Talk of The Villages Florida - Dr. Prescribed Meds Kill 106,000 Each Year:

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)

- The Villages, Florida, Non Villages Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/)

- - Dr. Prescribed Meds Kill 106,000 Each Year: (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/dr-prescribed-meds-kill-106-000-each-year-126398/)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightengale212 (Post 938770)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 939240)

"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"?

Many complain but few actually read anything.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot (Post 939256)

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

xxx

I agree with Bare. I almost always do.