It is our current approach to medicine insane? Part II ;
Dr. Sarah LoBisco, ND
Last month, he discussed the sad statistics on health and problems of basing diagnosis laboratory and imaging. Now is the time to discuss the big elephant in the room. It is based on the fact that the treatment using laboratory markers potential skewed image and may be contributing to the damage. Most current treatments are aimed at suppressing symptoms or manipulate the body to appear are not necessarily markers are sick because we are not getting According to the Center for Disease Control “normal” website. “Appropriate treatment.”
translation :. In 2012, 81.2% of the population was at least one prescription drug in the last 30 days
Furthermore, according to the 38 ap report on the state health of the nation “, the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs prescription was 54% higher between 55 and 64 years old in 2009- 2012 (31.8%) compared to 1999-2002 (20.6 %). “ 1
Recently, a population-based cohort study of 8578 adults over a current Medicare beneficiary survey 2.3 was performed to compare the proportions adjusted risk of death among participants with a condition that they were taking a drug recommended participants verses with the condition of not taking the medication and between guide “participants with the most common combinations of four conditions.” 3
Participants in the study had two or more of the following diagnoses: ventricular fibrillation, coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, depression, diabetes, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, hypertension and disease thromboembolic. From the survey, the authors analyzed the statistics for nine of the most commonly prescribed drugs and recommend guidelines including beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, clopidogrel; metformin, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers, selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and selective inhibitors of serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), statins, thiazide diuretics, and warfarin.
The mean age was 77.4 years and the authors noted: “Most deaths in developed countries occur in people over 65 who have multiple chronic conditions that cause or contribute to death.” The authors determined that more than 50% of subjects received recommended drugs.
The conclusions were as follows:
Our findings corroborate a recent Cochrane review, which showed that the drug effects were generally similar between randomized controlled trials and observational studies. As in randomized controlled trials, found benefit in survival with calcium antagonists, RAS blockers, statins and warfarin. The lack of survival benefit of SSRIs or SNRIs with depression reflects the results of randomized controlled trials have been mixed.The beneficial association of β blockers in people with hypertension, not seen in randomized controlled trials may reflect their beneficial effect on the conditions that coexist with hypertension in this population multimorbid. As lacked echocardiographic data to determine the type of heart failure, we can not confirm or refute previous reports of improved survival with blockers of RAS in people with heart and failure low, but not preserved ejection fraction of the left ventricle .
no benefit was found in survival with clopidogrel in patients with atrial fibrillation or coronary artery disease. The results of randomized controlled trials for survival effect for clopidogrel among people with coronary artery disease are contradictory. The marginal decrease in survival with atrial fibrillation may reflect the use of clopidogrel in high-risk patients for whom warfarin or newer antithrombotic, known to be effective, they were considered dangerous. We lacked data on aspirin use, so I can not comment on the effect of combination therapy of aspirin and clopidogrel. Unlike previous studies, metformin was not associated with survival among older people with diabetes in the current study.
In summary, the authors showed that we are using recommended without effect well known through various conditions drugs. This study was a drop in the bucket itself has several limitations, including the design of observation, the use of a certain demographic, and the fact that not all drugs included reference study.
The article summarizes the best as follows (mine in brackets):
What adds this study
Similarly, a news report health Day recently reported that older people with diabetes are being over treated. The article reported on the results of a study of more than 211,000 people with diabetes who were 70 years or older between 2012 and 2015. He said: “When it comes to treating seniors with diabetes, new research suggests doctors often not cut drugs, even when treatment goals are overcome . the study found that when people had low potentially dangerous levels of blood sugar, only 27 percent had their drugs decreased. And when treatments for blood pressure levels decreased blood pressure too, only 19 percent experienced a reduction in drugs … “ 4
few weeks ago I discussed away from the dangers of drugs prescribed, even correctly in my blog . Specifically, a study that caused the media to badmouth security supplement, and was quite misleading was not performed. The fact is that a large majority of these adverse effects were caused by the weight loss supplements and energy drinks, often mixed with drugs illegally. Moreover, accidental ingestion and swallowing problems, also represent a lot of reports. 4.5 It should be noted that compared to medications, supplements, even with these factors taken into account are much safer. 5-8
For example, a 2006 study in JAMA estimated in a study period of two years, 21,298 cases of adverse drug events were reported. This resulted in the annual estimates of 701.547 people adversely affected by drugs, which in approximately 117,318 hospitalizations.
“In comparison, prescription drugs are responsible for 30 times the number of visits to the emergency room each year,” the New York Times he said. 6
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) adverse event reports drug monitoring site
It is estimated that more than 700,000 people are in hospital emergency departments for adverse drug events each year in the United States. Nearly 120,000 of these patients need to be hospitalized for further treatment. This is an important issue of patient safety, but many of these adverse drug events are preventable …. 7
700,000 23,005 verses. .. this is how the New York times has 30 times more adverse reactions to medication verses supplements.
Moreover, the Report CBHSQ (2015) states:
In 2011, there were an estimated 54,397 emergency room visits involving tramadol and 27,421 (50 percent) were attributed to adverse reactions. The number of visits tramadol-related adverse reactions involve increased 145 percent from 10,091 visits in 2005 to 25,884 visits in 2009, but then remained stable in 2010 (25.887 visitors) and 2011 (27,421 visits) (Figure 1). 8
This means that in a shorter period of time that took place in the study mentioned above supplement was more harmful events attributed to a single drug, which a whole category of dietary supplements. Uff!
So the medicine seems to be doing the same damn thing and expecting different results. This repetitive action, ineffective could be labeled as “crazy.”
According to Wikipedia “In English, the word” healthy “is derived from the Latin adjective sanus which means” healthy “. The phrase” Mens sana in corpore sano “is often translated as meaning a” sound mind in a sound body. “from this perspective, madness can be seen as the poor health of the mind, not necessarily in the brain as an organ ( although that can affect mental health), but refers to the function flawed mental processes such as reasoning. “
indeed, with current statistics Of the health; potential biases, validity, and reliability problems with diagnostic measurements; evidence of harm to the common treatment; and the attack on the alternatives that may, in fact, provide a safe alternative could be labeled “crazy.” 9
In the past, I wrote in my blog about how we can not wait any longer access to a system that does not work to fix our current model. We need to change it. That is why I wrote BreakFree Medicine , which will be released early next year. My goal is to empower patients and physicians with a new perspective and approach to remedy the disappointing health outcomes mentioned above. It is time for a broader health, which focuses on the true vitality and the patient’s goals definition. We need a reunification of the soul with the science of medicine, healing, and a focus on wellness. It is time to restore sanity and objectively look at where we’ve been, where we are, and base your decisions on facts. We need to make a change rather than continue to be absorbed into the rabbit hole. Do you join me, as well as experts on this site, with the same goal?
stay tuned for future blogs that some common factors are discussed and often overlooked that are not being treated by conventional medicine that could be underlying causes of poor results.
Sarah Lobisco, ND , is a graduate of the University of the University of Bridgeport naturopathic medicine (UBCNM). She is licensed in Vermont as a naturopath and has a degree in psychology from the State University of New York at Geneseo. Dr. LoBisco is a comprehensive health speaker, has several publications, and is a candidate for certification in functional medicine. Dr. LoBisco now incorporates her training as a naturopathic doctor and practitioner of functional medicine through writing, research, private practice, and through independent contract work for companies regarding supplements, nutraceuticals, essential oils and food medical. She has a small, private practice wellness consultation via phone and Skype. Dr. LoBisco also enjoys continuing to educate and train their readers through their blogs and social media.
This article was originally published on thenatpath, Read the original article here