Dr. Prescribed Meds Kill 106,000 Each Year:

[Villages PL]

According to a paper submitted by Dr. Barbara Starfield and published in the Journal of the American Medical association, 106,000 people are killed each year from "adverse effects of medications" that were correctly prescribed and taken. (This does not include accidental overdoses or hospital mix-ups.)

The 106,000 yearly deaths are the third leading cause of death but it's not reported by the CDC because it's not a disease. So, if you search, "The top 10 leading causes of death" you won't find it. It almost seems hidden to keep it out of the minds of the average drug consumer. Has this been influenced by the powerful drug companies? It's not a disease but it's a health care treatment.

[graciegirl]

According to a paper submitted by Dr. Barbara Starfield and published in the Journal of the American Medical association, 106,000 people are killed each year from "adverse effects of medications" that were correctly prescribed and taken. (This does not include accidental overdoses or hospital mix-ups.)

The 106,000 yearly deaths are the third leading cause of death but it's not reported by the CDC because it's not a disease. So, if you search, "The top 10 leading causes of death" you won't find it. It almost seems hidden to keep it out of the minds of the average drug consumer. Has this been influenced by the powerful drug companies? It's not a disease but it's a health care treatment.


Could you link us to the original article, please. All I can find is something associated with Biogenic Medicine which is an alternative medicine group who published their summary. http://drsircus.com/medicine/sanctuary-spiritual-hospital/

I cannot find either of the two papers that she published in Jama have any connect to this topic.

[Villages PL]

Could you link us to the original article, please.

My source was a book. The title: "Whole" by T. Colin Campbell PhD. The copyright date was 2013.

[graciegirl]

Here are the two I found from Jama:

2010. p.32-6.
Scientific articles[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Starfield&action=edit&section=5)]



Starfield B. Primary Care and Health. A Cross-National Comparison. JAMA. 1991; 266:2268–71.
Starfield B, Simpson L. Primary Care as Part of U.S. Health Services Reform. JAMA. 1993; 269:3136–9.

[Rags123]

"Barack Obama and his allies have done everything they can to bring more people into the US medical system. Changing that system has never occurred to these politicians."


The Starfield Revelations Feb
9
by Jon Rappoport


The Starfield Revelations « Jon Rappoport's Blog (http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/the-starfield-revelations/)

[Villages PL]

Here are the two I found from Jama:

2010. p.32-6.
Scientific articles[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Starfield&action=edit&section=5)]



Starfield B. Primary Care and Health. A Cross-National Comparison. JAMA. 1991; 266:2268–71.
Starfield B, Simpson L. Primary Care as Part of U.S. Health Services Reform. JAMA. 1993; 269:3136–9.


Dr. Starfield's paper was publish in 2000.

[graciegirl]

"Barack Obama and his allies have done everything they can to bring more people into the US medical system. Changing that system has never occurred to these politicians."


The Starfield Revelations Feb
9
by Jon Rappoport


The Starfield Revelations « Jon Rappoport's Blog (http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/the-starfield-revelations/)

Here is what I found out about Jon Rappaport.
I think Dr. Starfield is dead.
Jon Rappoport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Rappoport)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Rappoport

Jon Rappoport is an American journalist and author, currently living in San Diego, California with his wife, Dr. Laura Thompson, with whom he does much work advocating alternative medicine.

[graciegirl]

JAMA Network | JAMA | Is US Health Really the Best in the World? (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192908)

[Villages PL]

"Barack Obama and his allies have done everything they can to bring more people into the US medical system. Changing that system has never occurred to these politicians."


The Starfield Revelations Feb
9
by Jon Rappoport


The Starfield Revelations « Jon Rappoport's Blog (http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/the-starfield-revelations/)

Many thanks, Rags123, your link really hit the spot! :BigApplause:

[graciegirl]

Can you find some more current statistics? Since then statins have really increased longevity.

So I am sure that these statistics have changed too.

[Villages PL]

Can you find some more current statistics? Since then statins have really increased longevity.

So I am sure that these statistics have changed too.

In the Blog by Jon Rappoport there are excerpts from a December 2009 interview with Dr Starfield. In that interview she states, "The findings have been accepted by those who study them."

The findings have also been accepted by Dr. Campbell in his new 2013 book "Whole".

I haven't seen or heard anything in the news to suggest that anything has changed. If one would just read the entire blog, including the interview, it should become apparent why nothing has changed.

The burden now is on those who doubt the statistics to find documented evidence to the contrary.

[KayakerNC]

In the Blog by Jon Rappoport there are excerpts from a December 2009 interview with Dr Starfield. In that interview she states, "The findings have been accepted by those who study them."

The findings have also been accepted by Dr. Campbell in his new 2013 book "Whole".

I haven't seen or heard anything in the news to suggest that anything has changed. If one would just read the entire blog, including the interview, it should become apparent why nothing has changed.

The burden now is on those who doubt the statistics to find documented evidence to the contrary.

So medical hucksters/salesmen should be believed without question. No thanks.

[graciegirl]

I cannot imagine how many would have died without the prescription medication prescribed by M.D.s.

It is not a sign of weakness, or lack of education or lack of good sense to consult a physician and take prescription drugs.

I know the premise that you ascribe to. But many of us don't do things your way. You have chosen to eat an all natural plant based diet. You take no medicine.

The bottom line is good health. Yours, mine, all of us villagers. I know you try to convert us to your style of living.

The only thing I have done to convert you to my way of thinking is to want you to buy yourself a television set. I just think you would be happier.

[OBXNana]

Does the cure outweigh the side effects? If, for example, you have high blood pressure and have done everything to control the blood pressure without any success, you may decide to take a prescribed medication. We know elevated blood pressure can be deadly. Because the medication MAY deplete potassium levels, do you risk a heart attack or figure out how to deal with the side effect.

Some people have a problem with the fillers in medications and simply changing the manufacturer, can eliminate the side effect. There are many drugs that can help a disease and if one doesn't work or has side effects, there may be another that would work better. It's communication between patient and physician.

These statistics are interesting and something I personally enjoy reading. Something for everyone to think about. It then gets down to personal choice and what is best for the individual.

[rubicon]

I have been so conflicted about the conflicting information that is being decimated by so called experts. the latest being red meat going from a major problem to one steak a day keeps the doctor away. Too much salt and that not enough salt increases your chances of a heart attack. Today I read that the statin I taking is increaes my chances of diabetes and heart attack. also told that those blood pressure meds I'm taking are reduce both bone and muscle. What's a person going to do? Who can a person believe?

Its maddening

[graciegirl]

I have been so conflicted about the conflicting information that is being decimated by so called experts. the latest being red meat going from a major problem to one steak a day keeps the doctor away. Too much salt and that not enough salt increases your chances of a heart attack. Today I read that the statin I taking is increaes my chances of diabetes and heart attack. also told that those blood pressure meds I'm taking are reduce both bone and muscle. What's a person going to do? Who can a person believe?

Its maddening

Statins may be keeping people from dementia too. That is a nice side effect.

[blueash]

I have been so conflicted about the conflicting information that is being decimated by so called experts. ... What's a person going to do? Who can a person believe?

Its maddening

A couple thoughts. The low hanging fruit in improving health has been picked. Sanitation, immunization, clean food and water and air. Those have been huge. Add antibiotics, anesthesia and surgery and the medical industry has had all those for 50 years or longer. So now there is just nibbling at the edges of life. Premie care, enormously expensive, and successful for many infants. Cancer care which adds years of life if the patient is young but not so much for the elderly cancer patient even if successful. So how can you live a little longer or a little healthier or both? Does lowering lipids help? Does weight control really matter, and to what degree? Are vitamins a scam? Is coffee harmful?
Proving antibiotics help in strep was easy.

Denny FW, Wannamaker LW, Brink WR. Prevention of rheumatic fever. Treatment of the preceding streptococcic infection. JAMA. 1950;143(2):151-3.

It involved a few hundred patients on a military base where there was an unbelievably high rate of rheumatic fever. Some got penicillin some didn't and the results were clear. It only was a few days of medicine and a few months of follow up. However the little tweaks to get those last few years better require years of medicine, or not medicine, or other interventions. Getting enough patients and the proper controls is phenomenally difficult expensive and the results are never really clear. So one study done with a different approach to the same question may get a conflicting result with another. Relax. Think of it as similar to working on your Nascar vehicle. All the easy stuff is the same for everyone. It is really hard to get that last 1 MPH out of the car. One time the tweak works, next time it doesn't. Different racing surface, weather, mood of the driver. Only after hundreds of ovals do you think you've got the adjustment right. But maybe not for next year's model or a different track. And sometimes that little tweak makes the engine fail. You didn't do anything wrong, you're just at the extreme edge of getting a little more out of the car and that can happen.

The public's expectation that we will all live healthy and forever is wrong. I am 100% certain I will die no matter what I do.

[zonerboy]

I hafta agree with Gracie. If 100,000 people died because of side effects of prescribed medication, how many people would have died if these medications had not been available. Ever wonder why the life expectancy today is so much greater than when you were born? Think it could have any thing to do with medical advances? Yeah, could be!
How many would have died of polio if there were no vaccine? Just one example.
Yes, the sky is not falling.
Just my opinion.

[Barefoot]

According to a paper submitted by Dr. Barbara Starfield and published in the Journal of the American Medical association, 106,000 people are killed each year from "adverse effects of medications" that were correctly prescribed and taken.

Can you compare the number of lives lost yearly from "adverse effects of prescribed medications" to the number of lives saved from taking prescription meds?

[BarryRX]

What Dr. Barbara Starfield was trying to point out in her paper was not the evils of prescription medicine, but the untenable position the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been put in. The FDA is the government agency responsible for making sure that the drugs in this country are safe and efficacious. I believe that in 1992, the FDA went from being funded by our tax dollars to being funded by the drug companies it regulates when the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was passed. She was trying to point out that the budget of the FDA is now dependant upon the very industry it is supposed to regulate. I agree with her that this is not a healthy relationship.

[slipcovers]

Statins may be keeping people from dementia too. That is a nice side effect.

Oh GRACIE , statins reduce cholesterol prodution but also reduces CoQ 10 production, needed in every cell, especially the brain. I believe we are the only country that does not supplement when taking statins. I brought that question to a cardiologist neighbor and he agreed. Barry, what do you think?

[zonerboy]

I read it in a book. It must be true! After all the author claims to be an expert.

[BarryRX]

Oh GRACIE , statins reduce cholesterol prodution but also reduces CoQ 10 production, needed in every cell, especially the brain. I believe we are the only country that does not supplement when taking statins. I brought that question to a cardiologist neighbor and he agreed. Barry, what do you think?

Taking CoQ 10 certainly couldn't hurt unless you are also taking a drug that could interact with it like a beta blocker. As we age our CoQ 10 levels go down. Statins also reduce those levels. A side effect of statin therapy can be muscle pain or even a very dangerous condition where the muscles break down called rhabdomylosis. CoQ 10 seems to help reduce the severity of these possible side effects. When I was a working pharmacist I used to recommend adding CoQ 10 to a patients supplements, but only after checking their medication history to make sure there was no interaction with other medications, and always told them to check first with their doctor in case he felt the need to adjust statin dosage.

[pbkmaine]

I do think that more needs to be understood about drug interactions. When my father died, my mother was prescribed antidepressants. Combined with the other drugs she was taking, they turned her into a zombie. I was worried she was experiencing dementia. We got her to a new MD, who looked at her list of drugs, and took her off half of them. Her health and state of mind were greatly improved.

[rubicon]

Barry RX #43 post is exactly what I read was some of the problems with statins along with increase chance of Type II diabetes.

I also agree with most of what blueash said. While certainly I have no death wish I accept that death comes to us all.

I still believe this comes down to who you going to believe.

It took my cardiologist 3 years to convince me to take statins and blood pressure meds and these are at the minimum. and i am likely in the majority of the populations that resists taking any kind of medicine for anything at all. So belief in the individual making the recommendation is critical.

I also discount any claims made for or against if the person making such suggestions is trying to sell you something and the tendency in the world of marketing to over state claims for or against.

Now I have myself really confused:D

for those of us who just don't know what we don't know its kind of scary

[CFrance]

So medical hucksters/salesmen should be believed without question. No thanks.
Now THAT hit the spot!:BigApplause:

[jimbo2012]

Does the cure outweigh the side effects? If, for example, you have high blood pressure and have done everything to control the blood pressure without any success, you may decide to take a prescribed medication.

Does everything include a plant based diet and not consuming any oils?


Can you find some more current statistics? Since then statins have really increased longevity.



Statins have many side effects, the thing is they develop so slowly you don't know they exist sometimes, ask me how I know.

Longevity --simple diet & exercise are a great way to accomplish that

A side effect of statin therapy can be muscle pain

Happened to me 4 years ago, now no meds vegan diet & no oils.

BP 118/70 was 150/87 took 7 months to med free and feel a million times better with more energy.
weight loss was was like automatic, I probably eat more food by volume than most folks but don't gain weight.

I follow Dr's Colin Campbell & Esseltyn

[Bonnevie]

I think another part of the problem is that patients may use multiple pharmacies for their meds. Trying to find the cheapest deals on meds. mean no one pharmacy has a record of everything you are taking. So interactions can be missed. Like BarryRx said, when he saw something, he could make a recommendation...but if you don't know the whole picture you can't do that. So that $10 gift card for transferring a prescription may not be that great a deal in the long run.

[graciegirl]

I think another part of the problem is that patients may use multiple pharmacies for their meds. Trying to find the cheapest deals on meds. mean no one pharmacy has a record of everything you are taking. So interactions can be missed. Like BarryRx said, when he saw something, he could make a recommendation...but if you don't know the whole picture you can't do that. So that $10 gift card for transferring a prescription may not be that great a deal in the long run.


AND...sometimes patients do not tell their physicians or pharmacists of the supplements they are taking. I have friends say "Why? They are all natural???"

I am not a fan of alternative medicine advocates who are always shouting " BIG PHARMA" while they sell you their stuff and I am not a fan of Suzanne Somers who misleads people about breast cancer and endangers their lives in my opinion..

[Villages PL]

So medical hucksters/salesmen should be believed without question. No thanks.

I don't recommend that everything be believed without question, including your statement. Who are the medical hucksters/salesmen and what do you have to back up your statement?

[CFrance]

(Snipped)
Happened to me 4 years ago, now no meds vegan diet & no oils.


Curious if you replace oil with anything, and if so, with what?

[Villages PL]

I have been so conflicted about the conflicting information that is being decimated by so called experts. the latest being red meat going from a major problem to one steak a day keeps the doctor away. Too much salt and that not enough salt increases your chances of a heart attack. Today I read that the statin I taking is increaes my chances of diabetes and heart attack. also told that those blood pressure meds I'm taking are reduce both bone and muscle. What's a person going to do? Who can a person believe?

Its maddening

I see your point, rubicon. There may be tough dietary choices and tough choices for those who have been told they need to take drugs. I'm not a doctor so I can't really tell anyone what to do about the drug choices.

But I can tell you what I think about drugs in general: Personally, from my own observations, I think that there is often a trade-off. Multiple drugs can be helpful in the short run but they often take their toll over the years. At some point there's a price to be paid.

That's why so many elderly people are being treated for kidney failure etc.. It has been said that dosages have to be adjusted, usually upward, as years go by, putting an extra burden on the liver and kidneys. This whole process is unsustainable. Sorry I can't bring more cheerful news about drugs, but that's my honest opinion.

[jimbo2012]

Curious if you replace oil with anything, and if so, with what?

Vegetable broth or maybe white wine

[zonerboy]

Drugs are basically chemical compounds. Nutrients which your body needs are also chemical compounds. The origin of chemical compound is not what makes them good or bad, healthy or not healthy. The fact that a chemical is manufactured by a plant does not de facto mean it is good for you. Nor does the fact that the same chemical is manufactured in a test tube mean that it's bad for you.
Certainly medical treatments change as knowledge of human physiology and pathophysiology advances via scientific study. The advice of nutritionists similarly changes and such changes are not always backed up by sound scientific data.
If you can maintain your health thru diet and exercise and lifestyle choices, by all means do so. But this may not be successful in many cases.
Just my honest opinion.

[jimbo2012]

Zoner, why wouldn't it be successful, please explain that comment.

[Villages PL]

I hafta agree with Gracie. If 100,000 people died because of side effects of prescribed medication, how many people would have died if these medications had not been available. Ever wonder why the life expectancy today is so much greater than when you were born? Think it could have any thing to do with medical advances? Yeah, could be!
How many would have died of polio if there were no vaccine? Just one example.
Yes, the sky is not falling.
Just my opinion.

The issue is not whether the sky is falling or not. The issue, to some extent, is why people have such a hard time looking at this fact without immediately trying to justify it. And why is it that most people aren't or weren't even aware of it? Why aren't more people interested in how or why this happens?

If a bicycle rider got run over and killed in the Villages, everyone would want to know how such a thing could happen. It would be tragic and God help anyone who would make the following comment: "The sky is not falling".

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Can you find some more current statistics? Since then statins have really increased longevity.

So I am sure that these statistics have changed too.

According to this article:

Can statins extend life, and if so, by how much? | Dr Briffa's Blog - A Good Look at Good Health (http://www.drbriffa.com/2013/02/12/can-statins-extend-life-and-if-so-by-how-much/)

…The model estimated that statin therapy increases average life expectancy in the study population by 0.3 years and average CVD-free life expectancy by 0.7 years…

That's four months for those of us that are mathematically challenged.

And then there's this; “in this trial, statins reduced the risk of a heart attack by 30%”. But what they may not tell you is that the actual risk of having a heart attack went from 0.5% to 0.35%. In other words, before you took the drug you had a 1 in 200 chance of having a heart attack; after taking the drug you have a 1 in 285 chance of having a heart attack. That’s not nearly as impressive as using the 30% relative risk number, but it provides a more accurate picture of what the actual, or “absolute” risk reduction is.

from this article:

The Diet-Heart Myth: Statins Don't Save Lives in People Without Heart Disease (http://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease)

I'm not sold on statins. Especially since they have a tendency to cause muscular atrophy and early dementia. I wonder if the risks outweigh the benefits.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Statins may be keeping people from dementia too. That is a nice side effect.

What I have read and my cardiologist confirmed is that statins have been related to increased risk of early dementia. I don't know where you saw anything that says that it prevents dementia.

[Villages PL]

Can you compare the number of lives lost yearly from "adverse effects of prescribed medications" to the number of lives saved from taking prescription meds?

Sure. Can you tell me how many lives are saved yearly from taking prescription meds?

[Sophie11]

For the people who are on drugs for their cholesterol - google fish oil. My last visit to the Dr. showed my cholesterol was up and the Dr put me on 4 1G fish oil capsules a day. Upon on google search of this I find it works great and that a lot of people will end up losing weight on it. The prescription is expensive at $280 a month. I will see what happens when I go back in a couple of months.

[Villages PL]

Oh GRACIE , statins reduce cholesterol prodution but also reduces CoQ 10 production, needed in every cell, especially the brain. I believe we are the only country that does not supplement when taking statins. I brought that question to a cardiologist neighbor and he agreed. Barry, what do you think?

There's an article online at Livingstrong.com The heading is: Bad Side Effects from CoQ10

[Barefoot]

I hafta agree with Gracie. If 100,000 people died because of side effects of prescribed medication, how many people would have died if these medications had not been available.

Ever wonder why the life expectancy today is so much greater than when you were born? Think it could have any thing to do with medical advances? Yeah, could be! How many would have died of polio if there were no vaccine? Just one example. Yes, the sky is not falling. Just my opinion.


The issue is not whether the sky is falling or not. The issue, to some extent, is why people have such a hard time looking at this fact without immediately trying to justify it.

As Zonerboy and Gracie have pointed out, you are quoting a statistic which is taken out of context unless you compare the 100,000 lives lost to the number of lives saved.
While it's a tragedy that even one life has been lost because of prescription meds, I think that the statistic is just fear mongering unless compared to the billions of lives saved.

[PTennismom0202]

Pharmaceuticals have had a major roll in patient safety programs for a long time. That includes self medication errors, dispensing errors, and being giving the wrong pharmaceuticals in clinical settings. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement has information on patient safety programs. Getting Started (http://www.ihi.org/Topics/PatientSafety/Pages/GettingStarted.aspx) There is an entire subindustry working on patient safety issues and quality improvement. Clinicians (http://www.ncqa.org/Clinicians.aspx)

[Villages PL]

For the people who are on drugs for their cholesterol - google fish oil. My last visit to the Dr. showed my cholesterol was up and the Dr put me on 4 1G fish oil capsules a day. Upon on google search of this I find it works great and that a lot of people will end up losing weight on it. The prescription is expensive at $280 a month. I will see what happens when I go back in a couple of months.

$280.00 per month? Does your doctor think money grows on trees?

You could be enjoying 2 servings per week of fresh wild caught salmon, assuming you are not a vegan. Also, other adjustments may help as well, like a high fiber diet.

[Villages PL]

As Zonerboy and Gracie have pointed out, you are quoting a statistic which is taken out of context unless you compare the 100,000 lives lost to the number of lives saved.
While it's a tragedy that even one life has been lost because of prescription meds, I think that the statistic is just fear mongering unless compared to the billions of lives saved.

You, and your above mentioned friends, have NO statistics whatsoever to support your view. If you can call my statistics "fear mongering", I suppose your complete lack of statistics could be called "ignorance mongering."

I'll post the results of a large study in my next post. Stay tuned.

[Villages PL]

A Denmark study of 182,880 elders were followed for an average of 9 years.

This study was published in the prestigious Cochrane Library.

Researchers found that annual physicals prevented nothing. There was no difference in death rates between one group getting an annual physical and another group not getting an annual physical. Also, there was no difference in life expectancy or quality of life.

Researchers suggested that the yearly physical may do more harm than good. That's because needless tests often lead to unneeded biopsies and surgery. There may be some gains and losses but no net gain overall.

What does this have to do with drugs? If one does not go for a yearly exam, it's unlikely that any condition will be caught early, whereby drugs might be prescribed as a potential life-saving measure.

Another study (unnamed in this article) showed that when drugs were taken for high blood pressure, health outcomes were not affected in any way.

The above information comes from a May 13, 2014, Daily Sun column by Dr. Lipschitz. The heading: "Annual physical may be of little value."

[jimbo2012]

For the people who are on drugs for their cholesterol - google fish oil. My last visit to the Dr. showed my cholesterol was up and the Dr put me on 4 1G fish oil capsules a day. Upon on google search of this I find it works great and that a lot of people will end up losing weight on it. The prescription is expensive at $280 a month. I will see what happens when I go back in a couple of months.

First of all you can different results in google depending on how you formulate the question.

Fish oil is still oil. which will irritate the endothelium lining of your arteries, creating plaque while it still may reduce cholesterol. It is not the lesser of two evils.

A much safer alternative (at about $5 a month) is ground flax seed like in cereal.

Mine was about 175, now 130-135 on a vegan diet in a few months. saves $280 a month (I can buy a new car with that savings)

Also be mindful cholesterol levels are different day to day, depends what you eat

[KayakerNC]

For the people who are on drugs for their cholesterol - google fish oil. My last visit to the Dr. showed my cholesterol was up and the Dr put me on 4 1G fish oil capsules a day. Upon on google search of this I find it works great and that a lot of people will end up losing weight on it. The prescription is expensive at $280 a month. I will see what happens when I go back in a couple of months.

Sounds like Lovaza (Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters) and, as of a few months ago, you can now get Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters Capsules, USP, the generic version of GlaxoSmithKline's Lovaza. I can't think of any reason the Dr wouldn't allow the generic.

[CFrance]

A Denmark study of 182,880 elders were followed for an average of 9 years.

This study was published in the prestigious Cochrane Library.

Researchers found that annual physicals prevented nothing. There was no difference in death rates between one group getting an annual physical and another group not getting an annual physical. Also, there was no difference in life expectancy or quality of life.

Researchers suggested that the yearly physical may do more harm than good. That's because needless tests often lead to unneeded biopsies and surgery. There may be some gains and losses but no net gain overall.

What does this have to do with drugs? If one does not go for a yearly exam, it's unlikely that any condition will be caught early, whereby drugs might be prescribed as a potential life-saving measure.

Another study (unnamed in this article) showed that when drugs were taken for high blood pressure, health outcomes were not affected in any way.

The above information comes from a May 13, 2014, Daily Sun column by Dr. Lipschitz. The heading: "Annual physical may be of little value."
Was that the study's finding or your own extrapolation? the study said a yearly exam didn't cause people to live longer, and therefore you are taking that to mean that if you didn't go for a yearly physical, you wouldn't be prescribed any drugs?

Where is a link to the study? What was the name of the study?

[KeepingItReal]

According to a paper submitted by Dr. Barbara Starfield and published in the Journal of the American Medical association, 106,000 people are killed each year from "adverse effects of medications" that were correctly prescribed and taken. (This does not include accidental overdoses or hospital mix-ups.)

The 106,000 yearly deaths are the third leading cause of death but it's not reported by the CDC because it's not a disease. So, if you search, "The top 10 leading causes of death" you won't find it. It almost seems hidden to keep it out of the minds of the average drug consumer. Has this been influenced by the powerful drug companies? It's not a disease but it's a health care treatment.


No doubt many of the 106,000 claimed to have been killed would have died anyway without whatever medications they were prescribed.


Barbara Starfield (December 18, 1932 - June 10, 2011) was an American pediatrician. She was 78 years old.

Barbara Starfield, professor of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, passed away on June 10, 2011.

[Barefoot]

No doubt many of the 106,000 claimed to have been killed would have died anyway without whatever medications they were prescribed.
Barbara Starfield (December 18, 1932 - June 10, 2011) was an American pediatrician. She was 78 years old.

KIR, thanks for the info. You say Ms. Starfield died in 2011.
Do you know the date of the "106,000 died from prescription meds" statistic?

[Villages PL]

CFrance,

I don't have the article here with me at this time. It was written by a medical doctor and I trust that he interpreted the study correctly. I followed what the article said very closely. People who go for regular check ups take more medication than those who don't. That's just common sense because more health issues are caught early. Yet there's no way anyone could possibly say that those who don't go for yearly exams don't take any medication. That's also common sense. It's not an all-or-nothing situation. The only requirement is that you understand the purpose of going to a doctor and what doctors do.

When "healthy" people go for yearly checkups, what is the point of it? Mainly, the point is for doctors to catch things early and prescribe medication and/or an operation.

The report I gave was from a Daily Sun Article. If you think you can do better, find your own study. What is it that you are trying to prove? That Dr. prescribed drugs save lives?
Okay, why don't you do a search to find out?

[Villages PL]

Search: How many lives are saved yearly by taking prescription drugs?

[graciegirl]

KIR, thanks for the info. You say Ms. Starfield died in 2011.
Do you know the date of the "106,000 died from prescription meds" statistic?




Here it is. Published 14 years ago in 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAMA Network | JAMA | Is US Health Really the Best in the World?
__________________

[CFrance]

Zoner, why wouldn't it be successful, please explain that comment.
How I read that is sometimes genetics dispose you to conditions regardless of lifestyle and diet choices. And I have a friend who absolutely proves that. A runner, a vegan, no oils and nevertheless high cholesterol, which killed most males in his family.

[CFrance]

CFrance,

I don't have the article here with me at this time. It was written by a medical doctor and I trust that he interpreted the study correctly. I followed what the article said very closely. People who go for regular check ups take more medication than those who don't. That's just common sense because more health issues are caught early. Yet there's no way anyone could possibly say that those who don't go for yearly exams don't take any medication. That's also common sense. It's not an all-or-nothing situation. The only requirement is that you understand the purpose of going to a doctor and what doctors do.

When "healthy" people go for yearly checkups, what is the point of it? Mainly, the point is for doctors to catch things early and prescribe medication and/or an operation.

The report I gave was from a Daily Sun Article. If you think you can do better, find your own study. What is it that you are trying to prove? That Dr. prescribed drugs save lives?
Okay, why don't you do a search to find out?

I could do better than The Daily Sun, but you are the one espousing the theory, so I feel the onus is on you. I know people whose lives have been saved by prescribed drugs, including myself.

[Barefoot]

When "healthy" people go for yearly checkups, what is the point of it? Mainly, the point is for doctors to catch things early and prescribe medication and/or an operation. The report I gave was from a Daily Sun Article. If you think you can do better, find your own study. What is it that you are trying to prove? That Dr. prescribed drugs save lives?
Okay, why don't you do a search to find out?

I think that "catching something early" is a very positive benefit of annual health check-ups.

[Villages PL]

How I read that is sometimes genetics dispose you to conditions regardless of lifestyle and diet choices. And I have a friend who absolutely proves that. A runner, a vegan, no oils and nevertheless high cholesterol, which killed most males in his family.

That's not absolute proof. Running indicates a desire to overachieve and that can create stress hormones which in turn can cause the liver to overproduce cholesterol.

[Villages PL]

I could do better than The Daily Sun, but you are the one espousing the theory, so I feel the onus is on you. I know people whose lives have been saved by prescribed drugs, including myself.

It's not a theory, it's a study result. You either believe it or you don't. But if you are going to give reasons for not believing it, you would need to give some better reasons.

This study was not about what happened to one individual. And it was not about cherry-picking good results. It was about comparing the net result of 2 groups. And there was no difference in health outcomes.

Some were helped by regular checkups and some were harmed. So what you're saying is that you were one of the lucky ones. That doesn't invalidate the study.

[Villages PL]

I think that "catching something early" is a very positive benefit of annual health check-ups.

Yes, it can be a very positive benefit. And that's what we are told to focus on. Think positively! But that's not the way it always works in the real world, as shown by this study.

For example, some have been helped by colonoscopies and some have been killed. If you only look at the ones that have been helped, which is what the medical community wants you to do, you will think there are nothing but good outcomes. There's a book on this subject: "Death by Colonoscopy" by Dr. Kaayla Daniel

[Barefoot]

..... some have been helped by colonoscopies and some have been killed. If you only look at the ones that have been helped, which is what the medical community wants you to do, you will think there are nothing but good outcomes. There's a book on this subject: "Death by Colonoscopy" by Dr. Kaayla Daniel

First of all, every colonoscopy patient must sign a Waiver prior to the procedure which warns about possible negatives.
So patients do NOT think "there are nothing but good outcomes".
Most retired people are smarter than that and ask good questions.
For every procedure, there is some kind of book by an alarmist who wants to make some money and warn us about the risks.
An author/doctor who also knows that a catchy title is the way to do it.
Yes, a very small percentage of people may experience damage from colonoscopies, even a death
because of the anesthetic or a problem with the surgery itself.

As I said, a patient must sign a Waiver before the procedure, as with most medical procedures.
However millions of lives have been saved by colonoscopies, because bowel cancer is detectable early and treatable.
Now you're going to ask me how I know that millions of lives have been saved, to "prove" it and to provide statistics.
How can you possible quantify lives saved or polyps found? I can't.
But it's one cancer which is detectable and treatable. Don't we all want to know if we have cancer and catch it early?

[CFrance]

That's not absolute proof. Running indicates a desire to overachieve and that can create stress hormones which in turn can cause the liver to overproduce cholesterol.
Oh, BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CFrance]

First of all, every colonoscopy patient must sign a Waiver prior to the procedure which warns about possible negatives.
So patients do NOT think "there are nothing but good outcomes".
Most retired people are smarter than that and ask good questions.
For every procedure, there is some kind of book by an alarmist who wants to make some money and warn us about the risks.
An author/doctor who also knows that a catchy title is the way to do it.
Yes, a very small percentage of people may experience damage from colonoscopies, even a death
because of the anesthetic or a problem with the surgery itself.

As I said, a patient must sign a Waiver before the procedure, as with most medical procedures.
However millions of lives have been saved by colonoscopies, because bowel cancer is detectable early and treatable.
Now you're going to ask me how I know that millions of lives have been saved, to "prove" it and to provide statistics.
How can you possible quantify lives saved or polyps found? I can't.
But it's one cancer which is detectable and treatable. Don't we all want to know if we have cancer and catch it early?
I am very suspicious of doctors who write books, unless they're textbooks. I question if they mainly want to make more money, or a name for themselves that will lead to making more money, or achieving prestige and power in their workplace.

[Villages PL]

First of all, every colonoscopy patient must sign a Waiver prior to the procedure which warns about possible negatives.
So patients do NOT think "there are nothing but good outcomes".
Most retired people are smarter than that and ask good questions.

Many don't even bother to read the waiver. If they do, they try to have a positive outlook, as you would, and imagine that the risk is minor. That's because everyone has been sold on the idea of getting a colonoscopy. The industry sees to it that most everyone becomes convinced.


For every procedure, there is some kind of book by an alarmist who wants to make some money and warn us about the risks.
An author/doctor who also knows that a catchy title is the way to do it.

How can you judge whether such books are worthwhile or not. Name one that you've read.

Yes, a very small percentage of people may experience damage from colonoscopies, even a death because of the anesthetic or a problem with the surgery itself.

That's your conclusion without having read the book. What happens when you match up the small percentage of lives saved with the small number of lives lost?

How can you possibly quantify lives saved or polyps found?

I don't know, I haven't read the book yet. But I think I will as soon as I get a chance.


Don't we all want to know if we have cancer and catch it early?

That's a good question but not one that has a simple answer. The problem is sometimes one of catching certain cancers too early which leads to unnecessary treatments. There's a book for that too: "Should I Be Tested For Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why"

In my opinion, he didn't provide enough information on colonoscopies. But colonoscopies would certainly be covered by the other book.

[Villages PL]

Oh, BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that what you would call a knowledgeable and thoughtful reply?

[Barefoot]

I am very suspicious of doctors who write books, unless they're textbooks. I question if they mainly want to make more money, or a name for themselves that will lead to making more money, or achieving prestige and power in their workplace.

:agree: I think Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil have proven that some doctors love the limelight.

[Villages PL]

I am very suspicious of doctors who write books, unless they're textbooks. I question if they mainly want to make more money, or a name for themselves that will lead to making more money, or achieving prestige and power in their workplace.

Do you know how much money a doctor makes when he/she writes a text book? Are they trying to make a name for themselves besides make a ton of money or make a name for themselves in their workplace?

And textbooks are not without errors by any means. There was a time, not too long ago, when most doctors refused to believe that lost brain cells could be regenerated. So that's what was in the text books. Now we know that brain cells can be regenerated.

[Villages PL]

:agree: I think Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil have proven that some doctors love the limelight.

I agree, but for a different reason. Don't believe everything you hear from a doctor on television or radio. It has to do with commercialism.

[graciegirl]

I agree, but for a different reason. Don't believe everything you hear from a doctor on television or radio. It has to do with commercialism.

Don't believe everything you hear or read from a vegan on TOTV unless it's BarryRX.

[Villages PL]

Don't believe everything you hear or read from a vegan on TOTV unless it's BarryRX.

The lesson to be learned here is that if you never say anything to promote or communicate the health benefits of veganism, you can't ever be wrong.

[rubicon]

While not going too deeply into the issue on this thread i read an article wherein the medical community is split on the treatment and more specifically the over treatment of some forms of cancer. Essentially medical science has gotten good at detecting lesions and hence early treatment except some medical doctors believe no treatment should be rendered. In fact some medical doctors believe some legions shouldn't even be called cancer because patents over react.

Because of the legal environment medical professionals act with the thought constantly on their minds that they can be sued. Pharma is faced with the same issue plus securing FDA approval and instruction, etc. its a wonder anything in the medical community every gets done Add to that the fish oil salesmen and viola!

I am not enamored with medication but don't want to be one of those who doctors' himself and has a fool for a patient.

My personal concern at this time is the prolonged use of statins. My blood work stats at present are ideal.

[Aandjmassage]

I think stress kills more people so I will try not to worry about it to much.

[Nightengale212]

The problem is sometimes one of catching certain cancers too early which leads to unnecessary treatments.

I beg to differ!!! I am a 10 year endometrial cancer survivor, and although my doctor thought I was nuts thinking something was seriously wrong with me because I had such minor symptoms, he agreed to do an endometrial biopsy at my insistence. A week after the biopsy was taken I received a call from my doctor informing me I had cancer. Two weeks later I was in the operating room, and by the Grace of God my aggressive grade cancer was caught at an early stage. Had my cancer been caught at a more advanced stage I would likely not be here today as late stage endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis.

Each year when I have my annual appointment with my doctor he tells me everytime he questions whether or not to do a endometrial biopsy on a woman with similar symptoms that I had he goes the biopsy route. Thus far, 5 women who my doctor prior to his experience with me likely would not have done biopsies on came back positive for endometrial cancer and had successful treatment becaue their cancesr was caught early.

[Barefoot]

Don't believe everything you hear from a doctor on television or radio. It has to do with commercialism.

The author of "Death by Colonoscopy" has an interesting bio (obtained on her website).
It sounds like she is quite the media darling herself, kind of like Dr. Oz.

"In March 2005, Dr. Daniel was “media trained” by Joel Roberts, who dubbed her “a natural born entertainer” and a “naughty nutritionist” because of her quirky and naughty sense of humor. She has shared her gifts on the Dr. Oz Show, PBS Healing Quest, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy, ABC’s View from the Bay and Discovery Channel’s Medical Hotseat, and been quoted frequently in the media, including Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, London Observer, London Guardian, Toronto Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun, Bon Appetit, Alternative Medicine, Townsend Letter Mat und Helse (Norway), Men’s Health, E!, Glamour, and other publications.

[graciegirl]

I beg to differ!!! I am a 10 year endometrial cancer survivor, and although my doctor thought I was nuts thinking something was seriously wrong with me because I had such minor symptoms, he agreed to do an endometrial biopsy at my insistence. A week after the biopsy was taken I received a call from my doctor informing me I had cancer. Two weeks later I was in the operating room, and by the Grace of God my aggressive grade cancer was caught at an early stage. Had my cancer been caught at a more advanced stage I would likely not be here today as late stage endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis.

Each year when I have my annual appointment with my doctor he tells me everytime he questions whether or not to do a endometrial biopsy on a woman with similar symptoms that I had he goes the biopsy route. Thus far, 5 women who my doctor prior to his experience with me likely would not have done biopsies on came back positive for endometrial cancer and had successful treatment becaue their cancesr was caught early.

OH yes. I can't imagine anyone saying to their doctor when told they have cancer that they don't want any "unnecessary" treatment. What you say is, "Bring it ON". Even if it makes you bald and sick and weak.

Daughter had breast cancer spread into 11 lymph nodes at age 29. She had surgery, industrial strength chemo treatments, and as much radiation as her body could take....and thank you dear loving God, she is here with us. Last week she was 48.

[CFrance]

The author of "Death by Colonoscopy" has an interesting bio (obtained on her website).
It sounds like she is quite the media darling herself, kind of like Dr. Oz.

"In March 2005, Dr. Daniel was “media trained” by Joel Roberts, who dubbed her “a natural born entertainer” and a “naughty nutritionist” because of her quirky and naughty sense of humor. She has shared her gifts on the Dr. Oz Show, PBS Healing Quest, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy, ABC’s View from the Bay and Discovery Channel’s Medical Hotseat, and been quoted frequently in the media, including Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, London Observer, London Guardian, Toronto Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun, Bon Appetit, Alternative Medicine, Townsend Letter Mat und Helse (Norway), Men’s Health, E!, Glamour, and other publications.
Sounds like a Suzanne Somers type with a medical degree.

Gracie, there are a lot of us out there who are alive thanks to prescribed medicine, as you and I know. I doubt seriously that most people, faced with a life-threatening illness--due to genetics, the environment (think Love Canal), or other factors--would reject medicine.

And oh... my friend who has the genetic disorder of too much cholesterol... he did not start running until after he was diagnosed. Had a heart attack that doctors said would have killed him had he not been running. So no crazy disorder caused by over exercising, or whatever was stated by another poster, caused his heart attack.

[Bonanza]

Search: How many lives are saved yearly by taking prescription drugs?

It's really difficult to say how many of these lives are saved
because they're all still walking around.

[Bonanza]

Many don't even bother to read the waiver. If they do, they try to have a positive outlook, as you would, and imagine that the risk is minor. That's because everyone has been sold on the idea of getting a colonoscopy. The industry sees to it that most everyone becomes convinced.

How do you know that most people don't read the waiver? No, the risk is not minor. It is saying you could die! What's minor about that???

If everyone is "sold" on the "idea" (idea?) of having a colonoscopy, how come it is the most common type of cancer and the most easily cured if discovered early on???


How can you judge whether such books are worthwhile or not. Name one that you've read.

I agree that most of these books are written with the dollar sign in mind. Most of them remind me of when they sold various remedies from the back of a covered wagon. Same kind of thing. Quack Quack. CFrance hit the nail on the head. If it isn't a text book, it ain't a duck!

That's your conclusion without having read the book. What happens when you match up the small percentage of lives saved with the small number of lives lost?

I don't know, I haven't read the book yet. But I think I will as soon as I get a chance.

If there isn't a "real" book that can back up the book (you know -- the money-maker book), don't waste your time. Now if you tell me there is a text book that back up what a book is saying, then I'll read it. Otherwise, one would have to consider it just another form of fiction.
.


That's a good question but not one that has a simple answer. The problem is sometimes one of catching certain cancers too early which leads to unnecessary treatments. There's a book for that too: "Should I Be Tested For Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why"

Oh, Gawd -- what? Catching a cancer too early? Are you serious??? That book sounds like just another fairy tale.

In my opinion, he didn't provide enough information on colonoscopies. But colonoscopies would certainly be covered by the other book.

Oh, yeah -- just what everyone needs -- a book on colonoscopies. Maybe they'll name it, "Up From Behind."

[Nightengale212]

Daughter had breast cancer spread into 11 lymph nodes at age 29. She had surgery, industrial strength chemo treatments, and as much radiation as her body could take....and thank you dear loving God, she is here with us. Last week she was 48.

Bless your daughter and wish her many many more years of good health :)

[graciegirl]

There are tests that are important for men and women as they age, such as bone density, colonoscopy and sometimes endoscopy. This beyond the quarterly monitoring blood tests for sugar and cholesterol, and thyroid function.

Sex specific tests such as mammograms and checking for indications of testicular cancer are important too.

The OP has raised the issue of danger from a colonoscopy before and I have to think that having a colonoscopy has been recommended by his doctor.

There are dangers to everything medical. It is a calculated risk that we have some control over by continuing to be educated by the enormous amount of good and poor information on TELEVISION and by choosing the best physician we can find and following his advice and by choosing the best medical facilities too.

We further educate ourselves by anecdotal information from people we trust and by reading CURRENT medical information from accredited institutions. Of course we are using common sense in all of these matters unless we have some other issue that overrides common sense.

I think that some people have tunnel vision about current issues for a variety of reasons. They are convinced they are right and will not seriously entertain any other way to think. AND you cannot win any argument with a person with a certain type of untreated OCD.

[NotFromAroundHere]

I was just reading an unrelated article about medicine. It made a good point that nothing in medicine is black and white. Everything is gray.

Are doctors and mainstream medicine infallible? No. People make mistakes, illnesses don't respond to the selected treatment, etc.

But does that mean that everyone should become a vegan, and suddenly all illness and disease will disappear? That's just as obviously absurd.

So if somebody wants to be a vegan, and they feel that it helps them - Fine. But for the most part, telling the general population that they should stop depending on medical science won't be too productive.

On the other hand, If somebody wishes to utilize mainstream medicine, and subject themselves to every test and prescription that their doctor recommends - who am I to judge? But, telling all Vegans that they are gullible nutjobs probably won't sway them.

[Villages PL]

I beg to differ!!! I am a 10 year endometrial cancer survivor, and although my doctor thought I was nuts thinking something was seriously wrong with me because I had such minor symptoms, he agreed to do an endometrial biopsy at my insistence. A week after the biopsy was taken I received a call from my doctor informing me I had cancer. Two weeks later I was in the operating room, and by the Grace of God my aggressive grade cancer was caught at an early stage. Had my cancer been caught at a more advanced stage I would likely not be here today as late stage endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis.

Each year when I have my annual appointment with my doctor he tells me everytime he questions whether or not to do a endometrial biopsy on a woman with similar symptoms that I had he goes the biopsy route. Thus far, 5 women who my doctor prior to his experience with me likely would not have done biopsies on came back positive for endometrial cancer and had successful treatment becaue their cancesr was caught early.

You quoted me as saying the following: "The problem is sometimes one of catching certain cancers too early which leads to unnecessary treatments."

Notice I didn't say ALL cancers, I said certain cancers.

Sometimes with early detection it's difficult to be certain if a cell is actually cancerous or not. These bad looking cells sometimes clear up and go away on their own. I wasn't talking about endometrial cancer.

[Barefoot]

"The problem is sometimes one of catching certain cancers too early which leads to unnecessary treatments."

You say that you weren't referring to endometrial cancer.
What type of cancer do you mean by "certain cancers"?
Do you have any statistics to back up your statement that "catching certain cancers too early leads to unnecessary treatments"?

[Villages PL]

The Book: "Should I Be Tested For Cancer? Maybe Not And Here's Why"

The author: H. Gilbert Welch is Professor in the Department of Medicine and Community and Family Medicine At Dartmouth Medical School and Co-Director of the VA Outcomes Group in the Department of Veterans affairs. White River Junction, Vermont.

Being a professor in a medical school I think it's safe to assume that he teaches medical students. What could be more mainstream than that?

I highly recommend that everyone read his book and keep it handy as a reference. He doesn't advise anyone not to get tested, he simply explains the risks and rewards of being tested.

Often, the medical community, through associations like ACS, will promote testing by giving misleading statistics. They will say things like getting tested for a certain cancer will lower risk by 20%. But they never say 20% of what? They don't want to give the absolute number because it's small.

For example: It might be said that a certain test, like the fecal occult blood test, will lower the chances of dying by a third. That sounds like a lot, right? Wrong! Actually, in a study, they had to give 1,000 50 year old men fecal occult blood tests for 10 years to avoid one death. About 1/3 of them (333) would get false positives and be sent to get a colonoscopy. If one of them were to die from the colonoscopy, the net result would be: One life saved and one life lost. A draw.

But, normally, we wouldn't get to know that. That's because the one who died wouldn't be included in cancer statistics. That's because he didn't die from cancer he died from the colonoscopy.

[Villages PL]

You say that you weren't referring to endometrial cancer.
What type of cancer do you mean by "certain cancers"?
Do you have any statistics to back up your statement that "catching certain cancers too early leads to unnecessary treatments"?

I just gave the title of the book in the previous post, along with some information about the author.

[Barefoot]

xxx

[graciegirl]

xxx

I agree with Bare. I almost always do.