Placebos, Nocebos, and the Spirits of Healthicine

Our medical system is less comfortable and less effective as studies and results move from the body to the mind, from the mind to the spirit, and from the spirit to the community.  Each of the top layers of the hierarchy of healthiness is studied with fear rather than with respect by science and medicine.

The placebo effect is one of the most misunderstood, misrepresented, and maligned effects of health and medical products. That's because placebo effects are just a technical name for the spirit, which medical science refuses to acknowledge.

Placebo is an interesting word, the definition of which helps to create an incorrect view.  Placebo, according to Webster, is "a usually pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder". Written as if placebos do not provide physical relief.  But they do.

Many doctors prescribe 'placebos' because they recognize that mental relief is an important aspect of physical relief. 'So called' mental relief is often accompanied by physical relief. Even if they don't understand the details, these doctors are not 'deceiving', they are acting in the best interests of the patient. They often prescribe 'patent medicines' that, in theory, will have no effect on the condition, rather than an alternative medicine - because paying more, and going to a pharmacy, increases the placebo effect. Some doctors recognize that drugs with an actual effect - not specifically related to the patients (untreatable by medicine) condition have a stronger placebo effect.  The most effective placebo is often not an inert pill, but one that the patient can 'feel working'.

The Placebo Effect has three parts:

1. The basic placebo effect is an increase in a patient's response to a treatment.  It doesn't matter if the treatment is a patent medicine, an alternative medicine, a surgery, or a prayer - all treatments benefit from the placebo effect.

2. The nocebo effect (a reverse placebo effect) can increase your awareness of, or the presence of side effects of a treatment, even to a placebo (null) treatment, or from a diagnosis. In some cases nocebo effect can result in death where there is no danger.

3. Regression to the mean is a natural physical process that moves statistical outliers back to the normal range. It works equally well with golf tournaments, coin tosses, protest movements, as well as health and medical conditions.

The placebo effect, and the nocebo effect (but not regression to the mean) are effects that lie on the layers of body and mind, and of mind and spirit.

Drug manufacturers hate the placebo effect, because it forces them to try and do better than mere 'suggestion'. As if that was a false requirement.  Drugs also benefit from the placebo effect.  And can be degraded by the nocebo effect.

Doctors (and others) often claim that the effects of 'alternative' medicines are entirely due to the placebo effect. This allows them to ignore 'facts' in favour of untested 'fictions'.

Neither seriously considers the symptoms of healing or healthiness. What are the symptoms of healing?  How does the placebo effect affect the symptoms of healing? What are the symptoms of healthiness?  How does the nocebo effect affect the symptoms of healthiness?

Studies of the nocebo effect are generally aimed at minimizing its effect in patients. But, it's strange to note that studies of the placebo effect are also aimed at minimizing it, even though it has a positive effect on patients health.

Almost everyone ignores, or is ignorant of 'regression to the mean'.

Scientific studies often ignore 'regression to the mean'. Even though it has a huge effect on results. Scientific studies of medicines typically compare a 'product being tested' vs a placebo. So, of course, they are DOUBLY affected by the placebo effect. And the researchers think they are accurately measuring the placebo effect, and thus, accurately measuring the 'product effect'. But they often ignore regression to the mean, which pretends to be, or is mistaken for placebo effect. Regression to the mean happens on both sides of a double blind study.  It happens to the patient's illness, and also to the patient's healthiness as well.

How does regression to the mean work?

Golf scores provide an interesting example.  If you review the field of competitors from a golf tournament, and rank them according to their score on the 1st hole, some will have good scores - and some will have bad scores.  But the scores on the 1st hole will, likely, have little predictive value for the tournament. If you add in the scores from the 2nd hole, some of the people with the highest score will 'regress to the mean'. People with the lowest score will also regress towards the mean. All scores move towards the average.  The sequence is statistically irrelevant, even though it has an effect (placebo effect?, nocebo effect?) on the participants performance. With any two holes counted, you might still have the final leader - in the bottom half.

The more rounds you add to the score - the more the scores bunch together, and the better your information. We tend to watch golf score from round 1, to round 2, to round 3, and we only pay attention to the leaders - so we miss the big picture. We miss regression to the mean entirely, because we perceive little effect on the leaders. In round 1 - someone is ahead (often as random as who did the best in round 10).  Then in round 2, someone else is ahead - because the leader in round 1 was the farthest from the mean, and his score 'regressed to the mean'. And so on.

Regression to the mean happens with any sample monitored over time. It's a statistical fact, not a 'placebo effect'.  It will happen if patients take medicines - prescription or alternative medicines, and it will happen if they do not take any medicines. It happens even if they decide to NOT take medicines that are prescribed.


Medicine, is complicated, even if you just study the physical facts and ignore the spirit. If you select a group of people suffering from a cold, for example, some will have mild colds, some moderate colds, and some - severe colds. Some will have had a cold for one day, some for 3 days, etc. The mean appears to be those with 'moderate colds'.  But  that's a poor understanding. Colds are not normal. The population on average does not have a cold.


The mean they are regressing towards is actually 'the mean' of the normal population.  Most people do not have colds.  In a very short time - the members of your test group will 'regress to the mean' and most of them will no longer have colds.  This is 'normal'.

It's even more complicated. Some are very healthy people, some are less healthy and some are very unhealthy - where healthiness is measured independent of their colds.  Some eat nutritious diets, some junk food diets.  Some exercise regularly - some are couch potatoes. Some are mis-diagnosed, they don't really have a cold, they have allergies, or even heart failure. Healthiness changes slowly, much more slowly than the symptoms of a cold.

Studies of cold medicines typically have very short duration, in the hope that this will minimize those complications.  But if we were to study cold healthicines - we would need to study people over larger variations of healthiness and over wider periods of time.

Healthiness also regresses towards the mean. People who are healthier than the mean tend to drift to being less healthy.  People who are less healthy than the mean notice, and try to move their healthiness towards the mean.  I fear that the mean healthiness is also regressing in today's society.


As a result, studies that struggle with 'placebo effect' and ignore 'regression to the mean' constantly find confusing, conflicting results.  Who to blame?  Not themselves of course, it's much easier to blame 'placebo effect'.

If we are to learn the truth about health, we need to stop ignoring or hiding from real effects.  Placebo and nocebo effects are real effects.  As is regression to the mean.

There is another important aspect of the placebo effect.  Very important.  We can use arthritis as an example, but it applies to any illness.

The variations factor.

If we are studying a group of people with arthritis (or any chronic illness), there is a huge variety in their conditions.  Some have mild arthritis   Some have moderate arthritis.  And some have severe arthritis. Some have had arthritis for years - some for decades or generations. Some eat healthy diets and some don't.  Some exercise regularly - but some don't.  Some might take up, or drop, an exercise plan during the study. Each of them is sometimes healing - and thus they have symptoms of healing.  Their healing status might change during the study, due to 'control' conditions, or uncontrolled conditions. But scientific studies tend to 'not measure' symptoms of healing'.

So called 'scientific studies' generally ignore these variations, or deliberately trying to minimize them. Of course when a drug is marketed, the marketing is 'expanded' beyond the variations studied. A treatment is tested on the selected group.  The treatment has an effect.  Placebo effect has an effect. The outliers in the group tend to regress to the mean (unless they die - a mean we will all regress to eventually, in which case their results might be excluded from the published study).

Scientific studies want nice clean results.  The placebo effect is a nuisance.  Nocebo effects are not even noticed, nor measured in most cases. Regression to the mean is easy to ignore - and extremely difficult to measure with regards to both healthiness and illness.

A severe weaknesses of science based medicine is the need to be 'right' or to find the 'true' answers. The simple truth is: truth is complex.  There are many truths, and many views of truth. Many valid views of truth - but medical science wants to find 'the one'.

The placebo effect, is a different effect in different people.  Just as some people exercise more than others, some exercise more than others - some are more spiritual than others.  And this spirituality can change over time. The medical profession might use the word 'suggestibility' to avoid terms related to 'spirituality'.

Some doctors are more spiritual, more 'placebo effect enhancing' and this too will regress to the mean, towards the average, as time passes and as more results are gathered.

The placebo effect, and the nocebo effect reside on the borders between body and mind, and between mind and spirit.  Regression to the mean lies on the border of our understanding. We have a mathematical theory, but it is difficult to apply to all of the factors that 'regress'.

The spirit is independent of the technologies of science. It is at a higher level than mere facts, figures, scientific studies, and clinical research studies. Medicine, and science try to ignore and disparage spiritual and placebo effects. They have no mechanisms to understand them.  I believe that eventually our sciences will encompass the spirit, but today, there is only fear that the spirit will overwhelm (or perhaps trick) science.

Science is afraid of spirits.

To quote medical historian Anne Harrington in The Placebo Effect: An Interdisciplinary Exploration, "Placebos are the ghosts that haunt our house of biomedical objectivity, the creatures that rise up from the dark and expose the paradoxes and fissures in our own self created definitions of the real and active factors of treatment."

When we hide behind, or from spirituality, and the placebo effects, our knowledge of health is decreased. As a result of decreased knowledge, our health freedom is decreased.

Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthiness. Even a right to the most effective placebos our spirits our sciences can create and our spirits can handle.

tracy

this post has been re-published by
Wakeup-World
Waking Times
GreenMedInfo
AGMClimas.com
sott.net

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Mammogram vs thermogram? Cancer scam or health sham?

If you listen to the news, you may have heard some noise about a new breast cancer detection tool, called thermography, or thermogram.  I've seen news reports stating:

"Clinic offers cancer diagnostic test dismissed by experts"

"'Useless' breast cancer test touted across country"

And the following quote from an authority figure:
"It's not effective at detecting breast cancers,” said Gillian Bromfield, senior manager of cancer control policy at the Canadian Cancer Society. “It misses the large majority of breast cancers and, on top of that, it also detects cancers when there actually are none."

It all sounds very 'newsworthy', but what are the facts? News reporters prefer to quote authority figures, it's easier than doing an analysis of the facts.

Maybe we should start first with mommograms - to set a baseline. What is a mammogram used for? What is the success/failure rate?  How many cancers does it detect when there are none?

According to the American Cancer Society, "A mammogram is an x-ray exam of the breast. It is used to detect and evaluate breast changes."  Note, they do NOT claim that a mammogram detects or diagnoses cancer.  About thermograms, they say "Newer versions of this test are better able to find very small temperature differences. They may prove to be more accurate than older versions, and are now being studied to find out if they might be useful in finding cancer."

The Canadian Cancer Society says "A mammography exam is a low-dose x-ray." Note, they also do not claim that a mammogram diagnoses cancer. They describe it as a 'screening test', and go on to say that: "Diagnostic tests will be done if the signs and symptoms of breast cancer are present, if the result of a mammography is abnormal, or if the doctor suspects breast cancer."

A mammogram is a screening test.  If it shows abnormal results, further analysis is required to diagnose cancer, or to learn that cancer is not present.  What is the statistical effectiveness of a mammogram?

The Journal of Medical Screening published a research paper monitoring mammograms in Helsinki, Finland, and reported "The estimated sensitivity of the screening programme was 58%; and 53% if corrected for overdiagnosis."  eg. Mammograms are about 50 percent effective as a screening test for cancers. Their conclusion: "The study provides further support to the hypothesis that service screening with mammography reduces the risk of breast cancer mortality." eg. A screening test that has about 50 percent effectiveness reduces the risk of breast cancer mortality.

The Journal of Clinical Oncology published a report comparing mammography, breast ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging, to monitor breast cancer in a group of women at high risk of breast cancer. They found the effectiveness of mammography to be low - 33%. Ultrasound was found to be 40%, and MRI was found to be 93 percent effective.  Their conclusion: "Mammography alone, and also mammography combined with breast ultrasound, seems insufficient for early diagnosis of breast cancer in women who are at increased familial risk"

Mammograms are an inexpensive useful first screen tool in cancer protection, but not terribly effective at detecting breast cancer, and according to some studies they indicate cancer in a number of situations where cancer does not exist. According to Wikipedia, mammograms have a false positive result in about 80 percent of cases where investigation is indicated, and between 10 and 30 percent false negatives, where cancer exists but is not found.

The New England Journal of Medicine recently published a research paper that studied 30 years of mammography statistics, in a paper titled "Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence"  The author's conclusion: "Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer."

The Radiology Journal reported a review of 16,000 studies of "Thermography, Mammography, and Clinical Examination in Breast Cancer Screening" and found that thermography had a success rate of 39%, eg. in a similar range of effectiveness as mammography.

It is important to note that use of thermography to detect breast cancer is not some 'new technique'.  It was introduced as a screening tool in the 1950s but was dropped when it was found to be not as effective as other techniques.  Today, thermography uses much newer technologies and may have significantly improved.  It's certainly difficult to tell based on the rhetoric from cancer societies.


It has also been noted that mammograms are most effective at detecting breast cancer in 'soft breast tissue' and less effective in 'dense breast tissue'.  Thermograms appear to be more effective for women with dense breast tissues.

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?  Clearly, based on these research papers, the quote by Gillian Bromfield, senior manager of cancer control policy at the Canadian Cancer Society - “It misses the large majority of breast cancers and, on top of that, it also detects cancers when there actually are none," could just as easily have been a quote about mammograms. Is Gillian a doctor? No she is not (neither am I).

Or is this a case of Coke vs Pepsi?  Maybe that's a poor comparison.  Coke and Pepsi are equally BAD for your health (even though they are marketed as making you feel good). Maybe the comparison is more like apples vs oranges.  Eg. Both are useful, and they provide different health benefits.  Both are good for us.

Mammograms are useful tools in the early detection of cancers.  Their weaknesses include more cancers missed, especially in women with dense breast tissue.  Mammograms use x-rays, which may present some danger over the long term.  Thermograms are also useful tools in the early detection of cancers, but we're not so clear on their weaknesses (despite the rhetoric in the news).

Are mammograms, or thermograms the best tool for initial breast cancer screening?  That's a difficult question. At present the cost of a mammogram is less, but that may be a result of higher use.

Who wants to know the truth?  Clearly people who support mammography want us to know their truth, and the people who support thermography want us to know their truth. There is, somewhere, a common truth, but finding the common truth is much more difficult - it may take years, possibly decades.

What do we need?

The cancer societies tout 'early detection' as their goal.  With early detection, we can, supposedly, treat earlier and have better chances of survival. The truth is more complex.  Breast cancer, like all cancers, is very complex. There are different types of breast cancer - none of the screening tools measure what type might present (so far). The screening tool indicates a need for further analysis and possibly treatment. The earlier the 'detection', the higher the likelihoods of false positives, and associated costs and dangers.   I was in Argentia when the president had a diagnosis of cancer in her thyroid gland, had the gland removed surgically, and subsequently learned that there had not been any cancer present. Many men (I am a male) have their prostrate glands removed, only to learn later that there was no danger.

We need a tool that is inexpensive enough, and simple enough to detect and cancer-like growths over time.  In our current medical paradigm, we aim to 'detect cancer' and to 'aggressively treat cancer' once it is diagnosed. I believe this is not the most effective approach.

We need a tool that is inexpensive, non-invasive, and provides continuity.  Breast cancer does not develop overnight.  It takes years, decades. The Canadian Cancer Society recommends that women over 50 receive a mammogram every two years. 

We need a tool that facilitates HEALTHING of breast cancers. We need a tool that helps us to avoid the dangers of surgery, chemotherapy, etc., by techniques that slow or reverse the cancer like growths before they become serious.  

Early detection is not enough. We need early detection AND techniques that are appropriate for 'early detected' cancers. These techniques should be based on healing, not on killing, on treating the body as a healthy tool, not as a cancer victim. 

If we develop a tool that can detect breast cancer like growths in the first few years - long before they might be detected by a mammogram?  It would probably have a very high incidence of 'false positives'.

However, if we use this tool regularly, over time, we can see the progress of these growths and track their progress - long before there is a diagnostic need for surgery or chemotherapy.

If we can detect, and track the progress of such growths, we can learn many things:
 - which are more likely to grow into cancer
 - what healthy behaviors enhance or inhibit their growth

Is thermography this tool.  As long as we keep searching for a tool 'like mammograms', we will only find tool that, like mammograms - are only used to screen for a diagnosis, which will result in serious, dangerous further diagnosis and treatment protocols.

Unfortuntely, the cancer societies operate on a medical paradigm. Search and destroy illness.  They know nothing about health.

Both the thermogram and the mammogram are designed to search for illness. They do not measure 'healthiness', they measure 'presence of illness' (or not).

What about me?  If I was a woman, would I want a regular mammogram?  Of course.  Even a 50 percent chance of finding cancer is better than none - even if there is a high chance of mis-diagnosis.  But I would want a thermogram too.  We may learn, in the long term, that mammograms and thermograms are each most effective at finding, or discriminating between different types of cancers. But not it we throw one out because it only performs 'no better than' the other.

It appears that mammograms, and thermograms, are at best 'tied in fourth place' for their ability to detect cancer (behind a clinical diagnosis, ultrasound and MRI techniques).  But mammograms lead the field because they are relatively inexpensive, and also because they are the incumbent. It also seems clear that thermograms and mammograms detect and measure 'different indicators' of cancer.  As a result, a combination of both will give more complete information.

There are many different types of breast cancer, and different ways to classify breast cancers.  We might learn that mammograms are more effective tools to indicate some types - and thermograms are more effective tools at indicating other types.
The USFDA (Food and Drug Administration) and Health Canada both claim to be 'looking after your health', but they are doing their best to STOP YOU from to getting a thermogram - even if you pay for it yourself.

In the long term, both mammograms and thermograms might evolve into a less expensive, more effective cancer screening tool - but not, it seems, if the USFDA and Health Canada have their say.

Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of heathiness.  I only wish our medical communities and our government would spend a bit more time pursuing healthiness instead of arguing over the fourth best technique for pursuing illness.

to your health, tracy

You can find another interesting post about mammogram vs thermogram here:
http://www.arizonaadvancedmedicine.com/Articles/2013/June/Mammography-vs-Thermography-Debate-2013.aspx

This article has been reposted by AGMCLIMAS.COM without credit to author or blog.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Fashion Medicines: Are your medicines HEALTHY? or just Fashionable?

A while ago I went out looking for a black jacket to replace one that was a bit worn.  I went to many stores - but the 'style' I wanted was not for sale.  It was in style two years ago - and it had pockets in all the right places. It was light, comfortable, fit well and looked good.  But I was forced to buy a different style.

We have become used to the fact that perfectly good clothes go in and out of fashion - and if you shop at the big chains, what you can choose depends on the fashion of the moment.

What about medicines?

Is your medicine fashionable?  Are your health products fashionable?

That might seem like a strange question.  But think for a moment.  Or, go to the local drug-store  or supermarket and buy some toothpaste. You might see toothpastes, with names like:

Clinical Gum Protection - with Clean Mint
Protection and Whitening Striped Toothpaste
Fresh Mint with Baking Soda
Total Protection plus Whitening

Does this sound like a health product list, or a fashion list?

Or maybe your fashion is an organic, free range, non-GMO, non-fluoride toothpaste? You will probably need to go to a specialty store.  Because that fashion is not for sale in your local chain.

Let's be frank.  What is the healthiest toothpaste?  What is the healthiest toothpaste for seniors?  What is the healthiest toothpaste for children?  What is the healthiest toothpaste for you? Nobody knows - not even close.

You might think that the big toothpaste companies are actually doing research to determine which products are most effective. You might hope that your government is monitoring toothpastes to see if there is any risk to your health. Think again.  My local drugstore has over 50 different types of toothpaste on display.  No one could be expected to figure out which is more effective.  Every one of them contains fluoride.

GreenMedInfo lists 33 research reports into the dangers of fluoride.

I've tried to buy toothpaste that does not contain fluoride and documented it in my toothpaste rant blog. Is fluoride toothpaste better? No.  It's just more fashionable.

If you are buying toothpaste, you can choose your fashion, from the ones available at the store. If you want a different 'fashion' or style of toothpaste, sorry, we had that ten years ago, but this year it's 'out of fashion'.  Was it more effective?  We don't know.  Was it healthier?  We don't know.

What about cold medicines?  Are cold medicines sold based on their effectiveness?  Or on fashion?

At your local drug-store you will find many cold medicines. You can shop last year, this year, or next year and be guaranteed you will find products listed as 'new', 'improved', and phrases like 'now with ...'.
You will find that each company that sells cold medicines has a 'new improved product', with new and improved packaging and a new and improved price.

But will you find any scientific tests?  Do any of the providers of cold medicine actually test their results against last year's product?  Does anyone?  Does anyone actually compare one companies products against another?

The truth about cold medicines, fits perfectly into a recent blog "The Medicines Myth" - cold medicines, like most medicines sold today, don't cure anything.  They 'treat the symptoms'. Treating the symptoms explains why the fashion leading 'cold medicines' are 'all in one' medicines that treat cold, flu, sinus infections and allergies too.  These are symptom medicines, not treating the illness.

Which cold medicine treats cold symptoms best?  Is that one available - or can you only buy the latest 'fashion' of cold medicine?

It would be nice to think that the creation of cold medicines is progressing steadily to provide better and better products. But no.  There is no independent testing of effectiveness. The improvements are aimed at marketing not product effectiveness - just like toothpaste. It's easy to market fashion: : show someone sniffling and coughing - then show them breathing easy.  Which is more 'fashionable'.  Do these cold medicines make you healthier?  We have no idea, but like cosmetics, they might make you look healthier, they make you feel healthier.

What about condoms? You might not think of condoms as medicines - but they are designed to prevent disease.  But how are they marketed?  A report from whats-in-a-name blog compares condom names to names used for Android tablets, with some fun results. http://blog.intercom.io/whats-in-a-name/

Condoms may be sold to prevent disease, or to prevent pregnancy - but they are marketed using 'sell the sizzle, not the steak' fashion statements.  What does your condom say about you?

Another 'fashion' used to market medicines is the 'behind the counter' fashion.  If a manufacturer can market their 'medicine' as 'so strong the druggist keeps it behind the counter' - it's a powerful fashion statement. Are stronger medicines healthier?  Frankly, we have no idea which are healthiest.  We measure illness, not healthiness. We know that stronger medicines are more dangerous - we don't know if they are healthier.

But, is there a way out?  Is it possible to buy medicines that are not 'fashionable'?  Yes, but it's harder.  You have to buy 'open source' medicines, or 'green medicinees'. You will undoubtedly find these medicines are also marketed through fashion - that's the nature of marketing.  But they are not 'designed' as fashion medicines.  Drugstore toothpaste and cold medicines are designed and marketed by fashion, not for health.

In many cases, it's more effective to make your own medicines.  As Hippocrates advised "May all your foods be medicines, may all your medicines be food'.

When the only medicines available are the 'fashionable ones', our freedoms are limited to the current marketing hype.  It's possible to make an old jacket last a bit longer - but we need to know which medicines are most effective, not which are 'newer', 'fresher', 'more fashionable'.

Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthiness. 
to your health, tracy

The Medicines Myth

What are medicines for? What do medicines do? Your first instinct might be exactly wrong "Medicines cure disease". Isn't that what medicines do? 

No, it is not.  

I researched the top selling prescription medicines of 2011 (you can see the list below) and reached a simple conclusion.  Of the top ten best selling drugs in 2011 - not one of them cures a disease.

Some of them address symptoms  - but none address the cause of the disease they treat.

Most, if not all, are simply 'preventatives' applied after the fact, as the the old saying goes "shutting the barn door, after the horse has bolted".

The statement: "medicines cure disease" is a myth.

You might have seen this common disclaimer on 'alternative health products': This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

The top ten patent medicines are used to 'treat' disease after it occurs. They could use a shortened disclaimer, removing only a single word: This product is not intended to diagnose, cure, or prevent any disease and it would apply to all 20  of the top selling drugs of 2011 - and 19 of the top 20 in 2008. Although, it might be argued that they 'prevent' illness, take note: none prevents illness before it is diagnosed. They only claim to 'prevent risk' after an illness is diagnosed. 

You don't need to go far to find 'conspiracy theories' about drug companies putting profit over health, or even theories about governments trying to keep everyone sick or even dead. But these theories are just noise.

Are the drug companies lying to us?  No.  They are simply telling us their truth, their whole truth, and nothing but their truth.  They are, after all, 'selling'.

There are many truths worth knowing: 

A drug that cures disease will not be a bestseller.
It is more economically motivating for drug companies to produce drugs that you 'keep taking'.  Drugs that 'cure disease' don't sell as much, because once the disease is gone - the need for the drug is gone. If drug companies only work to cure disease - they will be working to put themselves out of business.  There are, after all, only so many diseases. Sometimes I wonder if we have more drug companies than we have diseases.

Many drug prescriptions lead to death.  
Dr. Mercola reports: Fatal prescription drug overdoses surpassed car crashes as the leading cause of accidental death in 2007, according to the Department of Health. 

We can cure many of the diseases the top 20 drugs treat.
This is important. The top 20 drugs treat the symptoms of some very common diseases.  In many cases, we can cure those diseases, but only without drugs.  Maybe not in every case, but in many cases. However, at present, we have no idea how many - because we prescribe drugs instead of cures.

Can we cure heart disease, respiratory diseases, and mental illness? These are three of the top diseases attacked by the 20 best selling drugs?  The other is cancer.  

Yes we can. But not with drugs.  First, we need to go back to the father of medicine, Hippocrates. Hippocrates said: "Nature itself is the best physician." He was talking about healthing illness - treating illness by improving healthiness. He also said "Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food." And lastly, he said: "If you are not your own doctor, you are a fool."

The top 20 (or more) selling medicines are not foods. You cannot buy them without a prescription.  They are not from nature - they are designed and marketed by corporations. And they do not allow you to be your own doctor - you MUST get a prescription to purchase them - even if you are a doctor. None of the top selling drugs of 2011 fit the recommendations of Hippocrates. 

Heart Disease - Cardiovascular disease - can we cure heart disease? yes.

We know how to cure cardiovascular disease. When I say 'we', I mean 'there are people who know'. There are people who know how to cure cardiovascular disease .  Some of them are active, making a good living, curing cardiovascular disease.  Some are simply people who have learned how to cure their own heart disease - and are 'being their own doctor', curing themselves.

But.  Is anyone researching these cures? Is anyone working scientifically to study and improve them?  Are they being published in 'medical journals'.  Nope.

Why?  I believe the main reason YOU can't find a cure for heart disease is simply that it takes WORK to cure heart disease.  You want to take a pill.  Too bad. Your doctor can't cure heart disease unless you give him absolute control over your diet and considerable control over your exercise regime.  A pill won't work. Curing heart disease requires active, ongoing work and 'healing'.

We know what works.  However - we don't know 'what works best' because no-one is studying this scientifically. No one is studying the 'healing' of heart disease.

Now more bad news.  If a doctor, or you cure your heart disease - will the insurance company pay for it?  Nope.  The insurance company pays for treatments.  It pays for the treatments that are 'on the list'.  If it's not on the list, and you pay for a treatment that cures your heart disease - your medical insurance will not pay. Your medical insurance is not health insurance, it's sick insurance. If your doctor recommended it - he might be reprimanded, even banished, for recommending a treatment that is not on the list. No matter if it cures you or not.

Respiratory diseases - can we cure asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory diseases? yes.

There are people who have cured asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases - but not with drugs.  Drugs do not even attempt to cure. It is important to recognize that these disease symptoms can arise from a wide variety of situations.

Medicines don't cure respiratory disease (with a few exceptions for antibiotics in specific situations). Medicines treat symptoms.

So, why don't we know how to 'cure' respiratory disease?  Because it's hard.  Each is an individual case. Because curing respiratory disease requires 'healing'.

Experience has shown that in many cases, it is possible to cure respiratory disease - if you take the time and effort to focus on a cure, not on the symptoms.

Now more bad news.  If a doctor, or you cure your respiratory disease - will the insurance company pay for it?  Nope.  The insurance company pays for treatments.  It pays for the treatments that are 'on the list'. It does not pay for cures.

Mental Illness - can we cure schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder?  Yes. 

There are people who have cured these mental illnesses.  Clearly they can be cured in some cases. But is anyone studying these cures? Nope.  They are considered 'anecdotal evidence' if they are noticed at all.  No-one is tracking them, much less studying them. If you are diagnosed with a mental illness, the diagnosis is counted in statistics.  But if you are cured - there are no statistics.

No one tracks ALL cures, of any disease, statistically. 

As with other common diseases - If a doctor, or you cure your mental illness - will the insurance company pay for it?  Nope.  The insurance company pays for treatments.  It pays for the treatments that are 'on the list'.  Your insurance does not pay for cures. 

What about cancer?  Cancer drugs have taken over many of the top spots in drug sales, but none of them cures cancer.  You might have, some time in your life, donated time or money to find a 'cure for cancer'.  Rest assured - no-one is searching diligently for a cure.  Everyone is searching for a drug.  A medicine.  And medicines don't cure illness. At least not the important ones. The medicines that are important are the ones that sell the most, not the ones that cure.

Can we cure cancer?  I believe we can.  I also believe we cannot cure cancer with drugs. Unfortunately, when you donate money to find a cure for cancer - it is spent looking for a drug to cure cancer - or just as likely - it is spent trying to get more people to donate to find a drug to cure cancer.

There are people out there, many people, who have 'cured cancer'.  But our 'drug driven system' views them as 'anecdotal evidence' and ignores them.  There is no-one actively researching to see what actually happened when cancer was cured and to publish the information - certainly not any drug company.

But if a doctor, or you, cure your cancer - will the insurance company pay for it?  Nope.  The insurance company pays for treatments.  It pays for the treatments that are 'on the list'.  It does not pay for cures. Not even cancer.

If you are healthy - your 'heath insurance' will not pay.  If your status changes from sick to healthy - your health insurance is not obligated to pay.  Health insurance only pays for specific, identified treatments, not for cures.

When will we (the big we, the 'all of us', the 'conventional medical wisdom' we) learn to cure these diseases?  When health becomes a verb. When we learn to health. When we study healthicine as thoroughly as we study medicine. When health insurance pays for cures, when researchers focus on health, not on symptoms, when medicines are not restricted to 'patent medicines', when we put 'open source medicines' and 'patent medicines' to the same test - do they cure?  Do they heal?

Do any drugs cure disease? 

I don't know if there are some drugs that actually cure disease - but I do know that they are not the top sellers.

Health Freedom? We will not achieve health freedom until we begin to pursue healthiness as diligently as we pursue illness.  

Here's the top 10 selling medicines, from 2011.

1. Plavix - the purpose of Plavix is to prevent blood clots in someone who has recently had a stroke or a heart attack.  Does it heal the damage caused by a heart attack or stroke?  No.  Does it heal the blocked arteries that might have caused the heart attach or stroke? Nope.  The expectation is that you will take Pavix, because it will suppress your natural, healthy, clotting tendencies - and thus, possibly, prevent another heart attack or stroke. Does your doctor prescribe Plavix to give you time for other, slower treatments that will cure your circulatory system, or heal the damage caused by disease? Nope. Your doctor signs your prescription, adding perhaps some dietary advice, and then signs off until your next checkup.

2. Lipitor - the purpose of lipitor is to lower cholesterol.  The purpose of lowering cholesterol is, in theory, to reduce heart disease. Does Lipitor cure? No. Does it 'heal' the damage of a heart attack or stroke?  No. Does it heal the damage that is caused in theory, by high cholesterol?  Nope. It is designed to lower your cholesterol, and hopefully your body will heal from the damage caused by high cholesterol.  Does your doctor prescribe Lipitor to give you time for other, slower treatments that will cure your heart disease or heal the damage from your heart disease? Nope. Your doctor signs your prescription to Lipitor and then signs off until your next checkup.

3. Advair Diskus - contains two medicines; one that relaxes the muscles in the walls of the air passages in the lung, keeping them open and thus making it easier to breathe. The other reduces inflammation in the lungs and thus helps reduce swelling and irritation in the small air passages in the lungs  It is commonly prescribed for  asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).  Does it cure asthma or COPD? Nope. Does it heal the damage or inflammation in the lungs? No, it reduces the effect of inflammation, but does not address the cause. Does your doctor prescribe Adviar Diskus to give you time for other, slower treatments that will cure your asthma, COPD, to heal the damage it caused? Nope. Your doctor signs your prescription, adding perhaps some lifestyle advice, and then signs off until your next checkup.

4. HUMIRA - a TNF inhibitior. TNFα inactivation is used to lessen inflammatory reactions associated with autoimmune diseases. As of 2008 adalimumab has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, moderate to severe chronic psoriasis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Does it cure any of the diseases it treats?  No. Is the expectation that your doctor will prescribe HIMURA while they work on another treatment to cure the illness, or search for the cause?  No. Your doctor is expected to sign your prescription, adding perhaps some lifestyle advice, and then signs off until your next checkup.

5. Enbrel  acts as a TNF inhibitor. TNFα inactivation is used to lessen inflammatory reactions associated with autoimmune diseases. It can be prescribed for is rheumatoid, juvenile rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis and ankylosing spondylitis. Does it cure any of the diseases it treats?  No. Is the expectation that your doctor will prescribe Enbrel while they work on another treatment to cure the illness, or search for the cause?  No. Your doctor is expected to sign your prescription, adding perhaps some lifestyle advice, and then signs off until your next checkup.

So, 5 of 5 so far.  Not one of the five top selling medicines actually cures anything. What's up with this?  Let's continue.

6. Rituxan - destroys B cells, and is used to treat diseases characterized by excessive numbers of B cells, overactive B cells, or dysfunctional B cells. This includes many lymphomas, leukemias, transplant rejection, and some autoimmune disorders. Put simply, Rituxan lowers your level of healthiness (killing cells that are normally a healthy part of your body), while attempting to lessen the effects of disease. Does it cure any of the diseases it treats?  No. Is the expectation that your doctor will prescribe Rituxan while they work on another treatment to cure the illness, or search for the cause?  No. Your doctor is expected to sign your prescription, adding perhaps some lifestyle advice, and then signs off until your next checkup.

7. Remicade - is a monoclonal antibody against tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) used to treat autoimmune diseases.  Just try to say that with a straight face - and then try to explain what it means.  Remicade is a relatively new immunosuppressant, so new in fact that, according to Wikipedia, its actions are not yet clearly understood. It can be prescribed to treat psoriasis, Crohn's disease, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.  Does it cure any of them? No. Does your doctor prescribe Remicade as a temporary measure and then try to find the cause of, or a cure for your illness? Nope.  But like Embrel and HUMIRA, you are warned that these drugs can have serious, even fatal side effects.

8. Crestor - is a statin, used to treat high cholesterol and similar conditions, to prevent cardiovascular disease. Does it cure cardiovascular disease? Nope.  Does it cure high cholesterol?  Nope. As with all statins, there are risks of diabetes, kidney toxicity and other 'side effects' that your doctor needs to monitor.

9. AVASTIN - an angiogenesis inhibitor, it slows the growth of new blood vessels. It is used to treat cancers, because cancers stimulate the growth of new blood vessels.  Does it cure the cancer? No. It only attempts to slow it down.

10. HERCEPTIN - is an antibody that interferes with the HER2/neu receptor. It is primarily used to treat slow the growth of certain breast cancers.  Does it cure breast cancer? Nope.  Studies showed that it increased the life of late stage cancer patients from about 20 to about 25 months. 5 extra months - for a cost approaching $100,000 per year according to Wikipedia.

Do the top selling drugs 'cure disease'?  Nope. Ten for ten.

I could carry on, the next ten best selling drugs in 2011: Seroquel, Diovan, Singulair, Lantus, Atacand, Gleevec, Zyprexa, NEXIUM, Spiriva, and Cymbalta.   Not one of them cures the illness they are prescribed to treat.  They may treat symptoms, or suppress some aspects of the illness.  But none cures.

I did a similar survey of the top 20 drugs sold in 2008 and only 1 could be said to cure disease in any sense - it's no longer in the top 20 sales. All of the rest, 19 of the top 20 medicines sold in 2008 did not cure anything - and were not designed, nor marketed, not prescribed, to cure anything. They are designed to 'treat' illness, not to cure it.

Here's the top 10 selling medicines, from 2008.  As in 2011 - not one of them 'cures' the disease they are designed to treat. 

1. Lipitor - the purpose of lipitor is to lower cholesterol. The purpose of lowering cholesterol is, in theory, to reduce heart disease. Does Lipitor cure? No. Does it 'heal' the damage of a heart attack or stroke? No. Does it heal the damage that is caused in theory, by high cholesterol? Nope. It is designed to lower your cholesterol, and hopefully your body will heal from the damage caused by high cholesterol. Does your doctor prescribe Lipitor to give himself time for other, perhaps slower treatments that will cure your heart disease or heal the damage? Nope. Your doctor signs your prescription to Lipitor, and gives perhaps a bit of dietary advice and then signs off until your next checkup.

2. Nexium - the purpose of Nexium is to lower gastric acid secretion and thus to prevent the damage caused by GERD - Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Does Nexium cure GERD? No. Does it heal the damage caused by GERD? Nope. The expectation is that you will take Nexium until you die from something else, and hopefully your body will heal itself of the effects of GERD. Does your doctor prescribe Nexium to give himself time for other, perhaps slower treatments that will cure your GERD, or heal the damage? Nope. Your doctor signs your prescription to Nexium, and gives perhaps a bit of dietary advice and then signs off until your next checkup.

Note: Nexium is no longer in the top ten as of 2011. In 2010 The FDA cautioned against high doses or prolonged use of PPIs, because they've been shown to increase the risk of infection, bone fractures and dementia.

3. Plavix - the purpose of Plavix is to prevent blood clots in someone who has recently had a stroke or a heart attack. Does it heal the damage caused by a heart attack or stroke? No. Does it heal the blocked arteries that might have caused the heart attach or stroke? Nope. The expectation is that you will take Pavix, because it will damage your natural clotting tendencies - and thus, possibly, prevent another heart attack or stroke.

4. Advair Diskus - contains two medicines; one that relaxes the muscles in the walls of the air passages in the lung, keeping them open and thus making it easier to breathe. The other reduces inflammation in the lungs and thus helps reduce swelling and irritation in the small air passages in the lungs It is commonly prescribed for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Does it cure asthma or COPD? Nope. Does it heal the damage or inflammation in the lungs? No, it reduces the effect of inflammation, but does not address the cause.

5. Prevacid - Lansoprazole is used to treat gastric ulcers caused by a family of pain relievers known as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). It is, a drug designed to treat the damage caused by another drug. It works by slowing or preventing the production of stomach acid. Does it cure anything? Nope. It doesn't even cure the damage cased by NSAIDs, it just attempts to reduce the damage, perhaps so that, hopefully your body can heal. 
Note: Prevacid is no longer a top seller - the patent expired in November 2009.

So, 5 of 5 so far. Not one of the five top selling medicines actually cures anything. What's up with this? Let's continue.

6. Seroquel - is an antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and also to treat depression. The most common 'side effect'? It makes you sleepy. I guess if you are sleepy, you aren't so schizophrenic, bipolar or even depressed. Does it cure schiophrenia, bipolar disorder, or depression? Nope. Does it help heal the damage that might have been caused by extended periods of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or depression? Nope.

Note: Seroquel is still for sale, but the FDA drug safety guide says "Read this Medication Guide before you start taking SEROQUEL and each time you get a refill.  These serious side effects are described below: Risk of death in the elderly with dementia... Risk of suicidal thoughts or actions..." 

7. Singulair - for maintenance treatment of asthma and also to relieve symptoms of seasonal allergies. Does it cure asthma? Nope. Does it cure seasonal allergies? Nope. Does it heal the damage caused by asthma or seasonal allergies? No. It is designed to relieve symptoms - so that your body can recover from the damage.

8. Effexor - used to treat depression, general anxiety disorder, social phobia, panic disorder, and symptoms of menopause. Does it cure depression? Anxiety disorder? Social phobia? Panic disorder? Menopuase. Nope on all counts. It treats the symptoms - but does not attempt to identify nor address the cause. Does it heal the damage that might be caused by depression, anxiety disorder, social phobia, panic disorder? Nope.

9. Oxycontin - a pain reliever. Designed to be an improvement on morphine, heroin and codeine. Does it address the cause of the pain? Nope. Does it cure anything? Nope. If the cause of the pain continues - you will need more Oxycontin.

10. Lexapro - is used to treat anxiety and also major depression. Does it cure the anxiety or the depression? Nope. There is no attempt made to find the cause of the anxiety or depression. Lexapro simply attempts to 'lessen' it.

Ten for ten.

Of the top ten best selling drugs in 2008 - not one of them cures disease.

I could carry on, the next ten best selling drugs in 2008: ACTOS, Protonix, Vytorin, Topamax, Risperdal, Abilify, Cymbalta, Lamictal, Zyprexa, Levaquin, Celebrex, used to 'treat' conditions from heartburn and migraines to epilipsy and arthritis. Do any of them 'cure disease'? One. Levaquin is an antibiotic that is used to treat - and cure - bacterial infections of the skin, bladder, etc. All of the rest, 19 of the top 20 medicines sold in 2008 did not cure anything - and were not designed, nor marketed, to cure anything.

This post has also been published by:
Wakeup-World: 
UnhealthyEarth.Com:
LBA Enterprise
It has also been translated into Spanish by http://editorial-streicher.blogspot.com/ , and published as: El Mito de Las Medicinas

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Why we need more Open Source Medicines

Two thousand five hundred years ago, Hippocrates said "Let food by thy medicine, and let medicine be your food." The concept of "open source" had not been invented, but Hippocrates was talking about "open source medicines".

Opensource.com's blog by Bryan Behrenshausen says "Open source is like sharing a recipe." I will apply his 'loaf of bread' metaphor to medicine to explain, using mostly, his exact words. I will use the word 'food' for 'medicine' in the way of Hippocrates.
-------------

Imagine that you have created something for your friends, a food, that can actually improve healthiness. By sharing this food with your friends, you not only give them something that sustains them, but also strengthens their health, and thus their relationships with each other and with you.

But what if you share more than the food? Suppose that in addition to sharing this wonderful food, you also share the recipe for that food. Now you have given them something much more valuable: the power to reproduce the gift you've given them, and the opportunity to improve the lives of others as you've improved theirs.

If your friends lives and heathinesses are improved by the food you've made, they can make more of it for themselves and their friends. If they prefer a food with slightly different ingredients, they can modify your recipe, creating foods that suit their tastes and needs. Maybe some of your friends have dietary restrictions and want to know precisely what has been put in the food you've given them, lest the very thing meant to help them might actually harm them. Possessing the recipe means they can now make a more informed decision about whether to consume what you've made.

And now that your friends have the recipe for your food, they can work with you to produce more of it, increasing the number of people exposed to your creation. Sharing the recipe also means that you and your friends can cook together, strengthening your relationships, and potentially drawing others into the bond you share—because you now possess a common tool - sharing - for collaboration. 

Sharing a recipe isn't like sharing food itself. When you share a recipe, you haven't lost anything; both you and your friends can work with and enjoy the same knowledge at the same time, passing it on without consequence—unlike a food that's already been cooked, which effectively disappears when you've given it up or eaten it.
--------------------
My grandfather was fond of saying "You can't return a favour.  Pass it on, and it will work its way back to me." Open source is like that. 

Open source foods can be open source medicines. Let food be your medicines.

Patent Medicines

Today, most of our medicines are 'patent medicines'. In simplest terms, this means they are illegal, unless you have explicit permission from the patent holder. Patent holders can withhold the ingredients, and the recipe for making the medicine, as a 'commercial secret'. Patent holders can restrict other people from creating the same medicine, effectively withholding the medicines from people who might need them.

If you need a patent medicine, you must jump through some legal hoops, before you are even allowed to purchase it.

First, you must qualify, by being diagnosed. You cannot diagnose yourself. Your neighbor friend, brother or mother cannot diagnose you. You must be diagnosed by someone who is an active member, in good standing, of the medical union - e.g. a Doctor of Medicine.

Second, the doctor who diagnoses you must prescribe the patent medicine. If the doctor who diagnoses you does not wish to prescribe 'this specific patent medicine' - you are not allowed to purchase it. If the doctor prescribes a different patent medicine, then that is the only patent medicine you are allowed to purchase. Many will say "you should trust your doctor", but that argument is specious:  the argument looks good, until you ask for a second diagnosis, by a second doctor and get a different prescription. Which doctor should you trust?  

You must purchase the patent medicine from a pharmacist. The pharmacist ensures that you have a valid prescription, from a certified Doctor of Medicine. The pharmacist cannot 'create' the patent medicine for you - even if he knows the recipe. That would be illegal. He must purchase the medicine from a patent holder, and then resell it to you.

Once you jump through all the hoops, you don't own the medicine. If you don't use it all, you are not supposed to save some of it, and you are definitely not allowed to sell - or even give it away, to someone else, that would be illegal.

Patent medicines are preferred by people who want to make money from their medicines. Having a patent has no bearing on the effectiveness or healthiness of the medicine. 

Patent medicines are usually designed to be powerful and fast acting. They are created from concentrated chemicals or chemical extracts, that are then diluted with exacting precision to a prescribed dosage. Consumption over the prescribed dose can cause serious health problems - in fact, in many cases, consumption AT THE PRESCRIBED DOSE can lead to serious health problems, up to and including death in some cases. 

Patent medicines usually tackle illness by decreasing healthiness in some way, in the hope that you will be able to recover from the 'different unhealthiness' more easily. That is why all drugs have side effects.

Open Source Medicines

What are open source medicines? Open source medicines are medicines that are not patented. You can create them or buy them yourself. In many cases, you can diagnose yourself and prescribe them for yourself as well.

Because open source medicines are closer to food, like taking chicken soup for a cold, or for the soul, they are usually low in toxicity. Open source medicines are usually slow acting because they are not concentrated like patent medicines. As a result, they are safer. Some 'open source medicines' are true 'healthicines'.  That is to say, they are not 'drugs' - and they do not have 'side effects'.  If you are deficient in folate, and you buy Folic Acid to supplement your diet - you will not experience side effects - although you might experience health effects - but we don't often recognize the symptoms of healthiness. 

Increasing healthiness is not something that happens in a moment, or a day. It takes time to increase healthiness. 

Open source medicines are also 'richer' than patent medicines.  When an inventor creates a patent medicine, they attempt to extract and concentrate the 'active ingredient', or to re-create it in a laboratory. An open source medicine, made from a food, may contain many active ingredients that work together.  Identification and extraction of each one, measurement of their interactions, and creation of the 'most effective' patent medicine is extremely difficult and typically not attempted.  The open source medicine may be more effective as a result - especially when it comes to increasing healthiness. 

Open source medicines are powerful tools to increase healthiness. I believe in personal health freedom. I believe that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthiness. I believe in open source medicines.

GreenMedInfo is a site that promotes open source medicines. They don't call them open source medicines (yet, maybe they will someday). Open source medicines are Green Medicines. GreenMedInfo provides published information about research into open source medicines, and how they can be used to treat illness. At this time, GreeenMedInfo does not provide recipes - maybe that's not their role.

Today, GreenMedInfo doesn’t specifically identify any medicines as healthicines. That could be due to the fact that no-one studies healthicines yet. There are no research papers on healthicines - so there is nothing for GreenMedInfo to publish about healthicines. What is a heathicine? A healthicine is something that increases healthiness. I believe that, when Hippocrates was talking about foods and medicines, many of his medicines were healthicines, although the word had not yet been coined.

I am proud to be a Sponsor of GreenMedInfo and their work. I hope others will pick up the banner for open source medicines - so that we can all be healthier.

Open Source Medicines vs Patent Medicines

Which is better?  Open source medicines, or patent medicines? It makes no sense to say that one is better than the other.  

There are many situations where the power and immediacy of a specific patent medicine save lives, money, or both.  Patent medicines make sense.  Sometimes, patent medicines are the best alternative.  Sometimes not.

There are many situations where the healthiness of specific open source medicines is the most appropriate treatment. Open source medicines make sense too. Sometimes, open source medicines are the best alternative.  Sometimes not. Unfortunately, they open source medicines don't have the 'bling' of patent medicines. 

We need more open source medicines.  We need more open research into, and more honest evaluations of the effectiveness and healthiness of every healthicine. 

One of the reasons we don't have good access to open source medicines, is because we don't have many health freedoms.  If we are to build the best systems for health, to create a system that promotes continual health improvement, we need to improve the health freedoms of choice and information. I believe we should always look for an open source medicine first, because it is more likely to tackle the true cause. Patent medicines, by design, almost never tackle the cause of illness. 

Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthiness. 
to your health, tracy
healthicine.org 
This post was originally published on Wakeup-world.com
It has also been republished at http://returningtohouse.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/why-we-need-more-open-source-medicines-by-tracy-kolenchuk/
and: http://agmclimas.com/why-we-need-more-open-source-medicines/

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Are You Looking Healthy, or Looking Sick?

One of the systemic problems with our 'health systems' is the 'sick view'.

Go to your public library and check out the books on 'health'.  In general, you will see the following simple recommendations: eat a healthy diet, exercise, get lots of sleep, etc. But you will also notice that most of the content in the so called 'health book' is how to avoid disease. How to avoid obesity, how to avoid heart disease, how to avoid illness. 

Merriam-Webster defines health as "the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit;especially : freedom from physical disease or pain".  By that definition, health starts, in the above image, at the heels of the doctor - and studies of health go no farther towards the green. There are many studies of health that look, like the doctor - towards illness.  Precious few that look towards healthiness.

The World Health Organization takes a different view, in theory: "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." In their definition, HEALTH only exists at the far left of the above diagram, where there is "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being". 

But the World Health Organization (commonly known as WHO), does not use this theoretical definition in practice. In practice, they publish statistics of 'health', that are based entirely in illness and infirmity. Their global health indicators are: life expectancy and mortality, cause specific mortality and morbidity, selected infectious diseases, health service coverage, risk factors, health workforce (doctors, nurses, etc, eg - medical workforce) - infrastructure and essential medicines, health expenditures (they mean illness expenditures), health inequities (medical inequities), demographic and socioeconomic statistics, health information systems (medical information systems) and data availability.  There are no WHO statistics about health - because WHO uses the medical view, and they can't see what is behind the doctor. 

This medical view, this 'health blindness' has serious consequences for our health. If you are not sick, you are healthy.  Anything that doesn't make you 'sick' according to a doctor, is 'safe', and thus 'healthy'. 

There are a large number of 'health controversies' that fall prey to this blindness.  Is aspartame 'healthy'?  No one cares. We measure if it causes illness - and if no direct indications are found - we stop measuring.  No one measures the effect of aspartame on healthiness.  Is fluoride healthy? Does it increase your healthiness? We theorize that fluoride prevents tooth decay - and the research stops.  No one bothers to measure if fluoride is healthy. 

We have no way to measure healthiness. 

Once you reach the doctor's heels, moving towards the green - measurement stops.  We can measure 'strength' and possibly 'fitness', but not healthiness.  Healthiness is not defined, not studied and not measured. 

It's time to begin the study of healthicine. The study of health and healthiness. We cannot attain health freedom without information - healthy information.

I believe the study of healthicine is so important, that I have started a website and blog, dedicated to health: 

Healthicine: the arts and sciences of health and healthiness.

This is a turning point for this blog.  A fork in the road.  From now on I will dedicate my inquiries and my writing in two different, overlapping directions.  Sometimes, I will write about healthiness - in the Healthicine blog.  Sometimes I will write about Health Freedom in this, the Personal Health Freedom blog.  Sometimes, I expect I will post the same, or very similar content - on both sites, because there is so much overlap between the two concepts.  Healthicine is about the theory of health.  But when theory meets practice - we need freedom to ensure access to information, and freedom to ensure that we can make our own choices. Everyone has a right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of healthiness. 

to your health,

tracy

This post was republished at: http://agmclimas.com/are-you-looking-healthy-or-looking-sick/ 

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: