miércoles, noviembre 22, 2006

78% de Apoyo en la Encuesta de La W. Bibliografía en la cual se basó Andrés López para sustentar su opinión en entrevista de La W Radio



A la media noche del 22 de Nov del 2006 en la sección 'Entrevista del Día' de la página de La W Radio, 78.02% de los encuestados NO están de acuerdo con el uso de los medicamentos antidepresivos. Ver Encuesta y leer opiniones de los 474 encuestados en este link.
Audio de la entrevista en este link de La W Radio

Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry: An Inquiry into the Social Uses of Mental Health Practices.
By Thomas Stephen Szasz

The Myth of Psychotherapy: Mental Healing As Religion, Rhetoric, and Repression.
By Thomas Stephen Szasz

The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement.
By Thomas Stephen Szasz

The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct (Revised Edition).
By Thomas S. Szasz

Is It Me or My Meds?: Living with Antidepressants.
By David A. Karp.

Reclaiming Our Children: A Healing Solution for a Nation in Crisis.
By Peter R. Breggin

Talking Back to Ritalin: What Doctors Aren't Telling You About Stimulants and ADHD.
By Peter R. Breggin, Dick Scruggs

Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences (Inside Technology)
By Geoffrey C. Bowker, Susan Leigh Star.

Making Sense of Illness: Science, Society, and Disease.
By Robert A. Aronowitz, M.D.

Cocaine: From Medical Marvel to Modern Menace in the United States, 1884-1920 (Studies in Industry and Society).
By Joseph F. Spillane

Let Them Eat Prozac: The Unhealthy Relationship Between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Depression.
By David Healy

Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health.
By Elliot S. Valenstein

Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the "New Psychiatry".
By Peter R. Breggin

Mad In America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and The Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill.
By Robert Whitaker

Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Medications.
By Peter R. Breggin, et al.

The Anti-Depressant Fact Book: What Your Doctor Won't Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and Luvox.
By Peter R. Breggin, M.D. Peter R. Breggin

The Wildest Colts Make the Best Horses: What to Do When Your Child Is Labeled a Problem by the Schools.
By John Breeding

The Myth of the A.D.D Child:50 Ways to Improve Your Child's Behavior and Attention Span Without Drugs, Labels, or Coercion.
By Thomas Armstrong

No More ADHD.
By Mary Ann Block

The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children.
By Fred A. Baughman Jr. MD, Craig Hovey

Más Bibliografía en
http://lapelotadeletras.blogspot.com/2006/11/mi-reflexin-sobre-entrevista-de-yamid.html

Esta mañana en la W.
22 de Noviembre de 2006
Por Andrés López

Excelente, esta mañana el público colombiano quedó en la siguiente situación: La próxima vez que alguien les quiera medicar drogas mentales, psicoactivas, narcoestimulantes en otras palabras, psiquiátricas, lo van a pensar dos veces. Eso es el logro más grande que hemos tenido, aquellos hombres y mujeres colombianos que notamos por el mero uso de nuestro raciocinio y sentido común, que las drogas psiquiátricas son un eterno experimento fallido; que no sirven y su uso está cada vez más restringido en la sociedad y en la percepción del ciudadano común: hemos llegado a un punto de partida. ¿Saben cuántas citas psiquiátricas fueron canceladas el día de hoy?, muchos doctores me escribieron apoyándome, mucha gente, fue magnífico el apoyo que recibí, la gente sabe y lo que yo dije no fue dirigido sino a la gente que cree que detrás de los postulados académicos de la psiquiatría hay ciencia, pues eso no es así.

Por el hecho de que alguien haya pasado muchos años en una universidad y porque la sociedad se haya adaptado a los términos del mercadeo psiquiátrico y sus “titulos” rimbombantes de condiciones humanas normales, no quiere decir entonces de que se esté haciendo un buen trabajo. De hecho sólo hay que preguntarle a un psiquiatra: ¿cuántas personas ha curado realmente durante toda su carrera?, y se sorprenderán con la respuesta. Es más pregúntenle ¿cómo define enfermedad mental? Verán las caras más mudas de la historia.

Es más, sólo pregúntenle ¿cuál es el método o procedimiento que aplica para saber cuando una persona tiene una enfermedad mental y cómo hace para diferenciarla de una persona normal?, hagan esas preguntas a la mayor cantidad de psiquiatras posibles y advertirán la carencia de algo: Unidad de Método Científico. Algo así como que alguien se estuviera muriendo de una apendicitis y treinta doctores opinaran distinto de la situación y la decisión última fuera darle droga al paciente para convencerlo de que la apendicitis no existe que es sólo una ilusión en su cabeza.

En otras palabras y advertirán quienes han leído mis escritos que:
1. Son académicamente sustentados.
2. No estoy solo al respecto.
3. No estoy en contra de la medicina como tal.
4. No estoy en contra de la ciencia.
5. No estoy en contra de los científicos.
6. Estoy en contra del abordaje que se le ha hecho a la mente partiendo de que la solución es que todos estamos enfermos y necesitamos usar drogas.

En otras palabras: ¿Qué de bueno hay en drogar a gente bajo argumentos tan confusos?

El cerebro humano ha funcionado muy bien los últimos dos millones de años, ¿por qué le dio por funcionar tan mal los últimos cincuenta?

La depresión es una palabra inventada, ¿cuándo dejó la tristeza de ser tristeza y empezó a llamarse depresión?, ¿cuándo se le dio el título a la felicidad de “manía”?

Y dígase lo siguiente a viva voz.

1. Nadie por ser el mismo y por pensar lo que quiere pensar está enfermo.
2. Cada persona tiene una versión muy personal de la realidad independiente de la realidad común y eso no es estar enfermo.
3. No hay desbalance químico en el cerebro.
4. No existe prueba sanguínea, TAC, rayos X o exámen de DNA que determine que una persona esté enferma mentalmente.
5. No existe la droga para la felicidad, ni contra el suicidio, ni para el estudio, ni para estar bien, ni para resolver problemas, ni para salir del aburrimiento tanto personal como social. NO EXISTE LA DROGA PARA ENCAJAR EN LA SOCIEDAD.
6. No existe una relación directa entre carencia o exceso de hormonas en cuanto al comportamiento de un individuo. Es decir, mucha gente es muy macha con mucha testosterona, y otra gente es muy macha con poca testosterona. Aplica lo mismo para la Serotonina, y todo líquido regulador de las comunicaciones metabólicas del cuerpo humano. Drogas depresoras de hormonas o estimulantes de producción de hormonas realmente no están equilibrando cantidades químicas en el cuerpo para garantizar salud mental.

Y tantos mitos más.

Trataron de decir que por ser Cienciólogo no tenía derecho al sentido común y tener discernimiento sobre lo que es constructivo o no, trataron de decir que yo no era serio por ser comediante. Y no pudieron, por una sencilla razón: Hubo gente a mi favor, gente que sabe que lo último que hace un comediante es decir mentiras. Y en cuanto a la religión, Cienciología no es la primera religión perseguida por la psiquiatría, el pueblo judío fue casi llevado al extermino no sólo en la Alemania Nazi de Hitler, también en la Unión Soviética de Stalin. Hoy se meten con la Cienciología, mañana se meterán con tus creencias y no demorarán en decir que la religión es una alucinación que se cura con droga. Ya pasó y ya se planteo, los que conocen las historias de las ideas saben a lo que me refiero.

En fin, a Colombia le quedó claro que la próxima vez que alguien vaya a visitar a un psiquiatra lo pensará dos veces, y eso, amigos y amigas es empezar a darle salud a este país. Alguien tuvo los cojones de no amedrentarse ante la inquisición moderna y decir que “Las drogas psiquiátricas no funcionan”. Luego, está el juego planteado.

Quedó el gusanito de la duda y eso es un logro gigantesco, ¿cuántas personas el día de hoy se restringieron de dar drogas o de usarlas?, muchas te lo aseguro, nadie puede contra ese gusano de la duda.

Ahora la pregunta siguiente es: ¿Tú tendrás los cojones también?

Mira las pruebas, mira la bibliografía y únete al grupo.

Andrés López

16 Comments:

At 1:33 p. m., Anonymous Ximena Leal said...

Comentario Ole Andres, posiblemente ud. no se acurda de mi, pero nos conocemos desde chiquiticos..jaja no mentira, simplemente esta manana escuche la entrevista con la W, y me parece que usted tiene toda la razon, pero ademas de estar en contra de los antidepresivos, me parece un poco ofensivo que lo ataquen por defender una posicion, cuando en realidad lo que le falta a este pais por mucho es que las personas como usted, los actores, pintores, escultores o cualquier persona que pueda ser escuchada por los demas y pueda influir en decisiones de este calibre, me parece bien. Lo apoyo y de verdad deberia haber mas personas como usted que tengan una posicion y la sostengan!Un abrazo y estamos en contacto!Ximena La Panadera
Ximena Leal

 
At 1:33 p. m., Anonymous Carolina said...

Estoy totalmente de acuerdo, los laboratorios son industrias que hacen dinero a costa de la salud de los seres humanos, inventando enfermedades para vender sus productos.La depresion es una enfermad inventada por los laboratorio y los medicos.A continuacion hay dos articulos que le pueden complementar la idea sobre las nuevas enfermedades inventadas por las industrias farmaceuticas. Tomados de www.thetrumpet.com1. Has a Disease for Your Problems Been Marketed Yet?By Robert MorleyOctober 2006More disorders are being diagnosed than ever before. Is there actually more disease, or is the medical field just expanding the definitions of disease?Mental and physical illness is a real and increasing problem in today's society. But there is also another problem: an escalating trend to highlight a rare disease, proclaim that it affects large numbers of the population, and then prescribe medication to treat it.Call it disease-mongering.In the last few decades, advertising has made the public aware of such afflictions as social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, menopausal disorder, erectile dysfunction and obesity disorder. Other ailments that have been found in recent years include irritable bowel disorder, restless legs disorder and hypertension. Researchers have now even identified as a disorder "pre-hypertension," the condition of being in danger of developing hypertension (New England Journal of Medicine, April 20).Many people now readily accept these conditions, originally unheard of or thought of as extremely rare, as being mainstream.Disease-mongering is a successful money-making strategy and is "being increasingly refined by the pharmaceutical industry and its colleagues in the advertising industry," says Peter Lurie, deputy director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group (United Press International, April 10). Drug advertisements constantly bombard people with, "One in five have this illness ." or, "If someone you know or love is suffering from these symptoms ." (followed, of course, by a pitch for the miracle cure). Advertisers propose solutions to conditions you may not have even realized were problems!According to Ray Moynihan, author of the book Selling Sickness, a classic example of disease-mongering is how pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline turned the formerly little-known "social anxiety disorder" into a huge market for its anti-depressant drug Paxil. He credits Paxil's marketing slogan, "Imagine being allergic to people," for expanding the drug's sales. The Paxil website actually claims that "more than 12 million Americans suffer from this disorder in any given year" and consoles prospective clients by telling them that "some people find comfort just by learning that social anxiety disorder is a medical condition."In the case of bipolar disorder, a looser definition has resulted in some experts claiming that up to 10 percent of the population is affected-as opposed to the past estimation of 0.1 percent. U.S. children as young as 2 years old are being started on two or three treatment medicines, even though the classic definition of the illness says that symptoms "don't usually show up until the teens"-not to mention that, according to Dr. Jon McClellen at the University of Washington in Seattle, "there isn't even any evidence that any of them work in children" (Business Week, May 8).In this diagnosis-happy climate, every complaint or tendency one might possibly have becomes a symptom of a disease.Some physicians and health-care professionals are now speaking out against this mass-marketing of ailments. However, in terms of public awareness, their criticisms are drowned out by the infomercials equating mild or loosely related problems to symptoms associated with rare and serious disorders.One Example: IEDA blatant example of disease-mongering has recently been publicized across America. Some medical specialists say Americans are commonly afflicted by an ailment called Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED). They declare that it "is not the rare occurrence that psychiatrists had previously thought" (Chicago Tribune, June 6). Dr. Emil Coccaro, the University of Chicago's chief of psychiatry, says, "Our new study suggests IED is really out there and that a lot of people have it."Those who agree with Dr. Coccaro claim that a recent nationwide study shows 1 in 20 (or 16 million) Americans have symptoms of IED, characterized by recurring outbursts of extreme anger and violence as seen in cases involving road-rage or spousal abuse. Their study asserts that approximately 5 percent of Americans have "physically assaulted someone, threatened bodily harm or destroyed property in a rage an average of five times a year" (ibid.). The average monetary damage resulting from these super tantrums, the study purports, averaged $1,359 per person, or about $21.7 billion nationwide-annually!Interestingly, the IED study also showed that while diagnoses are rising among teenagers, they are much more rare among people in their 40s, and even more so among individuals over 60. "[O]lder people tell us they've never had it," said Ronald Kessler, a professor of health-care policy at Harvard. It is young adults, teens and children who most often exhibit the "symptoms" of outbursts of verbal and physical violence.Most individuals diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder report that anger episodes first occurred during childhood or adolescence, and increased rapidly in their teenage years. "In most situations, he is relatively affable, calm and very responsible," says Jennifer Hartstein, a psychologist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, of a newly diagnosed 16-year-old. But when in stressful situations at home, he "explodes and tears apart his room, throws things at other people"-to the point that his parents have called the police (Connecticut Post Online, June 6).A generation ago, people would have considered this a case of a rebellious teenager throwing a temper tantrum after being punished for disobeying his parents. Today, the medical establishment labels it a "disorder" and believes it has found a biomedical fix.Dr. Daniel Deutschmann, a psychiatrist and clinical professor at Case Western Reserve University, says he has found medicating aggressive IED patients with anti-epileptic drugs to be successful (Plain Dealer, Cleveland, June 6). Meanwhile, Coccaro believes medicines such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and mood stabilizers should be included in treatment to "increase the threshold at which people will explode" (Ascribe Newswire, May 31).Such treatments are recommended despite study results showing that among people classified as having this disorder, 81.8 percent were also diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and alcohol or drug abuse disorders-"disorders" that are strongly or entirely related to lifestyle choices.Treating the IED symptoms with medication will not treat the sources of these disorders; in fact, it will probably impede the lifestyle changes that would truly improve health and well-being. By classifying temper tantrums and other supposed conditions as diseases, medical specialists are telling an affected individual that without medication, nothing can change: he or she is fated to have impulse control disorders and health problems indefinitely. What a discouraging and hopeless message!And where does that leave people who, as in the case of IED, cannot afford the SSRIs, mood stabilizers or other medicines that are supposedly needed?Denying ResponsibilityOverall, this characterization of emotional outbursts and lack of self-control as symptoms of pharmaceutically treatable disease represents another major shift in thinking regarding what defines behavioral and lifestyle choices, and what defines biomedical proclivities. It also revolutionizes our ideas on what our responsibilities are to society.Instead of teaching and training our children to control their emotions and impulses, and spending time making sure our children become stable, productive members of society, drug companies have found that people will pay for the seemingly easy, responsibility-free solution: medicating our kids. Moreover, adults are readily embracing that remedy for themselves as well.In our society, it is acceptable to have a "disorder." The prevailing attitude is, no one can be blamed for being sick. After all, biological problems can't be helped.Or can they? In reality, although much illness is caused by factors outside our control, it is our own choices that generally affect our health the most. The human body and mind was not designed by our Creator to be sick or uncontrolled.As society searches for biomedical solutions for all its problems, it increasingly sends the message that it is all right to have symptoms of disorders-even violent impulse control problems-with the catchall excuse, "It's because I am sick."That is the crux of the problem with disease-mongering: It promotes the idea that everybody has a biomedical excuse for the consequences of poor health and lifestyle choices. It absolves people of guilt for their actions and of responsibility to change the underlying cause of their problems by just taking a pill. Consequently, bad behavior gains legitimacy.What other impulses that we do not feel like controlling will become diseases? What about crime? After all, crime has long been called an epidemic! Now, because of disorders like IED, criminal expression is actually being classified as a disease.Americans love their quick-fix, labor-free culture-which is why they embrace pharmaceuticals. But people aren't looking at the causes of problems-their family relationships, work habits, mental outlook, diet and so on. Changing is hard. It's inconvenient. It is much easier to believe a pill will make everything better.Let's face it: New drugs are not a solution, but a mask. They will not mend the shattered lives of young children whose parents fight or separate, fill the void of a missing father or mother, teach parents how to properly rear their children, teach people the value of healthful living, or end man's hatred toward his neighbor. Drugs will never remove the cause that has brought about the effect of physical or mental disease.The question we should be asking is: What is causing our ills? Then the challenge is to really accept the hard answer that we are not living our lives the way God designed us to, and set our minds to fix that. That can truly give suffering individuals and their families hope.For more reading related to this topic, request a free copy of our two booklets What Science Can't Discover About the Human Mind, and Human Nature: What Is It? 2. Does Medicine Deserve Your Faith?By Robert MorleyOctober 2006What the medical industry doesn't want you to knowMedical health providers tell us that people with more health-care options live longer, healthier lives. Drug companies claim that pharmaceuticals can do wonders for people-calm your children, end your depression, lower your cholesterol.Is it true?If the people manning the hospitals and doling out the drugs are right, where are all the healthy medicated customers?Americans pay an estimated 2 times more per person than people in the country with the next-most-expensive health care. Why, then, do studies show that Americans have worse health and lower life expectancies than those in many other industrialized nations like Greece, Spain, Austria, France and Germany?That is the paradox of modern medicine in the United States: General health continues to deteriorate, even as Americans spend more money than ever before to become healthy.Still, people's faith in the medical system remains steadfast.Soaring Medical CostsRecent government studies show that, given soaring medical costs, within a decade Americans will be spending an unbelievable one fifth of all their dollars on health care. Analysts see "no end to increases in the cost of going to the doctor and taking medicine" (Associated Press, February 21). In fact, the cost of medical care is projected to rise 7.2 percent each year-a rate far above the government's official inflation readings.Already Americans spend more than 16 percent of the nation's gross domestic product on health care. In 2004 alone, that was $2 trillion. If the estimates are correct, by 2030 America will be spending a third of its national output on medical care-by mid-century, the proportion will have risen to 46 percent.Such exorbitant health spending is obviously unsustainable. At those levels, just providing health services for the nation's elderly, disabled and poor would require massive tax increases-probably on the order of doubling them-or vast reductions in services.Even at current expenditure levels, many American companies are in crisis situations. At General Motors Corp., for example, leaders cite skyrocketing health-care costs, which add approximately $1,500 to the price of each vehicle, as a major reason they are in such financial trouble. The American auto industry spends more money on health care than on steel.Individuals also feel the pain of health-care costs. A survey published by Harvard Medical and Law School estimated that in 2005 almost 700,000 bankruptcies-half the total number that occurred that year-were filed because of costs relating to illnesses. Even people with health insurance are struggling to pay medical costs: A 2005 Commonwealth Fund report found that of the 77 million Americans straining to pay their medical debts, almost two thirds have some form of health insurance.But is all the money Americans throw into health care producing the improved health they yearn for?Despite all the new drugs and treatments, degenerative illnesses are at epidemic levels. Cancer, heart disease and stroke kill 1.4 million Americans per year. The American Legacy Foundation largely blames poor lifestyles choices, pointing out that, in 2000, 81 million Americans were smokers, obese, or both. In 2004 alone, an estimated 1.37 million-3,748 people a day-were diagnosed with cancer. (Consequently, cancer drug sales are soaring. America's second-largest biotechnology company, Genentech, reported that during the first quarter of this year sales of its cancer drugs Avastin, Herceptin and Tarceva rose 96, 123 and 94 percent respectively.)Among young adults, a segment of the population usually thought of as being healthy, sharp increases in many illnesses have been noted. Even our children are becoming unhealthy. One third of U.S. children are either overweight or obese; one in four children between ages 5 and 10 show early signs of heart disease. Type-2 diabetes, a condition normally only found in adults, is on the rise in children.These massive health crises continue to grow even as use of drugs and medical treatments expands. That does not necessarily mean modern medicine causes the problems-but it certainly is not solving them, and often exacerbates them.Medical Facts and Consensus AbsentIn 19th-century Europe, if you had the misfortune to become ill, chances are you would have had one of the most common treatments of the day: having your blood sucked out by leeches. Leech-bloodletting treatment, a practice whose roots go back 2,500 years to ancient Egypt, was used to treat everything from headaches to mental illnesses. Leeches were used to supposedly cure obesity, hemorrhoids, laryngitis, and even eye disorders. Bloodletting was so universally accepted that France imported over 33 million leeches in 1827.Later, when medical practitioners actually tested the practice of leech-bloodletting, they found that it did absolutely no good and actually harmed people.Today, most patients would expect medicine to be based upon hard scientific evidence. Yet, almost 200 years later, medicine is a cauldron filled to the brim with popular treatments that have been debunked by evidence. "The problem is that we don't know what we are doing," says Dr. David Eddy, a heart surgeon-turned-mathematician and health-care economist who is confronting and exposing the oft non-science-based medical industry (Business Week, May 29). What is required is an "evidence-based medicine" revolution, he says.According to Business Week, "Even today, with a high-tech health-care system that costs the nation $2 trillion a year, there is little or no evidence that many widely used treatments and procedures actually work .." Most people would probably be shocked if they knew how many treatments have no scientific proof that they actually help patients. "We don't have the evidence [that treatments work] and we are not investing very much in getting the evidence," says the executive vice president of the Commonwealth Fund, Dr. Stephen C. Schoenbaum. Dr. Nelda Wray, research chief at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, worries that "the majority of surgery we do for symptom relief is only effective because of the placebo effect-with significant potential of harming the patient" (Forbes.com, Oct. 27, 2003).Despite the evidence, much of the medical establishment is either ignorant and apathetic, or it willfully refuses to accept that its guesswork has been shot down.According to Dr. Eddy, who has spent much of his controversial career proving that the practice of medicine is more conjectural than scientific, only 15 percent of physicians' decisions are supported by solid evidence. Other doctors and health-care-quality experts who have endorsed Eddy's work say the percentage of medical treatments that have been proven effective is shockingly low, citing figures between 20 to 25 percent.Stated another way, you must take the benefits of 75 to 80 percent of any medications, surgeries or treatments your doctor recommends ON FAITH ALONE, because there is no solid proof showing their effectiveness. In fact, most drugs have negative side effects, so the treatments being prescribed may actually harm you in another way-and possibly even more seriously.Dr. Eddy has exposed many of medicine's sacred doctrines to be false. For example, he traced the common practice of preventing women from giving birth vaginally if they have had a previous cesarean to the recommendation of just one doctor. He proved that most doctors were mostly oblivious about the success rates of various procedures, such as surgery for enlarged prostates. Against many doctors' objections, Eddy also proved that the annual chest X-ray that many doctors make significant money from actually shows nothing helpful.One of the problems with today's medical practice is that doctors decide how to treat patients based upon inherited traditions, using their best human judgment as opposed to proof, says Eddy. His work shows that medical establishment rules and judgments are not necessarily right and that medicine makes "decisions with an entirely different method from what we would call rational" (Business Week, op. cit.).To prove how "woefully outmatched" doctor judgment is "by the complexities of medicine," and to show how many cherished beliefs are uncertain, Eddy conducted public surveys and lectures at medical society meetings. At these seminars, Eddy would commonly ask doctors to think of a representative patient with an illness and a typical treatment. He would then ask the doctors to write down the outcome of the treatment.At one urologist society gathering, doctors were asked what the odds were that a man after having corrective surgery would be able to urinate normally. Amazingly there was no agreement among the doctors' predictions. Even though "[a]ll the doctors were trying to estimate the same thing . they all gave different numbers," and there wasn't even any clear trend, with predictions of success ranging from zero to 100 percent (ibid.).Unfortunately, as Eddy points out, that kind of doctor confusion is typical. "A lot of things we absolutely believe at the moment based on our intuition are ultimately absolutely wrong," said Dr. Paul Wallace of the Care Management Institute (ibid.).Professional preference and tradition as the prescription of the day is all too common for the medical establishment. In fact, "Your chances of undergoing a particular operation can vary vastly from one zip code to another, fluctuating by as much as tenfold" (Forbes.com, op. cit.). Dr. Gary Kirsh at the Urology Group in Cincinnati says, "Because there are no definitive answers, you are at the whim of where you are and who you talk to" (Business Week, op. cit.). Kirsh readily admits that he performs many brachytherapies-implanting small radioactive rods directly into cancer in an effort to kill the cells. But, he says, "[I]f you drive 1 _ hours down the road to Indianapolis, there is almost no brachytherapy." If you were to seek treatment in Loma Linda, California, where in 1990 the first proton beam machine was installed, the odds are you will be treated with proton beam therapy. Go to a surgeon and he will probably recommend surgery, go to a chemotherapist and you will likely get chemotherapy treatment.Which of these procedures works best? Clearly these doctors have no idea.Why No Hard Evidence?With the many advances in science and technology, one may wonder why so many treatments are not based on proven facts.One reason is that generating information is time-consuming and expensive. Clinical trials can take years and cost multiple millions of dollars. Additionally, by the time results are found, science and medical industries may have already moved on, making the study less relevant, and few organizations are motivated to fund studies that draw little attention. Explaining why hospitals implement new technologies before they have been fully proven, Giridhar Venkatraman, director of surgical services with consulting firm Sg2, says, "By the time research has validated the outcomes, it's often too late to implement it and get the return on investment" (Modern Healthcare, February 13).In America, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported in July 2005 that nearly a third of all clinical research produces conclusions that are later refuted and rejected. Additionally, many doctors don't even have an efficient way of accessing the information. "Most patients assume that their doctors know what research has been done, and if they realized what a tortuous maze it is to get the research to the point of clinicians making the decisions, they would probably be horrified," says Chris del Mar, dean of Bond University's Faculty of Health Science and Medicine in Australia (Weekend Australian, June 3).Del Mar also says that the time required to search for evidence, knowing the right questions to ask, then determining how reliable the answers are, plus understanding how they apply to the patient, are all big barriers for busy doctors trying to help as many people as possible.Conflicts of InterestWhile there are some arguably legitimate factors involved, there is another, more insidious side to why so many unproven treatments and procedures are performed: greed. It seems to exist at all levels within the health-care system. Doctors, drug manufacturers, medical device makers, hospitals (and even governmental regulators) all have one thing in common: "enormous financial incentives to provide more and more care," even without proof that the care is the most effective-or even that it helps at all (Business Week, op. cit.).Part of the problem is that many doctors hold both professional and financial interests in the treatments they offer. This may explain why some doctors are reluctant to change their ways, even when common medical practices are proved faulty. Some even lobby Congress to squash funding for studies that may prove their professional beliefs and treatments to be in error. As a result, Congress sometimes slashes funding or halts government-financed research on controversial issues. Dr. Joe Thompson, health adviser to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, says the federal government Agency for Health Care Policy and Research "often" has its budget targeted by self-interest groups (ibid.)."There is no question that the economic interests of the physician enter into the decision" process, says Dr. Kirsh (ibid.). Doctors often get paid based upon the number of patients they see. "I can see three patients with acute needs every 15 minutes," says Texan doctor Melissa Gerdes, who says she is doing her best to make herself available to more clients (New York Times, June 24). Surgeons too are paid according to the number of people they operate on. If a surgeon recommends waiting or other alternatives as opposed to cutting, his take-home pay drops."Conflict of interest is hard to rule out," especially when "[y]ou get paid for operating and not paid for not operating," says Dr. Jack Paradise, a professor of pediatrics and otolaryngology at the Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.But there is an even greater conflict of interest relating to pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers.Pharmaceutical companies are known for spending billions wooing doctors with free samples, lavish gifts, and trips under the guise of promoting better products or furthering education. Last year, the pharmaceutical industry spent $60 billion on drug promotion, which Reuters reports was nearly double what it spent on research and development (June 26). Dollars put toward marketing to physicians jumped 81 percent-from $12.1 billion to $22 billion-between 1999 and 2003. Free samples accounted for $16 billion of that, while much of the rest was spent on the doctors themselves (Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 28, 2005). The concern is that doctors may become reliant upon contributions from these medical companies or feel obligated to recommend their products.Although doctors on the whole don't seem worried about potential conflicts of interest, the American Medical Student's Association disagrees, saying that all medical students and doctors alike should just say "no" to all personal gifts. It gets down to trust, they say: "By accepting gifts, we are taking in biases that are going to affect patient care" (ibid.). Critics also say doctors should not place so much trust in medical company claims and should use independent sources of information that are not linked to the companies producing the treatments.The fact is, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers are, first and foremost, businesses. As such, their first loyalty is to their shareholders, not necessarily to the people using their products. With financial considerations trumping medical considerations, these companies' methods of pushing their products promote the overuse of unneeded and/or less effective treatments. Since the primary source of income for these companies is sales, there is a huge pull for them to "turn ordinary conditions, like jittery legs [or temper tantrums], into 'diseases' that need treatment," so as to boost profit and shareholder returns (Business Week, op. cit.; see "Has a Disease For Your Problems Been Marketed Yet?" page 27).In one case, after pleading guilty to illegally marketing its epilepsy drug Neurontin, a subsidiary of drug company Pfizer was ordered to pay $430 million. The company was aggressively pushing the drug for conditions like bipolar disorder, back pain and headache-conditions there was either little or no evidence it helped. While the company enriched itself with billion-dollar sales built upon massive marketing campaigns-which included trips and compensation for doctors-lawsuits allege that patients were experiencing suicidal thoughts, convulsions and tumors.This type of behavior is why the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to act as a watchdog over the marketing practices of medical companies. Yet evidence shows that the FDA itself also has conflicts of interests that make it largely ineffective in its purpose.In 1992, the drug industry negotiated a deal with the FDA: In exchange for a faster review process of new drugs, the drug companies would pay user fees to the FDA. These fees now pay more than half the salaries of the review staff! Also, most FDA employees either used to work for drug companies or plan to in the future. This is known as "revolving door" access. Moreover, many of the FDA employees have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.On top of that, FDA advisory committees, according to a USA Today study published Sept. 25, 2000, are not truly independent. The experts on these committees advise the FDA on whether to approve a drug, what warning labels are appropriate, and how evaluations should be designed. The study found that 54 percent of the time, the experts either owned stock in the company that produced the drug under evaluation, or they had received consulting fees or research grants from it.The Nov. 18, 2004, Washington Post noted that the FDA's apparently-lenient treatment toward drug companies raised the question of whether "the agency is focusing more on bolstering the pharmaceutical industry than protecting public health."Hospitals too are loaded with conflicts of interest that result in the wide use of unproven treatments. Like medical companies, hospitals are businesses that seek to maximize their revenues. The more patients they treat, the greater their cash flow. This doesn't necessarily mean that financial considerations are put ahead of patient care, but studies show that there are huge variations between treatments at different hospitals.Consider: A 2006 report from researchers at the Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences at Dartmouth Medical School studied 306 hospital referral regions to compare treatments of patients during their last six months of life, and the results were "striking." For example, the average number of days chronically ill patients stayed in hospitals varied between 6.5 and 19.4 per region. The number of doctor visits received by dying patients ranged between 15.7 and 50 per region. Why the huge discrepancy? Are people in diverse parts of the country so biologically different that the treatments they are receiving in hospitals should vary so much?The reason behind the discrepancies is economics. Dr. Thompson says hospitals spend huge amounts of money developing new technology, and they want a return on their investment. New operation rooms for surgery, or new radiation equipment, according to Business Week, "are profit centers for hospitals .. Once a hospital installs a shiny new catheter lab [for example], it has a powerful incentive to refer more patients for the procedure" (op. cit.).Combine that with Americans always demanding to be treated immediately, and you have the prime conditions for "overuse and inappropriate use," says Thompson. "There is a massive amount of spending on things that really don't help patients, and often put them at greater risk. Everyone that's informed on the topic knows it, but it is such a scary thing to discuss that people are not willing to talk about it openly," says the head of health care at one of America's largest corporations, who didn't want to be attributed (ibid.). Scary indeed.Misplaced FaithIn Luke 18, Jesus Christ uses the parable of the widow and the unjust judge to show that people should continually ask God for their needs. Then, to a group of self-trusting people who thought they had all the answers, Christ asked a lightning-bolt question: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, SHALL HE FIND FAITH ON THE EARTH?"Yes, when Jesus Christ returns at His Second Coming, will He find faith?There is indeed abundant faith on the Earth today-but not the type Christ was hoping to find. Today's faith is largely in modern medicine to solve and heal all our ills. Look at the facts, and you must acknowledge the general role of faith in modern medicine-faith not in God, but in a rickety system of flawed diagnosis and guesswork treatment whose effectiveness is corroded by greed.While this may come as a shock to some, it shouldn't. Particularly considering the trillions of dollars involved, how could this oversized giant of an industry remain immune from the cancerous ravages of human nature? Endemic problems plague every other aspect of human endeavor-international relations, government, business and finance, education, social work, even religion. Why then should people believe-despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary-that modern medicine deserves our faith?Such faith is woefully misplaced.But if modern medicine can't be relied upon to fix society's health problems, who or what can be?There is only one Being who has all the answers, the Being who designed and created man in the first place. It is He who created the physical laws by which our bodies function correctly-laws we should do our utmost to abide by. Following these physical laws does not merely treat the effects of disease and sickness-it eliminates the causes. These laws include regulating what and how much we eat and drink, upholding cleanliness and hygiene, getting plenty of sunshine and fresh air, sufficiently and properly exercising, sleeping and resting the right amounts, avoiding bodily injury, and maintaining a positive mental attitude.In addition, only God has the power to heal you-and in His Word, He has spelled out iron-clad PROMISES TO HEAL those who satisfy certain basic conditions. Herbert W. Armstrong expounded upon these in his booklet The Plain Truth About Healing, which we offer to you free upon request.There is a time coming when all disease will eventually be eradicated and perfect health will be the norm. For information on how this will occur, request our book The Wonderful World Tomorrow-What It Will Be Like.
Carolina

 
At 1:34 p. m., Anonymous Lady Rodriguez said...

Comentario Andres, sobre los antidepresivos,Estoy escuchado la w, y escuche tus comentarios, observe que era un dialogo imposible, nosotros comprendemos que la realidad externa no existe, en si misma es neutra, nosotros decidimos como nos afecta , de acuerdo a la informacion de verdad o de creencias que gobiernen nuestra vida, esto se llama asumir la vida. Todas las enfermedades tienen un origen interno, y yo las cree y yo puedo sanarme, la respuesta no esta afuera, esta dentro de mi. Por eso era imposible la comunicacion con personas con creencias como que la enfermedad y el remedio estan afuera, sin aclarar esto , todo queda solo en conceptos. La depresion como su nombre lo indica es una baja de energia vital, solo yo puede aprender como subir mi energia vital y mantenerla en aumento, para esto necesito la informacion adecuada, entrenamiento, y un nivel minimo de energia para hacer este trabajo. Por eso los maestros lo son mas por el manejo adecuado de su energia vital , que por sus conocimientos. Mientras yo no comprenda que el trabajo es en mi interior, cambiando mis creencias por la comprension de la verdad, voy a buscar afuera la cura para mis males, y esta busqueda es legitima, pero el camino equivocado.Yo tome antidepresivos, ahora esa alegria y entusiasmo indispensable para vivir, la genero dentro de mi, y trabajo permanentemente en ello.El planeta es como un gran colegio, con diferentes niveles de aprendizaje, obviamente es un curso mayor cuando ya no buscas afuera, hay mas responsabilidad y mayor libertad, la sociedad necesita pasar por esta moda, para luego entender que no funciona, es un proceso logico y necesario. Muchas gracias por tu atencion espero no este muy largo mi comentario.... gracias
Lady Rodriguez

 
At 1:34 p. m., Anonymous Perez said...

Comentario saludos andres,escuche tus conceptos acerca de los medicamentos para ptes siquiatricos,no se de cienciologia ,pero tus conocimientos tienen bases slidosmfelicitaciones,sigue con esos fortalezasun buen dia
Perez

 
At 1:34 p. m., Anonymous Mariel said...

Felicitaciones Andres, Muy buena participacion en el programaMucha ignorancia de los periodistas hablando dizque del metodo cientifico. Lo mas triste es lo que puede suceder con los ninios. Ahora kien podra ayudarlos...Felicidades
Mariel

 
At 1:35 p. m., Anonymous Raul Gomez said...

Andres,me llamo la atencion al escuchar en la w radio que usted estaba en contra de las drogas farmaceuticas para el estres o algo asi. Quiero que conozca que las drogas alpaticas matan mas que la enfermedad misma. Lease el libro la mafia medica de ghislaine saint pierre y se dara cuenta que el sistema sanitario cuya cabeza son los fabricantes de drogas estan asesinando la humanidad. Los medicos son idiotas utiles de ese negocio infame que enferma u mata por dinero y poder.Si le interesa, escribame, necesito su E-mail para darle informacin. Estamos en este mundo de paso y creo que hariamos bien destapar las olas podridas.
Raul Gomez
Ya le escribo a su pagina

 
At 1:37 p. m., Anonymous Hernando Alberto Bernal said...

El término “hiperactividad” es hoy tan popular que casi cualquier conducta extravagante de un niño lo hace merecedor del nombre de hiperactivo. Este término, promovido por el prestigio y autoridad del discurso médico, parece sustituir los de necedad, inquietud, mala educación, desobediencia, etc. ¿No se trata acaso de niños a los que les ha faltado la transmisión de un orden y una disciplina en el hogar?
En el DSM IV libro de la psiquiatría oficial de los Estados Unidos dice que el trastorno por déficit de atención con hiperactividad, conocido anteriormente con el nombre de Disfunción Cerebral Mínima, define una falta de atención con comportamientos perturbadores, los cuales interfieren “la actividad social, académica o laboral” (DSMIV). También describe niños con “baja tolerancia a la frustración, arrebatos emocionales, autoritarismo, testarudez, insistencia excesiva en que se satisfagan sus peticiones, etc.” (DSMIV).
La prueba, el diagnóstico y la medicación, suelen estar en manos del neurólogo, pero paradójicamente no hay un compromiso orgánico demostrado, tal como lo expresa el mismo DSMIV: “Esta entidad clínica descarta toda base orgánica, no hay pruebas de laboratorio que hayan sido establecidas como diagnósticas en la evaluación clínica del trastorno por déficit”, es decir que no hay un daño neurológico. A lo anterior se suma el abuso que hay en el empleo del medicamento llamado Ritalina.
Antes de llevar a un niño inquieto donde el neurólogo y recurrir a un tratamiento farmacológico, habría que preguntarse cómo han contribuido los padres para que su hijo haya llegado a ser como es y en qué han fallado como pareja en la transmisión de un respeto por la norma y su autoridad como papás. Tampoco se debe excluir la responsabilidad de estos pequeños perturbadores en lo que les sucede por el hecho de que sean menores de edad. No se puede caer en el error de disculpar las conductas indeseables de un hijo porque haya sido diagnosticado como hiperactivo.

 
At 1:39 p. m., Anonymous Edwin Torres said...

Andres me llama la atención el tema y por favor si es cierto que estas interesado en la salud lee mi opinion, te comento lo siguiente yo fui dictaminado como un paciente con depresion tengo 29 años y segun los bata blanca debo tomar fluoxetina. yo tenia una vida normal los problemas normales de una persona un poco timida despues de eventos duros que considero me sucedieron , tales como robo a mi casa, infidelidad de mi pareja, estres laboral y soledad. comense a tener ataques de panico y ansiedad hasta el punto de creer que no habia solucion a nada, afortunadamente la parte siquiatrica en el p.o.s no la toman muy encuenta pues ni siquiera los siquiatras muestran una clara explicacion de lo que pasa imaginese una cita cada dos meses despues de una medicación ; lo tratan a uno como un automata y como si las drogas fueran la droga de la felicidad como me dijo la siquiatra de la clinica la paz... pero finalmente nunca estuve convencido de usar drogar pues a base de lectura de superación personal (entre otros libros de chopra) descubri que todo tiende a estar bien y que cada ser humano tiene un potencial enorme la cuestion esta en la aceptación de nuestro entorno y el deseo de proyectar los sueños. Cuando uno vive en carne propia estos problemas se da cuenta que de que carajos sirve un premio de la OMS a los que crean drogas o segun estudios de universidades que nunca tienen acceso a personas como yo si al final de cuentas ni buen ayuda le dan a uno? ni siquierea le explican claramente a uno el porque de las sensaciones? yo me canse de que me trataran como un loco y tener que depender de una puerca pepa....y solo con fe e identificando los patrones que desencadenan los ataques he podido vivir mejor...ah? no sera acaso la bacteria helicobacter pylori que por estar mucho tiempo presente crean problemas que se confunden con depresion? quien carajos me responde esa pregunta ?

Gracias

 
At 1:40 p. m., Anonymous Jose Javier said...

Que más Andrés, lo quiero felicitar por estar en contra de la ciencia en este asunto de las drogas psiquiátricas. La verdad, la depre es una enfermedad del capitalismo, al igual que el suicidio y otras más. No le preste atención a lo que dice Julio y ese montón de gente en "La W" en defensa de las drogas psiquiatricas. Siga adelante con la causa y no desfallezca.

 
At 5:29 p. m., Anonymous Alicia said...

Pues mi visión particular del asunto, es que el tema debe mirarse lejos de las pasiones, yo creo firmemente que si las drogas psiquiatricas existen es porque algún uso tienen, creo que son convenientes para personas que de verdad padecen enfermedades mentales como lo son la esquizofrenia o el trastorno bipolar, pero aquellos leves estadios como la depresión o la hiperactividad no requieren tal tratamiento.
Me parece que su postura es clara y no cae en el fanatismo, creo que con claridad expone su punto y no comparto para nada las duras críticas que lanzaron en su contra los personajes de la W.

 
At 5:51 p. m., Anonymous Caterina said...

Andrés, estoy de acuerdo con lo que expones. El tema de la medicación con drogas a niños me ha tocado de cerca. Ya que mi sobrinito de 10 años "supuestamente" es déficit de atención. En el colegio que estudiaba anteriormente, no se quedaron tranquilos hasta que mi hermana no decidió retirarlo. El gasto en exámenes médicos y en vivitas a psicólogos fué descomunal. Los médicos le recetaron un medicamento muy fuerte (RITALIN http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/Ritalin.html) pero mi hermana nunca quiso dárselo. El niño ha ido mejorando y {el mismo se ha dado cuenta de ello, ya que las maestras lo ven entusiasmado. Hace unos días me trajo uno de sus cuadernos para enseñarme que había hecho su tarea solito. Sus cuadernos no son un ejemplo de pulcritud, pero le está poniendo empeño y eso es lo que cuenta. Como decimos acá: eso es paciencia y salivita.

Hace unos meses, un amigo que es médico me comentó que a través de una investigación que realizó con su padre (que también es médico), llegaron a la conclusión de que aquellos niños con déficit de atención carecen de ciertos aminoácidos y la mejor manera de tratarlo es con un simple cambio en la dieta que los ayude a reponerlos.Mi sobrino ahora está comiendo más proteínas y estoy segura de que ese avance en su alimentación lo está ayudando en su desarrollo.

Con respecto al tema de los suicidios, estoy convencida de que la incidencia viene dada tanto por el entorno familiar, por la capacidad del individuode enfrentar la vida, como por la descomposición de la sociedad. Así que, no creo que una droga sea capaz de prevenirlo. Existen factores externos e internos que influyen en el ser humano.

Saludos nuevamente.

 
At 9:54 p. m., Anonymous OSCAR MAURICIO DIAZ SIERRA said...

ANDRES ES UN PLACER PODERLO CONTACTAR, ESTOY MUY DE ACUERDO CON SUS DECLARACIONES Y AFIRMACIONES.
DESAFORTUNADAMENTE POR COSAS DEL DESTINO YO SUFRI UN INTENTO DE SUICIDIO, TUVE UNA CRISIS EMOCIONAL POR LLAMARLO DE ALGUNA MANERA, Y LUEGO SE ME CATALOGO DE LOCO, EMPEZARON DANDOME MEDICAMENTOS PARA DORMIR, PARA LEVANTARME, MEJOR DICHO NECESITABA CUANTO MEDICAMENTO PARA VIVIR, COMO SI FUERA UN ROBOT NECESITABA ACEITE, Y ES MUY TRISTE QUE LA GENTE CATALOGUE VERDADES EXPUESTAS POR USTED COMO ALGO DE CONOCIMIENTO CIENTIFICO, MAS CUANDO ES DE SENTIDO COMUN, HOY EN DIA GRACIAS AL APOYO DE MI MAMA, DEJE DE CONSUMIR ESOS MEDICAMENTOS Y ME ENCUENTRO MEJOR QUE NUNCA, VIVO LA VIDA, LA DISFRUTO, Y TENIENDO EN CUENTA QUE TENGO QUE HACER LO QUE ME PARECE BIEN, Y SE QUE NO ES NECESARIO TOMAR DROGAS QUE POR CIERTO, LAS CLINICAS DE REPOSO EN LA CUAL ESTUVE, GENERAN CIERTA ADICCION Y SE LO PUEDO DEMOSTRAR, EN LA CLINICA EN LA QUE ME ENCONTRE NOS PONIAN A HACER BOLSITAS DE PAPEL PARA GUARDAR NUESTROS MEDICAMENTOS, NUESTRAS DOSIS, YA QUE DECIAN QUE ERAN PARTE DE NOSOTROS, PARA TENER UN MEJOR VIVIR, SE LO JURO ANDRES QUE CUANDO TOMABA ESOS MEDICAMENTOS PARA SONREIR ERA IMPOSIBLE, USTED QUEDA PASMADO TODO EL DIA, Y LAS DE LA NOCHE, LO PONEN A USTED A DORMIR COMO SEDADO, EN NINGUN MOMENTO TENIA SUENOS, ES MUY TRISTE VER COMO HOY SE TILDA PARA TODO DEPRECION, Y VER UNO QUE EN LA UNIVERSIDAD ES LA PALABRA DE MODA CUANDO UNO LE DICE A LA OTRA PERSONA ? OYE QUE TIENES? LA BENDITA RESPUESTA...TENGO LA DEPRE MARICA....POR ESO QUIERO HACER PARTE DE ESA CAMPANA POR DECIRLO DE ALGUNA MANERA, Y CAMBIAR ESAS BELLEZAS DE PERIODISTAS QUE TENEMOS QUE JUZGAN PERO NO SABEN DE QUE, O POR QUE, Y SON UN VIVO TESTIGO DE QUE SIN PEPAS SI SE PUEDE VIVIR..DE NUEVO FUE UN PLACER HABLAR CON USTED. ATT: OSCAR MAURICIO DIAZ SIERRA

 
At 2:02 p. m., Anonymous Ivan Mauricio Lombana said...

Ánimo, muy bien en su campaña. Vale la pena enfatizar en que no existe "enfermedad mental", pues es el cuerpo el que enferma. No puede haber algo así como un pensamiento enfermo. Se patologizan los sentimienots, las emociones, y para colmo se supeditan a la razón. Otro de los supuesto braveros de la psicología y de la superación personal radica en la "autoestima", un culto soberbio al yo occidental, que también vende libros por montones. En realidad la psicología nunca ha estado apartada desde sus inicios de la administración (de las personas) y de la ingeniería industrial. Management y psicología son lo mismo. Iván Mauricio Lombana. Filósofo, comunicador y bioeticista.

 
At 10:09 p. m., Anonymous Y Calderon, Aragua Venezuela said...

Como profesional de la Psicologia apoyo su cambio de paradigma en relacion al efecto contraproducente de los antidrepresivos.Felicitaciones

 
At 3:25 p. m., Anonymous Millaray said...

Hola Andrés, me encantan tus artículos, son entretenidos, inteligentes y ÚTILES, combinación poco menos que imposible en el mundo... bueno ya sabes en cuál. Muy Bien hecho!

Millaray

 
At 8:59 a. m., Anonymous Anónimo said...

No conocía a este gran humorista. En verdad es excelente. La pelota de Letras demuestra que más que generaciones colombianas parecen generaciones latinoamericanas, nos identificamos mucho. Felicidades por el éxito. Espero verlo pronto en Caracas.
Eugenia Bavaro.

 

Publicar un comentario

<< Home