Talk about health

It's good to know both sides of an argument, or so I understand. Only one side can be biased and misleading. What everyone needs is balance. Unfortunately, the doctrine of balance doesn’t reach into every aspect of reporting. Twice in the past few days I’ve come across examples of bias in health reports, and it makes me angry. Reporters and program makers clearly don’t share an open mind or look for reasonable conclusions.

The first instance concerned a hospital professor who wished to test claims of super foods, probiotics and so on. Sponsored by a TV company, she trotted out the usual mainstream, conventional medical thoughts on diet that I’ve come to recognise. You know the kind of thing – balanced diet is all you need, why bother with probiotics because it doesn’t really affect health, and so on. It’s just one big yawn.

Then, while she was discussing foods that lower cholesterol, she informed us that she had high cholesterol but was taking a statin drug for it. Why, therefore, would she even consider controlling her cholesterol with diet? A tablet a day and she was fine, thank you very much.

Cue a heated one-way discussion between the TV and me. How can a highly qualified, intelligent medical person be allowed to get away with that? No mention of side effects. No concern about long-term medication. No thought of changing diet to a healthier version. No trace of wonder that avoiding the drug might be preferable. No nothing! Just a large measure of complacency.

Apart from my instant anger, I was disgusted to see that the medical profession has apparently not moved forward in the past decades. They still see treatment as a pill for each symptom. And treat each side effect with another pill. Until the patient (you) ends up taking handfuls of tablets at every meal or even in place of every meal.

I hadn’t long calmed down from that when I read an article in which a doctor had claimed one of his patients had died from taking glucosamine to help his arthritis. The piece went into some detail of this poor man’s symptoms as justification for demanding all alternative remedies be subject to the same legal requirements as drugs. It ended with two sentences from a representative of the herbal profession on the forthcoming European laws regarding supplements and remedies. So much for balance.

What got me going in this case was the lack of details on the case. For instance, was glucosamine the only thing involved? Was he also taking medicines for other conditions or perhaps painkillers for his arthritis as well? How did the doctor come to the conclusion that glucosamine was the thing that caused his death? He was sure it was the glucosamine that caused the death, but why? Had he eliminated all other possibilities?

I have no reason to protect glucosamine. Everything I’ve read about it suggests it is safe and effective. But, I’m prepared to accept that it might be involved in some unfortunate train of events that lead to the ultimate side effect. But I would like some more proof, not just some doctor’s opinion.

While we’re on it, I would like a little context, too. Tell me how many deaths are caused by this doctor’s regulated and approved drugs for arthritis. None, presumably, or we would have heard of them. Wouldn’t we?

Anti-arthritis drugs have caused many thousands of deaths worldwide and I don’t remember the media giving each death the prominence afforded this one. And there have been no claims for the removal of theses drugs from the market. Well, that’s not true. One was removed a couple of years ago because of its exceptional record of causing death. The rest remain for you if you want them.

Don’t ignore this casualty of glucosamine, if that is what it is. Lets get to the bottom of it and find out why a seemingly safe remedy proved not to be safe at all. While you’re at, lets be told the safety record for the prescribable arthritis drugs.

These instances of mainstream medicine ignoring the very basis of health and medicine are all too common in the media. People, even doctors, are entitled to their opinions. But so are the rest of us. The constant one-sided view of health as portrayed without any critical analysis leads the non-medical among us to think that there is no other view worthy of consideration. It’s down to drugs and surgery or nothing.

Its time the media reviewed their rules on balance to include health along with politics. Not that I want them to be mixed, you understand. Don’t start me on our politicians!

Health isn’t solely a conventional medical thing. Convention must be in the mix, but it certainly does not hold all the answers. It has a pretty poor record on safety of medicines. It is responsible for many deaths that might have been avoided if it had taken a wider and less singular view.

Perhaps I should retire to a cave with no TV and no newspapers!

Contact me through http://www.healthexplored.co.uk . Sign up to my fr ee newsletter and check out the reports on stomach acid, cholesterol, pain, stress, and acupuncture. I pride myself that I try to see and understand all views on health. Only then can you decide which one or combination suits your situation and beliefs.

Stay well!