Drugs not as important as many might think:
 

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."

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

Try the following search:
 

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

Here it is. Published 14 years ago in 2000

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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