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/
|