The swine flu, or H1N1 influenza virus, emerged in Mexico this past spring. The timing was uncharacteristic of most flu viruses, and so was its genetic makeup. H1N1 bore an uncanny resemblance to the 1918 flu virus, which killed an estimated 50 to 100 million people worldwide. The 1918 virus initially appeared mild, seemed to disappear during the summer, then reemerged with deadly virulence in the fall and winter. Unlike most types of influenza, it tended to affect healthy people in their 20s, triggering a self-destructive immune reaction in people with the most robust immune systems.
Will this year’s H1N1 virus follow the same pattern as the 1918 flu? At this point, there is certainly the potential, but no one knows for sure. It’s too soon to panic, but it would be smart to prepare. I’m stocking up on some supplements, just in case.
I believe it’s important to take some key supple-ments daily for general protection, and then to ramp up the dosages on the first day of symptoms, before virus concentrations increase and the immune system overreacts. My flu-protection plan consists of the following:
N-acetylcysteine (NAC). This potent antioxidant is unsurpassed for suppressing flu symptoms. I take 500 mg daily, doubling this over the fall and winter. I’ve taken up to 5 to 6 grams daily to suppress flu and cold symptoms.
Vitamin D. I take 5,000 IU daily, but will briefly go up to 25,000 to counter flu or cold symptoms.
Vitamin C. Bowel tolerance increases during sickness, so take at least 2,000 mg daily and increase this to 10,000 mg or more to fight infections.
Selenium. This mineral helps prevent the creation of viral mutations that can damage the heart. Take 200 mcg daily, but increase it to 400 mcg if you’re fighting a flu or cold.
L-lysine. This amino acid inhibits the growth of viruses. I take it only when fighting an infection,
500 to 1,000 mg daily.
Zinc lozenges. These also help suppress cold and flu symptoms. Follow label instructions.
Oscillococcinum. This homeopathic remedy also seems to help. Follow label instructions.
Don’t forget: The office, family gatherings, and air travel are great opportunities to share infections. Wash your hands frequently, and if you’re sick, please stay home.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The “Single Cause” Fallacy
One of the foundations of modern medicine is that each disease has a single cause – identify the cause and a drug treatment will follow. The idea certainly helps with the marketing and sales of drugs, but it denies the complexity of most disease processes.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared that cancer would be cured by 1976. Over the years, we’ve read hundreds (if not thousands) of promising news releases and scientific papers suggesting that the “latest” discovery could very well lead to a cure, or at least to effective treatments, for cancer. Despite all of the research – hundreds of billion dollars of funding – the death rate from cancer between 1950 and 2005 has decreased by only 5 percent. In contrast, deaths from heart disease decreased by 64 percent during this time.
Although all types of cancer share many features, such as the proliferation of abnormal cells, cancers can have many different causes. Alterations in gene function are at the root of cancer, but they can result from any number of factors, including poor nutrition, elevated hormone levels, and environmental toxins. Damage to some individual genes, such as the p53 and BRCA, certainly increase the risk of cancer.
But the research increasingly shows that cancers don’t develop because of one or two genes that go bad. Rather, cancers are the consequence of a lot going wrong and going out of control. An analogy: instead of one musician hitting a bad note, cancer is more like all of the musicians in an orchestra repeatedly hitting the wrong notes.
So if cancer does not have a single cause, what’s the best way to tackle the disease? The only sensible approach is to emphasize prevention – eating better diets, taking some nutritional supplements, exercising, and creating an environment with fewer environmental toxins.
I don’t think we’ll ever eliminate cancer or identify a “cure,” but through mindful living we can certainly reduce the risk of cancer and the number of people who must undergo surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation – treatments that often produce as much suffering as the disease itself.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared that cancer would be cured by 1976. Over the years, we’ve read hundreds (if not thousands) of promising news releases and scientific papers suggesting that the “latest” discovery could very well lead to a cure, or at least to effective treatments, for cancer. Despite all of the research – hundreds of billion dollars of funding – the death rate from cancer between 1950 and 2005 has decreased by only 5 percent. In contrast, deaths from heart disease decreased by 64 percent during this time.
Although all types of cancer share many features, such as the proliferation of abnormal cells, cancers can have many different causes. Alterations in gene function are at the root of cancer, but they can result from any number of factors, including poor nutrition, elevated hormone levels, and environmental toxins. Damage to some individual genes, such as the p53 and BRCA, certainly increase the risk of cancer.
But the research increasingly shows that cancers don’t develop because of one or two genes that go bad. Rather, cancers are the consequence of a lot going wrong and going out of control. An analogy: instead of one musician hitting a bad note, cancer is more like all of the musicians in an orchestra repeatedly hitting the wrong notes.
So if cancer does not have a single cause, what’s the best way to tackle the disease? The only sensible approach is to emphasize prevention – eating better diets, taking some nutritional supplements, exercising, and creating an environment with fewer environmental toxins.
I don’t think we’ll ever eliminate cancer or identify a “cure,” but through mindful living we can certainly reduce the risk of cancer and the number of people who must undergo surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation – treatments that often produce as much suffering as the disease itself.
Sugar Wars – Nothing Natural About Them
Despite the worldwide economic recession, one type of business seems to be profiting: candy shops.
Most of us have our comfort foods. It may be chicken soup, a slice of pizza, or a chunk of chocolate. A recent article in the New York Times reported that business in candy shops is booming. Business is especially good for inexpensive sweets, such as Hershey Kisses, compared with more expensive indulgences.
Interestingly, this sweet-tooth trend coincides with another trend, a shift from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) back to old-fashion sugar (sucrose). Begin-ning in the 1980s, HFCS became the sweetener of choice in processed foods, soft drinks, and candies. It was sweeter than sucrose, had a longer shelf life, and less expensive. Consumption of HFCS skyrocketed, while sucrose consumption plummeted – though the average American’s consumption of all added sugars has continued to climb to about 160 pounds per year.
Sucrose is a chemical compound, whereas HFCS is a blend of fructose and glucose, which leads to different metabolic effects. HFCS does a better job of raising triglycerides (a marker of diabetes and heart disease risk), and is more likely to lead to weight gain (in comparison to sucrose).
A lot of people (including me) complained about HFCS, and the giant junk food companies apparently listened. They’ve started returning to sucrose as a sweetener in frozen dinners, tomato sauces, salad dressings, and other products. With incredible audacity, companies are now describing sucrose as natural and healthy.
Natural and healthy? While HFCS does appear worse than sucrose, that doesn’t make sucrose a healthy alternative. The ideal dietary solution is to emphasis fresh foods and to avoid packaged foods, especially those with any type of added sugar.
Most of us have our comfort foods. It may be chicken soup, a slice of pizza, or a chunk of chocolate. A recent article in the New York Times reported that business in candy shops is booming. Business is especially good for inexpensive sweets, such as Hershey Kisses, compared with more expensive indulgences.
Interestingly, this sweet-tooth trend coincides with another trend, a shift from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) back to old-fashion sugar (sucrose). Begin-ning in the 1980s, HFCS became the sweetener of choice in processed foods, soft drinks, and candies. It was sweeter than sucrose, had a longer shelf life, and less expensive. Consumption of HFCS skyrocketed, while sucrose consumption plummeted – though the average American’s consumption of all added sugars has continued to climb to about 160 pounds per year.
Sucrose is a chemical compound, whereas HFCS is a blend of fructose and glucose, which leads to different metabolic effects. HFCS does a better job of raising triglycerides (a marker of diabetes and heart disease risk), and is more likely to lead to weight gain (in comparison to sucrose).
A lot of people (including me) complained about HFCS, and the giant junk food companies apparently listened. They’ve started returning to sucrose as a sweetener in frozen dinners, tomato sauces, salad dressings, and other products. With incredible audacity, companies are now describing sucrose as natural and healthy.
Natural and healthy? While HFCS does appear worse than sucrose, that doesn’t make sucrose a healthy alternative. The ideal dietary solution is to emphasis fresh foods and to avoid packaged foods, especially those with any type of added sugar.
The Mind-Body Connection
Many people remain skeptical of a clear body-mind connection – that our life experiences and emotions can have a profound effect on our hard-wired biology. While animal studies have clearly shown that a mother’s style of nurturing can affect her offspring’s lifelong behavior and physical health, scientific studies showing a clear mind-body link in people have been limited.
Now, researchers have clearly shown that the behavior of some genes can be permanently changed by psychological factors during childhood.
Researchers from McGill University in Montreal compared two groups of brain cells. Some cells were obtained from people who had been abused as children and later committed suicide, and other brain cells came from people who had committed suicide but who had not been abused as children.
The researchers, writing in Nature Neuroscience (2009; doi 10.1038/nn.2270), explained how they investigated specific stress-response genes and cell receptors for cortisol on brain cells. When people are stressed – as in the case of children who are being abused – their levels of cortisol, a key stress hormone, swell.
In most people, the brain increases the activity of stress-response genes and the number of cell receptors involved in clearing cortisol from the brain. However, these genes were roughly 40 percent less active in cells from people who had been abused as children. In other words, being abused permanently changed the activity genes that would have helped buffer the effects of stress later in life.
The biological explanation for this mind-body connection lies in the science of “epigenetics.” Every one of our bodies’ cells contains about 20,000 genes, which can be considered our “hardware.” Epigenetics is more like our modifiable genetic “software.” Nutrition, stress, and toxins are among the key modifiers of our epigenetic programming, which turns genes on and off. Amazingly, epigenetic changes caused by nutrition and experience can be passed from one generation to the next.
Now, researchers have clearly shown that the behavior of some genes can be permanently changed by psychological factors during childhood.
Researchers from McGill University in Montreal compared two groups of brain cells. Some cells were obtained from people who had been abused as children and later committed suicide, and other brain cells came from people who had committed suicide but who had not been abused as children.
The researchers, writing in Nature Neuroscience (2009; doi 10.1038/nn.2270), explained how they investigated specific stress-response genes and cell receptors for cortisol on brain cells. When people are stressed – as in the case of children who are being abused – their levels of cortisol, a key stress hormone, swell.
In most people, the brain increases the activity of stress-response genes and the number of cell receptors involved in clearing cortisol from the brain. However, these genes were roughly 40 percent less active in cells from people who had been abused as children. In other words, being abused permanently changed the activity genes that would have helped buffer the effects of stress later in life.
The biological explanation for this mind-body connection lies in the science of “epigenetics.” Every one of our bodies’ cells contains about 20,000 genes, which can be considered our “hardware.” Epigenetics is more like our modifiable genetic “software.” Nutrition, stress, and toxins are among the key modifiers of our epigenetic programming, which turns genes on and off. Amazingly, epigenetic changes caused by nutrition and experience can be passed from one generation to the next.
Monday, February 9, 2009
In Praise of Evolution
The never-ending arguments about evolution and creationism (or intelligent design) mystify me. I can’t understand why one of the most beautiful and fascinating aspects of biology is so controversial.
Evolution is all about change, adaptation, and dumb luck. It’s nature’s version of the Las Vegas crapshoot. It’s exciting, and sometimes scary.
From a biological standpoint, evolutionary changes result from a genetic roll of the dice (every time an egg is conceived) or from mutations (random changes to our genes). Most of these changes don’t mean a thing, a few alter our appearance or increase our risk of disease, and once in a while they give us nature’s version of seven-eleven.
Cancer is a good example of evolution in action. Cancers evolve, and they are a microcosm of the entire evolutionary process. I doubt that anyone would ever argue that cancer is just a theory.
Cancers develop from mutations that change the programming of our genes and the behavior of cells. When doctors treat cancer with chemo or radiation, they destroy the weakest cells, but cells with treatment-resistant genetic mutations survive. That’s natural selection—part of the evolutionary process—and that’s why most cancers eventually return.
The randomness of evolutionary process can be unforgiving or serendipitous. You never know how the dice will roll. A moth born bright yellow becomes easy pickings for a bird. But a moth of a different color may blend in to its surroundings, survive, and pass its lucky genes onto another generation.
A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin noticed how different beaks among Galapagos finches were adapted to different types of food. Birds born with maladapted beaks couldn’t feed themselves and so they died off, whereas birds with beaks suited to a particular island’s food sources flourished.
Segues from one species to another take a long time. Monkeys did not turn into human beings overnight—their evolution occurred through a lot of minor changes over millions of years. That’s a difficult time scale for most people to imagine. After all, many of us have trouble imagining what life was like 100 years ago.
It takes my breath away when I think about how life changes through the evolutionary process. I wish I could see a time-lapse film depicting all the little biological changes in the transition from primates to humans, or how mammals returned to the sea and became whales and dolphins. But the millions of years these changes take make that kind of film impossible.
Don’t ask me why all this happens or how it got started. I’m pretty humble about things like that, and rather than ascribe them to one thing or another, I’ll admit that I just don’t know. I can live with not knowing.
I do believe that the irony in all this is that creationists have also evolved. They’ve evolved from a literal Biblical explanation of life on Earth to the more clever argument of intelligent design. I believe that’s a good example of change and adaptation. Too bad they don’t see their own evolution or appreciate the wonder of how life evolves. I think it’s the greatest show on Earth—maybe not in the heavens, but definitely here on Earth.
Evolution is all about change, adaptation, and dumb luck. It’s nature’s version of the Las Vegas crapshoot. It’s exciting, and sometimes scary.
From a biological standpoint, evolutionary changes result from a genetic roll of the dice (every time an egg is conceived) or from mutations (random changes to our genes). Most of these changes don’t mean a thing, a few alter our appearance or increase our risk of disease, and once in a while they give us nature’s version of seven-eleven.
Cancer is a good example of evolution in action. Cancers evolve, and they are a microcosm of the entire evolutionary process. I doubt that anyone would ever argue that cancer is just a theory.
Cancers develop from mutations that change the programming of our genes and the behavior of cells. When doctors treat cancer with chemo or radiation, they destroy the weakest cells, but cells with treatment-resistant genetic mutations survive. That’s natural selection—part of the evolutionary process—and that’s why most cancers eventually return.
The randomness of evolutionary process can be unforgiving or serendipitous. You never know how the dice will roll. A moth born bright yellow becomes easy pickings for a bird. But a moth of a different color may blend in to its surroundings, survive, and pass its lucky genes onto another generation.
A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin noticed how different beaks among Galapagos finches were adapted to different types of food. Birds born with maladapted beaks couldn’t feed themselves and so they died off, whereas birds with beaks suited to a particular island’s food sources flourished.
Segues from one species to another take a long time. Monkeys did not turn into human beings overnight—their evolution occurred through a lot of minor changes over millions of years. That’s a difficult time scale for most people to imagine. After all, many of us have trouble imagining what life was like 100 years ago.
It takes my breath away when I think about how life changes through the evolutionary process. I wish I could see a time-lapse film depicting all the little biological changes in the transition from primates to humans, or how mammals returned to the sea and became whales and dolphins. But the millions of years these changes take make that kind of film impossible.
Don’t ask me why all this happens or how it got started. I’m pretty humble about things like that, and rather than ascribe them to one thing or another, I’ll admit that I just don’t know. I can live with not knowing.
I do believe that the irony in all this is that creationists have also evolved. They’ve evolved from a literal Biblical explanation of life on Earth to the more clever argument of intelligent design. I believe that’s a good example of change and adaptation. Too bad they don’t see their own evolution or appreciate the wonder of how life evolves. I think it’s the greatest show on Earth—maybe not in the heavens, but definitely here on Earth.
Friday, January 23, 2009
How to Achieve Real Change in Health Care. Is Anyone Listening?
A physician I knew (he died at a ripe old age) once quipped, “Medicine is America’s fastest growing failing business.” And unless we refocus our entire approach to health care, it’s going to grow and fail even faster.
Most proposals for health-care reform have focused on either expanding the availability of insurance or reducing the costs of prescription drugs. While necessary, these approaches are essentially extensions of a dysfunctional health-care system, and they fail to correct its fundamental flaws.
Health care (of which medicine is part) is an oxymoron. It’s really a disease-care system that continues to exist only because of the rationing of treatment. Millions of people are excluded from health-care coverage, and others must deal with huge out-of-pocket expenses or simply do without.
The solution I envision would transform this disease-care system into a genuine health-care system. The only way to accomplish this, at a price this nation can afford, is to emphasize prevention.
I don’t mean inoculations or well-baby checkups, although they certainly should be part of any health-care system. Nor do I mean near-compulsive cholesterol and blood pressure checks, although they too have a place.
Rather, I recommend that the incoming Obama administration fund a large federal and state campaign that tackles prevention in a way similar to how government discouraged the use of tobacco products. The anti-tobacco campaign has largely worked, and one focusing on prevention can work as well.
Focusing on prevention is imperative. Unless we reduce the demands placed on disease care, the current or extended disease-care system will eventually collapse financially.
Nearly all experts agree that most chronic health problems result from poor eating habits, a lack of physical activity, and other lifestyle issues, such as smoking and alcohol consumption. These are behaviors that can be modified to reduce the risk of disease, and less disease means lower health-care costs.
It’s important that this campaign convey the message that each and every one of us is a partner in our own health. We can’t abuse our bodies and then expect doctors or magic pills to reverse the damage, regardless of who pays. We must acknowledge our personal responsibility for staying healthy and do a much better job of eating more nutritious foods and staying reasonably fit.
I would make nutrition the foundation of any health-care campaign, for a couple of reasons. First, it’s the basis of our biology and biochemistry. Second, two of every three Americans are now overweight or obese. More than 23 million have type 2 diabetes, and somewhere between 40 and 100 million have some form of prediabetes. These are signs that our eating habits and lifestyles are truly warped. Ominously, these health problems increase the risk of heart disease and most other chronic degeneration diseases.
There’s no need to get distracted by arguments over which diet is best. Everything I’ve learned about healthy habits boils down to emphasizing fresh foods over almost anything that comes in a box, can, jar, bottle, or bag. It’s as simple as that. Opt for a piece of fish or chicken and some vegetables instead of a burger and fries in the drive-thru. And yes, eat smaller portions.
Physical fitness is important as well. While we don’t have to build Schwarzenegger-type bodies, we do need to realize that all the time we spend in front of televisions and computers helps make us fat. Just going for a daily walk improves blood sugar and weight, and obviously the more we do, the better off we’ll be.
Food companies could certainly be given incentives to help spread the word about eating better and becoming more physically active. They could also retool some of their food products to wean people off junk foods. After all, the health of their profits will at some point depend on the health of the nation.
A consortium of medical societies, food-industry lobbying groups, and vitamin supplement associations could also help underwrite consumer-education campaigns geared to preventing disease.
Even the Food and Drug Administration could play a role by clearly discouraging the use of hydrogenated oils and caloric sweeteners, maybe by requiring warning labels on some packages. The FDA could also streamline the now complicated processes of making health claims for foods and supplements.
Doctors may dismiss my proposal by saying that patients want a quick fix (code word for prescription drug) and aren’t compliant with dietary changes. But the studies show that one-on-one nutrition coaching and follow-ups do result in compliance and consistency.
Will there be resistance to what I propose? Of course they will be. Every billion dollars saved in disease care will translate to a billion lost in drug company and hospital profits.
But something has got to give. As a nation, we’ve got to get off our duff and make some changes. It’s far easier, better, and less costly in the long run to prevent (or lower the risk of) disease than to struggle to treat it. Furthermore, as people get healthier, they will also have more energy, use fewer sick days, and be more productive. That can only be good for our economy.
We need more than a Band-Aid when it comes to reforming health care and controlling costs. I hate to say it, but for a permanent cure, health care needs major surgery followed, of course, by a lean diet and time to heal. This process will certainly take more than a couple of years to yield clear benefits, but so did the campaign to reduce tobacco use.
Most proposals for health-care reform have focused on either expanding the availability of insurance or reducing the costs of prescription drugs. While necessary, these approaches are essentially extensions of a dysfunctional health-care system, and they fail to correct its fundamental flaws.
Health care (of which medicine is part) is an oxymoron. It’s really a disease-care system that continues to exist only because of the rationing of treatment. Millions of people are excluded from health-care coverage, and others must deal with huge out-of-pocket expenses or simply do without.
The solution I envision would transform this disease-care system into a genuine health-care system. The only way to accomplish this, at a price this nation can afford, is to emphasize prevention.
I don’t mean inoculations or well-baby checkups, although they certainly should be part of any health-care system. Nor do I mean near-compulsive cholesterol and blood pressure checks, although they too have a place.
Rather, I recommend that the incoming Obama administration fund a large federal and state campaign that tackles prevention in a way similar to how government discouraged the use of tobacco products. The anti-tobacco campaign has largely worked, and one focusing on prevention can work as well.
Focusing on prevention is imperative. Unless we reduce the demands placed on disease care, the current or extended disease-care system will eventually collapse financially.
Nearly all experts agree that most chronic health problems result from poor eating habits, a lack of physical activity, and other lifestyle issues, such as smoking and alcohol consumption. These are behaviors that can be modified to reduce the risk of disease, and less disease means lower health-care costs.
It’s important that this campaign convey the message that each and every one of us is a partner in our own health. We can’t abuse our bodies and then expect doctors or magic pills to reverse the damage, regardless of who pays. We must acknowledge our personal responsibility for staying healthy and do a much better job of eating more nutritious foods and staying reasonably fit.
I would make nutrition the foundation of any health-care campaign, for a couple of reasons. First, it’s the basis of our biology and biochemistry. Second, two of every three Americans are now overweight or obese. More than 23 million have type 2 diabetes, and somewhere between 40 and 100 million have some form of prediabetes. These are signs that our eating habits and lifestyles are truly warped. Ominously, these health problems increase the risk of heart disease and most other chronic degeneration diseases.
There’s no need to get distracted by arguments over which diet is best. Everything I’ve learned about healthy habits boils down to emphasizing fresh foods over almost anything that comes in a box, can, jar, bottle, or bag. It’s as simple as that. Opt for a piece of fish or chicken and some vegetables instead of a burger and fries in the drive-thru. And yes, eat smaller portions.
Physical fitness is important as well. While we don’t have to build Schwarzenegger-type bodies, we do need to realize that all the time we spend in front of televisions and computers helps make us fat. Just going for a daily walk improves blood sugar and weight, and obviously the more we do, the better off we’ll be.
Food companies could certainly be given incentives to help spread the word about eating better and becoming more physically active. They could also retool some of their food products to wean people off junk foods. After all, the health of their profits will at some point depend on the health of the nation.
A consortium of medical societies, food-industry lobbying groups, and vitamin supplement associations could also help underwrite consumer-education campaigns geared to preventing disease.
Even the Food and Drug Administration could play a role by clearly discouraging the use of hydrogenated oils and caloric sweeteners, maybe by requiring warning labels on some packages. The FDA could also streamline the now complicated processes of making health claims for foods and supplements.
Doctors may dismiss my proposal by saying that patients want a quick fix (code word for prescription drug) and aren’t compliant with dietary changes. But the studies show that one-on-one nutrition coaching and follow-ups do result in compliance and consistency.
Will there be resistance to what I propose? Of course they will be. Every billion dollars saved in disease care will translate to a billion lost in drug company and hospital profits.
But something has got to give. As a nation, we’ve got to get off our duff and make some changes. It’s far easier, better, and less costly in the long run to prevent (or lower the risk of) disease than to struggle to treat it. Furthermore, as people get healthier, they will also have more energy, use fewer sick days, and be more productive. That can only be good for our economy.
We need more than a Band-Aid when it comes to reforming health care and controlling costs. I hate to say it, but for a permanent cure, health care needs major surgery followed, of course, by a lean diet and time to heal. This process will certainly take more than a couple of years to yield clear benefits, but so did the campaign to reduce tobacco use.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Early Diagnosis Is Not Prevention
Several years ago I wrote about a disturbing example of what George Orwell called “double-think” – holding simultaneous contradictory views. At the time I focused on mammography, which has often been promoted for “preventing” breast cancer.
Mammography, however, has nothing to do with preventing breast cancer. It’s a diagnostic tool. You can have a hundred mammograms performed, but they won’t prevent a single case of breast cancer. (In fact, a recent study suggested that mammograms might even increase the risk.) Once diagnosed, a patient will usually be pushed into a medical maze with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.
The idea that early diagnosis equals prevention is returning. Recently, a story in the New York Times kept referring to colonoscopies as a way of “preventing” colon cancer. When I emailed the editor that colonoscopies don’t prevent colon cancer, she steadfastly defended her writer’s choice of the word.
Huh? Early diagnosis is not the same as prevention. Confusing the two is double-think.
Meanwhile, a supermarket ran an ad in my local newspaper encouraging people to get various medical tests from a portable testing lab. People could pay for a “heart disease prevention package” or a “stroke and aneurysm prevention package” of tests.
The tests are fine if you want them and if you want to pay for them. But they do not prevent cancer or cardiovascular diseases. They too are a form of early diagnosis.
If such tests do reveal serious health problems, then you have a choice: you can enter the medical maze and subject yourself to drugs and surgery, or you can improve your eating habits and lifestyle. But once in the medical maze – the same one that confuses early diagnosis with prevention – odds are that you’ll be pushed toward the more aggressive and more expensive therapies. After all, the point of early diagnosis is only partly to help patients. The other part is to make money off you.
Mammography, however, has nothing to do with preventing breast cancer. It’s a diagnostic tool. You can have a hundred mammograms performed, but they won’t prevent a single case of breast cancer. (In fact, a recent study suggested that mammograms might even increase the risk.) Once diagnosed, a patient will usually be pushed into a medical maze with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.
The idea that early diagnosis equals prevention is returning. Recently, a story in the New York Times kept referring to colonoscopies as a way of “preventing” colon cancer. When I emailed the editor that colonoscopies don’t prevent colon cancer, she steadfastly defended her writer’s choice of the word.
Huh? Early diagnosis is not the same as prevention. Confusing the two is double-think.
Meanwhile, a supermarket ran an ad in my local newspaper encouraging people to get various medical tests from a portable testing lab. People could pay for a “heart disease prevention package” or a “stroke and aneurysm prevention package” of tests.
The tests are fine if you want them and if you want to pay for them. But they do not prevent cancer or cardiovascular diseases. They too are a form of early diagnosis.
If such tests do reveal serious health problems, then you have a choice: you can enter the medical maze and subject yourself to drugs and surgery, or you can improve your eating habits and lifestyle. But once in the medical maze – the same one that confuses early diagnosis with prevention – odds are that you’ll be pushed toward the more aggressive and more expensive therapies. After all, the point of early diagnosis is only partly to help patients. The other part is to make money off you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
