Pretend medicine: Let's play doctor!

Conventional medicine, as practiced today, is actually pretend medicine. Doctors and drug companies pretend to make patients healthier by giving them drugs. The FDA pretends to protect the safety of the public. Medical journals pretend to print only rigorous, scientifically-sound research papers. Drug companies pretend to care about the lives and health of patients. Non-profit disease front groups pretend to be searching for the cure while, in reality, most of them are only searching for more ways to recruit patients into conventional medicine treatments like drugs, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.

How do we know it's all pretend? Aside from all the junk science, corruption, fraud, collusion, conflicts of interest and intellectual dishonesty that characterizes modern medicine, there's one more all-important thing to consider: The results. If modern medicine really worked, and wasn't just pretend, wouldn't we be the healthiest population in the world?

www.newstarget.com...

All this while alternative therapies are expected to work 100% to be considered effective. We're living in an age where people are sued or forced into being a lab rat for trying alternative medicine. Are they afraid we'll be a statistic against them?

[edit on 22-4-2006 by Opposingdigits]

Can you please refer us all to a study which chows homeopathic medicine is more effective than "conventional" or allopathic medicine? I'm aware of instances where people do not survive treatments, etc. in allopathic medicine, but that is just the sad truth. Statistically, nothing can be 100% effective, and doctors typically, at least in public health, honestly treat the patient in what they see as the best possible way. I think your view may stem from fear of what you don't understand, since you refer to "junk science". Are you saying all og the medical journals published are "junk science" despite the fact that the studies can be easily reproduced and studied?

~MFP

Originally posted by Opposingdigits

Conventional medicine, as practiced today, is actually pretend medicine. Doctors and drug companies pretend to make patients healthier by giving them drugs. The FDA pretends to protect the safety of the public. Medical journals pretend to print only rigorous, scientifically-sound research papers. Drug companies pretend to care about the lives and health of patients. Non-profit disease front groups pretend to be searching for the cure while, in reality, most of them are only searching for more ways to recruit patients into conventional medicine treatments like drugs, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.

So let's see some real, double blind studies that supports this claim -- and groups of diagnosed patient studies of upward of 500 patients, matched for age, medical condition, and gender.

I see web pages howling the above info, but when you ask them to prove their point, they can't. So what proof (numbers, statistics) do you have on this?

If modern medicine really worked, and wasn't just pretend, wouldn't we be the healthiest population in the world?

Okay... stop the cookie machine.

You live in the US, right? Have you ever encountered people in the US who can't afford to go to the doctor? Who can't afford medicine? They might be living in the middle of the best medical care available -- but if they can't afford it, they don't get the care.

Now... take a look at the statistics on health and longevity:
www.infoplease.com...

Notice that the 10 countries with the oldest average age at death does not include the US. It does, however, consist of countries with socialized medicine where health care is free.

All this while alternative therapies are expected to work 100% to be considered effective.

Check out the mortality statistics for countries that have a lot of alternative healers (Brazil is one such country) and little access to doctors because of economic conditions.

We're living in an age where people are sued or forced into being a lab rat for trying alternative medicine.

And that is a lie that your source is telling you. Unless the patient in question is a child, you are free to treat your disease with any legal substance you care to use... prayer, dancing, eating cherry bark, grazing on grass, etc. Nobody will come arrest you for not following doctors' orders. In fact, they won't care.

Are they afraid we'll be a statistic against them?

Hardly. But that site has an agenda in getting you to buy their story and not check out death rates from common illnesses in countries that have different medical systems (including those where folk medicine is practiced almost exclusively.)

Have you looked up the data?

Have you seen the film about the Australian skeptics who decided to commit suicide by drinking 100 times the recommended dosage of homeopathic medicines? (note for those too lazy to look it up -- they survived, as have other skeptics who tried to commit suicide with homeopathy. Nobody suffered any effects from this "powerful treatment" -- either good or bad.)

I think the irony here is that homeopathic medicine is closest thing you can get to "pretend medicine". Thousands of apparently different tablets for treating different different conditions, yet all the tablets are in fact exactly the same. That is they all are just sugar and water. We have to pretend that the ones in the bottle marked "asthma" will treat asthma and then pretend that the ones in the bottle marked "headache" will relieve a headache.

There has not been a single double blind randomised control trial that has shown homeopathy to be an effective treatment for anything.

I always wonder what these guys who advocate alternative medicine would say if they were unfortunate enough to be involved in a horrible road accident and where slung through the window of a car at 70mph. As they were wheeled into the ER with compound fractures, brain injuries, internal bleeding and spinal damage- and the team of Dr, surgeons and nurses started hooking him up to life support machines, carrying out complex diagnostics and applying a cocktail of painkillers. Would they yell out "Stop! In insist you apply a tincture of frogs spawn to the injuries and give me some high dose Vitaman C!"??

I suspect not.

Alternative treatments are all too often just snake oil, but that doesn't mean both camps shouldn't be held to the same standards.

how many cold medications are out there that do pretty much nothing (if you're lucky and don't experience side effects ) , shouldn't they get the same flak?

Or all fear based medications, let's lower the LDL threshold to 100mcg/dl or something and give 90% of all people cholesterol inhibitors which spell l i v e r and k i d n e y damage, among minor pains like memory loss (i mean who's still using her/his brain in the 21'st century? ) yet unprocessed foods and more exercise would do the trick at a fraction of the cost and in a much safer and lasting way. besides, these drugs aren't reliable either, so...

of course if you ask questions like these you'll be struck down by cvd for heresy, lol.

This so called "pretend medicine" as you put it keeps me alive! Without these drugs I would be dead and that is a fact! I have had a kidney transplant and the drugs prevent my body rejecting the organ. When on dialysis a combination of dialysis treatment and drugs prevented my body poisoning me to death. The pharmaceutical companies are continually developing new drugs which may enable people (such as my brother) who are currently unable to have transplant and free them from dialysis.

There are proven so called alternative medicines that can work just as well as pharmaceutical drugs but without the side effects for certain conditions. Where do you think that a large proportion of modern medicines come from?

with regards to Statins (chlorestrol drugs) they have been medically proven to prevent heart attacks and strokes in high risk patients.

www.guardian.co.uk...

"In this trial, 10,000 people were on a statin. If now, an extra 10m high risk people worldwide go on to statin treatment, this would save about 50,000 lives each year - that's a thousand a week," said Professor Collins.

"Irrespective of the blood cholesterol levels, a statin should now be considered for anybody with a history of heart disease, stroke, other occlusive vascular disease or diabetes," said Richard Peto, co-director with Prof Collins of the clinical trials service unit at Oxford and famous for his work on the health dangers of tobacco.

what I object to is somebody setting themselves up in alternative medicine with no medical training and claiming to be able to treat any disease.

[edit on 24-4-2006 by arnold_vosloo]

Look, your last tidbit won't fly, simple as that - they shot themselves in the foot

Irrespective of the blood cholesterol levels, a statin should now be considered for anybody with a history of heart disease, stroke, other occlusive vascular disease or diabetes," said Richard Peto, co-director with Prof Collins of the clinical trials service unit at Oxford and famous for his work on the health dangers of tobacco.

All these drugs are supposed to do is lower cholesterol levels, now, if your cholesterol level is OK by accepted standards and you STILL run increased risk of a heart attack, statistically (and that's all such a recommendation can be based on), then the theory that a certain cholesterol levels alone cause arteriosclerosis flies straight out of the window, which is not all that surprising since f-ex. relative humidity is necessary but not sufficient for precipitation, is it?

by that logíc you can give them to anyone, which is negligent, since they do have severe side effects, like it or not.

Inhibition of CoE Q10 synthesis, very bad news


Home > What is CoQ10? > CoQ10 and Statin Drugs


CoQ10 and Statin Drugs



coqandstatdr

Statin drugs have become very popular and are being widely prescribed in recent years to lower high blood cholesterol and thus reduce the risk for heart disease. These drugs block cholesterol production in the body by inhibiting the enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase in the early steps of its synthesis in the mevalonate pathway. This same biosynthetic pathway is also shared by CoQ10. Therefore, one unfortunate consequence of statin drugs is the unintentional inhibition of CoQ10 synthesis. Thus, in the long run, statin drugs could predispose the patients to heart disease by lowering their CoQ10 status, the very condition that these drugs are intended to prevent.

this is not the first time medication actually causes exactly what it's designed to cure, take prozac, serotonin production isn't directly affected by the drug, only rate of use, the result is of course depletion, which in turn results in depression, making you crave more, and so on, the amino acid enhancing serotonin production has of course been banned by the FDA.

Overview of Side effects
Nausea
Irritability and short tempers
Hostility
Homicidal impulses
Rapid loss of mental clarity
Amnesia
Kidney failure
Diarrhea
Muscle aching and weakness
Tingling or cramping in the legs
Inability to walk
Problems sleeping
Constipation
Impaired muscle formation
Erectile dysfunction
Temperature regulation problems
Nerve damage
Mental confusion
Liver damage and abnormalities
Neuropathy
Destruction of CoQ10, a vital nutrient for health

More Detailed Side Effects

FACT: An FDA approved statin called Baycol was recently pulled off the market due to serious side effects and even deaths.

Two of the most troubling statin side effects include extreme muscle pain and muscle disease (statin induced myopathy), and serious liver problems.

According to an article in USA Today, a consumer watchdog group known as Public Citizen linked "72 fatal and 772 non-fatal cases of muscle breakdown (rhabdomyolysis) to all six of the statins sold between October 1997 and December 2000." Their research also revealed 29 earlier deaths.

Because of its effects on liver enzymes, statin side effects may include liver problems. Therefore, anyone with liver disease or prior liver issues probably should not take statin medications, and all of the statin manufacturers warn against it.

Other potential statin side effects:

Although muscle pain and statins and liver problems are of the most concern, much research has shown that statin side effects could include sexual dysfunction and performance problems, as well as memory loss, personality changes and irritability.

Do you still think this stuff should be used based on 'history' aka, preemptively ? it's dangerous, and lowere cholesterol levels alone do no automatically equate better health,

another article in case you're interested

[edit on 24-4-2006 by Long Lance]

Long Lance - interesting points, and I broadly agree with you. So called "cold-cures" are a rip-off, they have no more affect on your illness than taking the very cheap painkillers they contain. However cold-cures hardly rate as "medicine" and you won't get Drs handing them out (at least not here in the UK).

Of course there are many drugs that are prescribed by Drs that don't have any effect better than a placebo - lots of anti-depressants fall into this category. However they have become a part of many Drs prescribing practice for years and it takes a long time to work them out of the system.

Here in the UK we have the National Institute of Clinical Excellence who throughly test drugs and other treatments for (cost) effectiveness. They are a very well regarded organisation, however much of their time is spent testing new treatments as they come onto market, rather than ones that have been around for years.

I also find the concept of preemptively taking any kind of drugs pretty dodgy, unless you have a clearly identified problem and some strong data to support the practice.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Of course there are many drugs that are prescribed by Drs that don't have any effect better than a placebo - lots of anti-depressants fall into this category.

Where did you get this from? Do you have a source?
AFAIK, there are no anti-depressants that are mere "placebos". They do far more than that, they are very powerful.

Antidepressants

I agree Forrest lady and in some cases, the tricyclic antidepressants for instance far more dangeraous than the replacement modern drugs.

SSRI's and NA inhibitors for instance.

You can die using both sorts but with the tricyclics you can use the drug itself to kill oneself. Not with SSRI's or NA inhibitors you can't.

More a case of dying on rather than dying from ..

Its an educated guess when it comes to prescribing these drugs.
I had chest pain and had it for awhile, so I went in to see my doctor.
he was absolutely convinced it was stress and anxiety so he prescribed me Xanax. Well the Xanax was not working so he upped the dose and after that did not work he prescribed Paxil on top of my Xanax. after about 15 visits and followups I continued to complain about chest pain despite the medication he had given me. Well long story short after running me through Prozac,Busphar,Cymbalta,Lexapro and every other medicine he could think of Finlay I asked him why are you not testing me somehow to make sure there is not something wrong with my heart or maybe I have Gerd. he laughed and said I was too young for heart problems and it was not Gerd.I'm 29 years old but I'm not stupid so I got another doctor on the side and got an endoscopy and a cardiogram (per my request) and found out my heart was OK but I had stage 2 Gerd. the specialist told me that the Gerd was the source of my shoulder/chest pain all along. all the copays to the other doctor and the crazy meds I had to take and go through the horror to wean off and now I was battling Xanax withdraws trying to come off all the crap he stupidly put me on just for Gerd witch could have been fixed by a simple regiment of Prilosec! This is a prime example of a script doctor and how they are more like drug dealers than doctors. They are everywhere you must trust your instincts and do research on line about your medications now days. The Internet can tell you so much about the medicine your doc prescribes. I am weary of doctors now and will be for the rest of my life.

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Can you please refer us all to a study which chows homeopathic medicine is more effective than "conventional" or allopathic medicine? I'm aware of instances where people do not survive treatments, etc. in allopathic medicine, but that is just the sad truth. Statistically, nothing can be 100% effective, and doctors typically, at least in public health, honestly treat the patient in what they see as the best possible way. I think your view may stem from fear of what you don't understand, since you refer to "junk science". Are you saying all og the medical journals published are "junk science" despite the fact that the studies can be easily reproduced and studied?

~MFP

www.vhan.nl...
ecam.oxfordjournals.org...
homeopathy.wildfalcon.com...
www.modernhomoeopathy.com...
www.positivehealth.com...

Side effects of Allopathy

harmonyindia.org...
www.homeoint.org...
homeoinfo.com...
home.att.net...
www.the7thfire.com...
jama.ama-assn.org...
www.alternet.org...
www.deathbymodernmedicine.com...
www.rxlist.com...
video.google.com... //video

This is not a black-and-white issue. Conventional and home-grown remedies both have their place. Sure, if I get thrown out of that car window at 70 mph, I want a surgeon (or at least a good tailor ) to put me back together. then I will calmly start researching any side effects I have from the patch job and try to alleviate them through more natural means.

In reality, the differences are minor, but profound. Almost all drugs are developed through study of plant materials and their effects on human physiology. Once a possible 'cure' has been found, the treatment is adjusted using chemical means to produce a more powerful medication that can then be patented.

It sounds great, improving on nature. But the problem comes into play when we realize how little we actually know about the myriad of chemical processes involved in the different aspects of what we call simply 'life'. As in the case with the statins above, the medications prescribed may well prevent one undesirable condition from occurring, but they can also stop a very desirable (and necessary ) condition from occurring at the same time.

Yet, this process is repeated over and over every day in the quest for new and better drugs. Actually, that's not quite true, so let me correct that statement. This process is repeated over and over every day in the quest for more and more money. Check out the latest medications being touted. You'll be amazed at how many of them require continuous treatment for the rest of the patient's life. Sorry, but that's not the definition of a cure, it's the definition of an addiction. The reason is simple: there is more money to be made from selling drugs than there is to be made from curing disease.

Now when a new drug is released, the first thing that is needed is to sell it to people. After all, it makes the pharmaceutical company that holds the patent nothing while it sits on a shelf removing dust from the air. So, advertising is used to make people think it is the latest miracle drug that will cure whatever ails 'em. The doctors are targeted too, with kickbacks and presents to make sure they prescribe the drugs whenever possible.

All this is overseen by the FDA, which has admitted to using test results from the pharmaceuticals themselves rather than running independent testing. And since the FDA is charged by the mighty US Government with protecting the safety of the foods and drugs supplied in this nation, an approval by the FDA is a defense (according to a recent Federal Court ruling) against any lawsuits brought against the aforementioned pharmaceutical company. In simple terms, if someone in a pharmaceutical comes out with a cure for hangnails, runs some quick shoddy tests, applies to the FDA for approval, their own tests can (and are) used as evidence that the new drug is safe. Now, should it later be discovered that this miracle cure for hangnails causes some patients' brains to leak out of their ears, no problem. They cannot sue, because the FDA said the drug was OK because the pharmaceutical company told them it was OK. Is anyone else shooting blood out their ears yet?

As to the 'junk science' comment, all science is not junk, but unfortunately some is. For instance, did anyone know I am dead, and have been for several years? That's according to the science of high cholesterol, smoking dangers, and high blood pressure. I have smoked for 35+ years, full flavored 'cowboy killers' at 1.5-2 packs per day. I drank like a fish (OK, I know fish don't drink, it's an expression) for several years, I eat one or two oversized meals a day, each one loaded down with fried food and fat, and pay absolutely no attention to my blood pressure.

My cholesterol count at last check (12 years ago?) was 361. I was disappointed; I thought it should have been higher. My blood pressure stays high (according to that little chart), somewhere between 'hypertension' and 'stroke', save for the one day every two years when I have to appease some dude in a white lab coat that I'm still alive. I cannot count the number of doctors who have told me I was going to die if I didn't take this or that medicine. I didn't; most of them are now dead.

So I take medical 'science' with a serious grain of salt whenever I am told that it will cost something to keep me alive. There is good medicine out there, and I will gladly thank the doctors should I get thrown from that car window I mentioned earlier (assuming they don't kill me with a overdose first). But when a doctor tells me I have to quit smoking or I will die, or I have to take a drug to lower my cholesterol or die, I smile broadly, inform them they're fired for attempted extortion, and walk out of their office with a cigarette hanging from my lips.

Some day I will die. Everyone does. Smokers, non-smokers, grease addicts, vegetarians, all of us will die. All I ask is that some idiot doctor doesn't stand up at my funeral and say 'I told him so.' Being right one time out of 1000 isn't something to brag about. I have left orders to injure anyone who tries that, so they can have the pleasure of listening to idiot doctors.

TheRedneck

sir
Homeopathy medicine science ia avidance base science and now lot of dubleblind study and many medicine proven by verious Homeopathy institutions and result and patient feedback is exceptance and popularity homeopathy medicine inscreased very well.
Thanks.
Dr Harshad Raval MD [Homeopathy]

Honorary consultant homeopathy physician to his Excellency Gover.of Gujarat India.
Ex-Member of nominee advisory committee (Govt. of Gujarat).
Qualified MD consultant homeopath Physician,
International Homeopathy Advisor,
Book writer and Columnist For Gujarat Samachar,
Web site :www.homeopathyonline.in
Email us to [email protected]
Contact us NOW at +91-9327010414(24/7)
+91 79 26400800
+91 79 26431020