An Aspirin a Day???

The advice of an aspirin a day has always irked me. I've always seen it as the medical machine's pathetic attempt to jump on the "prevention" bandwagon. "See, we're progressive; we understand prevention." Yeah, right...aspirin...prevention...tsk, tsk.

Well, current research shows that for healthy people, an aspirin a day may actually do more harm than good. British scientists with the Aspirin for Asymptomatic Atherosclerosis (AAA) project have uncovered that the risk of bleeding is great enough that its routine use in healthy people "cannot be supported". Healthy people were those with no underlying cardiac or vascular problems.

Aspirin has been recommended as a blood clotting preventative by medical doctors for about 50 years. In the mid-1980s, despite there being very little conclusive evidence, the FDA was convinced to push aspirin as a preventive drug for heart attacks. Even mega super-star physician, Mehmet Oz in his book, You: The Owners Manual, pushes aspirin as a wonder drug. His Twitter post from two months ago proclaims,

BABY ASPIRIN, taken once daily, is proven to reduce stroke, heart attack, and many cancers. Kudos to those who got it right.

I hate to be the one to tell Dr. Oz, but: It's not right!!!

I evaluate health from one simple philosophy: The human body, in it's infinite intelligence, knows exactly what to do and when to do it. Do neglected bodies have internal disruptions such that they are unable to self-regulate efficiently? Absolutely. Are drugs under these circumstances useful? Absolutely. Do healthy people, with their complete capacity to self-heal and self-regulate need a foreign substance, a drug, to keep them functioning properly? Did they 200 years ago? 1000 years ago? We have evolved without drugs, haven't we?

I'm no proponent of going back to an earlier age for a blue print on how we should live; but to me the answer is obvious. The notion that we need a daily drug to maintain our health and well being is a myth pushed on us by a cultural authority. But thanks to the objective eye of science, we now know--it's wrong! It looks to me that the real health care crisis in this country is being exposed, and a political and cultural giant is being pounded to its knees.

Ban Online Medical Reviews?

Should you have the opportunity to rate and review doctors online? This is a current topic of controversy, as some doctors' groups are seeking gag orders to prevent patients' reviews.

What do you think? Do value reviews posted from previous or current clients? Or should they be for non-medical businesses only? According to Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a North Carolina neurosurgeon who has made a business of helping doctors monitor and prevent online criticism, "Consumers and patients are hungry for good information" about doctors, but Internet reviews provide just the opposite. Dr. Segal believes that online reviews are not constructive in helping medical practices improve, and that sniping comments can unfairly ruin a doctor's practice.

Several online rating sites exist. RateMDs.com and Angie's List are just two sites that provide reviews of MDs. Satisfied customers can post on their doctors, just as I did for the OB who delivered our eldest daughter Delilah (mine is dated 3/7/09). But disgruntled patients can also post, and likely more of these post than happy customers. Just call it the law of "bad press." Happy customers might be satisfied (or more) with their care, but they usually just go about their lives not sharing it with anyone. Disgruntled, unsatisfied customers, however, want to tell everyone how they feel. That's just they way it goes.

Dr. Segal is of the opinion that online reviews should, but rarely do, say anything about a doctor's medical skills, expertise or knowledge--the factors that matter the most. He believes that bedside manner, punctuality and other non-technical factors shouldn't make or break a practice; but that's what people review, and that can dangerous to doctors. Hmmmm.

So here's what they want to do: His company, Medical Justice, based in Greensboro, N.C. provides doctors (for a fee) with a standardized waiver agreement. Patients who sign the waiver agree not to post online comments about the doctor, "his expertise and/or treatment." Segal's company advises doctors to have all patients sign the agreements. If a new patient refuses, the doctor might suggest finding another doctor.

Nice, huh? Sign the waiver saying you won't review me, otherwise, go somewhere else. Patient care in exchange for a guarantee that you won't tell the world what you think. Unbelievable. As if doctoring should be above what all other businesses are subject to. Perhaps this is one of the major problems with the health care system in general right now--it's held above the natural laws of consumerism. You can't shop around for knee surgery based on price (go ahead, try), only on a doctor's reputation. And now they want to take that right away from you. You can tell your neighbor what you think about the doc by word of mouth, but not online. Gimme a break.

You know, if you're a doctor and you can't stand by what people think about your service, then perhaps you need to take a long, hard look at the way you're doing things. Everybody other than cops, DMV employees, postal workers and bus drivers have to give a hoot about how they treat people. Only when doctors become government employees will they stop having to care about bedside manner. Oops, I guess that should be any day now. Well, until then, exercise your right to review online. Power to the people!

Antibiotics for Viruses: Overprescribed and Useless

Something must be wrong with me--I love to see people squirm. Not just anybody, mind you, but mostly people who have lied, cheated, or acted hypocritically in one way or another. And I especially love to see it in people, or groups, that act arrogantly. C'mon, you know you love it too. We all get a sense of satisfaction when the chickens come home to roost, and these people have to squirm and lie some more to rationalize themselves. Pure comedy.

Take, for instance, the latest study to be published in the medical journal, The Lancet, which has reported that doctors routinely overprescribe antibiotics for viral infections. You don't say? Really? Wow. Seems like that same idea was reported right here in this blog back in October. According to the study, 80% of sinusitis (inflammation of the sinuses) cases in the U.S. are prescribed antibiotics despite the fact that the majority are due to the common cold virus. And just like I said in my October post: Antibiotics don't do diddly against viruses--they're meant exclusively to fight bacterial infections.

OK, here's the good part: The study's authors then attempt to explain the inordinate amount of antibiotics prescriptions by stating that when the patient has had the symptoms for a long time, doctors assume it's due to a bacterial infection....(Pause...silence)

Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha....what a joke. Do any of you buy that baloney? Let me tell you the real deal (and this information comes straight from a medical doctor who taught me in chiropractic college): Doctors prescribes medications at nearly every doctor's visit regardless of the situation because, and I quote, "the patient expects it". That's the truth in a nutshell: Doctors prescribe antibiotics full well knowing they're useless against viral infections, precisely because the patient expects something, not because it's the right thing to do, but because they know the patient wants it and will go somewhere else to get it. In other words, there ain't much of a market for non-prescribing M.D.s, period.

The only reason this study has come out at all is because of the explosion of antibiotic resistant bacteria that have penetrated our world, otherwise, trust me, the practice would continue. Antibiotic resistant bacteria is a growing and severely dangerous phenomenon. There is no longer time to play around, so now the medical community is asking how. But, unfortunately, you'll never get to the truth by hiding it, or in the case of these authors' conclusions, by asking the wrong questions.

I'm going to end this by being as fair as I can to my medical brothers and sisters--it's not totally their fault. Overprescribing antibiotics really is a consequence of what the public wants, and demands--like most things--and people really do yearn for a magic bullet. But what makes the medical clinician at least equally responsible is that they know better. It may be true that a medical business which doesn't prescribe medicines will soon have to close its doors; however, it may be time to start pushing a more health-responsible agenda, which would be to teach patients that their bodies have everything necessary to fight the common cold virus, and that antibiotics are unnecessary, and useless, in these cases. Still--I just love to see them squirm.