Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies
Tim Campbell
Pharmaceutical Companies
Richard Smith
Richard Smith is Chief Executive of UnitedHealth Europe, London, United
Kingdom. E-mail: richard...@yahoo.co.uk
Competing Interests: RS was an editor for the BMJ for 25 years. For the
last 13 of those years, he was the editor and chief executive of the
BMJ Publishing Group, responsible for the profits of not only the BMJ
but of the whole group, which published some 25 other journals. He
stepped down in July 2004. He is now a member of the board of the
Public Library of Science, a position for which he is not paid.
Published: May 17, 2005
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
Copyright: © 2005 Richard Smith. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Citation: Smith R (2005) Medical Journals Are an Extension of the
Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies. PLoS Med 2(5): e138
"Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for
the pharmaceutical industry", wrote Richard Horton, editor of the
Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry
for becoming "primarily a marketing machine" and co-opting "every
institution that might stand in its way" [2]. Medical journals were
conspicuously absent from her list of co-opted institutions, but she
and Horton are not the only editors who have become increasingly queasy
about the power and influence of the industry. Jerry Kassirer, another
former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the
industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians [3], and
the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become
"part of the cycle of dependency...between journals and the
pharmaceutical industry" [4]. Something is clearly up.
The Problem: Less to Do with Advertising, More to Do with Sponsored
Trials
The most conspicuous example of medical journals' dependence on the
pharmaceutical industry is the substantial income from advertising, but
this is, I suggest, the least corrupting form of dependence. The
advertisements may often be misleading [5,6] and the profits worth
millions, but the advertisements are there for all to see and
criticise. Doctors may not be as uninfluenced by the advertisements as
they would like to believe, but in every sphere, the public is used to
discounting the claims of advertisers.
The much bigger problem lies with the original studies, particularly
the clinical trials, published by journals. Far from discounting these,
readers see randomised controlled trials as one of the highest forms of
evidence. A large trial published in a major journal has the journal's
stamp of approval (unlike the advertising), will be distributed around
the world, and may well receive global media coverage, particularly if
promoted simultaneously by press releases from both the journal and the
expensive public-relations firm hired by the pharmaceutical company
that sponsored the trial. For a drug company, a favourable trial is
worth thousands of pages of advertising, which is why a company will
sometimes spend upwards of a million dollars on reprints of the trial
for worldwide distribution. The doctors receiving the reprints may not
read them, but they will be impressed by the name of the journal from
which they come. The quality of the journal will bless the quality of
the drug.
Fortunately from the point of view of the companies funding these
trials-but unfortunately for the credibility of the journals who
publish them-these trials rarely produce results that are
unfavourable to the companies' products [7,8]. Paula Rochon and others
examined in 1994 all the trials funded by manufacturers of nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs for arthritis that they could find [7]. They
found 56 trials, and not one of the published trials presented results
that were unfavourable to the company that sponsored the trial. Every
trial showed the company's drug to be as good as or better than the
comparison treatment.
By 2003 it was possible to do a systematic review of 30 studies
comparing the outcomes of studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry
with those of studies funded from other sources [8]. Some 16 of the
studies looked at clinical trials or meta-analyses, and 13 had outcomes
favourable to the sponsoring companies. Overall, studies funded by a
company were four times more likely to have results favourable to the
company than studies funded from other sources. In the case of the five
studies that looked at economic evaluations, the results were
favourable to the sponsoring company in every case.
The evidence is strong that companies are getting the results they
want, and this is especially worrisome because between two-thirds and
three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals-Annals
of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of
Medicine-are funded by the industry [9]. For the BMJ, it's only
one-third-partly, perhaps, because the journal has less influence
than the others in North America, which is responsible for half of all
the revenue of drug companies, and partly because the journal publishes
more cluster-randomised trials (which are usually not drug trials) [9].
Why Do Pharmaceutical Companies Get the Results They Want?
Why are pharmaceutical companies getting the results they want? Why are
the peer-review systems of journals not noticing what seem to be biased
results? The systematic review of 2003 looked at the technical quality
of the studies funded by the industry and found that it was as
good-and often better-than that of studies funded by others [8].
This is not surprising as the companies have huge resources and are
very familiar with conducting trials to the highest standards.
The companies seem to get the results they want not by fiddling the
results, which would be far too crude and possibly detectable by peer
review, but rather by asking the "right" questions-and there are
many ways to do this [10]. Some of the methods for achieving favourable
results are listed in the Sidebar, but there are many ways to hugely
increase the chance of producing favourable results, and there are many
hired guns who will think up new ways and stay one jump ahead of peer
reviewers.
Then, various publishing strategies are available to ensure maximum
exposure of positive results. Companies have resorted to trying to
suppress negative studies [11,12], but this is a crude strategy-and
one that should rarely be necessary if the company is asking the
"right" questions. A much better strategy is to publish positive
results more than once, often in supplements to journals, which are
highly profitable to the publishers and shown to be of dubious quality
[13,14]. Companies will usually conduct multicentre trials, and there
is huge scope for publishing different results from different centres
at different times in different journals. It's also possible to combine
the results from different centres in multiple combinations.
These strategies have been exposed in the cases of risperidone [15] and
odansetron [16], but it's a huge amount of work to discover how many
trials are truly independent and how many are simply the same results
being published more than once. And usually it's impossible to tell
from the published studies: it's necessary to go back to the authors
and get data on individual patients.
Peer Review Doesn't Solve the Problem
Journal editors are becoming increasingly aware of how they are being
manipulated and are fighting back [17,18], but I must confess that it
took me almost a quarter of a century editing for the BMJ to wake up to
what was happening. Editors work by considering the studies submitted
to them. They ask the authors to send them any related studies, but
editors have no other mechanism to know what other unpublished studies
exist. It's hard even to know about related studies that are published,
and it may be impossible to tell that studies are describing results
from some of the same patients. Editors may thus be peer reviewing one
piece of a gigantic and clever marketing jigsaw-and the piece they
have is likely to be of high technical quality. It will probably pass
peer review, a process that research has anyway shown to be an
ineffective lottery prone to bias and abuse [19].
Furthermore, the editors are likely to favour randomised trials. Many
journals publish few such trials and would like to publish more: they
are, as I've said, a superior form of evidence. The trials are also
likely to be clinically interesting. Other reasons for publishing are
less worthy. Publishers know that pharmaceutical companies will often
purchase thousands of dollars' worth of reprints, and the profit margin
on reprints is likely to be 70%. Editors, too, know that publishing
such studies is highly profitable, and editors are increasingly
responsible for the budgets of their journals and for producing a
profit for the owners. Many owners-including academic
societies-depend on profits from their journals. An editor may thus
face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest: publish a trial that
will bring US$100 000 of profit or meet the end-of-year budget by
firing an editor.
Journals Should Critique Trials, Not Publish Them
How might we prevent journals from being an extension of the marketing
arm of pharmaceutical companies in publishing trials that favour their
products? Editors can review protocols, insist on trials being
registered, demand that the role of sponsors be made transparent, and
decline to publish trials unless researchers control the decision to
publish [17,18]. I doubt, however, that these steps will make much
difference. Something more fundamental is needed.
Firstly, we need more public funding of trials, particularly of large
head-to-head trials of all the treatments available for treating a
condition. Secondly, journals should perhaps stop publishing trials.
Instead, the protocols and results should be made available on
regulated Web sites. Only such a radical step, I think, will stop
journals from being beholden to companies. Instead of publishing
trials, journals could concentrate on critically describing them.
Acknowledgments
This article is based on a talk that Richard Smith gave at the Medical
Society of London in October 2004 when receiving the HealthWatch Award
for 2004. The speech is reported in the January 2005 HealthWatch
newsletter [20]. The article overlaps to a small extent with an article
published in the BMJ [21].
Examples of Methods for Pharmaceutical Companies to Get the Results
They Want from Clinical Trials
Conduct a trial of your drug against a treatment known to be inferior.
Trial your drugs against too low a dose of a competitor drug.
Conduct a trial of your drug against too high a dose of a competitor
drug (making your drug seem less toxic).
Conduct trials that are too small to show differences from competitor
drugs.
Use multiple endpoints in the trial and select for publication those
that give favourable results.
Do multicentre trials and select for publication results from centres
that are favourable.
Conduct subgroup analyses and select for publication those that are
favourable.
Present results that are most likely to impress-for example,
reduction in relative rather than absolute risk.
References
Horton R (2004) The dawn of McScience. New York Rev Books 51(4): 7-9.
Find this article online
Angell M (2005) The truth about drug companies: How they deceive us and
what to do about it. New York: Random House. 336 p.
Kassirer JP (2004) On the take: How medicine's complicity with big
business can endanger your health. New York: Oxford University Press.
251 p.
Barbour V, Butcher J, Cohen B, Yamey G (2004) Prescription for a
healthy journal. PLoS Med 1: e22 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0010022.
Find this article online
Wilkes MS, Doblin BH, Shapiro MF (1992) Pharmaceutical advertisements
in leading medical journals: Experts' assessments. Ann Intern Med 116:
912-919. Find this article online
Villanueva P, Peiro S, Librero J, Pereiro I (2003) Accuracy of
pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals. Lancet 361: 27-32.
Find this article online
Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, Fortin PR, Felson DT, et al. (1994) A
study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med
154: 157-163. Find this article online
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical
industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality. BMJ 326:
1167-1170. Find this article online
Egger M, Bartlett C, Juni P (2001) Are randomised controlled trials in
the BMJ different? BMJ 323: 1253. Find this article online
Sackett DL, Oxman AD (2003) HARLOT plc: An amalgamation of the world's
two oldest professions. BMJ 327: 1442-1445. Find this article online
Thompson J, Baird P, Downie J (2001) The Olivieri report. The complete
text of the independent inquiry commissioned by the Canadian
Association of University Teachers. Toronto: Lorimer. 584 p.
Rennie D (1997) Thyroid storm. JAMA 277: 1238-1243. Find this article
online
Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung M, Hayes JA, Chalmers TC (1994)
Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements
compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal.
JAMA 272: 108-113. Find this article online
Cho MK, Bero LA (1996) The quality of drug studies published in
symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 124: 485-489. Find this article
online
Huston P, Moher D (1996) Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity
of medical research. Lancet 347: 1024-1026. Find this article online
Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJM, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (1997) Impact of covert
duplicate publication on meta-analysis: A case study. BMJ 315:
635-640. Find this article online
Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Hoey J, Hojgaard L, et al. (2001)
Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Lancet 358: 854-856.
Find this article online
De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, et al. (2004)
Clinical trial registration: A statement from the International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 364: 911-912. Find this
article online
Godlee F, Jefferson T (2003) Peer review in health sciences, 2nd ed.
London: BMJ Publishing Group. 367 p.
Garrow J (2005 January) HealthWatch Award winner. HealthWatch 56:
4-5. Find this article online
Smith R (2003) Medical journals and pharmaceutical companies: Uneasy
bedfellows. BMJ 326: 1202-1205. Find this article online
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
TC
tc
George Lagergren
Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of
Pharmaceutical Companies
Richard Smith
"Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for
the pharmaceutical industry", wrote Richard Horton, editor of the
Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former
How true that statement is. That is why I stay away from M.D,s.
Robert
"George Lagergren" <ge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ywFSg.13524$v%4.1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
clerk?
Robert
TC
There are other very qualified and very capable medical practitioners
other than MDs. MDs are no longer the sole option for medical care. In
fact, MDs are very quickly becoming the least trusted and the least
consulted medical practitioners out there.
And many people are beginning to consider even Medicine Men and Witch
Doctors to be more dependable than MDs in terms of actually resolving
medical issues.
Let's face it, if you want treatment, MDs are the ones to go to, but if
you actually want a cure, you'll have to see a Naturopath or a
Homeopath or a Chiropractor or a virtually anyone other than an
Allopathic MD.
The simple fact that most MDs have little to no education on the very
basic building block of health (ie. nutrition) pretty much castrates
their ability to provide useful health advice or to treat diet related
chronic conditions, which happens to be the bulk of their practice.
They are pretty much incapable of providing any useful relief to
patients unless you happen to need a bone set, or a cut cleaned and
stitched.
TC
Rich
"TC" <tund...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159971412.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Is that so? Perhaps you can name a few diseases that these witch doctors can
cure that conventional medicine cannot.
>
> The simple fact that most MDs have little to no education on the very
> basic building block of health (ie. nutrition) pretty much castrates
> their ability to provide useful health advice or to treat diet related
> chronic conditions, which happens to be the bulk of their practice.
> They are pretty much incapable of providing any useful relief to
> patients unless you happen to need a bone set, or a cut cleaned and
> stitched.
Acne, accoustic neuroma, amebiasis, anaphylaxis, aneurysm, anthrax, aortic
stenosis, appendicitis, and athlete's foot are just a few diseases that real
doctors can cure the alties cannot. And that's the "A's," There is the whole
remaining alphabet if you want more. Also, these don't include the many
diseases for which there is no cure but which can be controlled by
conventional medicine to improve quality of life and longevity in those who
are afflicted by them.
--
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
TC
All manner of back and joint problems (chiropractors). All manner of
diet related chronic disease, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, IBS,
Chrohn's, (naturopaths). There are many more conditions that can be and
are routinely successfully resolved by practitioners other than MDs,
that MDs can not treat with success or can only treat with very limited
success and surprisingly often treat in a manner that causes further
damage or damaging side effects.
MDs most definitely do not hold all the patents on healing people. In
fact, it has been shown that when they go on strike, fewer people die.
>
>
> >
> > The simple fact that most MDs have little to no education on the very
> > basic building block of health (ie. nutrition) pretty much castrates
> > their ability to provide useful health advice or to treat diet related
> > chronic conditions, which happens to be the bulk of their practice.
> > They are pretty much incapable of providing any useful relief to
> > patients unless you happen to need a bone set, or a cut cleaned and
> > stitched.
>
> Acne, accoustic neuroma, amebiasis, anaphylaxis, aneurysm, anthrax, aortic
> stenosis, appendicitis, and athlete's foot are just a few diseases that real
> doctors can cure the alties cannot. And that's the "A's," There is the whole
> remaining alphabet if you want more. Also, these don't include the many
> diseases for which there is no cure but which can be controlled by
> conventional medicine to improve quality of life and longevity in those who
> are afflicted by them.
MDs cannot cure acne, but proper diet will.
MDs do not cure acoustic neuroma, they simply remove the tumor or
radiate it away. The condition that existed in the patients that led to
the development of the tunor is still present and very likely to cause
other problems.
Amebiasis is treated with anti-biotics, the last really useful
discovery in medical history.
Anaphylaxis, often brought on by allergies to medications prescribed by
guess who? an MD.
Aneurysm, treated by an operation that has its own deadly risks.
Anthrax, again treated with anti-biotics. Which could easily be
dispensed by people other than MDs.
Aortic Stenosis could be mostly avoided by proper nutrition and not the
SAD diet nor the AHA diet nor the ADA diet.
Appendicitis, interesting topic, until just a few years ago MDs had no
idea what the apendix was and what it did, they would routinely remove
it when doing other abdominal surgery. Real smart.
Athlete's foot, easily treated by wearing clean dry socks. What a
miraculous intervention.
Let's get going on the B's now.
TC
Rich
>
> Rich wrote:
>> "TC" <tund...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159971412.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Is that so? Perhaps you can name a few diseases that these witch doctors
>> can
>> cure that conventional medicine cannot.
>
> All manner of back and joint problems (chiropractors).
Chiropractors don't "cure" these problems. They produce temporary relief at
best. Conventional medicine physical therapists do as well or better, and
don't con the patient into returning for multiple costly "adjustments."
> All manner of
> diet related chronic disease, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, IBS,
> Chrohn's, (naturopaths).
Chronic fatigue syndrome is a bogus diagnosis. Irritable bowel syndrome and
Crohn's disease cannot be cured by either real doctors or altie quacks.
> There are many more conditions that can be and
> are routinely successfully resolved by practitioners other than MDs,
> that MDs can not treat with success or can only treat with very limited
> success and surprisingly often treat in a manner that causes further
> damage or damaging side effects.
Bullshit. Examples, please.
>
> MDs most definitely do not hold all the patents on healing people. In
> fact, it has been shown that when they go on strike, fewer people die.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The simple fact that most MDs have little to no education on the very
>> > basic building block of health (ie. nutrition) pretty much castrates
>> > their ability to provide useful health advice or to treat diet related
>> > chronic conditions, which happens to be the bulk of their practice.
>> > They are pretty much incapable of providing any useful relief to
>> > patients unless you happen to need a bone set, or a cut cleaned and
>> > stitched.
>>
>> Acne, accoustic neuroma, amebiasis, anaphylaxis, aneurysm, anthrax,
>> aortic
>> stenosis, appendicitis, and athlete's foot are just a few diseases that
>> real
>> doctors can cure the alties cannot. And that's the "A's," There is the
>> whole
>> remaining alphabet if you want more. Also, these don't include the many
>> diseases for which there is no cure but which can be controlled by
>> conventional medicine to improve quality of life and longevity in those
>> who
>> are afflicted by them.
>
> MDs cannot cure acne, but proper diet will.
Real acne requires stronger treatment than diet changes, but dietary advice
will be proffered by the dermatologist. Your contention that a medical
doctor's education does not include nutrition is false.
>
> MDs do not cure acoustic neuroma, they simply remove the tumor or
> radiate it away. The condition that existed in the patients that led to
> the development of the tunor is still present and very likely to cause
> other problems.
Oh? and what "condition" do you propose leads to acoustic neuroma?
>
> Amebiasis is treated with anti-biotics, the last really useful
> discovery in medical history.
>
> Anaphylaxis, often brought on by allergies to medications prescribed by
> guess who? an MD.
Anaphylaxis is much more often caused by allergic reactions to such things
as beesting or peanut ingestion. When it does occur from medication allergy,
it happens in a medical setting where it is routinely treatable, and almost
never fatal.
>
> Aneurysm, treated by an operation that has its own deadly risks.
Time for risk/benefit analysis. If you have an abdominal aortic aneurysm
will you:
A. Do nothing.
B. Go to a naturopath.
C. Subject yourself to the "deadly risk" of surgery.
>
> Anthrax, again treated with anti-biotics. Which could easily be
> dispensed by people other than MDs.
Do YOU know what antibiotic at what dose and for what duration is
appropriate for each and every type of infection? An MD is expected to.
>
> Aortic Stenosis could be mostly avoided by proper nutrition and not the
> SAD diet nor the AHA diet nor the ADA diet.
Bullshit. Aortic stenosis has nothing at all to do with diet.
>
> Appendicitis, interesting topic, until just a few years ago MDs had no
> idea what the apendix was and what it did, they would routinely remove
> it when doing other abdominal surgery. Real smart.
One thing that MD's have known for many years that the appendix does is to
get infected and kill you if it is not promptly surgically removed. If you
get appendicitis, your naturopath isn't going to be much help.
>
> Athlete's foot, easily treated by wearing clean dry socks. What a
> miraculous intervention.
There are lots of intractable cases of fungal infection that need stronger
measures than clean socks. Ask any Vietnam vet.
>
> Let's get going on the B's now.
Okay:
Bacteremia, Baker's cyst, Bell's palsy, bladder cancer, blepharitis, bone
fractures, bradycardia, brain abscesses, breast cancer, Briquet's syndrome,
bronchiolitis, brucellosis, bubonic plague, bunions, and burns.
TC
Rich wrote:
> "TC" <tund...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159981223....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Rich wrote:
> >> "TC" <tund...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1159971412.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>
> >> Is that so? Perhaps you can name a few diseases that these witch doctors
> >> can
> >> cure that conventional medicine cannot.
> >
> > All manner of back and joint problems (chiropractors).
>
> Chiropractors don't "cure" these problems. They produce temporary relief at
> best. Conventional medicine physical therapists do as well or better, and
> don't con the patient into returning for multiple costly "adjustments."
Actually the modern chiropractor will offer adjustments as well as an
exercise program that will strengthen the weak muscles and lead to less
need for adjustments and that amounts to a long term solution. Granted,
some chiros will milk the patient, which IMHO is a behavior picked up
from the medical profession and which is rampant in the medical
profession.
>
> > All manner of
> > diet related chronic disease, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, IBS,
> > Chrohn's, (naturopaths).
>
> Chronic fatigue syndrome is a bogus diagnosis. Irritable bowel syndrome and
> Crohn's disease cannot be cured by either real doctors or altie quacks.
Actually there are several similar diagnoses of combinations of
symptoms that habve been given various names, most of which the medical
profession hasn't a clue as to the cause or the cure, so their fallback
position is that the patients is making this shit up and the conditions
don't exist excpet in their minds. But I have seen it first hand and
I've seen the reaction of the MDs when they haven't a clue and I've
seen it cured by naturopaths.
Crohn's and other similar disorders can be arrested. It is arrested by
a 100% gluten-free diet. It may take up to a year or more, but it is
curable. Naturopaths know about this, MDs don't. Unfortunately, the
patient may have suffered irreparable intestinal damage by that time.
Just because the MD has nothing in his arsenal to cure it, does not
mean it cannot be cured.
>
>
> > There are many more conditions that can be and
> > are routinely successfully resolved by practitioners other than MDs,
> > that MDs can not treat with success or can only treat with very limited
> > success and surprisingly often treat in a manner that causes further
> > damage or damaging side effects.
>
> Bullshit. Examples, please.
Anxiety/depression can be cured with diet. MD's can only offer
dangerous and damaging anti-depressants.
Infections can be resolved with diet and nutritional supplements. MDs
have only anti-biotics to offer, some of which can begin a cycle of
infections that progressively gets worse.
Flus and colds will go away with the patient consuming healthy foods
and nutritional supplements, many MDs automatically prescribe
anti-biotics which leads to anti-biotic resistant bacteria.
Diabetes Type 2 can be controlled and reversed to some degree with
diet. MDs tell patients to continue eating damaging refined carbs and
control their BG with pills and insulin injections. This way they get
to treat them to their early deaths.
The immune system depends on nutrition to be able to fight off
infections. MDs insist on depending on crude vaccinations and applying
them to *infants* causing all kinds of problems.
>
> >
> > MDs most definitely do not hold all the patents on healing people. In
> > fact, it has been shown that when they go on strike, fewer people die.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The simple fact that most MDs have little to no education on the very
> >> > basic building block of health (ie. nutrition) pretty much castrates
> >> > their ability to provide useful health advice or to treat diet related
> >> > chronic conditions, which happens to be the bulk of their practice.
> >> > They are pretty much incapable of providing any useful relief to
> >> > patients unless you happen to need a bone set, or a cut cleaned and
> >> > stitched.
> >>
> >> Acne, accoustic neuroma, amebiasis, anaphylaxis, aneurysm, anthrax,
> >> aortic
> >> stenosis, appendicitis, and athlete's foot are just a few diseases that
> >> real
> >> doctors can cure the alties cannot. And that's the "A's," There is the
> >> whole
> >> remaining alphabet if you want more. Also, these don't include the many
> >> diseases for which there is no cure but which can be controlled by
> >> conventional medicine to improve quality of life and longevity in those
> >> who
> >> are afflicted by them.
> >
> > MDs cannot cure acne, but proper diet will.
>
> Real acne requires stronger treatment than diet changes, but dietary advice
> will be proffered by the dermatologist. Your contention that a medical
> doctor's education does not include nutrition is false.
Actually no. Diet is all that is necessary. And the dermatologist knows
no more about diet than the MD. If a medical doctor gets more than 3
months of superficial training about the fundamental of nutrition, he
is doing very good. And nutrition is rarely ever on his list of
treatments even when it obviously should be.
>
>
> >
> > MDs do not cure acoustic neuroma, they simply remove the tumor or
> > radiate it away. The condition that existed in the patients that led to
> > the development of the tunor is still present and very likely to cause
> > other problems.
>
> Oh? and what "condition" do you propose leads to acoustic neuroma?
You tell me. Why is the symptom the only thing treated. The tumor is
not the disease, it is but one symptom.
Here is a hint: tumors occur as a result of malnourishment, the
breakdown in the function of cell is due to malnourishment.
Here is how you can see it first hand. Find an older dog or dogs that
have eaten real food their entire lives and you will see a tumor free
dog. Find any older dog fed bagged food from any dog food manufacturer
and you will a dog riddled with tumors.
>
>
> >
> > Amebiasis is treated with anti-biotics, the last really useful
> > discovery in medical history.
> >
> > Anaphylaxis, often brought on by allergies to medications prescribed by
> > guess who? an MD.
>
> Anaphylaxis is much more often caused by allergic reactions to such things
> as beesting or peanut ingestion. When it does occur from medication allergy,
> it happens in a medical setting where it is routinely treatable, and almost
> never fatal.
People who are malnourished are more prone to Anaphylaxis. Again the MD
only treats the symptoms and the immediate results of Anaphylaxis and
ignores the underlying condition that may exarcerbate the symptom.
>
>
> >
> > Aneurysm, treated by an operation that has its own deadly risks.
>
> Time for risk/benefit analysis. If you have an abdominal aortic aneurysm
> will you:
>
> A. Do nothing.
> B. Go to a naturopath.
> C. Subject yourself to the "deadly risk" of surgery.
One of the few cases where the risk of the surgery is possibly less
than the risk of the condition. But the risk of surgery could be
greatly reduced by the practitioner in many ways that they ignore.
>
> >
> > Anthrax, again treated with anti-biotics. Which could easily be
> > dispensed by people other than MDs.
>
> Do YOU know what antibiotic at what dose and for what duration is
> appropriate for each and every type of infection? An MD is expected to.
And other practitioners are incapable of that?
>
> >
> > Aortic Stenosis could be mostly avoided by proper nutrition and not the
> > SAD diet nor the AHA diet nor the ADA diet.
>
> Bullshit. Aortic stenosis has nothing at all to do with diet.
Narrowing of arteries and their general health, strength and
elasticity, etc., is most definitely directly tied to nutritional
status. That you fail to understand that little factoid tells me that
you are no better than a typical MD. You may want to read up on
collagen.
>
> >
> > Appendicitis, interesting topic, until just a few years ago MDs had no
> > idea what the apendix was and what it did, they would routinely remove
> > it when doing other abdominal surgery. Real smart.
>
> One thing that MD's have known for many years that the appendix does is to
> get infected and kill you if it is not promptly surgically removed. If you
> get appendicitis, your naturopath isn't going to be much help.
Do you know what its actual function is? It does have a function, and
an important one. MDs assumed for years that since they did not know
the function then it must be function-less. Now that is the kind of
institutional idiocy that pervades the profession.
>
>
>
> >
> > Athlete's foot, easily treated by wearing clean dry socks. What a
> > miraculous intervention.
>
> There are lots of intractable cases of fungal infection that need stronger
> measures than clean socks. Ask any Vietnam vet.
Clean dry feet and good nutrition will go a long way in the typical MDs
patients lives. The lifestyle of a Vietnam vet in action is hardly
representative of a typical patient.
>
>
> >
> > Let's get going on the B's now.
>
> Okay:
>
> Bacteremia, Baker's cyst, Bell's palsy, bladder cancer, blepharitis, bone
> fractures, bradycardia, brain abscesses, breast cancer, Briquet's syndrome,
> bronchiolitis, brucellosis, bubonic plague, bunions, and burns.
I'll be back with a response on those. No time right now.
TC
TC
bone
fractures, bradycardia, brain abscesses, breast cancer, Briquet's
syndrome,
bronchiolitis, brucellosis, bubonic plague, bunions, and burns.
****
Bacteremia
Causes
In the hospital, indwelling catheters are a frequent cause of
bacteremia and the subsequent nosocomial infections, because they
provide a means by which bacteria normally found on the skin can enter
the bloodstream. Other causes of bacteremia include dental procedures
(occasionally including simple tooth brushing), herpes (including
herpetic whitlow), urinary tract infections, IV drug use, and
colorectal cancer. Bacteremia may also be seen in oropharyngeal,
gastrointestinal or genitourinary surgery or exploration.
---
Interesting, most cases will occur as a result of MD style medical
treatment. The best defense is not to submit to MD treatment.
A strong immune system will guard against this. That means quality
nutrition. Quality nutrition should be part of the treatment should
someone contract this. But no MD will consider that, wil they?
*****
Baker's cyst
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001222.htm
Treatment Return to top
Often no treatment is necessary and the practitioner can observe the
cyst over time.
It's a miracle!!!! MDs are so smart.
*****
Bell's palsy
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/bells/detail_bells.htm
How is it Treated?
There is no cure or standard course of treatment for Bell's palsy. The
most important factor in treatment is to eliminate the source of the
nerve damage.
*****
bladder cancer
Cancers are a result of cellular malfunction due to malnourishment. MDs
prefer to use poisons to treat it (chemotherapy) which has varied
success rates, radiation to burn the tunors with varied success rates,
and/or surgery. All treatments only treat the symptom (ie the tumor)
and all have limited success rates and all have tragic effect on the
patient. And never does the MD consider other factors like nutrition to
be useful in the long term treatment.
****
Blepharitis refers to chronic inflammation of the eyelids. Blepharitis
is one of the most common disorder of the eye and is often the
underlying reason for eye discomfort, redness and tearing. Other eye
symptoms of blepharitis include: Burning, itching, light sensitivity,
and an irritating, sandy, gritty sensation that is worse upon
awakening.
There are 3 forms of blepharitis (staphylococcal, seborrheic and MGD).
All three forms of blepharitis are chronic in nature. Patients with
staphylococcal blepharitis are relatively young (mean age 42 years)
with a short history of ocular symptoms (mean 1.8 years). Patients with
seborrheic blepharitis and MGD blepharitis are generally older and have
a longer history of ocular symptoms.
----
Quality nutrition prevents and protects from such infections. Of course
the only treatment availbale to MDs is to prescribe anti-biotics.
*****
bone fractures - Eureka, the only area where MDs excel, hence the
nickname "Bones" often used to refer to MDs. Oddly enough it is also
the one area where almost anyone with a basic first aid certificate and
a bit of experience can actually excell as well.
*****
bradycardia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradycardia
Bradycardia (from greek brady=slow and cardia=heart), as applied in
adult medicine, is defined as a resting heart rate of under 60 beats
per minute, though it is seldom symptomatic until the rate drops below
50 beat/min [1]. Trained athletes tend to have slow resting heart
rates, and resting bradycardia in athletes should not be considered
abnormal if the individual has no symptoms associated with it.
The term relative bradycardia is used to explain a heart rate that,
while not technically below 60 beats per minute, is considered too slow
for the individual's current medical condition.
This cardiac arrhythmia can be underlied by several causes, which are
best divided into cardiac and non-cardiac causes. Non-cardiac causes
are usually secondary, and can involve drug use or abuse; metabolic or
endocrine issues, especially in the thyroid; an electrolyte imbalance;
neurologic factors; autonomic reflexes; situational factors such as
prolonged bed rest; and autoimmunity. Cardiac causes include acute or
chronic ischemic heart disease, vascular heart disease, valvular heart
disease, or degenerative primary electrical disease. Ultimately, the
causes act by three mechanisms: depressed automaticity of the heart,
conduction block, or escape pacemakers and rhythms.
Management
There are two main reasons for treating any cardiac arrhythmias. With
bradycardia, the first is to address the associated symptoms, such as
fatigue, limitations on how much an individual can physically exert,
fainting (syncope), dizziness or lightheadedness, or other vague and
non-specific symptoms. The other reason to treat bradycardia is if the
person's ultimate outcome (prognosis) will be changed or impacted by
the bradycardia. Treatment in this vein depends on whether any symptoms
are present, and what the underlying cause is. Primary or idiopathic
bradycardia is treated symptomatically if it is significant, and the
underlying cause is treated if the bradycardia is secondary.
----
I see no reason why MDs would be uniquely qualified to treat this
condition.
*******
brain abscesses
An infection. see my comments about nutrition and infections.
*****
breast cancer
see my comment on cancer
*****
Briquet's syndrome I
Also known as:
Briquet disorder
Brissaud-Marie syndrome
Associated persons:
Paul Briquet
Édouard Brissaud
Pierre Marie
Description:
A personality disorder in which alcoholism and somatisation disorder
occur. The patient reports multiple physical complaints for which there
is no physical evidence and which cause her or him to lead a life of
semi-invalidism, for which patients seek constant medical attention.
Flirtatiousness of female; juvenile sexual offence. In women, high
incidence of polysurgery. In men, history of criminal acts and
drinking. The symptoms usually begin in adolescence. Associated
disorders may include anxiety, depression, antisocial behaviour,
interpersonal and marital difficulties, and hallucinations. Prevalent
in females - very rare in men. A psychiatric disorder related (but not
invariably) to sexual dysfunction.
----
Similar condition to anxiety/depressive disorders which can always be
addressed to some degree by proper nutrition. MDs will ignore
malnourishment and vitamin deficiencies (notably the B vitamins) and
prescribe anti-depressants which have their own set of problems
associated with them.
*****
bronchiolitis
an infection, easily treated with quality nutrition and supplements.
The only option to MDs is anti-biotics.
*****
What is brucellosis?
Brucellosis is an infectious disease caused by the bacteria of the
genus Brucella. These bacteria are primarily passed among animals, and
they cause disease in many different vertebrates. Various Brucella
species affect sheep, goats, cattle, deer, elk, pigs, dogs, and several
other animals. Humans become infected by coming in contact with animals
or animal products that are contaminated with these bacteria. In humans
brucellosis can cause a range of symptoms that are similar to the flu
and may include fever, sweats, headaches, back pains, and physical
weakness. Severe infections of the central nervous systems or lining of
the heart may occur. Brucellosis can also cause long-lasting or chronic
symptoms that include recurrent fevers, joint pain, and fatigue
-----
see above
*****
bubonic plague
Infectious disease - see nutrition, anti-biotics
******
bunions
wear comfortable shoes. easily avoided. treat with painkillers, one of
the few tools useful to MDs, which many MDs abuse and misuse. And
available to other practitioners.
**********
burns - most can be treated effectively by non-MDs. Interestingly
enough, the body heals itself. All MDs try to do is keep infections
from occurring, see my notes on infections and nutrition. And often the
most dangerous part of burns is getting infected by bacteris including
any of several so-called superbugs in hospitals, which are caused by
MDs abusing anti-biotics.
****
TC
Max C.
Max.
Dan
know everything, or think that they do!
Doctors, and alternate Health care practioners, both offer good advice to
their patients.
What they need to do, is stop arguing with each other and start working
together.
Dan- who's neither
TC
Very well said and I agree whole heartedly. The first step is for the
MDs to realize that they most definitely do not have all the answers
and that others may have an answer or two that has validity.
TC
Rich
Bacteremia, Baker's cyst, Bell's palsy, bladder cancer, blepharitis,
bone
fractures, bradycardia, brain abscesses, breast cancer, Briquet's
syndrome,
bronchiolitis, brucellosis, bubonic plague, bunions, and burns.
****
Bacteremia
Causes
In the hospital, indwelling catheters are a frequent cause of
bacteremia and the subsequent nosocomial infections, because they
provide a means by which bacteria normally found on the skin can enter
the bloodstream. Other causes of bacteremia include dental procedures
(occasionally including simple tooth brushing), herpes (including
herpetic whitlow), urinary tract infections, IV drug use, and
colorectal cancer. Bacteremia may also be seen in oropharyngeal,
gastrointestinal or genitourinary surgery or exploration.
---
Interesting, most cases will occur as a result of MD style medical
treatment. The best defense is not to submit to MD treatment.
A strong immune system will guard against this. That means quality
nutrition. Quality nutrition should be part of the treatment should
someone contract this. But no MD will consider that, wil they?
________________________________________
Although poor nutrition can result in poor immunity, there is no reason to
believe that once a baseline nutritional level is attained, that the immune
system can be supercharged by foods or food supplements. The altie quacks
like to sell the notion that the immune system is a continuum, strong or
weak. Actually, it works at about the same strength for everybody until it
fails. And people can be quite healthy even with suppressed immune systems,
as witnessed by the many healthy transplant recipients who live their lives
with artifically and intentionally weakened immunity. At the other end,
there are many who have perfectly healthy immune systems who succumb to
infections or to cancers. Diet is not a be-all end-all defense against
infection or cancer.
_________________________________________
*****
Baker's cyst
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001222.htm
Treatment Return to top
Often no treatment is necessary and the practitioner can observe the
cyst over time.
It's a miracle!!!! MDs are so smart.
_______________________________________________
Often is not always. The doctor is qualified to know when intervention is
necessary and what intervention to apply.
_______________________________________________
*****
Bell's palsy
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/bells/detail_bells.htm
How is it Treated?
There is no cure or standard course of treatment for Bell's palsy. The
most important factor in treatment is to eliminate the source of the
nerve damage.
_______________________________________________
And who but a doctor is qualified to determine what the source of the nerve
damage is and how to eliminate it.
_______________________________________________
*****
bladder cancer
Cancers are a result of cellular malfunction due to malnourishment.
_______________________________________________
Bullshit. There are many causes of cancer, but there is no evidence that
malnourishment is one of them, much less the only one.
_______________________________________________
MDs
prefer to use poisons to treat it (chemotherapy) which has varied
success rates, radiation to burn the tunors with varied success rates,
and/or surgery. All treatments only treat the symptom (ie the tumor)
and all have limited success rates and all have tragic effect on the
patient. And never does the MD consider other factors like nutrition to
be useful in the long term treatment.
_______________________________________________
Diet didn't cause the cancer. Diet won't cure it. The cure rate for many
kinds of cancer is remarkably good these days, and more and more cancers are
being moved into the curable column all the time.
_______________________________________________
****
Blepharitis refers to chronic inflammation of the eyelids. Blepharitis
is one of the most common disorder of the eye and is often the
underlying reason for eye discomfort, redness and tearing. Other eye
symptoms of blepharitis include: Burning, itching, light sensitivity,
and an irritating, sandy, gritty sensation that is worse upon
awakening.
There are 3 forms of blepharitis (staphylococcal, seborrheic and MGD).
All three forms of blepharitis are chronic in nature. Patients with
staphylococcal blepharitis are relatively young (mean age 42 years)
with a short history of ocular symptoms (mean 1.8 years). Patients with
seborrheic blepharitis and MGD blepharitis are generally older and have
a longer history of ocular symptoms.
----
Quality nutrition prevents and protects from such infections.
_______________________________________________
No, it doesn't.
_______________________________________________
Of course
the only treatment availbale to MDs is to prescribe anti-biotics.
_______________________________________________
Which work quite well, thank you.
_______________________________________________
*****
bone fractures - Eureka, the only area where MDs excel, hence the
nickname "Bones" often used to refer to MDs. Oddly enough it is also
the one area where almost anyone with a basic first aid certificate and
a bit of experience can actually excell as well.
_______________________________________________
Neither my basic first aid class, nor my training for a Paramedic III
license included training in the reduction of fractures. Nor would you want
an amateur to set your broken arm, especially without the benefit of
anaesthetic. Also, some fractures require surgery for internal fixation. No
first-aider can do that or even determine when it is necessary.
_______________________________________________
*****
bradycardia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradycardia
----
_______________________________________________
Get real! You post four paragraphs describing bradycardia as a condition
with many causes, which of course implies many treatment options, then state
that a medical education is not necessary to determine the cause of a
specific case and design a course of treatment. I suppose you are going to
go to an iridologist when your heartrate is 40 and putting on your shoes is
a project that takes an hour and exhausts you.
_______________________________________________
*******
brain abscesses
An infection. see my comments about nutrition and infections.
_______________________________________________
No amount of nutrition is going to protect you from getting a brain abscess.
Nor will nutrition cure it when you get one.
_______________________________________________
*****
breast cancer
see my comment on cancer
_______________________________________________
See my comment on nutrition and cancer.
_______________________________________________
*****
Briquet's syndrome I
----
_______________________________________________
Nutrition will not cure psychiatric disorders, either.
_______________________________________________
*****
bronchiolitis
an infection, easily treated with quality nutrition and supplements.
The only option to MDs is anti-biotics.
_______________________________________________
If it's viral, no treatment is necessary. If it's bacterial, antibiotics
will help. Nutrition and supplements won't.
_______________________________________________
*****
What is brucellosis?
Brucellosis is an infectious disease caused by the bacteria of the
genus Brucella. These bacteria are primarily passed among animals, and
they cause disease in many different vertebrates. Various Brucella
species affect sheep, goats, cattle, deer, elk, pigs, dogs, and several
other animals. Humans become infected by coming in contact with animals
or animal products that are contaminated with these bacteria. In humans
brucellosis can cause a range of symptoms that are similar to the flu
and may include fever, sweats, headaches, back pains, and physical
weakness. Severe infections of the central nervous systems or lining of
the heart may occur. Brucellosis can also cause long-lasting or chronic
symptoms that include recurrent fevers, joint pain, and fatigue
-----
see above
*****
bubonic plague
Infectious disease - see nutrition, anti-biotics
_______________________________________________
If you try to treat either brucellosis or plague with nutrition and
supplements, the result will usually be death.
_______________________________________________
******
bunions
wear comfortable shoes. easily avoided. treat with painkillers, one of
the few tools useful to MDs, which many MDs abuse and misuse. And
available to other practitioners.
_______________________________________________
Bunions are best treated with surgery.
_______________________________________________
**********
burns - most can be treated effectively by non-MDs. Interestingly
enough, the body heals itself. All MDs try to do is keep infections
from occurring, see my notes on infections and nutrition. And often the
most dangerous part of burns is getting infected by bacteris including
any of several so-called superbugs in hospitals, which are caused by
MDs abusing anti-biotics.
_______________________________________________
Hospitals are not the only places where burns can get infected. And
treatment of severe burns involves a lot more than just preventing
infection. The skin is the body's largest organ, and injury to it can result
in serious systemic problems. Of immediate concern is dehydration as fluid
and electrolytes leak out of the body through the burned tissues. Lots of IV
fluids are indicated, something your homeopath is not going to be able to
provide. Then there are strategies for preventing scarring from causing loss
of function, and also methods of minimizing disfigurement. Skin grafts are
something you won't get from your witch doctor, either. Psychiatric
counseling may be necessary, too. Shrinks are MD's, too, you know.
_______________________________________________
In all fairness, I left out one "B" that IS treated with nutrition, and that
is bedsores. (Actually the proper medical term is "decubiti" so it would
fall under "D," but I'm tired of this game and don't intend to go that far.)
_______________________________________________
Jan Drew
"Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:niSUg.165$8C...@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
[ ]
>
> Chronic fatigue syndrome is a bogus diagnosis. .
Right out of the mouth of Barrett. Who he shills for.
>
Rich makes fun of it.
How sad for a so-called nurse.
Jan Drew
"Dan" <danl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2QTUg.4944$Y24...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
TC
understanding of nutrition, no inkling of the value of nutrition,
therefore unable to appreciate the basic fundamental need for quality
nutrition for quality health. Oh yeah, and the absence of doubt that
they know-it-all. That piece of paper that comes with the MD degree is
just that, a piece of paper and no more.
TC
Rich
Typical MD-type thinking. No training in nutrition, no basic
understanding of nutrition, no inkling of the value of nutrition,
therefore unable to appreciate the basic fundamental need for quality
nutrition for quality health. Oh yeah, and the absence of doubt that
they know-it-all. That piece of paper that comes with the MD degree is
just that, a piece of paper and no more.
__________________________________________________
It's more like you are doing typical "naturopath" thinking -- a monomaniacal
obsession with nutrition in which all disease is caused by "improper
nutrition" or "malnutrition," and all disease can be cured with nutritional
supplements. It just isn't so. But "When all you have is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail."
TC
Rich wrote:
> "TC" <tund...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160070454.6...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Typical MD-type thinking. No training in nutrition, no basic
> understanding of nutrition, no inkling of the value of nutrition,
> therefore unable to appreciate the basic fundamental need for quality
> nutrition for quality health. Oh yeah, and the absence of doubt that
> they know-it-all. That piece of paper that comes with the MD degree is
> just that, a piece of paper and no more.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> It's more like you are doing typical "naturopath" thinking -- a monomaniacal
> obsession with nutrition in which all disease is caused by "improper
> nutrition" or "malnutrition," and all disease can be cured with nutritional
> supplements. It just isn't so. But "When all you have is a hammer,
> everything looks like a nail."
>
> --
>
>
> --Rich
Not all conditions, just a lot more than you Mds are aware of.
The MDs hammer? Surgery and prescription drugs.
TC
Rich
I'm not an "MD."
As I said before, the notion that medical doctors get no education in
nutrition is a myth. They, and their schools, are just not obsessed with the
subject, and are capable of understanding that there are many more factors
in human physiology, and many more treatment options than focusing only on
nutrition. It would be nice if everybody followed their doctor's advice.
Then she could tell the patient to eat a balanced diet without excessive
calories, and to get plenty of exercise, and that would be the end of that.
People would still get sick, though. Despite your fantasies, perfect
nutrition will not prevent all disease.
>
> The MDs hammer? Surgery and prescription drugs.
When you get YOUR appendicitis, or your kidney stone, you'll greatly
appreciate surgery and prescription drugs.
TC
Perfect nutrition will prevent or mitigate a vast number of chronic
conditions, from cancer to diabetes to depression to obesity to
arthritis to Crohn's and IBS and other GI problems to heart disease to
immune suppression and lowered resistance to a multitude of infections
and infectious agents to chronic fatigue syndrome etc etc.
The only dietary advice I hear coming from MDs is to cut dietary
cholesterol to control blood lipids, which is nonsense. To cut fat and
calories to lose weight, which is nonsense. To cut salt to cut blood
pressure, which is nonsense. That is the average depth of MDs
understanding of nutrition as it relates to human health. And that is
not nearly enough for them to aproach the subject with any kind of
critical thinking skills.
A close friend of mine suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome, and yes
there is such a thing as chronic fatigue syndrome, and the MDs strung
her along for almost a year and in the end told her it was all in her
head. Does that sound familiar? "We can't figure it out in a couple of
ten minute doctors office visits, therefore it must not exist." Well,
she went to a naturopath who immediately changed her diet. Within days
she was improving and within months she was well.
On average, someone with a back problem will go to MDs and other such
medical professionals for *12 years* before they find someone who can
actually help them. I was one of these people, I got lucky and only
took 18 months of going to different MDs before I found one that knew
what he was talking about. The guy is a sports injury doctor. The
difference with sports injury doctors, is that their goal is not just
to pad their patient schedule but to actually effect a positive result
for the patient. They are amazingly attuned to actually getting
results. That is, sadly to say, only in comparison with the typical MD.
In most cases of back problems, the only tool the MD has is pills or
surgery. They have no concept of any other way of treating back
problems. And most times they end up making things worse. They don't
even know which one of their colleagues to send their patients to to
actually achieve positive results. All they know is that they don't
know much about back problems, but they know what drugs to try or which
surgeon to send you to. They are prepared to try all kinds of thing
that may or may not work, They don't what is causing the back problems
and they don't know how to fix it but they are more than willing to
blindly try all kinds of shit like pills, surgery, extended bedrest,
traction, etc. "Try this then come back in two weeks and we'll se how
it went." So very helpful.
Then there are surgeons. Surgeons are virtually incapable of
considering any other treatment options other than surgery. Not too
many surgeons will tell you that your best option is not surgery.
An MD is taught the names of all the parts of the body. They are taught
all the names and symptoms of all the conditions and diseases. Then
they ar given a list of pills and surgical procedures that they can
apply to the conditions and disease. And that is basically it. On
average, if an MD gets more than 3 months of training in nutrition, it
is the exception and not the rule. Do a google search on medical
training or medical schools or medical universities. The different
universities will have their course outlines on the net. Have a look at
how much of their courses are dedicated to nutrition. It would surprise
you. I did exactly that some time ago and found out first hand that
most universities will give their MDs in training maybe one or two
courses in basic intro to nutrition and nothing more. When I say that
MDs get little or no training in nutrition, I am not just blowing smoke
up your butt, I base it on what I've seen in the universities course
outlines themselves. Check it out for yourself.
Exceptional health cannot be attained without exceptional nutrition.
Period. Without proper nutrition, one cannot possibly be healthy. Good
nutrition is an absolute pre-requisite for good health.
And for MDs to sit there and rarely ever even consider nutrition to be
a cause or a cure for many of the conditions that ail us, is absolute
lunacy.
At the very least, proper nutrition will place the patient in the best
possible position for other cure or treatments to succeed. Even that
idea is not considered by the MD. Considering the patients nutritional
status and improving it should be the bedrock corner stone of our
approach to health care. Once nutrition has been properly addressed,
then the MD can consider additional treatments options.
The word "doctor" means teacher. I've not ever been taught anything by
a doctor. Except how often to take my pills and how many to take at one
time.
TC
>
>
> >
> > The MDs hammer? Surgery and prescription drugs.
>
> When you get YOUR appendicitis, or your kidney stone, you'll greatly
> appreciate surgery and prescription drugs.
Appendicitis is an infection. Proper diet enables the bodies inherent
ability to hold off infections. Most, if not all kidney stones are a
result of improper diet.
You really do not get it, do you? You simply cannot fathom the concept
of the human body having the inherent ability to remain healthy and/or
heal itself when properly nourished. MDs don't heal people, they are
there to facilitate the bodies ability to heal itself.
The human body, given the optimal nourishment, will maintain its health
and the ability to heal itself. Without the intervention of MDs and
their drugs.
TC
TC
And BTW, I also CURED myself of anxiety/depression using proper
nutrition combined with supplements.
All the doctor had to offer was pills that made things worse and
produced horrendous side effects, not to mention cost me hundreds of
dollars per month. It took him less than a 10 minute visit to review
the symptoms, go over my history, diagnose the condition and prescribe
the drug, with little to no follow up.
TC
Rich
Cancer is too broad a term for this to be true. Yes, we are learming more
and more about such preventive benefits as anti-oxidants reducing the rate
of cancer in general, and high fiber diets being somewhat preventive of
bowel cancer. But still, people with excellent diets do get cancer. Good
nutrition can reduce your risk of cancer just as good driving can reduce
your risk of dying in an accident. But like many drivers drive drunk and
stupid for years without mishap, millions and millions of people live to
ripe old age on absolutely abysmal diets.
> to diabetes to depression to obesity to
> arthritis to Crohn's and IBS and other GI problems to heart disease to
> immune suppression and lowered resistance to a multitude of infections
> and infectious agents to chronic fatigue syndrome etc etc.
Nobody denies that nutrition contributes to health, but even the very best
of nutrition cannot entirely prevent any of these diseases, nor will poor
diet inevitably cause any of them.
>
> The only dietary advice I hear coming from MDs is to cut dietary
> cholesterol to control blood lipids, which is nonsense.
Any doctor will tell you that exercise is more effective in controlling
cholesterol than diet.
> To cut fat and
> calories to lose weight, which is nonsense.
Not nonsense at all. Calorie control and exercise are the only way to lose
weight. All other effective methods are so only because they influence
calorie intake or encourage more exercise.
> To cut salt to cut blood
> pressure, which is nonsense.
Sodium does affect blood pressure, and many patients benefit from reduced
salt intake. No nonsense here, either.
> That is the average depth of MDs
> understanding of nutrition as it relates to human health. And that is
> not nearly enough for them to aproach the subject with any kind of
> critical thinking skills.
>
> A close friend of mine suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome, and yes
> there is such a thing as chronic fatigue syndrome, and the MDs strung
> her along for almost a year and in the end told her it was all in her
> head. Does that sound familiar? "We can't figure it out in a couple of
> ten minute doctors office visits, therefore it must not exist." Well,
> she went to a naturopath who immediately changed her diet. Within days
> she was improving and within months she was well.
Anecdotes do not prove scientific claims.
>
> On average, someone with a back problem will go to MDs and other such
> medical professionals for *12 years* before they find someone who can
> actually help them. I was one of these people, I got lucky and only
> took 18 months of going to different MDs before I found one that knew
> what he was talking about. The guy is a sports injury doctor. The
> difference with sports injury doctors, is that their goal is not just
> to pad their patient schedule but to actually effect a positive result
> for the patient. They are amazingly attuned to actually getting
> results. That is, sadly to say, only in comparison with the typical MD.
Yet more anecdotal nonsense. As for padding the patient schedule, most
general practitioners I know are overwhelmed by their patient schedule and
are not accepting new patients at all. I also doubt your perception that
sports docs are more result oriented than any other physicians.
>
> In most cases of back problems, the only tool the MD has is pills or
> surgery.
Not at all. They use physical therapists as referral resources. They also
prescribe such adjuncts as heat, rest, and exercises, and use of proper body
mechanics.
> They have no concept of any other way of treating back
> problems. And most times they end up making things worse. They don't
> even know which one of their colleagues to send their patients to to
> actually achieve positive results. All they know is that they don't
> know much about back problems, but they know what drugs to try or which
> surgeon to send you to. They are prepared to try all kinds of thing
> that may or may not work, They don't what is causing the back problems
> and they don't know how to fix it but they are more than willing to
> blindly try all kinds of shit like pills, surgery, extended bedrest,
> traction, etc. "Try this then come back in two weeks and we'll se how
> it went." So very helpful.
Bullshit.
>
> Then there are surgeons. Surgeons are virtually incapable of
> considering any other treatment options other than surgery. Not too
> many surgeons will tell you that your best option is not surgery.
Most will when that is the case. The key to successful surgery is selecting
those cases which can be helped by surgery. The great surgeons with records
of very high rates of surgical success are not just those with great skills
in the OR--the actual cutting is monkey work that about anybody could learn.
They are great because they are great at recognizing those they can't help
and sending them back to the internists.
>
> An MD is taught the names of all the parts of the body. They are taught
> all the names and symptoms of all the conditions and diseases. Then
> they ar given a list of pills and surgical procedures that they can
> apply to the conditions and disease. And that is basically it.
Bullshit. You have no idea of how a medical education works.
> On
> average, if an MD gets more than 3 months of training in nutrition, it
> is the exception and not the rule. Do a google search on medical
> training or medical schools or medical universities. The different
> universities will have their course outlines on the net. Have a look at
> how much of their courses are dedicated to nutrition. It would surprise
> you. I did exactly that some time ago and found out first hand that
> most universities will give their MDs in training maybe one or two
> courses in basic intro to nutrition and nothing more.
Those one or two courses are just the foundation. Doctors get much more
education in physiology and pathology, and the interaction of nutrients and
cells, tissues, and body chemistry are fundamental elements of that
education. Even a course in organic chemistry cannot take place in a vacuum
without including the actions of nutrients.
> When I say that
> MDs get little or no training in nutrition, I am not just blowing smoke
> up your butt, I base it on what I've seen in the universities course
> outlines themselves. Check it out for yourself.
>
> Exceptional health cannot be attained without exceptional nutrition.
> Period. Without proper nutrition, one cannot possibly be healthy. Good
> nutrition is an absolute pre-requisite for good health.
>
> And for MDs to sit there and rarely ever even consider nutrition to be
> a cause or a cure for many of the conditions that ail us, is absolute
> lunacy.
>
> At the very least, proper nutrition will place the patient in the best
> possible position for other cure or treatments to succeed. Even that
> idea is not considered by the MD. Considering the patients nutritional
> status and improving it should be the bedrock corner stone of our
> approach to health care. Once nutrition has been properly addressed,
> then the MD can consider additional treatments options.
>
> The word "doctor" means teacher. I've not ever been taught anything by
> a doctor. Except how often to take my pills and how many to take at one
> time.
Perhaps that's because you doctors recognized that you are unteachable. Do
you think they have time to sit around and argue with you about how much
nutrition education they've had?
>> > The MDs hammer? Surgery and prescription drugs.
>>
>> When you get YOUR appendicitis, or your kidney stone, you'll greatly
>> appreciate surgery and prescription drugs.
>
> Appendicitis is an infection. Proper diet enables the bodies inherent
> ability to hold off infections. Most, if not all kidney stones are a
> result of improper diet.
Neither assertion is true. There is no known correlation of diet to
appendicitis, it happens to perfectly healthy people at any age. There is a
correlation of diet to certain types of kidney stones, but heredity plays a
much larger role. Dyhydration is also a big factor, though since water is a
nutrient too, I suppose that could be classified as nutritional.
>
> You really do not get it, do you? You simply cannot fathom the concept
> of the human body having the inherent ability to remain healthy and/or
> heal itself when properly nourished.
And you don't get it that nutrition is not the be-all end-all of health.
Well nourished people get sick too, and when they do they need other
intervention than diet change.
> MDs don't heal people, they are
> there to facilitate the bodies ability to heal itself.
No doctor would disagree with that.
>
> The human body, given the optimal nourishment, will maintain its health
> and the ability to heal itself.
Not universally.
> Without the intervention of MDs and
> their drugs.
Not universally.
Rich
Anecdotes do not prove scientific claims.
TC
Nope but it does succeed in proving a very valid point. All we need now
is a published study that follows up on my personal discovery that
anxiety/depression can be cured or at least treated to some degree with
diet and supplements. But how many pharma companies would underwrite
this study. They sell billions of dollars worth of anti-depressants
every year and MDs make millions more prescribing them. We could put
thousands ofMDs and psychiatrists out of work overnight.
For twenty years mainstream medical people fought against the idea that
ulcers can be treated with a simple and cheap anti-biotic. Someone lost
a lot of income from lost treatment options there, eh?
MDs do not like change that leads to healthier patients and less work
and income for them.
TC
Rich
>
>>
>> Anecdotes do not prove scientific claims.
>
> Nope but it does succeed in proving a very valid point. All we need now
> is a published study that follows up on my personal discovery that
> anxiety/depression can be cured or at least treated to some degree with
> diet and supplements. But how many pharma companies would underwrite
> this study. They sell billions of dollars worth of anti-depressants
> every year and MDs make millions more prescribing them. We could put
> thousands ofMDs and psychiatrists out of work overnight.
>
> For twenty years mainstream medical people fought against the idea that
> ulcers can be treated with a simple and cheap anti-biotic. Someone lost
> a lot of income from lost treatment options there, eh?
LOL! Yes! The silly asses were trying to treat ulcers with diet and
nutrition! By the way, metrnidazole was on the expensive end of antibiotics
the last time I looked.
>
> MDs do not like change that leads to healthier patients and less work
> and income for them.
Ha! My doctor would love to have half as many patients and more time to
spend with his family.
TC
anti-oxydants = vitamins = real fresh whole foods
You are making some progress here.
Fiber is crap.
> But still, people with excellent diets do get cancer.
Now we know this do we? Few studies are done on this. But I would love
to see a study that compares directly the diets of cancer patients to
people with no signs of cancers.
> Good
> nutrition can reduce your risk of cancer just as good driving can reduce
> your risk of dying in an accident. But like many drivers drive drunk and
> stupid for years without mishap, millions and millions of people live to
> ripe old age on absolutely abysmal diets.
But you see the direct effects of poor nutrition in peoples lives
directly. Moodiness, anxiety, depression, susceptibility to infections,
poor skin tone and color, susceptibility to colds and flus, poor
healing, more sick days, diabetes, obesity, heart disease and yes,
cancers.
My family went from needing dozens of prescriptions per year when
eating a lot of grains, margarine and low fat foods and since we've
started eating much less grains, more meat and animal fats, we have
gone to zero prescriptions in the last about 5 years. The contrast is
absolutely startling.
When I see the contrast between my family and other families I cringe.
I see it every time we eat at friends houses or go out to restaurants
with them.
>
> > to diabetes to depression to obesity to
> > arthritis to Crohn's and IBS and other GI problems to heart disease to
> > immune suppression and lowered resistance to a multitude of infections
> > and infectious agents to chronic fatigue syndrome etc etc.
>
> Nobody denies that nutrition contributes to health, but even the very best
> of nutrition cannot entirely prevent any of these diseases, nor will poor
> diet inevitably cause any of them.
It is absolutely essentil to good health. And it does cure many and
mitgates most chronic diseases. Poor diet most definitely causes
obesity, diabetes, IBS, Crohn's, and many many more chronic diseases.
>
> >
> > The only dietary advice I hear coming from MDs is to cut dietary
> > cholesterol to control blood lipids, which is nonsense.
>
> Any doctor will tell you that exercise is more effective in controlling
> cholesterol than diet.
Low carb diets will completely cure your high cholesterol levels in a
matter of months. Fact.
>
> > To cut fat and
> > calories to lose weight, which is nonsense.
>
> Not nonsense at all. Calorie control and exercise are the only way to lose
> weight. All other effective methods are so only because they influence
> calorie intake or encourage more exercise.
Calories are a factotum from the days when we had no understanding
whatsoever of human metabolism. Counting calories and restricting fats
to lose weight fails in more than 95% of cases.
The mechanism is carbs and foods which elevate our blood glucose levels
which in turn causes chronically high levels of insulin to be secreted
and force the body in a chronic fat storage state. The chronically high
levels of BG cause all kinds of damage to the pancreas which is forced
to produce massive quantities of insulin over the long-term which in
turn batters the insulin receptors to the point where they whither and
can no longer sense the insulin (insulin sensitivity is lessened).
Eventually the pancreas has produced its lifetimes worth of insulin and
cannot produce any more.
Please explain how exactly calories trigger fat storage? What are the
processes involved? Hormones? How does the body detect an excess of
calories and how does that trigger fat storage? And vice-versa, how
does the body detect a calorie deficit and how does that trigger fat
loss? Huh?
>
> > To cut salt to cut blood
> > pressure, which is nonsense.
>
> Sodium does affect blood pressure, and many patients benefit from reduced
> salt intake. No nonsense here, either.
Only when they are in a state of malnourishment. I can eat all the salt
I want with no noticable changes.
>
> > That is the average depth of MDs
> > understanding of nutrition as it relates to human health. And that is
> > not nearly enough for them to aproach the subject with any kind of
> > critical thinking skills.
> >
> > A close friend of mine suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome, and yes
> > there is such a thing as chronic fatigue syndrome, and the MDs strung
> > her along for almost a year and in the end told her it was all in her
> > head. Does that sound familiar? "We can't figure it out in a couple of
> > ten minute doctors office visits, therefore it must not exist." Well,
> > she went to a naturopath who immediately changed her diet. Within days
> > she was improving and within months she was well.
>
> Anecdotes do not prove scientific claims.
But observation is the basic building block of science. And this
observation is valid. And it shows clearly that in this case, like many
other, the MDs were completely clued out about basic simple nutrition
and its effect on the body. And the naturopath did cure her supposedly
non-existant condition.
>
>
> >
> > On average, someone with a back problem will go to MDs and other such
> > medical professionals for *12 years* before they find someone who can
> > actually help them. I was one of these people, I got lucky and only
> > took 18 months of going to different MDs before I found one that knew
> > what he was talking about. The guy is a sports injury doctor. The
> > difference with sports injury doctors, is that their goal is not just
> > to pad their patient schedule but to actually effect a positive result
> > for the patient. They are amazingly attuned to actually getting
> > results. That is, sadly to say, only in comparison with the typical MD.
>
> Yet more anecdotal nonsense. As for padding the patient schedule, most
> general practitioners I know are overwhelmed by their patient schedule and
> are not accepting new patients at all. I also doubt your perception that
> sports docs are more result oriented than any other physicians.
You would be amazed at the numbers of anecdotal evidence out there. The
12 year average I quoted above came from a book that contained about
120 anecdotal incidences of people with back problems. Very few, if any
of them, got any real healp from MDs.
>
>
> >
> > In most cases of back problems, the only tool the MD has is pills or
> > surgery.
>
> Not at all. They use physical therapists as referral resources. They also
> prescribe such adjuncts as heat, rest, and exercises, and use of proper body
> mechanics.
Only because chiropractors essentially forced them to do something. The
whole physical therapist movement is a response to chiropractors
showing up the doctors. Physical therapists still have a long way to go
to catch up.
>
> > They have no concept of any other way of treating back
> > problems. And most times they end up making things worse. They don't
> > even know which one of their colleagues to send their patients to to
> > actually achieve positive results. All they know is that they don't
> > know much about back problems, but they know what drugs to try or which
> > surgeon to send you to. They are prepared to try all kinds of thing
> > that may or may not work, They don't what is causing the back problems
> > and they don't know how to fix it but they are more than willing to
> > blindly try all kinds of shit like pills, surgery, extended bedrest,
> > traction, etc. "Try this then come back in two weeks and we'll se how
> > it went." So very helpful.
>
> Bullshit.
I personally know of probably a dozen or more people, including myself
and my mother in law, who experienced this "bullshit" first hand.
>
>
> >
> > Then there are surgeons. Surgeons are virtually incapable of
> > considering any other treatment options other than surgery. Not too
> > many surgeons will tell you that your best option is not surgery.
>
> Most will when that is the case. The key to successful surgery is selecting
> those cases which can be helped by surgery. The great surgeons with records
> of very high rates of surgical success are not just those with great skills
> in the OR--the actual cutting is monkey work that about anybody could learn.
> They are great because they are great at recognizing those they can't help
> and sending them back to the internists.
the "great surgeons" do not represent 100% of surgeons, do they?
>
>
> >
> > An MD is taught the names of all the parts of the body. They are taught
> > all the names and symptoms of all the conditions and diseases. Then
> > they ar given a list of pills and surgical procedures that they can
> > apply to the conditions and disease. And that is basically it.
>
> Bullshit. You have no idea of how a medical education works.
Read the course outlines buddy. It is all there in B&W.
>
> > On
> > average, if an MD gets more than 3 months of training in nutrition, it
> > is the exception and not the rule. Do a google search on medical
> > training or medical schools or medical universities. The different
> > universities will have their course outlines on the net. Have a look at
> > how much of their courses are dedicated to nutrition. It would surprise
> > you. I did exactly that some time ago and found out first hand that
> > most universities will give their MDs in training maybe one or two
> > courses in basic intro to nutrition and nothing more.
>
> Those one or two courses are just the foundation. Doctors get much more
> education in physiology and pathology, and the interaction of nutrients and
> cells, tissues, and body chemistry are fundamental elements of that
> education. Even a course in organic chemistry cannot take place in a vacuum
> without including the actions of nutrients.
And pharmaceutical prescribing.......
>
> > When I say that
> > MDs get little or no training in nutrition, I am not just blowing smoke
> > up your butt, I base it on what I've seen in the universities course
> > outlines themselves. Check it out for yourself.
> >
> > Exceptional health cannot be attained without exceptional nutrition.
> > Period. Without proper nutrition, one cannot possibly be healthy. Good
> > nutrition is an absolute pre-requisite for good health.
> >
> > And for MDs to sit there and rarely ever even consider nutrition to be
> > a cause or a cure for many of the conditions that ail us, is absolute
> > lunacy.
> >
> > At the very least, proper nutrition will place the patient in the best
> > possible position for other cure or treatments to succeed. Even that
> > idea is not considered by the MD. Considering the patients nutritional
> > status and improving it should be the bedrock corner stone of our
> > approach to health care. Once nutrition has been properly addressed,
> > then the MD can consider additional treatments options.
> >
> > The word "doctor" means teacher. I've not ever been taught anything by
> > a doctor. Except how often to take my pills and how many to take at one
> > time.
>
>
> Perhaps that's because you doctors recognized that you are unteachable. Do
> you think they have time to sit around and argue with you about how much
> nutrition education they've had?
Nope, I tend to ask questions. I do not waste time arguing with people
who have an infalated sense of absence of doubt. My time is valuable
too.
>
>
> >> > The MDs hammer? Surgery and prescription drugs.
> >>
> >> When you get YOUR appendicitis, or your kidney stone, you'll greatly
> >> appreciate surgery and prescription drugs.
> >
> > Appendicitis is an infection. Proper diet enables the bodies inherent
> > ability to hold off infections. Most, if not all kidney stones are a
> > result of improper diet.
>
> Neither assertion is true. There is no known correlation of diet to
> appendicitis, it happens to perfectly healthy people at any age. There is a
> correlation of diet to certain types of kidney stones, but heredity plays a
> much larger role. Dyhydration is also a big factor, though since water is a
> nutrient too, I suppose that could be classified as nutritional.
There is a direct correlation between diet and resistance to infection.
Appendicitis is an infection. Vitamin C is an anti-bacterial,
anti-fungal and anti-viral. And many other nutrients bolster that
resistance to infection. You still do not get it.
>
>
> >
> > You really do not get it, do you? You simply cannot fathom the concept
> > of the human body having the inherent ability to remain healthy and/or
> > heal itself when properly nourished.
>
> And you don't get it that nutrition is not the be-all end-all of health.
> Well nourished people get sick too, and when they do they need other
> intervention than diet change.
Well nourished people do not get sick, unless they are exposed to
exceptionally strong physical stress or physical injury. Don't you get
it?
>
> > MDs don't heal people, they are
> > there to facilitate the bodies ability to heal itself.
>
> No doctor would disagree with that.
And the body cannot function properly and heal itself and maintain
itself against infectious agents unless it is optimally nourished.
TC
Mark Probert
Why not apply to NCCAM for funding? That is what they are there for. Of
course, they have this nasty requirement that you MUST publish results,
even if it disproves your theory.
Jan Drew
I did find what I recommend there.
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fibromyalgia/whatisfms.html
http://www.niams.nih.gov/hi/topics/fibromyalgia/fffibro.htm
Health Topics
PDF Version
Publication Date: March 2005
What Is Fibromyalgia?
Fast Facts: An Easy-to-Read Series of Publications for the Public
What Is Fibromyalgia?
What Causes Fibromyalgia?
Who Is Affected by Fibromyalgia?
How Is Fibromyalgia Treated?
What Can I Do to Try to Feel Better?
What Research Is Being Done on Fibromyalgia
What Is Fibromyalgia?
Fibromyalgia is a disorder that causes muscle pain and fatigue (feeling
tired). People with fibromyalgia have "tender points" on the body. Tender
points are specific places on the neck, shoulders, back, hips, arms, and
legs. These points hurt when pressure is put on them.
People with fibromyalgia may also have other symptoms, such as:
a.. Trouble sleeping
a.. Morning stiffness
a.. Headaches
a.. Painful menstrual periods
a.. Tingling or numbness in hands and feet
a.. Problems with thinking and memory (sometimes called "fibro fog").
What Causes Fibromyalgia?
The causes of fibromyalgia are unknown. There may be a number of factors
involved. Fibromyalgia has been linked to:
a.. Stressful or traumatic events, such as car accidents
a.. Repetitive injuries
a.. Illness
a.. Certain diseases.
Fibromyalgia can also occur on its own.
Some scientists think that a gene or genes might be involved in
fibromyalgia. The genes could make a person react strongly to things that
other people would not find painful.
Who Is Affected by Fibromyalgia?
Fibromyalgia affects as many as 1 in 50 Americans. Most people with
fibromyalgia are women. However, men and children also can have the
disorder. Most people are diagnosed during middle age.
People with certain other diseases may be more likely to have fibromyalgia.
These diseases include:
a.. Rheumatoid arthritis
a.. Systemic lupus erythematosus (commonly called lupus)
a.. Ankylosing spondylitis (spinal arthritis).
Women who have a family member with fibromyalgia may be more likely to have
fibromyalgia themselves.
How Is Fibromyalgia Treated?
Fibromyalgia can be hard to treat. It's important to find a doctor who is
familiar with the disorder and its treatment. Many family physicians,
general internists, or rheumatologists can treat fibromyalgia.
Rheumatologists are doctors who specialize in arthritis and other conditions
that affect the joints or soft tissues.
Fibromyalgia treatment often requires a team approach. The team may include
your doctor, a physical therapist, and possibly other health care providers.
A pain or rheumatology clinic can be a good place to get treatment.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved any
medicines to treat fibromyalgia. Doctors treat fibromyalgia with medicines
approved for other purposes. Pain medicines and antidepressants are often
used in treatment.
What Can I Do to Try to Feel Better?
There are many things you can do to feel better, including:
a.. Taking medicines as prescribed
a.. Getting enough sleep
a.. Exercising
a.. Eating well
a.. Making work changes if necessary.
What Research Is Being Done on Fibromyalgia?
The NIAMS sponsors research to help understand fibromyalgia and find better
ways to diagnose, treat, and prevent it. Researchers are studying:
a.. Why people with fibromyalgia have increased sensitivity to pain
a.. The role of stress hormones in the body
a.. Medicines and behavioral treatments
a.. Whether there is a gene or genes that make a person more likely to have
fibromyalgia.
For More Information on Fibromyalgia and Other Related Conditions:
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
(NIAMS)
National Institutes of Health
1 AMS Circle
Bethesda, MD 20892-3675
Phone: 301-495-4484 or 877-22-NIAMS (226-4267) (free of charge)
TTY: 301-565-2966
Fax: 301-718-6366
E-mail: NIAM...@mail.nih.gov
www.niams.nih.gov
The information in this publication was summarized in easy-to-read format
from information in a more detailed NIAMS publication. To order the
Fibromyalgia Q&A full-text version, please contact NIAMS using the contact
information above. To view the complete text or to order online, visit
http://www.niams.nih.gov.
March 2005
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fibromyalgia/index.html
Your Guide to Understanding and Improving Life
with Fibromyalgia and Other Chronic Pains
about the author.
Hmmm. His daughter.
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fibromyalgia/fms06.html
Links to Other Sites
http://www.myalgia.com/Scientific%20basis.htm
The Scientific Basis for Understanding
Pain in Fibromyalgia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also Recommend the below, which blows your sicko blues making fun of real
conditions--right out of the water.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fibromyalgia/DS00079/DSECTION=1
Introduction
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fibromyalgia/DS00079/DSECTION=2
Signs and symptoms
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fibromyalgia/DS00079/DSECTION=3
Causes
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fibromyalgia/DS00079/DSECTION=11
Complementry and alternative medicine
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/chronic-pain/PN00034
Chronic pain: When no physical cause can be found
Consider possible causes.
It's not your imagnation
What you feel is very real.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/chronic-pain/PN00054
Chronic pain: How one woman found relief.
>
>
Rich
So now it's revealed that you are a "low-carb-cures-everything compulsive."
I'm tired of arguing with you.
TC
Rich wrote:
> "TC" <tund...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160167806.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> >>
> >> Anecdotes do not prove scientific claims.
> >
> > Nope but it does succeed in proving a very valid point. All we need now
> > is a published study that follows up on my personal discovery that
> > anxiety/depression can be cured or at least treated to some degree with
> > diet and supplements. But how many pharma companies would underwrite
> > this study. They sell billions of dollars worth of anti-depressants
> > every year and MDs make millions more prescribing them. We could put
> > thousands ofMDs and psychiatrists out of work overnight.
> >
> > For twenty years mainstream medical people fought against the idea that
> > ulcers can be treated with a simple and cheap anti-biotic. Someone lost
> > a lot of income from lost treatment options there, eh?
>
> LOL! Yes! The silly asses were trying to treat ulcers with diet and
> nutrition! By the way, metrnidazole was on the expensive end of antibiotics
> the last time I looked.
No asshole, they were treating with expensive prescriptiions antacids
that caused more problems than they solved, and if that didn't work
they would resort to surgeries and cutting out pieces of peoples
innards. Idiot.
>
>
> >
> > MDs do not like change that leads to healthier patients and less work
> > and income for them.
>
> Ha! My doctor would love to have half as many patients and more time to
> spend with his family.
> --
>
>
> --Rich
Sure I bet. Give up his 5 figure virtually guaranteed income without
having to actually produce positive results? Yeah, right.
TC
TC
Rich wrote:
> So now it's revealed that you are a "low-carb-cures-everything compulsive."
> I'm tired of arguing with you.
You should be tired of arguing because you are so ignorant of what real
nutrition is that you are just embarassing yourself.
I never said that low carb cures everything. But it just so happens
that the right foods that lead to proper nutrition are lower in carb.
150 lbs of sugar per year, which is the average in th US, will lead to
chronic conditions and disease. And refined RTE cereals contain no
useful nutrition. And refined white flour is completely empty of
nutrition. High fructose corn syrup is a slow poison which our children
are consuming in massive amounts.
You've been had by the food industry and their "science" that villifies
animal fats and proteins and ascribes nearly magical powers to grains
and fiber. Humans have eaten copious amounts of animal fats and
proteins for thousand of generations without massive amounts of obesity
and obesity related disease. In the last 30 years we've shifted our
diets to include more carbs (about 12% increase) and less fats (about
10% decrease). The result is massive increase in obesity and diabetes
and heart disease. The trends are locked in step, more grains, less
animal fats, more fat people and more disease. Only in the last 30
years have we seen the ballooning of american waists and a
corresponding increase in disease.
Just watch any television program or news report or documentary from
the 1950's and check out the average size of those people. They ate
their meat with an inch of fat around the outside, they drank full fat
milk and ate real butter, and had bacon and sausages for breakfast. And
few of them were fat or even a little bit chunky.
Then compare the people from the 1950s to the people you see around you
today who eat low fat RTE cereals with low fat sweetened orange juice
for breakfast and then eat low fat muffins and/or low fat bagels with
low fat spread and low fat milk in their coffees for lunch. Then they
eat low fat pasta with low fat sauces with low fat deserts for supper.
And on this all encompassing low fat diet they all end up fat and sick.
If you do not see the trend then you are a fool and are willingly blind
to it all.
TC
Chuck
TC wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> Anxiety/depression can be cured with diet. MD's can only offer
> dangerous and damaging anti-depressants.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Peter Bowditch
>
>"TC" <tund...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1159981223....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Aortic Stenosis could be mostly avoided by proper nutrition and not the
>> SAD diet nor the AHA diet nor the ADA diet.
>
>Bullshit. Aortic stenosis has nothing at all to do with diet.
An Australian naturopath was sentenced to five years in prison for
"curing" a kid with aortic stenosis by using jojoba oil and a Mora
machine. The cure was so successful that the kid did not have the
stenosis three weeks after diagnosis. He had a grave, however.
And what was the reaction of the alternative medicine industry to this
quack killing a kid?
I will let you guess.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
TC
Peter Bowditch wrote:
> "Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"TC" <tund...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1159981223....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >>
>
> >> Aortic Stenosis could be mostly avoided by proper nutrition and not the
> >> SAD diet nor the AHA diet nor the ADA diet.
> >
> >Bullshit. Aortic stenosis has nothing at all to do with diet.
>
> An Australian naturopath was sentenced to five years in prison for
> "curing" a kid with aortic stenosis by using jojoba oil and a Mora
> machine. The cure was so successful that the kid did not have the
> stenosis three weeks after diagnosis. He had a grave, however.
>
> And what was the reaction of the alternative medicine industry to this
> quack killing a kid?
>
> I will let you guess.
> --
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243
I would never justify that kind of stupidity from alternative medicine
or from the mainstream medicine. There are too many people out there
that are more than ready to try to make money off of the suffering of
others and I include MDs in that as well. They are the ones profitting
the most from questionable practices and treatments.
It has occurred where MDs have been known to cause death by treatment,
or lack of treatment, or denial of treatment. There are plenty of such
incidences documented. So this one incident may not be the best
argument for MDs and against alternative medicine. You may just have
opened pandoras box insofar as MDs are concerned.
TC
TC
There is plenty of empirical evidence.
Here is a start:
http://depression.about.com/cs/diet/a/vitamin.htm
http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitaminb6.asp
"Vitamin B6 and the nervous system
Vitamin B6 is needed for the synthesis of neurotransmitters such as
serotonin and dopamine [1]. These neurotransmitters are required for
normal nerve cell communication. Researchers have been investigating
the relationship between vitamin B6 status and a wide variety of
neurologic conditions such as seizures, chronic pain, depression,
headache, and Parkinson's disease [18]."
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsSupplements/VitaminB6Pyridoxinecs.html
"Symptoms of pyridoxine deficiency include muscle weakness,
nervousness, irritability, depression, difficulty concentrating, and
short-term memory loss."
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsSupplements/VitaminB12Cobalamincs.html
"Vitamins B12, B6, and B9 (folate) work closely together to control
blood levels of the amino acid homocysteine. Elevated levels of this
substance appear to be linked with heart disease and, possibly,
depression and Alzheimer's disease."
http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.folate_B12.html
And vitamin C has been shown to work synergistically with the b vitamin
complex to aleviate anxiety and depression.
Do you guys think that I am just making this shit up? What I say here
about food and nutrtion is the culmination of over 6 years of intense
self-education and study in the field of nutrition, and more
importantly, a very rigid application of a well developed bullshit
meter.
TC
Earle Jones
"Chuck" <chuckf...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
Evidence??
We don't got to show you no steenkin' evidence!
Signed:
The "Alternative Medicine" Indu$try.
*
Jan Drew
"Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-67B8...@netnews.comcast.net...
turns out to be at best incomplete and very often false, misleading,
fictitious, mendacious - just dead wrong."
Russell Wayne Baker
TC
Here is a start: