Canada Values Health - Dialogue on Health Care -

Do we need to lessen our dependence on drugs to treat symptoms and place more emphasis on alternative medicine to assist healing?

2009-03-09 09:11:53

This topic was suggested by you. To help create a new topic, please click on the link above.

"Health care should not be synonymous with pharmaceuticals. Real health care can only be achieved through education and the use of integrative medicine (e.g. naturopaths, homeopaths, network spinal analysis, environmental doctors, holistic nutritionists, energy work, etc.) We need to lessen our dependence on drugs which treat symptoms only (not the underlying cause of the illness) and create a host of other health issues, and focus on the provision of integrative medicine which assists in the healing process."

- A CanadaValuesHealth.ca visitor

Your responses
We need to get on the proper treatments Bevin Black Posted: 2010-02-11 05:52:53 We are paying to duplicate, over and over the same research. This Swiss study in 2001, found that MS patients, had a 224% higher level of endothelin (ET-1). Endothelin is one of the most potent known vasoconstrictors. The University of BC, McMaster, and the MS society will be spending millions this year to duplicate Zamboni's findings of venous blockages in the neck, in MS patients. We know, before we do this, that the blood vessels will only restrict again in these patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11315981 I saw my Uncle go through this 10 years ago. He died anyway, a few years later (MS) Why don't we just treat the disease with the Marshall Protocol, and be done with it. Olmetec, is the answer, along with pulsed antibiotics, to get the blood flowing properly. Lets quit burning money! Bevin Black
Of Course jwickstrom Posted: 2009-11-23 22:33:07 Many good points are made above. Let me add a few more derived from thirty years of study in the field. Ranked number 30 in the world for overall health etc. is a very poor result considering the amount of money contributed to the problem. There are so many factors involved it is hard to come up with a solution. We know big pharma spends billions on advertising and marketing. Not just to the public but to doctors, universities, government, media, children and the rest of us. The uneducated believe the claims, trust the doctors and universities, less so the government itself. The educated distrust any new therapies that are NON- MEDICAL. These citizens recieve the best medical care, numerous expensive procedures, tests, hopefully to arrive at a diagnosis.(50%or less accurate) Then often, untested procedures, surgeries, therapy for recovery, medications, appliances. Often this high tech medical care comes with a risk to the patient's health with LARGE expenses covered by the public purse. The big pharma does not help by embellishing,inventing or resurrecting mild disorders into life threatening disease. Classic example; osteoporosis, a normal result of NORMAL AGING and INACTIVITY. is now major DISEASE and if possible somehow every doctor believes that every middle aged and elderly female should now struggling to increase bone mass with chemicals? Albeit some are be beneficial (vit d, phosphorus etc.) How about some exercise for these basically lazy people.. Lets call an apple an apple. Obesity in most cases has the same cause. Prescribing antidepressants, or any other brain-mood altering drug to infants and young children has got to be the most insane idea anyone has ever come up with. (Probably big pharma). Or how about prescribing medications designed and meant for depression now used for a sleep-aid, or pain killer "cause it helps" this is modern scientific medicine.? They are so numerous; the avenues of wasted time and effort and money to run this cock-eyed over-valued medical system we call health care in Canada. I'll be back, like Arnie would say. jw
30th and 37 places docmike Posted: 2009-07-08 08:43:11 I'm a US Chiropractor considering moving to Canada. Mostly due to the problems that come from working in a health care system that places quarterly profits for the drug and insurance companies over the long term health of the public. This helps put the US 37th on the World Health Organization list of health care systems, and Canada doesn't come in much better at 30th inspite of the touted virtues of a supposedly better health care system. Ten years ago when I was in Chiropractic school, almost all of my Canadian classmates wanted to stay in the US after graduation. They said the government insurance plan discriminated against Chiropractic and made it easier to earn a living in the US than in Canada. Have things changed much since then? Or are drugs and surgeries for the masses still preferred over prevention and health?
CAMs are not entirely without harm ms1234 Posted: 2009-03-28 15:48:51 Thought complementary and alternative medicines can provide relief and help for many, people must understand that "natural" does not mean harmless. Unregulated chemicals (e.g. homeopathy, herbal medications, etc) can still have many potentially harmful effects that are unpredictable and unstudied. This is in contrast to pharmaceuticals that are well studied with well-known side-effect profiles, which also allows physicians to prescribe them judiciously. In addition, the chemical interactions that can exist between "natural" medications and "synthetic" medications are poorly realized.
Of course we do Nutrition Sleuth Posted: 2009-03-18 07:14:04 I know many solutions to health issues and have in witnessed many cures. None were related in any way to chemical drugs. In fact, all are natural safe effective and vastly cheaper that drugs too. The health regulations and policies and laws come from big chemical companies that puppeteer with our politicians and regulators who are easily misled by biased and invalid studies presented as science. ie: Vioxx, Sutent, Prepulsid, etc x200 For example: Bone loss and fracture rates keep rising which means, the poisonous chemical bisphosphonates have been indisputably proven to NOT WORK. They have also been indisputably proven to permanently halt healthy bone renewal functions that are essential for the maintenance of bone strength and the prevention of fractures. These chemical provide no benefits and cause outrageous permanent harm. So why do we continue with them? Solely corporate profit. I know the nutirents that truly solve the bone loss problem and I have seen it work and continue to work, but only in those that have never taken the chemicals. No one seems to care because everyone thinks the real wealth and power of these corporations has their interests at heart. The reality is they want you sick and paying, which we are. There are lots of scientifically proven cures for virtually every one of our epidemic degenerative diseases. The only way they will emerge is if health claims are deregulated so that natural vitamin D3 products can state "reduces the risk of cancer by 80%" on the label (which is indisputably scientifically proven,....even confirmed in an announcement last summer from the Canadian Cancer Society). The Natural Health Products Directorate is a licensing for profit sham from top to bottom, so it like Health Canada, needs to be disposed of. These entities decide for you and I what we can legally access for our health and they are all corrupt puppets of the chemical/parma industry. That is why Canadians are likely the sickest population on the planet with the very worst health system, which of course is not a popular viewpoint. However, it is the truth. The World Health Organization 2002 Special Report on Cancer proved that Canadians and Americans, bear almost 10% of the global cancer deaths per year, yet are only 5% of the gloabl population. Be careful who you listen to, you know, those who claim North Americans have the best health care systems in the world. It is simply not true. They are in fact the very worst, even subordinate to countries that have no organized health system at all. Also of note is the fact that the WHO is encouraging the USA and Canada to intergate complimentary natural forms of treatment into our chemical based one. I say do it, and right away.
evidence based medicine lpmoyer Posted: 2009-03-13 18:14:28 I have never seen a pharmacutical without a long list of side effects, I guess that is what people waant for evidence based medicine. How about an alternative like Homeopathy that has no known side effects, and can cure more things gently than our present system. This can be seen in practice in the medical systems in many other countries in the world. The most advanced cancer clinic in Oreagon,USA uses homeopathy with a great success rate, while we must be cut drugged and burnt for survival. Most times the cure is worse than the disease, and then it comes back again and we get poisoned again. hopefully this council will enlighten themselves about real healing instead of pharma based business.
YES--BUT NOT AT EXPENSE OF MEDICINE chasn Posted: 2009-03-12 12:28:21 Most Philosophers agree that balance in all things promotes a better life. Accordingly seeking that balance in different medical approaches is the most likely way to ensure best health. However balance, not emphasis, is the key!
Wholistic Approach blynn Posted: 2009-03-12 11:38:21 I agree that more prevention can occur if other health professions are involved (i.e. physio, dietitian, psychologist, etc.), but their practices should be evidence-based and not contradict each other. Also, drugs are necessary for some due to health conditions, but I do not believe they should be given out so freely in some cases. For examples...antidepressants are given out without the need for someone to seek counselling to help make lifestyle changes, etc. There are some that really need antidepressants, pain meds, etc., but you still need to make overall changes to your life if you expect any therapy to help.
Evidence Based Medicine mariellb Posted: 2009-03-11 12:20:04 To get the most bang for your buck, we should be investing only in medications which have evidence that they actually work. Why should we invest in drugs which are not regulated and not shown to work (or even proven NOT to work) such as many herbal or alternative medicines when we have effective medication that don't rely on the placebo effect? How about the "natural" sleeping aids that were found to contain benzodiazepines (which are prescription, but the government doesn't yet regulate what holistics put in their drugs), but were apparently safe to just be sold over the counter instead of regulated, resulting in death? Pharmaceuticals have been reported unsafe just as often as "natural" medicines, only the dangers of prescription drugs are more often publicized. As well, the negative effects of natural medications may seem like less because they have limited effect in your body at all (lower positive effects too). I don't believe that pharmaceuticals are the answer either though, and I am a pharmacist. Any good doctor will encourage lifestyle modifications of diet and exercise before or along with prescribing medications. Unfortunately though because our health care system does not focus on prevention, we get to the point that we do need statins to prevent death. The only alternative medicine that I believe should be used are that with evidence and safety behind them: preventitive medicine.
genetic variation realist Posted: 2009-03-11 06:56:15 The reality is that some patients have a genetic susceptibility to some diseases. Despite making lifestyle changes they will still need medication. Having a healthy lifestyle is very helpful however but many studies show that this has to do more with economic status than other things. ie people living in poverty tend to have worse health while people with a higher income not only have better health but also are more likely to have investigations such as an MRI. Does this mean that patients who are more wealthy are provided with better health care or are they just better at advocating for themselves because of their education? Is the education system really the place to provide more equality in health since social determinants play a role in one's health? Leading a healthy life depends on many things and is not just a matter of telling people to use fewer medications. Medications are often necessary but patients should know the risks of taking them or not and make this decision in a fully informed way.
The last resort Tracy Lister Posted: 2009-03-09 09:52:21 Pharmaceuticals should be the last resort. All other interventions such as diet, exercise and any other evidence based practice should be exhausted before we take a "pill" to treat an ailment. Most people taking medications are unware of the side effects and at times take other drugs to treat the side effects and so on and so on. Should be take statins to prevent a heart attack? Why not change our diet, exercise and loose body fat to prevent a heart attack?