Latest Updates

Day 7 of Diabetes Blog Week..... What I've Learned




Well, it's day 7 of Diabetes Blog Week ( or night, since I'm posting late in the evening) and today's post is all about what I've (we) learned thanks to D Blog Week.


This week I've learned that there are so many creative, interesting and dynamic Diabetes Blogs out there in the blogosphere. Incredible blogs written by individuals with open hearts and minds, faulty pancreases, and funny bones to spare. OK, I've always know that, but damn if this week didn't reinforce all of the above facts!

I have also learned that there are new bloggers in my world who I need to get to know better.


And I've learned that my old diabetes blogger friends are up to new and wonderful diabetes tricks!

But mostly, Diabetes Blog Week has reminded me that I'm not alone in my diabetes life.

And honestly folks, that's the most wonderful thing of all!!!

The Health Debate (6). Why drug testing & regulation fails to protect us

The Health Debate (6). Why drug testing & regulation fails to protect us
Both Drug Testing, and Drug Regulation regimes have been established around the world now for many decades, introduced to protect patients from pharmaceutical drugs that were a threat to our health - drugs like Thalidomide, which caused such havoc to the lives of so many families in the late 1960s, early 1970s.

Both Testing and Regulatory regimes came into being in recognition of the simple, and undeniable fact that Conventional Medical (ConMed) drugs were inherently unsafe, and that the public needed to be safeguarded from them.

However, one notable feature of both Testing and Regulatory regimes over the last 40 years and more, and throughout the world, has been their apparent inability and failure to protect us from useless and dangerous drugs, vaccines and other treatments.

Drug testing has allowed new drugs to be introduced on a regular basis, pronouncing each one to be effective and safe, and often proclaiming many to be 'wonder drugs' , or 'magic bullets. They are then marketed, prescribed to patients for many years, usually producing enormous profits for the Big Pharma drug companies, but one-by-one these same drugs have been found to be dangerous, or ineffective, or both, and they have had to be progressively restricted in their use before being withdrawn or banned.

Drug Regulation was established to verify that new drugs have been properly tested for their safety and effectiveness, prior to giving them approval for use with patients. After this, Regulatory agencies were supposed to monitor the performance of drugs once they are used with patients. However, in far too many instances, drug regulators have allowed pharmaceutical drugs to be used many years after they were initially found to be unsafe or dangerous.

The Health Debate should be concerned with the performance, and even the basic integrity and honesty of both these processes. Indeed, if the mainstream Media had any compassionate interest in their readers, listeners or viewers, all of whom are also patients, and consumers of these drugs, they would have been asking several key questions many, many years ago.
  • Why are Medical Drug Testing regimes unable to ensure that all Big Pharma drugs are safe and effective, and do so before, rather than after, they have been given to patients, and causing serious, detrimental and even lethal effects on our health?
  • Why do Drug Testing outcomes regularly fail to reflect the later outcomes when Big Pharma drugs are prescribed to patients and found to be useless or dangerous or both?
  • Are Drug Testing regimes sufficiently independent from the influence of the Big Pharma companies? And if not, why not?
  • Are 'negative' Drug Testing results routinely publicised, and made available to Drug Regulators? Are key conventional medical bodies routinely made aware of negative Drug Testing results, and if so, do they inform the Media, and patients?
  • Why does Drug Regulation fail to pick up the regular and ongoing inadequacy of Drug Testing? Why do they fail to approve drugs that are ineffective and unsafe?
  • Why is the Drug Regulatory system not more successful in monitoring the performance of Big Pharma drugs, and pick up on serious adverse reactions, and disease-inducing effects (DIEs) of Big Pharma drugs, at a much earlier stage?
  • Are Drug Regulatory Agencies sufficiently independent from the influence of the Big Pharma companies? And if not, why not?
  • Why is it that only an estimated 10% of 'adverse reactions' to pharmaceutical drugs reported by patients through their doctors actually getting through to the Drug Regulators?
  • Why are Drug Regulators slow to restrict, and to ban ConMed drugs? Why do they ignore problems with pharmaceutical drugs when they first become known, and wait, sometimes for years, before taking action against them?
  • Why are Big Pharma drugs, banned in one country by one Regulator, still allowed to be sold in another country by another Regulator? Why, for instance, are drugs banned in one country, say, the USA, but allowed to be sold in this country? And vice versa?
  • Are the Drug Testing, and Drug Regulatory regimes failing because ConMed is an inherently dangerous and ineffective medical system?
  • And are their safer, and more effective medical therapies available that do not suffer from such inherent dangers?
Statistics are readily available about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs, for instance, the number of hospital admissions arising from taking them, and the number of fatalities known to be caused by taking them. These statistics demonstrate clearly that Drug Testing, and Drug Regulation regimes have failed. Unfortunately, these statistic are just as readily ignored by the mainstream Media.

The seventh part of this series concerns the issue of Patient Choice, and the monopoly of ConMed treatment within the NHS.

If you would like to be informed when the seventh part of this series is published, why not become a 'follower', and sign up for this blog; or subscribe to it by email - and join the Health Debate.

Day 6: A Short Test Strip Pictorial ~

Day 6 of Diabetes Blog Week is all about pictures (as in pictures having to do with diabetes) and was inspired by the Diabetes 365 project.

So with out further adieu, May I present: A Test Strip Pictorial ~


Heads up: Any green lettering in the post below are links that lead to the original posts that the pictures are from and or inspired by.

Testing our blood sugar is our GPS System. It let's us know where our body is, what direction it's headed, and what direction it needs to go in.

TESTING is something we do OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER again.


We use a hell of a lot of test strips in the process.



And sometimes we lance ourselves in the oddest of places and aren't even aware!
Click HERE to find out how this happened.



Testing can cause all sorts of scatterbrained confusion, and could no doubt confuse even the most seasoned of CSI.


Test strips magically appear everywhere. Sometimes it even snows test strips.



And every once in a while, like when my tester case exploded in my handbag, they show up in the most unexpected of places and at the most inopportune of times. Like when I was about to attend a dMeet-up and wanted to make sure my breath was all types of minty fresh~

Even with all he trials and tribulations, we keep testing.
Because we must.

Informed Consent and Homeopathy

Informed Consent and Homeopathy
Conventional medicine (ConMed) usually fails to provide patients with sufficient information about the effectiveness and safety of their treatments, and so fails to provide patients with a situation in which they can give their 'informed consent' to medical treatment.

So what information should Homeopaths give to patients to ensure they are able to give their 'informed consent'. As 'the Black Duck' said, in response to my previous blog:

"Perhaps you might like to tell us how homeopaths tackle the tricky issue of informed consent? Do you set out some of the controversial aspects of homeopathy, the current lack of understanding of how homeopathy might work, and so on? Do you allow patients to make their own informed decisions on the back of this information, or do you make that decision for them?
Most new Homeopathy patients fit into one of two categories. Some arrive at an early stage of their illness because they have already decided that they do not want to go through the ConMed route of drug-based treatment. Others have gone through the NHS-ConMed route, some for many years, and found that their health has not improved, or has gradually declined. In neither category can the Homeopath take for granted that the patient knows enough about their illness, and its treatment by Homeopathy, to ensure that they can make an 'informed choice' about it.

What do you know about homeopathy?
This opening gambit is probably a sensible one in any initial Homeopathy interview as it will ascertain just where the patient is in terms of his/her knowledge and understanding. And it is always important to start from this point rather to make any assumptions. Increasingly, I am finding that potential patients have already done considerable research into Homeopathy, and/or have heard about it from former patients who have been treated successfully. But nevertheless the question remains important. What patients say in response to it will determine what the Homeopath needs to say to enable them to made an 'informed choice' about proceeding with Homeopathy.

How does homeopathy work?
The Black Duck feels that this is important. Actually, for most patients, it is not important! Indeed, it is probably not important for patients who seek help from any medical discipline. Patients know that they are ill, and that they want to get better. Most conventional doctors would be hard-pressed to explain how their drugs are supposed to work! And it is not my experience that patients want to sit through a long, philosophical lecture on the working mechanism of any particular medical therapy!

So I usually keep the explanation (or answer) to this question quite brief, mentioning the homeopathic principle of 'treating like with like', and briefly describing 'remedy pictures', and 'symptoms of illness', and the importance in Homeopathy of matching the two together. If patients want to ask further questions about this (and most don't) I will try to provide them with answers, based on my understanding.

However, one important point should be made in response to this question. This concerns the nature of the healing process, and how this will be driven by the body, and not by the homeopathic remedy. All the remedy does is to seek to assist the body to do so - it will not do so in its own right. Remedies are not 'wonder cures', all they do is to 'nudge' the body towards its self-healing task.

In addition, every patient should be told that Homeopathy works best when it is used as part of a 'holistic' strategy, which stresses the importance of good diet, exercise, and other life-style factors. 

Primarily, most patients want to know about two things. Is homeopathy an effective treatment for their condition or illness? And how safe is it?

Safety.
I usually begin with the latter - safety. I tell them that homeopathy is safe, and will not cause 'side-effects', 'adverse reactions', or indeed, cause disease or death. To support this, I will give a brief description of how remedies are made - by serial dilution and succussion. I may then tell them about the 'mass suicide' demonstrations undertaken by 'homeopathy denialists', like 'the Black Duck', in order to show that remedies cannot harm patients in the same way as Big Pharma drugs. I will then affirm that if, together, we arrive at the wrong remedy it will do absolutely no good whatsoever - but likewise it will do no harm!

Effectiveness.
It is then quite easy to move on to discuss effectiveness. I have always felt it important to tell patients that in order to be effective, a correct or 'similar' remedy has to be found. If such a remedy is found there will be some measure of improvement in the condition or illness. If it is not there will be no improvement. At this stage I always feel that it is important to manage expectations. There are no guarantees. This is especially important, perhaps, when a patient has arrived after homeopathy has cured or successfully treated a friend or relative (the source of most new referrals).

The Working Partnership
This quickly introduces another vital piece of information the patient needs to know about homeopathy, that the treatment process needs to be a partnership, and that it is not an 'expert-client' relationship. Although the Homeopath may have all the training and knowledge needed to determine a remedy that is 'similar', he/she can only arrive at this if the patient is able to openly, honestly and with insight, explain and describe their symptoms. 

This means that the patient is a vital part of the process. Even the most skilled and experienced Homeopath has to depend on the patient for the treatment to be effective.

Normally I will also tell patients that I am likely to ask some strange, and sometime intimate questions, and that these questions will often appear to have little relationship to the illness or disease being treated (at least, not in conventional terms).

In my experience, Homeopathy works best when it is conducted within a professional relationship that is open, honest and transparent. And I know of no reason why the homeopath-patient relationship should be based on anything else!

Qualifications.
It is always important for 'non-doctor' homeopaths, like myself, to explain that we are 'homeopaths' and not 'medical doctors' - that, for instance, we do not diagnose disease - that our skills are about matching the patients' symptoms of illness with remedies. I will usually tell patients that if they tell me anything that suggests that a formal diagnosis is necessary, or advisable, I will ask them to see their GP.

Do they wish to continue on the basis of this information?
At this point, I feel it is important for Homeopaths to ask the question - do they wish to continue? Often, this question is asked and answered during an initial telephone, or email enquiry. However, in my experience, few people who have bothered to ask these questions, when given these answers, have then decided to decline treatment. Most are content with the explanations given, and genuinely keen to proceed at this stage.

And in response to 'the Black Ducks' implied criticism, I don't know of any patient who has been forced to accept Homeopathy. Nor am I aware of any decision that I, or any other homeopath, 'make on behalf of patients'

Perhaps I can remind him that most patients who choose Homeopathy pay for it privately. This is quite different to the approach most patients find within the NHS: "you are ill, we are only going to offer you drug-based, ConMed treatment, and we are not going to tell you much about it"!

Providing the remedy.
I will always tell the patient about the remedy I would like them to take (I don't think I have ever told a patient to 'take a remedy' - I have always said 'I would like you to take this remedy'). Normally I will tell the patient what the remedy is, share some of the key symptom that it is known to deal with, and tell the patient why I feel this is important in their case. 

I will also tell the patient that if, after taking a remedy, the symptoms get worse (what we call an aggravation) to contact me in order to discuss the situation, and what to do about it.

Thereafter, the process of homeopathic treatment is concerned with the patient and homeopath working closely together, discussing changing symptoms, modifying the potency of remedies, and moving to other remedies when necessary.

Conclusion.
Providing the patient with this information, honestly and openly, enables them to give their 'informed consent' to Homeopathic treatment. And as we have seen, Informed Consent is also important to the very process of providing patients with homeopathic treatment.  So it is not 'tricky' to do so, as 'the Black Duck' suggests. It is actually quite easy, and essential to the process of healing.

Of course, it is true that providing this information to patients is easier for homeopaths as we have nothing to hide. Our remedies do not cause 'adverse reactions', disease or death. Our treatments do not involve potentially dangerous chemicals, invasive surgical procedures, or dangerous X-Rays or Radiation.

Homeopathy works alongside the body, helping it to achieve what it usually does quite naturally - keeping us healthy. Homeopathy has an easy, straight-forward and honest message that most patients, when they hear it, will understand and readily accept.