Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of
Pharmaceutical Companies
Richard Smith
Richard Smith is Chief Executive of UnitedHealth Europe, London, United
Kingdom. E-mail: richardswsmith@yahoo.co.uk
Competing Interests: RS was an editor for the BMJ for 25 years. For the
last 13 of those years, he was the editor and chief executive of the
BMJ Publishing Group, responsible for the profits of not only the BMJ
but of the whole group, which published some 25 other journals. He
stepped down in July 2004. He is now a member of the board of the
Public Library of Science, a position for which he is not paid.
Published: May 17, 2005
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
Copyright: © 2005 Richard Smith. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Citation: Smith R (2005) Medical Journals Are an Extension of the
Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies. PLoS Med 2(5): e138

"Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for
the pharmaceutical industry", wrote Richard Horton, editor of the
Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry
for becoming "primarily a marketing machine" and co-opting "every
institution that might stand in its way" [2]. Medical journals were
conspicuously absent from her list of co-opted institutions, but she
and Horton are not the only editors who have become increasingly queasy
about the power and influence of the industry. Jerry Kassirer, another
former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the
industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians [3], and
the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become
"part of the cycle of dependency...between journals and the
pharmaceutical industry" [4]. Something is clearly up.
The Problem: Less to Do with Advertising, More to Do with Sponsored
Trials
The most conspicuous example of medical journals' dependence on the
pharmaceutical industry is the substantial income from advertising, but
this is, I suggest, the least corrupting form of dependence. The
advertisements may often be misleading [5,6] and the profits worth
millions, but the advertisements are there for all to see and
criticise. Doctors may not be as uninfluenced by the advertisements as
they would like to believe, but in every sphere, the public is used to
discounting the claims of advertisers.
The much bigger problem lies with the original studies, particularly
the clinical trials, published by journals. Far from discounting these,
readers see randomised controlled trials as one of the highest forms of
evidence. A large trial published in a major journal has the journal's
stamp of approval (unlike the advertising), will be distributed around
the world, and may well receive global media coverage, particularly if
promoted simultaneously by press releases from both the journal and the
expensive public-relations firm hired by the pharmaceutical company
that sponsored the trial. For a drug company, a favourable trial is
worth thousands of pages of advertising, which is why a company will
sometimes spend upwards of a million dollars on reprints of the trial
for worldwide distribution. The doctors receiving the reprints may not
read them, but they will be impressed by the name of the journal from
which they come. The quality of the journal will bless the quality of
the drug.

Fortunately from the point of view of the companies funding these
trials-but unfortunately for the credibility of the journals who
publish them-these trials rarely produce results that are
unfavourable to the companies' products [7,8]. Paula Rochon and others
examined in 1994 all the trials funded by manufacturers of nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs for arthritis that they could find [7]. They
found 56 trials, and not one of the published trials presented results
that were unfavourable to the company that sponsored the trial. Every
trial showed the company's drug to be as good as or better than the
comparison treatment.
By 2003 it was possible to do a systematic review of 30 studies
comparing the outcomes of studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry
with those of studies funded from other sources [8]. Some 16 of the
studies looked at clinical trials or meta-analyses, and 13 had outcomes
favourable to the sponsoring companies. Overall, studies funded by a
company were four times more likely to have results favourable to the
company than studies funded from other sources. In the case of the five
studies that looked at economic evaluations, the results were
favourable to the sponsoring company in every case.
The evidence is strong that companies are getting the results they
want, and this is especially worrisome because between two-thirds and
three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals-Annals
of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of
Medicine-are funded by the industry [9]. For the BMJ, it's only
one-third-partly, perhaps, because the journal has less influence
than the others in North America, which is responsible for half of all
the revenue of drug companies, and partly because the journal publishes
more cluster-randomised trials (which are usually not drug trials) [9].
Why Do Pharmaceutical Companies Get the Results They Want?
Why are pharmaceutical companies getting the results they want? Why are
the peer-review systems of journals not noticing what seem to be biased
results? The systematic review of 2003 looked at the technical quality
of the studies funded by the industry and found that it was as
good-and often better-than that of studies funded by others [8].
This is not surprising as the companies have huge resources and are
very familiar with conducting trials to the highest standards.
The companies seem to get the results they want not by fiddling the
results, which would be far too crude and possibly detectable by peer
review, but rather by asking the "right" questions-and there are
many ways to do this [10]. Some of the methods for achieving favourable
results are listed in the Sidebar, but there are many ways to hugely
increase the chance of producing favourable results, and there are many
hired guns who will think up new ways and stay one jump ahead of peer
reviewers.
Then, various publishing strategies are available to ensure maximum
exposure of positive results. Companies have resorted to trying to
suppress negative studies [11,12], but this is a crude strategy-and
one that should rarely be necessary if the company is asking the
"right" questions. A much better strategy is to publish positive
results more than once, often in supplements to journals, which are
highly profitable to the publishers and shown to be of dubious quality
[13,14]. Companies will usually conduct multicentre trials, and there
is huge scope for publishing different results from different centres
at different times in different journals. It's also possible to combine
the results from different centres in multiple combinations.
These strategies have been exposed in the cases of risperidone [15] and
odansetron [16], but it's a huge amount of work to discover how many
trials are truly independent and how many are simply the same results
being published more than once. And usually it's impossible to tell
from the published studies: it's necessary to go back to the authors
and get data on individual patients.
Peer Review Doesn't Solve the Problem
Journal editors are becoming increasingly aware of how they are being
manipulated and are fighting back [17,18], but I must confess that it
took me almost a quarter of a century editing for the BMJ to wake up to
what was happening. Editors work by considering the studies submitted
to them. They ask the authors to send them any related studies, but
editors have no other mechanism to know what other unpublished studies
exist. It's hard even to know about related studies that are published,
and it may be impossible to tell that studies are describing results
from some of the same patients. Editors may thus be peer reviewing one
piece of a gigantic and clever marketing jigsaw-and the piece they
have is likely to be of high technical quality. It will probably pass
peer review, a process that research has anyway shown to be an
ineffective lottery prone to bias and abuse [19].
Furthermore, the editors are likely to favour randomised trials. Many
journals publish few such trials and would like to publish more: they
are, as I've said, a superior form of evidence. The trials are also
likely to be clinically interesting. Other reasons for publishing are
less worthy. Publishers know that pharmaceutical companies will often
purchase thousands of dollars' worth of reprints, and the profit margin
on reprints is likely to be 70%. Editors, too, know that publishing
such studies is highly profitable, and editors are increasingly
responsible for the budgets of their journals and for producing a
profit for the owners. Many owners-including academic
societies-depend on profits from their journals. An editor may thus
face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest: publish a trial that
will bring US$100 000 of profit or meet the end-of-year budget by
firing an editor.
Journals Should Critique Trials, Not Publish Them
How might we prevent journals from being an extension of the marketing
arm of pharmaceutical companies in publishing trials that favour their
products? Editors can review protocols, insist on trials being
registered, demand that the role of sponsors be made transparent, and
decline to publish trials unless researchers control the decision to
publish [17,18]. I doubt, however, that these steps will make much
difference. Something more fundamental is needed.
Firstly, we need more public funding of trials, particularly of large
head-to-head trials of all the treatments available for treating a
condition. Secondly, journals should perhaps stop publishing trials.
Instead, the protocols and results should be made available on
regulated Web sites. Only such a radical step, I think, will stop
journals from being beholden to companies. Instead of publishing
trials, journals could concentrate on critically describing them.
Acknowledgments
This article is based on a talk that Richard Smith gave at the Medical
Society of London in October 2004 when receiving the HealthWatch Award
for 2004. The speech is reported in the January 2005 HealthWatch
newsletter [20]. The article overlaps to a small extent with an article
published in the BMJ [21].

Examples of Methods for Pharmaceutical Companies to Get the Results
They Want from Clinical Trials
Conduct a trial of your drug against a treatment known to be inferior.
Trial your drugs against too low a dose of a competitor drug.
Conduct a trial of your drug against too high a dose of a competitor
drug (making your drug seem less toxic).
Conduct trials that are too small to show differences from competitor
drugs.
Use multiple endpoints in the trial and select for publication those
that give favourable results.
Do multicentre trials and select for publication results from centres
that are favourable.
Conduct subgroup analyses and select for publication those that are
favourable.
Present results that are most likely to impress-for example,
reduction in relative rather than absolute risk.
References
Horton R (2004) The dawn of McScience. New York Rev Books 51(4): 7-9.
Find this article online
Angell M (2005) The truth about drug companies: How they deceive us and
what to do about it. New York: Random House. 336 p.
Kassirer JP (2004) On the take: How medicine's complicity with big
business can endanger your health. New York: Oxford University Press.
251 p.
Barbour V, Butcher J, Cohen B, Yamey G (2004) Prescription for a
healthy journal. PLoS Med 1: e22 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0010022.
Find this article online
Wilkes MS, Doblin BH, Shapiro MF (1992) Pharmaceutical advertisements
in leading medical journals: Experts' assessments. Ann Intern Med 116:
912-919. Find this article online
Villanueva P, Peiro S, Librero J, Pereiro I (2003) Accuracy of
pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals. Lancet 361: 27-32.
Find this article online
Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, Fortin PR, Felson DT, et al. (1994) A
study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med
154: 157-163. Find this article online
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical
industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality. BMJ 326:
1167-1170. Find this article online
Egger M, Bartlett C, Juni P (2001) Are randomised controlled trials in
the BMJ different? BMJ 323: 1253. Find this article online
Sackett DL, Oxman AD (2003) HARLOT plc: An amalgamation of the world's
two oldest professions. BMJ 327: 1442-1445. Find this article online
Thompson J, Baird P, Downie J (2001) The Olivieri report. The complete
text of the independent inquiry commissioned by the Canadian
Association of University Teachers. Toronto: Lorimer. 584 p.
Rennie D (1997) Thyroid storm. JAMA 277: 1238-1243. Find this article
online
Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung M, Hayes JA, Chalmers TC (1994)
Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements
compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal.
JAMA 272: 108-113. Find this article online
Cho MK, Bero LA (1996) The quality of drug studies published in
symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 124: 485-489. Find this article
online
Huston P, Moher D (1996) Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity
of medical research. Lancet 347: 1024-1026. Find this article online
Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJM, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (1997) Impact of covert
duplicate publication on meta-analysis: A case study. BMJ 315:
635-640. Find this article online
Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Hoey J, Hojgaard L, et al. (2001)
Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Lancet 358: 854-856.
Find this article online
De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, et al. (2004)
Clinical trial registration: A statement from the International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 364: 911-912. Find this
article online
Godlee F, Jefferson T (2003) Peer review in health sciences, 2nd ed.
London: BMJ Publishing Group. 367 p.
Garrow J (2005 January) HealthWatch Award winner. HealthWatch 56:
4-5. Find this article online
Smith R (2003) Medical journals and pharmaceutical companies: Uneasy
bedfellows. BMJ 326: 1202-1205. Find this article online
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0020138

very interesting reading

tc

Tim Campbell wrote:

"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of
Pharmaceutical Companies
Richard Smith

"Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for
the pharmaceutical industry", wrote Richard Horton, editor of the
Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former

How true that statement is. That is why I stay away from M.D,s.

"George Lagergren" <gel44@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ywFSg.13524$v%4.11901@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
clerk?

Robert

Robert wrote:
There are other very qualified and very capable medical practitioners
other than MDs. MDs are no longer the sole option for medical care. In
fact, MDs are very quickly becoming the least trusted and the least
consulted medical practitioners out there.

And many people are beginning to consider even Medicine Men and Witch
Doctors to be more dependable than MDs in terms of actually resolving
medical issues.

Let's face it, if you want treatment, MDs are the ones to go to, but if
you actually want a cure, you'll have to see a Naturopath or a
Homeopath or a Chiropractor or a virtually anyone other than an
Allopathic MD.

The simple fact that most MDs have little to no education on the very
basic building block of health (ie. nutrition) pretty much castrates
their ability to provide useful health advice or to treat diet related
chronic conditions, which happens to be the bulk of their practice.
They are pretty much incapable of providing any useful relief to
patients unless you happen to need a bone set, or a cut cleaned and
stitched.

TC

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159971412.009177.145870@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com...
Is that so? Perhaps you can name a few diseases that these witch doctors can
cure that conventional medicine cannot.


Acne, accoustic neuroma, amebiasis, anaphylaxis, aneurysm, anthrax, aortic
stenosis, appendicitis, and athlete's foot are just a few diseases that real
doctors can cure the alties cannot. And that's the "A's," There is the whole
remaining alphabet if you want more. Also, these don't include the many
diseases for which there is no cure but which can be controlled by
conventional medicine to improve quality of life and longevity in those who
are afflicted by them.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Rich wrote:
All manner of back and joint problems (chiropractors). All manner of
diet related chronic disease, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, IBS,
Chrohn's, (naturopaths). There are many more conditions that can be and
are routinely successfully resolved by practitioners other than MDs,
that MDs can not treat with success or can only treat with very limited
success and surprisingly often treat in a manner that causes further
damage or damaging side effects.

MDs most definitely do not hold all the patents on healing people. In
fact, it has been shown that when they go on strike, fewer people die.

MDs cannot cure acne, but proper diet will.

MDs do not cure acoustic neuroma, they simply remove the tumor or
radiate it away. The condition that existed in the patients that led to
the development of the tunor is still present and very likely to cause
other problems.

Amebiasis is treated with anti-biotics, the last really useful
discovery in medical history.

Anaphylaxis, often brought on by allergies to medications prescribed by
guess who? an MD.

Aneurysm, treated by an operation that has its own deadly risks.

Anthrax, again treated with anti-biotics. Which could easily be
dispensed by people other than MDs.

Aortic Stenosis could be mostly avoided by proper nutrition and not the
SAD diet nor the AHA diet nor the ADA diet.

Appendicitis, interesting topic, until just a few years ago MDs had no
idea what the apendix was and what it did, they would routinely remove
it when doing other abdominal surgery. Real smart.

Athlete's foot, easily treated by wearing clean dry socks. What a
miraculous intervention.

Let's get going on the B's now.

TC

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159981223.504118.65610@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...
Chiropractors don't "cure" these problems. They produce temporary relief at
best. Conventional medicine physical therapists do as well or better, and
don't con the patient into returning for multiple costly "adjustments."

Chronic fatigue syndrome is a bogus diagnosis. Irritable bowel syndrome and
Crohn's disease cannot be cured by either real doctors or altie quacks.


Bullshit. Examples, please.

Real acne requires stronger treatment than diet changes, but dietary advice
will be proffered by the dermatologist. Your contention that a medical
doctor's education does not include nutrition is false.


Oh? and what "condition" do you propose leads to acoustic neuroma?


Anaphylaxis is much more often caused by allergic reactions to such things
as beesting or peanut ingestion. When it does occur from medication allergy,
it happens in a medical setting where it is routinely treatable, and almost
never fatal.


Time for risk/benefit analysis. If you have an abdominal aortic aneurysm
will you:

A. Do nothing.
B. Go to a naturopath.
C. Subject yourself to the "deadly risk" of surgery.

Do YOU know what antibiotic at what dose and for what duration is
appropriate for each and every type of infection? An MD is expected to.

Bullshit. Aortic stenosis has nothing at all to do with diet.

One thing that MD's have known for many years that the appendix does is to
get infected and kill you if it is not promptly surgically removed. If you
get appendicitis, your naturopath isn't going to be much help.



There are lots of intractable cases of fungal infection that need stronger
measures than clean socks. Ask any Vietnam vet.


Okay:

Bacteremia, Baker's cyst, Bell's palsy, bladder cancer, blepharitis, bone
fractures, bradycardia, brain abscesses, breast cancer, Briquet's syndrome,
bronchiolitis, brucellosis, bubonic plague, bunions, and burns.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Rich wrote:
Actually the modern chiropractor will offer adjustments as well as an
exercise program that will strengthen the weak muscles and lead to less
need for adjustments and that amounts to a long term solution. Granted,
some chiros will milk the patient, which IMHO is a behavior picked up
from the medical profession and which is rampant in the medical
profession.

Actually there are several similar diagnoses of combinations of
symptoms that habve been given various names, most of which the medical
profession hasn't a clue as to the cause or the cure, so their fallback
position is that the patients is making this shit up and the conditions
don't exist excpet in their minds. But I have seen it first hand and
I've seen the reaction of the MDs when they haven't a clue and I've
seen it cured by naturopaths.

Crohn's and other similar disorders can be arrested. It is arrested by
a 100% gluten-free diet. It may take up to a year or more, but it is
curable. Naturopaths know about this, MDs don't. Unfortunately, the
patient may have suffered irreparable intestinal damage by that time.
Just because the MD has nothing in his arsenal to cure it, does not
mean it cannot be cured.

Anxiety/depression can be cured with diet. MD's can only offer
dangerous and damaging anti-depressants.

Infections can be resolved with diet and nutritional supplements. MDs
have only anti-biotics to offer, some of which can begin a cycle of
infections that progressively gets worse.

Flus and colds will go away with the patient consuming healthy foods
and nutritional supplements, many MDs automatically prescribe
anti-biotics which leads to anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

Diabetes Type 2 can be controlled and reversed to some degree with
diet. MDs tell patients to continue eating damaging refined carbs and
control their BG with pills and insulin injections. This way they get
to treat them to their early deaths.

The immune system depends on nutrition to be able to fight off
infections. MDs insist on depending on crude vaccinations and applying
them to *infants* causing all kinds of problems.

Actually no. Diet is all that is necessary. And the dermatologist knows
no more about diet than the MD. If a medical doctor gets more than 3
months of superficial training about the fundamental of nutrition, he
is doing very good. And nutrition is rarely ever on his list of
treatments even when it obviously should be.


You tell me. Why is the symptom the only thing treated. The tumor is
not the disease, it is but one symptom.

Here is a hint: tumors occur as a result of malnourishment, the
breakdown in the function of cell is due to malnourishment.

Here is how you can see it first hand. Find an older dog or dogs that
have eaten real food their entire lives and you will see a tumor free
dog. Find any older dog fed bagged food from any dog food manufacturer
and you will a dog riddled with tumors.

People who are malnourished are more prone to Anaphylaxis. Again the MD
only treats the symptoms and the immediate results of Anaphylaxis and
ignores the underlying condition that may exarcerbate the symptom.

One of the few cases where the risk of the surgery is possibly less
than the risk of the condition. But the risk of surgery could be
greatly reduced by the practitioner in many ways that they ignore.

And other practitioners are incapable of that?

Narrowing of arteries and their general health, strength and
elasticity, etc., is most definitely directly tied to nutritional
status. That you fail to understand that little factoid tells me that
you are no better than a typical MD. You may want to read up on
collagen.

Do you know what its actual function is? It does have a function, and
an important one. MDs assumed for years that since they did not know
the function then it must be function-less. Now that is the kind of
institutional idiocy that pervades the profession.

Clean dry feet and good nutrition will go a long way in the typical MDs
patients lives. The lifestyle of a Vietnam vet in action is hardly
representative of a typical patient.

I'll be back with a response on those. No time right now.

TC

Bacteremia, Baker's cyst, Bell's palsy, bladder cancer, blepharitis,
bone
fractures, bradycardia, brain abscesses, breast cancer, Briquet's
syndrome,
bronchiolitis, brucellosis, bubonic plague, bunions, and burns.

****

Bacteremia

Causes
In the hospital, indwelling catheters are a frequent cause of
bacteremia and the subsequent nosocomial infections, because they
provide a means by which bacteria normally found on the skin can enter
the bloodstream. Other causes of bacteremia include dental procedures
(occasionally including simple tooth brushing), herpes (including
herpetic whitlow), urinary tract infections, IV drug use, and
colorectal cancer. Bacteremia may also be seen in oropharyngeal,
gastrointestinal or genitourinary surgery or exploration.

---

Interesting, most cases will occur as a result of MD style medical
treatment. The best defense is not to submit to MD treatment.

A strong immune system will guard against this. That means quality
nutrition. Quality nutrition should be part of the treatment should
someone contract this. But no MD will consider that, wil they?

*****

Baker's cyst

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/001222.htm

Treatment Return to top

Often no treatment is necessary and the practitioner can observe the
cyst over time.

It's a miracle!!!! MDs are so smart.

*****

Bell's palsy

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/b...tail_bells.htm

How is it Treated?

There is no cure or standard course of treatment for Bell's palsy. The
most important factor in treatment is to eliminate the source of the
nerve damage.

*****

bladder cancer

Cancers are a result of cellular malfunction due to malnourishment. MDs
prefer to use poisons to treat it (chemotherapy) which has varied
success rates, radiation to burn the tunors with varied success rates,
and/or surgery. All treatments only treat the symptom (ie the tumor)
and all have limited success rates and all have tragic effect on the
patient. And never does the MD consider other factors like nutrition to
be useful in the long term treatment.

****

Blepharitis refers to chronic inflammation of the eyelids. Blepharitis
is one of the most common disorder of the eye and is often the
underlying reason for eye discomfort, redness and tearing. Other eye
symptoms of blepharitis include: Burning, itching, light sensitivity,
and an irritating, sandy, gritty sensation that is worse upon
awakening.
There are 3 forms of blepharitis (staphylococcal, seborrheic and MGD).
All three forms of blepharitis are chronic in nature. Patients with
staphylococcal blepharitis are relatively young (mean age 42 years)
with a short history of ocular symptoms (mean 1.8 years). Patients with
seborrheic blepharitis and MGD blepharitis are generally older and have
a longer history of ocular symptoms.

----

Quality nutrition prevents and protects from such infections. Of course
the only treatment availbale to MDs is to prescribe anti-biotics.

*****

bone fractures - Eureka, the only area where MDs excel, hence the
nickname "Bones" often used to refer to MDs. Oddly enough it is also
the one area where almost anyone with a basic first aid certificate and
a bit of experience can actually excell as well.

*****

bradycardia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradycardia

Bradycardia (from greek brady=slow and cardia=heart), as applied in
adult medicine, is defined as a resting heart rate of under 60 beats
per minute, though it is seldom symptomatic until the rate drops below
50 beat/min [1]. Trained athletes tend to have slow resting heart
rates, and resting bradycardia in athletes should not be considered
abnormal if the individual has no symptoms associated with it.

The term relative bradycardia is used to explain a heart rate that,
while not technically below 60 beats per minute, is considered too slow
for the individual's current medical condition.

This cardiac arrhythmia can be underlied by several causes, which are
best divided into cardiac and non-cardiac causes. Non-cardiac causes
are usually secondary, and can involve drug use or abuse; metabolic or
endocrine issues, especially in the thyroid; an electrolyte imbalance;
neurologic factors; autonomic reflexes; situational factors such as
prolonged bed rest; and autoimmunity. Cardiac causes include acute or
chronic ischemic heart disease, vascular heart disease, valvular heart
disease, or degenerative primary electrical disease. Ultimately, the
causes act by three mechanisms: depressed automaticity of the heart,
conduction block, or escape pacemakers and rhythms.

Management
There are two main reasons for treating any cardiac arrhythmias. With
bradycardia, the first is to address the associated symptoms, such as
fatigue, limitations on how much an individual can physically exert,
fainting (syncope), dizziness or lightheadedness, or other vague and
non-specific symptoms. The other reason to treat bradycardia is if the
person's ultimate outcome (prognosis) will be changed or impacted by
the bradycardia. Treatment in this vein depends on whether any symptoms
are present, and what the underlying cause is. Primary or idiopathic
bradycardia is treated symptomatically if it is significant, and the
underlying cause is treated if the bradycardia is secondary.

----

I see no reason why MDs would be uniquely qualified to treat this
condition.

*******

brain abscesses

An infection. see my comments about nutrition and infections.

*****

breast cancer

see my comment on cancer

*****

Briquet's syndrome I

Also known as:
Briquet disorder
Brissaud-Marie syndrome

Associated persons:
Paul Briquet
Édouard Brissaud
Pierre Marie

Description:
A personality disorder in which alcoholism and somatisation disorder
occur. The patient reports multiple physical complaints for which there
is no physical evidence and which cause her or him to lead a life of
semi-invalidism, for which patients seek constant medical attention.
Flirtatiousness of female; juvenile sexual offence. In women, high
incidence of polysurgery. In men, history of criminal acts and
drinking. The symptoms usually begin in adolescence. Associated
disorders may include anxiety, depression, antisocial behaviour,
interpersonal and marital difficulties, and hallucinations. Prevalent
in females - very rare in men. A psychiatric disorder related (but not
invariably) to sexual dysfunction.

----

Similar condition to anxiety/depressive disorders which can always be
addressed to some degree by proper nutrition. MDs will ignore
malnourishment and vitamin deficiencies (notably the B vitamins) and
prescribe anti-depressants which have their own set of problems
associated with them.

*****

bronchiolitis

an infection, easily treated with quality nutrition and supplements.
The only option to MDs is anti-biotics.

*****

What is brucellosis?

Brucellosis is an infectious disease caused by the bacteria of the
genus Brucella. These bacteria are primarily passed among animals, and
they cause disease in many different vertebrates. Various Brucella
species affect sheep, goats, cattle, deer, elk, pigs, dogs, and several
other animals. Humans become infected by coming in contact with animals
or animal products that are contaminated with these bacteria. In humans
brucellosis can cause a range of symptoms that are similar to the flu
and may include fever, sweats, headaches, back pains, and physical
weakness. Severe infections of the central nervous systems or lining of
the heart may occur. Brucellosis can also cause long-lasting or chronic
symptoms that include recurrent fevers, joint pain, and fatigue

-----

see above

*****

bubonic plague

Infectious disease - see nutrition, anti-biotics

******

bunions

wear comfortable shoes. easily avoided. treat with painkillers, one of
the few tools useful to MDs, which many MDs abuse and misuse. And
available to other practitioners.

**********

burns - most can be treated effectively by non-MDs. Interestingly
enough, the body heals itself. All MDs try to do is keep infections
from occurring, see my notes on infections and nutrition. And often the
most dangerous part of burns is getting infected by bacteris including
any of several so-called superbugs in hospitals, which are caused by
MDs abusing anti-biotics.

****

TC

Great reply, TC. I enjoyed the read and look forward to the follow up.

Max.

TC wrote:

The problem is that both sides are too arrogant to admit that they don't
know everything, or think that they do!

Doctors, and alternate Health care practioners, both offer good advice to
their patients.

What they need to do, is stop arguing with each other and start working
together.

Dan- who's neither

Dan wrote:
Very well said and I agree whole heartedly. The first step is for the
MDs to realize that they most definitely do not have all the answers
and that others may have an answer or two that has validity.

TC

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159989274.878504.43410@c28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
Bacteremia, Baker's cyst, Bell's palsy, bladder cancer, blepharitis,
bone
fractures, bradycardia, brain abscesses, breast cancer, Briquet's
syndrome,
bronchiolitis, brucellosis, bubonic plague, bunions, and burns.

****

Bacteremia

Causes
In the hospital, indwelling catheters are a frequent cause of
bacteremia and the subsequent nosocomial infections, because they
provide a means by which bacteria normally found on the skin can enter
the bloodstream. Other causes of bacteremia include dental procedures
(occasionally including simple tooth brushing), herpes (including
herpetic whitlow), urinary tract infections, IV drug use, and
colorectal cancer. Bacteremia may also be seen in oropharyngeal,
gastrointestinal or genitourinary surgery or exploration.

---

Interesting, most cases will occur as a result of MD style medical
treatment. The best defense is not to submit to MD treatment.

A strong immune system will guard against this. That means quality
nutrition. Quality nutrition should be part of the treatment should
someone contract this. But no MD will consider that, wil they?

________________________________________

Although poor nutrition can result in poor immunity, there is no reason to
believe that once a baseline nutritional level is attained, that the immune
system can be supercharged by foods or food supplements. The altie quacks
like to sell the notion that the immune system is a continuum, strong or
weak. Actually, it works at about the same strength for everybody until it
fails. And people can be quite healthy even with suppressed immune systems,
as witnessed by the many healthy transplant recipients who live their lives
with artifically and intentionally weakened immunity. At the other end,
there are many who have perfectly healthy immune systems who succumb to
infections or to cancers. Diet is not a be-all end-all defense against
infection or cancer.

_________________________________________




*****

Baker's cyst

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/001222.htm

Treatment Return to top

Often no treatment is necessary and the practitioner can observe the
cyst over time.

It's a miracle!!!! MDs are so smart.

_______________________________________________

Often is not always. The doctor is qualified to know when intervention is
necessary and what intervention to apply.
_______________________________________________

*****

Bell's palsy

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/b...tail_bells.htm

How is it Treated?

There is no cure or standard course of treatment for Bell's palsy. The
most important factor in treatment is to eliminate the source of the
nerve damage.

_______________________________________________

And who but a doctor is qualified to determine what the source of the nerve
damage is and how to eliminate it.
_______________________________________________



*****

bladder cancer

Cancers are a result of cellular malfunction due to malnourishment.

_______________________________________________

Bullshit. There are many causes of cancer, but there is no evidence that
malnourishment is one of them, much less the only one.
_______________________________________________



MDs
prefer to use poisons to treat it (chemotherapy) which has varied
success rates, radiation to burn the tunors with varied success rates,
and/or surgery. All treatments only treat the symptom (ie the tumor)
and all have limited success rates and all have tragic effect on the
patient. And never does the MD consider other factors like nutrition to
be useful in the long term treatment.

_______________________________________________

Diet didn't cause the cancer. Diet won't cure it. The cure rate for many
kinds of cancer is remarkably good these days, and more and more cancers are
being moved into the curable column all the time.
_______________________________________________





****

Blepharitis refers to chronic inflammation of the eyelids. Blepharitis
is one of the most common disorder of the eye and is often the
underlying reason for eye discomfort, redness and tearing. Other eye
symptoms of blepharitis include: Burning, itching, light sensitivity,
and an irritating, sandy, gritty sensation that is worse upon
awakening.
There are 3 forms of blepharitis (staphylococcal, seborrheic and MGD).
All three forms of blepharitis are chronic in nature. Patients with
staphylococcal blepharitis are relatively young (mean age 42 years)
with a short history of ocular symptoms (mean 1.8 years). Patients with
seborrheic blepharitis and MGD blepharitis are generally older and have
a longer history of ocular symptoms.

----

Quality nutrition prevents and protects from such infections.

_______________________________________________

No, it doesn't.
_______________________________________________


Of course
the only treatment availbale to MDs is to prescribe anti-biotics.

_______________________________________________

Which work quite well, thank you.
_______________________________________________




*****

bone fractures - Eureka, the only area where MDs excel, hence the
nickname "Bones" often used to refer to MDs. Oddly enough it is also
the one area where almost anyone with a basic first aid certificate and
a bit of experience can actually excell as well.

_______________________________________________

Neither my basic first aid class, nor my training for a Paramedic III
license included training in the reduction of fractures. Nor would you want
an amateur to set your broken arm, especially without the benefit of
anaesthetic. Also, some fractures require surgery for internal fixation. No
first-aider can do that or even determine when it is necessary.
_______________________________________________




*****

bradycardia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradycardia

Bradycardia (from greek brady=slow and cardia=heart), as applied in
adult medicine, is defined as a resting heart rate of under 60 beats
per minute, though it is seldom symptomatic until the rate drops below
50 beat/min [1]. Trained athletes tend to have slow resting heart
rates, and resting bradycardia in athletes should not be considered
abnormal if the individual has no symptoms associated with it.

The term relative bradycardia is used to explain a heart rate that,
while not technically below 60 beats per minute, is considered too slow
for the individual's current medical condition.

This cardiac arrhythmia can be underlied by several causes, which are
best divided into cardiac and non-cardiac causes. Non-cardiac causes
are usually secondary, and can involve drug use or abuse; metabolic or
endocrine issues, especially in the thyroid; an electrolyte imbalance;
neurologic factors; autonomic reflexes; situational factors such as
prolonged bed rest; and autoimmunity. Cardiac causes include acute or
chronic ischemic heart disease, vascular heart disease, valvular heart
disease, or degenerative primary electrical disease. Ultimately, the
causes act by three mechanisms: depressed automaticity of the heart,
conduction block, or escape pacemakers and rhythms.

Management
There are two main reasons for treating any cardiac arrhythmias. With
bradycardia, the first is to address the associated symptoms, such as
fatigue, limitations on how much an individual can physically exert,
fainting (syncope), dizziness or lightheadedness, or other vague and
non-specific symptoms. The other reason to treat bradycardia is if the
person's ultimate outcome (prognosis) will be changed or impacted by
the bradycardia. Treatment in this vein depends on whether any symptoms
are present, and what the underlying cause is. Primary or idiopathic
bradycardia is treated symptomatically if it is significant, and the
underlying cause is treated if the bradycardia is secondary.

----

I see no reason why MDs would be uniquely qualified to treat this
condition.

_______________________________________________

Get real! You post four paragraphs describing bradycardia as a condition
with many causes, which of course implies many treatment options, then state
that a medical education is not necessary to determine the cause of a
specific case and design a course of treatment. I suppose you are going to
go to an iridologist when your heartrate is 40 and putting on your shoes is
a project that takes an hour and exhausts you.
_______________________________________________





*******

brain abscesses

An infection. see my comments about nutrition and infections.

_______________________________________________

No amount of nutrition is going to protect you from getting a brain abscess.
Nor will nutrition cure it when you get one.
_______________________________________________




*****

breast cancer

see my comment on cancer

_______________________________________________

See my comment on nutrition and cancer.
_______________________________________________




*****

Briquet's syndrome I

Also known as:
Briquet disorder
Brissaud-Marie syndrome

Associated persons:
Paul Briquet
Édouard Brissaud
Pierre Marie

Description:
A personality disorder in which alcoholism and somatisation disorder
occur. The patient reports multiple physical complaints for which there
is no physical evidence and which cause her or him to lead a life of
semi-invalidism, for which patients seek constant medical attention.
Flirtatiousness of female; juvenile sexual offence. In women, high
incidence of polysurgery. In men, history of criminal acts and
drinking. The symptoms usually begin in adolescence. Associated
disorders may include anxiety, depression, antisocial behaviour,
interpersonal and marital difficulties, and hallucinations. Prevalent
in females - very rare in men. A psychiatric disorder related (but not
invariably) to sexual dysfunction.

----

Similar condition to anxiety/depressive disorders which can always be
addressed to some degree by proper nutrition. MDs will ignore
malnourishment and vitamin deficiencies (notably the B vitamins) and
prescribe anti-depressants which have their own set of problems
associated with them.

_______________________________________________

Nutrition will not cure psychiatric disorders, either.
_______________________________________________




*****

bronchiolitis

an infection, easily treated with quality nutrition and supplements.
The only option to MDs is anti-biotics.

_______________________________________________

If it's viral, no treatment is necessary. If it's bacterial, antibiotics
will help. Nutrition and supplements won't.
_______________________________________________



*****

What is brucellosis?

Brucellosis is an infectious disease caused by the bacteria of the
genus Brucella. These bacteria are primarily passed among animals, and
they cause disease in many different vertebrates. Various Brucella
species affect sheep, goats, cattle, deer, elk, pigs, dogs, and several
other animals. Humans become infected by coming in contact with animals
or animal products that are contaminated with these bacteria. In humans
brucellosis can cause a range of symptoms that are similar to the flu
and may include fever, sweats, headaches, back pains, and physical
weakness. Severe infections of the central nervous systems or lining of
the heart may occur. Brucellosis can also cause long-lasting or chronic
symptoms that include recurrent fevers, joint pain, and fatigue

-----

see above

*****

bubonic plague

Infectious disease - see nutrition, anti-biotics

_______________________________________________

If you try to treat either brucellosis or plague with nutrition and
supplements, the result will usually be death.
_______________________________________________









******

bunions

wear comfortable shoes. easily avoided. treat with painkillers, one of
the few tools useful to MDs, which many MDs abuse and misuse. And
available to other practitioners.

_______________________________________________

Bunions are best treated with surgery.
_______________________________________________




**********

burns - most can be treated effectively by non-MDs. Interestingly
enough, the body heals itself. All MDs try to do is keep infections
from occurring, see my notes on infections and nutrition. And often the
most dangerous part of burns is getting infected by bacteris including
any of several so-called superbugs in hospitals, which are caused by
MDs abusing anti-biotics.

_______________________________________________

Hospitals are not the only places where burns can get infected. And
treatment of severe burns involves a lot more than just preventing
infection. The skin is the body's largest organ, and injury to it can result
in serious systemic problems. Of immediate concern is dehydration as fluid
and electrolytes leak out of the body through the burned tissues. Lots of IV
fluids are indicated, something your homeopath is not going to be able to
provide. Then there are strategies for preventing scarring from causing loss
of function, and also methods of minimizing disfigurement. Skin grafts are
something you won't get from your witch doctor, either. Psychiatric
counseling may be necessary, too. Shrinks are MD's, too, you know.
_______________________________________________

In all fairness, I left out one "B" that IS treated with nutrition, and that
is bedsores. (Actually the proper medical term is "decubiti" so it would
fall under "D," but I'm tired of this game and don't intend to go that far.)
_______________________________________________

--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:niSUg.165$8C4.0@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Right out of the mouth of Barrett. Who he shills for.

How sad for a so-called nurse.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocSu m

"Dan" <danlorone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2QTUg.4944$Y24.946@newsread4.news.pas.earthli nk.net...

Typical MD-type thinking. No training in nutrition, no basic
understanding of nutrition, no inkling of the value of nutrition,
therefore unable to appreciate the basic fundamental need for quality
nutrition for quality health. Oh yeah, and the absence of doubt that
they know-it-all. That piece of paper that comes with the MD degree is
just that, a piece of paper and no more.

TC

Rich wrote:

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160070454.690161.267730@c28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
Typical MD-type thinking. No training in nutrition, no basic
understanding of nutrition, no inkling of the value of nutrition,
therefore unable to appreciate the basic fundamental need for quality
nutrition for quality health. Oh yeah, and the absence of doubt that
they know-it-all. That piece of paper that comes with the MD degree is
just that, a piece of paper and no more.


__________________________________________________

It's more like you are doing typical "naturopath" thinking -- a monomaniacal
obsession with nutrition in which all disease is caused by "improper
nutrition" or "malnutrition," and all disease can be cured with nutritional
supplements. It just isn't so. But "When all you have is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail."

--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Rich wrote:
Not all conditions, just a lot more than you Mds are aware of.

The MDs hammer? Surgery and prescription drugs.

TC

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160098855.010087.121020@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
I'm not an "MD."

As I said before, the notion that medical doctors get no education in
nutrition is a myth. They, and their schools, are just not obsessed with the
subject, and are capable of understanding that there are many more factors
in human physiology, and many more treatment options than focusing only on
nutrition. It would be nice if everybody followed their doctor's advice.
Then she could tell the patient to eat a balanced diet without excessive
calories, and to get plenty of exercise, and that would be the end of that.
People would still get sick, though. Despite your fantasies, perfect
nutrition will not prevent all disease.


When you get YOUR appendicitis, or your kidney stone, you'll greatly
appreciate surgery and prescription drugs.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/