The first paper looked at the JUPITER study and concluded “The results of the trial do not support the use of statin treatment for primary prevention of cardiovasculardiseases and raise troubling questions concerning the role of commercial sponsors.” This is the same conclusion I came to when I looked at the study but I couldn’t say it as eruditely as they did.

The second paper did a meta-analysis of statins and state: “This literature-based meta-analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy on all-cause mortality in a high-risk primary prevention set-up.”

In the meantime the companies have raked in literally billions of dollars of profits for drugs that don’t work.

What I discovered was the EBM was a construct that justifies drug companies making lots of money and the medical establishment their ongoing standing in society.

At the start I was surprised to find that not all mathematicians agree with the models used to make the statements that researchers make. I really don’t understand what they are talking about. It is just enough to know that there is disagreement amongst the top mathematical brains some of whom suggest that a lot of the so called proven methods aren’t proven at all. Not sure where that leaves us…

Secondly EBM claims by drug companies and their compliant doctors are less about the evidence itself and more about controlling the evidence.

• Firstly they set the study design up so they are more likely to get results they can use to sell their drugs. Like, setting antidepressant drug trials at 60 days because they work around those dates but not longer term. Or they set the primary outcome for a cancer drug to be time before secondary cancer turns up (not how long they help you survive as that doesn’t change).
• Secondly, there is a huge bias in published studies. About 95% of studies registered with the US government which have positive results are published but only 30% of those studies which are not positive are published.
• Thirdly of those that aren’t positive, fully half of them are written up as if they are positive and doctors should continue to prescribe it for their patients.
• Side effects and deaths are denied or diminished on a systematic basis and often are not in the studies at all.
• The statistics are written up to make the drug seem much better than they actually are. I have seen papers where a 57% improvement compared to the alternative becomes an additional 21 days of life but the patient had to give up  6 months for horrendous treatment side effects, so they were actually 5 and a quarter months worse off. Not to mention the cost to their/their country’s wallets.

So if someone from the sceptics society complains about the lack of evidence regarding complementary medicine know that most of them don’t have a clue what they are talking about. There is nothing so lacking in scepticism as a member of that totally unsceptical group. To many of them are just current status-quo believers, thinking they are at the vangard of new knowledge who function through ridicule and claims to status.

The medical model gives a ritual head nod to the importance of the environment and the immunity of the host (the individual person) and then totally ignores it for practical terms. The doctors say they have to treat the person here and now as they present in the clinic in the ten to 15 minute time frame they have. But that is only because they choose to work in that model.

One of the big problems is that they don’t have an alternative model, one that stands up to the test of known knowledge but that focusses on what improves immunity and good health.

Unfortunately they have bought wholesale into the concept of randomised controlled trials as the gold standard of treatment and then tried to extend the drug model into other modalities. What might work when it comes to taking a pill a couple of times a day cannot easily, or I suggest at all, be translated into something that requires major behavioural change or changes in self perception. Then because it hasn’t been proven by randomised controlled trials they say they cannot promote it.

I was discussing the great effects of the behavioural program I was running with patients with several doctors. They said I must do a randomised controlled trial. I told them I had looked into it but couldn’t find a way of doing it which was scientifically valid. I was floored by their very honest response. It doesn’t have to be valid, they said, it just has to be published and made to look as if it is. Then they could use it.

As current medicine isn’t the answer then we just have to make up our own model out of our experience and as far as we can out of undisputed evidence.

This is similar to the Vioxx problem back in 2004. After three and a half years of profit taking they finally caved in to pressure and took it off the market. The results were clear in 2000 but the drug was clearing some $2 billion a year in revenue. So even if Merck’s legal bills come to a billion dollars they will still have cleared about $6 billion by putting off taking the drug from the market. The drug killed some 60,000 people and this should be compared to the 58,000 US killed in Vietnam. (Thanks Roby Mitchell for this info.)

I think we have to be clear that the drug companies do not have our best interests at heart – they are about profits, not patient care when it comes to the bottom line. So bear that in mind if your doctor wants to put you onto medication for the long term.

For those who want more info about when the Vioxx problem was known there is a paper:

Ross, JS et al. Polled Analysis of Rofecoxib placebo-controlled clinical trial data. Lessons for postmarket pharmaceutical safety surveillance. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169(21): 1976-1985

There was an interesting article on the BBC website suggesting in its first paragraph that bringing back WWII rationing might reduce the obesity levels and encourage healthier eating. I read this as a slightly tongue in cheek introduction and a way of thinking about healthy eating. Later paragraphs however point out some very interesting facts and some rather messy thinking. Unfortunately this messy thinking is common in the public arena these days.

Mid-way down the article it was reported that the annual intake of calories in the UK in 1942 was 2,269 and in 2000 it was only 1,750. This did not include alcohol, soft drinks and confectionery. With figures for those added it was suggested that the calorie rate went up to 2,320, just slightly higher than the amount during rationing and less than adding one orange a day to the wartime diet.

The point was then made that the type of calories eaten had changed considerably. But without making further comment on that important fact the writer then went on to comment on other issues.

The article quoted one expert as saying, “food is available everywhere, open round the clock – cheaper, poor quality, bigger portions – a situation where food is ubiquitous. It is the first time really in history where food is limitless.”

However the caloric intake tells a different story. Despite the so called “bigger portions” the average food calorie intake has gone down by nearly 25% since 1943. We are not eating more. We are eating nearly 25% less.

The expert advocated “taxes on high fat and high sugar foods.”

The figures in the BBC article for the amount of fat allowed during the period of rationing in the UK were very high by our current standards. Each person was allowed 2oz (56 g) of butter a week and 6 oz (170g) of margarine and other fats per week. Those figures were at peak rationing. In the early stages of rationing twice that amount and more was allowed for.

We do need to remember that there were almost no bought biscuits or pre-prepared meals and so all fat was accounted for other than that which came attached to the meat (also rationed). However many people did have employer provided mid-day meals and so fat content may have been even higher than just what the family cooked.

As a personal example for the modern day, my husband and I eat no bought pre-prepared foods and purchase only 500g of butter a month and along with about 50 ml of olive oil used a month that is the only fat purchased. I thought I was being very liberal with lots of butter in our mashed potatoes and fried mushrooms and eggs plus baking every 10 days or so. However our fat intake per person per week is only about 70g compared to the 226 g per person per week during the most stringent of rationing times. It is interesting that one university calorie counter suggests I should have even less, only 50g per week.

The type of calories we eat has indeed changed considerably. These differences in figures are staggering. At the beginning of the war fat was rationed to only 1 lb 7oz (644g) per person per week, later reducing to third of that amount. I do know from my mother’s stories how she found it very, very difficult to cope on the rationed amounts. Now the “experts” are suggesting that 2-3oz (50-75g) per week are healthy depending on age and size. Were people fat in the 1940s on 4 – 10 times the amount of fat, or now, on much less?

Instead of eating fat for calories we have added very much more soft drinks, alcohol and confectionary, not to mention bread, biscuits and other flour based products such as pasta.

Back in the 1940s and 1950s when the high fat diet with large portions of potatoes and other vegetables were the norm virtually noone was obese. Now the UK population has dropped their food caloric intake by almost a quarter and increased their sugar and flour intake and the obesity rate has soared.

Note: to find the article search for WWII rationing on the BBC news site.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8445824.stm 

Firstly I was very ill by this time. I had not only lost 90% of the sight in my right eye but I felt really, really ill. I could hardly stand up. Finally five doctors and two hospitals later I did get treated.  I knew that steroids the doctor wanted to prescribe could be a problem and asked for clarification. I was basically left to understand I was worrying about nothing. I was told that some people found them quite energising or words to that effect.

What I discovered was that not only did the steroid pills mean I didn’t sleep more than 2 hours a night but they sent me somewhat manic – I kept buying more and more food till I had no room left in the fridge, cupboard or bench! Then I kept cooking to use it all up. I still felt ill, but I couldn’t stand one thing out of place so I was compulsively tidying up all the time despite feeling ill and exhausted from lack of sleep. Then when I came off the pills I found that steroids have side effects from coming off them as well! Once I stopped taking the pills I seemed reasonably OK. My manic behaviour stopped followed by a time to rest and recuperate. After weeks of not sleeping I didn’t expect much of myself. Three weeks later I was still lacking in motivation or activity. I couldn’t think or cope with any stress at all. It was that last factor which gave me a clue as to what was wrong with me. One of the side effects of steroids is that they stop the body from producing its own cortisol and other hormones too. So if I just sat around and did nothing then I felt fine – very happy actually. But if I had any stress at all, even going to the shops to buy food was more than I could handle. I remembered that one of the side effects of the steroids was that I wouldn’t be able to cope with stress as the adrenal glands were compromised by the drug. I went online to see if my experiences were known, and yes, I wasn’t alone. Lots of people have had similar side effects. I had some adrenal support pills in the cupboard (mixture of herbs and vitamins) and on the third day of taking them found myself coming up out of the drug induced fog. It was a very interesting feeling.

What annoys me though is the doctor lied to me, straight out lied to me. The side effects were known, and documented, but of course they aren’t a problem to the doctor as he wasn’t going to suffer from them.

Would I take them again in the same circumstances? Probably, but I wouldn’t be a good patient next time. I would be much stroppier and insist on earlier care so that I wouldn’t need the pills in the first place.  I hope there will never be another next time.

Just another note – it seems as though there is no-one who gives nursing care any longer in our hospitals. There are technicians with the name of nurse who collect data for the doctor, but no-one who actually cares for the patient. There is no-one to help you walk when you can’t, or provide you with a comfortable seat or bed while you wait in extreme discomfort. I was in tears and a nurse said, “Are you all right?” “No,” I said, “I am not coping. I cannot keep myself upright and there is no back to this high stool you have me on.” “Oh,” he said, “There isn’t anything else.” and wandered away. Next time I will just lie down on the floor and not try to cope. The stupid high stool about 25cm across is not a place to put a sick person for an hour while they wait for the  doctor. Another time I wouldn’t let them stop my husband from coming with me.

And why, oh why, do the staff in ED have to congregate in clusters in the centre of the department staring at their clipboards doing nothing. The doctors moved from patient to patient. The data gatherers assiduously ignored patients in pain and stared at their papers. Multiple patients, some in a worse state that I was, all with carers refused entry to the department, left alone on their own to wait and wait and wait with dozens of pen pushers standing around in the middle of the space talking about nothing. Not to mention that we all heard the details about each others conditions. The triage nurse – there was no triage as we all went in in order of arrival, so the really ill had to wait as long as the slightly ill – asked questions in a loud voice. “And when was the last time you went to the toilet?” “When was the last time you felt your baby move.? So you think it might have died?” “Oh, so you have more than one sort of cancer diagnosed? Can you tell me about the first one?”

Lying doctors, incredibly slow treatment and no care at all, certainly no privacy. Ah well, this is the poor end of socialised medicine, though the private system couldn’t even see me for a week so it wasn’t any better! But what appalled me is that most people felt that the system was OK. I didn’t.

It is my personal belief that there are two parallel forces working within our body – the first is working at all times to keep us healthy, the second kicks in when we are unwell and starts to return us to the earth. Mostly the first one wins, returning us to some sort of health, or sometimes only enough to keep us in chronic ill health and the second wins on the last day of our life. The question for us is what can we do to encourage health and delay the latter until we are ready to go.

The health track depends very much on what we feed our bodies and how we manage them. I could go on for pages, even book length about the psycho-social-spiritual components in healing such as shown by the survivors in www.beatthemedicalodds.com, however all of those components can be summed up as to what contributes to stress on the body and what encourages physiological health. The same can be said about the physical component – does it improve physical and physiological functioning or does it leave the body with negative stress?

Then every symptom, every tension in the body becomes a health clue, as Lee Mickle would say, an indicator that something needs improving. It could be that a dietary change is needed or a relaxation of a particular muscle, or some change in personal thinking. Lee has reminded me of the importance of the body, of relaxation of the muscles for the health of the body and specifically for the relaxation of the trigger points.

But can stress be enough to cause ill-health? Stress is caused by anything negative in your world that you react or respond to. It can be a cold wind over your back causing tension in the muscles,  or negative thinking, or your body’s attempt to remove toxic exhaust fumes from your blood stream, or your immune system dealing with the influenza virus at the same time as you are cold and tense from being out in a cold wind.  Or it can be due to hard physical work such as building a brick wall that leaves your muscles tired and sore, or being left tired and drained after a fantastic social weekend. Then if your body has to deal with all of the above at once then the flu might just win against the immune system in the short term leaving you feeling ill and miserable.

However accepting responsibility for your illness is not the same as accepting the fault-guilt-blame-shame game. You don’t have to feel bad about being sick. Feeling sick is bad enough, feeling bad is extra.

As a rough rule of thumb one would like to choose to consult health professionals who know how to be healthy and who show it when you see them.

However it is very easy for those working in health to feel smug when they sort out their own health problems or when they go years without having any infection or health issue. Until, that is, they go down with something that keeps getting worse and worse, despite all their best attempts at using all their knowledge to encourage their body to recover.

If you get a health professional who has never had challenges or whose one problem was fixed by the change in just one aspect of their lives then you can find them smug and so confident that their one answer is THE one answer to everyone else’s problems. These people can be a total pain in the neck.

So I don’t think we want to have a health professional who is never sick. We want one who is human,  who knows that healing is more complicated that their usual first approach and that a second or third way might be necessary or might be more appropriate in the first place.

Ed Dale makes clear that our personal blog is about market leadership, about who we are and what we stand for. The aim is not to get high on the SEO but to get high PR in our chosen field. And I think my chosen field is the actual practicalities of healing, especially when the practice of medicine says there is no treatment or cure other than attempts to ameliorate the symptoms.

What I am interested in is people who have overcome incredible odds and recovering. Most people don’t think of healing until they have a very real problem, until they really need to know. I want to get that information out there. Whether you are facing cancer, eye problems like I have at the moment, a frozen shoulder that the doctors indicate can’t be fixed or a myriad of other conditions I want to get the message out there that healing is possible.

Now before the sceptics jump on me from a great height, I’m not claiming that anyone, anywhere with any condition can get better. What I am claiming is that if just one person with a particular condition can recover and heal then it is physiologically possible for healing to occur with that condition.

This blog will spend more time exploring issues surrounding getting the message out to the public about the healing process. This isn’t going to be my primary money making site – those will be and are elsewhere.