1 IN 95 MILLION?
AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM?
THE FILTHY COMBINATION OF ANTIBIOTICS AND A HIGH CARB LIFESTYLE
Your body has to have a steady / level / even supply of blood sugar. When you eat carbohydrate-based foods (grains, sugars, white potatoes, etc), your blood sugar goes up. The more starch or sugar a meal / snack contains, the faster and higher the jump in blood sugar. Sometimes this jump is so sharp, on a graph it is is actually a "spike".
It is no new revelation that high blood sugar is not only toxic, but deadly as well. However, there is a great deal of research coming out of the scientific community that when combined with abnormal Gut Function, it is particularly hard on the nerve and ENDOCRINE (hormonal) systems --- most particularly the female hormones & THYROID. Your body will do everything (and I do mean everything) it can to control it and keep it within a specific and tight range (be aware that the medical community's suggestions for what constitutes "normal" blood sugar ranges are too liberal). Many young people can seemingly defy this fact by eating whatever they want without the consequences of weight gain. Sooner or later it will catch up with them. But weight gain is only a small part of the problem.
Eventually the pancreas cannot keep pace with the amount of insulin needed to handle surges and spikes of blood sugar; and blood sugar values begin to get too high (Metabolic Syndrome / Diabetes). Or, on the back side of a "spike", blood sugar drops below baseline. This is called REACTIVE HYPOGLYCEMIA, and is just as serious as Diabetes. After a while, the adrenal glands are mobilized to help the overworked pancreas, and the result is our epidemic of ADRENAL FATIGUE (what doctors today call Fibromyalgia).
MONEY AND SPINAL SURGERY
WHAT HAPPENED TO CARING FOR THE GERIATRIC PATIENT?
The truth is, when it comes to back surgeries, even a significant number of doctors and surgeons admit that there is a serious lack of evidence-based support for more complicated and risky spinal fusion surgeries that are commonly done for elderly stenosis patients. There is, however, a significant financial incentive to both hospitals and surgeons to perform these low back fusions.
SPINAL STENOSIS (the typically age-related narrowing of the spinal canal --- usually due to to enlarging of bone or ligaments) is the most frequent cause for spinal surgery in the elderly. Although there was a slight overall decrease in spinal surgeries between 2002 and 2007, there was also an utterly shocking 1,500% increase in spinal fusions. Could this massive increase in a dangerous and typically-ineffective spinal surgery be just about the money? Many doctors believe it is. The Journal of the American Medical Association concluded.....
It is unclear why more complex operations are increasing. It seems implausible that the number of patients with the most complex spinal pathology increased 15-fold in just 6 years. The introduction and marketing of new surgical devices and the influence of key opinion leaders may stimulate more invasive surgery, even in the absence of new indications… financial incentives to hospitals and surgeons for more complex procedures may play a role…”
There is a significant difference in average hospital costs for simple decompression spinal surgery versus complex surgical fusion. The cost of the less invasive surgery is $23,724 compared to an average of $80,888 for a spinal fusion. Despite the much higher cost, there is no scientific evidence of superior outcomes. And while there are significant risks associated with the cheaper surgery, there are much greater risks of adverse events associated with the spinal fusion. So why perform these surgeries? Can anyone say "MONEY"? The surgeon is typically reimbursed $600 to $800 for the less invasive back surgeries and approximately ten times more ($6,000 to $8,000) for the complex fusions. In an accompanying JAMA editorial written by Dr. Carragee of Stanford University School of Medicine, the following comment was made.
In 2007, the final year of data reported in the study, Consumer Reports [the magazine] rated spinal surgery as number 1 on its list of overused tests and treatments. This was a harsh rebuke..... The findings from the study should not only remind patients, surgeons, and payors that the efficacy of basic spinal techniques must be assessed carefully against the plethora of unproven but financially attractive alternatives, but also should serve as an important reminder that as currently configured, financial incentives and market forces do not favor this careful assessment before technologies are widely adopted. When applied broadly across medical care in the United States, the result is a formidable economic and social problem.
Thanks Dr. C. But why don't we just call a spade a spade and admit to the general population (in plain English) that it is becoming increasingly difficult to trust anyone in the medical field? There is just too much money as stake (HERE)! Just take a look at my posts on EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE.
When the earliest clinical trials begin to appear in the early-mid fifties, serious doubts were raised about cortisone’s seemingly "magic" powers. For instance, in one early experiment (1954), more than half the patients who received a cortisone shot for tennis elbow or other tendon pain suffered a relapse of the injury within six months. But that cautionary study (as well as others) didn’t slow the ascent of cortisone injections as a mainstream treatment because of their propensity for immediate pain relief. Here we are in 2011, and believe it or not, cortisone shots continue to be the gold standard for TENNIS ELBOW, SHOULDER PAIN, and other MUSCLE / TENDON problems, as well a WHOLE HOST OF OTHERS. Why do I bring all of this up?
In a study scheduled for publication in the December issue of the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, researchers reported that lower doses of corticosteroids were just as effective as higher doses in terms of reduction of pain, improved range of motion, and duration of effectiveness. But what does this really mean? Are these patients really improving, or is the whole thing a house of cards ---- an illusion built with smoke and mirrors? I would contend that the question the researchers are attempting to answer is not a valid question to be asking in the first place. Allow me to explain.
The researchers were trying to determine which dose of corticosteroid is best for the shoulder ---- a 20 mg injection or a 40 mg injection. The question is moot. It's kind of like asking which will make you sicker, drinking one gallon of turpentine, or drinking two. If you think that I am over-exaggerating the situation, jump in my time machine and allow me to take you back just one short year.
The biggest ever meta-analysis of its kind appeared in one of the world's oldest and most respected medical journals, The Lancet, one year ago last month. Listen to the results of this study, which was essentially a study of numerous other previously done studies on the same thing (say that three times fast!). "3,824 studies were identified and 41 met inclusion criteria, providing data for 2,672 participants. We showed consistent findings between many high-quality randomized controlled trials that corticosteroid injections reduced pain in the short term compared with other interventions, but this effect was reversed at intermediate and long terms... Despite the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections in the short term, non-corticosteroid injections might be of benefit for long-term treatment."
Here is what is almost comical about these conclusions. Some of these "non-corticosteroid injections, that according to the authors, "might be of benefit for long-term treatment," include things like BOTULISM TOXIN (Botox), Prolotherapy (sugar water injections), Apropitn (The drug was temporarily withdrawn worldwide in 2007 after studies suggested that its use increased the risk of complications or death, and was entirely and permanently withdrawn in 2008, when follow up studies confirmed the original result), PLATELET RICH THERAPY INJECTIONS (which I have never one single time seen work), and even saline (salt) solution --- or nothing at all (HERE).
What did the researchers actually have to say about these "wonderful" non-steroidal injection therapies that they are at least on some level, promoting via their mere mention? "Lauromacrogol (polidocanol), aprotinin, and platelet-rich plasma were not more efficacious than was placebo for Achilles tendinopathy, while prolotherapy was not more effective than was exercise." Unfortunately, none of this even begins delving into the fact that the study also stated (not surprisingly) that, "Adverse events were also reported". Or should I say, "UNDER-REPORTED"?
The reviewers determined that, for most of those who suffered from tendinopathies, cortisone injections did bring fast and significant pain relief. However, when the patients were re-examined at 6 and 12 months, the results were substantially different. Over all, people who received cortisone shots had a much lower rate of full recovery than those who did nothing or who underwent therapy. They also had a 63 percent higher risk of relapse than people who adopted the time-honored wait-and-see approach. Great stuff, that cortisone! It doesn't work, but has ugly side effects. Just what we all wanted! Just like the good ole days in 1954!
Why cortisone shots would even be imagined to be of benefit in the healing process of tendon problems in light of current medical knowledge is beyond me. But this question was essentially answered in a Lancet-published response to the study. For decades it was widely believed that tendon-overuse injuries were caused by inflammation, said Dr. Karim Khan, a professor at the School of Human Kinetics at the University of British Columbia and the co-author of a response to the above response. The injuries were, as a group, given the name tendinitis, since the suffix “-itis” means inflammation. Cortisone is an anti-inflammatory medication. Using it against an inflammation injury was logical.
But in the decades since, numerous studies have shown, persuasively, that these overuse injuries do not involve inflammation. When animal or human tissues from these types of injuries are examined histologically, they do not contain the usual biochemical markers of INFLAMMATION. Instead, the injury seems to be degenerative. The fibers within the tendons fray. Today the injuries should be referred to as tendinopathies, or "TENDINOSIS". Although you will see this reflected in the ICD-10 codes found on the HCFA forms doctors use to submit to insurance companies, it has certainly not filtered down to EVERYDAY DOCTORS treating patients with shoulder, knee, elbow, wrist, or other joint / tendon problems.
Why then does a cortisone shot (an anti-inflammatory drug) seemingly work in the short term in regards to non-inflammatory injuries? The injections seem to have "an effect on the neural receptors" involved in creating the pain in the sore tendon, Dr. Khan said. “They change the pain biology in the short term,” but, he said, cortisone shots do “not heal the structural damage” causing the pain. Instead, they actually “impede the structural healing.”
So the question of whether cortisone shots still make sense as a treatment for tendinosis, depends, as Dr. Khan said, on how you choose “to balance short-term pain relief versus the likelihood” of longer-term negative outcomes. In other words, is reducing soreness now worth a significantly increased risk of delayed healing and possible relapse within the year?
To many patients and their all-too-ready-to-inject doctors, that answer frequently remains yes. There has always been and always will be the desire for a magic bullet --- that elusive cure-all that will take care of anything and everything (HERE'S MINE). My goal for all of my patients is to GIVE THEM A GOLD BRICK, hopefully leaving them much better off than when they came in. I feel like I am accomplishing this as well as anyone out there. Because I believe in a different kind of "EVIDENCE", you can view some of our PATIENT TESTIMONIALS, by just clicking the link.
FASCIAL ADHESIONS, CHRONIC PAIN, AND CHIROPRACTIC
For those of you who are uninitiated in skinning a deer, note the picture on the left. When you skin a deer (or anything else for that matter), you will find that just underneath the skin is a tough, clearish-white, cellophane-like membrane that clings tightly to the meat. This is what the hunters in these parts call "Striffin" (sometimes pronounced "striffing"). What is striffin? It is actually one of the most abundant connective tissues in your entire body, and it's real name is Fascia.
FASCIA surrounds individual muscles, muscle bundles within individual muscles, groups of muscles, blood vessels, and nerves. It binds these structures together in much the same manner that plastic wrap is used to hold the contents of a sandwich together. Fascia consists of several extremely thin layers, and is the tissue where the musculoskeletal system, circulatory system, and nervous system all converge together. It extends uninterrupted from the top of the head to the tip of the toes, and like LIGAMENTS and TENDONS, it contains closely packed bundles of wavy collagen fibers that are oriented in a uniform and parallel fashion. Subsequently, healthy fasciae are flexible structures that are able to resist great uni-directional tension forces and have great elasticity. However, when fascia become injured, whether repetitively, traumatically, or both, it ends up in a tangled and twisted mess. As you can imagine, this can cause severe restrictions as well as pain.
Is it effective? I will let someone else answer this question for me with this powerful testimonial we received on Friday. Cassie was hurt in a cheerleading accident almost 6 years ago, and has suffered with terrible pain and spasms ever since --- despite the myriad of ineffective and irrelevant (and expensive) medical tests and treatments she received during that time. If you found Cassie's testimonial interesting, I literally have hundreds more (HERE).
FAST FOOD AND BRAIN FUNCTION
AN INVERSE RELATIONSHIP
Researchers have found that there's a part of your body that might actually shrink when you eat too much fast food. Unfortunately, it's your brain. People with diets high in trans fats are more likely to experience the kind of brain shrinkage associated with Alzheimer's disease than people who consume less of the artery-damaging fats. Sharon Kirkey from a December 29, 2011 Postmedia News story called, Fast Food May Damage Your Brain. The article was summarizing a study recently published in the journal Neurology.
For the mathematics tests, students who consumed fast food 4 to 6 times each week had scores 6.55 points below average. Daily consumption equated to a drop of 14.82 points, while the three-”junk food”-meals-a-day students scored 18.48 points below average.
This is not rocket science people! For information on how to eat healthier, visit my WHOLE FOODS PAGE. Oh, what do I recommend diet-wise? Try going PALEO for a month and watch your INFLAMMATION and CHRONIC PROBLEMS start to dissipate.
Dr. Schierling completed four years of Kansas State University's five-year Nutrition / Exercise Physiology Program before deciding on a career in Chiropractic. He graduated from Logan Chiropractic College in 1991, and has run a busy clinic in Mountain View, Missouri ever since. He and his wife Amy have four children (three daughters and a son).
Brain Based Therapy
Can You Help
Cardio Or Strength
Cold Laser Therapy
Death By Medicine
Degenerative Joint Disease
D's Of Chronic Pain
Evidence Based Medicine
Gluten Cross Reactivity
Ice Or Heat
Jacks Fork River
Leaky Gut Syndrome
Number One Health Problem
Platelet Rich Therapy
Post Surgical Scarring
Re Invent Yourself
Rib And Chest Pain
Scar Tissue Removal
Sleeping Pills Kill
Stay Or Go
Stretching Post Treatment
Tensegrity And Fascia
The Big Four
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
Whole Body Vibration