A cure for MS?

[Director]

Found this interesting TED talk today, it's by a doctor who cured herself from being wheelchair bound from MS. (Note the TED warning at the start of the vid...lols...the speculated reasons for this warning are here: http://terrywahls.com/ted-talk-selling-out-to-its-sponsors/ ) The doctor based her research on scientific articles and evidence and has begum clinical trials of her own.

 

[Mark]

Yes I agree - very interesting indeed... I believe nutrition is the single most important thing we can do and take notice of in our lives. I'm not saying it can cure all diseases (neither is this Dr I assume) but eating a proper diet including greens and other veggies preferably from the backyard and pesticide free probably prevents hundreds of diseases from developing in the human body

I notice the "low carb" thing popped its head up again hehe...

Another great find - I really enjoyed her talk and I understand the dangers of promoting quacky natural medicine over proven clinical but I don't think she's promoting this I think she's more just promoting healthy eating rather than shunning modern medicine. Everything she said seemed pretty logical to me!

 

[bearded1]

I understand the dangers of promoting quacky natural medicine

The thing is Mark, that just because something is said to be 'clinical evidence' does not make it particularly true. I have done research and am very aware of how easy it is to at least bias and more sinisterly, outright lie in research to make something appear a certain way. I do not trust pharmaceutical companies any more than I trust Monsanto and the other agricultural chemical companies. A lot of medical training is sponsored by big pharma, so a biased opinion is taught. The doctor is then too busy to do his/her own research on the various doubts they may have, so stick with the mainstream. Then, on top of that, if a doctor gives someone treatment that is not mainstream and it goes bad, they will be hit with malpractice or similar, but if they have given the big pharma medications they will be deemed to have done all they could do. I have personally met several people who were told by their doctors to go home and die as there was nothing more they could do for them. The issue is that I met them between 2 and 7yrs after they were told to go home and die. The two common factors between them was that they met a bloke I know who does not have any qualifications in anything except personal training. He used a combination of exercise, diet and natural medicine to treat people. The other common factor is that they are all cancer free. Agreed, some natural medicine is quackery, but also a lot of mainstream big pharma is also quackery, or at worst, purposeful, deceitful killing. Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Mark]

Agreed, some natural medicine is quackery, but also a lot of mainstream big pharma is also quackery, or at worst, purposeful, deceitful killing. Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Sadly, I think you are probably totally right and obviously have the experiences to back it up!

Big Pharma and corporate greed can be blamed for creating as many problems as they solve (maybe more) I reckon...

 

[Director]

Sadly, I think you are probably totally right and obviously have the experiences to back it up!

Big Pharma and corporate greed can be blamed for creating as many problems as they solve (maybe more) I reckon...

Oh we could have a whole forum devoted to that topic.

The good news is that because of the (temporary?) freedom of information we have with the internet a lot of things that were previously hidden are coming to light. That and that people can now talk directly to one another fairly instantly. This kind of info is not new to me at all so I'm beyond the outrage and surprise, a LOT of other people are just finding out about this kind of stuff now.

 

[Mark]

Yeah, I sometimes get a head of steam up about corporate greed and release it as a rant on my blog - that's helps me

But mitochondria (getting back to this MS speech) is a word I vaguely knew about, however, now I'll be taking more interest in this little fella!

 

[Ash]

Scientific research is necessary to prove causation and to discern effective treatment options for different conditions. Anecdotal evidence creates the most sensational news and people put their hearts and would into it, far beyond clinically proven therapies despite the strength of evidence available to support them. Quackery such as curing cancers with high dose IV vitamin C or quantum therapy is always going to be peddled but it is up to the discerning person to be objective and not believe everything he/she hears.

In this day and age of increasing knowledge and ever increasing access to that knowledge base, we have to filter out the rhubarb from the available working options (wherever did that connotation come from?). As a GP in a relatively well-to-do area, I see the vast opinions floating around about what it takes to be healthy. Some go all out with unproven naturopathic remedies that they pay a fortune for (and then complain when asked to pay for medical treatment at the doctor's surgery) and put their faith in them to the point of beating me over the head with it.

We do have to accept and understand our limits. There are lots of things we are yet to understand about the human body, the most comple organism known on earth (what a marvellous creation it is), but we are here on earth for a finite time and will suffer conditions that are permanent or terminal and may never find a cure for. People miraculously cured from diseases that modern medicine cannot explain say more about the miracle of the human body and the One who created it than the works of man who doesn't understand it.

 

[Director]

Hey Mark,

I've got a link to a large discussion about B12 and it's role in methylation which involves the mitochondria....if you're interested.


Ash,

I know what you're saying, but these days often we go to a GP who just scratches their heads or prescribes drugs in the 'hope' that they will hit the target, often with nasty side effects. When we look at the biggest problems facing society today in terms of health issues, cancer, heart disease etc they all seem to be rising and the cut-poison-burn modality that represents 'modern medicine' doesn't seem to be that effective and even when it does sort out the symptoms it rarely cures the actual problem. There is also an arrogant denial of possible causitives in terms of these things, the same denial that prevented sailors from getting VitC to stop scurvy for 200 years after the medical establishment knew about the cure because it was 'witchdoctor medicine'. Granted most GP's are sincere and concerned but I've found that the most useful ones are those who have studied outside of their 'official' training and are able to work with their patients to make the necessary adjustments to diet and lifestyle that are required to bring about the desired remedy. Too many just want to push corporate drugs because that's what they were trained to do. As for 'research' that only goes on is their is a possible profit at the end of it which IMO means that in a lot of cases it doesn't count for much and it's absence says a lot more. Did you know that there has more research done on medical cannabis which is still prohibited than has been done on a round 33% of all pharmaceutical drugs for sale today? (As a quick example off the top of my head.)

Anyway, that's a long discussion but to sum it up I've discovered over the years that my health is MY responsibility and I go to my doctor when I need a hand to gather information that I couldn't get myself OR if an acute situation arises. And let's face it, if I break a leg or have a brain conniption then the allopathic modality is gong to be the one to go to. In dealing with long-term functional issues then it pays to look outside of the square.

 

[bearded1]

Hi Ash,
Good post; -moderate and well informed. I certainly agree with the notion of the great 'miracles' that happen often being more to do with the one that created this terrestrial globe. However would you agree that medical research that comes from mainstream sources (often big pharma) is sometimes biased and sometimes purposefully deceitful (such as withholding information)? 'Corruption in high places' is not a new concept.
bearded1

 

[Ash]

Ash,

I know what you're saying, but these days often we go to a GP who just scratches their heads or prescribes drugs in the 'hope' that they will hit the target, often with nasty side effects. Too many just want to push corporate drugs because that's what they were trained to do. As for 'research' that only goes on is their is a possible profit at the end of it which IMO means that in a lot of cases it doesn't count for much and it's absence says a lot more. Did you know that there has more research done on medical cannabis which is still prohibited than has been done on a round 33% of all pharmaceutical drugs for sale today? (As a quick example off the top of my head.)

Anyway, that's a long discussion but to sum it up I've discovered over the years that my health is MY responsibility and I go to my doctor when I need a hand to gather information that I couldn't get myself OR if an acute situation arises. And let's face it, if I break a leg or have a brain conniption then the allopathic modality is gong to be the one to go to. In dealing with long-term functional issues then it pays to look outside of the square.

There are many points raised here, and although I have an answer for all of them, it's a debate that needs considerable time to delve into. For now, I can say that there are GPs and there are GPs (like 'oils ain't oils'). A number of GPs bring the profession into disrepute for more reasons than one. But the discipline of medicine is one founded in the pursuit of patient health, not in the self interests of the doctor or pharmaceutical industry. But what world do we live in? Certainly a lot more capitalistic than socialist. And a human socialist way of life just doesn't work (it's almost an oxymoron given the innate selfishness of man). So in the end, the pharmaceutical company is out to sell their products and market them to doctors in biased ways. It's up to the doctor to decide whether the scientific evidence is convincing for the condition being treated with the modality. All legitimate treatments should stand up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny in the form of a randomised controlled trial and subsequent systematic reviews. Of course, if there are treatments that don't offer a sponsor company enough financial returns it has less chance of being studied so rigorously. But in the end, doctors must practice evidence based medicine when the evidence is there. When not available, anything doesn't quite go but the most likely treatment options that offer relief or cure should be offered.

Cannabinol is much more a sociopolitical problem than it is a medical barrier, but the drugs do have considerable temporary and permanent side effects when used inappropriately, so I'll leave it at that. In the end, medical treatment has costs and benefits. Doctors must help patients make informed decisions as to whether treatments are worth the possible side effects and cost for the benefits outlined by the body of unbiased scientific evidence available on the treatment.

Hi Ash,
Would you agree that medical research that comes from mainstream sources (often big pharma) is sometimes biased and sometimes purposefully deceitful (such as withholding information)? 'Corruption in high places' is not a new concept.
bearded1

Biased, yes. Purposely deceitful, I wouldn't go as far as to say that. I have no proof of intentional deceit but one could interpret not telling the whole truth as being deceptive and I wouldn't deny drug companies send their minions to people like me to peddle their products. I am a skeptic of new treatments that are shown to be markedly superior to what is already tried and true, but medical research is a huge field, and pharmaceutical companies are a double edged sword.

The advent of antibiotics started by a doctor but taken over by drug companies who mass produce them. Without the companies there would essentially be a huge increase in mortality from treatable conditions. Unfortunately they are also responsible for the blowout in government costs and production of a lot of superfluous drugs that add little value to the health of the population. But I'm no expert in health economics and I'm not about to run for health minister so I'll get off the soap box and leave this topic be.

 

[Director]

I've got a link to a large discussion about B12 and it's role in methylation which involves the mitochondria....if you're interested.

 

[Director]

Double post.

 

[Director]

Hi Ash, thanks for the reply, I did post a lengthy reply but then hit the wrong button and it all disappeared.

So I'll just post this much shorter one instead, mostly FYI and not for picking fights.

You write

Purposely deceitful, I wouldn't go as far as to say that. I have no proof of intentional deceit

Here are just two examples for your consideration, I have read of many more. I understand that you're probably too busy to read up on this kind of thing yourself but there is much going on that is not being reported in the main stream media (or medical journals), nor will it ever be.


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1409364

Many adverse side effects and even deaths are occurring due to medical negligence. Specifically, this is due to the irresponsibility of scientists who are not reporting the results of their clinical trials to the public, as required by a 2007 law.

According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the public access website clinicaltrials.gov draws 57,000 visitors a day, including people who are confronting serious diseases and seeking help to treat them with experimental drugs.


The study from Duke University found that five years after the reporting law took effect, only 13% of scientists running clinical trials are divulging their results.

Dr. Monique Anderson, a cardiologist and the study’s first author, thinks it is quite surprising that very few people are following the law.

And

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1654

Pharmaceutical companies have been known to discredit natural, cheap solutions that compete with their high-dollar drugs. Now, the British Medical Journalhas unravelednew research revealing how the makers of a cancer drug are blocking public access to a cheaper, safe, and effective alternative.

The BMJ explains that Novartis, a company which markets a licensed cancer drug known as Lucentis, which is used for macular degeneration, tried to derail research on another treatment called Avastin. Novartis denies this claim, but they have the market cornered because they sell the only officially licensed drug in the UK.


Many doctors use Avastin as a cheaper but unlicensed alternative to treat wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which affects more than 26,000 people in the UK annually. Approximately 11 million in the US have been diagnosed with some sort of macular degeneration with that number expected to double by 2050.

Lucentis costs the NHS around £740 per dose (around $1,100 US dollars).

Avastin, on the other hand, would cost between £50 and £65 per dose.

Doctors still prescribe it, though it hasn’t been authorized to be used for macular degeneration. Some doctors are concerned about being personally liable if they prescribe the cheaper drug, and therefore, don’t.

And let's not mention Vioxx...or Lipitor...

 

[Ash]

I appreciate these realities - the bias and ulterior motives of man can never be completely excluded, which is why double-blind randomised controlled studies are the best way of proving if a therapy works objectively.
Though we shouldn't discredit everything pharmaceutical companies do on the basis of those particular studies or drugs. Whilst they may unmask systematic failures in reporting and increase public awareness on the unethical nature of such high level companies, they are after all for-profit organisations subject to the typical human behaviour of greed and dominance that is not congruent with altruistic health services. So what to do? Just be informed at the individual level and do not rely on the assumption that a drug is safe until all the *accurate* evidence is scrutinised on a case-by-case basis (usually with the help of your GP). But buyer beware: most of what you read on the internet is flawed information, so source your evidence from reputable sites, particularly those using RCTs to determine their safety and efficacy data.

 

[Director]

Yep thanks Ash, agreed.

 

[Mark]

I've got a link to a large discussion about B12 and it's role in methylation which involves the mitochondria....if you're interested.

Yeah sure and it'd probably fit into this thread (it's a pretty broad discussion) and very interesting also I might add.

Don't worry about the double posting that happens from time to time usually when the page fails to reload fast enough or the server glitches.

But buyer beware: most of what you read on the internet is flawed information, so source your evidence from reputable sites, particularly those using RCTs to determine their safety and efficacy data.

It's hard to sometimes sift through the interweby thingy and isolate what's truth or fiction. I feel sorry for desperate people who are looking for a miracle cure to their own illness or a loved one's and then get scammed into buying some vitamin pill made of sugar. And then there are lots of people who mean well but are a little too loose with the truth eg a cup of kale a day cures cancer etc - if it only were that easy

And the presumption "right or wrong" that big Phama is in it just for the cash and not humanity will always be there I think.

There's lot's of things we can DIY (even illness management) but there comes a time when we just have to trust our GP because they're the experts in the field and usually have connections to other experts and info. That doesn't mean we can't shop around though and yes there are GPs like any profession who are corrupt or incompetent and that's why most of us self educate on important health matters concerning us to at least have some idea about the info we are receiving as long as we don't suddenly consider ourselves experts just because of Google - if I were a GP and had people coming in telling me how to do my job based on Googs that'd be pretty irritating! Having said that, the other day I took my youngest into our Dr and said I think he has a plantar wart on his foot - I Googled it and the Dr confirmed I was right but I'd never seen one before EVER until I matched my son's foot with an image from some website

 

[Ash]

The Internet has eased researching effort because information is easily accessible. The right information takes a degree of wisdom to find. Most people are well meaning when they Google before seeking advice: it's the typical DIY mentality, but occasionally people can be convinced of a fallacy that becomes a monkey that cannot be shaken off. That's life.