First Do No Harm

First Do No Harm

On August 24^th, 1987 US District Court Judge Susan Getzendanner ruled that the AMA (American Medical Association) and its officials “instituted a boycott of chiropractors. The purpose of the boycott was to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. This conduct constituted a conspiracy among the AMA and its members and an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section I of the Sherman (Anti-Trust) Act.”

Does this represent an isolated case of the AMA’s persecution to ‘contain and eliminate’ a competing profession and/or effective alternative treatment outside of the medical drug paradigm? No way!

Case closed: has the AMA stopped this type of persecution? No way! It is woven into the very core of their history and their ongoing mission; a medical-pharmaceutical monopoly.

The history of the AMA is a compelling read of personal and political power and corruption entwined with corporate interests, profits and greed; the usual suspects.

In 1909, Abraham Flexner, a teacher ( with no other qualifications), backed by the corporate interests of the Carnegie Foundation, with personal family ties to the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Education, issued The Flexner Report. This superficial and prejudiced opinion paper launched a kind of “paradigm coup. It declared and established an orthodoxy of healing dominated by the medical, allopathic, model based in modern chemistry and the prescription of drugs by doctors.

All other modalities were to be shunned (and labeled as quackery), especially the vitalistic approaches that talked about working with the energy or structure of the body, rather than its chemistry. From the manipulations of chiropractors or osteopaths, to the use of energy devices in connection with the body, any healing approaches based on physics were rejected. In the new medical realm, chemistry was king.” (HP of LENS 335)

The goal was to eliminate the competition.

Along the way it inextricably linked medical practice and research, for better and worse, with corporate-sponsored science. Together, they made medicine/health-care an ‘industrial mass-market phenomenon’ and empire.

Along the way they betrayed their Hippocratic Oath: First, Do No Harm by subverting, in so many ways, any other possible effective treatments, or even cures, for anything from back pain to depression to cancer, sacrificing untold numbers of lives.

But the irony of it is laughable. Modern medicine uses the body’s energy and physics in almost all realms of diagnosis, including x-ray, CT, MRI, EKG, EEG, Ultrasound, functional MRI, PET Scans, chromatograpy, lasers, the electron microscope, etc,. At the same time, they continue to condemn, marginalize, and ridicule any treatment or modality that uses the body’s own energy/physics to restore homeostasis and health. All but one that is; the rather medieval EST (electroshock therapy) now known as ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). That one they like. It fits their paradigm that treatment requires ever more potent and powerful interventions; that the body needs to be shocked, drugged or operated on; that more subtle energy techniques could not possibly work.

They deny funding for research into other healing modalities, supporting their claim of the absence of evidence. Yet, of all they do in diagnosis and treatment, it is estimated that only 15% has the standard of scientific evidence that they hold all other alternative treatments to. Not to mention that ‘the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. The fact that there are few rigorous studies of an idea doesn’t mean the idea isn’t powerful; it may mean that science refuses, for whatever prejudices, to study the concept.’ (symp p xii)

This is not meant to condemn all of medicine. Some drugs, emergency and surgical interventions approach the miraculous. It is simply a condemnation of their arrogant quest to maintain a disease-oriented, chemical-based medical monopoly at the expense of other efficacious health-nurturing, physics-based alternative therapies such as chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, bio and neurofeedback, among others.

One Skeptic to Another

One Skeptic to Another

Note: the following blog is in response to an article that appeared in my local newspapers

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

Professor Pasachoff is a skeptic, as am I…to the extent that one of my guiding precepts is: ‘the quality of your life and your understanding of the world will be determined by the quality of the questions that you ask.’

I suspect that Professor Pasachoff and I would agree on many things, specifically that critical thinking seems to be underutilized, at best, and undermined, at worst, in our society.

But, he and I are at odds when he targets chiropractic in his skepticism. He crossed the line from skepticism/doubt into dogmatism with his label of pseudo-science. So, how do I, as a chiropractor and a skeptic, reconcile this? Quite simply, I welcome Professor Pasachoff’s skepticism, questions and scrutiny, as I do that of my patients. I would ask him what personal research he has done to make this broad denouncement? Or, in this instance, might he be wanting in critical thinking skills?

There is a plethora of scientific evidence supporting both the physiological effects and efficacy of chiropractic adjustments for the treatment of acute neck and low back pain of mechanical origin.

In fact, in 1989, the US government established the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research “to enhance the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health care services and access to these services.” Because of the prevalence, the first guideline developed was for the treatment of acute low back pain. “This guideline was developed by an independent multidisciplinary panel of private-sector clinicians and other experts convened by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR). The panel employed explicit, science-based methods and expert clinical judgment to develop specific statements on acute low back problems in adults.”

The panel concluded: “Surgery has been found to be helpful in only 1 in 100 cases of (all) low back problems. In some people, surgery can even cause more problems.” Furthermore, scientific, evidence-based research supported only three “Proven Treatments” for acute low back problems: NSAIDS (oral anti-inflammatories), the use of ice or heat and, remarkably…42 studies supported the use of (chiropractic) spinal manipulation of the low back.

Were these guidelines implemented? No! Why? Because citing the efficacy of conservative approaches and recommending non-surgical treatments for low back pain, drove back surgeons wild. They organized and lobbied congress and effectively stripped the AHCPR of its power, halting the development of all future guidelines. Incidentally, the number of spinal fusions continued to rise dramatically, over 127 percent between 1997 and 2004.

Perhaps Professor Pasachoff’s skepticism would be better directed at the machinations of the medical-pharmaceutical industrial complex. After all, in terms of risks verses benefits, the risks and deaths associated with medical/pharmaceutical care far exceed those of any he labeled as pseudo-science. Why aim so low?

It has been estimated that only 15% of what doctors do is backed by the type of hard scientific evidence Professor Pasachoff seeks: ie: that ‘there is little to no evidence that many widely used treatments and procedures actually work better than various cheaper alternatives.”

While there is significant evidence that corporate-backed science has infiltrated and undermined virtually all aspects of medical research for the purpose of marketing drugs.

In September of 2001 the editors of 12 of the world’s most prestigious medical journals issued an unprecedented and chilling alarm titled: Sponsorship, Authorship and Accountability. They wrote: “We are concerned that the current intellectual environment in which clinical research is conceived, study subjects are recruited and the data analyzed and reported (or, not reported) may threaten scientific objectivity…In light of that truth, the use of clinical trials primarily for marketing makes a mockery of clinical investigation and is a misuse of a powerful tool.”

In a world where medical journals have become an extension of pharmaceutical companys’ marketing strategies, skepticism, critical thinking and questioning are not only important, they can save your life.

Health Economics Part 3

Budgeting for Health

There is no magic bullet, no miracle drug, no life-enhancing vitamin, no surgery or ‘as seen on tv’ before and after diet plan or exercise equipment that will make you healthy!

Get over it and take personal responsibility for your health.

Regaining and then maintaining health requires a commitment of your time, consistency of effort, and an investment of money. All are required.

Exercise can be free, or you can join a gym. In either case, it takes time and consistent effort. Buying local produce, shopping and preparing better foods requires money, effort and time.

There is no greater investment, or return on your investment, than your health.

I have outlined some of the major areas where you will have to invest your time, effort and money to improve and maximize your health.

Gym/health club memberships, yoga class or dancing lessons, etc.
Home workout equipment: floor mat, gym balls, free weights, treadmill, elliptical, etc.
Healthy foods: (more towards locally grown and organic, if possible)
fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meats, fish, poultry
Essential daily supplements: Omega-3 fish oil, probiotics, vitamin D, B-complex:
Good supportive bed and pillow
Good shoes/sneakers, with custom orthotics
Good ergonomic computer desk-chair-keyboard and mouse, monitor risers, foot-rests, arm rests
Chiropractic adjustments and health coaching(1-2 times/month)
Massage
Occasional weekend get-aways, nights out, etc.
Ongoing education: classes, dvd’s, books, meditation/guided imagery cds, etc.

When you budget for, and invest in your health, the costs will be somewhat offset by eliminating wasteful spending on disease producing habits, by seriously limiting or cutting back on:

Processed foods and baked goods
Fast foods and snacks
Eating out as often
Sodas and juices
Cigarettes
Alcohol

In addition, you may be eligible for:

Insurance policy premium discounts for healthy people.
Refunds on gym memberships.
Discounted rates on life insurance policies.

The greatest $aving$ will come from not getting sick or developing serious diseases. Saving untold thousands, or even tens and hundreds of thousand of dollars in:

Doctor visits: deductibles and co-pays
Surgeries, diagnostic procedures, emergency transport and hospital stay co-pays.
Co-pays and/or percentages of costs for prescribed medications and medical devices
Cash outlays for over the counter medications
Risk rating fees tacked on to insurance costs for high risk/poor health
Lost time from work due to illness
Losing your job due to illness
Lost opportunities due to illness and untold wasted and lost time pursuing care.
Break-up of families due to emotional, financial and physical stressors associated with repeated or major illnesses.

If you think you don’t have the time, don’t want to make the effort and can’t afford to spend the money it takes to get and stay healthy, what makes you think you will have the time, will be able to make the effort, and will have the vast sums of money it costs to be sick?