Expert Patients - A New Healthcare Paradigm

[Guest guest]

For those whom get the Digest: there are many links in the following article

as well as ones for the 'Related Articles' at the bottom. You will need to

go to the webpage to access them.

 

Expert Patients - A New Healthcare Paradigm

_http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2008/02/21/expert_patients_a_new_healthc

are_paradigm.htm_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2008/02/21/expert_patients_a_new_healthcar\

e_paradigm.htm)

Healthcare is a business - one of the major productive enterprises in the

industrialized world. How much of this business is really 'taking in our own

laundry' is hard to tell at a glance.

Some say that the _business with disease_

(http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/index.html) is

largely responsible for keeping us

sick, as there is no financial reward in having a healthy population. On the

other hand, much money is to be made from selling remedies that do not cure but

merely alleviate our symptoms.

 

 

_Doctor yourself_ (http://www.doctoryourself.com/) - take responsibility

for your own health - is the motto of Andrew W. Saul, one of the major

proponents of _orthomolecular_ (http://www.orthomolecular.org/) medicine, a

system

of health care based on supplying the nutritional elements we are often

missing in our diet.

We are moving into a third healthcare revolution says _Kathryn Alexander_

(http://www.getalife.net.au/about_author) , one of the leading experts in

detoxification and dietary healing who lives in Queensland, Australia and who

has

lectured on the dietary approach to health in the USA, Europe and Australia.

 

_Dietary Healing_ (http://www.getalife.net.au/publications/index_html) - by

Kathryn Alexander

 

Kathryn has traced the forces for change in our medical system. She says

that the internet-driven knowledge revolution and the new tendency to

electronically record patient data in _electronic health records_

(http://www.himss.org/ASP/topics_ehr.asp) may be helping to overcome the

current, profit-centered

approach to health. By analyzing the collected data we will discover what

actually works and start to rearrange healthcare to be more efficient.

The fact that our personal health records are actively being collected and

will in the future be coveted objects of trade, according to Kathryn will

actually catalyze patients, the real owners of these personal data, to band

together. Patients will become a force in their own right with policy forming

and

decision making powers and together, they might just be able to tip the

balance in favor of real prevention...

- - -

Expert Patients and the New Healthcare Paradigm

by _Kathryn Alexander_ (http://www.getalife.net.au/about_author)

(First published in _Nexus Magazine_ (http://www.nexusmagazine.com/) -

December 2007/January 2008)

A rapid escalation of the ongoing global power struggle in the US$3 trillion

health sector (1) is challenging the status quo between global pharmcos,

pharmacy industries and guilds, the all powerful fiefdoms of clinicians,

government agencies, politicians and the health insurance industry.

This perfect storm is due to a unique combination of interconnecting drivers

that collectively offer the winner, in this high stakes game, to take all.

This would be achieved by acquiring control of the supply and cost of all

medications and complementary products, as well as controlling the knowledge of

what actually works for each and every patient according to their own genetic

profile.

This contest of strength is showing all the characteristics of a dirty war

as all sides start to realise the ramifications of winning and ramp up their

efforts to grab the high ground and the knowledge asset acquired via the new

_electronic health records_ (http://www.himss.org/ASP/topics_ehr.asp) (EHR),

by harvesting information from the data provided by the support services

associated with it.

The primary driver for this power shift is the inability by Western

governments to meet the direct costs of escalating health bills due to an

explosion

of modern day non-contagious epidemics with associated rising costs of

products and services, plus the indirect costs to the economy due to loss of

income

from decreased productivity (days off work) and future income lost by

premature death. For example, the annual cost of obesity (and its related

conditions, diabetes, heart disease and stroke) contributes US$93 billion to

the nation’

s yearly medical bill, (2) while in Britain, the financial impact of obesity

is estimated to reach £45.5 billion per year by 2050. (3)

When the indirect costs of welfare and income tax reduction are factored

into the equation, along with meeting the costs of a rapidly increasing ageing

population (the over 65s are set to comprise 20% of the population in the USA

by 2030), it becomes apparent that all Western governments, whether welfare

or private healthcare orientated, will need to implement dramatic cost saving

strategies if they are to survive the projected rate of increase in chronic

disease and stay abreast of the next wave in “predictive and preventive

medicine†– the new designer drugs tailored for genetically distinct groups

that

will tackle disease before you get it, ripening the market for long-term drug

dependency.

 

Navigating the third healthcare revolution

According to Sir Muir Gray, Director of Clinical Knowledge of the UK’s

National Health Service (NHS), we’re moving into a 3rd healthcare revolution

which

will be knowledge-based, where the “knowledge [of what works] will become

the enemy of diseaseâ€. (4)

The first revolution was the discovery that dirty water produced disease;

the second revolution was the discovery that chemicals could influence the

course of disease, and this third revolution will be driven the new-found

ability

of knowing what actually works (of today’s medications and procedures) for

each and every individual and, more importantly, which emerging medical

breakthroughs could work. Governments and insurers will take the lead of Sir

Muir

Gray, who says “the application of the knowledge we already possess will have

a bigger impact on health and disease than any drug or technology likely to

be introduced in the next decadeâ€. (5)

In a bid to control the knowledge, governments, insurance companies,

clinicians and pharmaceuticals are building their own electronic health

databases to

plug in everyone’s medical records (and eventually every genome) in order to

harvest the knowledge of which clinical procedures deliver the best outcome,

the risks and benefits of drugs within given populations, environmental

factors and geographic variations in disease and, most importantly, the

cost-saving benefits or revenue generating capacity that this knowledge will

bring.

The capacity to enter information into a database in real-time has

far-reaching implications for all involved. The sharing of data across multiple

parties, including general practitioners, specialists, clinics, hospitals and

support services (pathology, radiology), not only provides the clinician with

all

the information relating to the medical events of the patient, but the

benefits and risks of any new drug, product or procedure will be realized in a

comparatively short time which will release those that pay and those that

prescribe from the bondage of the pharmcos and manufacturers of new technology

and

enable more cost-effective treatments that achieve better outcome for

patients. The UK government’s expected cost of running the NHS’s new IT

systems

could cost £40 billion by 2014, a huge increase on the budgeted cost in 2002

of

£6.2 billion.(6) Where are the tangible benefits for patients?

 

To date most of these repository projects have run into problems due to the

resistance of clinicians, who traditionally collect and effectively “ownâ€

patient information, to enter this data and share it with the owners of the new

repository systems or, in many cases, even the patients themselves.

However, this is not hindering the funding of these systems by governments as

without access to this type of knowledge they have nothing to combat spiralling

healthcare costs.

 

The insurance industry is also taking a keen interest in accessing the

knowledge from these harvested repositories. In the US, health insurer Kaiser

Permanente, which has 8.7 million members, employs over 13,700 physicians and

runs more than 30 medical centres,(7) has already established its own

repository

and through the harvesting of data can now offer treatment to members whose

data indicate that they may be heading towards an adverse event, such as a

heart attack, so producing large savings for the organization.

 

With the pharmaceuticals taking a keen interest in acquiring the harvested

knowledge from these massive data repositories, the battle for control is also

touching on a range of issues regarding ownership of individual and

collective data.

 

Each country seems to be tackling the issue of identity verification along

similar lines using either national identity cards, welfare or tax numbers,

whilst, at the same time, arguing for a national ID card or exchanges that can

link multiple existing ID systems together for health and welfare. Much

confusion exists around ownership and privacy where most governments and

corporations seem to use privacy legislation as a reason not to provide

information to

citizens.

In order to avoid this tricky issue of ownership, a common approach is to

allow personal information within a health record (including the DNA profile)

to be sold without permission so long as the person’s name is not included.

This " de-identified " rationale falls down on two points: firstly, it is

possible to reconstruct identities from these databases using new probability

software; and secondly, current practices allow de-identified information to be

sold by a third party, without the owner’s permission, to multinational

insurance companies, which, in effect, challenges the whole principle of

ownership

and legalises theft by corporate bodies.

 

Unless ownership of individual data and the range of issues surrounding the

rights of access and use of aggregated data are established for the citizen

and the common good, then the likely default position will be a few powerful

multinationals controlling the knowledge in collaboration with governments.

In order to put the endpoint of this power game into context it is necessary

to recognize not only the US$3 trillion industry that’s up for grabs, but

also the value of this new knowledge-based commercial asset. Although no

reliable figures have been published of this knowledge asset, it’s easy to

estimate

what the asset-value would be, and therefore the share value of a small

group of multinationals controlling the very heart of this knowledge-based

revolution.

This asset would contain the majority of individual medical records

(including the knowledge of their DNA profile) within the Western world and, in

particular, those individuals who either have the ability to pay for extended

treatment or who can access the appropriate insurance.

The real asset value increases dramatically as it becomes possible to then

match these findings with emerging genomic products. This provides the owner

with the ability to offer personalized treatment for the existing chronic

population of the Western world and the targeted market referred to as the “

worried well†that would effectively become drug-dependent for the rest of

their

lives in the belief that they are taking preventive medicine.

 

Power Bloc Dynamics

To gain an understanding of these forces and to work out the implications of

what happens if any particular party wins the high ground we need to

understand the politics of power. Only then do the tactics and strategies of

the

dirty war become apparent and the darker implications for us all become

blatantly obvious.

The three power blocks who currently vie for control are those who control

the manufacture and dispensing of drug-related products, those who are

authorised to diagnose and prescribe product-based treatments and those who pay

which, in most western countries, tend to be government and/or insurance

companies rather than consumers.

The fourth emerging force represents the communities of common interest

whose interest is the knowledge of what actually clinically works for them in

their specific condition. As the aggregation of this eco-group occurs it will

gain the consumer power to counter the pharmaceutical industries, it will

accrue the knowledge to challenge the diagnostic powers of healthcare providers

and it will exert political power to either dictate policy change or even

remove governments.

Most commentators are aware of the general dynamics between the three power

blocks, but few have factored in the destabilising fourth power. Aside from

any obvious outcomes of shift in power, such as a rise in prescription costs

and insurance or a tightening of restrictions on the products we buy or the

services we are granted access to, very little is said about the true

ramifications for us, and even less thought is given to the not so passive

emerging

fourth power. Let’s examine the potential for each group.

 

Manufacturers and dispensers

The stated goal of these players is absolute control of product supply and,

if possible, the extended use of drug products for all which would include

the chronic (33 per cent of Western populations)(8) and the “worried wellâ€.

The most worrying aspect is that a strategy of dependency usually ends up as

being multi-product based, often using pills to counter the effects of the

original treatment.

All’s fair in a corporate orientated world, some may say, where share value

is king, but a “sickness†industry singularly profits from increased

drug-dependency and targets large markets with blockbuster drugs that generate

40%-45% of their revenue. Traditionally pharmcos ignore any innovative research

into drugs that prevent, treat or cure, instead ploughing funds into a small

range of blockbuster drugs which can generate revenues of over US$20 billion

during the life-spans of their patents. (9)

As the bubble bursts, it is finally acknowledged by the pharmcos that

beneficial outcomes are limited to only 33 per cent of users, and up to 50 per

cent

may not respond. They focus the blame for this failure on the variations in

genetic make-up of individuals, where some people, for example, may

metabolise the drug before it has time to act. However, the real cause of

failure is

that the clinical trials, funded by the drug companies themselves, use only

carefully selected individuals that do not reflect the population for whom

these drugs are aimed, such as those suffering from one or more chronic

degenerative diseases, or the elderly. In addition, the studies may

inaccurately

reflect the true results of findings due to the vested interests of the authors

or

to a failure of reporting negative findings. (10)

Because scientific proof of effectiveness and safety in the broad community

is not required for drug approval, the testing only truly begins when these

drugs enter the market place and are foisted onto a trusting public. With a

meaningless reporting regime of adverse reactions in real-time, which provides

absolutely no contribution to any evidence-based research that can be

accessed by other clinicians, the consequences of adverse reactions have time

to

reap many casualties as was seen in the cases of both Thalidomide and Vioxx.

Also under the spotlight is the effectiveness of older, generic drugs (whose

patents have expired) against newer drugs. Approval for a new drug is

dependent upon achieving superior results than the drug it is replacing, or

improved clinical outcomes when added to an accepted protocol. Pressure to

replenish

revenue streams with new patents as the old patents expire has led to

inflated claims, and with no requirement to test the added-value of a drug in a

real-life setting, it is difficult to prove these claims.

However, in 2002 when ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering treatment

to prevent Heart Attack Trial) published its findings from a five-year trial

involving 30,000 patients, no difference was found in the clinical outcome

between using cheaper diuretics (thiazides) over the more expensive angiotensin

converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and calcium channel blockers (CCBs).

There was no difference in mortality but a greater incidence of adverse events

was seen with the ACEIs and increased occurrence of heart failure with the

CCBs, while the thiazides reduced the incidence of stroke and had better

effects on lowering blood pressure. In spite of the negatives for the

thiazides,

such as reduced potassium and increased glucose and cholesterol levels, these

did not lead to any difference in clinical outcomes and they appeared to

modestly improve the outcome for most. As with most generic drugs, the cost for

thiazides was only US$0.05 - $0.30 daily, while the other medications ranged

from $1.15 - $1.50 daily.(11)

Although future negotiations between health care payers and the pharmcos

will likely be based on clinical outcome, the pharmcos are looking to the

emerging market of “predictive and preventive†medicine – the industry’s

definition of the “wellness industry†- where they will be able to predict

predisposition through genetic screening and then prevent the disease with drugs

before we become sick (this will also include mandatory vaccination programs).

(12) Steve Burrill (of Burrill & Co, biotechnology company), predicts that when

everyone’s genome and medical records are plugged into the system that “in

the future babies could be given a smart card when they are born and we’ll

add

to that as they go through life.†(13)

With new technology that can decode the human genome and identify the key

signalling molecules (targets) linked with disease, and the capacity to make,

test and screen thousands of new chemical compounds day in, day out, through

building a library of millions of chemicals, it will be possible to match a

drug with each new target as it is identified. By linking genetic variance to

drug response, scientists will be able to determine which drugs will work best

with each genetically distinct group. Peter Goodfellow of GlaxoSmithKline

(GSK) says “We’d like to create a drug for every target in the human

genome,

so you could start with drugs, not the target.†(14)

 

However, supporting a strategy in the absence of research to understand the

full implications of altering gene expression, that leads us down a route of

greater drug-dependency is hardly intelligent, particularly as the WHO has

stated that 80per cent of heart, stroke and diabetes and 40 per cent of cancer

is preventable and that it is cheaper to prevent disease among healthy

populations than to treat sick populations. Currently only 3 per cent of health

care spending is used for prevention. (15)

Global pharmcos are also looking to capture the lucrative alternative health

industry to annihilate competition and control product supply and consumer

choice. Dirty tactics have so far involved government regulatory bodies and

the _Codex Alimentarius_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/08/30/meet_codex_alimentarius.htm)

Commission, an international organisation that sets

international standards and codes for foods, establishes upper limits for over

the counter (OTC) vitamin and mineral supplement dosages, and reclassifies

all products that have therapeutic action as medicines regulated under the

various drugs acts.

The next stage will involve the patenting of new products based on natural

products. Natural products cannot be patented, but what can be patented is the

technology that isolates and measures the bioactivity of each discovered

active compound of a natural health product and then replicates this in a

laboratory. Hence we see the emergence of pharmaceutical versions of herbs

(_PharmaPrinting_ (http://www.purehealthsystems.com/codex.html) ), nutritional

products (_Nutraceuticals_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutraceutical) ) and

_functional foods_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_food) based on a

person’

s genetic make-up (_Nutrigenomics_

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrigenomics) ). For investors to invest, market

exclusivity must be assured. We are

already beginning to witness the banning of natural health products under the

guise of consumer protection, and there are already indications that we are

heading towards a situation where it would be illegal to grow herbs in your own

back yard on the basis that they are dangerous. The endpoint for the pharmcos

is to capture all the indigenous markets (Chinese, Ayurvedic, South

American, African etc.) who have used traditional herbs for centuries and

convert

them to patented products that have passed all the testing, standardization and

scientific proof required for all drugs. (16)

 

Clinicians and prescribers

Often referred to as the priesthood, this is a highly fragmented group.

Clinicians seek to control the ownership of the relationship with the patient,

the prescribing of drugs, the procedures that are used and the acquired

knowledge of their application. Their collective stance of non-collaboration

(although not shared by all clinicians) in government health initiatives to

establish an electronic health record or EHR not only reflects this desire to

control

the ownership or copyright of patient records, but also an unwillingness to

be accountable for decisions made on the patient’s behalf. EHRs will enable

the auditing of all decisions and trace major mistakes in general practice and

hospital management.

Additional pressure will come from patients who will expect to have access

to, or be advised on, the latest clinical evidence when making choices in

treatment. Sir Muir Gray states that whereas “the clinician was the driving

force

in the 20th century, the patient will be the driving force in the 21st

century.†(17)

At this turning point, clinicians can either submit and become glorified

pill dispensers (as described by the then British Prime minister, Mrs Thatcher)

or they can take up the challenge and use what’s left of their credibility

and trust to help patients as advocates and assist them in harvesting the

knowledge of what works. As attitudes to the profession change, the

intimidating

paternalistic stance that was once their hallmark will no longer be acceptable

as patients demand the respect they deserve when making critical health

decisions.

 

Governments and insurers

With health insurance costs set to rise by 6.5 per cent annually (an

estimated US$1.00 of every US$5.00 spent in the US is already spent on

healthcare),

with statistics indicating that more people in the USA per annum are dying

from medical errors (approx. 195,000 in 2000-2002)(18) than from breast cancer,

AIDS or motor vehicle accidents, (19) and with the predicted rise in chronic

disease set to affect 50 per cent of populations in developed countries,(20)

governments and insurance companies are looking to drive the costs down,

increase their profits and get better patient outcome.

Reducing costs means extricating the industry from the stranglehold of those

that control prescribing - the pharmocs and clinicians. A rapid deviation

from the scientifically-based model of healthcare to one that is

clinically-based will demote the “scientific evidence†mantra that governed

healthcare

policy in favour of what actually works, whether scientifically proven or not.

With the EHR initiative, governments and insurers will be able to accelerate

the diffusion of clinical research information to sponsors, researchers,

regulatory bodies and the medical community at large, systemise healthcare by

defining and controlling procedures including the rules on what can be

prescribed

for any condition, and control what products can be used accordingly. They

will then be able to aggregate the demand and negotiate cheaper prices.

The UK government has also tapped into the frequent flyer market of patients

with chronic conditions who make the most visits to GPs and hospitals. The

_Expert Patient_

(http://www.expertpatients.co.uk/public/default.aspx?load=ArticleViewer & ArticleI\

d=500) Programme(21), an NHS health initiative where a

certificate of competence is issued after a 6-week course of 2.5 hours per

week,

simply replicates the self-management advice that self-help or support

groups have been offering for decades, but through the formalisation and

adoption

of the program (20,000 people have already taken part) has been able to show

measurable benefits both on improved quality of life and cost-savings for the

health budget. Tangible results demonstrate a reduction in visits to GPs and

other health professionals by 44-80 per cent by various groups, and a 31 per

cent reduction in hospitalisation for asthma sufferers. (22)

 

The expert patient - Pandora’s Box

Although there are short-term benefits of shifting management of chronic

conditions back to the consumer, the long-term implications of endorsing groups

of highly motivated people have not been factored into the health equation.

Under the government and pharmco model, the “expert patient†is

drug-compliant and therefore more cost effective and profitable. However,

virtual

community groups in increasing numbers are communicating their views and their

own

knowledge of what works for them over the Internet, and with the availability

of the new, free, open source software and tools, these groups will be able

to gather, store, harvest and share knowledge themselves, and become better

informed and more responsible for their health – a threat to the system,

indeed. With the new emphasis on clinical outcome, as opposed to scientific

evidence, comparison studies between mainstream and complementary medicine may

be

published and present new challenges to conventional healthcare.

The driver for this wave in consumer power is the cost of treatment, the

reduction of disposable income, a loss of confidence and trust in the medical

industry and, more importantly, the realisation that health is spiralling

downwards and not a cent is being spent on addressing the causes. This group

does

not want to be drug-dependent, does not want to see their children suffering

chronic conditions: they want to own the right to be healthy and any move by

governments or pharmcos to inhibit access to natural food and health products

or therapies that have proven benefit will be met with fierce and

co-ordinated opposition. Likewise, this group will strongly resist and fight

for the

power to deny consent to any group – government, pharmco or clinician - or

even

any IT company such as Microsoft or Google which stores health records to

data-mine or de-identify these records for the on-selling to corporations who

seek to control and influence the market.

With a growing consensus that failure to address the key causes of our

decline - environmental pollution and nutritional depletion - will drive us

deeper

into a cul-de-sac, this fourth consumer power will succeed in destabilising

the current balance of power. When the core message from the three power

blocks – “We think we can help you manage and take responsibility for your

condition that we created and, if able, to have you pay for it†- finally

dawns on

the majority then the wave towards true preventive medicine, to manage your

own health before you become sick, will become the new mantra.

 

1. _Transparency International: Corruption and Health_

(http://www.transparency.org/global_priorities/health)

2. IT Facts Employment; _Obesity Costs US Companies $13 billion a Year_

(http://www.obesityvote.com/ObesityFacts.htm)

3. UK Government Office for Science; _Foresight Tackling obesities: Future

Choices_ (http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Obesity/obesity_final/20.pdf) – Summary

of Key Messages

4. Brice, A. and Gray, M., _Knowledge is the enemy of disease_

(http://www.cilip.org.uk/publications/updatemagazine/archive/archive2003/march/u\

pdate0303b.h

tm) , Update, March 2003.

5. ibid.

6. Carvel, John _Confusion in Whitehall as IT budget for NHS balloons_

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/oct/14/internet.politics) , The

Guardian, 14 October 2004,

7. _Kaiser Permanente_

(https://newsmedia.kaiserpermanente.org/kpweb/fastfactsmedia/entrypage2.do)

8. Department of Health, UK; The expert patient: a new approach to chronic

disease management for the 21st century.

9. Coghlan, A.; _New Scientist: Blockbuster Challenge_

(http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:LOq0js4YCrIJ:www.newscientist.com/article/\

mg18224515.800-block

buster-challenge.html+New+Scientist:+Blockbuster+Challenge & hl=en & strip=1) ;

June 2004

10. Etheredge, L.M., _A Rapid-Learning Health System_

(http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.26.2.w107)

Health Affairs 2007;

26(2)

11. The Answer: _Thiazides First-line for Hypertension_

(http://www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter47.htm) ; Therapeutics Letter, Issue 47;

January - March 2003

12. PriceWaterhouseCoopers: _Pharma 2020: The Vision - Which Path Will You

Take?_

(http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/91BF330647FFA402852572F2005\

ECC22) June 2007

13. Coghlan, op. cit

14. ibid

15. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, op. cit

16. Alexander, K., Natural Health Products: Guilty until Proven Innocent?

17. Muir Gray - Presentation

(http://useu.usmission.gov/Dossiers/Public_Health/eHealth_Workshop_Presentations\

_May2007/Muir_Gray.pdf)

18. _In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA_

(http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php)

19. Kolodner, K., MD., (National Coordinator for Health Information

Technology, USA) The United States National Health Information Technology

Agenda:

MEDINFO conference; Brisbane, Australia, August 2007

20. Conversation with Stephen Alexander, e-health strategist, August 2007

21. _http://www.expertpatients.co.uk/_ (http://www.expertpatients.co.uk/)

22. UK Department of Health, op. cit.

 

Here is a _PDF version_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/a_new_healthcare_paradigm.pdf) of this

article.

-----

posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Thursday February 21 2008

---------

Related Articles

_Medical system is leading cause of death and injury in US_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause\

_of_death_and_i

njury_in_us.htm)

Shocking statistical evidence is cited by Gary Null PhD, Caroly Dean MD ND,

Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD and Dorothy Smith PhD in their recent

paper Death by Medicine - October 2003, released by the Nutrition Institute of

America. " A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review

journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine

frequently

causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital,... [_read

more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause\

_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm) ]

October 29, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger

_Disease Treatment - A Cancer Patient's Perspective_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/07/29/disease_treatment_a_cancer_pati\

ents_perspective.htm)

Pete Boardman is a cancer patient. He has first hand experience with our

system of disease treatment, having been diagnosed with cancer and gone through

the routine of surgery and chemotherapy. He believes that the treatment

routine of our " modern " medicine may be oriented towards profit rather than

helping people and asks - where are the alternatives? Well, I cannot really

disagree. Peter's thoughtful message was posted as a comment... [_read more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/07/29/disease_treatment_a_cancer_pati\

ents_p

erspective.htm) ]

July 29, 2006 - Sepp Hasslberger

_Health System Persecutes Alternatives - Deregistering Medical Doctors_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/09/29/health_system_persecutes_altern\

ati

ves_deregistering_medical_doctors.htm)

The pharmaceutically dominated health system in the US and other western

countries is bankrupting whole economies with the costs of iatrogenic

(doctor-induced) illness and exaggerated prices for pharmaceutical remedies.

Yet, it is

practitioners proposing alternatives to this failing system that are being

attacked - such as biological dentist Rick Vander Heyden in Wisconsin, who has

been charged with promoting his practice of " mercury free " dentistry.

Honestly, many people do prefer... [_read more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/09/29/health_system_persecutes_altern\

atives_deregistering_medical_doctor

s.htm) ]

September 29, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger

_Vioxx Shows: FDA Unable To Protect Public From Deadly Medical Drugs_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/11/23/vioxx_shows_fda_unable_to_prote\

ct_pu

blic_from_deadly_medical_drugs.htm)

According to recent congressional testimony, " the FDA as currently

configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are

virtually

defenceless, " said David Graham, associate director of the agency's Office of

Drug Safety. The quote is from an article published in South Africa, titled

Doctor: FDA is too cosy with drug firms. The FDA is the national food and

medicines regulatory agency of the US but it has been... [_read more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/11/23/vioxx_shows_fda_unable_to_prote\

ct_public

_from_deadly_medical_drugs.htm) ]

November 23, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger

_Decline of Allopathic Medicine: Will Cellular Health, Ayurveda Form New

Paradigm?_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/01/14/decline_of_allopathic_medicine_\

will_cellular_health_ayurveda_form_new_paradigm.htm)

Paradoxically, the downfall of Western medicine may prove to be its

inattention to basic human physiology. For all its scientific rigor, allopathic

medicine cannot hide the glaring inconsistencies that characterize it. Toxic

medications, inattention to basic nutritional facts, out-of-hand rejection of

new

research and time proven traditional medical techniques and especially the

prevalence of side effects from its own treatments have made modern western

medicine one of the major causes... [_read more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/01/14/decline_of_allopathic_medicine_\

will_cellular_health_ayurveda_

form_new_paradigm.htm) ]

January 14, 2006 - Sepp Hasslberger

_Should Pharmaceutical Markets Decline?_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/06/16/should_pharmaceutical_markets_d\

ecline.htm)

British Physicians are prescribing less drugs - for the first time in years,

but you won't find it in the press headlines. Quoting Vera Hassner Sharav of

the Alliance for Human Research Protection: " The good news is that British

physicians are taking a more cautious approach and cutting down on their

prescribing of drugs whose adverse side effects often do more harm than good. "

That news doesn't seem printable, or... [_read more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/06/16/should_pharmaceutical_markets_d\

ecline.htm) ]

June 16, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger