Talk about health

Following on from my previous posting, the letter signed by 13 scientists and doctors urging all non-tested treatments to be removed from the NHS in the UK has caused lots of reaction. As one comment mentioned, very few current surgical procedures have been scientifically tested, and many drugs have limited value.

One science editor in the media said that we taxpayers should stop wasting millions of pounds on treatments that do not work. He was talking about alternative therapies, but should he have included the conventional treatments that don't work as well? And how about the costs of dealing with the side effects of drugs?

Perhaps he was exaggerating a little. The figures I've seen are that the NHS spends £70 billion a year (£70,000,000,000), and of that just £3 million goes towards complementary therapies. I make that 0.004% of total spending. As a proportion its not very much.

I am not advocating wasting any money just for the sake of expanding alternatives to conventional therapy. There has to be some logic and proof that something has a chance of working to improve health. But, it doesn't have to be purely scientific proof.

Prince Charles is quoted as saying, "Many of today's complementary therapies are rooted in ancient traditions that intuitively understood the need to maintain balance and harmony with our minds, bodies and the natural world. Much of this knowledge, often based on oral traditions, is sadly being lost, yet orthodox medicine has so much to learn from it."

And that is a great summing up of the situation, in my opinion. Too many doctors have blinkers on, so they choose not to see the living proof of the successes of alternative therapies. They hide behind the "we must have scientific proof" shield.

The result is that many more people are denied the chance of better health unless they are prepared to do it themselves, and invest some time and effort into finding out what is available.

In his letter, Professor Baum claimed that there is no proof that homeopathy works. Yet over the space of 24 years there have been 298 trials, analysed on four separate occasions. Each time the conclusion was that homeopathy was mcuh better than placebo.

The problem here is that scientists don't know how it can possibly work. They want to see the facts of how it works. But, the mystery of how homeopathy works doesn't mean that it doesn't work. There are many body systems and illnesses that we have no idea about - yet.

Homeopathy has been shown to work in asthma, influenza, pain, anxiety, chronic fatigue, migrains and more.

Many people are helped by homeopathy after conventional medicine has failed to help them.

I simply cannot accept that alternative therapies are unproven and a waste of money. They can do a lot of good for a great many people. Don't be persuaded by a few jaundiced professors and misguided journalists. Find out more for yourself. Go on over to my site at www.healthexplored.co.uk to find out more about alternative therapies, what they are and what they could do for you.

I don't know how they do it. How do the conventional "experts" manage to get such widespread publicity for their views? Today, some professor of pharmacology says that all complementary and alternative therapies should be banned from the NHS in the UK because they don't work.

It makes my blood boil. His view is that there is no scientific proof that CAM works, while conventional drugs do. It makes me wonder which drug company sponsors his research. He didn't mention it and no one has asked him, yet. He clearly thinks that the vastly expensive and occasionally fatal drugs of today cure disease.

Being an expert, I suppose he is aware of the damage drugs can do. Thousands of people die each year as a consequence of overzealous or faulty prescribing, and many more suffer side effects.

And the good Professor reckons that we could save enormous amounts of cash that could then be spent prescribing more powerful medication.

I can't deny the many good things about conventional medicine, but neither can I ignore the evidence that CAM does many good things too. The Professor called for scientific evidence that CAM does any good at all. But, it isn't the be-all-and-end-all. Clinical trials need lots of money to do properly. Who is going to provide it? Certainly not the drug companies. They won't make profits from natural remedies.

Do we really need such trials when there is so much anecdotal evidence around. To me, all the people who have been successfully treated by CAM speaks volumes. They are the basis for the success of alternative medicine. Yes, we should have some scientific evidence as well. And that will come, given time.

Just remember how many people have been harmed by side effects and the rest, mainly due to conventional therapy. And check on the benefits of the alternatives to satisy yourself that it might be just the thing for you. In the scheme of things, alternative therapies are not expensive.

Perhaps we need a review of all therapies to discover what is necessary and what the costs are. Only then should we decide what will be available on the NHS and what each individual needs to pay for himself or herself. For instance, is plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons to be included in a FREE service when cancer therapy is denied. It all depends on your point of view.

Dismissing all complementary and alternative therapies is not, I repeat not, the answer.

You know, I'm beginning to get a reputation among my friends as being the "one that watches what he eats". Were people being nasty to me, I wondered. Maybe they were, but why should I care when I eat mostly what is good for me. It struck me that many people find it difficult, to get away from some widely accepted behaviour.

I was a child in the 50's when sugar and sweets were something reserved for special occasions, such as birthdays, Christmas and so on. Chocolate was a reward for a job well done, a chore successfully completed, a test passed. And, I suppose that thinking has come down through the years in my brain.

However, I am not alone. The food industry has worked hard to perpetuate the thought of sweet food and chocolates being a treat. The result is that, almost without thinking, when we want to give a friend, family member or colleague a small present we automatically walk to the sweet counter.

The human race has evolved with a delight for things sweet, partly because they were few of them around in those long-off days. Now in the 21st century, our bodies enjoy the sweet treat as our ancestors did. The difference is that such things are commonplace. No longer are they something for the occasional celebration.

To give you a recent example, my wife and I were going to visit our nephews. We should take a gift for them. What do we buy? Correct! Chocolate bars. There's no way these boys had been deprived of chocolate. In fact, they get money regularly for just such a treat ... almost daily! But, there we were, buying more.

To have given them nothing would mean dropping in the popularity stakes at their house. Or would it? What do you take if not sweets? (Any suggestions gratefully received.) Cash is no answer either. My uncle used to flip me a coin when he visited, and I just spent it. And they are hardly in need of money in any case. Computer games are costly, and they've probably got them already.

Anyway, that isn't the point of this little rant.

It suits the food industry to have created this mindset in us. Their profits show that only too clearly. My point is, why do we insist on heading for the sweet shop all the time. Refined sugar is harming our health. It poisons our immune system and feeds harmful bacteria and viruses. It makes us fat and gives us diabetes. It rots our teeth. But, it tastes so very good, we don't really think of the consequences.

Perhaps we should care a little more for both ourselves and those whom we think about buying even more refined sugar.

Next time you go to friends for an evening out, take the bottle of wine, but skip the sugar and get a few flowers instead ... unless they suffer from hay fever!

I suppose, like most of us, you've been influenced by the avalanche of publicity about skin cancer and the necessity to slap on a sunscreen before you rush out and get some rays.

Too much sun means increasing the risk of developing skin cancer, some versions of which can be fatal if not caught in time.

It seems a simple task to look after your skin health, doesn't it? But, like most things to do with health, it's not that simple after all. Sure enough, excess and burning sunshine can cause skin cancer and melanoma, but we all need some sun in moderation.

It's vitamin D. Vitamin D is essential to our continuing good health. It's an necessary part of our hormone system and is involved in repair of damaged DNA, as well as essential for keeping your bones in good order. More recently vitamin D has become recognised as an anti-cancer vitamin.

Trials have found it lowers the risk of developing breast cancer, and it stops cancers developing by turning cells back to "normal" and slowing the formation of new blood vessels that cancers need to grow.

What's this got to do with sunscreens?

Well, we need sun on our skin to make vitamin D, otherwise we can only get it from fish oils or supplements. Anything that interferes with our digestion, from diarrhoes to Crohn's disease, antacids to cholesterol-lowering drugs, and toxic chemicals lowers vitamin D levels.

Fish oils also have vitamin A in them and this can interfere with the benefits of vitamin D, although halibut liver oil is better than cod liver oil for vitamin D content.

So, the best way to improve your vitamin D level is by judicious use of 10 to 15 minutes bursts of sun. Sunscreens stop all of that. Vitamin D may even help speed up your tanning.

And ... the chemicals in sunscreens are being tested to see whether they can cause skin cancer all by themselves. Some trials have suggested that they do, while others haven't. It's a blow, because many people, including me, use a sunscreen to protect exposed arms, face and other parts.

Is it the sunscreen causing the cancer or is it the combination of sunscreen and sun on your skin that does the damage? No one has the answer, yet. But, there is some doubt that sunscreens are as safe as they might be.

What to do? Until we get more research details, there is no definitive answer, just a niggling little doubt. My view, for what it's worth? Get your daily ten minutes unprotected sun to maximise your vitamin D, then cover up and don't get burned. Use sunscreens on exposed skin if you must, but not to excess, and be careful. And, very importantly, see your doctor if in any doubt about skin damage, moles etc.

I've written some more about this very subject in my latest newsletter. Sign up for it FR EE on my site http://healthexplored.co.uk , where you'll also find a range of health publications.

Over the most of the time I have been involved in the pharmacy business I've probably been too busy trying to earn a living to worry too much about the drugs I sold over-the-counter or supplied on prescription to my many patients. It's only in the past six or seven years that I had the inclination to consider how things have changed.

I was a child about the time when penicillin became available, and was truly grateful for its actions. It probably kept me alive then, when my health was none too good.

The intervening years were highlighted by various breakthroughs in drug design and treatments. I along with many others were dazzled by the science and the apparent advantages to mankind.

But now, the drug world is dominated by a few multi-national drug giants, making vast annual profits and which now wield enormous political power. And now, we can all see some of the disadvantages of having all that power in relatively few hands.

Companies have been accused of suppressing clinical trials results that didn't suit their purposes. The company that marketed the anti-arthritis drug, Vioxx, is fighting for its life in the US courts in the face of thousands of lawsuits. This follows the revelation that Vioxx can increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

One observer has calculated that if the company loses half of these cases, it will go bankrupt. I have no idea of this is true, and we'll have to wait and see.

But I've just read of another problem for the same company. This time, its osteoporosis drug is sited as causing unexpected side effects, and the company finds itself in court again.

All of this is on top of the publicity caused after six youg men in the UK reacted badly to a single dose of a trial drug.

Meanwhile, there are websites out there which reveal the many drawbacks of conventional drug therapy.

I have come to understand that complementary and alternative therapies have a lot to offer, and it's tempting in the light of all the negative publicity to close your eyes to conventional drug treatments altogether.

But, I rekon that all it takes is some calm perspective. The health picture is complex and personal. Take on overview of what's on offer, and cherry-pick what suits your needs.

In order to do that you owe it to yourself to find out what the various therapies have to offer. A little knowledge need not be a dangerous thing at all. It brings lots of things into focus and clears the path.

The last few years have been something of a revelation to me. I thought alternative therapies were a bit "way out" for me. But, no more! In many cases, their logic and accomplishments can equal or even surpass convention.

The bottom line is that all therapies have something to offer; something to contribute to your health picture. Don't be left out. Check out our booklet and report selection at www.healthexplored.co.uk