I noticed the other day the BBC news had an article on the topic that a high proportion of deaths is caused by the medical community but I can’t find it. Along the same lines is cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical.... But given its taken me 10 years to see an NHS neurologist who has only written to my GP with PA management guidelines which had already been provided numerous times, the difficulties of getting care from GPs etc so I’m interested in the fact that medical failures are mentioned in the news so frequently alongside medical gaslighting etc. But I worry too it’s an underhanded tactic to privatise the NHS by discrediting it but to be fair the NHS is shooting itself in the foot constantly one way or another. I was wondering if the book ‘A Sea of Broken Hearts: Patient Rights in a Dangerous, Profit-Driven Health Care System’ is hinting of where we are headed with the NHS already?
Third highest cause of ‘poor patient ... - Pernicious Anaemi...
Third highest cause of ‘poor patient outcomes’ is poor medical care….
I feel that the problem with the NHS is similar to other British institutions - it's sacrosanct. We're not allowed to say that there's a problem, or that it doesn't work, and have to uphold it's power to support the people. Otherwise, we're not British.
But the reality is that the NHS no longer offers suitable person-centred healthcare. And since the pandemic, it's all coming to an end because staff can't work much harder after 2/3 years of full-throttle support.
What's more, the NHS was set up for the purpose of post-war free healthcare for all. It's a 20th Century model trying to work to a very different and challenging 21st Century.
- Huge population: 70 million people in the UK. To contrast, Canada has 40 times more land and a population of 40 million. (Sure, much of it is inhabitable, but there is clearly more space there!)
- Rise of autoimmune and lifestyle diseases: We are all living longer and facing more stress, lack of sleep, poor nutrition and lack of healthy air than before. This is giving rise to heart disease, increased cancer rates, and more automimmune diseases like fibromyalgia.
- Lack of upgraded training: Doctors are an arrogant sort. I suppose it's an occupational hazard seeing as they are saving lives most days. But it means that very few are willing or able to admit that they don't know something. And most of them don't know about gut health, lifestyle factors influencing it, or nutrition. Vitamins and minerals and nutrition just isn't covered in medical school - plus its not glamours or 'life-saving'. Even though it probably is if someone took the time to study. Due to the multitude of variables involved with nutritional science, it's very hard to measure impacts on the body. So they don't.
So...like most of our systems, I believe we do need an overhaul. When you go privately these days, you very often get an NHS doctor anyway. So there isn't much between the two. Private offsets the cost of the NHS, and NHS lets good Doctors help the general public and sleep well at night.
What we need now is a tech-driven solution that uses AI or machine learning as an augmentative approach. We need more data-driven diagnostics to support GPs and we need more technology to support relationships with patients.
Basically, it is the end of the road for the NHS. And we need to change it and be open to changing it. That's my penneth worth.
I agree with you pickle. I think the training for a GP is over specialized and too long. Most GP's don't seem to reference their training when they see patients. They always look up the symptoms on the NHS website. And then get it wrong.
Thanks Charks.
I was thinking the other day about it, in my boring existence (!), that the sheer multitude of variables affecting our health from lifestyle is very overwhelming to a medical practitioner.
So instead of relying on training a Doctor to know everything, our systems are set up to target drugs at the problem based on their suspected diagnosis - its a simpler, more effective, and easier to prescribe process. Plus, companies can make money off the back of it.
Everyone's happy.
It's just that now, they're not. Because we live in complex times. And treating a patient 'holistically'--as they should be treated--would surely mean analysing every part of their life. Their sleep habits, stress levels, diet, exercise levels, prior medical history, family medical history, genetic profile. It's too much for a single person to think about when they have 10 minutes with a patient. And especially if they don't know much about vitamins and minerals because they didn't get any foundational training in it. Something like B12 crosses many boundaries AND cannot be contained in the current system - it can be hematological, neurological, gastrointestinal, endocrinological all or some at the same time. So it doesn't fit with the way the system is set up, in any way. And that is what lets us down.
But isn't problem-solving why we have computers? I can go on my phone now and feed an AI app my photos, and it will give me a selection of 'portraits' based on that data. Of course this is just for fun, but why can technology not be doing some of the dog work and make our jobs and lives easier? It's surely about pharma having the money and not wanting to give up contracts with the NHS. 70 million patients is a decent audience number, right? Plus, we all think the NHS is 'gold'. And I agree it is VERY good. But it's not fit for it's purpose any more.
So why wouldn't we give a machine learning system our data? Feed them our medical file and programme them to highlight the risks of B12 deficiency, folate, suggest a referral to the right specialists - maybe a gastro before a hemo?
I just don't understand why Doctors aren't using it. Or tech companies aren't pushing the development of it?
Money is always at the center of it. But surely these medical schools are churning out plenty of tech-savvy young people who can come up with solutions to these problems and give our GP's advice when they need it. It probably won't solve their lack of knowledge over B12 but it might improve diagnostic processing.
I asked openAI about B12 recently. It seemed to hint that toxicity was possible at high doses. After a couple rounds of conversation with me, the machine is now singing a different tune. A much more productive conversation than I've had with most medical professionals. 🤣
I was diagnosed with diabetes type 2 during covid. I got no help from my GP so I tried to find some help on YouTube. I watched a lot of videos on medicine on YouTube. I found Dr Neal Barnard. He talks such sense. I followed his advice. I changed my lifestyle and now my diabetes type 2 is in recession. When my GP finally got in contact with me he just wanted to manage my diabetes with drugs not try and put it in recession.
Dr Barnard was the one who inadvertently caused me to realise I had B12D. On one of his videos he said everyone should take B12. So I bought some and all the strange things that were happening to started to get better. All I had to do then was convince my GP I was B12 ( which was a real challange).
I am now a great believer in functional medicine - treat the cause and not the symptom.
Sorry to hear that you've had those struggles. How great that you managed to turn things around with some lifestyle tweaks though. Good for you. And for getting your jabs from the GP.
It was similar for me, I wasn't sleeping properly and I'm certain that played a very big part in my gut health problems.
Yes, I think the nutritionists and functional Doctors online are extremely helpful. Dr Berg, Dr Axe and Rangan Chatterjee all worth listening to. Perhaps the difference here is that these guys offer a nutritional/functional aspect that GPs just will never have. It's possible they may be wrong but it's still helpful.
On Eric Berg:
Gil Carvalho on Eric Berg:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKNz...
m.youtube.com/watch?v=dXNAm...
Dr.Leo : m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnix7...
Addicted to Ignorance : m.youtube.com/watch?v=tDSgF...
Contrast the above with how a published scientist actually talks about nutrition, here in relation to oils:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=_VwDZ...
Gil again on how to navigate confusion in nutrition:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPcL...
How To Spot A Quack:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=cPkD4...
Finally this is a great text overview on "Quickly assessing the credibility of public experts":
Glad that Neal's approach worked for you Charks!
I have to say I'm personally not a huge fan of some of Neal's nutritional advice as I think including healthy fats, nuts and oils can play a part in a healthy vegan diet. If you take a look at the so called "Blue Zones", where some of the longest lived populations in the world live, for example, in Ikaria Greeece, the diet contains approx 6% Olive Oil. There's a mountain of evidence that Olive Oil is good for your health in moderate amounts. Centenarians in the Blue Zones typically consume 2 handfuls of nuts per day but Neal Barnard would warn against such an amount - which is not based on sound science or research that I can see. However any diet that reduces calories may help a lot with diabetes. I also think he should spend a bit more time on micronutrient deficiencies in vegan diets - in the videos I've seen he swooshes through them without getting into the practicalities of how to get enough Calcium, Vitamin A, Iron, Zinc, Iodine, Selenium and EPA/DHA. It's neither as easy or as obvious as he makes it out to be and requires both proper planning and specific supplementation.
I appreciate he's trying to make it accessible but I wish he would at least refer people to more practical and specific nutritional advice such as that found on veganhealth.org.
I take everything with a pinch of salt. But Dr Barnard is right in a lot of things. As well as being right as to how to reverse diabetes type 2 he also exposes the big 'lie' about cholesterol i.e. you don't eat it it's produced in your body. It was a game changer for me. I used to have a cholesterol level of 10. I cut down on sugars and refined carbohydrates and started eating more protein and animal fats and now I have a cholesterol level of 3 ( 2 of which is 'good' cholesterol).
Agreed on the cholesterol, its not needed in the diet, but a quick Google search is showing that on average animal fat has 95mg cholesterol and 39 grams saturated fat per 100 grams (twice the DV (daily value). Glad that you got your blood cholesterol down though. Cutting down on sugars and refined carbs is always a good idea when they're replaced with healthier foods.
Yes but the amount of cholesterol you eat doesn't relate to the cholesterol in the body. I am proof of that. I eat a LOT of fat. And I am the healthiest I have ever been. I have a bmi of 19.
Thats good to hear Charks 
I don't want to make any definitive statements on dietary cholesterol effects because I am confused by the many conflicting studies, some of which indicate dietary cholesterol does not significantly affect blood cholesterol levels , while others suggest the opposite. There also seems to be significant individual variability in dose response terms. I also noticed the recommendation in US dietary guidelines to keep dietary cholesterol under 300mg was removed starting from the 2015 edition which is notable indeed. Reading into it, it seems their concerns shifted more towards saturated fats, particularly saturated fats in the context of a less healthy overall dietary pattern. Neal Barnard on the other hand, comes down quite strongly against consumption of cholesterol in this recent video and seems to suggest that it is the dietary cholesterol in eggs which is likely to raise your blood cholesterol (not saying I completely agree with him on that though). m.youtube.com/watch?v=t9BDX...
Neal's program for reversing diabetes is a vegan, low-fat diet so I was a little confused when you said you started eating a lot more animal fats as that's the opposite of what he recommends.
I agree. There is so much conflicting advice out there. That's what I mean by taking everything with a pinch of salt. Luckily I am a speed reader and so am able to cover all bases ( or as much as can be found online - a lot of medical articles can't be accessed without being in the profession).
But my personal experience has lead me to believe that the cholesterol you ingest doesn't directly relate to the cholesterol levels in your body.
I largely agree in that I think the effect on blood cholesterol, from dietary cholesterol is probably small in most people. Here is a longer one from Neal and then for balance I think a more nuanced take from an interview with Tom Dayspring on Gil Carvalho's channel:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQOXb...
Vs
m.youtube.com/watch?v=GkWMD...
You can see the difference in emphasis where Neal as much as admits that dietary cholesterol has a small effect but still comes down strongly against any cholesterol in the diet whereas on Gil's channel the conclusion is closer to acknowledging that although dietary cholesterol does have an effect, it is probably small and there are factors which contribute more significantly such as Saturated Fat, Fibre and I would guess many lifestyle factors too.
I saw those videos too. Looks like we are on the same wave length.
its a minefield out there 🤪
Before my diagnosis of PA I couldn't care less about my health. Now I'm obsessed with it. But not as much as my late father. We had to delete his medical computer programs. Everytime he looked up his symptoms he became convinced he was dying. Luckily this was in the very early days of the web otherwise we would have had to to confiscate his PC as well.
There are definitely lots of well-funded attempts to apply machine-learning & AI to healthcare. There are...challenges. Particularly around complexity, and transferability from a test set to real world. There are loads of articles out there referencing the complete failure of IBM's Watson Health AI, and also plenty of examples on pubmed and elsewhere about smaller AI trials in clinical support.
My favourite example is one on radiography analysis - where the results from a training set were promising, then it turned out predictions were using helpful shortcuts such as the text on the edge of the x-ray.
Pharma are all trying AI themselves to do better drug discovery, but also human biology is really complicated. No magic wands.
And there's a tender to put the NHS health data into a big data platform - Palantir are currently favourite, and will leave it to you to judge how comfortable you are with that.
...and I didn't think my first contribution would be about this (hello to the group, been lurking for three months following PA diagnosis, many thanks for your expertise, and advice, has really helped me)
That's a very interesting and worthwhile contribution, thanks.
Congrats on your maiden voyage and welcome 😄
Very well written I agree one hundred percent and in addition if you have a family member who is married too a nurse they do all in there power prevent you from getting your point across as it shows them upThey controlled by the culture
Brilliant Pickle 500.
What drives me to raging is what you say should be on mainstream media now. Not the guff they spoon out to us. Time for everyone in the country who can to get thinking about their own welfare and acting on it…as happens on this feed. And if machine learning is truly learning - what a powerhouse that could be for helping us do that and sweeping the cobwebs of habitual gaslighting away.
Sitting here across the pond, I often look at the NHS with admiration. Here in the US we have the most advanced medical technology in the world, but the worst delivery system also. Not everyone has access to the best treatment and the best doctors. Our system is driven by greed and profit. While not 100% true for 100% of patients, the goal for our many insurance companies is to make as much profit as possible. The goal for many doctors is to make as much money as possible, to pay for expensive cars and boats. The goal for hospitals, even those established as not for profit, is to make as much money as possible in order to buy the latest high tech gizmos. Unfortunately, not everyone has access to all of the superb services here. You have to have proper insurance, lots of money, or both. It is estimated that 40% of the USA population has no health insurance coverage or are severely underinsured. Many that have employer sponsored insurance have inadequate coverage or extremely high costs that prevent them from getting adequate care. Over here, people have lost their homes and cars due to medical debt. Others have been forced into bankruptcy. Thousands of people are blocked from having tests or life saving treatment or surgery because they don't have proper insurance or enough money to pay for it. Although it will change in a couple years, right now diabetics pay over $1000.00 for their monthly insulin supply. I know the NHS has many issues, but it's mission is noble and changing with the rapidly changing face of Great Britain is challenging, but at least everyone can see a doctor. The US is the only civilized country ion the world to not offer some form of universal coverage for it's citizens. It is a great embarrassment.
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
Is it worth complaining about miss management of care ? 🤔
Medical scandal
Weight loss drug available OTC for self-injection.
Confused: Conflicting Research and Recategorising Deficiency.
ADMINISTRATORS' ADVISORY NOTE: POSTING GUIDELINES/ETIQUETTE. How to Get the Best Out of Your Posts / The Forum.
Genetic Testing - Where?
Need Help For My GP…
Wasting NHS Resources
