So I'm in CVS yesterday, on a rare 66 degree March day here in Philadelphia. The sun was shining, I was sans top coat and feeling groovy.
A lady in a Peacock blue shirt noticed my pump and struck up a conversation with me. She told me that her 14 year old daughter was on the pump and had been diagnosed at the age of 11.
"She's doing great," said the lady in blue. "I tell her to fight it with all she's got, that diabetes is the enemy, and that it's OK to feel hate towards it, lord knows her dad and I do."
Then she looked at me point blank and asked, "You know what I mean?"
I looked her square in the eye and answered her honestly. "I refuse to hate diabetes, because I refuse to hate myself. I can open up any women's magazine and do that. Those mags always make me feel that I'm not thin enough, curvy enough, pretty or smart enough, etc. I refuse to buy into that anymore. I don't need any more issues than I already have.
MY diabetes, for better or for worse, is part of of who I am. IF I hated it, I would hate myself.
Do I dislike it intensely At times? absolutely. Do I dislike certain positions that diabetes puts me in? Yes. Is it a pain in my ass both literally and figuratively? You bet. Would I wish it on others? No way! But I gotta live with it until there's a cure, so I have to make it work with me, not against.
She stared at me for a good 20 seconds and said, "I never thought of it like that."
We said our goodbyes and she headed towards the pharmacy. I made my way to the register, paid for my sundries and like Elvis, I left the building.
I think she thought I was crazy. Hell, maybe you do to, but I'm done hating. Hate takes energy, energy I need. To hate the big D would mean that diabetes would get the upper hand in our complicated relationship, and I refuse to let that be the case.
I'd rather focus my energy on living.
Insurance Craptacular
The past two days my stress level has been at CODE RED level status due to insurance craptacular insurance company issues and major FAILS on every level.
First, my mother was in a car accident on Wednesday morning and totaled her 1992 Cadillac De Ville, which only had 45,000 miles and was her dream car. She's fine and so is the other person who was involved in the accident, (thank GOD) but the car insurance company craziness has made us both crazy.
I'm fielding calls from her company and reporting the info back to her while trying to work. She's sad she lost her car, frustrated about the accident and what it will do to her premiums, and nervous about learning the ins and outs of another car.
Second: My own health insurance company is putting me through the mill so to speak. Since the whole "1 in a million" incident, my insurance company has audited and made me switch policies.
I did and am now paying twice as much per month for the premium, and a specialist co-pay of $50 verses my old policy rate of $15. As of Monday they still hadn't issued me a new policy number, and I was forced to cancel my follow up eye appointment that had been scheduled for today.
I rescheduled for Tuesday and will go whether I have a policy I.D. or not.
My Insurance Rep called me this morning and told me that the reason it was taking so long- it's been 3 weeks since the check was written & and the application filled out and sent via registered letter.
The letter was signed for and then forwarded to the wrong office - YES, I'm serious. Then said registered letter had to be sent back (via snail mail) to the original address it had been originally sent to.
It arrived (and the check was cashed) and the application was left sitting on a desk of the only person (apparently at Horizon Blue Cross, only 1 person in the entire north east can process the application and issue an insurance I.D number) and she happens to be at a seminar all week.
My insurance rep has been great. he's driving to Newark on Monday and come hell or high water, will have a new insurance I.D for me.
Why am I telling you all this? The reasons are simple. I'm angry, frustrated, stressed, and annoyed and wish this country could get their proverbial sh*t together as far as insurance was concerned. I payed my bill 3 weeks early, my policy started on March 1, and I still don't have an insurance I.D. number. Insurance companies need to be held accountable for their mistakes and errors instead of doing whatever they want, whenever it suits them.
They make us pay a HUGE penalty for being a person with diabetes and hold us accountable on every level because of our faulty pancreas. Insurance companies need to held accountable for their faults as well - and they need to start paying the price!
BUT there are silver linings folks, you just have to look for them.
A. My mom is OK
B. My insurance rep will have an insurance I.D number for me by Monday - he even gave me his home number in case I needed it
C. Diabetes has been playing extremely nice as of late. My blood sugar numbers have been great all week- even during the most stressful of moments. I am so GRATEFUL For that!
Did I mention the fact that I'm SO HAPPY it's Friday?
And a big shout out to Bennet at Your Diabetes May Vary, for taking all of our insurance frustrations to heart after listening to my complients via twitter yesterday! http://www.ydmv.net/2010/03/declaration-of-reauthorized.html
First, my mother was in a car accident on Wednesday morning and totaled her 1992 Cadillac De Ville, which only had 45,000 miles and was her dream car. She's fine and so is the other person who was involved in the accident, (thank GOD) but the car insurance company craziness has made us both crazy.
I'm fielding calls from her company and reporting the info back to her while trying to work. She's sad she lost her car, frustrated about the accident and what it will do to her premiums, and nervous about learning the ins and outs of another car.
Second: My own health insurance company is putting me through the mill so to speak. Since the whole "1 in a million" incident, my insurance company has audited and made me switch policies.
I did and am now paying twice as much per month for the premium, and a specialist co-pay of $50 verses my old policy rate of $15. As of Monday they still hadn't issued me a new policy number, and I was forced to cancel my follow up eye appointment that had been scheduled for today.
I rescheduled for Tuesday and will go whether I have a policy I.D. or not.
My Insurance Rep called me this morning and told me that the reason it was taking so long- it's been 3 weeks since the check was written & and the application filled out and sent via registered letter.
The letter was signed for and then forwarded to the wrong office - YES, I'm serious. Then said registered letter had to be sent back (via snail mail) to the original address it had been originally sent to.
It arrived (and the check was cashed) and the application was left sitting on a desk of the only person (apparently at Horizon Blue Cross, only 1 person in the entire north east can process the application and issue an insurance I.D number) and she happens to be at a seminar all week.
My insurance rep has been great. he's driving to Newark on Monday and come hell or high water, will have a new insurance I.D for me.
Why am I telling you all this? The reasons are simple. I'm angry, frustrated, stressed, and annoyed and wish this country could get their proverbial sh*t together as far as insurance was concerned. I payed my bill 3 weeks early, my policy started on March 1, and I still don't have an insurance I.D. number. Insurance companies need to be held accountable for their mistakes and errors instead of doing whatever they want, whenever it suits them.
They make us pay a HUGE penalty for being a person with diabetes and hold us accountable on every level because of our faulty pancreas. Insurance companies need to held accountable for their faults as well - and they need to start paying the price!
BUT there are silver linings folks, you just have to look for them.
A. My mom is OK
B. My insurance rep will have an insurance I.D number for me by Monday - he even gave me his home number in case I needed it
C. Diabetes has been playing extremely nice as of late. My blood sugar numbers have been great all week- even during the most stressful of moments. I am so GRATEFUL For that!
Did I mention the fact that I'm SO HAPPY it's Friday?
And a big shout out to Bennet at Your Diabetes May Vary, for taking all of our insurance frustrations to heart after listening to my complients via twitter yesterday! http://www.ydmv.net/2010/03/declaration-of-reauthorized.html
The Failure of ConMed: Anti-Psychotic drugs
Just how dangerous are anti-psychotic drugs? Who is at risk of having them prescribed? And should doctors and GPs be prescribing them at all?
The idea that pharmaceutical drugs do more harm than good to those who take them is not a new one for those people who read this blog. Indeed, it would seem that most Big Pharma drug-types fit into this category!
Robert Whittaker in his book, "Anatomy of an Epidemic" published in 2010 comes to just this conclusion. This article summarises some of his conclusions:
"As recently as the 1950s, Whitaker contends, the four major mental disorders — depression, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia — often manifested as episodic and "self limiting"; that is, most people simply got better over time. Severe, chronic mental illness was viewed as relatively rare. But over the past few decades the proportion of Americans diagnosed with mental illness has skyrocketed. Since 1987, the percentage of the population receiving federal disability payments for mental illness has more than doubled; among children under the age of 18, the percentage has grown by a factor of 35".
As usual, then, in mental health issues, as with so many others, there is an increasing use of drugs to treat a condition; and the main result is that the number of people suffering from that condition increases - often exponentially.
This article looks at an increased diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder in th USA - an increase of 40 times over the last 10 years - so high, apparently, that doctors are apparently trying to alter the diagnosis! It discusses the dangers of these "powerful psychotropic, mind-alterning drugs"
"Aside from the immediate risk of death, another serious and widespread problem caused by these drugs is excessive weight gain and metabolic problems like diabetes. The effect varies by drug, but children typically gain TWICE as much weight in the first six months on these drugs as they should through normal growth, adding an average of two to three inches to their waistline. A lot of this is abdominal fat, which also increases their risk of diabetes and heart disease".
This article looks specifically at the link between anti-psychotic medication and diabetes in children. Indeed, much of the increased use of anti-psychotic drugs in recent years has been found to be in the 'treatment' of children.
* Channel 4 television (UK) did a survey recently that exposed that as many as 15,000 children and young people under 18 were prescribed anti-psychotic drugs in 2010. However, this figure included just GP prescriptions, and excluded hospital prescriptions - so the figure is likely to be considerably higher. This situation, however, has been well known in conventional medical circles for some time. In a study published in January 2010 in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry it was found the number of children aged 2-5 being given anti-psychotics had doubled 'in recent years'.
* Yet the situation is the same in the USA, where these harmful, mind-altering psychiatric drugs have been given to children, some of them less than a year old.
* And children in Canada are also being 'drugged' by anti-psychotic drugs - in increasing numbers.
So is there any evidence that anti-psychotics do any good to children? Quite the contrary! The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a “Review on the current use of antipsychotic drugs in children and adolescents” and it stated there was 'no information about the efficacy or safety of anti-pyschotics in your people'. So much for 'evidence-based medicine!
But it is not just children, as this article explains; anti-psychotic drugs are now drugging US soldiers to a dangerous degree.
Yet it is older people who have perhaps suffered most from anti-psychotic drugs, and much attention has been paid to this in recent months within conventional medical circles. These drugs are known to kill, and it is clear that GPs are, or should be aware that anti-psychotic drugs cause death in older people.
"The large analysis of patients in nursing homes – published in the British Medical Journal – looked at 75,500 new users of antipsychotics aged 65 years or older. Over five years it found haloperidol had double the risk of mortality compared with the most commonly used antipsychotic, risperidone.
The researchers concluded that "the use of haloperido (an anti-psychotic) to this vulnerable population cannot be justified, because of the excess harm".
The BMJ (British Medical Journal) is also aware that anti-psychotic drugs cause death.
"...... it was confirmed by the team that the use of antipsychotics by dementia patients is responsible for a surge in drug-related deaths, presumably as a result of negative side effects both internally to the body, and externally in the form of altered behavior. The findings also confirmed previous ones that identified an uptick in at least 1,800 additional deaths a year as a result of dementia patients taking antipsychotic drugs.
Accordingly, GPs were warned in November 2011 that they required PCT permission to prescribe anti-psychotics to older people with dementia - or face jail if they prescribed without permission.
The stark message, and the threat to GPs, was repeated in the GP magazine, Pulse, in February 2012. Why? Apparently because the original message was ignored by doctors! A further article appeared in March 2012 stating: "... a Pulse investigation revealed PCTs are failing to implement a major NHS programme seen by ministers as key to their campaign to cut the use of drugs".
So, it would appear that even if our government issues a direct instruction, and makes a serious threat, the Conventional Medical Establishment (ConMed) is so hooked on giving us drugs - regardless of the limited evidence for their efficacy - despite the extensive evidence that anti-psychotic drugs are dangerous - it steadfastly refuses to do so.
And, equally pertinent, why is the mainstream media not picking up on the ineffectiveness and dangers of these drugs; and telling us that our doctors are insisting on prescribing them to us, even when they have been instructed not to do so?
The idea that pharmaceutical drugs do more harm than good to those who take them is not a new one for those people who read this blog. Indeed, it would seem that most Big Pharma drug-types fit into this category!
Robert Whittaker in his book, "Anatomy of an Epidemic" published in 2010 comes to just this conclusion. This article summarises some of his conclusions:
"As recently as the 1950s, Whitaker contends, the four major mental disorders — depression, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia — often manifested as episodic and "self limiting"; that is, most people simply got better over time. Severe, chronic mental illness was viewed as relatively rare. But over the past few decades the proportion of Americans diagnosed with mental illness has skyrocketed. Since 1987, the percentage of the population receiving federal disability payments for mental illness has more than doubled; among children under the age of 18, the percentage has grown by a factor of 35".
As usual, then, in mental health issues, as with so many others, there is an increasing use of drugs to treat a condition; and the main result is that the number of people suffering from that condition increases - often exponentially.
This article looks at an increased diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder in th USA - an increase of 40 times over the last 10 years - so high, apparently, that doctors are apparently trying to alter the diagnosis! It discusses the dangers of these "powerful psychotropic, mind-alterning drugs"
"Aside from the immediate risk of death, another serious and widespread problem caused by these drugs is excessive weight gain and metabolic problems like diabetes. The effect varies by drug, but children typically gain TWICE as much weight in the first six months on these drugs as they should through normal growth, adding an average of two to three inches to their waistline. A lot of this is abdominal fat, which also increases their risk of diabetes and heart disease".
This article looks specifically at the link between anti-psychotic medication and diabetes in children. Indeed, much of the increased use of anti-psychotic drugs in recent years has been found to be in the 'treatment' of children.
* Channel 4 television (UK) did a survey recently that exposed that as many as 15,000 children and young people under 18 were prescribed anti-psychotic drugs in 2010. However, this figure included just GP prescriptions, and excluded hospital prescriptions - so the figure is likely to be considerably higher. This situation, however, has been well known in conventional medical circles for some time. In a study published in January 2010 in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry it was found the number of children aged 2-5 being given anti-psychotics had doubled 'in recent years'.
* Yet the situation is the same in the USA, where these harmful, mind-altering psychiatric drugs have been given to children, some of them less than a year old.
* And children in Canada are also being 'drugged' by anti-psychotic drugs - in increasing numbers.
So is there any evidence that anti-psychotics do any good to children? Quite the contrary! The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a “Review on the current use of antipsychotic drugs in children and adolescents” and it stated there was 'no information about the efficacy or safety of anti-pyschotics in your people'. So much for 'evidence-based medicine!
But it is not just children, as this article explains; anti-psychotic drugs are now drugging US soldiers to a dangerous degree.
Yet it is older people who have perhaps suffered most from anti-psychotic drugs, and much attention has been paid to this in recent months within conventional medical circles. These drugs are known to kill, and it is clear that GPs are, or should be aware that anti-psychotic drugs cause death in older people.
"The large analysis of patients in nursing homes – published in the British Medical Journal – looked at 75,500 new users of antipsychotics aged 65 years or older. Over five years it found haloperidol had double the risk of mortality compared with the most commonly used antipsychotic, risperidone.
The researchers concluded that "the use of haloperido (an anti-psychotic) to this vulnerable population cannot be justified, because of the excess harm".
The BMJ (British Medical Journal) is also aware that anti-psychotic drugs cause death.
"...... it was confirmed by the team that the use of antipsychotics by dementia patients is responsible for a surge in drug-related deaths, presumably as a result of negative side effects both internally to the body, and externally in the form of altered behavior. The findings also confirmed previous ones that identified an uptick in at least 1,800 additional deaths a year as a result of dementia patients taking antipsychotic drugs.
Accordingly, GPs were warned in November 2011 that they required PCT permission to prescribe anti-psychotics to older people with dementia - or face jail if they prescribed without permission.
The stark message, and the threat to GPs, was repeated in the GP magazine, Pulse, in February 2012. Why? Apparently because the original message was ignored by doctors! A further article appeared in March 2012 stating: "... a Pulse investigation revealed PCTs are failing to implement a major NHS programme seen by ministers as key to their campaign to cut the use of drugs".
So, it would appear that even if our government issues a direct instruction, and makes a serious threat, the Conventional Medical Establishment (ConMed) is so hooked on giving us drugs - regardless of the limited evidence for their efficacy - despite the extensive evidence that anti-psychotic drugs are dangerous - it steadfastly refuses to do so.
How much trust can be placed in a medical system that does this?
And, equally pertinent, why is the mainstream media not picking up on the ineffectiveness and dangers of these drugs; and telling us that our doctors are insisting on prescribing them to us, even when they have been instructed not to do so?
Beware Corticosteroid Drugs
This article first appeared on the "Dangerous Big Pharma Drugs" website. It shows how a former 'wonder drug', thought to have been a cure for arthritis, and still widely prescribed in a variety of forms, has become a major health hazard - courtesy of the Conventional Medical Establishment, the Big Pharma.
1. Corticosteroid Drugs, or glucocorticoids, are often just called ‘steroid’ drugs. They are produced to mimic cortisol, a hormone naturally produced within the body by the adrenal gland.
2. Drug Aliases
The term Corticosteroid is a generic name for a whole series of synthetic hormones, which themselves have an even larger number of ‘trade’ names. This information is taken mainly from http://www.livestrong.com/article/27014-list-corticosteroid-medications/
Betamethasone (Celestone): a corticosteroid used to treat inflammation and other symptoms of skin conditions... it is available in aerosol spray, lotion, ointment and cream forms. Possible side effects include acne, burning, itching, dry skin, cracked skin and changes in skin colour.
Budesonide (Entocort EC): a corticosteroid used to treat asthma.... available in oral capsule, oral inhalation and nasal spray forms. It can also be used in a nebulizer. This drug can cause side affects that interfere with normal function of several body systems. The most common side effects are nausea, headache and respiratory infection.
Cortisone (Cortone): used to treat inflammation and adrenal insufficiency. This drug can also be used to treat allergic conditions, ulcerative colitis, lupus, arthritis, breathing disorders and psoriasis. Side effects include insomnia, increased sweating, nausea, bloating, stomach pain, slow wound healing, acne, dry skin and changes in the location of fat in the body.
Dexamethasone (Decadron): used to treat arthritis, asthma, severe allergies, inflammatory intestinal disorders and skin disorders..(and also)... when the adrenal glands do not function properly. Possible side effects include stomach irritation, headache, insomnia, dizziness, restlessness, anxiety, easy bruising, irregular menstrual periods, upset stomach, vomiting, depression, acne and increased hair growth.
Hydrocortisone (Cortef): is available as a spray, liquid, lotion, gel, cream, ointment and medicated towelette that can be used on the skin. Suppositories, creams, enemas and ointments are available for use in treating anal itching. This drug can relieve skin irritations, rashes and itching. Possible side effects include acne, burning, changes in skin colour, dry skin, itching and cracked skin.
Methylprednisolone (Medrol): is used to treat inflammation caused by conditions such as arthritis, ulcerative colitis, breathing disorders, psoriasis, allergic conditions and lupus. Its side effects can include sweating, spinning sensation, bloating, nausea, acne, stomach pain, slow wound healing, thinning skin, mood changes, bruising, changes in the location of body fat, headache, dizziness and insomnia.
Prednisolone (Prelone): is used to treat endocrine disorders, collagen diseases, skin conditions, allergic conditions, respiratory conditions, blood disorders, gastrointestinal diseases and diseases of the eye. (It can cause) .... insomnia, increased appetite, nervousness and indigestion occurred in more than 10% of clinical trial subjects. Other side effects include increased hair growth, diabetes, joint pain, glaucoma, cataracts and nosebleed.
Prednisone (Deltasone): is used to treat inflammation associated with asthma, ulcerative colitis, arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, skin conditions and allergic disorders. The side effects include weight gain, high blood pressure, bone thinning, mood changes, easy bruising, insomnia, stretch marks, acne, cataracts and glucose intolerance.
Corticosteroids can be introduced to the body in a variety of forms - orally; injected into a vein or muscle; applied locally to the skin; injected directly into inflamed joints
And Corticosteroid drugs are often contained within products to treat various eye conditions; inhalers to treat asthma or bronchial disease; nasal drops and sprays to treat various nasal problems; topical creams and ointments to treat various skin problems.
3. Conventional Medical Purpose of Drug
The natural hormone, Cortisol, plays an important part in controlling salt and water balance in the body, as well as regulating carbohydrate, fat, and protein metabolism. When under stress the body stimulates the adrenal glands to produce more cortisol, allowing the body to cope not only with stress, but stress-induced infections, traumas, and emotional problems.
Conventional medicine gives patients corticosteroid drugs when the body does not produce enough of these hormones in order to treat inflammatory conditions of the skin, the immune system, and other organs.
Corticosteroids are now widely used for a variety of inflammatory conditions, including:
Rheumatoid arthritis
Lupus
Ankylosing spondylitis
‘Juvenile’ arthritis
Inflammatory Bowel disease
Dermatomyositis
Polymyositis
Mixed connective tissue disease
Behcet’s disease
Polymyalgia Rheumatica
Sclerosis
Giant cell arteritis
Vasculitis
Osteoarthritis
4. History of drug
Corticosteroid drugs were initially thought to be a ‘miracle’ drug when first discovered in 1948 at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. Arthritis patients were given daily injections, and the outcomes appeared to be so dramatic that it was thought that a ‘cure’ for arthritis had been found!
Unfortunately, the more corticosteroid drugs were used, serious disease inducing effects (DIEs) emerged, and in a matter of a few years they were being referred to as ‘scare-oid drugs’.
As usual, as the DIEs of the drug became more widely known, the use of corticosteroids became increasingly more restricted, and many patients, realising how dangerous they could be, began to decline the treatment.
5. How do they block the natural functioning of the body?
Corticosteroids act on the body’s immune system by blocking the production of substances that can trigger allergic and inflammatory actions in the body - such as prostaglandins. They also impede the functioning of white blood cells, whose task is to destroy foreign bodies, and help keep the immune system functioning properly.
It is probably this interference with white blood cell function that produces the serious DIE of increasing our susceptibility, and ability to cope with all kinds of infection.
6. What are the Disease Inducing Effects (DIEs) that result?
With such a wide variety of corticosteroid drugs, given in such a wide variety of forms, the DIEs they cause vary to a considerable extent. NHS Choices have attempted to summarise these in their website. But, as they admit,
“Hormones are powerful chemicals that affect many different processes in the body, from the strength of your bones to your weight. As corticosteroids are hormones, they can have a wide range of side effects”.
Inhaled corticosteroids, taken over a long period, can cause oral thrush, a fungal infection that develops inside the mouth.
Corticosteroids injected into muscle or joints can cause pain at the site of the injection, and over a period, can weaken the joint, or the muscle. When injected into the bloodstream it can cause:
Stomach irritation, such as indigestion
Rapid heartbeat (tachycardia)
Nausea
Insomnia
Mood changes, including irritability, depression and restlessness.
Oral corticosteroids, even if taken for a short time, can cause:
Increased appetite that often leads to weight gain
Acne
Mood changes, such as becoming aggressive, irritable and short tempered; rapid mood swings, such as feeling very happy one minute and very sad and weepy the next
Thinning skin which can bruise easily
Muscle weakness
Cushing’s Syndrome, a combination of fatty deposits that develop in the face (moon face), stretch marks across the body and acne
Osteoporosis (the weakening of the bones, especially in older people, and an increased risk of bone fractures)
The onset of diabetes, or worsening of existing diabetes
High blood pressure
Glaucoma and Cataracts
Delayed wound healing
Reduced growth in children
Increased risk of infection
Stomach ulcers
Mental health problems, affecting 1 in 20 taking drugs such as Prednisolone, including:
Feeling depressed and suicidal
Feeling manic (very happy and full of energy and ideas)
Anxiety
Confusion
Hallucinations
Strange and frightening thoughts
Oral corticosteroids also make you more vulnerable to vital infections such as chickenpox, shingles and measles, with NHS Choices adding that:
“You may become very ill if you develop these viral infections, even if you have been previously infected”.
When Corticosteroid drugs cause these kinds of serious DIEs it often necessitates other conventional medical treatments to deal with them, and patients can end up on a cocktail of drugs to treat their side effects.
The NHS, Whistle-Blowing, and Gagging Clauses
The NHS is going through yet another crisis. This time it concerns the care patients are receiving, especially when they are in hospital. The crisis at the North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust has now broadened into an issue of whether NHS staff are allowed to 'blow the whistle' on poor care practices, or whether the NHS bureaucracy is preventing or subverting this.
The concern about the situation is to be welcomed. Clearly, the crisis is focused on the 'care' provided by hospitals, and not about the 'treatment' given to hospital patients. But any death, regardless of its cause is a matter of concern, and should be investigated.
Yet, surely, it should be a matter of concern for the NHS bureaucracy too. So why do NHS staff find it so difficult to blow the whistle? Why do they fear doing so? Why does the NHS seek to prevent whistle-blowers from speaking up? Why do they offer concerned staff large financial settlements, allied to gagging clauses?
Why, in other words, should the NHS, and indeed the Conventional Medical Establishment, want to keep secret from us what is going on within our hospitals, and our health services?
What the critics of the NHS need to understand is that there is good reason for the secrecy. The NHS is a bureaucracy cloaked in secrecy. The drug-based treatment that dominates the NHS is shrouded in secrecy. The survival of the entire system of medicine, on which the NHS is now totally dependent, depends on secrecy.
We are not supposed to know what is going on! We are not allowed to know that conventional drug-based medicine is failing. We are not supposed to know that our hospitals are killing thousands of patients every year. We are not allowed to know that the pharmaceutical drugs we are given make us unhealthy, cause disease, and can actually kill us.
So why is the focus of this crisis on the care given to patients, and not their treatment? The issue here is what the relatives can see, and understand. Their patient-relative is unhappy. Their patient-relative is not given drink. Their patient-relative is not being fed. Their patient-relative is not being toileted. Their patient-relative is not responding to treatment. Their patient-relative is declining, and dying.
We can all see this, and understand that bad care is a failure. But the adverse impact of medical treatment is not so well understood. Our confidence in the medical profession, and the medicine they give us, remains solid. We don't believe, and we have never been told, that doctors might give us drugs that actually make patients sicker rather than better! Such an understanding is outside the experience and comprehension of most people. We have all been brought up to believe in the wonders of modern, 'scientific' medicine.
So, we complain about what we know. Our relative is not receiving proper care. And as a result it is the nursing staff, too busy with paperwork we are told, who bear the brunt of our disapproval.
Yet, spare a thought for those whose task it is to care for patients whilst in hospital, especially in units where residents are not getting better, where, day-by-day, they witness the decline into chronic illness, and the death of patients.
* If a medical system is failing, if patients do not receive effective treatment, they will decline and die - especially weak, frail and older patients.
* If a medical system is providing drugs that worsens rather than improve the health of patients, staff who witness this decline must be faced with a harrowing and depressing daily experience.
* If hospitals are constantly full, with people on long waiting-lists for admission, when 'turn-over and 'hot-bedding' is the order of the day, everyday, there is no respite from the daily pressures, and little reward in seeing patients getting noticeably better.
* If hospitals are such dangerous places, not least because of antibiotic-caused 'superbugs', and the dangers of passing on dangerous infections between patients (which ConMed cannot treat), where getting patients out of hospital becomes an important objective, what confidence can this give to staff that they are doing something worthwhile, or positive.
In these, and no doubt in many other ways, the outcome of conventional medical treatment, so often negative, is intimately connected with the morale of NHS staff, and therefore the quality of care they are able to provide to patients.
This is not offered as an 'excuse' for bad caring practices within hospitals, but it is, at least in part, an important reason for it.
So what about the NHS bureaucracy? Why have they been so secretive about 'care' issues? Why have they made whistle-blowing so difficult within hospitals? Why have they been prepared to pay-off key staff who are critical with lucrative deals that gags them from saying what they ought to be telling us?
This has probably arisen because the first duty of the Conventional Medical Establishment has been to defend the failures of a drug-based medical system on which they have become dependent. For decades, the NHS has been giving patients drugs that have failed, either by being ineffective, by causing disease, or by killing patients. And as each successive drug has been withdrawn or banned, the NHS Establishment has had to respond, and they have done so either by ignoring the issue, downplaying it, or when necessary by denying and seeking to suppress the information from getting to the general public.
So, Over the years, secrecy has become second-nature to the Conventional Medical Establishment, so it has become part of its modus-operandi - part and parcel buffering a failing medical system. Secrecy within the NHS has become a strategy for survival - and it continues to be so.
The NHS will rarely volunteer information about its failings. It will not accept or admit the failures of Big Pharma drugs - at least, not until such time as it is no longer possible to deny them. There are too many powerful vested interests, too much status and privilege at stake, to be open with patients about the nature of their treatment.
The Establishment, and the vested interests on which it is based, have become more important than patients!
The concern about the situation is to be welcomed. Clearly, the crisis is focused on the 'care' provided by hospitals, and not about the 'treatment' given to hospital patients. But any death, regardless of its cause is a matter of concern, and should be investigated.
Yet, surely, it should be a matter of concern for the NHS bureaucracy too. So why do NHS staff find it so difficult to blow the whistle? Why do they fear doing so? Why does the NHS seek to prevent whistle-blowers from speaking up? Why do they offer concerned staff large financial settlements, allied to gagging clauses?
Why, in other words, should the NHS, and indeed the Conventional Medical Establishment, want to keep secret from us what is going on within our hospitals, and our health services?
What the critics of the NHS need to understand is that there is good reason for the secrecy. The NHS is a bureaucracy cloaked in secrecy. The drug-based treatment that dominates the NHS is shrouded in secrecy. The survival of the entire system of medicine, on which the NHS is now totally dependent, depends on secrecy.
We are not supposed to know what is going on! We are not allowed to know that conventional drug-based medicine is failing. We are not supposed to know that our hospitals are killing thousands of patients every year. We are not allowed to know that the pharmaceutical drugs we are given make us unhealthy, cause disease, and can actually kill us.
So why is the focus of this crisis on the care given to patients, and not their treatment? The issue here is what the relatives can see, and understand. Their patient-relative is unhappy. Their patient-relative is not given drink. Their patient-relative is not being fed. Their patient-relative is not being toileted. Their patient-relative is not responding to treatment. Their patient-relative is declining, and dying.
We can all see this, and understand that bad care is a failure. But the adverse impact of medical treatment is not so well understood. Our confidence in the medical profession, and the medicine they give us, remains solid. We don't believe, and we have never been told, that doctors might give us drugs that actually make patients sicker rather than better! Such an understanding is outside the experience and comprehension of most people. We have all been brought up to believe in the wonders of modern, 'scientific' medicine.
So, we complain about what we know. Our relative is not receiving proper care. And as a result it is the nursing staff, too busy with paperwork we are told, who bear the brunt of our disapproval.
Yet, spare a thought for those whose task it is to care for patients whilst in hospital, especially in units where residents are not getting better, where, day-by-day, they witness the decline into chronic illness, and the death of patients.
* If a medical system is failing, if patients do not receive effective treatment, they will decline and die - especially weak, frail and older patients.
* If a medical system is providing drugs that worsens rather than improve the health of patients, staff who witness this decline must be faced with a harrowing and depressing daily experience.
* If hospitals are constantly full, with people on long waiting-lists for admission, when 'turn-over and 'hot-bedding' is the order of the day, everyday, there is no respite from the daily pressures, and little reward in seeing patients getting noticeably better.
* If hospitals are such dangerous places, not least because of antibiotic-caused 'superbugs', and the dangers of passing on dangerous infections between patients (which ConMed cannot treat), where getting patients out of hospital becomes an important objective, what confidence can this give to staff that they are doing something worthwhile, or positive.
In these, and no doubt in many other ways, the outcome of conventional medical treatment, so often negative, is intimately connected with the morale of NHS staff, and therefore the quality of care they are able to provide to patients.
This is not offered as an 'excuse' for bad caring practices within hospitals, but it is, at least in part, an important reason for it.
So what about the NHS bureaucracy? Why have they been so secretive about 'care' issues? Why have they made whistle-blowing so difficult within hospitals? Why have they been prepared to pay-off key staff who are critical with lucrative deals that gags them from saying what they ought to be telling us?
This has probably arisen because the first duty of the Conventional Medical Establishment has been to defend the failures of a drug-based medical system on which they have become dependent. For decades, the NHS has been giving patients drugs that have failed, either by being ineffective, by causing disease, or by killing patients. And as each successive drug has been withdrawn or banned, the NHS Establishment has had to respond, and they have done so either by ignoring the issue, downplaying it, or when necessary by denying and seeking to suppress the information from getting to the general public.
So, Over the years, secrecy has become second-nature to the Conventional Medical Establishment, so it has become part of its modus-operandi - part and parcel buffering a failing medical system. Secrecy within the NHS has become a strategy for survival - and it continues to be so.
The NHS will rarely volunteer information about its failings. It will not accept or admit the failures of Big Pharma drugs - at least, not until such time as it is no longer possible to deny them. There are too many powerful vested interests, too much status and privilege at stake, to be open with patients about the nature of their treatment.
The Establishment, and the vested interests on which it is based, have become more important than patients!
