Adverse drug reactions and hospital admissions in the UK

[Guest guest]

Its out again - more evidence of biomedicine causing harm.

Regards

Susie

 

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7456/0

 

BMJ 2004;329 (3 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7456.0

 

Adverse drug reactions cause too many hospital admissions

One in 16 admissions to hospital is due to adverse drug reactions. Analysing

18 820 admissions to hospital in Merseyside, Pirmohamed and colleagues (p

15) found that 1225 admissions (6.5%) were related to adverse drug

reactions. Patients were in hospital for eight days on average, accounting

for 4% of bed capacity, and 28 (0.15%) died. Most reactions were due to

aspirin, diuretics, warfarin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; the

most common reaction was gastrointestinal bleeding. Adverse drug reactions

are likely to cost the NHS £466m every year, say the authors, and most are

avoidable.

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " susie parkinson "

<susie@p...> wrote:

> Its out again - more evidence of biomedicine causing harm.

> Regards

> Susie

>

> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7456/0

>

> BMJ 2004;329 (3 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7456.0

>

> Adverse drug reactions cause too many hospital admissions

> One in 16 admissions to hospital is due to adverse drug reactions.

Analysing

> 18 820 admissions to hospital in Merseyside, Pirmohamed and

colleagues (p

> 15) found that 1225 admissions (6.5%) were related to adverse drug

> reactions. Patients were in hospital for eight days on average,

accounting

> for 4% of bed capacity, and 28 (0.15%) died. Most reactions were due to

> aspirin, diuretics, warfarin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory

drugs; the

> most common reaction was gastrointestinal bleeding. Adverse drug

reactions

> are likely to cost the NHS £466m every year, say the authors, and

most are

> avoidable.

 

I am curious what this type of information does for people? Why is

this type of post posted on this group (seemingly) often. Is it to

make us believe how evil western medicine is? Does it just make us

feel like what we are doing is right? Does it help us practice TCM

better? What does this have to do with TCM? Does it mean, tell our

patients to never take P-Drugs, or just the one's mentioned in the

article? At the end of the article it says interestingly

" …suggesting that adverse effects may be responsible for the death of

0.15% of all patients admitted " Not really that high, IMO.

 

I like this one that was in the intro (especially the last sentence):

 

" Lazarou and colleagues suggested that adverse drug reactions (ADRs)

caused over 100 000 deaths in the United States in 1994. However, this

study was criticised for various reasons, including that the death

rate was extrapolated from admission rates in 1994, yet based on rates

of ADRs taken from studies conducted before 1981. Publication bias may

have also contributed to what many investigators regard as INFLATED

mortality data. "

 

Do we have a solution for this problem? Is it to keep spreading as

many stats as possible to scare the public? Maybe… Just asking… Comments?

 

-

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

It is clear to me that the basic premise of " have a symptom, take a drug "

in our Western Med. society, is extremely flawed. The majority of people,

even after reviewing data that shows the danger of drug therapy, don't believe

it could be as bad as it is. Even if they do believe the severity of the

problem, they see no other alternative and continue with drug therapy.

The answer Jason, is to change the paradigm. Help make the norm be " Have

a symptom, find out why, and address the issue " .

We get to reverse the current trend towards drugs into getting the

government to offer information for drug alternatives and have insurance's pay

for

alternatives that are not only safer, but typically reduce the occurrence of

other symptoms.

Repeating this message may help some people start talking to others about

that possibility.

Come on board Jason. Someone as vocal as you can help save thousands of

lives if you help make a change in the current drug norm.

 

Chris

 

In a message dated 8/5/2004 4:28:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

writes:

 

I am curious what this type of information does for people? Why is

this type of post posted on this group (seemingly) often. Is it to

make us believe how evil western medicine is? Does it just make us

feel like what we are doing is right? Does it help us practice TCM

better? What does this have to do with TCM? Does it mean, tell our

patients to never take P-Drugs, or just the one's mentioned in the

article? At the end of the article it says interestingly

" …suggesting that adverse effects may be responsible for the death of

0.15% of all patients admitted " Not really that high, IMO.

 

I like this one that was in the intro (especially the last sentence):

 

" Lazarou and colleagues suggested that adverse drug reactions (ADRs)

caused over 100 000 deaths in the United States in 1994. However, this

study was criticised for various reasons, including that the death

rate was extrapolated from admission rates in 1994, yet based on rates

of ADRs taken from studies conducted before 1981. Publication bias may

have also contributed to what many investigators regard as INFLATED

mortality data. "

 

Do we have a solution for this problem? Is it to keep spreading as

many stats as possible to scare the public? Maybe… Just asking… Comments?

 

-

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

----

 

Chinese Medicine

Thursday, 5 August 2004 6:10:02 PM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Adverse drug reactions and hospital admissions in the UK

 

" …suggesting that adverse effects may be responsible for the death of

0.15% of all patients admitted Jason Wrote " Not really that high, IMO. "

 

Well Jason that depends on if you are the person who died or one of their

family members,its hard to be told that a loved one has died due to the side

effects of drugs.

Some drugs are needed by some people,this information is useful IMO not to

scare patients away from drugs but to encorage them to ASK about the

possible side effects especially DEATH.

The general public need to empower themselves by ASKING QUESTIONS as they

are often " dumbed down " to the lowest common denominator.They also need to

be reminded that DRUGS that may cause serious damage are not ALWAYS the

first port of call, sometimes there may be other options,JUST MAYBE!Pill

popping or " taking something " is an epidemic at present and that includes

taking herbs but at least (I hope) the death rate is not reaching the " not

really high " status you mention.

I dont think this is the case as if it were most of us would be burnt at the

stake.

Ray Ford

 

Chinese Medicine , " susie parkinson "

<susie@p...> wrote:

> Its out again - more evidence of biomedicine causing harm.

> Regards

> Susie

>

> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7456/0

>

> BMJ 2004;329 (3 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7456.0

>

> Adverse drug reactions cause too many hospital admissions

> One in 16 admissions to hospital is due to adverse drug reactions.

Analysing

> 18 820 admissions to hospital in Merseyside, Pirmohamed and

colleagues (p

> 15) found that 1225 admissions (6.5%) were related to adverse drug

> reactions. Patients were in hospital for eight days on average,

accounting

> for 4% of bed capacity, and 28 (0.15%) died. Most reactions were due to

> aspirin, diuretics, warfarin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory

drugs; the

> most common reaction was gastrointestinal bleeding. Adverse drug

reactions

> are likely to cost the NHS £466m every year, say the authors, and

most are

> avoidable.

 

 

I am curious what this type of information does for people? Why is

this type of post posted on this group (seemingly) often. Is it to

make us believe how evil western medicine is? Does it just make us

feel like what we are doing is right? Does it help us practice TCM

better? What does this have to do with TCM? Does it mean, tell our

patients to never take P-Drugs, or just the one's mentioned in the

article? At the end of the article it says interestingly

 

 

I like this one that was in the intro (especially the last sentence):

 

" Lazarou and colleagues suggested that adverse drug reactions (ADRs)

caused over 100 000 deaths in the United States in 1994. However, this

study was criticised for various reasons, including that the death

rate was extrapolated from admission rates in 1994, yet based on rates

of ADRs taken from studies conducted before 1981. Publication bias may

have also contributed to what many investigators regard as INFLATED

mortality data. "

 

Do we have a solution for this problem? Is it to keep spreading as

many stats as possible to scare the public? Maybe… Just asking… Comments?

 

-

[Guest guest]

I think you have a point here JB.

 

I feel that the public, by-and-large, are quite well informed now to

the possible adverse effects of allopathic medicine. This is the

reason why there are looking elsewhere to an `alternative'. What the

public are not aware, is the scope of disorders TCM can treat. There

needs to be a serious and constant effort made, via P.R., to educate

the masses about TCM and it's ability to treat diseases. At the

moment, the public's knowledge is limited to the idea of treating

painful disorders, otherwise that's it.

 

Again this goes back to the associations, which should be campaigning

and educating the public with a P.R. promotion. Additionally, TCM

practitioners should also write and promote the activities of TCM. I

cannot say this enough. Thanks to the likes of Matt Bauer and Brian

Carter, we are slowly getting there.

 

Attilio

 

" "

> I am curious what this type of information does for people? Why is

> this type of post posted on this group (seemingly) often. Is it to

> make us believe how evil western medicine is? Does it just make us

> feel like what we are doing is right? Does it help us practice TCM

> better? What does this have to do with TCM? Does it mean, tell our

> patients to never take P-Drugs, or just the one's mentioned in the

> article? At the end of the article it says interestingly

> " …suggesting that adverse effects may be responsible for the death

of

> 0.15% of all patients admitted " Not really that high, IMO.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/5/2004 10:44:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

writes:

They do have a different paradigm

of understanding the body, but they are definitely looking at the root

for many diseases. There are of course many exceptions when

conditions like pain are involved. But to say that drugs are only for

symptoms is not 100% correct. WM looks at diseases, they

differentiate them into patterns and they have different approaches

for different stages and patterns as we do. We are not that

different.

 

Chris Replies: I agree that some people hold to the highest standards and

are doing that. However, taking the drug company as the whole, the bottom

line is in dollars, not healing. IF western medicine were truly interested in

the patients best interest, things would be a lot different. Cheap

alternatives without side effects would be the norm. Public announcements of

new safe

and inexpensive therapeutic research would be given freely. But it

isn't,,, because the drug companies are looking for ways to expand their power

and

money making capability. And they are doing that in a way that guarantees

their continued success by utilizing compounds that generally mask the real

problem and create side effects that demand the patient take more of their

compounds. In addition, they are systematically trying to erase the patients

options

of any alternative to their compounds.

This is unfortunately, the way it is. I have been in talks with many

people who deal with this problem directly.

Jason, you put a much more benevolent light on the mass western healing

situation than I. I truly believe that the approach of the drug companies is

next to criminal. Unfortunately, our laws do not allow us to prosecute

immorality.

 

I do however agree with you about the need to scientifically prove the

validity of what we do. Although, I will say, even after " proving " some

alternative methods, and winning Nobel prizes for doing so, the alternative is

never,

in my knowledge utilized by mainstream medicine. Why?????? The drug

companies don't make any money.

There are good people in the industry trying to help. The industry

unfortunately, is corrupt and power hungry.

 

In the next part of your reply to me you suggest that part of the reason

people are willing to take the drugs is in the minds of the patients, the drugs

have been tested and you suggest that alternative biochemistry hasn't been.

The truth of it is that their is a tremendous amount of research being

done on non drug compounds. There are mountains of information showing the

validity, safety and cost effectiveness of many alternative therapies out there.

The problem IMHO, is the Governments around the world are not interested

in changing the big picture and promoting the use of these healthy

alternatives. The national health organizations do not, after all the prestige

given by

scientists, allow the new findings to be incorporated in the health plans.

Why would they? Currently legislators are given millions of dollars to

expand the role of the drug companies in health care. Even with the horrendous

statistics about drug side effects and interactions and hospitalization from

the above, we are still herded in the direction of drugs.

 

It's easy, and it makes everyone in power a lot of money.

 

I don't think I am overly cynical. I think most people looking at the

situation objectively will see how our current drug problem is caused by greed

and power.

 

We get to tell our representatives that we don't want universal drug

coverage. We want access to healing modalities. Free choice and for the

Insurance companies to pay for healthy alternatives to the current drug

approach.

 

As I see it,

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

> in our Western Med. society, is extremely flawed. The majority of

people,

> even after reviewing data that shows the danger of drug therapy,

don't believe

> it could be as bad as it is. Even if they do believe the severity

of the

> problem, they see no other alternative and continue with drug therapy.

 

Yes this is right, but in their mind, it has been tested. But they

have a choice. They can pick A) All the 100's of untested alternative

therapies, or B) something that may have side-effects, but at least

tested (in someway). This is the rub. There are a lot of great

healers, but there are also many not so great, with skeptical

training, trying to heal everything from cancers to candida. These

therapies have no history, no research etc. So the public, in

general, is fearful, and rightfully so many times. My whole fight has

been to elevate our profession out of this (perceived) muck to

something substantial that people can trust (as they should). That is

why I get so vocal when therapies that are not CM slip into the

wordwork. (Being clear on where stuff comes from is important for

this reason). They just cloud our field and cloud the public's

perception. Especially when they find out something is bogus, doesn't

work etc and then they associate it with CM… I am not saying that one

should only use research, that is definitely not the point.

 

Yes taking a pill is the easy way out, and usually not the best

alterative (in our opinions) but the public does not see past the

status quo. Also many times these pills do actually work.

The P-Companies are bug $$$, one must walk carefully.

 

(Sorry is msg. is not clear, typing fast, late to work )

 

-

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/5/2004 11:13:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

writes:

One last comment (wooo.. I'm late..)

 

Another selling point for WM. Even though there are side-effects and

possibility of complications. WM has much data on what these are,

percentages of people that i.e. get nausea from drug X etc. WM has

put in some serious time, and the public sees this, and likes the

clarity – as wrong as it may be. They can look on the web and read

about their drug, disease, research etc. Many do. In alternative

medicine there is nothing.

 

 

That is just not true. If the patient must simply trust the practitioner, it

is because the governing bodies are not interested in incorporating healthy

alternatives into a drug based system.

 

 

 

One trusts the practitioner. And when

something goes wrong (side-effects) which often happens, the

practitioner may say something like, ohh this is good, it is a healing

crisis. As true as this statement may be, the public (At least in

boulder) is on to this one, and just doesn't buy it. They want to

know what's up.

Comments?

 

-Jason

 

 

 

What's up Jason, is that the drug companies spend a lot discrediting

anything that may take away from their dominance and power.

If our governments wanted, they could easily include in our healthcare

systems, cost effective ways to reduce all the of the top five health problems

facing our world. Problem is, there is no one motivated right now to do that.

Perhaps if the public were to demand access to health insurance that

actually would insure our " Health " then things would be different.

 

Chris

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , Musiclear@a... wrote:

> Jason,

>

> It is clear to me that the basic premise of " have a symptom,

take a drug "

 

Well to some extent I agree, but it is not that simple. Many modern

drugs do not just attack symptoms. They do have a different paradigm

of understanding the body, but they are definitely looking at the root

for many diseases. There are of course many exceptions when

conditions like pain are involved. But to say that drugs are only for

symptoms is not 100% correct. WM looks at diseases, they

differentiate them into patterns and they have different approaches

for different stages and patterns as we do. We are not that

different. I do not, though, believe by attacking the establishment

in such a way will change the paradigm. The only way that I see a

change occurring is showing the world through research that CM works

for X disease. Otherwise western medicine and the majority of people

will just laugh, as they do now. We live in a research based society,

for better or worse, and western medicine is the dominant WORLD

medicine. It will not just crumble from a few stats and angry people…

But don't get me wrong, I am onboard, and instead of attacking the

other side I just try to promote CM and what it can do. For example in

a current Chinese journal there is much research on osteoporosis and

how successful Chinese herbs are, this is how I try to promote. But

everyone has there way. I do not disagree with what was posted, just

curious behind the thought process, thanx for explaining.

 

 

> in our Western Med. society, is extremely flawed. The majority of

people,

> even after reviewing data that shows the danger of drug therapy,

don't believe

> it could be as bad as it is. Even if they do believe the severity

of the

> problem, they see no other alternative and continue with drug therapy.

 

Yes this is right, but in their mind, it has been tested. But they

have a choice. They can pick A) All the 100's of untested alternative

therapies, or B) something that may have side-effects, but at least

tested (in someway). This is the rub. There are a lot of great

healers, but there are also many not so great, with skeptical

training, trying to heal everything from cancers to candida. These

therapies have no history, no research etc. So the public, in

general, is fearful, and rightfully so many times. My whole fight has

been to elevate our profession out of this (perceived) muck to

something substantial that people can trust (as they should). That is

why I get so vocal when therapies that are not CM slip into the

wordwork. (Being clear on where stuff comes from is important for

this reason). They just cloud our field and cloud the public's

perception. Especially when they find out something is bogus, doesn't

work etc and then they associate it with CM… I am not saying that one

should only use research, that is definitely not the point.

 

Yes taking a pill is the easy way out, and usually not the best

alterative (in our opinions) but the public does not see past the

status quo. Also many times these pills do actually work.

The P-Companies are bug $$$, one must walk carefully.

 

(Sorry is msg. is not clear, typing fast, late to work )

 

-

 

> The answer Jason, is to change the paradigm. Help make the norm

be " Have

> a symptom, find out why, and address the issue " .

> We get to reverse the current trend towards drugs into getting the

> government to offer information for drug alternatives and have

insurance's pay for

> alternatives that are not only safer, but typically reduce the

occurrence of

> other symptoms.

> Repeating this message may help some people start talking to

others about

> that possibility.

> Come on board Jason. Someone as vocal as you can help save

thousands of

> lives if you help make a change in the current drug norm.

>

> Chris

>

> In a message dated 8/5/2004 4:28:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> writes:

>

> I am curious what this type of information does for people? Why is

> this type of post posted on this group (seemingly) often. Is it to

> make us believe how evil western medicine is? Does it just make us

> feel like what we are doing is right? Does it help us practice TCM

> better? What does this have to do with TCM? Does it mean, tell our

> patients to never take P-Drugs, or just the one's mentioned in the

> article? At the end of the article it says interestingly

> " …suggesting that adverse effects may be responsible for the death of

> 0.15% of all patients admitted " Not really that high, IMO.

>

> I like this one that was in the intro (especially the last sentence):

>

> " Lazarou and colleagues suggested that adverse drug reactions (ADRs)

> caused over 100 000 deaths in the United States in 1994. However, this

> study was criticised for various reasons, including that the death

> rate was extrapolated from admission rates in 1994, yet based on rates

> of ADRs taken from studies conducted before 1981. Publication bias may

> have also contributed to what many investigators regard as INFLATED

> mortality data. "

>

> Do we have a solution for this problem? Is it to keep spreading as

> many stats as possible to scare the public? Maybe… Just asking…

Comments?

>

> -

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

One last comment (wooo.. I'm late..)

 

Another selling point for WM. Even though there are side-effects and

possibility of complications. WM has much data on what these are,

percentages of people that i.e. get nausea from drug X etc. WM has

put in some serious time, and the public sees this, and likes the

clarity – as wrong as it may be. They can look on the web and read

about their drug, disease, research etc. Many do. In alternative

medicine there is nothing. One trusts the practitioner. And when

something goes wrong (side-effects) which often happens, the

practitioner may say something like, ohh this is good, it is a healing

crisis. As true as this statement may be, the public (At least in

boulder) is on to this one, and just doesn't buy it. They want to

know what's up.

Comments?

 

-Jason

 

 

Chinese Medicine , Musiclear@a... wrote:

> Jason,

>

> It is clear to me that the basic premise of " have a symptom,

take a drug "

> in our Western Med. society, is extremely flawed. The majority of

people,

> even after reviewing data that shows the danger of drug therapy,

don't believe

> it could be as bad as it is. Even if they do believe the severity

of the

> problem, they see no other alternative and continue with drug therapy.

> The answer Jason, is to change the paradigm. Help make the norm

be " Have

> a symptom, find out why, and address the issue " .

> We get to reverse the current trend towards drugs into getting the

> government to offer information for drug alternatives and have

insurance's pay for

> alternatives that are not only safer, but typically reduce the

occurrence of

> other symptoms.

> Repeating this message may help some people start talking to

others about

> that possibility.

> Come on board Jason. Someone as vocal as you can help save

thousands of

> lives if you help make a change in the current drug norm.

>

> Chris

>

> In a message dated 8/5/2004 4:28:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> writes:

>

> I am curious what this type of information does for people? Why is

> this type of post posted on this group (seemingly) often. Is it to

> make us believe how evil western medicine is? Does it just make us

> feel like what we are doing is right? Does it help us practice TCM

> better? What does this have to do with TCM? Does it mean, tell our

> patients to never take P-Drugs, or just the one's mentioned in the

> article? At the end of the article it says interestingly

> " …suggesting that adverse effects may be responsible for the death of

> 0.15% of all patients admitted " Not really that high, IMO.

>

> I like this one that was in the intro (especially the last sentence):

>

> " Lazarou and colleagues suggested that adverse drug reactions (ADRs)

> caused over 100 000 deaths in the United States in 1994. However, this

> study was criticised for various reasons, including that the death

> rate was extrapolated from admission rates in 1994, yet based on rates

> of ADRs taken from studies conducted before 1981. Publication bias may

> have also contributed to what many investigators regard as INFLATED

> mortality data. "

>

> Do we have a solution for this problem? Is it to keep spreading as

> many stats as possible to scare the public? Maybe… Just asking…

Comments?

>

> -

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Attilo, I have to respectfully disagree with you about the public being well

informed re the adverse side effects of allopathic medicine.Those that seek

me out at least are doing so because they are well informed but here that is

a very very small piece of the pie.We cannot assume that because people are

seeking out alternative approaches that this applies to the public " by and

large " Things are changing and ALL THOSE ON THIS LIST ARE making a difference

but there is a long way to go.

RAY Ford

 

----

 

Chinese Medicine

Thursday, 5 August 2004 8:24:05 PM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Adverse drug reactions and hospital admissions in the UK

 

I think you have a point here JB.

 

I feel that the public, by-and-large, are quite well informed now to

the possible adverse effects of allopathic medicine. This is the

reason why there are looking elsewhere to an `alternative'. What the

public are not aware, is the scope of disorders TCM can treat. There

needs to be a serious and constant effort made, via P.R., to educate

the masses about TCM and it's ability to treat diseases. At the

moment, the public's knowledge is limited to the idea of treating

painful disorders, otherwise that's it.

 

Again this goes back to the associations, which should be campaigning

and educating the public with a P.R. promotion. Additionally, TCM

practitioners should also write and promote the activities of TCM. I

cannot say this enough. Thanks to the likes of Matt Bauer and Brian

Carter, we are slowly getting there.

 

Attilio

 

" "

> I am curious what this type of information does for people? Why is

> this type of post posted on this group (seemingly) often. Is it to

> make us believe how evil western medicine is? Does it just make us

> feel like what we are doing is right? Does it help us practice TCM

> better? What does this have to do with TCM? Does it mean, tell our

> patients to never take P-Drugs, or just the one's mentioned in the

> article? At the end of the article it says interestingly

> " …suggesting that adverse effects may be responsible for the death

of

> 0.15% of all patients admitted " Not really that high, IMO.

[Guest guest]

About 5 months ago, after diagnosing a series of patients with Lipitor

poisoning, I had to put a big sign up on the front desk stating, " If you are

on Lipitor or any other statin drug, please inform Dr. Jenkins immediately. "

The MDs have been handing this stuff out like penny candy at a street fair.

 

None of these patients, most of whom were in severe agony, had any idea that

the drug their medical doctor had put them on -- solely for " preventive

medicine " purposes, mind you -- could cause the kind of problems that they

were experiencing. For a few of them, when I ran the labs, their liver

enzymes were through the roof.

 

Again, not a clue that this medical approach to wellness could cause such

illness.

 

When a recent study came out, showing that medical care was the sixth

leading cause of death in the US today, I mentioned it to many of my

patients. A lot of them flat out refused to believe me, even though I showed

them the research.

 

It is a *huge* cultural bias that those of us in alternative medicine are

attempting to change, and though it is happening, it is occurring very

gradually. Most people really are unaware of the vast dangers that await

them every time they enter a medical doctor's office.

 

I now have another sign at my front desk. This one says, " Dr. Jenkins will

inform you if your prescription drugs will interfere with your treatment

here. Please instruct your medical doctor to make the appropriate changes to

your medications. "

 

To understand that statement requires that the patient recognize that I

consider my therapies primary in their case, and medication a secondary,

dispensable approach; it also subtly informs the patient that *they* are the

ones in charge of their treatment, not their MD (or me, for that matter).

 

 

Avery L. Jenkins, DC, DACBN, FIAMA

Chiropractic Physician

Diplomate, American Clinical Board of Nutrition

Fellow, International Academy of Medical Acupuncture

Kent, CT

 

-

" rayford " <rford

<Chinese Medicine >

Thursday, August 05, 2004 10:36 AM

Re: Re: Adverse drug reactions and hospital admissions in the

UK

 

 

Attilo, I have to respectfully disagree with you about the public being well

informed re the adverse side effects of allopathic medicine.Those that seek

me out at least are doing so because they are well informed but here that is

a very very small piece of the pie.We cannot assume that because people are

seeking out alternative approaches that this applies to the public " by and

large " Things are changing and ALL THOSE ON THIS LIST ARE making a difference

but there is a long way to go.

RAY Ford

[Guest guest]

There is no doubt that there are many toxic drug reactions, and the

abuse of pharmaceuticals is pandemic. I see the abuses of medications

in my clinic every day. At the same time, we see that reactions to

'alternative' treatments, including acupuncture and herbal medicine,

are often clothed in the 'healing crisis' cop-out. While the healing

crisis may be a valid concept in a rigorously applied healing system,

such as the 'aggravations' of homeopathic treatment, too many

practitioners blame toxic reactions to alternative treatments on this.

 

What would the reaction of the public be if we were in WM's shoes?

Could we manage in such a huge healthcare system as the primary

providers? We need to ask ourselves if we are ready to manage

life-threatening diseases, open hospitals, etc. We are still in the

infant stages of our profession in the west. It will take a few

generations to get to prominence, and only if we play our cards

correctly.

 

At the same time, Jason, there aren't the dollars or pounds to fund

alternative medical research in the West with the quality it deserves,

This also holds us back.

 

However, as long as there are scenarios like what Salvador described

for his own treatment, getting worse and worse over a few years with

acupuncture in the name of dogma, we have something to worry about for

the future.

 

 

On Aug 5, 2004, at 7:33 AM, wrote:

 

> Another selling point for WM. Even though there are side-effects and

> possibility of complications. WM has much data on what these are,

> percentages of people that i.e. get nausea from drug X etc. WM has

> put in some serious time, and the public sees this, and likes the

> clarity – as wrong as it may be. They can look on the web and read

> about their drug, disease, research etc. Many do. In alternative

> medicine there is nothing. One trusts the practitioner. And when

> something goes wrong (side-effects) which often happens, the

> practitioner may say something like, ohh this is good, it is a healing

> crisis. As true as this statement may be, the public (At least in

> boulder) is on to this one, and just doesn't buy it. They want to

> know what's up.

> Comments?

>

> -Jason

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with Zev.

 

The 'healing crisis' does not exist in TCM and is more of a new-age concept.

 

 

Drug-herb interactions are already a big issue and its gonna get bigger in

the future. Of course no pharmaceutical money is going into its research.

Why should it from their point of view. It's all about money, and its not in

the vested interests of the big companies to fund drug-herb research. Nor is

it in the vested interests of doctors to refer out to TCM practitioners,

it's taking the bread out of their mouths. It's up to us to raise funds for

research into drug-herb interactions and acupuncture effectiveness and

pursue our own cause coz no one else is gonna. Even if the governments of

various countries plough money into research it's only gonna be a token

gesture and won't go far enough.

 

The sooner we realise its all down to money and not patient care and making

people better, the sooner we can align our focus and move forwards.

 

Kind regards

 

Attilio

 

www.chinesedoctor.co.uk

 

 

 

[zrosenbe]

05 August 2004 16:53

Chinese Medicine

Re: Re: Adverse drug reactions and hospital admissions in the

UK

 

 

There is no doubt that there are many toxic drug reactions, and the

abuse of pharmaceuticals is pandemic. I see the abuses of medications

in my clinic every day. At the same time, we see that reactions to

'alternative' treatments, including acupuncture and herbal medicine,

are often clothed in the 'healing crisis' cop-out. While the healing

crisis may be a valid concept in a rigorously applied healing system,

such as the 'aggravations' of homeopathic treatment, too many

practitioners blame toxic reactions to alternative treatments on this.

 

What would the reaction of the public be if we were in WM's shoes?

Could we manage in such a huge healthcare system as the primary

providers? We need to ask ourselves if we are ready to manage

life-threatening diseases, open hospitals, etc. We are still in the

infant stages of our profession in the west. It will take a few

generations to get to prominence, and only if we play our cards

correctly.

 

At the same time, Jason, there aren't the dollars or pounds to fund

alternative medical research in the West with the quality it deserves,

This also holds us back.

 

However, as long as there are scenarios like what Salvador described

for his own treatment, getting worse and worse over a few years with

acupuncture in the name of dogma, we have something to worry about for

the future.

 

 

On Aug 5, 2004, at 7:33 AM, wrote:

 

> Another selling point for WM. Even though there are side-effects and

> possibility of complications. WM has much data on what these are,

> percentages of people that i.e. get nausea from drug X etc. WM has

> put in some serious time, and the public sees this, and likes the

> clarity - as wrong as it may be. They can look on the web and read

> about their drug, disease, research etc. Many do. In alternative

> medicine there is nothing. One trusts the practitioner. And when

> something goes wrong (side-effects) which often happens, the

> practitioner may say something like, ohh this is good, it is a healing

> crisis. As true as this statement may be, the public (At least in

> boulder) is on to this one, and just doesn't buy it. They want to

> know what's up. Comments?

>

> -Jason

[Guest guest]

I wanted to chime in and explain why I think information about WM/drug deaths

and adverse reactions are appropriate for this list. We are healthcare providers

and the more we know about the potential risk of the drugs and other WM

therapies our patients avail themselves to, the better we can manage their care.

All medical interventions should be considered for their benefit to risk ratio.

While I agree with Jason that we should not slam Western medicine in a knee jerk

manner, I disagree that we already know a lot about the risks of drugs and the

like. In fact, I believe we only know the tip of the iceberg about the true risk

of drugs and thus have an overly rosy view of their benefit to risk ratio.

 

 

 

Consider the Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) study that was recently

conducted. That study was supposed to run 7 years but was stopped after 5 years

when cases of breast cancer began to pop up at the end of the fourth year. Had

that study run four years, we would still not have any " scientific evidence "

about HRT causing breast cancer. And who knows, if that study would have run the

full 7 years or 10 or 20 years, we might have learned the HRT causes many other

health problems. Most drugs never go through such extensive testing as that HRT

study - in fact, the only reason the HRT study was that extensive, was they were

hoping to show HRT would reduce heart disease so the drug manufacture footed

most to the bill.

 

 

 

If more than 100,000 Americans die each year when everything goes right with

their drug use, common sense should tell us that their must be at least 1,000

more who are somehow damaged by drug medication use. That means over 100 million

adverse reactions and probably many more than that. That means that many of the

people we see in our practices are actually presenting with conditions that are

at least partly caused by the medication they are taking. That means that drug

use is a major pathogenic factor among our patients.

 

 

 

I also disagree that patients are well informed about the potential dangers of

drug use. I have probably told 100 or so of my patients over the years about the

Pomeranz study showing more than 100,000 deaths from properly taken drugs and

not one had ever heard of that study. But all of my patients have heard that

herbs may be dangerous. I also agree that we need to do more to further our

understanding about the risk of the herbs we prescribe - how about a formal

herbal adverse event reporting system? As much as I would support such a

system, I still believe drugs are much more dangerous than we know and that the

more we and the public understand this, the more pressure will be placed on

looking for relatively safer alternatives such as CM.

 

 

 

Matt Bauer

 

 

 

-

Chinese Medicine

Thursday, August 05, 2004 7:33 AM

Re: Adverse drug reactions and hospital admissions in the UK

 

 

One last comment (wooo.. I'm late..)

 

Another selling point for WM. Even though there are side-effects and

possibility of complications. WM has much data on what these are,

percentages of people that i.e. get nausea from drug X etc. WM has

put in some serious time, and the public sees this, and likes the

clarity - as wrong as it may be. They can look on the web and read

about their drug, disease, research etc. Many do. In alternative

medicine there is nothing. One trusts the practitioner. And when

something goes wrong (side-effects) which often happens, the

practitioner may say something like, ohh this is good, it is a healing

crisis. As true as this statement may be, the public (At least in

boulder) is on to this one, and just doesn't buy it. They want to

know what's up.

Comments?

 

-Jason

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

Membership requires that you do not post any commerical, swear, religious,

spam messages,flame another member or swear.

 

http://babel.altavista.com/

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being

delivered.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason>I am curious what this type of information does for people? Why is

this type of post posted on this group (seemingly) often. Is it to

make us believe how evil western medicine is?

 

Susie> I posted this info for several reasons. 1) because this was published

in the British Medical Journal, a journal for doctors, I think it indicates

that doctors themselves may be becoming more aware of the toxicity of many

drugs. There is a lot of over prescribing of NSAIDs, statins, diuretics in

the UK and in my opinion, many GPs forget how dangerous these drugs can be.

An article like this serves to remind doctors as well as inform patients of

the possible adverse reactions. 2) because I thought it supported earlier

posts on the subject 3) because its useful to show this kind of research to

patients who don't realise the dangers of drugs.

 

I do not believe that western medicine is evil, nor do I think the concept

of evil as used by you here is anything other than childish taunting.

Western medicine has saved my life (literally) on 3 occasions and I don't

think TCM could have done that for me. In the UK, GPs are at the mercy of

drug company propaganda, so we need to educate them about the risks more

than educate the patients - lets get to the root of the problem.

 

Jason> At the end of the article it says interestingly

" …suggesting that adverse effects may be responsible for the death of

0.15% of all patients admitted " Not really that high, IMO.

 

Susie> I think someone else pointed out that your opinion on this is

cavalier (especially if you are a healer). What about the same drug

reactions that kill people who are not admitted to hospital, or to those who

are already in hospital? That makes the figure a lot higher.

 

Jason>I like this one that was in the intro (especially the last sentence):

 

" Lazarou and colleagues suggested that adverse drug reactions (ADRs)

caused over 100 000 deaths in the United States in 1994. However, this

study was criticised for various reasons, including that the death

rate was extrapolated from admission rates in 1994, yet based on rates

of ADRs taken from studies conducted before 1981. Publication bias may

have also contributed to what many investigators regard as INFLATED

mortality data. "

 

Susie> I'm not surprised you like that bit - you have very selective

understanding don't you? Did you read the whole article or just the intro?

If not I suggest you do.

 

Jason>Is it to keep spreading as many stats as possible to scare the public?

 

Susie> That's rich coming from you when you were talking about anecdotal

pneumothorax injuries not so long ago. I thought you liked statistics? You

have been asking for scientific evidence of statements for weeks - modern

research is largely statistics as very little qualitative research is taken

seriously in medical circles.

 

Before you rush to post an argumentative response to this, please just stop

and think about the positives as well as the negatives, maybe then you can

post a reasoned and balanced response after giving it some thought, if

indeed you feel a response is necessary/useful

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " Attilio

D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto> wrote:

> I agree with Zev.

>

> The 'healing crisis' does not exist in TCM and is more of a new-age

concept.

 

Bite your tongue for using using the term 'new-age' to describe a

healing crisis...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

There are a couple of *major* differences in the need to deeply examine the

potential adverse reactions of herbs and those of medications, that being

the length of time they have been in use. All of the herbs I use in practice

have been employed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. A lot of sharp

clinicians have had the chance during that time to observe the problems that

can crop up in their use, and those cautions have been refined and reported

over the years. There is less need to formally study them, because they are

already well known.

 

Secondly, don't forget an herb is food. We are designed to be able to ingest

and metabolize foods, and our body has built-in controlling mechanism for

their use. It's a Darwinian thing; granted, a poison is a poison, whether

grown or made in a test tube, but that fact is one reason why herbs tend to

be so much safer while at the same time retaining comparable, or better,

levels of efficacy in many cases.

 

In comparison, most drugs have been around for a few years at best. There

has been little chance for doctors to informally observe both long- and

short-term side effects, and it is not something that is going to happen

easily in the current health care system anyway. Thus, you really need

formal studies in order to delineate the problems.

 

Also, our bodies have never seen these molecules before. There is *no*

controlling mechanism to retard the deleterious effects of drugs, as there

are with foods. Thus, they are inherently more dangerous.

 

Even the existence of adverse studies has no effect on the most profitable

drugs. Despite the fact that the largest meta-analysis of SSRIs conducted to

date, including all studies of this class of drugs, concluded that Prozac

and its brothers are little more than a dangerous placebo, SSRIs are one of

the leading drugs today. And not a single one of my patients who were on

them were told by their MD or pharmacist that these drugs are, in most

cases, useless.

 

 

 

Avery L. Jenkins, DC, DACBN, FIAMA

Chiropractic Physician

Diplomate, American Clinical Board of Nutrition

Fellow, International Academy of Medical Acupuncture

Kent, CT

 

-

" Matt Bauer " <acu.guy

<Chinese Medicine >

Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:51 PM

Re: Re: Adverse drug reactions and hospital admissions in the

UK

 

 

> I wanted to chime in and explain why I think information about WM/drug

deaths and adverse reactions are appropriate for this list. We are

healthcare providers and the more we know about the potential risk of the

drugs and other WM therapies our patients avail themselves to, the better we

can manage their care. All medical interventions should be considered for

their benefit to risk ratio. While I agree with Jason that we should not

slam Western medicine in a knee jerk manner, I disagree that we already know

a lot about the risks of drugs and the like. In fact, I believe we only know

the tip of the iceberg about the true risk of drugs and thus have an overly

rosy view of their benefit to risk ratio.

>

>

>

> Consider the Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) study that was recently

conducted. That study was supposed to run 7 years but was stopped after 5

years when cases of breast cancer began to pop up at the end of the fourth

year. Had that study run four years, we would still not have any " scientific

evidence " about HRT causing breast cancer. And who knows, if that study

would have run the full 7 years or 10 or 20 years, we might have learned the

HRT causes many other health problems. Most drugs never go through such

extensive testing as that HRT study - in fact, the only reason the HRT study

was that extensive, was they were hoping to show HRT would reduce heart

disease so the drug manufacture footed most to the bill.

>

>

>

> If more than 100,000 Americans die each year when everything goes right

with their drug use, common sense should tell us that their must be at least

1,000 more who are somehow damaged by drug medication use. That means over

100 million adverse reactions and probably many more than that. That means

that many of the people we see in our practices are actually presenting with

conditions that are at least partly caused by the medication they are

taking. That means that drug use is a major pathogenic factor among our

patients.

>

>

>

> I also disagree that patients are well informed about the potential

dangers of drug use. I have probably told 100 or so of my patients over the

years about the Pomeranz study showing more than 100,000 deaths from

properly taken drugs and not one had ever heard of that study. But all of my

patients have heard that herbs may be dangerous. I also agree that we need

to do more to further our understanding about the risk of the herbs we

prescribe - how about a formal herbal adverse event reporting system? As

much as I would support such a system, I still believe drugs are much more

dangerous than we know and that the more we and the public understand this,

the more pressure will be placed on looking for relatively safer

alternatives such as CM.

>

>

>

> Matt Bauer

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> There is no doubt that there are many toxic drug reactions, and the

> abuse of pharmaceuticals is pandemic. I see the abuses of medications

> in my clinic every day. At the same time, we see that reactions to

> 'alternative' treatments, including acupuncture and herbal medicine,

> are often clothed in the 'healing crisis' cop-out. While the healing

> crisis may be a valid concept in a rigorously applied healing system,

> such as the 'aggravations' of homeopathic treatment, too many

> practitioners blame toxic reactions to alternative treatments on this.

>

> What would the reaction of the public be if we were in WM's shoes?

> Could we manage in such a huge healthcare system as the primary

> providers? We need to ask ourselves if we are ready to manage

> life-threatening diseases, open hospitals, etc. We are still in the

> infant stages of our profession in the west. It will take a few

> generations to get to prominence, and only if we play our cards

> correctly.

 

AS for all that has been posted in response to my posts I think the

above sums up everything pretty well. It is real easy to say that if

people just came to us to prevent those top 5 killers than everything

would be alright. Well we are well past that and WM has to treat a big

mess. They are treating life threatening illness, which 99% of people

on the list could not handle. Yes people die, and yes they die from

mistakes. This is life. Could you do better? In the Confucian

spirit, the whole is greater than the individual. That is where WM

is. It has to deal with a `whole world' of serious problems. One can

always look at an isolated incident and say how bad something is, but

that misses the big picture. But I do agree there are more mistakes

than there should be. They treat more symptoms than they should be

etc etc. This is obvious. I am just saying look at the positive a

little and see there strengths. WM is not going anywhere, so trying

to overthrow this establishment by quoting # of ADR's is not going to

happen. There is only one way for our medicine to thrive and grow,

and it is not going to be directly competing with WM.

 

-

 

 

>

> At the same time, Jason, there aren't the dollars or pounds to fund

> alternative medical research in the West with the quality it deserves,

> This also holds us back.

>

> However, as long as there are scenarios like what Salvador

described

> for his own treatment, getting worse and worse over a few years with

> acupuncture in the name of dogma, we have something to worry about for

> the future.

>

>

> On Aug 5, 2004, at 7:33 AM, wrote:

>

> > Another selling point for WM. Even though there are side-effects and

> > possibility of complications. WM has much data on what these are,

> > percentages of people that i.e. get nausea from drug X etc. WM has

> > put in some serious time, and the public sees this, and likes the

> > clarity – as wrong as it may be. They can look on the web and read

> > about their drug, disease, research etc. Many do. In alternative

> > medicine there is nothing. One trusts the practitioner. And when

> > something goes wrong (side-effects) which often happens, the

> > practitioner may say something like, ohh this is good, it is a healing

> > crisis. As true as this statement may be, the public (At least in

> > boulder) is on to this one, and just doesn't buy it. They want to

> > know what's up.

> > Comments?

> >

> > -Jason

> >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/6/2004 11:18:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

writes:

AS for all that has been posted in response to my posts I think the

above sums up everything pretty well. It is real easy to say that if

people just came to us to prevent those top 5 killers than everything

would be alright.

 

I believe I am the only one who referenced anything about the top 5

killers and what I said had nothing to do with your reference.

What I meant was that since there has been so much study into the top

five killers from the western guys, there are researches that really know the

biochemistry involved and safe effective inexpensive ways to solve the problems.

These will never make it to market unless the Governments allow these

protocols into the system. They won't unless we demand it because it doesn't

make the drug companies any money.

 

Well we are well past that and WM has to treat a big

mess. They are treating life threatening illness, which 99% of people

on the list could not handle.

 

This attitude astounds me. I think your nuts. No attack intended,

but,,,,, I think your nuts. And far more insulting than my last comment about

your

sanity.

 

 

Yes people die, and yes they die from

mistakes. This is life. Could you do better?

 

 

Absolutely. As could most people on this list. As another has

mentioned, a large part of getting people well is over coming the drugs they are

on.

Remember, most drugs for chronic problems or prevention make people imbalanced

and ultimately weakened. Most of the therapies that I would suggest for

prevention or a chronic problem would empower their body, making them stronger.

So

would most everyone else here. Big difference.

 

 

 

In the Confucian

spirit, the whole is greater than the individual. That is where WM

is. It has to deal with a `whole world' of serious problems.

 

The approach they take creates a whole world of serious problems. You

seem to gloss over this simple fact.

The other simple fact is that because of lack of profit, extremely

valuable preventative medical knowledge is largely being kept from society.

 

 

One can

always look at an isolated incident and say how bad something is, but

that misses the big picture.

 

I truly believe you are missing the big picture. I am not talking about

any isolated incidents.

 

 

But I do agree there are more mistakes

than there should be.

 

Please understand that acourding to JAMA drugs with no mistakes involved

are the third killer in the states.

 

They treat more symptoms than they should be

etc etc.

 

Their treatments create more sysmtoms.

 

This is obvious. I am just saying look at the positive a

little and see there strengths.

 

Their strengths lie in acute trauma. Not cancer or heart problems or

arthritis or Alzheimer ect ect ect.

 

 

WM is not going anywhere, so trying

to overthrow this establishment by quoting # of ADR's is not going to

happen.

 

However, demanding non drug therapy be included in typical government

recommendations for chronic health issues may. Drugs kill. We and others, do

that much less.

 

 

There is only one way for our medicine to thrive and grow,

and it is not going to be directly competing with WM.

 

-

 

We can't compete with them. But we can take the monopoly away.

 

Chris

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " Dr. Avery L.

Jenkins " <ajenkins@c...> wrote:

> There are a couple of *major* differences in the need to deeply

examine the

> potential adverse reactions of herbs and those of medications, that

being

> the length of time they have been in use. All of the herbs I use in

practice

> have been employed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. A lot

of sharp

> clinicians have had the chance during that time to observe the

problems that

> can crop up in their use, and those cautions have been refined and

reported

> over the years. There is less need to formally study them, because

they are

> already well known.

>

> Secondly, don't forget an herb is food. We are designed to be able

to ingest

> and metabolize foods, and our body has built-in controlling

mechanism for

> their use. It's a Darwinian thing; granted, a poison is a poison,

whether

> grown or made in a test tube, but that fact is one reason why herbs

tend to

> be so much safer while at the same time retaining comparable, or better,

> levels of efficacy in many cases.

 

Granted herbs in general are safer than many P-Drugs ( I don't know

anyone here that would say otherwise), but there are many toxic herbs

and they work because they are toxic. They are far from foods. Also,

modern research has produced much knowledge about these toxicities

that were not known AT ALL in the previous centuries – Wait until

Bensky's new book!. Herbs in general, IMO are not foods, they are

medicine. (Only some are foods). For fun tonight try chewing on a

fuzi, wutou, xixin salad and get back to me after you get out of the

hospital. – I don't by your Darwinian thing.

 

>

> In comparison, most drugs have been around for a few years at best.

There

> has been little chance for doctors to informally observe both long- and

> short-term side effects, and it is not something that is going to happen

> easily in the current health care system anyway. Thus, you really need

> formal studies in order to delineate the problems.

 

There are many studies.. some better than others, but at least they

have studies. Looking at a PDR, one has a pretty good idea what to

expect from side-effects, granted many long-term effects are not

known, and this is an issue. I.e. A patient can look on the net and

see that 10% have vomiting with drug XYZ.

 

>

> Also, our bodies have never seen these molecules before.

 

Do you mean like insulin, cortisone, or estrogen?????

 

There is *no*

> controlling mechanism to retard the deleterious effects of drugs, as

there

> are with foods. Thus, they are inherently more dangerous.

>

> Even the existence of adverse studies has no effect on the most

profitable

> drugs. Despite the fact that the largest meta-analysis of SSRIs

conducted to

> date, including all studies of this class of drugs, concluded that

Prozac

> and its brothers are little more than a dangerous placebo, SSRIs are

one of

> the leading drugs today.

 

I would like to check this out, can you supply the citation.

 

-

[Guest guest]

On Aug 6, 2004, at 5:18 AM, Dr. Avery L. Jenkins wrote:

 

> There are a couple of *major* differences in the need to deeply

> examine the

> potential adverse reactions of herbs and those of medications, that

> being

> the length of time they have been in use. All of the herbs I use in

> practice

> have been employed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. A lot of

> sharp

> clinicians have had the chance during that time to observe the

> problems that

> can crop up in their use, and those cautions have been refined and

> reported

> over the years. There is less need to formally study them, because

> they are

> already well known.

 

While it is true that herbal medicine in China has been in use,

relatively safely for a very long time, the dynamic of patients using

not only pharmaceuticals but also supplements as well as herbs is very

new, with no historical precedent. We ignore this fact to our peril.

 

 

>

> Secondly, don't forget an herb is food. We are designed to be able to

> ingest

> and metabolize foods, and our body has built-in controlling mechanism

> for

> their use. It's a Darwinian thing; granted, a poison is a poison,

> whether

> grown or made in a test tube, but that fact is one reason why herbs

> tend to

> be so much safer while at the same time retaining comparable, or

> better,

> levels of efficacy in many cases.

>

Many plants have evolved toxins to defend themselves from environmental

'enemies'. Not all plants are foods. Interestingly, the early materia

medica Shen nong ben cao/Divine Farmer's Materia Medica classifies

medicinals in three categories: 1) superior medicinals, that have no

toxicity, supplement the mind and body, and can be used as food 2)

middle class medicinals which have mild toxicity, and are used to

nurture the personality traits and 3) inferior medicinals, which are

very powerful, toxic and treat diseases.

 

> In comparison, most drugs have been around for a few years at best.

> There

> has been little chance for doctors to informally observe both long- and

> short-term side effects, and it is not something that is going to

> happen

> easily in the current health care system anyway. Thus, you really need

> formal studies in order to delineate the problems.

>

It is true, long term reactions to medications are not always

determined by studies.

 

> Also, our bodies have never seen these molecules before. There is *no*

> controlling mechanism to retard the deleterious effects of drugs, as

> there

> are with foods. Thus, they are inherently more dangerous.

 

You are talking about a very complex phenomenon. It is true than many

pharmaceuticals are synthetic compounds, therefore difficult to

metabolize in comparison with natural substances. They are also not

buffered by so-called 'inert' molecules, so they are much stronger than

most herbal medicinals.

 

>

> Even the existence of adverse studies has no effect on the most

> profitable

> drugs. Despite the fact that the largest meta-analysis of SSRIs

> conducted to

> date, including all studies of this class of drugs, concluded that

> Prozac

> and its brothers are little more than a dangerous placebo, SSRIs are

> one of

> the leading drugs today. And not a single one of my patients who were

> on

> them were told by their MD or pharmacist that these drugs are, in most

> cases, useless.

 

Reactions to SSRI's tend to vary greatly. I am interested in citations

to some of these studies.

 

Thanks for the info,

 

 

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/6/2004 10:20:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

writes:

> Well we are well past that and WM has to treat a big

> mess. They are treating life threatening illness, which 99% of people

> on the list could not handle.

>

> This attitude astounds me. I think your nuts. No attack intended,

> but,,,,, I think your nuts. And far more insulting than my last

comment about your

> sanity.

 

We all have our opinions... And I stick by mine. I wonder what

training you have to treat such problems. An observation: I have

noticed that many Western CM practitioners generally think they can

treat everything. Seasoned Chinese Practitioner's who have many times

equal western training are always very cautious and know that there

are things best left to western medicine – They understand the

limitation more realistically. I ask, are we ready to take on all the

acute problems, i.e. Acute Respiratory Failure or acute bacterial

meningitis or chronic cases of cancer with *our* tools… What would you

do if someone walks through your door with a M.I.? Just curious…

Notice I mention life threatening illnesses not cold, flues, arthritis

chronic fatigue etc… So I also think you are nuts, now were even

 

 

 

 

 

Jason, the thrust of my posts have to do with dealing with chronic

diseases and the prevention of disease. You seem to continue to challenge back

with

our ability to treat acute trauma. I agree that Western Medicine is better

at acute trauma.

Having said that, since you asked, if someone walked in with an MI, I

would call for paramedics, and probably give him a shot of magnesium, a bunch of

CoQ10. Maybe some Natto and some aspirin. That would stop some heart attacks

and lesson the severity of damage of many others.

I did notice that you mention " Life Threatening " . I didn't assume you

meant in an emergency situation. If you are suggesting Western Medicine is

better at acute emergency situations, I agree. Otherwise, we most certainly can

handle life threatening diseases. I would pull from outside TM for some

Biochemistry help though.

 

 

> In the Confucian

> spirit, the whole is greater than the individual. That is where WM

> is. It has to deal with a `whole world' of serious problems.

>

> The approach they take creates a whole world of serious

problems. You

> seem to gloss over this simple fact.

 

Yes but they save many lives and point blank with technology,

 

There certainly is a tug of war between saving lives and creating

unnecessary pain suffering and death.

If the FDA were to start utilizing the information available regarding

cheap effective preventive therapies and made these therapies as averrable as

drugs are now, then we probably wouldn't be having this dialog. I bet both life

span and quality of life would likely go up dramatically. Even from where it

is now with drug therapy.

 

 

 

medicine, etc our life span has sky rocketed i.e. Around 10,000 BC the

average human life span was 20 years. When Jefferson was born the

average had increased, but only to 27 years. By 1950 the world-wide

average had increased to 46 years. In the last five decades it has

increased to 66 years (1). – So one can argue about quality of life,

but I give you a choice would you take 27 years or what we have now in

America. Western Medicine has done miraculous things worldwide. I

did not gloss of over your above statement I am looking at the whole

picture – maybe our pictures are just different.

 

>

> Please understand that acourding to JAMA drugs with no mistakes

involved

> are the third killer in the states.

 

Again let us see this STAT! this again?

 

My BAD,,, JAMA refrerances 106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of

drugs . Here are some other stats and sources. From Mercola Web site:

 

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

12,000 -- unnecessary surgery 8

7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals 9

20,000 -- other errors in hospitals 10

80,000 -- infections in hospitals 10

106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs 2

These total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!

2. Kohn L, ed, Corrigan J, ed, Donaldson M, ed. To Err Is Human: Building a

Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.

8. Leape L.Unecessarsary surgery. Annu Rev Public Health. 1992;13:363-383.

 

9. Phillips D, Christenfeld N, Glynn L. Increase in US medication-error

deaths between 1983 and 1993. Lancet. 1998;351:643-644.

10. Lazarou J, Pomeranz B, Corey P. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in

hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205.

 

It's bad Jason. Real bad.

 

 

 

>

> They treat more symptoms than they should be

> etc etc.

>

> Their treatments create more sysmtoms.

>

> This is obvious. I am just saying look at the positive a

> little and see there strengths.

>

> Their strengths lie in acute trauma. Not cancer or heart

problems or

> arthritis or Alzheimer ect ect ect.

 

I am curious what kind of heart problems and cancer you fell

comfortable dealing with… MI's? triple bypasses? Brain tumors?

 

-

 

Again, I am generally talking about most chronic diseases. I never

suggested we could do triple bypasses or operate on tumors. That would be

ridiculous.

However, I would suggest that as people find they have arterial damage

and plague buildup, there are effective cheap and safe therapies available to

remove those buildups.

I would suggest that if a person was given the idea they may need a

triple bypass that there maybe other options that don't require knives and chest

cracking.

 

You seem to have consistently twisted what I have said to suit your

desires. I believe you probably get my message but choose to try to belittle my

ideas by suggesting that I am talking about the ridiculous. Given the extent

that you have done this, I am beginning to question your intent in this

conversation.

 

I do appreciate some of what you say and enjoy the verve of your

discussions, but if you are going to reference what I say, please try to do it

accurately.

 

Thanks,

Chris

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> I believe I am the only one who referenced anything about the top 5

> killers and what I said had nothing to do with your reference.

> What I meant was that since there has been so much study into

the top

> five killers from the western guys, there are researches that really

know the

> biochemistry involved and safe effective inexpensive ways to solve

the problems.

 

 

Can you elaborate on these...

 

 

> AS for all that has been posted in response to my posts I think the

> above sums up everything pretty well. It is real easy to say that if

> people just came to us to prevent those top 5 killers than everything

> would be alright.

>

> I believe I am the only one who referenced anything about the top 5

> killers and what I said had nothing to do with your reference.

> What I meant was that since there has been so much study into

the top

> five killers from the western guys, there are researches that really

know the

> biochemistry involved and safe effective inexpensive ways to solve

the problems.

> These will never make it to market unless the Governments allow

these

> protocols into the system. They won't unless we demand it because

it doesn't

> make the drug companies any money.

>

> Well we are well past that and WM has to treat a big

> mess. They are treating life threatening illness, which 99% of people

> on the list could not handle.

>

> This attitude astounds me. I think your nuts. No attack intended,

> but,,,,, I think your nuts. And far more insulting than my last

comment about your

> sanity.

 

We all have our opinions... And I stick by mine. You must have some

outstanding training to think you can treat such problems. It is

funny because I notice that Western CM practitioners generally think

they can treat everything. Seasoned Chinese Practitioner's who have

many times equal western training are always very cautious and know

that there are things best left to western medicine. Are you ready to

take on all the acute problems, i.e. Acute Respiratory Failure or

acute bacterial meningitis or chronic cases of cancer with *your*

tools… What would you do if someone walks through your door with a

M.I.? Just curious… Notice I mention life threating illnesses not

cold, flues, arthritis chronic fatigue etc… So I also think you are

nuts, now were even

 

 

>

>

>

> In the Confucian

> spirit, the whole is greater than the individual. That is where WM

> is. It has to deal with a `whole world' of serious problems.

>

> The approach they take creates a whole world of serious

problems. You

> seem to gloss over this simple fact.

 

Yes but they save many lives and point blank with technology,

medicine, etc our life span has sky rocketed i.e. Around 10,000 BC the

average human life span was 20 years. When Jefferson was born the

average had increased, but only to 27 years. By 1950 the world-wide

average had increased to 46 years. In the last five decades it has

increased to 66 years (1). – So one can argue about quality of life,

but I give you a choice would you take 27 years or what we have now in

America. Western Medicine has done miraculous things worldwide. I

did not gloss of over your above statement I am looking at the whole

picture – maybe our pictures are just different.

 

>

> Please understand that acourding to JAMA drugs with no mistakes

involved

> are the third killer in the states.

 

Again let us see this STAT! this again?

 

>

> They treat more symptoms than they should be

> etc etc.

>

> Their treatments create more sysmtoms.

>

> This is obvious. I am just saying look at the positive a

> little and see there strengths.

>

> Their strengths lie in acute trauma. Not cancer or heart

problems or

> arthritis or Alzheimer ect ect ect.

 

I am curious what kind of heart problems and cancer you fell

comfortable dealing with… MI's? triple bypasses? Brain tumors?

 

-

 

 

(1)

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/mediacenter/articles/jperon_benefits-indus=

try.asp

- I have seen similiar stats otherplaces, if someone has something

different let me know.

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , Musiclear@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 8/6/2004 11:18:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> writes:

> AS for all that has been posted in response to my posts I think the

> above sums up everything pretty well. It is real easy to say that if

> people just came to us to prevent those top 5 killers than everything

> would be alright.

>

> I believe I am the only one who referenced anything about the top 5

> killers and what I said had nothing to do with your reference.

> What I meant was that since there has been so much study into

the top

> five killers from the western guys, there are researches that really

know the

> biochemistry involved and safe effective inexpensive ways to solve

the problems.

> These will never make it to market unless the Governments allow

these

> protocols into the system. They won't unless we demand it because

it doesn't

> make the drug companies any money.

>

> Well we are well past that and WM has to treat a big

> mess. They are treating life threatening illness, which 99% of people

> on the list could not handle.

>

> This attitude astounds me. I think your nuts. No attack intended,

> but,,,,, I think your nuts. And far more insulting than my last

comment about your

> sanity.

 

We all have our opinions... And I stick by mine. I wonder what

training you have to treat such problems. An observation: I have

noticed that many Western CM practitioners generally think they can

treat everything. Seasoned Chinese Practitioner's who have many times

equal western training are always very cautious and know that there

are things best left to western medicine – They understand the

limitation more realistically. I ask, are we ready to take on all the

acute problems, i.e. Acute Respiratory Failure or acute bacterial

meningitis or chronic cases of cancer with *our* tools… What would you

do if someone walks through your door with a M.I.? Just curious…

Notice I mention life threatening illnesses not cold, flues, arthritis

chronic fatigue etc… So I also think you are nuts, now were even

 

 

>

>

>

> In the Confucian

> spirit, the whole is greater than the individual. That is where WM

> is. It has to deal with a `whole world' of serious problems.

>

> The approach they take creates a whole world of serious

problems. You

> seem to gloss over this simple fact.

 

Yes but they save many lives and point blank with technology,

medicine, etc our life span has sky rocketed i.e. Around 10,000 BC the

average human life span was 20 years. When Jefferson was born the

average had increased, but only to 27 years. By 1950 the world-wide

average had increased to 46 years. In the last five decades it has

increased to 66 years (1). – So one can argue about quality of life,

but I give you a choice would you take 27 years or what we have now in

America. Western Medicine has done miraculous things worldwide. I

did not gloss of over your above statement I am looking at the whole

picture – maybe our pictures are just different.

 

>

> Please understand that acourding to JAMA drugs with no mistakes

involved

> are the third killer in the states.

 

Again let us see this STAT! this again?

 

>

> They treat more symptoms than they should be

> etc etc.

>

> Their treatments create more sysmtoms.

>

> This is obvious. I am just saying look at the positive a

> little and see there strengths.

>

> Their strengths lie in acute trauma. Not cancer or heart

problems or

> arthritis or Alzheimer ect ect ect.

 

I am curious what kind of heart problems and cancer you fell

comfortable dealing with… MI's? triple bypasses? Brain tumors?

 

-

 

 

(1)

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/mediacenter/articles/jperon_benefits-indus=

try.asp

- I have seen similiar stats otherplaces, if someone has something

different let me know.

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " "

wrote:

 

We all have our opinions... And I stick by mine. I wonder what

training you have to treat such problems. An observation: I have

noticed that many Western CM practitioners generally think they can

treat everything. Seasoned Chinese Practitioner's who have many times

equal western training are always very cautious and know that there

are things best left to western medicine – They understand the

limitation more realistically. I ask, are we ready to take on all the

acute problems, i.e. Acute Respiratory Failure or acute bacterial

meningitis or chronic cases of cancer with *our* tools… What would you

do if someone walks through your door with a M.I.? Just curious…

Notice I mention life threatening illnesses not cold, flues, arthritis

chronic fatigue etc… So I also think you are nuts, now were even

 

 

Jason

You neglect to point out that most of the 'acute illnesses' are the

direct result of long term drug prescription and to some extent

operations on the bone structure , for what is initially stress

induced disorders. IMO If people were sent to us at that stage. the

amount of work done by WM would be dramatically reduced within 10 years

 

salvador