This is the first of a series of posts on the Politics of Care forum that will outline what you, what your doctor, what your politician, what the media can do to make a difference to the ongoing destruction of the climate of health and the wider global climate. The to-dos below are to-do.
Tell your doctor you want her/him to treat you and your children (minors) in accordance with Guidelines for People, the first element of which would be a commitment to contain medication burdens. Given him/her the freedom to abandon a treatment approach that hinges on Guidelines for Diseases, which push him/her to prescribe us more drugs.
(It is at present a privilege of wealth to have your medication burden reduced. If you are not paying her/him privately for a boutique service, your doctor will be unable to do this or have the courage to do this, unless you give her/him permission with her/ him ideally writing this in your record. See The Guelph Affair (forthcoming)).
Green/Liberal/Progressive folk think that single payer health systems, socialized medicine, can stop excessive prescribing and that private medicine is full of people getting too many treatments most of which they don’t need. This was once true but is no longer true. To get off drugs you need boutique care and public health or insurance funded systems are now more likely to fire doctors who give you boutique care instead of giving you more diagnoses and drugs.
Shipwreck of the Singular the book, outlines how this has happened. The Shipwreck of the Singular post from some years ago outlines apparent answers to avoid. We need to work out how to put it right. This will be picked up further in later posts.
Make clear you want a Relationship Based Medicine rather than an Evidence Based Medicine – one element of RBM means getting to see the same doctor (one you can get along with) on a regular basis rather than seeing a different doctor every visit with them having to consult a computer to have any sense what your issues are. See Surrender, Decernimus ergo Summus and Tis the Season to Rebel.
If your parents have a medication burden that exceeds 5 drugs, and especially if it is 10 or more drugs, draw their attention to the evidence that reducing this to 5 or less drugs can reduce hospitalizations, improve quality of life, and extend life expectancy.
Older women, not in care-homes, make more enquiries about the risk of falls or brain failures from additional drugs, and speak up more than other groups about their personal drug burden – Leslie Kernihan. But many doctors turn nasty when questioned about these issues or about a drug that is not suiting, and even a tough older lady may need support.
Any parents in Care Homes definitely need support. If they have become more confused, fatigued, falling more or seem to be going downhill, there is a good chance their medication burden is the primary factor in this and reducing that burden may see them reborn.
Ask about the medicines they are on. You can or will soon be able to put these medicines into Taper MD or able to get a pharmacist to help you with this. This will give you some idea as to whether a parent’s current medicines may be contributing to the deterioration you are seeing and will offer you a print-off you can take to the residential facility they are in or the doctor they are seeing.
Nobody in the Health Deep State – the Lancet of New England Journal of Medicine or politicians or the lay media – are willing to pick these issues up, even when as now seems clear excessive medication burdens contributed to deaths in long-term care homes – See Dennis the Menace gets Covid.
Ask your doctor if s/he knows whether the articles that underpin the treatments s/he is proposing to give you have been ghost-written or not. If the drug has been developed since 1980, pretty well every single article in the best quality academic literature will have been ghost-written. Maybe ask if s/he knows of any articles on the treatment that are not ghostwritten? Or suggest s/he read Malcharist – a compellingly true to life piece of fiction that affects every medicine you might be put on.
Ask your doctor if s/he has access to the clinical trial data behind the drug s/he is proposing to put you on. If this is a drug that came on the market after 1980, s/he will not have access. This is true for vaccines also – the clots triggered by Covid vaccines were present in the original clinical trials but concealed. See Data Wars and Data based Medicine.
If your doctor says “No – s/he doesn’t have access but s/he’s confident the regulator has and those who make the Guidelines have” – tell her the Regulator and Guideline makers do not have access. See The Perfect Killing Machine and The Death of Stephen O’Neill and You.
Ask your doctor what s/he is going to do about this (besides complain Healy to whatever medical body currently supervises his registration). Ask too if there is any way you can help her/him with this.
Insist on your doctor reporting any adverse event you have suffered on treatment leaving his/her name and your name on these events and indicating a willingness to be cross-examined. At present doctors only report 1 in 100 serious adverse events and they do not expect to be called on to make clear that they believe Drug X has caused Problem Y. Leaving their name on these events will call for medical courage and it is not clear how many doctors have this kind of courage. Courage is not a criterion for entry into medical school. See Something Happened: Neo-Medicalism and Decernimus ergo Summus and Sex, Drugs and Bureaucrats.
Insist your doctor gives you a copy of any report they send to the regulator on the adverse event you believe you have had and that they haven’t been able to persuade you that you don’t have.
If they refuse to file a report or to give you a copy once it is filed, you may need to change doctors.
Anonymous reports help pharmaceutical companies – they do not help you or your doctor.
Bear in mind, most doctors do not know how to establish whether a drug has caused a problem – they are not trained to do this at any point in medical school or afterwards.
If you have had an adverse event on a drug, submit a report to your regulator, leaving your name on it and your doctor’s name indicating a willingness to be cross-examined about this.
Being cross-examined is nothing to worry about. Regulators like FDA, EMA, MHRA remove your name immediately and file your report away to grow mouldy. They are not about to get in touch with either you or your doctor – the very last thing they want is any detail that might force them to connect your drug to a problem.
(Regulators are looking after the health of the pharmaceutical industry not yours. Your doctor is supposed to be putting your health ahead of companies’ health).
Your name on these reports, and ideally your doctor’s name, transforms them from hearsay into evidence. While regulators will do nothing, someone who is seriously injured by the treatment you were on may end up being able to use your report in a way they cannot use the hundreds of thousands of other reports submitted to a regulator, which get dismissed as hearsay.
Get your doctor to report your adverse event on treatment to the pharmaceutical company that made the drug. If you were on a generic drug, get him/her to report to both the original brand name company (who remain responsible for the drug label) and to the generic company.
The report will need to leave both his/her and your name on it. You too should report to the company, leaving his/her and your name on the report.
Why would you want to have anything to do with a pharmaceutical company that has injured you? Unlike regulators, pharmaceutical companies are under a legal obligation to establish cause and effect between their drug and your problem. They have legal obligations to you that regulators do not have. They would prefer you to report to regulators and not to them. So do what they don’t want you to do.
The company should make contact with your doctor and/or you. They will likely request to see your medical records – which you can agree to provided they agree to interview you, and your doctor also provides you with your record, and provided ideally your doctor is onside.
If your doctor is not onside, you can get all information on you through requests to the health clinic s/he works for and any information about you the pharmaceutical company ends up with through a freedom of information request – although doctors are not above destroying your records (finding they’ve gone missing).
If your doctor is onside, any approach from a company can be a fun and enlightening experience for both her/him and you. You may need to tell her/him you’ll support them – that you are not in the business of holding her/him responsible for anything.
If s/he stonewalls, ask her/him if she has been advised by her medical insurer not to participate in this core element of medical care. If this turns out to be the case, you may need to change doctor.
You/we will also need to find a way to draw the attention of doctors more broadly to the fact that insurers are getting in the way of doctors being honest and advocating on behalf of their patients.
Consider submitting a RxISK Report on your adverse event. Then bring the report to your doctor and ask him or her to file a complementary report.
Consider giving us permission, if approached by anyone acting for people injured by drugs who have had the same or similar event that you have had, to put them in touch with you. They may want you to discuss what happened and perhaps file an affidavit explaining what happened to you.
This is not something unusual or a conflicting interest pitch for business. Katinka Newman, who wrote The Pill that Steals Lives, has been standing up for you and others in court cases for years. Kim Witczak, whose husband Woody committed suicide on Zoloft (sertraline), has also been doing it. Anne Marie Kelly, who discovered the link between antidepressants and alcoholism, has also made a clear a willingness to do so. We have a large number of others volunteering to do this – mostly women.
If your doctor is onside, give us her/his name. We have begun a set of RxISK Maps that locate doctors willing to agree that drugs can cause problems and willing to work with people to establish what is happening on treatment.
If this can be developed it may ultimately be good for business for doctors and if the ‘market’ works as it is supposed to do, it should slowly bring doctors around to recognising the need for them to agree drugs are complex things that can cause problems.
Recognizing this goes hand in hand with ensuring doctors remain the main prescribers – if drugs work wonderfully well and are harmless, then nurses and pharmacists are cheaper prescribers. It takes a highly paid expert like a doctor to tease out whether treatment has caused a problem or not – nurses could do it also but at present are more likely to be dumped on by management if they do so.
So there are very real grounds for you to say to your doctor that raising an adverse effect of treatment is not a criticism of them but puts you on their side and might keep them in business.
Avoid screening for prevention – blood pressure, peak flow rates, bone density, lipid levels, blood sugar, mood, ADHD. When you meet your doctor, you need to meet as two people with her/him listening to you. No measuring instruments of any sort should be let get in the way of this. You definitely do not want him/her acting as an agent of Pharma.
See The Macbeth Test.
At present when it comes to your health and the health of your family, your Motivation is worth more than their Expertise. This will continue to be the case as long as their expertise channels the greatest concentration of fake and fraudulent claims on earth.
Think local not global. Your experience of your health and especially what your drugs and your environment are doing to you and your family are more likely to be correct than whatever the experts say to you. Listen to it and look through to see how our world is structured and where experts slot into it.
Whatever the religious, political or other conspiracy you believe in, its figureheads – the Pope, Joe Biden, Donald Trump or any other political leader, or other figurehead – is not going to help you. We’ve been in touch with most of them and there is no reply.
We will update this if some politician or other leader or political or other group come onside and will keep you posted.
You have a vote. You can vote for a politician who is prepared to pick up the gauntlet on Data Access and the Ghost Writing of the Medical literature. They must speak about these things publicly and try and get a debate going before you cast your vote.
Whatever your affiliation was in the past, if the person you would naturally vote for shows no signs of picking up these issues, do not vote got this person or their party.
Do not even vote for a Green party unless they pick these things up as if they fail to pick things up, it will indicate that they don’t know what is causing climate change.
Your life is at stake and your families and friends lives, along with the climate of healthcare and the global climate – its not a time to get sentimental or tribal about who gets your vote.
These ideally need to be drawn to the attention of politicians who whatever their background are the only ones that can get the kind of debate that is needed going.