Dangerous Doctors

By Paul Devlin - Life Force International

The information I am about to share with you is truly hard to believe. It came out in 2000 and very few people even noticed it. When you read it, you might think of it as a joke or as a lead story in a supermarket tabloid....

It can't possibly be true...right?

But this information comes from the most reputable medical journal in the world! Are we so programmed by the medical establishment that even as we read the words, something tells us it can't possibly be true? We need to get our heads out of the sand! This report should have been front page news down at the New York Times.

I am not a conspiracy guy. I am not ready to say that all doctors and hospitals are bad. Not at all. Far from it. But I am a data guy! This data needs to be addressed by the health care industry, but until it is, it's BUYER BEWARE!

Read this medical journal article and think about some of the things you can do to keep yourself and your family safe. It's also good to pat yourself on the back for being willing to invest time and money to promote a product like Body Balance, and the rest of the Life Force product line. It's a good thing you are doing.

Are you ready for this?? It's a little long, but it's definitely worth your time. OK, here it is...

=================================================

Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 225,000 Deaths Every Year

This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.

This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.

The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

• 12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
• 7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
• 20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
• 80,000 -- infections in hospitals
• 106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs

These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!! What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.

Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these numbers:

• First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
• Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
• Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.

If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).

====================================================

Paul's notes:

Are you seeing that data? This is 225,000 people killed in one year. These people are killed because of a bad interaction they had with a doctor, a drug, or a virus, and it happened to them in a hospital. This does not include people who would have died anyway. This is strictly mistakes. It doesn't include injuries! And if anything, the numbers appear to be understated.

Let's put this in perspective...

In the Vietnam war, which lasted from 1959 to 1975 (16 years) we lost approximately 50,000 people. That's an average of 3125 deaths per year. This means that iatrogenic deaths are 72 times higher than deaths caused by the Vietnam war. In Iraq, approximately 1,050,000 soldiers have served over the past four years with around 3000 deaths. That means the chances of being killed in Iraq are 3/10ths of 1%, and on average, we are losing about 750 men and women per year. It's a tragic thing. But in terms of total mortality rates, visiting a doctor at a hospital is roughly 300 times more life threatening to US citizens than serving in Iraq as a soldier.

Interesting, isn't it? My point is not to justify war. My point is to ask -- where is the outcry? Where are the protests? Where are the consumer protection agencies? Where is the rage about this?

Where is the New York Times? When you are safer in a live combat zone than you are in a US hospital, I'd say we've got some real challenges to consider. In a war zone, the enemy is TRYING to kill you. In the hospital, they are trying to save you...hmmmm.

OK, let's continue...

==================================================

Another analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings,with:

• 116 million extra physician visits
• 77 million extra prescriptions
• 17 million emergency department visits
• 8 million hospitalizations
• 3 million long-term admissions
• 199,000 additional deaths
• $77 billion in extra costs

The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.

However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.

An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.

This might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison, the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US on several indicators was:

• 13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
• 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall
• 11th for postneonatal mortality
• 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
• 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
• 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males
• 10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males
• 7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males
• 3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
• 10th for age-adjusted mortality

The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.

There is a perception that the American public "behaves badly" by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating violence." However the data does not support this assertion.

• The proportion of females who smoke ranges from 14% in Japan to 41% in Denmark; in the United States, it is 24% (fifth best). For males, the range is from 26% in Sweden to 61% in Japan; it is 28% in the United States (third best).
• The US ranks fifth best for alcoholic beverage consumption.
• The US has relatively low consumption of animal fats (fifth lowest in men aged 55-64 years in 20 industrialized countries) and the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among men aged 50 to 70 years among 13 industrialized countries.

Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing factor to the US's low ranking.

Among 29 countries, the United States is second only to Japan in the availability of magnetic resonance imaging units and computed tomography scanners per million population. 17

Japan, however, ranks highest on health, whereas the US ranks among the lowest. It is possible that the high use of technology in Japan is limited to diagnostic technology not matched by high rates of treatment, whereas in the US, high use of diagnostic technology may be linked to more treatment. Supporting this possibility are data showing that the number of employees per bed (full-time equivalents) in the United States is highest among the countries ranked, whereas they are very low in Japan, far lower than can be accounted for by the common practice of having family members rather than hospital staff provide the amenities of hospital care.

=====================================================

Paul's notes:

Notice who ranks #1 in health according to JAMA?

It's Japan again! The Okinawa Centenarian Study from 1976 proved it -- the Japanese have 4 times more centenarians than we do. They contract deadly diseases at a much lower rate! Sound familiar?

And what do these Japanese eat that is so different from everybody else? What rather bizarre vegetable makes up 25% of their traditional diet? Sea vegetables of course! The rest is fish, root vegetables, leafy green vegetables, fruits and rice. And don't forget the green tea!

But credit Wayne Hillman and Life Force for being the first US company (that I am aware of) to pick-up on this correlation and make 9 carefully selected varieties of sea vegetables available to US customers in a great tasting liquid. It's quite an accomplishment. And I believe it has big ramifications for health.
That's why I put everyone in sight on Body Balance -- whether the business is a fit or not!

So take this information and be aware of it. Understand that the medical paradigm under which we are currently operating, is not only outrageously expensive, but it can be deadly as well. It turns out that 225,000 of our citizens who were seeking health in one of our hospitals, ended up with a very different outcome. About 72 times more deadly each year for Americans than the war in Iraq.

Think about this: if you find yourself scared to get on an airplane, but you feel confident and safe going to the doctor -- you might want to reorient your fears a little bit. The airplane is thousands of times safer!

With these new statistics, we need to get educated and take steps to protect ourselves from the [new] 3rd leading cause of death. First, we need prevention. We need to limit our exposure to it. Second, if we do have to expose ourselves to the risk, we need to watch and be aware of everything that is happening. We need to ask questions and be cautious about what we are allowing the medical industry to offer us as their idea of assistance! There are lots of great doctors and lots of great care out there -- just be vigilant and make sure you are finding it.

Pass this along and pay it forward to the people you care about.
And keep taking your Body Balance!

Paul

Journal American Medical Association July 26, 2000;284(4):483-5

References

1. Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook R. How good is the quality of
health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998;76:517-563.

2. Kohn L, ed, Corrigan J, ed, Donaldson M, ed. To Err Is Human:
Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press; 1999.

3. Starfield B. Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services,
and Technology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998.

4. World Health Report 2000. Accessed June 28, 2000.

5. Kunst A. Cross-national Comparisons of Socioeconomic
Differences in Mortality. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Erasmus
University; 1997.

6. Law M, Wald N. Why heart disease mortality is low in France:
the time lag explanation. BMJ. 1999;313:1471-1480.

7. Starfield B. Evaluating the State Children's Health Insurance
Program: critical considerations. Annu Rev Public Health.
2000;21:569-585.

8. Leape L.Unecessarsary surgery. Annu Rev Public Health.
1992;13:363-383.

9. Phillips D, Christenfeld N, Glynn L. Increase in US
medication-error deaths between 1983 and 1993. Lancet.
1998;351:643-644.

10. Lazarou J, Pomeranz B, Corey P. Incidence of adverse drug
reactions in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205.

11. Weingart SN, Wilson RM, Gibberd RW, Harrison B. Epidemiology
and medical error. BMJ. 2000;320:774-777.

12. Wilkinson R. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of
Inequality. London, England: Routledge; 1996.

13. Evans R, Roos N. What is right about the Canadian health
system? Milbank Q. 1999;77:393-399.

14. Guyer B, Hoyert D, Martin J, Ventura S, MacDorman M, Strobino
D. Annual summary of vital statistics1998. Pediatrics.
1999;104:1229-1246.

15. Harrold LR, Field TS, Gurwitz JH. Knowledge, patterns of
care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists. J Gen
Intern Med. 1999;14:499-511.

16. Donahoe MT. Comparing generalist and specialty care:
discrepancies, deficiencies, and excesses. Arch Intern Med.
1998;158:1596-1607.

17. Anderson G, Poullier J-P. Health Spending, Access, and
Outcomes: Trends in Industrialized Countries. New York, NY: The
Commonwealth Fund; 1999.

18. Mold J, Stein H. The cascade effect in the clinical care of
patients. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:512-514.

19. Shi L, Starfield B. Income inequality, primary care, and
health indicators. J Fam Pract.1999;48:275-284.


15514 Fire Mountain Rd, Paonia, CO 81428, USA