:: ::

According to news wire services and articles such as appeared at CTV.ca ‘Quebec refuses to force chemo on 3-year-old boy’; this is a welcome occurrence.

Too frequently parents are forced to turn their children over to so-called medical experts to pump chemotherapy poisons into their children that are of questionable value. The studies have not been properly done. So, for experts to say parents are threatening their children’s lives by withholding life-saving pharmaceuticals is without basis in fact.

As I wrote in a previous post (dated April 20, 2007) titled: ‘Cytotoxic Chemotherapy Cancer Clinker – Part 7′- “What we can see from Conventional Medicines own words is that Conventional Cytotoxic Chemotherapy Cancer treatment is a Clinker of ‘inferior quality’ that has FAILED.”

This was based on quotes from medical journals such as the British Journal of Cancer- ” “showed no advantage of conventional chemotherapy over no treatment.”

The Journal of the American Medical Association, for most types of cancer, the chances of surviving more than five years in 1995 was not much better than in 1950:
“…our analysis shows that changes in 5-year survival over time bear little relationship to changes in cancer mortality [death].”

“The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant [supplemental] cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.” Clinical Oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)

Interestingly in e-mail comments to the above website many people emotionally attacked the parents of this child holding up medicine as a sacred cow, some going so far as to say that chemo should be forced on the child who’s parents were irresponsible by resorting to a raw juice diet. Unfortunately when individuals who are uninformed they resort to ‘perception is reality’, however in the case of cancer treatments people have been sold a bill of goods.

As the U.S. Federal Government General Accounting Office report- “For the majority of the cancers we examined, the actual improvements (in survival) have been small or have been overestimated by the published rates…It is difficult to find that there has been much progress…(For breast cancer), there is a slight improvement…(which) is considerably less than reported.”

Some accused the people who suggest trying alternative approaches as selling ’snake oil’. If they honestly examine the actual data they will see that chemo is ’snake oil’ for 85% of cancers. However, it is effective in 15% of cancers, and that is where it should be used.
In countries such as Germany where they combine herbs and low dose chemo they get excellent results. Pioneering physicians who use herbs, nutrition and diet get good results for some types of cancer, however, the big motive in chemo isn’t as altruistic as you might think but really profit driven.

In my post (dated March 19, 2007) titled: Big Pharma’s ‘Big Bucks Control Medicine - Part 6,’ I discuss what one retired detective found out about the Cancer Industry- “I learned that making money, not finding cures, is what conventional medicine is interested in.”

To really learn what alternatives there are to harsh chemicals you should check the informative and well researched book about complementary cancer care- Choices in Healing by Michael Lerner. Also definitely visit the website of Dr. Ralph Moss.

As the CTV.ca article stated- “Arthur Schafer, an ethics professor at the University of Manitoba, said the court ruled against the medical staff at the hospital because the boy’s condition, which is currently not life threatening, is not an emergency situation.

“The chemo is toxic, it’s highly aggressive treatment,” Schafer told CTV’s Canada AM on Friday. “It may be that the child is likely not to survive anyway, it may be that there’s time to survive and that the chemo doesn’t have to be given now.”

Schafer said that if the doctors had testified that it was a medical emergency, the province probably would have intervened.

“There’s a heavy burden of proof on the state if you’re going to interfere on the judgments of a loving family about their own young child,” he said. “You better have good medical evidence and my supposition is that we haven’t seen that evidence yet.”

All parents in the same situation should not be intimidated by the medical authorities but should ask to see the ’scientific studies’ to support their treatments. You’d be surprised by the lack of effectiveness for their caustic treatments that would support their case in a court of law.

———

Dennis Cutforth is a researcher and writer with over 35 years experience in health-care sales, marketing and research in pharmaceuticals and natural health. Dennis will cut through all the propaganda and give you the real facts about what really works to make you healthier and happier. Visit his Blog at Better Life Blog.

The tag line in a news article 19 Jul 2007 at Medical News Today is “Scientists Discover Genes Behind Restless Legs”, based on one study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the other study published in the journal Nature Genetic.

So Hallelujah all you have to do if you suffer from this sleep disorder is to wait for a Drug Company to use this information, take out a patent with a drug that blocks the symptoms while causing intolerable side effects and 15-20 years from now you’ll be able to take advantage of this miracle treatment that is 5-10% effective at a premium price.

To be sure there are prescription drugs that are on the market for this syndrome that can keep you awake and make you feel like you have the creepy crawlies in your legs. However, if you are proactive and don’t just accept the ‘Big Pharma’ line and find a physician or health care provider that looks at diet and nutritional deficiencies you can get the help you need at an affordable price with better results now.

As Melvyn R. Werbach, MD wrote in The Townsend Letter in an article entitled- Nutritional Influences on Illness- Restless Legs Syndrome, hypoglycemia, caffeine, various vitamins, minerals and nutrients in Scientific Studies can play a role.

There can be any of one or more of these along with food intolerances/allergies that contribute to Restless Legs Syndrome so don’t be swayed by the vested interests of ‘Big Pharma’ or a biased physician who is uninformed about simple yet effective natural treatments.

———

Dennis Cutforth is a researcher and writer with over 35 years experience in health-care sales, marketing and research in pharmaceuticals and natural health. Dennis will cut through all the propaganda and give you the real facts about what really works to make you healthier and happier. Visit his Blog at Better Life Blog.

Most physicians are reluctant to recommend herbs and or vitamin supplements. However what is their personal consumption of these products.

An interesting study was published by the The Journal of Herbal Pharmacotherapy in 2006 (PubMed), on the use of herbs by health care professionals. Now this doesn’t necessarily apply to all such workers. The survey was for those with an interest in herbal therapies. These individuals who took the initiative to enroll in courses on herbs would be higher than the norm. However the number of these participants using herbs was extremely high and the breakdown was most interesting.

Results of the survey of 1249 health care professionals -
51% reported using an herb in the last week.

The breakdown –

• physician assistants or
• nurse practitioners (63%)
• clinical nurses (59%)
• HCP students (52%)
• physicians (48%)
• dietitians (40%)
• pharmacists (37%)

Common herbs taken were -

• green tea (24%)
• flax seed (18%)
• chamomile (11%)
• aloe vera (8%).

Factors associated with herb use among others included having increased knowledge of herbs and dietary supplements.

The impressive part is that knowledgeable health care workers including physicians take herbs even with the continual negative propaganda that spews forth from the Medical Establishment through the Major News Media backed by Federal Agencies and Big Pharma, that tries to paint such products as dangerous.

Cardiologists Take Vitamin E to Heart

Despite the scare that has been in the literature by the Medical Establishment that caused many people to stop taking Vitamin E, Cardiologists (heart doctors) continued to take Vitamin E for prevention. According to a 2001 American Journal of Cardiology survey almost 50% of these specialists take this supplement, more than double the general population. As reported in PRNewswire/ via NewsEdge Corporation-

“More cardiologists take antioxidant supplements than take aspirin as a preventive measure against heart attacks,” the Cornell publication noted, citing a study published in the American Journal of Cardiology.

“Among l8l doctors surveyed, 44 percent take Vitamin E, Vitamin C or beta- carotene (alone or in combination) while 42 percent take aspirin. About 28 percent take both
antioxidants and aspirin.

“Vitamin E was the most common antioxidant vitamin taken, most often at a daily dose of 400 IU (international units).”

Perhaps this is because they are aware of the properly done studies that showed the good results in prevention of heart attacks, like the study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients studied - “…39,910 U.S. male health professionals 40 to 75 years of age who were free of diagnosed coronary heart disease, diabetes,”

They achieved – “…lower risk of coronary disease among men with higher intakes of vitamin E…”

The results – “…provide evidence of an association between a high intake of vitamin E and a lower risk of coronary heart disease in men.”

What was surprising was that about 40% of Cardiologists recommend Vitamin E supplements, which is much higher than family physicians.

Many physicians may not say to take vitamins and or herbs but - Do As They Do, Not As They Say. Take supplements if you need them.

A January 15, 2007 CBS television news report left the impression that herbs are ineffective, unsafe and even dangerous. The report was really a promotional piece for a book by author Dan Hurley titled - Natural Causes: Death, Lies and Politics in America’s Vitamin and Herbal Supplement Industry.

He made this dogmatic statement on the CBS report - “There’s no good evidence these products are safe and effective and there’s plenty of evidence that many of these products are unsafe, ineffective or both,” says science and medical writer Dan Hurley.”

What does the Real Scientific Medical Literature say about Herbs?

This book and news report is sham science at its best. The bias against safe and effective therapies with herbs and nutrition does a disservice to people who are ill, and in need of safe, effective, non-toxic treatments.

So - “award-winning journalist specializing in health and medical writing” (who has written for the New York Times), - Mr. Hurley, let’s look at a few of the most studied herbs. Let’s see if you really researched the facts or if your dogmatic statements and scare mongering about the effectiveness and safety of herbal therapies are true. Your credibility and integrity is on the line.

St. John’s Wort

Gee I guess you missed the ‘gold standard’ for clinical trials- The Cochrane Collaboration and their Cochrane Review for St. John’s Wort (hypericum). You would have found this comment in 2005 on a review of 37 studies that met their high standards. “Trials comparing hypericum extracts and standard antidepressants were statistically homogeneous.” In other words this herb was equivalent to pharmaceuticals in effectiveness.

Hmm maybe this is the reason this herb has 80% market share; I mean 80% of the prescriptions in Germany for depression. We can’t have that happen here, Big Pharma would be upset.

Gingko Biloba

The European Journal of Neurology in September 2006 reported in a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study that Ginkgo was as effective as the drug donepezil in Alzheimers. In fact the herb Ginkgo biloba is sold and regulated as a drug in Germany.

Galantamine

A 653 patient study in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in December of 2000, reported that galantamine slowed the decline in both cognition and functional ability in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s patients.

‘Just The Facts Man’

Interestingly, if herbs are as ineffective as critics say then why has this herb Galantamine been granted FDA approval for sale as a prescription drug under the brand name Razadyne (formerly Reminyl). Don’t you find it ironic that galantamine is recognized as a drug but is still available without a prescription? Naturally, pun intended.

This powerful propaganda war against herbs by ‘Big Pharma’, their media allies like CBS and authors like Hurley creates cynicism in the public. As Hurley noted in polls that - “found that only 9 percent of consumers believe that drug makers are basically honest.” This was due to the 1990’s reports on the FDA’s cozy relationship with these companies.

A more balanced book to read would be - The Whole Story: Alternative Medicine On Trial? by Toby Murcott .

Comments from reviews of Murcott’s book - “This book should be prescribed for bigots on both sides…” –Guardian (Thursday Science Supplement)

“Murcott reveals how much of what we take as scientific fact is imbued with subjectivity, bias, misinterpretation or simply asking the wrong questions.”–The Lancet (Medical Journal)

I just touched on a few of ‘the facts’ of herbal scientific studies and their effectiveness that destroy the “bigot” Hurley’s credibility. These studies show the ‘Big Lie’ of this book that the TV report foisted on an unsuspecting public that is bombarded on a regular basis with like propaganda.

In a future post I’ll ‘Show You The Science’ on the safety of so-called dangerous herbs and discuss the over-the-top feature of the fake patient on the CBS telecast and in Hurley’s book.

————————————————————————-
Dennis Cutforth is a researcher and writer with over 35 years experience in health-care sales, marketing and research in pharmaceuticals and natural health. Dennis will cut through all the propaganda and give you the real facts about what really works to make you healthier and happier. Visit his website at Get A Better Life Today.

————————————————————————-

A thoughtful commentary a year ago by George Johnson in the New York Times titled – “The Nitpicking of the Masses vs. the Authority of the Experts”, discusses the authors newfound reliance on the “mercurial upstart called Wikipedia” versus the “old and steadfast” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Johnson stated - 

“The idea that perfection can be achieved solely through deliberate effort and centralized control has been given the lie.…”

The gist of the article is that the “centralized control” by those with knowledge in this case the Encyclopaedia Britannica isn’t necessarily that much better than the decentralized Wikipedia and some case left wanting because it can’t be as up to date.

The differences in the two sources, is really the difference from the two encyclopedias origins. Johnson comments – “The question is whether to trust an encyclopedia that evolves like an organism or one that was designed like a machine.”

Wikipedia is a living creature due to constant updating by dedicated “inexpert Wikipedians” as he calls them. These are individuals who are ‘for truth, justice and the American way’ I might add due to their not being bought and paid for by ‘vested interests’ as I’ve discussed previously. They are of the Internet Age and reflect the new found freedom from authoritarian dogma of the past a la Encyclopaedia Britannica. He finds himself relying on both.

“Wikipedia’s rough-edged entries on science are often more detailed and current than the ones in Britannica….”
He goes on – “It seems natural that over time, thousands, then millions of inexpert Wikipedians - even with an occasional saboteur in their midst - can produce a better product than a far smaller number of isolated experts ever could.”

This is borne out by the study that he comments on from Nature. Which “…showed that the decision is far from clear-cut. Calling on experts to compare 42 competing entries, the journal counted an average of four errors per article in Wikipedia - and three in Britannica. That is not much of a difference, and a look at the details only adds to the anxiety. A fact is surely a fact, but what constitutes an error can be as hard to pin down as a bead of mercury.”

As far as trust goes, he states - “Whatever their shortcomings, neither encyclopedia appears to be as error-prone as one might have inferred from Nature, and if Britannica has an edge in accuracy, Wikipedia seems bound to catch up.”

Old and Steadfast Medicine vs. Mercurial Upstart Alternative Medicine
So-called Conventional Medicine and its “old and steadfast” ways of “centralized” information that only the experts posses (so you must listen to them about what’s best for your health); is coming to an end. This is because “mercurial upstart” Alternative Medicine websites with its “inexperts” are providing better more up-to-date information that is relevant to peoples chronic ill-health conditions. They are not bought and paid for by the vested interests.

Wikipedia was listed in the top ten for terms searched in Google for 2006. Ironically, Johnson concludes – “Meanwhile the competition has some catching up to do. While Wikipedia includes a good, balanced article on the history of Britannica, Britannica has not a word to say about Wikipedia, as it rapidly becomes one of the most significant phenomena on the Net”

Britannica has at least taken the high road of not saying anything about Wikidupedia unlike the self-appointed pontificating critics of Alternative Medicine. Groups like Quackwatch and various Skeptics, use attack techniques rather than rational dialogue. I’ll address their modus operandi in the future.

Many of us feel like Mr. Johnson because we need to rely on both the ‘Old and Steadfast Medicine and the Mercurial Upstart Alternative Medicine’. They both have a place. You need more than a few herbs if you have an emergency or need surgery. Look for more information at this site to help you look at both medicines, objectively.

As Alternative Medicine also “rapidly becomes one of the most significant phenomena on the Net”, to borrow a line from Johnsons article; and as you know - You Can’t Put The Genie Back In The Bottle.