Growing up on a dairy farm, I drank milk almost every day. We would take a gallon jug out to the barn and fill it up straight from the bulk tank a few times per week, make sure we shook it before we poured, and had an almost endless supply of fresh milk. Coming from that background, it may seem strange to some to hear that I haven't had a glass of milk in decades, and I discourage my kids from drinking milk. It's not about allergies or lactose intolerance, it's about the difference between what I had access to then compared to now. The milk you find in the stores is not the same milk that I drank when I was a kid, and the differences are what make it good for us or bad for us.
On our farm, the cows came into the barn to get milked. Otherwise, they spent their days ranging the pasture looking for grass to eat, and the farm was on the river, so they had a constant supply of fresh water. Only in the dead of winter did they spend any significant amount of their day indoors, but any time the kids were outside playing at school, the cows were outside the barn in the fresh air. When there wasn't grass to be found, they had hay, and that was about it. The amount of grain they ever were given was very minimal. We never sprayed anything on the pasture, and the hay was grown in the same way. Our cows were only treated for disease as needed, and never got medications or hormones to increase production. And any time our cows were on medication, that milk was thrown away. That is how cows are meant to live, and the milk they produce in that environment is high quality, hormone free, and generally good for us.
Today's farms are a different story entirely. Often, these cows are in the barn most of their lives, and spend very little time foraging for grass. They are fed a constant diet of grains to increase production, and given prophylactic antibiotics and growth hormones to ensure they produce large quantities without getting sick (of course it does shorten their life expectancy by almost half). The grains they are fed, which are now genetically modified, are usually grown on fields that are not fertilized with anything but anhydrous ammonia and then sprayed with pesticides and herbicides (usually Round-up). The milk that comes from these cows is not even close to the same quality that I had as a kid. It is far from good for us, and I would argue that it is detrimental to our health.
On top of how we produce our milk on conventional farms today, we are then forced by our government to process it before it can be sold. Most today understand that when we take wheat from the field, grind it, strip out the germ and bran, and then add vitamins and minerals back in, we have created white flour; a processed food. How then, do we consider milk to be a whole food, when we take the raw milk, strip away the fat, pasteurize it, add fat back in with vitamins A&D, force it through a fine sprayer to homogenize it so the fat doesn't rise to the top, and bottle it in plastic containers that allow light in, thus breaking down the vitamin D. How is this not just as processed as white flour? To me, it's no different.
The government has become so germaphobic that in most states, even if you want to get milk as a whole food directly from a farmer, you have to become a criminal to do it. It is illegal in Minnesota, as in most states, to sell raw milk. Where is the evidence that raw milk is dangerous? With the national media kowtowing to the medico-government complex, if anyone was actually getting sick from consuming raw milk, it would be an instant media storm, with all kinds of experts warning of the dangers of raw milk and how it has to be pasteurized to be safe. Instead, all we have are "experts" who spout dogma and not science in order to keep a potentially great whole food off the market.
I admit, there can be issues with raw milk consumption, but these issues are mostly relegated to modern conventional dairies, and has to do with the fact that the cows are confined, fed genetically modified pesticide and herbicide laden grains, and given a steady diet of drugs. If cows have a natural environment (free range pasture and clean water) and are not subjected to daily drug injections or bombarded with pesticides and herbicides in their foods, they produce a milk that is extremely high quality, and has a bacterial environment that actually is good for us. Yes, the barns must be kept clean and the milk must be refrigerated promptly, but with today's farming techniques, this is so much easier than when we cleaned the barn by hand and walked the milk over the manure-filled gutters to get to the bulk tank.
Milk does do a body good, but it must be from the right sources, and left in its natural state. Modern conventional dairies produce a flawed product that has to be processed in unhealthy ways to be safe for consumption. Only fresh, raw, whole milk produced from free range and drug free cows should be allowed to make this claim.
For more information on "real" milk, visit the Weston A Price Foundation or www.realmilk.com. As long as we allow the medico-government germaphobes to have their way, we'll continue to be a sick society. Only by educating ourselves and taking our health into our own hands will we truly find wellness.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Osteoporosis is NOT a Calcium Deficiency Disease
This Thursday, October 20, is World Osteoporosis Day. While some of the international "authorities" are beginning to recommend some common sense approaches to osteoporosis, you'll find that if you go to your average medical doctor, you'll get a few basic thoughts, as they follow our sorely lacking governmental recommendations: rink milk, take your calcium with some vitamin D, exercise (at least walk every once in a while), and take our latest version of drugs that we believe will stop this process from continuing in your body.
To understand osteoporosis, we first need to realize that bone is a dynamically remodeling tissue. It is not this hard piece of mineral that is made once and forgotten unless broken. It is continually being broken down and rebuilt according to the stress you apply to it (called Wolff's Law). This is done by cells called osteoclasts (break down) and osteoblasts (build up). The osteoclasts are actually a part of the immune system while osteoblasts are stem cells that turn into mature osteocytes after they have laid down the bone matrix. It is a balancing act between these two cell lines that determine whether your bones are increasing or decreasing in density. If we are doing things in our lives that make the osteoclasts pull calcium out of the bone, then we'll be losing bone density. If, on the other hand, we live our lives in a way that allows for normal building and don't pull too much out, we'll end up with healthy strong bones. Unfortunately, modern western society is full of lifestyle choices that pull calcium from the bone.
In order for bone to be built correctly, the osteoblasts lay down a matrix of protein for the minerals to be placed in. It's like a sponge, where the holes are lined with calcium. If the holes get too big (because there is no matrix), then there is no place to put the calcium and it really doesn't matter what else we do. That makes this matrix the base of building bones, and it's mostly made of a protein called collagen. In order to build collagen, you have to have a good supply of protein and adequate vitamin C. While the average American eats an adequate amount of protein, that doesn't mean it is always digested and absorbed correctly. In order to digest protein, you must first have a very acidic environment in the stomach. Without that acid, the protein will not be digested properly, and will end up rotting instead. With the numbers of acid blockers and proton pump inhibitors that are being consumed today, this acid production is being eradicated. Even those not on these medications often are insufficient in stomach acid. This is a very energy intensive process, and requires a constant supply of vitamin B1 as well. It is not difficult to determine whether a patient has adequate stomach acid, and I rarely find patients over 40 that are sufficient. In addition to proper digestion of protein, we also need a highly acidic environment in the stomach to bind calcium and magnesium.
Providing we have enough stomach acid to digest protein adequately and bind our minerals, we then need adequate vitamin D in our system to bring calcium into the body. The research is telling us that we need at least a blood level of 40ng/ml to have any effect at all on the absorption of calcium. In all of the patients I have tested over the years, I have yet to find anyone, even those taking over the counter vitamin D supplements, that are even "medically" sufficient at 32ng/ml. Every single patient, even in the middle of summer, has been frankly vitamin D deficient, and some don't even have enough to register. Vitamin D is vital for so many functions of our body, and as a society, we are grossly deficient.
Once calcium has been absorbed with the help of vitamin D, we then need to get it into the bones. This is where our lifestyle choices make a huge difference. Many things will keep the calcium in the blood and ultimately push it into the urine.
I've written before about the dangers of caffeine, and here's another. Each cup of coffee (or other equivalent beverage) will take 80mg of calcium with it into the urine. That includes caffeinated sodas, energy drinks, and even caffeinated black teas. For bone health, avoid all caffeine and carbonated beverages.
Bones need protein, but if we have too much, then we will end up using calcium to buffer its acidic effects on our blood. Too high of a protein intake will pull calcium from the bones. Refined carbohydrates (my "white" group of foods), alcohol, and smoking also pull calcium into the blood and urine due to their acidification of our bodies.
Stress has a huge impact on our systems, including breaking down the collagen that makes up the bone matrix, creating a more acidic environment, and inhibiting the osteoblasts that build new bone. We need to get better at handling stress.
Lack of physical activity is probably one of the most important things to consider in osteoporosis. Regardless of age, weight bearing resistance exercise is the number one addition to any prevention or bone rebuilding regimen. Bones remodel according to stress, and resistance exercise is that stress that bones need to become stronger. That means walking is not enough; we need to pull out the soup cans if nothing else, and start getting our muscles stronger.
If you eliminate those lifestyle choices that increase bone breakdown, you will have a canvas to build bone on again. Once there, you must have the rest of the nutrients to make good bone. These include magnesium, phosphorus, and vitamin K2 to get the calcium from the bloodstream into the bone tissue, vitamin C and silica to make good collagen, and zinc, copper, boron, and manganese for the enzymes in the osteoblasts to work properly.
On top of all of this, you will need to make sure that your hormones are at least somewhat balanced. In our estrogen dominant world, medicine has added more estrogens as drugs to prevent osteoporosis. In some worlds, this makes sense, since estrogen prevents osteoclasts from breaking bone down as quickly. What is conveniently forgotten is that progesterone actually increases osteoblast activity, and is much more important to bone building than is estrogen. We need a balance of these hormones in our bodies, and randomly giving one or the other only makes patients sicker.
Finally, if you have osteoporosis, or look like you're heading in that direction, you'll likely be paying Sally Fields' salary and put on something like Fosamax, which is an osteoclast inhibitor. This class of drugs will eventually be shown to increase the risk of fracture, since patients end up with old brittle bone, instead of tearing the old stuff out when the body wants. Currently, they're keeping the studies to less than three years, but we're seeing a whole host of nasty side effects that are concerning patients, not the least of which is osteonecrosis (bone death) of the jaw bone. Once they increase the length of study to five or more years, we'll start seeing all the fractures that these drugs are not preventing.
Building bones isn't all that easy, but neither is it difficult. My osteoporosis regimen, if done correctly, has repeatedly shown to increase bone density, regardless of the patient's age. I don't care if you're 50 or 90, you can still build bone. You may have to make some lifestyle changes, but with proper testing and targeted supplementation, osteoporosis can be beaten naturally, without the serious side effects of the drugs, and your overall health will improve along the way.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
To understand osteoporosis, we first need to realize that bone is a dynamically remodeling tissue. It is not this hard piece of mineral that is made once and forgotten unless broken. It is continually being broken down and rebuilt according to the stress you apply to it (called Wolff's Law). This is done by cells called osteoclasts (break down) and osteoblasts (build up). The osteoclasts are actually a part of the immune system while osteoblasts are stem cells that turn into mature osteocytes after they have laid down the bone matrix. It is a balancing act between these two cell lines that determine whether your bones are increasing or decreasing in density. If we are doing things in our lives that make the osteoclasts pull calcium out of the bone, then we'll be losing bone density. If, on the other hand, we live our lives in a way that allows for normal building and don't pull too much out, we'll end up with healthy strong bones. Unfortunately, modern western society is full of lifestyle choices that pull calcium from the bone.
In order for bone to be built correctly, the osteoblasts lay down a matrix of protein for the minerals to be placed in. It's like a sponge, where the holes are lined with calcium. If the holes get too big (because there is no matrix), then there is no place to put the calcium and it really doesn't matter what else we do. That makes this matrix the base of building bones, and it's mostly made of a protein called collagen. In order to build collagen, you have to have a good supply of protein and adequate vitamin C. While the average American eats an adequate amount of protein, that doesn't mean it is always digested and absorbed correctly. In order to digest protein, you must first have a very acidic environment in the stomach. Without that acid, the protein will not be digested properly, and will end up rotting instead. With the numbers of acid blockers and proton pump inhibitors that are being consumed today, this acid production is being eradicated. Even those not on these medications often are insufficient in stomach acid. This is a very energy intensive process, and requires a constant supply of vitamin B1 as well. It is not difficult to determine whether a patient has adequate stomach acid, and I rarely find patients over 40 that are sufficient. In addition to proper digestion of protein, we also need a highly acidic environment in the stomach to bind calcium and magnesium.
Providing we have enough stomach acid to digest protein adequately and bind our minerals, we then need adequate vitamin D in our system to bring calcium into the body. The research is telling us that we need at least a blood level of 40ng/ml to have any effect at all on the absorption of calcium. In all of the patients I have tested over the years, I have yet to find anyone, even those taking over the counter vitamin D supplements, that are even "medically" sufficient at 32ng/ml. Every single patient, even in the middle of summer, has been frankly vitamin D deficient, and some don't even have enough to register. Vitamin D is vital for so many functions of our body, and as a society, we are grossly deficient.
Once calcium has been absorbed with the help of vitamin D, we then need to get it into the bones. This is where our lifestyle choices make a huge difference. Many things will keep the calcium in the blood and ultimately push it into the urine.
I've written before about the dangers of caffeine, and here's another. Each cup of coffee (or other equivalent beverage) will take 80mg of calcium with it into the urine. That includes caffeinated sodas, energy drinks, and even caffeinated black teas. For bone health, avoid all caffeine and carbonated beverages.
Bones need protein, but if we have too much, then we will end up using calcium to buffer its acidic effects on our blood. Too high of a protein intake will pull calcium from the bones. Refined carbohydrates (my "white" group of foods), alcohol, and smoking also pull calcium into the blood and urine due to their acidification of our bodies.
Stress has a huge impact on our systems, including breaking down the collagen that makes up the bone matrix, creating a more acidic environment, and inhibiting the osteoblasts that build new bone. We need to get better at handling stress.
Lack of physical activity is probably one of the most important things to consider in osteoporosis. Regardless of age, weight bearing resistance exercise is the number one addition to any prevention or bone rebuilding regimen. Bones remodel according to stress, and resistance exercise is that stress that bones need to become stronger. That means walking is not enough; we need to pull out the soup cans if nothing else, and start getting our muscles stronger.
If you eliminate those lifestyle choices that increase bone breakdown, you will have a canvas to build bone on again. Once there, you must have the rest of the nutrients to make good bone. These include magnesium, phosphorus, and vitamin K2 to get the calcium from the bloodstream into the bone tissue, vitamin C and silica to make good collagen, and zinc, copper, boron, and manganese for the enzymes in the osteoblasts to work properly.
On top of all of this, you will need to make sure that your hormones are at least somewhat balanced. In our estrogen dominant world, medicine has added more estrogens as drugs to prevent osteoporosis. In some worlds, this makes sense, since estrogen prevents osteoclasts from breaking bone down as quickly. What is conveniently forgotten is that progesterone actually increases osteoblast activity, and is much more important to bone building than is estrogen. We need a balance of these hormones in our bodies, and randomly giving one or the other only makes patients sicker.
Finally, if you have osteoporosis, or look like you're heading in that direction, you'll likely be paying Sally Fields' salary and put on something like Fosamax, which is an osteoclast inhibitor. This class of drugs will eventually be shown to increase the risk of fracture, since patients end up with old brittle bone, instead of tearing the old stuff out when the body wants. Currently, they're keeping the studies to less than three years, but we're seeing a whole host of nasty side effects that are concerning patients, not the least of which is osteonecrosis (bone death) of the jaw bone. Once they increase the length of study to five or more years, we'll start seeing all the fractures that these drugs are not preventing.
Building bones isn't all that easy, but neither is it difficult. My osteoporosis regimen, if done correctly, has repeatedly shown to increase bone density, regardless of the patient's age. I don't care if you're 50 or 90, you can still build bone. You may have to make some lifestyle changes, but with proper testing and targeted supplementation, osteoporosis can be beaten naturally, without the serious side effects of the drugs, and your overall health will improve along the way.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Medicine is Sexist
No one likes it when someone takes advantage of them. We spend countless hours researching buying decisions to make sure that we not only get the best deal, but we get what we want. Unfortunately, this is usually not true when it comes to our health care. Yes, some are doing their own research, but most rely on their doctors to help guide them in their health care decision making. We rightfully believe that our doctors have more education in this area, and so are in a better position to make judgements on what we should and should not be doing. But what happens when our doctors are not keeping up on the current research? Or when the research is just being blatantly ignored? In today's world of exploding information, we need to be willing to seek out the truth to protect our health.
I am not one to cry sexist or racist at the drop of a hat. I usually give the benefit of the doubt, but when it comes to organized medicine, we treat women differently; it's blatant sexism, and it's not only ignored, but fostered at the highest levels. Take the case of women's use of cholesterol lowering (specifically statin) drugs. In 2010, both the number one class of prescription medications as well as the number one prescription drug overall were statin drugs. In total, Americans spent $18.7 billion on statin drugs last year, with over 35% of women over 65 and 16% of women between the ages of 45 and 65 taking these medications. This represents about 45-50 million American women. The use in men is even higher, but we'll look at men in a future blog. Medicine has been pounding it into our heads for decades now that we must ALL keep our cholesterol lower, or we'll end up with coronary artery disease, and a heart attack. But, is this really true? Must we all strive to lower our cholesterol to stave off heart disease? Based on the POSCH study published back in 1996, we are told a resounding NO!
The research looked at the overall mortality (death) rates of women in a variety of cholesterol lowering medication trials. In total, they looked at over 7000 women, both on and off medications. In medical research, where we often see a few hundred studied before a medication is released to the public, that's a pretty good number of subjects. After following these women, they found that not only did lowering women's cholesterol not reduce overall mortality rate, in some studies, there were more women on medication who died than those who weren't. The authors' conclusions were fairly vanilla when faced with the astounding data, but they stated "the available clinical trial data fail to demonstrate any overall mortality or other convincing clinical benefits from effective lipid intervention in women." In other words, statin drugs do women absolutely no good. Women waste a tremendous amount of money each and every year following doctor's orders, thinking they are reducing their risk of heart disease, only to be plagued by unwanted side effects like muscle tissue breakdown and liver destruction. In addition, we're increasing the cost of every one's health insurance, because we all know that the majority of the medication cost is picked up by our insurances, and not by those who are actually taking the medication.
We live in a world today that touts to practice "evidence based medicine", where we are supposed to look at all the research and decide what is best for the patient. For thousands of doctors nationwide to ignore the decades old research, continue to subject women to unnecessary medication, and raise the cost of health insurance is unconscionable. If the statistics for statins were the same for men as they were for women, they would be pulled from the market. Instead, they continue to be prescribed for both sexes, even though they are absolutely worthless for women. I further find it interesting that this study has never been cited by another peer reviewed article listed in pubmed (the government's database on health care research), and has not been looked at again since. Perhaps someone is hoping that if it is ignored long enough, it will be forgotten. I surely hope not.
Maybe someday organized medicine will treat women patients as well as men, but it isn't here yet. In the mean time, women have to be even more educated on their health care, because unfortunately, they often can't rely on the doctor's advice. Men and women are different, and in health care, they need to be treated differently. But differently doesn't mean women should be treated worse.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
I am not one to cry sexist or racist at the drop of a hat. I usually give the benefit of the doubt, but when it comes to organized medicine, we treat women differently; it's blatant sexism, and it's not only ignored, but fostered at the highest levels. Take the case of women's use of cholesterol lowering (specifically statin) drugs. In 2010, both the number one class of prescription medications as well as the number one prescription drug overall were statin drugs. In total, Americans spent $18.7 billion on statin drugs last year, with over 35% of women over 65 and 16% of women between the ages of 45 and 65 taking these medications. This represents about 45-50 million American women. The use in men is even higher, but we'll look at men in a future blog. Medicine has been pounding it into our heads for decades now that we must ALL keep our cholesterol lower, or we'll end up with coronary artery disease, and a heart attack. But, is this really true? Must we all strive to lower our cholesterol to stave off heart disease? Based on the POSCH study published back in 1996, we are told a resounding NO!
The research looked at the overall mortality (death) rates of women in a variety of cholesterol lowering medication trials. In total, they looked at over 7000 women, both on and off medications. In medical research, where we often see a few hundred studied before a medication is released to the public, that's a pretty good number of subjects. After following these women, they found that not only did lowering women's cholesterol not reduce overall mortality rate, in some studies, there were more women on medication who died than those who weren't. The authors' conclusions were fairly vanilla when faced with the astounding data, but they stated "the available clinical trial data fail to demonstrate any overall mortality or other convincing clinical benefits from effective lipid intervention in women." In other words, statin drugs do women absolutely no good. Women waste a tremendous amount of money each and every year following doctor's orders, thinking they are reducing their risk of heart disease, only to be plagued by unwanted side effects like muscle tissue breakdown and liver destruction. In addition, we're increasing the cost of every one's health insurance, because we all know that the majority of the medication cost is picked up by our insurances, and not by those who are actually taking the medication.
We live in a world today that touts to practice "evidence based medicine", where we are supposed to look at all the research and decide what is best for the patient. For thousands of doctors nationwide to ignore the decades old research, continue to subject women to unnecessary medication, and raise the cost of health insurance is unconscionable. If the statistics for statins were the same for men as they were for women, they would be pulled from the market. Instead, they continue to be prescribed for both sexes, even though they are absolutely worthless for women. I further find it interesting that this study has never been cited by another peer reviewed article listed in pubmed (the government's database on health care research), and has not been looked at again since. Perhaps someone is hoping that if it is ignored long enough, it will be forgotten. I surely hope not.
Maybe someday organized medicine will treat women patients as well as men, but it isn't here yet. In the mean time, women have to be even more educated on their health care, because unfortunately, they often can't rely on the doctor's advice. Men and women are different, and in health care, they need to be treated differently. But differently doesn't mean women should be treated worse.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Statistics Can Lie
If you are taking any type of medications, do you know the benefits? How about the side effects? Do you have any clue what percentage of the patients it works on, or how likely it is that you will benefit from it? Based on statistics, we can definitely say that most prescription drugs don't work most of the time for most people. This is a pretty bold statement, and one that is being hidden by not only our medical profession, but by those at the highest level of government policy making. Yet, we see medication use continued to increase while health continues to decrease. The problem stems from looking at the numbers in a false way.
When drug manufacturers go before the FDA to license a new medication or market this new drug to doctors, they tout the relative risk reduction (or RRR) numbers. They make claims like osteoporosis drugs cut your risk of fracture by 50%, or blood pressure drugs cut your risk of stroke by 45%, or statin (cholesterol lowering) drugs cut your risk of heart attacks by 50%. These numbers are astounding, but completely misleading. These numbers are all based on relative risk.
Think of it like this. Take 1000 adults, of which two would die from a heart attack. If we place all 1000 on the medication, and one of the two that would have died is saved, this is a 50% reduction in the death rate, so we can say that taking this medication reduces your risk of dying from a heart attack by 50%. That's relative risk. What they are failing to mention is the other 998 who would not have had a heart attack anyway, that either received no benefit, or were actually harmed by the medication. And, we're assuming that all 1000 will be on the drug for the rest of their lives to save that one person and achieve that astounding 50% rating.
Instead of using relative risk, we need to be focusing our attention on the number need to treat or NNT. How many patients have to take the medication for the rest of their lives to save one person? When we look at that same scenario above, we see that in order to save that one person, we need to treat 999 others. When we look at it from this perspective, we are talking about the absolute risk benefit (or ARB). Again, in this case, it is not 50%, but .01%. Unfortunately, these numbers have been well hidden by not only the drug manufacturers, but also industrialized medicine and government policy makers for way too long. Luckily, this concept is finally being released to the general public. While not a complete database by any means yet, you can check the NNT of a variety of medications at www.thennt.com. This website has taken the time to compile the real statistics so consumers can finally have accurate information.
In some cases, the NNT is extremely good. Take defribillation for cardiac arrest. It has an NNT of 2.5. That's great. We need to treat 2.5 people to save one. I'll take those odds; keep the paddles ready. Another is steroids given during an asthma attack. It has an NNT of 8. Again, that's a pretty good number. There's a whole host of great treatments out there that this data reinforces. However, there are many more lies that are finally being debunked.
Take Sally Fields and her bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. There is no NNT, because there is no one saved from having the fracture. This multi-billion dollar a year market is all based on smoke and mirrors. The same can be said for aspirin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke. The NNT is 1667. That means we have to treat 1667 people who will get absolutely not benefit, and could well end up with a bleeding ulcer, in order to prevent one person from getting a heart attack OR a stroke. And yet, how many out there are taking their baby aspirin, making millions of dollars for Bayer a year? Another without an NNT because there is absolutely no benefit is antibiotics for ear infections. I haven't seen any reduction in kids getting antibiotics, yet the research is clear that there is no one benefiting except the drug manufacturers. The benefit is 1 out of 16 for reduced pain, but the harm was 1 out of 9 for diarrhea. The benefit to harm ratio doesn't even work.
Before you just blindly take the recommendation to start, or even continue, a medication, take a look at the NNT. While you may be the one saved (if there have been any yet to date), we are told we base our medical treatment on cold hard statistics. Faced with the NNT as that cold hard statistic, I find it hard to imagine a continued rise in medication use. Instead, I see a populace that can finally confront treatments that should have been thrown out long ago, instead of being touted as lifesaving. With informed, empowered patients, the cost of health care could finally start going down, and the quality of health may start to go up.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
When drug manufacturers go before the FDA to license a new medication or market this new drug to doctors, they tout the relative risk reduction (or RRR) numbers. They make claims like osteoporosis drugs cut your risk of fracture by 50%, or blood pressure drugs cut your risk of stroke by 45%, or statin (cholesterol lowering) drugs cut your risk of heart attacks by 50%. These numbers are astounding, but completely misleading. These numbers are all based on relative risk.
Think of it like this. Take 1000 adults, of which two would die from a heart attack. If we place all 1000 on the medication, and one of the two that would have died is saved, this is a 50% reduction in the death rate, so we can say that taking this medication reduces your risk of dying from a heart attack by 50%. That's relative risk. What they are failing to mention is the other 998 who would not have had a heart attack anyway, that either received no benefit, or were actually harmed by the medication. And, we're assuming that all 1000 will be on the drug for the rest of their lives to save that one person and achieve that astounding 50% rating.
Instead of using relative risk, we need to be focusing our attention on the number need to treat or NNT. How many patients have to take the medication for the rest of their lives to save one person? When we look at that same scenario above, we see that in order to save that one person, we need to treat 999 others. When we look at it from this perspective, we are talking about the absolute risk benefit (or ARB). Again, in this case, it is not 50%, but .01%. Unfortunately, these numbers have been well hidden by not only the drug manufacturers, but also industrialized medicine and government policy makers for way too long. Luckily, this concept is finally being released to the general public. While not a complete database by any means yet, you can check the NNT of a variety of medications at www.thennt.com. This website has taken the time to compile the real statistics so consumers can finally have accurate information.
In some cases, the NNT is extremely good. Take defribillation for cardiac arrest. It has an NNT of 2.5. That's great. We need to treat 2.5 people to save one. I'll take those odds; keep the paddles ready. Another is steroids given during an asthma attack. It has an NNT of 8. Again, that's a pretty good number. There's a whole host of great treatments out there that this data reinforces. However, there are many more lies that are finally being debunked.
Take Sally Fields and her bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. There is no NNT, because there is no one saved from having the fracture. This multi-billion dollar a year market is all based on smoke and mirrors. The same can be said for aspirin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke. The NNT is 1667. That means we have to treat 1667 people who will get absolutely not benefit, and could well end up with a bleeding ulcer, in order to prevent one person from getting a heart attack OR a stroke. And yet, how many out there are taking their baby aspirin, making millions of dollars for Bayer a year? Another without an NNT because there is absolutely no benefit is antibiotics for ear infections. I haven't seen any reduction in kids getting antibiotics, yet the research is clear that there is no one benefiting except the drug manufacturers. The benefit is 1 out of 16 for reduced pain, but the harm was 1 out of 9 for diarrhea. The benefit to harm ratio doesn't even work.
Before you just blindly take the recommendation to start, or even continue, a medication, take a look at the NNT. While you may be the one saved (if there have been any yet to date), we are told we base our medical treatment on cold hard statistics. Faced with the NNT as that cold hard statistic, I find it hard to imagine a continued rise in medication use. Instead, I see a populace that can finally confront treatments that should have been thrown out long ago, instead of being touted as lifesaving. With informed, empowered patients, the cost of health care could finally start going down, and the quality of health may start to go up.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)