Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Statins, was Re: Reverse adapter - mount MFT lens on FT?

Subject: Re: [OM] Statins, was Re: Reverse adapter - mount MFT lens on FT?
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:29:37 -0800
On 2/7/2013 7:54 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> It's very difficult to raise or lower your cholesterol even a small
> amount through diet.  ...
>
> Ufee Ravnskov (Swedish physician and author of "The Cholesterol Myths")
> relates in his book how he once tried to see if he could significantly
> raise his cholesterol through diet.  His experiment was to eat 8 eggs
> per day for (IIRC) about 2 weeks.  His cholesterol levels hardly moved.

As it should be, with a self regulating sub-system. That there should be 
unstable, undesirable consequences in other 
parts of the enormously complex, self-regulating system that is our bodies when 
we force one sub-system out of design 
point shouldn't surprise anyone.

That it does so is an indication of how limited and unsophisticated most of 
mainstream medicine's doctors' understanding 
of what they are doing is.

Between my late wife's two bouts with cancer and my mother's slow deterioration 
in several areas in her last years, I 
have encountered many doctors dealing with serious health problems with many 
times. I have a great deal of respect for 
most of them for high levels of caring, dedication and specialized knowledge.

OTOH, the system in which they are trained and practice is faulty in that it's 
understanding of how our bodies function 
is incomplete and, in many instances, inaccurate, but its is unable, for a 
number of reasons, to be clear and up front 
about that, even to itself.

The inherent problems are considerably exacerbated by both individual/cultural 
expectations and 
political/economic/systemic problems.

Why do the vast majority of Americans consider it their right to be seen by a 
full blown doctor, given a prescription 
medicine and have those paid for by someone else when they get a cold or mild 
flu? The amount of time and money spent 
'treating' untreatable and self limiting diseases is staggering.

That same culture/system also seems incapable of recognizing illnesses that it 
cannot (as yet?) properly treat. Simple 
example: My younger son developed allergic symptoms when his mother was ill 
with cancer. With her first round, surgery, 
chemo, radiation, etc. it manifested as rashes, itches, and so on. I remember 
shuttling back and forth between her 
hospital bed and a dermatologist and allergist in the adjacent medical building.

When she came home and started acting more well, his symptoms disappeared. With 
her re-admittance for consequences of an 
error in post surgical caret, he developed sudden onset, life threatening 
asthma. I spent three (four?) nights on a cot 
next to his hospital bed ( and threatened an arrogant, young intern with bodily 
harm if she came in the room again.)

Yup, he survived, an example of the efficacy of the powerful drugs used. 
However, he was now dependent on an inhaler, 
and had a couple of other, really scary, attacks beyond what that could cause 
to remiss. The liquid medicine he was 
prescribed to head those off was really nasty stuff, with lots of warnings 
about use and side-effects. He hated it, and 
I found it hard to force him to take stuff I wouldn't want in my body.

Eventually, I took him to a homeopath. The doc asked us a number of questions, 
then gave him a small bottle of those 
tiny white pills to take all at once. When I asked about a prescription, or 
whatever, he said this particular treatment 
was one shot.

And it was. Nick had a couple of brief incidents of shortness of breath when 
playing basketball hard, but a couple of 
minutes rest relieved them, then even that stopped recurring.

Leaving side the questions we would all like answered about demonstrable causes 
and means by which one type of treatment 
promised at least years of taking powerful steroids only to ameliorate symptoms 
and the other to entirely eliminate them 
with one treatment. And leaving aside the endless wormhole of argument about 
the extent mind and emotions may create and 
relieve physical symptoms of illness, let's step back.

One treatment is cheap (expensive, but one shot), and easy on the body. The 
other is expensive, hard on the body, and 
open ended. Which should a sensible health care system try first, or at least 
second, for that particular illness?

I don't want to get into any sort of broad discussion, just to suggest that our 
long term system of medicine, by holding 
fast to an incomplete model of illness, wellness and treatment, ill serves many 
of its patients and wastes enormous 
amounts of money and resources.

I also don't want to blame individuals within our health care system. I believe 
the vast majority to be at least well 
meaning*, most quite knowledgeable, within the limited knowledge of the system, 
and many passionately dedicated to 
helping people.

Posing Conundra Moose

* I do have a harder time with Big Pharma. It's hard to believe that some of 
what they do and have done didn't have some 
basis in self-serving, inherently malicious intent.

-- 
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz