|
Life Expectancy and Health Trends in Modern Society
To access the various sections of this article, just click on the following sub titles or scroll through the article. IntroductionWhat is Wrong with Life Expectancy and Causes of Death Statistics?Reliable Indicators for Assessing Public Health TrendsHealth Trends in Modern SocietyHeart Disease as an Indicator of Health TrendsConclusionLinks and ReferencesAddendum
|
|||||
Life Expectancy and Health Trends in Modern Society |
|||||
| Introduction Health authorities constantly remind us that diabetes and obesity have reached epidemic proportions throughout the Western world ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ) . Similar increases are occurring in other diseases such as asthma ( 8, 9, 10, 11 ) osteoporosis ( 12, 13, 14 ) cardiovascular disease or CVD ( 15, 16 ), and mental illnesses such as depression and ADHD ( 17, 18, 19, 20 ) In fact, depression, anxiety, and ADHD, have also reached epidemic proportions in modern society ( 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ). Today, according to Charlton ( 116 ), "psychiatric impairment is the norm" and "mental health and well being are so rare as to be remarkable." Consistent with these changes, statistics reveal that more people require more frequent medical consultations and the consumption of prescription drugs continues to spiral. Medical research also reveals that iatrogenic diseases have become the third leading cause of death behind cardiovascular disease and cancer ( see Holistic Medicine sets the Standard for Safety ). Health authorities continue to remind us that in Australia, cardiovascular disease claims a life every 10-12 minutes ( 42, 108 ) while in America one person dies every 60 seconds from a heart attack ( 109 ). But yet health authorities also claim that we are becoming healthier and are experiencing an unparalleled increase in life expectancy - around 25 years over the past century ( 27, 28 ) even in spite of the fact that the prevalence of obesity in Australia has increased more than 100% in the last two decades ( 117 ). According to Madden of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare ( 77 ), "the health of most Australians is very good and continues to improve." Do increasing mental illnesses, obesity, diabetes, CVD, and asthma really correlate with improved health and a longer life? Is it true that the healthier we become the more prescription drugs we will require?
If we are to assess the effectiveness of our current health care system it is absolutely imperative that we
accurately determine in which direction public health is actually progressing. Our ability
and will to introduce appropriate health reforms, is clearly proportional to our awareness of the shortcomings of our current health care system as indicated by directional changes in health statistics over time. In which direction, we must determine, is the health of modern society actually progressing? Are we becoming
healthier or sicker? Why is it that health experts cannot agree about the answer to this vitally important question? Who is right?
The purpose of this article is to reveal the truth, according to current
evidence, about directional trends in public health and in so doing to
establish and define any need for changes in current medical training and
practices. Since priority is given to truth, this article is not intended
merely to condone or perpetuate our current health care system, but rather
to establish positive directions for future changes. In spite of the limitations of life expectancy statistics it is interesting to observe the ways in which these figures are utilised by health authorities and media outlets. Dr. Wooldridge for instance, the former Australian Minister for Health, has recently stated that "there has been a 20-year gain in life expectancy" ( 31 ) in the past century. Of course there has been a 20 year increase in average life expectancy at birth, but are we living any longer? Similarly, in an attempt to demonstrate the effectiveness of modern medicine a prominent "media doctor" has recently claimed on a Sydney radio station that we are now living 25 years longer than we did a century ago. Although I have contacted the doctor concerned in an attempt to clarify the basis for his statements I have received no response. Similar statements have been made by other experts and media outlets ( 32, 33, 34, 35 ). According to Ferrari for instance ( 34 ), "babies born in the closing years of this century can expect to live almost twice as long as babies born 100 years ago." Ferrari continues: "Australians are living longer, with the average life expectancy for men rising from 51 years at the beginning of the century to 75 years in the 1990's." Similarly, according to Recer ( 33 ): "human life expectancy has increased by three decades since 1900 and may reach 85 for babies born in this century." Additionally, according to Suter ( 35 ), "one of the greatest changes in our era is that people are now living longer about 25 years longer than they were a century ago." Suter continues ( 35 ): "people in western countries such as Australia, have gained as much life expectancy in the last 50 years as they achieved in the previous 5,000 years." Although Suter also claims that genetic engineering may even result in "the next generation to be born" having a life expectancy of "110 or 120 years", it seems that the reverse may be true since genetic engineering has been reported to cause accelerated ageing and premature death ( click here for more info). A similar theme has been echoed by Humer of Roche Pharmaceuticals (152): "Looking back over the past century, it is clear that medical science has made breathtaking advances. This is shown, for instance, by the fact that life expectancy has risen enormously to around 80 years, compared with 55 in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century when Roche was established. Even so, it is still not possible to treat the causes of most diseases." To describe the inability to treat the "causes of most diseases" as "breathtaking advances" hardly seems appropriate, but even in spite of these breathtaking advances, Humer also emphasises the stark reality of some of the shortcomings of modern drug therapies (152): "
Today we are witnessing the fruits of the past century of medical advances, continuing breakthroughs, and developments in sophisticated medical technology. Deaths from heart disease have increased from 6.2% of total deaths in 1900 to 31.4% in 1997 while cancer deaths have increased from 3.7% to 23.3%. Medical experts now claim that we are also becoming increasingly obese, so much so in fact that obesity has reached epidemic proportions. But these same experts also claim however, as we become more obese and suffer more from cancer and heart disease, we are living longer and longer........and longer. In fact it is claimed that we are on the verge of reversing the ageing process. The past century has indeed been one of remarkable medical progress, but why the desperation for genetic engineering when immortality seems just around the corner? So what does all this mean? Are we really living 25 years longer and on the verge of immortality? If this were true it would be good news indeed, but another explanation is possible since life expectancy at birth statistics are often misinterpreted. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics ( ABS ) in this regard ( 29 ), "life expectancy at birth is often wrongly interpreted to mean that most people die at that age." Although average life expectancy at birth has indeed increased by almost 25 years over the past century ( 36 ), as is noted by the ABS this does not necessarily mean that people are living 25 years longer. We must be quite clear about this. It is a well known fact that most of this 25 year increase in life expectancy has, as I have previously indicated, resulted from a reduction in infant mortality and NOT because we are living longer into old age. In the words of the ABS ( 29 ): "the increase in life expectancy is mainly due to fewer deaths of young children, particularly in the first year of life ( infant mortality )." In spite of the repeated claims of experts from around the world that life expectancy is synonymous with longevity and total life span, this is the opposite of the truth. While average life expectancy at birth has increased through the 20th century, total life span on the other hand, has apparently remained static ( 80 ) and perhaps may even be decreasing. According to Nesse and Williams (128):
The oldest people in the world in recent times normally live until around 114 - 122 years of age ( 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 ). However, 400 years ago the oldest person in the world was Thomas Parr who died at the age of 152 and was said to be healthy right up until his death ( 124, 125, 126 ). We have a long way to go before we get back to the 1600's!! I believe that when it comes to public health and matters such as life expectancy the public is entitled to be correctly informed. Those who make public statements regarding health matters have a responsibility to maintain a standard of truth and accuracy which will not mislead or deceive the public. With medical issues especially, as we are frequently reminded, only the scientific facts will do. I am at a loss to understand why, if these statistics are as commonly "misinterpreted" as has been suggested by the ABS, steps have not been taken to ensure that the relevant authorities are educated about the correct interpretation and use of statistics. What is most disturbing about this matter is the unanimity of these apparent misinterpretations. While claims that we are now living 25 years longer are clearly without any factual basis, recent claims by Oeppen and Vaupel ( 57 ) that life expectancy will continue to increase for the foreseeable future are also deserving of comment. Unlike many other workers whose focus involved total life expectancy changes over the past 100-200 years, Oeppen and Vaupel ( 57 ) have adopted a rather different approach which emphasises the regularity and consistency of annual changes in life expectancy over the past 160 years. From this point of view it is not the alleged 25 year total gain in life expectancy over the past 100 years that is important, but rather it is the average annual increase of 3 months over this period which this represents that is emphasised. Oeppen and Vaupel ( 57 ) not only describe this 3 month annual increase as perhaps the "most remarkable regularity of mass endeavour ever observed", but further, they claim that on this basis life expectancy can be expected to increase at this same annual rate for the foreseeable future. In fact, according to Duke University ( 58 ), this study indicates there is "no natural limit to life expectancy." The importance of the study of Oeppen and Vaupel ( 57 ) is highlighted by the various media reports of this study ( 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 ), typified by headlines such as "life expectancy to soar" ( 59 ), "will life expectancy ever stop rising" ( 61 ), "scientists: human lifespan has no natural limit" ( 61 ), "ever increasing longevity" ( 62 ), and "Japan leads way into new age of longevity" ( 64 ). These reports contradict earlier research which indicated "mankind nears its old age limits" ( 65 ), a view which acknowledges the misleading effects of large reductions in infant mortality ( 65, 66 ). In spite of these reports however, and in spite of the risk of becoming excessively repetitive, I am forced to point out yet again that reductions in infant mortality make the average life expectancy at birth data used by Oeppen and Vaupel totally invalid as a reliable means of assessing total life span or longevity ( 60 ). In this respect it is indeed interesting to note that although Oeppen and Vaupel ( 57 ) acknowledge that "before 1950, most of the gain in life expectancy was due to reductions in death rates at younger ages", they nevertheless still include this data as a vital part of their evidence that we are living longer and longer. Once again it seems that the fewer infants that die, the longer we all will live. Oeppen and Vaupel have obtained mathematical life expectancy figures which are completely remote from the biological aspects of ageing and longevity ( 63 ). Quite clearly, Oeppen and Vaupel's life expectancy predictions also see the current epidemics of obesity and diabetes as correlating with continuing increases in life expectancy. Interestingly, the increasing incidence of these disorders is consistent with current theories regarding the effects of elevated cortisol levels upon ageing and longevity, theories which are probably of little interest to mathematicians. When it comes to predicting life expectancy changes in the future it is generally acknowledged that reductions in infant mortality will level off and this will also cause a corresponding levelling off of life expectancy. In other words, life expectancy, which has been artificially elevated by reductions in infant mortality, will increase much more slowly, if at all. Since future changes in life expectancy will therefore be increasingly determined by genuine increases in longevity rather than reductions in infant mortality, this slowdown or reversal of life expectancy provides a considerable incentive for new ( more positive? ) ways of analysing life expectancy data. The study of Oeppen an Vaupel could be seen as answering this need by adopting an approach which may assist in concealing this expected slowdown in life expectancy rates. I must admit I have found this research into life expectancy to be most
informative. I have learned much of which I was previously unaware. The
commonly employed technique of using reductions in infant deaths to claim
a general increase in life expectancy and longevity has been most
illuminating. It conjures up all manner of hypothetical scenarios. For
instance, just imagine what could be achieved by deliberately lowering the
birth rate. If we could prevent all births, and continue this for 10 years
we could completely prevent all deaths ( forgetting immigration ) under 10
years of age. This would have an astonishing effect upon life expectancy.
As a general rule in fact, the fewer children that are born, the longer they will live!! Furthermore,
using currently accepted criteria for calculating life
expectancy, this would be a scientific fact!! Although many experts use causes of death statistics as a means of assessing trends in public health, as is the case with life expectancy figures, these figures are also frequently misused and misunderstood. Causes of death figures for instance, do not reflect the "incidence" of the various diseases which afflict the human race and therefore may be quite misleading. A person may suffer for example, from heart disease for 20 years and then because he/she dies as the result of an accident, this fact may never be statistically revealed. Similarly, as I have mentioned elsewhere ( see But What About Efficacy? ), cancer patients who die from aggressive medical treatment before succumbing to the cancer, would in effect, serve to lower the cancer death rate. In view of the limitations of causes of death statistics it is interesting to note that these figures frequently seem to be very popular with health authorities. In fact, causes of death statistics commonly seem to be given a much higher and more public profile than disease incidence rates, especially when the latter figures may not be so positive. As is the case with life expectancy statistics, disease statistics seem to be used in a very selective manner. Statistics for heart disease probably represent one of the best examples of the misuse of causes of death statistics. I will consider heart disease statistics in considerable detail a little later ( see Heart Disease as an Indicator of Health Trends ). b) Reliable Indicators for Assessing Public Health Trends If the findings of Walker are accurate then quite clearly they should also be confirmed by other data such as the sales of pharmaceuticals and prescribed drugs. Data published by the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (APMA) in their Facts Book (
50 ) reveals that that the sale of pharmaceuticals is increasing at an astonishing rate, in total agreement with the research of Walker
( 37
). While the world pharmaceutical market is worth around $US300 billion annually
( 51 ), Australian sales total around $6.04 billion (
52 ), which represents an increase in sales of around 260% in ten years (
52 ). In the past decade drug companies have developed in excess of 300 new medicines for the Australian market (
53 ), correlating with a doubling in growth of the pharmaceutical industry between the years 1990 - 1995
( 52 ). During this same period production from other Australian industries actually diminished (
52 ). The changes occurring in the use of health services within Australia are typical of changes occurring throughout the Western world. In Canada for instance, the sales of drugs increased by 11.4% in 1999 as compared to 1998, reaching a total of $8,306 billion ( 55 ). Canadians had an astounding 22 million more visits to the doctor in 1999 than they did in 1998 ( 55 ). One reason why we need more and more prescription drugs is because succeeding generations are becoming sicker at younger and younger ages as compared to their predecessors. Throughout this web site I have expressed concern regarding the long term consequences of symptomatic medical treatments the aim of which is to conceal any underlying disease and encourage it to continue unchecked. The possible consequences of this type of symptomatic disease "management" strategy is especially important when it comes to genetic diseases which may be expected to become more rampant in the next generation if the underlying cause is not addressed. Increasingly it is being realised that this is precisely what is happening. Genetic diseases are becoming more severe and occurring at younger ages in succeeding generations, a phenomena which has been termed "genetic anticipation" ( 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 ). Does this mean that even those who merely have (undiagnosed) subclinical disease may produce children with a fully developed genetic disorder? Does genetic anticipation also effect genetic nutrition (ie those who have a genetically increased need for certain nutrients - see Nutrigenomics and the Bold New World of Individualised Nutrition). The onus is clearly upon those who claim we are becoming healthier to explain precisely why we are becoming sicker at younger and younger ages and why healthier people have an increased need for prescription drugs. They must also explain why, as we become healthier, we are becoming more obese and suffering increasingly from both the major and minor diseases of modern Western society. Paradoxically, it seems that those authorities who claim that modern medicine is so effective that we are on the verge of reversing the ageing process are also frequently the most ardent supporters of genetic engineering. The urgency and desperation with which genetic engineering is being embraced by the scientific community however, is a clear and confident admission that conventional medical therapies have not only failed in the past, but furthermore, they are expected to continue failing in the future. In this enlightened age it is becoming increasingly clear that diet and nutritional therapy may be more effective, especially preventatively, than all the dazzling medical technology that has emerged during the past century. Even doctors are describing many modern diseases as "lifestyle" diseases, a traditional holistic message which has long been ridiculed. The naturopaths and herbalists of the past, traditionally regarded as quacks by the medical profession, are leading the way into the 21st century! Heart Disease as an Indicator of Health Trends In spite of the numerous high tech medical advancements and breakthroughs which have occurred over the past century heart disease has become the number one killer in modern society. It is vitally important that we explore the reasons for this and examine directional trends in the incidence of heart disease. I should perhaps point out that the term "cardiovascular disease" includes heart disease, strokes and peripheral vascular disease ( 16 ). One hundred years ago, in 1900, both heart disease and cancer were
virtually unknown. Both these diseases are an invention of the 20th
century. The
(Note: the above graphic does not list deaths from iatrogenic diseases) When it comes to death rates for heart disease and cancer, many health authorities are extremely selective about the data they use. Although many authorities quote life expectancy data for the past 100 years, when it comes to heart disease and cancer death rates this 100 year period is persistently avoided. Most authorities are very careful to utilise figures only for the past few decades or the latter part of the 20th century. There is a very good reason for this since if we compare heart disease and cancer death rates in 1900 with those in 2000 a very grim picture emerges. The truth is that death rates ( per 100,000 ) for heart disease and cancer have increased, respectively, by a massive 237-322% and 332-359% from 1900 to 2000 ( 67, 70 ). Most authorities display a determination to avoid these figures and focus exclusively upon figures for the latter part of the 20th century which reveal a decline in heart disease deaths. It should be noted however, that not only is this decline in heart disease deaths diminishing ( 72, 73 ), and may even be reversing ( 72 ), but furthermore, the incidence of CVD is still increasing ( 16, 43, 74 ). Even if the current rate of decline in heart disease deaths were to continue it will take many years before we get back to where we were in 1900. With cancer the situation is even worse since there is still no significant and sustained decline in cancer deaths. The facts relating to heart disease are of vital importance in assessing the effectiveness of modern scientific medicine since it has been repeatedly stated that the decline in heart disease deaths over the past few decades is one of the greatest of all the achievements of modern medicine ( 75, 76 ). However, when medical experts describe a disease which kills an American every 60 seconds and has a death rate which is still more than 200% higher than it was in 1900, as one of the greatest achievements of modern medicine there is clearly cause for considerable concern. There is no doubt what would have occurred if alternative medicine had boasted of a similar "achievement". Even though health authorities often claim that CVD is declining in Australia, it must be emphasised that such claims are based upon the death rate rather than the incidence of CVD ( 41, 42 ). In reality, the incidence of CVD in Australia has increased from 17.4% in 1990 to 20.9% in 1995 ( 43 ). In this five year period the number of Australians suffering from CVD increased by 29% ( 16, 43 ). Furthermore, this increase is not due to the ageing of the population ( 16, 44 ). According to the ABS in this regard ( 44 ): "age-standardisation of the data indicated that over this period the ageing of the Australian population played only a small part in the increase in prevalence of cardiovascular disease." The ageing of the population, it should be noted, is due predominantly to the declining birth rate ( 27, 28 ). Australia is not alone when it comes to the increasing prevalence of heart disease since this is a trend which is occurring throughout the world ( 127 ). In spite of these facts health authorities seem reluctant to mention the fact that the incidence of CVD is actually increasing ( 40, 41, 42 ). Even the Heart Foundation of Australia seems to focus exclusively upon the death rate rather than the increasing prevalence of CVD ( 42 ). Similarly, although de Looper and Bhatia ( 45 ) supply data in their report for both the incidence and death rates for certain diseases, when it comes to heart disease they chose to include the death rate and omit the incidence rate ( 46 ). Quite clearly, most medical authorities seek not to give prominence to the increasing incidence of heart disease ( 16, 40, 43, 74 ) or the astonishing increase in heart disease deaths which have occurred over the past century ( 67, 70 ). Instead of acknowledging responsibility for this situation health authorities seek praise for the recent decline in heart disease deaths. Although health authorities may suggest that heart disease is becoming less prevalent because of the declining death rate, it is interesting to note the astonishing increase in the use of emergency surgical procedures which has been required to treat heart disease patients over the past few decades. Heart bypass operations for instance, which only began in Australia around the late 1960's ( 81 ), increased to around 17,000 operations annually in 1998 ( 81 ). Bypass operations increased around 400% from 1980 to 1998 ( 81 ). From 1985 to 1999 the use of coronary angioplasty increased more than 1000% ( 81 ). Furthermore, in the 1990's coronary stenting was introduced to "reduce the risk of early closure of the coronary artery following coronary angioplasty" ( 81 ). Not only is their a high rate of reblockage following coronary angioplasty ( 81 ), which may incidentally be significantly reduced by vitamin therapy ( 82, 83, 84 ), but furthermore, the occurrence of reblockage is a feature of bypass operations also ( 81 ). It cannot be overemphasised that the use of these surgical procedures represents desperate last minute attempts to save the lives of patients whom the health care system has failed. The need for such procedures is clearly proportional to the extent to which medicine has failed at the preventative level. Since such procedures are not cause based and play no role in prevention it is hardly surprising that the incidence of heart disease is still increasing. Are we content to continue to try and patch up our ailing hearts without addressing the cause? Recognition that heart disease cannot be properly addressed by symptomatic interventionist techniques has eventually led to scientific medicine acknowledging the traditional holistic teaching that health is indeed influenced by lifestyle factors. Unfortunately this is a lesson which has been learned agonisingly slowly and in fact, has still not been fully learned. Although the connection between diet and heart disease, particularly the saturated fat content, is now generally acknowledged by modern medicine, the importance of optimum nutrition is still frequently disputed. Even when it comes to correcting excess dietary fat consumption, the medical solution is not necessarily dietary but rather involves the consumption of even more prescription drugs. Medicine it seems, will continue to cling to its symptomatic drug oriented interventionist approach to health care. It is interesting to note for instance that orthodox medicine continues to display an obsession with drug treatment as a first option to reduce cholesterol levels. In 1998 for instance, Australian doctors wrote nearly 7 million prescriptions for cholesterol lowering drugs, an increase of more than 300% in only six years ( 54 ). In fact, Simvastatin had become the fourth most prescribed drug in 1997-98 ( 54 ). By 2000-2001 cholesterol lowering drugs had become the first and second most prescribed drugs in Australia ( 79 ). Remarkably, this amazing achievement occurred in a medical environment which is highlighting the importance of lifestyle factors such as diet and nutrition. It seems that when there is a drug option this will automatically be preferred to lifestyle factors. However, in spite of the increased use of cholesterol lowering drugs the cholesterol levels of Australians has not changed in 20 years ( 78 ). Since the cause of excessive cholesterol levels is generally accepted as being dietary ( 78 ), cholesterol lowering drugs are being used in preference to dietary changes. That this astonishing increase in lipid lowering drugs could occur at all, let alone when medicine is publicly espousing the importance of diet, is deplorable. What does this single fact say about the health of Australians? Why has it become necessary to medicate so many Australians to lower their cholesterol levels? While I acknowledge the fact that the health of Australians is deteriorating, is it really deteriorating at such an astonishing rate? At this rate of increase in another twenty years our consumption of lipid lowering drugs will have increased by almost 1000%. All this when we are having more and more heart surgery and are apparently becoming healthier. It is just as well medicine has changed its focus to emphasise the importance of lifestyle factors!! While the influence of lifestyle factors upon heart disease was initially thought to be confined to such factors as dietary fat content, exercise, smoking and obesity, increasing evidence has forced modern medicine to acknowledge the importance of optimum nutrition for cardiovascular health. Perhaps the greatest breakthrough in this respect was the discovery that elevated homocysteine levels, caused by deficiency of vitamins, could cause arterial damage either by a direct toxic effect or by oxidising cholesterol deposits ( 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 111, 113 ), a fact which some authorities believe makes cholesterol levels per se relatively unimportant ( 93 ). With much reluctance, the medical profession has now generally accepted the fact that supplements of vitamins B6, B12 and folic acid may lower homocysteine levels and significantly reduce the risk of heart disease ( 86, 91, 92, 93, 111, 113 ). Conversely, large doses of B3 as are sometimes used by doctors to treat circulatory disorders, may actually elevate homocysteine levels ( 113 ). According to accumulating scientific evidence there are also many other nutrients that are necessary for a healthy cardiovascular system. These include vitamin E ( 90, 93, 94, 95, 112 ), vitamin C and bioflavonoids ( 90, 93, 94, 95, 112 ), beta carotene ( 90, 93, 112 ), magnesium ( 90, 98, 99 ), selenium ( 90, 97, 112 ), copper ( 112 ), zinc ( 112 ), manganese ( 112 ), carnitine ( 90, 96 ), chromium ( 90, 114 ), and essential fatty acids ( 90, 100, 101, 102, 103 ). When it comes to nutrition and heart disease medical experts have yet to learn the lessons taught by Roger Williams more than three decades ago ( 115 ):
In further confirmation of the nutritional cause of heart disease is the observation that dietary fat intake is not necessarily related to the occurrence of cardiovascular disease. It has long been known, from studying different cultures throughout the world, that people who consume up to 355 grams of fat daily and consume a diet in which 60% of the calories come from saturated fat have been shown to have virtually no heart disease ( see: Lowenstein, F.W., Am.J.Clin.Nutr., 15, 175, 1964; and other studies reviewed by Williams, 115 ). In spite of overwhelming evidence of the importance of nutrition, medical research is still frequently characterised by a pronounced anti-nutrition bias ( see Medical Bias ). Medical researchers still resort to brief highly selective trials to discourage the use of nutrition and justify the use of modern symptom based surgical or drug therapies for heart disease ( 104, 105, 106, 107 ). These treatments continue to be recommended even though they offer no hope of cure. When it comes to heart disease I give absolute priority to one clinical trial - a trial which began in 1900, continued for 100 years and involved people throughout the world. The results of this clinical trial are absolutely conclusive. In spite of continuing "breakthroughs", increasing reliance upon surgery and drug therapy over the past 100 years has correlated with heart disease emerging from virtual obscurity to become the number one killer throughout the world. While heart disease deaths have declined in the past few decades, a fact which may be partly due to increasing interest in nutrition and nutritional fortification of foods ( 92 ), the increasing incidence of heart disease combined with the staggering increase in consumption of hypolipidemic drugs and heart surgery, is cause for alarm. If our hearts continue to fail at such a rapid rate not only will the use of such symptomatic patch up treatments soon reach epidemic proportions, but furthermore, there will also be an increasing need for artificial hearts and other heart "spare parts". The medical profession's rejection of the importance of nutritional therapy and the processing of nutrients out of our foods has correlated with a constantly increasing incidence of chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. In fact, the past 100 years of scientific medicine has been characterised by an unprecedented deterioration in health due to chronic diseases. Paradoxically, the century during which vitamins were discovered is also the century during which more was done to process the vitamins out of our foods than ever before. While most health indicators over the past 100 years reveal that scientific medicine has had a decidedly negative impact there are some benefits. The triumph over certain infectious diseases is most notable in this respect. Additionally, modern scientific medicine has created a phenomenal world wide dependence upon pharmaceutical drugs which has resulted in the emergence of a brand new epidemic of diseases called iatrogenic diseases. It is this epidemic of iatrogenic diseases which is claimed to be largely responsible for the correlation between increased numbers of doctors and increased mortality. According to Richardson & Peacock in this regard (151) "an increase in the doctor supply is associated with an increase in mortality". Richardson and Peacock continue (151):
As if this is not bad enough, Richardson & Peacock (151) further point out that "it is now known that nutrition has been the major determinant of mortality in the last 200 years" and people generally have "an erroneous and exaggerated belief in the efficacy of modern medicine." Clearly, the challenge is for health authorities to urgently address these erroneous and exaggerated beliefs. To this end the public should be immediately advised that modern scientific medicine is not equipped to diagnose and treat nutritional disorders. History shows that virtually every nutritional discovery, whether involving thiamine and beri beri, folate and birth defects, folate and heart disease, vitamin B6 and heart disease, vitamin E and heart disease or the many other nutritional discoveries, has been rejected and scoffed at by medical science, and eventually accepted only begrudgingly. Resort is repeatedly given to the use of clinical trials to justify medicine's drug oriented approach to health care ( or disease care ). Such an attitude is consistent with a belief that disease results from mysterious extraneous influences which arbitrarily inflict themselves upon the body rather than being the result of a deviation from the normality that results from optimum nutrition. Yet, unlike drugs and surgery, nutrition is overwhelmingly safe and natural. Nutrients form the substance of every cell in our bodies and are required for every metabolic reaction. Unlike drugs and surgery, nutrition promotes health, vitality and normality. The natural function of nutrition is to restore to normal or optimum. Nutrition is an absolutely integral and inseparable part of health. Medicine however, prefers to use toxic foreign compounds which have absolutely no role to play in the healthy body. While the effectiveness of drugs depends upon their ability to conceal symptoms, nutritional supplements on the other hand, which have no symptom suppressing ability, rely on their ability to normalise or cure. For obvious reasons, the truth about heart disease and cancer mortality in the 20th century has been carefully concealed. The appalling increases in these diseases necessitates that we urgently identify and change contributory factors within our "scientific" health care system. Modern medicine must explain why automatic preference continues to be given to toxic or invasive heart disease treatments which offer no hope of cure. Is it surprising that heart disease continues to be the number one killer when doctors are so determined to avoid utilising those substances which form such an integral part of normal health and well-being?
Conclusion
The direction in which public health is progressing under the influence of scientific medicine is made abundantly clear by the astonishing rapidity with which the three leading causes of death have skyrocketed to their current positions of ascendency. There is no cure in sight for the current epidemics of heart disease, cancer, and iatrogenic disease. If our health care system remains fundamentally reductionist, symptomatic and interventionist, all the available evidence indicates that these, and various other chronic diseases, will be the diseases of the future. Holistic therapies such as nutrition on the other hand, increasingly offer an effective solution. As a patient, I must admit that I find it absolutely astonishing how little concern is shown by health care professionals regarding the current direction of our health care system as evidenced by the above facts. Many in the profession still seem to pretend, on the basis of life expectancy at birth figures, that we are living longer and becoming healthier. This is cause for real concern. Why is it, one may well ask, that so many medical authorities and other health care professionals prefer not to publicise the importance of life expectancy at 70 years of age? Why do so many experts prefer to publicise life expectancy at birth figures and ignore statistics which reveal spiralling increases in the incidence of chronic illnesses and disabilities? Why also do so many authorities refuse to publicise the appalling increase in heart disease and cancer deaths which have occurred over the past century? To deliberately mislead or deceive the public by misuse of life expectancy and causes of death data is totally unacceptable and reflects very poorly upon the integrity and reliability of anyone who indulges in such practices. Yet, the consistency and apparent determination with which many "experts" avoid revealing the precise meaning and limitations of health statistics is amazing. Such persons also tend to display a preoccupation with a purely mathematical approach to life expectancy, an approach that is so remote from any consideration of the biological aspects of ageing and longevity that it is also completely detached from the real world. Such authorities also commonly display a determination to avoid real life data showing increasing disease rates in modern society. Instead of enshrouding life expectancy in a cloud of confusing and misleading figures, no effort should be spared in ensuring such figures are totally transparent. Time and again we see that the actions of health authorities are consistent with a desire to abandon public health concerns in order to protect and perpetuate our current medical system. Also disturbing is the current move towards corporatised medicine. Corporatised medicine of course, seeks to create an environment in which medical decisions will be increasingly dictated by profits, not patient care ( 56 ). Already, it has been reported that there are higher death rates at "for profit" hospitals as medical services may be restructured to suit the healthy rather than the sick ( 56 ). As medicine becomes corporatised private hospitals are rejecting the more severely ill in preference for "easy fix" patients who are considered to be more profitable, a process which is described as "cherry picking" (144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150). One patient, who subsequently died, was initially admitted to hospital but was suddenly discharged and told there were "no beds" when it was discovered that she did not have private health insurance (145). Medical decisions are increasingly being made by accountants, economists, and bureaucrats. The doctor of the future will be forced to spend an increasing amount of time being trained to juggle the conflicting interests of patient care and reducing costs. He/she will need to become more adept at minimising costs without sacrificing the life or well being of the patient. Patients with complex problems whom it is not considered cost-effective to treat will be placed well down the priority list. In fact, patients who are extremely ill may be seriously disadvantaged by a system which prefers to prioritise on the basis of cost rather than compassion. In spite of these facts, why is it that so few within the health care profession are seeking to alert the public to the dangers of corporatisation? It seems amazingly incongruous that those who are concerned about the cost effectiveness of our health care system are also completely unconcerned about the symptomatic interventionist nature of this system. Although seemingly unpopular, the cost advantages of a cause based preventative health care system are obvious. Symptomatic treatments are inherently expensive, especially in the long run. Patients are forced to return to doctors time and again, perhaps for 40 or 50 years, simply in order to have the same symptoms suppressed. Cost effective preventative treatments, such as nutritional therapy, are avoided in favour of expensive operations with all their complications. Health funds often refuse to cover preventative nutritional tests and treatments, preferring instead to wait until expensive surgery becomes necessary. Is it just the lucrative human repair industry we are trying to promote rather than a compassion based preventative health care system? The evidence is clear. In spite of the ever increasing health budget, more and more visits to the doctor, and a huge increase in the consumption of prescription drugs, we are becoming sicker. Are we going to continue to ignore this evidence? Are we going to continue to pretend that eliminating infant deaths will somehow cause the entire community to live longer ( ie. increase life expectancy)? After 300 years of the application of reductionist science in the fields of medicine, nutrition, food technology, and agriculture, the health of mankind is deteriorating, even in spite of the triumphs of medicine in certain fields ( ie. the conquering of certain infections ). Perhaps when patients become more important than profits or perpetuation and protection of the medical system itself we will be in a position to initiate an evidence and compassion based health care system. Let us return the focus to patient care. Let us accept the need for fundamental change and move forward by creating a safer and more effective health care system Let us move forward with an urgency that reflects our concern about the needless suffering of patients. In doing so our health care system will also become much more cost effective - but for all the right reasons 1. http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd102501b.html
See: Daily Policy Digest, Thursday, October 25, 2001, National
Center for Policy Analysis. |
