Western medicine ("allopathy") seems to me to regard the Placebo Effect with less respect than it should.
What is the Placebo Effect? Basically: that a "placebo" or pill consisting of a substance which has no known medical effect, given to a sick person with the statement that it may improve his/her condition, actually (or at least in the perception of the patient) actually improves their condition.
Placebos are at present given as "controls" to patients suffering from a disease, with others being given "real medicines" in order to check the efficacy of the "real medicine".
The assumption is that people given the medicine should all benefit from the medicine, whereas the people given the placebo will not, in general, benefit from the placebo. The surprising thing is that some or many patients do respond to the placebo.
Western medicine then tries very hard to "explain" (that is, to discount and dismiss) placebos - for example, regarding homeopathic effectiveness as "merely a placebo effect".
To any skeptical person, this is surely completely the wrong way round. If the placebo effect is so powerful, and so cheap, should THAT not be what we should investigate in order to improve its effectiveness?
But no one in the West likes to think in politically incorrect ways. Psychologists and physicians who take the placebo effect seriously are regarded as stupid or even dangerous.
On the other hand, no one in the West takes seriously the costs of so-called "evidence-based medicine": it is obvious that Western medicine is extremely powerful and has dangerous side-effects. So the only justification for giving these "medicines" is that the benefits outweigh the costs. That can only be possible where the diagnosis of the disease is correct. But has any research been done on how many cases are mis-diagnosed, or how much people have suffered and are suffering from the wrong medicines being administered to them?
No. Researching neither misdiagnosis nor improving the efficacy of the placebo effect would be financed by the main financers of medical research (pharmaceutical companies) - and it would bring no researcher any any kudos in the world of Western medicine.
So we have the taboo around quantifying the prevalance and effects of misdiagnosis in Western medicine, and we have the continued non-investigation of what should be the cheapest way of treating people.
In other words, it is faith in Western medicine that enables it to continue its dominance against so-called "alternative" or "complementary" medicine, and that is why the Western medical tradition is so bent on stigmatising the placebo effect rather than in investigating it.
"Evidence-based medicine" has become today's equivalent of Roman Catholic or Hindu dogma: it is not supposed to be questioned by anyone who wishes to continue to be accepted in society as "rational" - when at least some of the rationality is on the side of those who wish to question it.
Perhaps I should put it more strongly: We will move to "genuinely evidence-based medicine" only when we begin to investigate how to decrease the rate of misdiagnosis, how to spot more quickly that the wrong medicine has been or is being administered, and how to improve the efficacy of placebos.
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Saturday, 29 October 2011
How radiation can become an epidemic
You will recollect that I have earlier warned of the effects of increasing radiation in our environment, from mobile phones to computers.
Yesterday, I met the first person that I have ever met, who described herself as suffering from "Radiation Sensitivity Syndrome". Of course that was simply her name for it, and there is no such disease in the medical lexicon. In fact, according to her, the existence of such a thing is denied by the medical establishment.
However, she told me that she used to work as the divisional leader in a software company and loved her job. She had some slowly increasingly medical symptoms, and decided to take a holiday in a rural area. When she returned to her work, she was violently affected whenever she came near a computer or whenever anyone turned on a mobile 'phone within about 10 meters.
She was most puzzled by it and went to her usual doctor but he insisted that she was suffering from a psychological problem, not a medical one.
She has since then gone to several other doctors, with the same (or similar result).
On researching her condition, she discovered some of the sort of research to which I have drawn attention, but of course lots of other research as well (I haven't kept up with the research since I drew attention to it here).
And she has discovered many other people on the internet who share such symptoms.
What convinced me about her story is two things:
1. She is obviously distressed about not being able to go back to her job, and she still enjoys chatting, reading, researching....
2. She was wearing special clothing manufactured by Swiss Shield (http://www.swiss-shield.ch/index.php?id=42&L=1) which manufactures cloth to address the problem from which the lady who I met is suffering. Clearly, if there were not a sufficient number of buyers of Swiss Shield's quite expensive cloth, the company would go out of business.
So there seems to be a kind of unrecognised plague of radiation-sickness which is creeping upon us, and will overtake us before we are aware of it.
Following the commercialisation of research, it is of course now nearly impossible to do any real research into such problems, where the interests of corporations are to avoid such research taking place.
In the old days of publicly-funded research, corporations had to go to great lengths if they wanted to suppress research that jeopardised the financial success of their products.
Nowadays, all that corporations need to do is to ignore the existence of problems, and to avoid funding research into those problems.
Yesterday, I met the first person that I have ever met, who described herself as suffering from "Radiation Sensitivity Syndrome". Of course that was simply her name for it, and there is no such disease in the medical lexicon. In fact, according to her, the existence of such a thing is denied by the medical establishment.
However, she told me that she used to work as the divisional leader in a software company and loved her job. She had some slowly increasingly medical symptoms, and decided to take a holiday in a rural area. When she returned to her work, she was violently affected whenever she came near a computer or whenever anyone turned on a mobile 'phone within about 10 meters.
She was most puzzled by it and went to her usual doctor but he insisted that she was suffering from a psychological problem, not a medical one.
She has since then gone to several other doctors, with the same (or similar result).
On researching her condition, she discovered some of the sort of research to which I have drawn attention, but of course lots of other research as well (I haven't kept up with the research since I drew attention to it here).
And she has discovered many other people on the internet who share such symptoms.
What convinced me about her story is two things:
1. She is obviously distressed about not being able to go back to her job, and she still enjoys chatting, reading, researching....
2. She was wearing special clothing manufactured by Swiss Shield (http://www.swiss-shield.ch/index.php?id=42&L=1) which manufactures cloth to address the problem from which the lady who I met is suffering. Clearly, if there were not a sufficient number of buyers of Swiss Shield's quite expensive cloth, the company would go out of business.
So there seems to be a kind of unrecognised plague of radiation-sickness which is creeping upon us, and will overtake us before we are aware of it.
Following the commercialisation of research, it is of course now nearly impossible to do any real research into such problems, where the interests of corporations are to avoid such research taking place.
In the old days of publicly-funded research, corporations had to go to great lengths if they wanted to suppress research that jeopardised the financial success of their products.
Nowadays, all that corporations need to do is to ignore the existence of problems, and to avoid funding research into those problems.
Sunday, 17 April 2011
How much sleep does a person need?
A friend draws my attention to an interesting story at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazinehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif/mag-17Sleep-t.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210
As the story says: "There is a small portion of the population — he estimates it at around 5 percent or even less — who, for what researchers think may be genetic reasons, can maintain their performance with five or fewer hours of sleep. (There is also a small percentage who require 9 or 10 hours.)"
I am in a strange category: I will happily sleep for 24 hours a day, but I actually need about 4 hours to continue performing more or less normally for about a month; my optimal sleep is around 6 hours (though I get up by myself sometimes after 4 hours).
The problem is that unless you try, you don't know if you are in the 5% or whatever that needs 4 hours of sleep or 10 hours.
And the further problem is that, you don't know the answer for some weeks.
Finally, there is a question about the age at which one experiments. It is possible that if one does the experiment at 30, the learned behaviour of needing say 9 hours of sleep overrides the genetic need for only 4 hours. If I hadn't been inspired to try sleeping less than the 10 hours I did at the age of 17, I might still be sleeping 10 hours (or 9) every day. However, as I did experiment, I found that I could learn to perform more or less optimally with something like 4 hours for long stretches of time.
Naturally, as the scientists in the story believe that everyone is a poor judge of the relationship between sleep and performance, they will not place much reliance on my account of my experience.
Equally, why should I live my life on the basis of their results, which relate to 95% of the population, if I am lucky or unlucky enough to be in the 5% at the top or the 5% at the bottom of the scale?
As the story says: "There is a small portion of the population — he estimates it at around 5 percent or even less — who, for what researchers think may be genetic reasons, can maintain their performance with five or fewer hours of sleep. (There is also a small percentage who require 9 or 10 hours.)"
I am in a strange category: I will happily sleep for 24 hours a day, but I actually need about 4 hours to continue performing more or less normally for about a month; my optimal sleep is around 6 hours (though I get up by myself sometimes after 4 hours).
The problem is that unless you try, you don't know if you are in the 5% or whatever that needs 4 hours of sleep or 10 hours.
And the further problem is that, you don't know the answer for some weeks.
Finally, there is a question about the age at which one experiments. It is possible that if one does the experiment at 30, the learned behaviour of needing say 9 hours of sleep overrides the genetic need for only 4 hours. If I hadn't been inspired to try sleeping less than the 10 hours I did at the age of 17, I might still be sleeping 10 hours (or 9) every day. However, as I did experiment, I found that I could learn to perform more or less optimally with something like 4 hours for long stretches of time.
Naturally, as the scientists in the story believe that everyone is a poor judge of the relationship between sleep and performance, they will not place much reliance on my account of my experience.
Equally, why should I live my life on the basis of their results, which relate to 95% of the population, if I am lucky or unlucky enough to be in the 5% at the top or the 5% at the bottom of the scale?
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
The truth about baldness
"Baldness is a matter of genetics". That is the general medical opinion in the Western ("scientific" or "evidence-based") tradition.
Undoubtedly, genetics has to do with everything in the human body, so it would be astonishing if it had nothing to do with baldness!
But the "genetic" explanation seems to have prevented or discouraged investigation into other factors.
Here are my speculations based on introspection and observation, which need to be checked out by research:
1. Baldness (reduction in the area covered by hair) is associated also with reduction in the thickness and liveliness of individual hair, as well as with a reduction in the OVERALL density of hair on the head.
2. The skin over the top of the head also becomes thinner
3. Items 1 & 2 are associated with a reduction of blood flow to the head
4. Reduced blood flow is assocaiated with stress - specifically, reduced blood flow to the head is associated with stress which is centred on the neck area, as well as the back (all the way down to the waist, and even lower - surprisingly!).
5. Baldness may be inevitable for certain individuals but the PREMATURE greying of hair and PREMATURE baldness may be preventable and even REVERSIBLE by natural means - specifically the reduction of stress in general and, by means of massage of the neck and back - and other remedies.
6. It COULD be that modern hair shampoos et al (because they dry out and possibly damage hair) actually hasten PREMATURE greying and baldness.
Undoubtedly, genetics has to do with everything in the human body, so it would be astonishing if it had nothing to do with baldness!
But the "genetic" explanation seems to have prevented or discouraged investigation into other factors.
Here are my speculations based on introspection and observation, which need to be checked out by research:
1. Baldness (reduction in the area covered by hair) is associated also with reduction in the thickness and liveliness of individual hair, as well as with a reduction in the OVERALL density of hair on the head.
2. The skin over the top of the head also becomes thinner
3. Items 1 & 2 are associated with a reduction of blood flow to the head
4. Reduced blood flow is assocaiated with stress - specifically, reduced blood flow to the head is associated with stress which is centred on the neck area, as well as the back (all the way down to the waist, and even lower - surprisingly!).
5. Baldness may be inevitable for certain individuals but the PREMATURE greying of hair and PREMATURE baldness may be preventable and even REVERSIBLE by natural means - specifically the reduction of stress in general and, by means of massage of the neck and back - and other remedies.
6. It COULD be that modern hair shampoos et al (because they dry out and possibly damage hair) actually hasten PREMATURE greying and baldness.
Monday, 24 May 2010
Response to my post on Sugar
My friend Ken Murishwar writes:
"Sugar is bad, not just because of the obvious argument about calories: Within the appropriate circles it’s a well known fact that it is very detrimental to ones well being – When the body experiences a “sugar-spike”, it is very fundamental in shutting down the immune system, whilst being converted & stored by the body.
"Every 24 hours, each cell, including our DNA, face upwards of 10,000 oxidative hits (1). Thus, when the Telomeres that bind the DNA strand become eroded by this process, a mutation can occur - which if unchecked, can go o to form the basis of a tumour. In addition, if the immune system is turned off, it lays the body open to a multitude of degenerative conditions. I hope this explains why sugar is actually VERY bad for one’s health & well being.
"(1) Oxidative hits = Oxidative Stress = Oxidation at a cellular level. This is why we are advised to ingest Anti-oxidants in the form of Vitamins etc. Having said this, it is particularly harmful to have fragmented, isolated vitamin supplements as they lack the natural symbiotic enzymes otherwise readily available in fruits & vegetables.
"I hope you don’t mind but nutrition is one of my hobby horses & I felt it important to comment. "
No, Ken, I don't mind.
I always welcome debate.
But I wasn't trying to argue that sugar is good for everyone. I was only pointing out that while sugar may be bad for MOST people, no one apart from you can tell what the right level of sugar consumption (or anything else) is for YOU.
The best guide to how much of what to eat is from being very aware of your own body and from listening to the signals that your own body is always giving us - if only we are able to listen.
"Sugar is bad, not just because of the obvious argument about calories: Within the appropriate circles it’s a well known fact that it is very detrimental to ones well being – When the body experiences a “sugar-spike”, it is very fundamental in shutting down the immune system, whilst being converted & stored by the body.
"Every 24 hours, each cell, including our DNA, face upwards of 10,000 oxidative hits (1). Thus, when the Telomeres that bind the DNA strand become eroded by this process, a mutation can occur - which if unchecked, can go o to form the basis of a tumour. In addition, if the immune system is turned off, it lays the body open to a multitude of degenerative conditions. I hope this explains why sugar is actually VERY bad for one’s health & well being.
"(1) Oxidative hits = Oxidative Stress = Oxidation at a cellular level. This is why we are advised to ingest Anti-oxidants in the form of Vitamins etc. Having said this, it is particularly harmful to have fragmented, isolated vitamin supplements as they lack the natural symbiotic enzymes otherwise readily available in fruits & vegetables.
"I hope you don’t mind but nutrition is one of my hobby horses & I felt it important to comment. "
No, Ken, I don't mind.
I always welcome debate.
But I wasn't trying to argue that sugar is good for everyone. I was only pointing out that while sugar may be bad for MOST people, no one apart from you can tell what the right level of sugar consumption (or anything else) is for YOU.
The best guide to how much of what to eat is from being very aware of your own body and from listening to the signals that your own body is always giving us - if only we are able to listen.
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Light pollution
No, not "light" pollution, as opposed to "heavy" pollution.
Yes, the pollution caused by light....
The most vocal opponents of light pollution are astronomers, as their ability to see stars is affected. For example, the Sheshan branch of the Shanghai Astronomical Observatory was built on Sheshan Mountain about 38 km from Shanghai, as it was considered an ideal place for observations. However, the growth of Shanghai has meant that, in spite of the best instruments money can buy, Sheshan is no longer suitable for astronomical observations of the level needed, and so the equipment for the observatory is being shifted to another city in another province. The good thing is that China has made this area, Tianhuangping, Anji City, into a "night sky protected area".
Great idea. I hope other countries follow the example of China.
So why is this post on this blog, which is supposed to be about medical matters?
Because it turns out that light pollution isn't just bad for astronomical observations, it is also bad for our health!
According to Professor Dr You Jianxin, Deputy President of the Chinese Academy of Science and Technology Management Program at Tongji University in Shanghai, excessive light can cause an increase in headaches, stress, anxiety, eye disease and even a decrease in sexual function.
What I would like to ask Professor You is whether the research related to all kinds of light (natural as well as artificial) or only to one kind of light?
In other words, are the problems caused only by artificial light?
Yes, the pollution caused by light....
The most vocal opponents of light pollution are astronomers, as their ability to see stars is affected. For example, the Sheshan branch of the Shanghai Astronomical Observatory was built on Sheshan Mountain about 38 km from Shanghai, as it was considered an ideal place for observations. However, the growth of Shanghai has meant that, in spite of the best instruments money can buy, Sheshan is no longer suitable for astronomical observations of the level needed, and so the equipment for the observatory is being shifted to another city in another province. The good thing is that China has made this area, Tianhuangping, Anji City, into a "night sky protected area".
Great idea. I hope other countries follow the example of China.
So why is this post on this blog, which is supposed to be about medical matters?
Because it turns out that light pollution isn't just bad for astronomical observations, it is also bad for our health!
According to Professor Dr You Jianxin, Deputy President of the Chinese Academy of Science and Technology Management Program at Tongji University in Shanghai, excessive light can cause an increase in headaches, stress, anxiety, eye disease and even a decrease in sexual function.
What I would like to ask Professor You is whether the research related to all kinds of light (natural as well as artificial) or only to one kind of light?
In other words, are the problems caused only by artificial light?
Friday, 14 May 2010
Calories and Sugar in the human system
The most widely accepted view today is that too many calories are bad for health as they make for obesity, and that sugar (at least refined sugar) is best avoided completely.
Clearly, there are people who suffer from diabetes who should avoid sugar and be careful about the calories (particularly carbohydrates) they consume.
But I doubt that, for most ("normal") people, sugar is particularly harmful - and it may even be beneficial!
As evidence, I cite my own case: I have consumed vast amounts of sugar right from the time I was a child, and I am notorious in restaurants which know me, for eating as little as possible of the main course (which is vegetarian in any case) and of concentrating on the dessert. I often have two or even three desserts, as well as assorted cakes, biscuits, dried fruit and other suger-laden products such as commercially-produced cereal bars.
My weight has changed over the years gradually from the 60+ of my teenage years to the 70+ that I have now at the age of 61.
If I fast for a day or two, my weight drops by a little; if I indulge myself too much, my weight rises a little...for a little while.
That is because I try to eat as wide a variety of (vegetarian) food as possible, and try to be in tune with my body regarding how much of what food to eat.
If you are in normal health, my experience suggests that the best guide to the question of what and how much to eat is NOT your calorie-counter or your fashion magazine or even your doctor, but actually your own body.
It will tell you when you have eaten too much or eaten what is not good for you.
Get in tune with it. Communicate with it. Listen to it. You won't go wrong.
As for obesity, it is in my view entirely unrelated to how many calories one consumes. The sort of "obesity" one sees around the world today is a medical disorder that may be related to commercial soft drinks, to chemicals in our food or water, to plastics, to radiation, or some other factor. Some people may well be obese because they don't know how to listen to their bodies, and therefore eat too much of the wrong sort of food for themselves. However, in my observation, many obese people eat no more than normal people do.
Clearly, there are people who suffer from diabetes who should avoid sugar and be careful about the calories (particularly carbohydrates) they consume.
But I doubt that, for most ("normal") people, sugar is particularly harmful - and it may even be beneficial!
As evidence, I cite my own case: I have consumed vast amounts of sugar right from the time I was a child, and I am notorious in restaurants which know me, for eating as little as possible of the main course (which is vegetarian in any case) and of concentrating on the dessert. I often have two or even three desserts, as well as assorted cakes, biscuits, dried fruit and other suger-laden products such as commercially-produced cereal bars.
My weight has changed over the years gradually from the 60+ of my teenage years to the 70+ that I have now at the age of 61.
If I fast for a day or two, my weight drops by a little; if I indulge myself too much, my weight rises a little...for a little while.
That is because I try to eat as wide a variety of (vegetarian) food as possible, and try to be in tune with my body regarding how much of what food to eat.
If you are in normal health, my experience suggests that the best guide to the question of what and how much to eat is NOT your calorie-counter or your fashion magazine or even your doctor, but actually your own body.
It will tell you when you have eaten too much or eaten what is not good for you.
Get in tune with it. Communicate with it. Listen to it. You won't go wrong.
As for obesity, it is in my view entirely unrelated to how many calories one consumes. The sort of "obesity" one sees around the world today is a medical disorder that may be related to commercial soft drinks, to chemicals in our food or water, to plastics, to radiation, or some other factor. Some people may well be obese because they don't know how to listen to their bodies, and therefore eat too much of the wrong sort of food for themselves. However, in my observation, many obese people eat no more than normal people do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)