did you not understand
or read any of it, as usual?

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

Ho Hum.

Jan

Probably off-topic, but who's paying for all these "unnecessary"
hospital admissions/surgeries? My impression was that doctors have to
jump through hoops currently with insurance companies to even get a
patient to be able to stay overnight nowadays. How can there be so many
"unnecessaries" under the stern & moneterial non-benevolent eyes of the
HMOs, et al?

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Probably off-topic, but who's paying for all these "unnecessary"
hospital admissions/surgeries? My impression was that doctors have to
jump through hoops currently with insurance companies to even get a
patient to be able to stay overnight nowadays. How can there be so many
"unnecessaries" under the stern & moneterial non-benevolent eyes of the
HMOs, et al?

In JanWorld, they are all part of EOM, don'tcha know?

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Death By Medicine
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 11/27/2003 8:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

<[email hidden].

au>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I just happen to have written this deeper and more impartial review of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

matters raised in Mercola's piece.

Yes, Peter we all know how impartial you are.

Quoted message said:

rubbish

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

distortions and exaggerations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

unsupervised population.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

placebo-related effects?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

conditions get
better by themselves, with the treatment always getting the credit?

Hmm. So it bothers you that something other than *organized medicine* is
getting credit.

What, no marks for pointing out the problems that evidence-based medicine
has in satisfying certain health care wants? Or did you not understand
or read any of it, as usual?

Peter Moran

She read your name, and instead of reading for comprehension, she
decided, a priori, to address you as a hostile opponent. Pity she has
so little thrist for acquiring knowledge.

Mark, MD

P.S. Did you know that the Russian language has a specific word that
means "the love of learning new things"? It's pronounced
"loobo-znatchel-nost". (I include this tidbit for the benefit of
those who think beyind the rhetoric of the local county chapter of the
"White Knights".)

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Death By Medicine
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 11/27/2003 8:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

I just happen to have written this deeper and more impartial review of the
matters raised in Mercola's piece.

Yes, Peter we all know how impartial you are.

Quoted message said:

rubbish

Quoted message said:

distortions and exaggerations.

Quoted message said:

unsupervised population.

Quoted message said:

placebo-related effects?

Quoted message said:

conditions get
better by themselves, with the treatment always getting the credit?

Hmm. So it bothers you that something other than *organized medicine* is
getting credit.

Ho Hum.

Jan

That is insane.

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
Herausforderung an die Universität Leipzig

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ho12.htm

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Insult and lie noted.

Jan

$ KaChing $1