Osteopath or homeopath?

[AndyO]

Sean C raises a good point - where to go for a diagnosis of an injury? There are many specialists who might be able to help, but finding the right (or the most suitable) is the hard bit. He has spent £750 to get on the waiting list for an operation - most of it to avoid NHS waiting lists.

Now I'm not going to say that he has wasted his money , because if the operation is a success he will be well chuffed and think it was worth every penny. But there are lots of athletes out there with injuries, or niggles, that might be resolved with the right treatment at the right time.

GPs, as johnloguk and FatBoy confirm, are a bit of a lottery, depending on their personal interests, and not everyone is lucky to have a soft tissue clinic on their doorstep.

Sounds to me like therapy bingo but it would be useful to have some kind of resource for orienteers (and other athletes) to find out what facilities exist (for soft tissue and sports injury related matters) in their neighbourhood

[Harley]

Ed Wrote

yes the NHS may not be wonderfully efficient, but wasting money on "therapies" which either have no proven benefit or are proven to have no benefit will not improve that.

Whilst having one of my regular insomniac moments last night, I caught a program on BBC2 about Healthy Living Centres. It made the interesting point that this “radical� approach to health care is not new; there was a very successful one started in Pechkam in the 30’s which closed down in the 50’s when the newly created NHS did not understand the notion of looking after the health of a community in a holistic way.

In the Peckham case, much of the emphasis was on sport, diet (through its canteen) and social activities. It did have a GP surgery on site, but this was almost incidental ( the sight of parents smoking in the surgery whilst their child had a consultation was rather strange to today’s eyes).

The BBC2 program then looked at the current Bromley by Bow centre in Tower Hamlets. This was created a few years ago in response to a high profile (but not unusual) case of a terminally ill patient falling through the gaps between health & social services. The centre is essentially a modern version of the Peckham Centre and offers a range of activities, services and therapies, such as; dance, crèche, aromatherapy, reflexology, a restaurant, as well as a GP. In fact many of the alternative/complimentary therapies on the earlier list, plus a few others, such as the chap who’s life was turned around by ‘gardening therapy’ – a well proven solution to many cases of depression (see Sandwell NHS’s Green Gym).

The whole point of the centre, which, by the way gets funding from a raft of big corporations, is to put the individual first but within the context of the community. In this way it hopes to transform the lifestyles of individuals and families in a holistic way such that they will be less of a burden on traditional (expensive) ‘drug’ medicine. Let us not forget that depression is probably the biggest and most expensive medical problem we face and it has many non-medical causes. Through the centre, people in the community have been enabled to help each other, they have been helped back into work and many have been weaned off traditional treatments that they really do not require. It was an interesting program and contained much food for thought. It certainly left me thinking that prescribing even homeopathy (or MADO) on the NHS might not actually be a complete waste of money.

[EddieH]

I have only just read AndyO's post from last week. Well said Andy.

Do you know what arthritis is worth to the US drugs industry - $10M/annum. BUT if this $6M is to tresat the side effects caused by the arthritis drugs - and these do not traeat the condition in any way, mearly try to mask the symptoms.

Do you know that "Properly prescribed drugs" is the third biggest cause of death in America behind heart disease/stroke, and cancer.

A quote I really enjoyed from Dr Michael Colgan a very famous nutritionist who advises many olympic teams is as follows:

"I like death, as a measurement that is. Death is so nice and final. After a day or two of decay, even the most stubborn physician has to agree that the treatment just isn't working."

[Suzy R Sopham]

Eddie,
I'm not sure where you get your facts and figures from, however they are incorrect. The drug company profits for these anti-inflammatory drugs far exceed your figures; they are so high because these drugs actually improve the quality of life of many people and are therefore essential.
The most common side-effect of anti-inflammatory drugs is dyspepsia(erosion of the stomach lining causing 'acid symptoms' such as heartburn and even ulcers) however the main family of drugs used to treat or prevent these side-effects does not mask the effects, but does inhibit excess acid production in the stomach. These are known as PPI's (proton pump inhibitors) and common examples are Losec and Zoton.
'Adverse Drug Reactions' is not the third biggest cause of death in the USA. The following figures are taken directly from JAMA(The Journal of the American Medical Association) and The US CDC(Centre for Disease Control):-

1. Disease of the Heart -----------> 685,089 deaths
2. Malignant neoplazms(Cancers)---->556,902
3. Cerebrovascular disease--------->157,689
4. Chronic Lung Disease------------>126,382
5. Accidents----------------------->109,277
6. Adverse Drug Reactions---------->106,000

And it equates to 4.33% of the total number of deaths (2,448,288).

[AndyO]

Eddie

I got some figures through a Teoma search:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death

Heart disease: 654,092

Cancer: 550,270

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694

Diabetes: 72,815

Alzheimer's disease: 65,829

Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762

Septicemia: 33,464

Source: Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2004, tables 7

USA data, for 2004, but pretty much confirm Suzy's numbers.

Side effects of drugs and other medication should (I hope) be explained by the GP when prescribing, so that the patient can make an informed choice of the options available. I guess much would depend on the gravity of the condition.

[EddieH]

Suzy I confess that I am referring to 2 years ago. I also lumped all cardiovascular disease together as fundamentally they are the same problem.

You can see from your figures that there is very little difference between the 2 causes you list above - quite believable that in another year the order was changed.

Interesting that Andy's list is completely different - statistics.

[Adventure Racer]

Interesting that Andy's list is completely different - statistics.

Apart from the absence of "adverse drug reactions" it looks remarkably similar to me.

If you're going to complain about statistics, what do you think of somebody suggesting that something is the "3rd biggest cause" without clarifying that it accounts for only 4.3%, whilst the 2 above it account for 62%?

[AndyO]

Adventure Racer wrote

Apart from the absence of "adverse drug reactions"

Yep, curious isn't it? I can't explain why there should be that difference - the figures may be from different sources but they are otherwise very similar