The BBC has reported that research conducted in Spain over the last 10 years suggests three startling conclusions:
- first ... drinking a little alcohol (1 x shot/day) reduces your risk of heart disease by about a third. We've heard that before, haven't we?
- second ... drinking 3-11 shots/day further reduces this risk to around 50%! Go on, seriously?
- and finally ... bad news girls, this only seems to apply to men. We must legislate against that!
The study involved more than 40 000 individuals aged between 29 and 69 and claims to have eliminated factors that previously skewed studies such as these by differentiating, for example, between teetotallers and those who no longer drank because ill health had forced them to quit.
Huh? Relevance? OK, sorry ... I missed taking statistics at school. Sounds like another case of baffling with (horsefeathers)!
It has been postulated (another big word used by scientists) that alcohol consumption actually increases HDL ("good") cholesterol in the blood, which effectively negates, or at least offsets to a degree, the harmful effects of LDL ("bad") cholesterol.
It is also thought that the impact was not material on females because they are thought to metabolise alcohol differently from men. I told you they were different!
And of course spokespeople for various interest groups such as the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have been quick to say that the results of this research should not be seen as encouragement to drink more.
Of course not. Thank you for pointing that out. Now we know.
Studies in the past that suggest small amounts of alcohol reduce the risk of Coronary Heart Disease (CAD) in men over 40 have been viewed by some optimists as vindication that drinking is a healthful practice.
The overall take-out of the report suggests that as long as drinkers exercise "moderation" by limiting themselves to the requisite daily allowance of units (and taking a break for 2 days a week) then everything will be okay.
Here's my view:
Drinking "in moderation" is seen as absolutely healthful because it is legal ... and it suggests that people are still in control. As long as this culture exists, people will continue to kid themselves that they are not alcoholics.
I don't care what anybody says: if you have to drink 5 days a week, then you have a problem. Of course, you'll say you do so out of choice and that you could take it or leave it.
Of course you can ... you're just bored. Anyway, why should you stop if the authorities say it's cool?
I don't suggest for a minute that people stop drinking completely. But moderation is surely "an occasional light indulgence" rather than a daily ritual with a informal two-day abstinence mandate (that feels like a whole week)?
We all know that alcohol is a cytoplasmic poison that erodes our liver, pancreas and brain. We all know that regular consumption makes us fat because it introduces calories without any nutritional value whatsoever.
We'd all like to drink for the stress-reducing benefits of social lubrication and a good laugh with friends and family. I completely applaud that logic.
But moderation is a pipe dream.
We are living in cloud cuckoo land if we honestly believe that one is only an alcoholic if you repeatedly lose control and get fall-down drunk on a regular and systematic basis.
So all I'm saying is "people ... please, get real about your addictions".
Just because we live in times where daily consumption is deemed both legal and healthful does not make it so.
The real reasons we enjoy drinking so much is that it allows us to let rip and forget our inhibitions. This makes us appear more fun amongst our peers, which in turn is gratifying to us. Sorry creatures that we are.
And when we feel that yearning when we don't drink, that's the siren call of addiction ... our body's physiological mechanism for attempting to reduce the discomfort of withdrawal.
Even if you have the discipline to moderate your consumption to a nightly tipple, eventually you will wake up one day and your body will say "no mas". Eventually your body will get the message.
But let's cross that bridge when we get to it. Maybe it'll be a good time to stop smoking too?
Friday, 20 November 2009
Monday, 16 November 2009
Balance The Sugar For Our Kids
This morning's report on BBC Breakfast about the added sugar in snacks targeted for childrens' lunch boxes really got my attention.
Interestingly enough, the discussion did not appear on the Breakfast website ... which begs one question.
Why?
What could be more relevant to the health of the nation than the garbage we are feeding our kids? (Ok, that's more than one Don!)
Two people were being interviewed ... one suggesting that it was an outrage that manufacturers persisted in coming up with products containing added sugar. The other interviewee represented the interests of retailers and food manufacturers and actually had the gall to say that the selected items were being taken out of context and that generally products of this nature had a more healthy balance of less sugar.
He also tried telling us that the two reasons food manufacturers did this was for "taste" and "technology". Uhh ... what technology please? Oh, the technology of addiction. Or can't we say that?
What surprised me was that this particular gentleman appeared to genuinely feel that products with less sugar could be referred to as "healthy" and that the industries he represented were actually operating in the best interests of parents and children alike.
Which tells me two things: either he has been totally brainwashed like the rest of the British public and thinks that Frosted Flakes and juice concentrates with added sugar and preservatives are part of a "balanced diet" because levels of these toxic substances have been reduced.
Or ... he knows exactly what he's doing and is not only tolerated, but highly remunerated for so eloquently distorting the truth.
Hmmm ... I wonder, do you think?
As long as food manufacturers are allowed to peddle artificial "foods" under the guise of a "healthy, balanced diet" the population will continue to get fatter and sicker. This of course will benefit those peddling drugs to control the behaviour of kids eating this rubbish ... as well as all those people standing in line to cash in on the growing problem of childhood obesity (including the tax man).
And well-intentioned mothers will continue to think that nothing is rotten in the State of Denmark.
The words "healthy, balanced diet" are rapidly becoming the most misused words in the modern lexicon.
People, please ... the lessor of two known evils does not constitute a healthy choice. Or are we now saying that a little added sugar never hurt anyone because the scientific evidence is inconclusive?
How convenient.
Stop whining Don and pass the chocolate-coated, frosted sugar bombs. Tasted great. Less calories. Why thank you Hobbes!
Interestingly enough, the discussion did not appear on the Breakfast website ... which begs one question.
Why?
What could be more relevant to the health of the nation than the garbage we are feeding our kids? (Ok, that's more than one Don!)
Two people were being interviewed ... one suggesting that it was an outrage that manufacturers persisted in coming up with products containing added sugar. The other interviewee represented the interests of retailers and food manufacturers and actually had the gall to say that the selected items were being taken out of context and that generally products of this nature had a more healthy balance of less sugar.
He also tried telling us that the two reasons food manufacturers did this was for "taste" and "technology". Uhh ... what technology please? Oh, the technology of addiction. Or can't we say that?
What surprised me was that this particular gentleman appeared to genuinely feel that products with less sugar could be referred to as "healthy" and that the industries he represented were actually operating in the best interests of parents and children alike.
Which tells me two things: either he has been totally brainwashed like the rest of the British public and thinks that Frosted Flakes and juice concentrates with added sugar and preservatives are part of a "balanced diet" because levels of these toxic substances have been reduced.
Or ... he knows exactly what he's doing and is not only tolerated, but highly remunerated for so eloquently distorting the truth.
Hmmm ... I wonder, do you think?
As long as food manufacturers are allowed to peddle artificial "foods" under the guise of a "healthy, balanced diet" the population will continue to get fatter and sicker. This of course will benefit those peddling drugs to control the behaviour of kids eating this rubbish ... as well as all those people standing in line to cash in on the growing problem of childhood obesity (including the tax man).
And well-intentioned mothers will continue to think that nothing is rotten in the State of Denmark.
The words "healthy, balanced diet" are rapidly becoming the most misused words in the modern lexicon.
People, please ... the lessor of two known evils does not constitute a healthy choice. Or are we now saying that a little added sugar never hurt anyone because the scientific evidence is inconclusive?
How convenient.
Stop whining Don and pass the chocolate-coated, frosted sugar bombs. Tasted great. Less calories. Why thank you Hobbes!
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Aspirin No Longer In Vogue
Researchers for the Drugs nad Therapeutics Bulletin (DTB) have now come out to say that aspirin can cause serious internal bleeding and does not prevent deaths from cardiovascular disease.
"Based on this new evidence" the Royal College of GP's support these findings and are against the use of aspirin as a prophylactic. On the BBC Dr Rosemary herself has also confirmed that it is no longer recommended to take 75mg/day to stave off heart attacks, stroke and thrombosis. It can irritate the stomach, causing bleeding ulcers which may ultimately lead to anaemia.
In fact, so too do other magic bullets like ginkgo biloba and high dose garlic.
Fancy that ... what a revelation. Even better, the polypill I have blogged about mercilessly in the past contains ... drum roll please ... aspirin. So it's no longer recommended either.
Ah, the sweet smell of toll free vindication.
But it still keeps getting better. Guess what is now in favour? You got it ... diet and exercise, 5-a-day. And our friends hosting BBC breakfast, on learning this, described this massive breakthrough in medical perspicacity as "sage advice".
Come on!
Does it take the Royal College of GP's and BBC's own intrepid "in-house" doctor to say all this before people get that magic bullets aren't a substitute for healthy living? Nor are they an insurance policy that buys you time so you can abuse yourself just that little bit longer.
That wasn't a rhetorical question! The short answer, sadly, is "no".
What is it with people that they just will not accept this? Stop trying to medicate yourself into good health. Nature didn't design medications (amazing though this may be for the pharmaceutical industry to believe).
Doctors aren't God either, nor will they ever be.
Your best insurance against heart disease includes a diet that predominates in fresh, whole, ripe, raw, organic fruit and vegetables. Guess who designed those?
Nature.
Add to this simple diet sufficient daily exercise, a bouyant disposition, generous amounts of fresh air, sunshine, genuine relaxation and quality sleep and a mindset that moves on from unresolved conflicts.
Really folks. It's that simple.
And no, smoking, drinking and drugging are not good for you ... even if you have an auntie who smoked 20-a-day, drank like a dolphin and lived to the ripe old age of 86.
Believe me, her system was a mess. And her last few years were hell on earth. Don't think otherwise. Get real. Go simple. Stop looking for ways to cheat nature.
And stop trying to blame your genes!
"Based on this new evidence" the Royal College of GP's support these findings and are against the use of aspirin as a prophylactic. On the BBC Dr Rosemary herself has also confirmed that it is no longer recommended to take 75mg/day to stave off heart attacks, stroke and thrombosis. It can irritate the stomach, causing bleeding ulcers which may ultimately lead to anaemia.
In fact, so too do other magic bullets like ginkgo biloba and high dose garlic.
Fancy that ... what a revelation. Even better, the polypill I have blogged about mercilessly in the past contains ... drum roll please ... aspirin. So it's no longer recommended either.
Ah, the sweet smell of toll free vindication.
But it still keeps getting better. Guess what is now in favour? You got it ... diet and exercise, 5-a-day. And our friends hosting BBC breakfast, on learning this, described this massive breakthrough in medical perspicacity as "sage advice".
Come on!
Does it take the Royal College of GP's and BBC's own intrepid "in-house" doctor to say all this before people get that magic bullets aren't a substitute for healthy living? Nor are they an insurance policy that buys you time so you can abuse yourself just that little bit longer.
That wasn't a rhetorical question! The short answer, sadly, is "no".
What is it with people that they just will not accept this? Stop trying to medicate yourself into good health. Nature didn't design medications (amazing though this may be for the pharmaceutical industry to believe).
Doctors aren't God either, nor will they ever be.
Your best insurance against heart disease includes a diet that predominates in fresh, whole, ripe, raw, organic fruit and vegetables. Guess who designed those?
Nature.
Add to this simple diet sufficient daily exercise, a bouyant disposition, generous amounts of fresh air, sunshine, genuine relaxation and quality sleep and a mindset that moves on from unresolved conflicts.
Really folks. It's that simple.
And no, smoking, drinking and drugging are not good for you ... even if you have an auntie who smoked 20-a-day, drank like a dolphin and lived to the ripe old age of 86.
Believe me, her system was a mess. And her last few years were hell on earth. Don't think otherwise. Get real. Go simple. Stop looking for ways to cheat nature.
And stop trying to blame your genes!
Monday, 26 October 2009
NHS Moral Dilemma
More need, less available resources ... the NHS continues to be painted into a corner with a new round of confusion that underscores the inevitabilty of viability problems in the future.
A decision will be made by NICE in two weeks on whether local health authorities will have to fund the cancer drug Nexobar. This drug is touted to extend the lives of people with terminal cancer, adding an optimistically-estimated 6 months to 2 years ... all at a cost of about GBP3000 per month! (Cost shouldn't matter, should it?)
As a result, the NHS has made the decision to spend 1 million GBP over the next three years on a kwango to spell out to NICE, the implications of approving new expensive drugs!
And this, of course, raises a whole littany of issues!
First, for those who stand to benefit from access to a drug of this nature...
The view of one patient interviewed by the BBC was that the NHS is putting cost before peoples' lives, effectively consigning him and others in a similar situation to the "scrap heap". Why spend money on a kwango when peoples' lives hang in the balance?
Good point ... if you raise an expectation level it sets a precedent. And that's exactly what has been done. In an attempt to be all things to all people, the system has become inefficient and the result is that even more people suffer.
Then, what about NHS managers who are given a budget to work with? The money has to come from somewhere, so which initiatives "matter less" and get the axe?
People watching BBC Breakfast were quick to mention a wide variety of supposedly gratuitous beneficiaries, ranging from IVF treatments to the care of those who abuse their bodies and take "unreasonable" risks.
But I thought morality was objective in a civilized world.
Then, there's NICE who is ultimately responsible for the viability of the whole system. Where do they draw the lines without creating anger and disparity? Simple ... screw everybody, just a little.
And then there are the drug companies who create these miracles but need a malleable system to maintain the viabilities of the profit train. That's a lovely tie you have there Sir ... thank you for your cheque.
So ... as this whole scenario is inextricably linked with morality, I thought I'd indulge myself and play agent provocateur for the day. And please, before anyone actually takes me seriously and believes this to be anything more than the harmless musings of a dyed-in-the-wool cynic ... relax!
I am just a mere devil's advocate. And an underpaid one at that!
So, here goes. Reality check!
If you are terminally ill and there is no reasonable chance of cure, expecting the tax payer to fund a life extension drug is completely unreasonable. The drug has no chance of curing you.
Sorry. That's the hard truth. I wish things were different, but money is tight.
Once a precedent is set, drug companies will continue to pressure the system for the opportunity to supply more exensive band aid solutions. And they can get away with that because no-one likes to see people suffer in any situation.
Again, the hard truth. On a clinical (callous) macro level, all these chemicals do is skew the life expectancy statistics exactly as I pointed out in my previous post. I realize it's virtual heresy to say that.
But it's also the truth.
The NHS does not have the money, so why is it even going down the road. You can't make promises you are not in a position to honor.
Get real!
The fact that it needs to blow a million pounds that will add absolutely no value to the quality of anyones' lives in order to effectively lobby for common sense to prevail ... only serves to prove the system is light years away from achieving it's broad objectives.
Why doesn't someone step in and stem the bleeding. Where is the leadership and the fiscal sanity?
Fix it before the cheque is written. Oh, but that would horse up the unemployment statistics and impinge on other budgeted revenue streams.
Why are we perpetuating an environment where drug companies actually have us feeling like we are beholden to them? If we stop indulging them they will quickly change their strategy and develop products that add more value for the bucks available.
Economics 101?
Of course, the real answer is to rechannel our energies into preventative measures that are not profitable, but actually work.
Perhaps even the man on the street may eventually grasp the wisdom of such an obvious soultion.
We are dependant on the drug companies because we have been brainwashed at a profound level to think that they are improving our health and making us all live longer.
Wake up folks!
Of course they aren't. Our health is not declining because of a shortage of drugs. It's because we have no idea how to take care of ourselves or our children and have abrogated all responsibility to a sytem that profits by supplying symptom mitigation, not solutions.
And because we cry for relief, we actually think they are the good guys. That's a brilliant business model!
But it's actually so efficient at creaming money from us that it will be the architect of it's own undoing. Hows that for irony?
Why?
Because we will continue to fuel a growing organism with money we don't have. Like the global economy, something has to give. Just do the math. Expectations and reckless promises don't pay the bills.
Kwangos, management mentality and oceans of rhetoric will not make things better. What is needed is true leadership and no-one is willing (or able at this point) to step up to the plate.
What would they even say?
A decision will be made by NICE in two weeks on whether local health authorities will have to fund the cancer drug Nexobar. This drug is touted to extend the lives of people with terminal cancer, adding an optimistically-estimated 6 months to 2 years ... all at a cost of about GBP3000 per month! (Cost shouldn't matter, should it?)
As a result, the NHS has made the decision to spend 1 million GBP over the next three years on a kwango to spell out to NICE, the implications of approving new expensive drugs!
And this, of course, raises a whole littany of issues!
First, for those who stand to benefit from access to a drug of this nature...
The view of one patient interviewed by the BBC was that the NHS is putting cost before peoples' lives, effectively consigning him and others in a similar situation to the "scrap heap". Why spend money on a kwango when peoples' lives hang in the balance?
Good point ... if you raise an expectation level it sets a precedent. And that's exactly what has been done. In an attempt to be all things to all people, the system has become inefficient and the result is that even more people suffer.
Then, what about NHS managers who are given a budget to work with? The money has to come from somewhere, so which initiatives "matter less" and get the axe?
People watching BBC Breakfast were quick to mention a wide variety of supposedly gratuitous beneficiaries, ranging from IVF treatments to the care of those who abuse their bodies and take "unreasonable" risks.
But I thought morality was objective in a civilized world.
Then, there's NICE who is ultimately responsible for the viability of the whole system. Where do they draw the lines without creating anger and disparity? Simple ... screw everybody, just a little.
And then there are the drug companies who create these miracles but need a malleable system to maintain the viabilities of the profit train. That's a lovely tie you have there Sir ... thank you for your cheque.
So ... as this whole scenario is inextricably linked with morality, I thought I'd indulge myself and play agent provocateur for the day. And please, before anyone actually takes me seriously and believes this to be anything more than the harmless musings of a dyed-in-the-wool cynic ... relax!
I am just a mere devil's advocate. And an underpaid one at that!
So, here goes. Reality check!
If you are terminally ill and there is no reasonable chance of cure, expecting the tax payer to fund a life extension drug is completely unreasonable. The drug has no chance of curing you.
Sorry. That's the hard truth. I wish things were different, but money is tight.
Once a precedent is set, drug companies will continue to pressure the system for the opportunity to supply more exensive band aid solutions. And they can get away with that because no-one likes to see people suffer in any situation.
Again, the hard truth. On a clinical (callous) macro level, all these chemicals do is skew the life expectancy statistics exactly as I pointed out in my previous post. I realize it's virtual heresy to say that.
But it's also the truth.
The NHS does not have the money, so why is it even going down the road. You can't make promises you are not in a position to honor.
Get real!
The fact that it needs to blow a million pounds that will add absolutely no value to the quality of anyones' lives in order to effectively lobby for common sense to prevail ... only serves to prove the system is light years away from achieving it's broad objectives.
Why doesn't someone step in and stem the bleeding. Where is the leadership and the fiscal sanity?
Fix it before the cheque is written. Oh, but that would horse up the unemployment statistics and impinge on other budgeted revenue streams.
Why are we perpetuating an environment where drug companies actually have us feeling like we are beholden to them? If we stop indulging them they will quickly change their strategy and develop products that add more value for the bucks available.
Economics 101?
Of course, the real answer is to rechannel our energies into preventative measures that are not profitable, but actually work.
Perhaps even the man on the street may eventually grasp the wisdom of such an obvious soultion.
We are dependant on the drug companies because we have been brainwashed at a profound level to think that they are improving our health and making us all live longer.
Wake up folks!
Of course they aren't. Our health is not declining because of a shortage of drugs. It's because we have no idea how to take care of ourselves or our children and have abrogated all responsibility to a sytem that profits by supplying symptom mitigation, not solutions.
And because we cry for relief, we actually think they are the good guys. That's a brilliant business model!
But it's actually so efficient at creaming money from us that it will be the architect of it's own undoing. Hows that for irony?
Why?
Because we will continue to fuel a growing organism with money we don't have. Like the global economy, something has to give. Just do the math. Expectations and reckless promises don't pay the bills.
Kwangos, management mentality and oceans of rhetoric will not make things better. What is needed is true leadership and no-one is willing (or able at this point) to step up to the plate.
What would they even say?
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Health Or Medical?
I decided to visit the BBC Breakfast website this morning for some inspiration.
So I clicked on "Health" expecting to see at least one article about health! As I write this, there's not even one.
Yes, there is an article on fibroids, paracetamol, foetal kick charts, chlamydia and the old standby, swine flu! And a headline announcing that "it is up to doctors to fight for the future of the NHS".
That's "medical" not "health"! All of it. Every single one.
We have successfully conditioned the entire population to see "health" as "a lack of health". Which is quite brilliant because it then means that there is a captive market for all those drugs and all those technological advancements we are so proud of.
This would be perfectly acceptable if the drugs and technology were making us all healthier. But they're not. All the health system does is manage the fallout.
For life!
Then we are told we are living longer and we should be delighted that we are fortunate enough to live at a time in history when all this is possible through the marvels of modern medicine. Strike that ... I mean modern health care.
If "average life expectancy" has increased (and that's what we are told, so it must be true), then why are people getting Alzheimer's in middle age? And why are young kids getting type 2 diabetes?
Was there a shortage of drugs? Or could it be that people are getting sicker, earlier and the powers that be are showing us numbers that are actually misleading?
That couldn't happen, could it?
I am not an actuary and I'm too lazy to dig long enough to get to the bottom of all this, but here's what I think.
Hygiene standards have improved over the last 100 years, which means that infant mortality has been reduced. This, I would think, is the major factor.
Added to this, sick people that would have died quicker 100 years ago, are now being kept alive by expensive drugs and expensive life support equipment.
And yes, these two things are good. Of course they are. Good, because we can cheat the grim reaper for longer, which keeps the immediate families a lot happier and the doctors firmly committed to the hypocratic oath.
And good for business too ... dare I say it.
Imagine if those same beautiful people lived longer because they led healthier lives and did not spend their twilight years dependant on a plethora of medications.
Imagine if our health care systems focused on getting people off drugs, outside in the fresh air and sunlight and eating foods that their bodies were actually designed for ... then going to sleep without the assistance of pills or a late night tipple.
But hold on, that would be bad for business.
So I clicked on "Health" expecting to see at least one article about health! As I write this, there's not even one.
Yes, there is an article on fibroids, paracetamol, foetal kick charts, chlamydia and the old standby, swine flu! And a headline announcing that "it is up to doctors to fight for the future of the NHS".
That's "medical" not "health"! All of it. Every single one.
We have successfully conditioned the entire population to see "health" as "a lack of health". Which is quite brilliant because it then means that there is a captive market for all those drugs and all those technological advancements we are so proud of.
This would be perfectly acceptable if the drugs and technology were making us all healthier. But they're not. All the health system does is manage the fallout.
For life!
Then we are told we are living longer and we should be delighted that we are fortunate enough to live at a time in history when all this is possible through the marvels of modern medicine. Strike that ... I mean modern health care.
If "average life expectancy" has increased (and that's what we are told, so it must be true), then why are people getting Alzheimer's in middle age? And why are young kids getting type 2 diabetes?
Was there a shortage of drugs? Or could it be that people are getting sicker, earlier and the powers that be are showing us numbers that are actually misleading?
That couldn't happen, could it?
I am not an actuary and I'm too lazy to dig long enough to get to the bottom of all this, but here's what I think.
Hygiene standards have improved over the last 100 years, which means that infant mortality has been reduced. This, I would think, is the major factor.
Added to this, sick people that would have died quicker 100 years ago, are now being kept alive by expensive drugs and expensive life support equipment.
And yes, these two things are good. Of course they are. Good, because we can cheat the grim reaper for longer, which keeps the immediate families a lot happier and the doctors firmly committed to the hypocratic oath.
And good for business too ... dare I say it.
Imagine if those same beautiful people lived longer because they led healthier lives and did not spend their twilight years dependant on a plethora of medications.
Imagine if our health care systems focused on getting people off drugs, outside in the fresh air and sunlight and eating foods that their bodies were actually designed for ... then going to sleep without the assistance of pills or a late night tipple.
But hold on, that would be bad for business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
