U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2011, 05:56 PM
 
Location: Ponte Vedra Beach FL
14,628 posts, read 17,942,381 times
Reputation: 6716

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Yes, that's what he said. He also said my "bad" cholesterol was high, but OK for someone who doesn't have diabetes or hasn't had a heart attack, which I haven't.

The point is that had I just started taking the Statin's a few months ago when he prescribed it, it never would have come to light that my cholesterol levels are fine without them, and I'd have been subjecting my body to whatever evils Statin's have in store. He would have assumed that the readings had gone down because of the prescription and recommended I keep taking them. I wouldn't have known any better either. Worse, when the liver or muscle damage started to show, I'd have ended up taking some other class of drugs to offset that!

In the end, I would have ended up poisoning my body for no good reason.

Never, ever, ever, ever, EVER start taking a maintenance medication, prescription or OTC, just because someone says you should, even a doctor.
Whatever - it's your life - not mine. Live it however you care to. And I think you are kind of - on a scale of 0 to 10 for a non-medical-professional - a 1. Robyn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2011, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,674,292 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55 View Post
Whatever - it's your life - not mine. Live it however you care to. And I think you are kind of - on a scale of 0 to 10 for a non-medical-professional - a 1. Robyn

I'm actually less than a one. But, whatever I die from, you can probably be assured it won't be because I poisoned my body by taking a lot of drugs.

You may do as you wish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Location: Location
6,353 posts, read 7,834,865 times
Reputation: 18590
[quote=Robyn55;21662979] Snip...
FWIW - the only drug that I take about which reasonable people (or doctors) might have different points of view is Premarin. If I didn't take the drug - I would have gone through surgically induced menopause quite a while ago. And I didn't/don't want to go through menopause. My particular doctors believe that the benefits of long-term HRT outweigh the risks - especially for women who are at low risk for breast cancer. So my desires are in synch with their recommendations. OTOH - if I still had all my female plumbing - I doubt I would have reached the same conclusion. On the third hand - if there's any medical reason at all to do it - I'd get rid of all my female plumbing if I were in my 50's or older. At a certain age - all female plumbing is is another place to get cancer. Robyn[/quote]

Right you are, Robyn. I had my plumbing removed at age 51. Good. No chance of cancer there, I said. So at age 74, I was diagnosed with colon cancer. Go figure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 07:10 PM
 
48 posts, read 38,760 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55 View Post
Whatever - it's your life - not mine. Live it however you care to. And I think you are kind of - on a scale of 0 to 10 for a non-medical-professional - a 1. Robyn
Robyn, I think you are overly impressed by status and titles. Someone is an MD so you automatically respect their opinions. Yes there is some value in having education and credentials, but not nearly as much as you and many others believe. Education sometimes gives us special insights and knowledge, but just as often it instills bias and narrow-minded dogmatism. The education process necessarily involves some kind of indoctrination, and this is obviously true for MDs.

Modern medicine has settled on a certain kind of philosophy, which tends not to be holistic. Cholesterol lowering drugs are a good example of what I mean -- instead of considering the body as a whole complex system, where all parts are interconnected and effect each other, one thing -- cholesterol level -- is isolated and focused on.

They don't seem concerned that statins go everywhere in the complex system and must have unknown far-reaching effects. They don't care that statins do nothing to help restore the system to a healthy balanced state. They don't even consider that the inflammatory syndrome leading to heart disease is the result of some kind of overall imbalance.

And they don't seem to care that the cholesterol lowering effect of statins may actually be incidental, and that the anti-inflammatory effect may be what helps prevent heart attacks. If that is the case, then it would make more sense to figure out the cause of the chronic inflammation. Why does the immune system seem to be out of balance?

The non-holistic approach has evolved over centuries, but really took off during the 20th century, for various reasons. A big reason is the fact that antibiotics have saved many lives. The action and results of antibiotics are relatively simple and you don't have to worry too much about the system as a whole. There is an infection which is known to be the cause of the disease, and you target the infection with an antibiotic.

Antibiotics were so amazingly successful, the same kind of approach is used where it does not apply. Chemotherapy drugs for cancer try the same approach as antibiotics -- use a poisonous substance to target an infection. But this assumes that cancer is similar to a bacterial infection, and it is not. Cancer might, in many cases, be the result of a systemic imbalance (as is most heart disease).

Chemotherapy has not been effective for most types of cancer. Yet medical researchers have not given up on this approach.

Of course, figuring out why and how a complex system is out of balance is not easy, and often may be impossible. Most often the best treatment is simply lifestyle changes. But remember that our medical research has been non-holistic for a very long time, so it has seldom even tried to find holistic solutions.

MDs are immersed in non-holistic philosophy all through their training. They can't even see that combining various artificial chemicals in one patient's body might have unforeseen damaging results. This should be perfectly obvious, and it is obvious for anyone who takes a more holistic approach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,674,292 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbird52 View Post
Robyn, I think you are overly impressed by status and titles. Someone is an MD so you automatically respect their opinions. Yes there is some value in having education and credentials, but not nearly as much as you and many others believe. Education sometimes gives us special insights and knowledge, but just as often it instills bias and narrow-minded dogmatism. The education process necessarily involves some kind of indoctrination, and this is obviously true for MDs.

Modern medicine has settled on a certain kind of philosophy, which tends not to be holistic. Cholesterol lowering drugs are a good example of what I mean -- instead of considering the body as a whole complex system, where all parts are interconnected and effect each other, one thing -- cholesterol level -- is isolated and focused on.

They don't seem concerned that statins go everywhere in the complex system and must have unknown far-reaching effects. They don't care that statins do nothing to help restore the system to a healthy balanced state. They don't even consider that the inflammatory syndrome leading to heart disease is the result of some kind of overall imbalance.

And they don't seem to care that the cholesterol lowering effect of statins may actually be incidental, and that the anti-inflammatory effect may be what helps prevent heart attacks. If that is the case, then it would make more sense to figure out the cause of the chronic inflammation. Why does the immune system seem to be out of balance?

The non-holistic approach has evolved over centuries, but really took off during the 20th century, for various reasons. A big reason is the fact that antibiotics have saved many lives. The action and results of antibiotics are relatively simple and you don't have to worry too much about the system as a whole. There is an infection which is known to be the cause of the disease, and you target the infection with an antibiotic.

Antibiotics were so amazingly successful, the same kind of approach is used where it does not apply. Chemotherapy drugs for cancer try the same approach as antibiotics -- use a poisonous substance to target an infection. But this assumes that cancer is similar to a bacterial infection, and it is not. Cancer might, in many cases, be the result of a systemic imbalance (as is most heart disease).

Chemotherapy has not been effective for most types of cancer. Yet medical researchers have not given up on this approach.

Of course, figuring out why and how a complex system is out of balance is not easy, and often may be impossible. Most often the best treatment is simply lifestyle changes. But remember that our medical research has been non-holistic for a very long time, so it has seldom even tried to find holistic solutions.

MDs are immersed in non-holistic philosophy all through their training. They can't even see that combining various artificial chemicals in one patient's body might have unforeseen damaging results. This should be perfectly obvious, and it is obvious for anyone who takes a more holistic approach.

And, never forget that the guy who just, just barely passed his exam is just as much a doctor as the one who graduated first in his class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 07:40 PM
 
570 posts, read 1,145,511 times
Reputation: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbird52 View Post
Chemotherapy has not been effective for most types of cancer.
I would be interested in seeing the research that supports this statement. Chemo is often only one component of a cancer treatment plan.

I'm sure if the research supported your statement, the insurance companies would have been all too eager to cease covering chemotherapy. Fortunately for cancer patients this has not been the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,221,259 times
Reputation: 6866
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbird52 View Post
<snip>
And Robyn, you need to know what kind of scientist I am because you don't believe anyone who questions mainstream science or medicine could possibly be knowledgeable. Whatever kind of scientist I say I am, you won't believe it and/or you will say it doesn't qualify me to have opinions on health. I only mentioned it because I have noticed that MDs often do not understand statistics any better than the general public.
Don't be modest. I suppose if you can hold yourself out as a scientist based on completing graduate courses in psychology and earning a Ph.D. in linguistics, I can likewise hold myself out as a scientist. I completed doctoral level classes in research/data analysis in psychology, including multiple regression analysis, etc. Dang, won't my kids be surprised to find that not only is their mother a nurse and a lawyer, she's also a scientist!

BTW, medical doctors, in general, understand research and data analysis to the same extent as those majoring in the "soft" sciences.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 10:52 PM
 
Location: Next stop Antarctica
1,799 posts, read 2,431,543 times
Reputation: 2075
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbird52 View Post
Have you done at least that much all your life? Or did you start recently? Sometimes people expect to make up for a lifetime of inactivity with a small amount of daily exercise, and when they don't get quick results, they rely on drugs instead, or in addition.
I have always worked hard at keeping fit, i cycled to work for a good part of my younger life. I'm no couch potato.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Ponte Vedra Beach FL
14,628 posts, read 17,942,381 times
Reputation: 6716
Quote:
Originally Posted by cushla View Post
I do water aerobics once a week the other mornings i have a brisk walk for 30 mins. i also do a bit of gardening, never watch TV during the day. I'm also on a diabetic programme where i have 6 monthly blood tests and annual eye test plus an annual visit to the podiatrist.
The only thing I'd mention about stuff in the water is that - for us women - one way of avoiding osteoporosis is to do weight bearing activity. Like even walking. Our bodies carrying our weight. Doing stuff in the water doesn't accomplish that goal (but walking does). Another way is to be a little overweight. Sounds counter-intuitive that being thin can hurt you - but thin women are more prone to osteoporosis than those carrying a few extra pounds. And they get more wrinkles in their faces too . Robyn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 05:45 PM
 
Location: Ponte Vedra Beach FL
14,628 posts, read 17,942,381 times
Reputation: 6716
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbird52 View Post
You must have noticed I was careful to say that some drugs have been very effective, such as antibiotics and vaccines. They shouldn't really be called "drugs" but we have been referring to medical chemicals in general as drugs, so you know what I mean.

The miraculous effects of antibiotics and vaccines in curing or preventing certain common infections made people overly enthusiastic and hopeful about modern medicine.

So many other kinds of chemicals are ineffective or harmful, and there is a lot of careless thinking. For example, high cholesterol is associated with heart disease, so MDs have jumped to the conclusion that lowering cholesterol with chemicals prevents heart disease.

Another example which I find distressing is treating fibromyalgia with drugs such as Lyrica. Patients are probably expected to take this for many years or for life, since it only treats symptoms and does not address the cause.

And similarly for anti-depressants -- they do not help restore mental health, and in fact patients can be much worse off if they take them for a long time and then try to stop. And even though no one knows the long term effects, many young people are taking them.

And Robyn, you need to know what kind of scientist I am because you don't believe anyone who questions mainstream science or medicine could possibly be knowledgeable. Whatever kind of scientist I say I am, you won't believe it and/or you will say it doesn't qualify me to have opinions on health. I only mentioned it because I have noticed that MDs often do not understand statistics any better than the general public.
OK - I majored in political science in college. So I am perhaps as much a "scientist" as you are .

I don't think fibromyalgia is a real disease - so I agree that using a drug like Lyrica to "treat" it is nonsense.

Ditto with a lot of young kids - especially boys - diagnosed with things like ADHD. If these kids had an hour of physical exercise a day (whatever happened to "gym"?) - they'd be on an even keel IMO.

I don't believe in the wide scale prescription of anti-depressants for every little thing that makes a person "blue" - or for "situation specific" depression (like the death of a loved one).

I really don't know what the long term study results will be in terms of the relation between statins and heart disease/problems. OTOH - they are prescribed mostly for middle aged or older patients at risk for heart problems. And the side effects (tested for easily - they are usually blood work side effects - not physical side effects) are present only in a small % of people who take them. And the side effects are almost always not acute. Coming from a family where one side has a terrible history of CAD - I'm willing to take statins and see what happens. Can't do any worse than most people on that side of the family. Robyn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top