Tomorrow's Medicine Today

[Guest guest]

Tomorrow's Medicine Today

Vol.7, No.5

Reprinted with permission of Phillips Publishing.

http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/whitaker.html

 

Dear Reader:

 

On Thursday, March 20, Benjamin, a close friend of mine, called me

early in the morning to ask if I was " gloating " . For close to 20

years, I have been saying that the routine surgical treatment of

heart disease is harming more people than it is helping. This is not

my opinion - it is based on a series of scientific studies starting

from 1977 that all show the same thing: Compared to non surgical

therapies, surgery almost always does more damage than good.

 

 

Benjamin brought to my attention a front-page article in the March

20, 1997, Los Angeles Times: Yet another comparative study of

conservative vs. invasive treatment on patients who had had mild

heart attacks. The results were again clear and unequivocal. Sadly,

the immediate use of an invasive strategy, which mostly leads to

angioplasty and bypass surgery, not only didn't help patients, but

increased the in-hospital death rate by 71%.

 

 

 

Heart Surgery Does More Harm Than Good

 

For over a decade, the American College of Cardiology and the

American Heart Association have recommended that patients who have

had mild heart attacks undergo immediate catheterization, or

angiography. This is a procedure that involves threading a catheter

into the arteries of the heart, injecting a dye, then taking x-rays

of the heart in order to see the location and severity of blockages

in those arteries. This leads to a dramatic increase in the use of

bypass surgery and angioplasty, because physicians then try to open

up observed blockages to prevent future heart attacks or death.

 

There are no scientific studies to indicate that this " invasive

strategy " is best for patients, but that has not prevented the heart

surgery industry from going ahead on the presumption that it is.

 

 

This Study Showed More Patients Died in the Surgical Group

 

To test the validity of these recommendations of immediate invasive

action on patients with mild heart attacks, William E. Boden, M.D.,

of the Veterans Affairs Upstate Health Care System in Syracuse, New

York, organized a study. He followed 920 patients who had had mild

heart attacks for two and a half years. Of these, 458 were

randomized to be

treated with a " conservative strategy, " in which they received

medications and treadmill and thallium tests as the first step in

monitoring their condition. The remaining 462 underwent

catheterization as their first diagnostic test, which was followed

by bypass surgery or angioplasty in 45% of the patients.

 

Dr. Boden was astounded by the results. In the first nine days, 21

of the patients in the " invasive strategy group " died, compared to

only six in the conservative strategy group. At the end of two and a

half years 80 patients in the invasive group had succumbed, compared

to only 59 of those in the conservative group, an overall increased

death rate of 36%.

 

At no stage was there any evidence that an invasive strategy did

anything but increase the death rate.

 

 

 

They Demand Scientific Evidence for Natural Therapies......

 

…But Not for Surgical Procedures

I am sure that virtually all of you have encountered conventional

physicians who have stated that " there is no scientific evidence "

for diet, vitamins, or any of the alternative therapies covered in

this newsletter.

 

Research abounds, as evidenced by references in this

newsletter. The same caliber of physicians control the American

Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology, and for

the past 10

years they have recommended that immediate catheterization be the

standard for the treatment of patients with mild heart attacks. It

does not concern these physicians that there is no scientific

grounding for these recommendations to begin with, and I'm sure that

this study will be " nitpicked " to death.

 

 

 

When Will It End?

For years I have watched the unabated growth of the heart surgery

industry, despite scientific studies demonstrating that, used as a

" first option, " it clearly does more harm than good. Studies like

this

one have been published in the peer reviewed medical literature and

reported in the media, yet none of this research has significantly

reduced the use of heart surgery. The truth is that the use of

catheterization and other invasive therapies as a standard course in

any group of heart patients will always increase the death rate,

because of the inherent dangers of the therapies themselves.

 

A good example of this is angioplasty, in which a balloon on the tip

of a catheter is used to open blockages. In my opinion, there is

never a reason for anyone to have an angioplasty. It is a dangerous

procedure looking desperately for validation. Whenever it is

compared to a non surgical therapy-and there have been very few of

these studies-patients treated with angioplasty virtually always

fare worse. There is a higher death rate, higher heart attack rate

and, in general, a higher repeat surgery rate. This procedure will,

in my opinion, always be an unproven,

expensive and dangerous gimmick that became an accepted therapy

based on

self-serving " presumption " only. Bypass surgery may be helpful for

some

patients, but it should not be used as the first treatment, and

clearly

not in mild heart attack patients. Medication, dietary and lifestyle

changes, plus nutritional supplements are more effective approaches.

 

 

 

Just Say " No " -and Stick to It ...

It is standard for cardiologists and heart surgeons to " frighten "

patients into heart surgery, and it leaves psychological scars that

last forever. When you say, " No, thank you, " to a recommendation of

angiogram or surgery, expect a plethora of fear-inspiring scenarios.

Surgeons use phrases like " You're a walking time bomb, " " You could

go at any minute, "

" You might not make it to Christmas, " " The next heart beat may be

your last, " and " You are living on borrowed time. "

 

Harvard cardiologist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Bernard Lown,

M.D., calls these " words that maim. "

 

In his extraordinary book, The Lost Art

of Healing, he lists many examples of phrases used by unaware,

uncaring, or manipulative physicians.

 

 

 

..,.Even When They Try to Scare You

This frightening technique generates, in my opinion, hundreds of

thousands of unnecessary procedures, procedures that patients would

refuse if they were calmly

 

 

given an accurate assessment of the risks, benefits and results of

comparative scientific studies. Without the fear tactic, there would

be

no heart surgery industry.

 

Having followed this industry for 20 years, I am surprised that some

kind of class action suit has not been brought against the entire

industry, including the authoritative organizations such as the

American

Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology, which are

responsible for establishing standards of care.

 

 

This Approach Causes a Lot of Death and Suffering

 

If you add up the in-hospital death rates from bypass surgery

(500,000

surgeries x average in-hospital death rate of 5% = 25,000 deaths)

and

angioplasty (400,000 procedures x average in-hospital death rate of

2% =

8,000 deaths), you're looking at 33,000 deaths per year. These

patients

did not die from heart disease. They did not die in the throes of

heroic

measures to save their lives. They died from a surgical procedure.

And,

even more tragic, many of them were quite healthy, and did not even

need

the procedure to begin with. The 33,000 deaths brought about by

these

procedures are roughly equal to the annual number of deaths

attributed

to AIDS.

 

If you are being pressured to undergo any of these procedures, get a

second opinion. Conservative care, including everything I recommend

in

the Whitaker Program, plus targeted nutrition, will serve you better

in

the long run.

 

REFERENCES

 

Maugh, TH. Invasive heart attack treatment questioned. Los Angeles

Times, March 29, 1997.

Lown, B. The Lost Art of Healing, Houghton Mifflin Company, New

York, NY

1996.

Julian Whitaker, MD

 

Editor

 

 

HEALTH & HEALING: Tomorrow's Medicine Today

 

Reprinted with permission. Copyright 1997.

 

 

 

---

-----------

 

 

Dr. Julian Whitaker, M. D., editor of Health & Healing, has

practiced

medicine for over 20 years, after receiving degrees from Dartmouth

College and Emory University. Dr. Whitaker has long been an advocate

of

living a healthy life. Over the last 20 years, thousands of patients

from all over the country have to the Whitaker Wellness Institute in

Newport Beach, California, for a one-week program of medical

testing,

treatment and education designed specifically for their individual

health problems. He is the author of five major health books:

Reversing

Heart Disease, Reversing Diabetes, Reversing Health Risks, A Guide

to

Natural Healing, and Is Heart Surgery Necessary? These books and

information about the Whitaker Wellness programs are available from

the

Whitaker Wellness Institute at 714/851-1550..

 

 

 

---

-----------

 

 

Dr. Julian Whitaker's Health & Healing® (ISSN 1057-9273) is

published

monthly by the Phillips Publishing, Inc. P. O. Box 60042, 7811

Montrose

Road, Potomac, MD 20859, telephone 800/539-8219.

 

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets