• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Losing faith in HCPs.

Indy51 said:
Evidenced based medicine is pretty much in disarry and very difficult to trust, especially when the editor of the BMJ says we shouldn't believe what's written in medical journals:


Well worth watching!
Click to expand...
I am stunned. I had absolutely no idea just how deep the problem went and how widespread the fraud was. It does not inspire trust rather it makes a mockery of modern science, industry responsibility and academics who work within a so called caring profession. If I was sceptical before then I am depressed now.
Thank you for posting.
 
After more thought about what I heard on the above video I'm wondering whether I have been a little harsh on HCPs. One can only work with the information one is given. The true fault lies then with that very data that leads clinical practice IRL. I am feeling a little like a guinea pig at the moment.
It should be made very clear to GPs especially that reporting of side effects is extremely important but I know that this is coming at the problem from the wrong end. All data must be easily accessible and conflict of interest should be stated as mandatory. Big Food, Big Pharma I can understand but Big Academia? That is something I am struggling to reconcile.
 
Having just had a quick flick through the internet the statins industry is worth multi-billions annually - up to 30 if I've read it right. To say there are vested interests is an understatement. If the taking of statins was backed up by independent, reliable research and found to be beneficial, there can be little argument.
But the problems as far as I see it are twofold, firstly it appears the research has been skewed because some of it is funded by pharmaceutical companies and secondly there is growing debate as to their effectiveness.
I, like others, have chosen not to take them at this stage but I'm really not sure whether I'm doing the right thing. In fact, had I not listened to people on here I probably would have been taking a statin on the advice of my doctor, metformin too.
 
Jo_the_boat said:
Having just had a quick flick through the internet the statins industry is worth multi-billions annually - up to 30 if I've read it right. To say there are vested interests is an understatement. If the taking of statins was backed up by independent, reliable research and found to be beneficial, there can be little argument.
But the problems as far as I see it are twofold, firstly it appears the research has been skewed because some of it is funded by pharmaceutical companies and secondly there is growing debate as to their effectiveness.
I, like others, have chosen not to take them at this stage but I'm really not sure whether I'm doing the right thing. In fact, had I not listened to people on here I probably would have been taking a statin on the advice of my doctor, metformin too.
Click to expand...
Metformin has been around since the twenties, I beleive so any and all effects are known if not fully understood. It is considered widely to be a safe drug.
Stains are a different kettle of fish altogether. Be wary of drugs or chemicals where the manufacturers allow the patent to lapse, there is always a reason of self interest in this (aspartame is a case in point).
 
serenity648 said:
I have ME. I cant exercise. Yet my bs levels are good with the diet control.
Click to expand...

We can only do what we can to improve our health, it is the hand we have been dealt that sometimes restricts our efforts. I am comfortable with my progress and see no point in agonising over that which I have no control. However, acceptance takes time. You seem to have the same outlook?
 
Just to add to the statin mix, there is a piece in the Daily Mail today, based on a report by Cochrane, who 'gather and summarize the best evidence from research to help you make informed choices about treatment', and state, 'We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding.'
It reports that children with Familial hypercholesterolemia should be put on statins.
Here's the report:
http://www.cochrane.org/CD006401/CF_statins-children-inherited-high-blood-cholesterol

It says in the authors not at the end, 'Statin treatment seems to be safe in the short term, but long-term safety remains unknown.'

The Mail's piece does state that T2 diabetes, among other things, may be a possible side-effect of statins.
 
Jo_the_boat said:
Just to add to the statin mix, there is a piece in the Daily Mail today, based on a report by Cochrane, who 'gather and summarize the best evidence from research to help you make informed choices about treatment', and state, 'We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding.'
It reports that children with Familial hypercholesterolemia should be put on statins.
Here's the report:
http://www.cochrane.org/CD006401/CF_statins-children-inherited-high-blood-cholesterol

It says in the authors not at the end, 'Statin treatment seems to be safe in the short term, but long-term safety remains unknown.'

The Mail's piece does state that T2 diabetes, among other things, may be a possible side-effect of statins.
Click to expand...

This was my point on another thread about statins. A member would not accept that there are too many unknowns about statin use and that the evidence of benefit is inherently flawed. And yet we are being mass medicated? How are we as lay people to make an informed decision when the data has so obviously been skewed in favour and some are still denying side effects? The whole thing stinks.
 
Guzzler said:
I respect a doctor who will speak plainly and actually say 'I just do not know' rather than one who stares at you then dismisses your concerns. It has been a very long time since I heard a HCP admit to not having the answer.
Click to expand...

It has happened to me at least twice.

One of them is the thing I talked about earlier in this thread, a chronic groin-pain that has its origin in an injury, but no-one (i.e. a half-dozen specialists) can figure out the nature of the injury even though it causes pain and swelling on a daily basis. It is not unusual among high-level athletes who have violent, rapid movements of their torso or legs (for instance professional ice-hockey players) but rare among the hoi polloi like me.

So eventually, after years of faffing about, this summer I was sent to a "sports doctor" who admits that I "may" have what is called a "core injury" (even though the two MRIs and the CAT scan did not detect anything, which is a big puzzle). The first line of treatment is physio, but this only had a moderate beneficial effect in my case (and this is also typical of what can happen to the high-level athletes with this condition).

If my "sportsman's career" depended on it, they would now be doing surgery.

However the surgery is so-so (i.e. it might not work, and that area of the body is complex and risky to mess around with). Even when it works, it often doesn't provide relief for more than say, 5 to 10 years. This of course is very worthwhile for a mid-career millionaire hockey player, but of very dubious benefit for me. BTW in the UK this condition is often called "Gilmore's groin" for the eponymous British doctor who invented the operation that is usually done.

Because of the risks and uncertain outcome, the operation (which should be done by a skilled specialist who has done this rare operation before!) is very expensive in America, and it is not covered by my insurance company. So I have basically given up. If I were in my twenties and looking forward to a whole life of groin pain, it would be another matter, of course.

The second time a doctor has said "I don't know" was more recently. It concerned a cluster of symptoms I have been having that, taken together, "do not make sense" (those are my doctor's words). Nothing to do with diabetes, or at least I hope not!!! I will not go into details, but the doctor -- my GP, the same one who is treating me for T2D -- expressed quite a lot of concern. What is usually a 10-minute appointment turned into about 45 minutes as he um'd and ah'd, ordered tests, consulted other recent tests, examined me again. He was quite open about not being able to make head or tail of my symptoms and promised to get back to me in a few days when the tests come back.

serenity648 said:
I have ME. I cant exercise. Yet my bs levels are good with the diet control.
Click to expand...

I apologize if I gave the impression that I think exercise is some kind of "must" for controlling BG. My research of the scientific literature shows that it is of (mild) usefulness in that respect. But I fully agree (and forum members can demonstrate, from their own experience) that it is by no means essential.
 
Last edited:
Grateful said:
The showers were nice. Better than the one in my elderly rented flat.
Click to expand...

The showers in my gym were EXCELLENT.
While our bathroom was out of action for a while I went to the gym regularly. :D

I actually find that walking the dogs is much better for my back pain than the gym ever was. I think it is something to do with the freeflow movements when walking on rough ground, different levels, corners, kerbs, different speeds, etc. Cheaper too. Well, unless you factor in the dogfood, jabs, insurance, etc.
 
Last edited:
Brunneria said:
The showers in my gym were EXCELLENT. While our bathroom was out of action for a while I went to the gym regularly. :D
Click to expand...

I spent the first 10 years of my life in France and my elderly mother still lives near Paris. She was born in Australia and came to France in the early 1950s. For a while she lived in a fleapit hotel in the Latin Quarter (and lived with the bedbugs that came with the experience). It had no bathrooms, so she used the public baths. These were very common at the time. I think there may be one or two of them left in the city.

When I was going to the gym, I seemed to end up doing a desultory 20 minutes on the stationary bicycles ... and then 20 minutes in the shower! I do a lot of thinking in the shower!
 
Grateful said:
When I researched it, the controlled studies seemed to show that moderate exercise (150 minutes per week) could nudge down the A1C by about half a percentage point. Helpful, but not particularly substantial. But I figure, if you can do the exercise, every bit helps (hence my frustration about the aforesaid injury).

Diet is the key.
Click to expand...

When I started my carbs lite fats friendly journey...my father was already bed ridden. So I decided not to increase my exercise level...2 years down the road...I have not even returned to Tai Chi routine...exercise has many benefits...but if glucose control is your objective, diet is a key factor.

No medication, no exercise, no will power needed...
 
Guzzler said:
I am stunned. I had absolutely no idea just how deep the problem went and how widespread the fraud was. It does not inspire trust rather it makes a mockery of modern science, industry responsibility and academics who work within a so called caring profession. If I was sceptical before then I am depressed now.
Thank you for posting.
Click to expand...

I am more stunned by the inability of HCP to see beyond "Evidened" based medicine...it seems impossible for them to get out of the box...

Has there by long term safety RCT for various vaccines?
 
OTE="kokhongw, post: 1607165, member: 277199"]I am more stunned by the inability of HCP to see beyond "Evidened" based medicine...it seems impossible for them to get out of the box...

Has there by long term safety RCT for various vaccines?[/QUOTE]

Other than reading on Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine debacle I have done no further reading on vaccines. However, I have foregone the invitation to have the flu vaccination from my Practice, until I know more....
 
Guzzler said:
Other than reading on Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine debacle I have done no further reading on vaccines. However, I have foregone the invitation to have the flu vaccination from my Practice, until I know more....
Click to expand...

I'm a vaccine freak, partly because I spent some of my life in countries (Africa, Middle East) where infectious disease is rampant. As I get older, I am now planning to get the (new) shingles vaccine and the pneumonia vaccine. My little yellow international vaccine record is chock-full of rubber stamps from clinics all over the world.

In my opinion, getting the full cornucopia of vaccines is a calculated (but very low) risk. I find that risk worth taking.

Quite apart from my own personal health, I also worry that because of declining vaccination compliance, we are getting close to losing the "herd effect" altogether, raising the specter of the return of killer diseases that we thought we had vanquished.

So my faith in HCPs is clearly higher than yours, even though it has been badly shaken by my recently gained knowledge about what happens to people with T2D.
 
A lot of the fault lies mostly with us the tax payer not being willing to pay researchers in a way that allows them to have a career, and to go conferences etc, without taking money from drugs companies.

We also refuse to pay for the cost of doctors having training, but are happy for drugs companies to give doctors “free” training on new drugs etc. Yet every time someone wants a very expensive, not very effective new drug, most people say the NHS should pay, regardless of the 101 other better ways the money could be spent.
 
ringi said:
A lot of the fault lies mostly with us the tax payer not being willing to pay researchers in a way that allows them to have a career, and to go conferences etc, without taking money from drugs companies.

We also refuse to pay for the cost of doctors having training,
Click to expand...

Ermm.....NO. I pay my taxes, I have no say over how those taxes are spent by the government. There is NO guarantee that higher taxes would be spent funding research and training doctors.
 
You do have a say, you choose the government....................

And it does not need higher taxes, as drugs would be cheaper if the drug compaines did not need to promote them to doctors.
 
ringi said:
A lot of the fault lies mostly with us the tax payer not being willing to pay researchers in a way that allows them to have a career, and to go conferences etc, without taking money from drugs companies.

We also refuse to pay for the cost of doctors having training, but are happy for drugs companies to give doctors “free” training on new drugs etc. Yet every time someone wants a very expensive, not very effective new drug, most people say the NHS should pay, regardless of the 101 other better ways the money could be spent.
Click to expand...

We have very little choice in where our tax £££ is spent. I do not wish to start a political rant but if I had a choice about who or what my tax was spent on I could think of better things than HS2 and conflicts around the world etc. I know NI is different but we still have no say in the matter.
 
Back
Top