Do More Tests? No!

The author* writes, "Primary care physicians in the U.S. believe they are being forced to provide excessive care to their patients, particularly in terms of testing and referrals..."



Doctors do so many tests for many of the wrong reasons; concerns about malpractice, excess reliance on the clinical significance of the test, and inadequate clinical time with their patients. This is exactly what I've feared for many years.



Operating a health system like a business might seem reasonable in a world of free market, but we are finding that it doesn't work that way. Yes, doctors need to use good business models to run their practices, but those same systems don't translate well into the arena healing.



In days past, a doctor would use testing to verify or "rule out" his/her impressions and probably diagnosis. That seems rational. However, using a test report to make the diagnosis opens the door for problems, especially when the test is inappropriate.



One example centers on the mania in medicine to "treat" high cholesterol, regardless of the patient's situation. I personally know of people in their 80s and 90s who have been prescribed a statin drug because their blood cholesterol levels were slightly elevated.



Another is the growing practice of identifying "pre" diseases (pre-diabetes, pre-hypertension, pre-cancer). Some test identifies that a person MIGHT develop one of the diseases. The modern response, then, is to treat it as if it already existed. That ends up requiring drugs or surgery to treat something that has not yet happened. I recall a case where a woman had a genetic connection to breast cancer (sister), meaning there was a greater than normal statistical chance she would also get it. A nurse suggested she to have a mastectomy "just in case". Sounds crazy, but I witnessed it.



Doctors are smart. They know what's going on, but they seem helpless when it comes to changing anything. If things continue on this track, we will all suffer. Our health will not be improved and our finances will be depleted.



*Referencing an article by Nancy Walsh, Staff Writer, MedPage Today

Published: September 27, 2011

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/r3mzCa

You CAN'T avoid sucralose (Splenda).

URL:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21879743

You may want to, but you can't anymore. The stuff is in our drinking water. It was was found to be present in source water of 15 out of 19 drinking water treatment plants.



As much as I dislike sucralose, there are certainly other, more toxic substances in the water supply and they aren't being removed through standard treatments. The really sad part is that it will just continue to get worse.



What are you going to do about it?

See this Amp at http://1.usa.gov/nBELvl

Tell me how this will contain health costs

URL:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/21/us-roche-va-i...

Some batches of Avastin seem to have been contaminated when the drug was transferred from the original vial to a syringe. Patients suffered and some lost their sight. The VA thinks they can "solve" the infection problem by switching to a similar drug that already comes in a pre-filled syringe. The additional cost? Approximately $1,900 dollars per dose.



Keep in mind that the VA services are funded by tax dollars. If this decision persists OUR COST per treatment just went up 3,800%

See this Amp at http://reut.rs/nhcZhl

I really don't care. Do you?

I read a Letter To The Editor today that contained the following; " America wants a strong USPS. After tornadoes and earthquakes, phones fail, electricity ends, the Internet is interrupted, but the mail will still go through."



Personally, I don't agree that America on the whole WANTS a strong USPS. We clearly want to be able to communicate effectively and quickly, and there are alternatives that work as well or better than the USPS.



Yes, the alternatives can be interrupted. So can (does) the USPS. The old belief that "the mail must go through" is passe' and patently untrue. Based on decades of real experience, I am confident the alternate systems can still be effective - even in times of disaster.



But, what about all the EMPLOYEES of the USPS who will lose their jobs? The alternative systems will need employees when they fill the hole left when USPS goes out of business. The good workers will find jobs. The bad ones may not. But we already have systems in place to support people who can't or won't work. Yes, there may be problems. Nobody, however, is guaranteed anything, let alone a job.

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/pnNtNN

Vaccination for everyone, every year, forever.

URL:  http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/22/us-health-offi...

The recommendation is to START vaccinating at age 6 months.

"Our goal is to make annual vaccination a no-brainer among all age groups," Dr. William Schaffner, of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and president of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID) told the briefing.



What do you think about this?

See this Amp at http://fxn.ws/r9aPr6

How is that OBAMACARE thing working for you?

URL:  http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/22/pf/health_insurance_cos...

I heard last evening that some study showed that about 80% of us think we aren't as well off as we were four years ago. Seems we got change we really didn't expect.

See this Amp at http://cnnmon.ie/pzPKwH

Soy May Not Prevent Clogged Arteries

URL:  http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/16/soy-may-not-pr...

Son of a gun! Here we all have been thinking that SOY is some kind of heart-healthy "food". Most published information about it fails to mention that raw soybeans, including the immature green form, are toxic to humans.



Can you think of another "food" that is toxic in its raw form and has to be processed before human consumption?

See this Amp at http://fxn.ws/nCzLUC

Todlers and preschoolers on SPEED.

URL:  http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/health/living-well/presch...

A 2007 study reported that one preschooler in 70 was taking a psychiatric drug. I MIGHT consider that there would be a real medical need in a tiny number of babies, but, 1 in 70! Just seems wrong. Very wrong. What do you think?

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/peDFO6

Why Would You Want to Lower Your Risk?

There is something unsettling about the notion of reducing my risk for a disease or a disaster. Risk is a relative term that only applies to groups. If all is held equal in a group, changing one element can increase or decrease overall risk for the group, but NOT the individuals who make up the group.



What's the point in lowering the risk of cancer by 5% for a group? If there are one thousand people in the group, that change would mean better odds for 50 people. A major problem is identifying which fifty people. Keep in mind that this is true only when every member in the group is identical to the others. Something as simple as a minor accident can change a person such that he/she no longer possesses the characteristics of the group.



If I do something to reduce my personal risk factors (eating better, for example) and the other group members do something to increase their risk (start smoking?), the group risk goes up, but mine goes down, especially if I don't start smoking.



There is an old saying about how we can never step in the same stream twice. More accurately, we can never step in the same stream once. Nothing is static and all is variable.



The concept of risk factors is bogus and should be eliminated from health discussions.

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/rutoHi