Public Health--15 Irrefutable Certainties (Part 3 of 3)

In the 1800s people were often confused when it came to health-improvement information.  On the one hand, they were constantly being pestered by peripatetic salesman selling all kinds of healing oils and other types of panaceas.  In most cases, there was no science to back up what these charlatans sold to the suffering masses; sadder still, some of these magical potions (often having a detrimental effect, if any) were also dispensed by trusted physicians.  

In other words, many people were unknowingly used as virtually-unprotected experimental guinea pigs.

Today, things have improved greatly. Thanks to the FDA, there is supposed to be a system that carefully monitors drugs meant to treat and cure disease. This system can protect the public from charlatans but, unfortunately, many things still go wrong. 

Snake oil salesmen have been replaced by giant pharmaceutical companies with the political clout and giant pocketbooks capable of circumventing the rules and mechanisms meant to protect the public. While there is more science behind what these giant drug conglomerates sell, this does not always translate into or result in reasonable levels of safety and trustworthiness. 

In fact, there is often a lack of agreement as to what constitutes a "safe" substance or drug. This lack of certainty has allowed the FDA to let through a number of food additives and medications which, quite frankly, should have been kept from the public until more in-depth safety/effectiveness studies had been conducted.

The good news, however, is that we do have a number scientific areas or principles about which there is strong consensus.  While this may not necessarily translate into a mistake-free monitorial paradigm, it can impart hope that maybe, someday, we can let scientific fact (not greed, guess-work, faulty/conflicted studies, etc.) be the only criteria upon which we base important health policies.

With that in mind, here are the last 5 scientific certainties in our 15-item discussion:

11.  You need access to mental health services as much as you need physical care; the two are equally indispensable. 

While most healthcare providers, government officials and other key participants agree that this is true, many of their practices and policies loudly say otherwise. In fact, many people suffering from mental health problems are often marginalized, clearly treated differently--some would even say, inferiorly.

Ironically, the specialization of medicine (which has mostly improved medicine) is responsible for some aspects of this problem. Physicians, who do get some training in psychiatry, are often afraid of or intimidated by mental health problems, to the point of declining to treat some people, preferring to defer these problems to psychiatrists or psychologists. 

Well, there simply aren't enough mental health professionals on staff in most healthcare facilities, especially in busy urban hospitals; additionally, some physicians don't even bother to rule out all organic possibilities before "delegating" (perhaps too nice a word to use) these problems. Beyond that, organic disease can present psychiatric symptoms, as in the case of diabetic becoming psychotic because of glucose being out of control. 

Because of these circumstances, physicians should be allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to treat patients with mental health issues, especially if not all organic possibilities have been ruled out, no mental health professional is available to promptly attend to the patient, or the patient is afraid (perhaps after having been abused in some way in a psychiatric unit--which seem to accumulate too many complaints of this nature, probably because psychiatric patients are put in positions where they can more easily be abused than patients in other units?) of being sent to the psychiatric ward. 

But, wait, some people (including, apparently, politicians and healthcare facility supervisors, who often fail to allocate enough staff and resources for this problem) would say: "mental health problems just aren't as prevalent as physical medical problems!" As some professionals correctly remind us, this is just a myth.

Mental health problems are actually more prevalent than even the top 2 physical ailments, i.e., cardiovascular disease and cancer. Why then do most healthcare facilities allocate only a much smaller budget (both in terms of personnel and money) to deal with mental health issues/problems?

Perhaps some of the problem lies in what actually constitutes "mental health."  By the term, we are including some neurological disorders, drug abuse (including the so-called "legal drugs" kind), stress-related emotional imbalances and dysfunction, behavioral aberrations, character flaws leading to dangerous behavior, etc. In other words, the mental health disease/symptom spectrum is huge, mostly underestimated and largely untapped (in terms of conditions yet to be recognized or more suitably addressed). 

What about all those people who go undiagnosed or who suffer from mental/neurological health disorders not yet discovered or identified? These untreated, unreported people would likely make the 25% estimate the CDC says is the number of Americans with mental health issues much greater--perhaps 40% or 50% (or even greater). 

At any rate, the mental health financial burden exceeds $300 billion (according to the CDC).  If we are only treating/addressing a segment of the afflicted population, how much more should we be spending? 

The bottom line is that, by not suitably treating mental health issues, we may be opening ourselves up to bigger problems in the future, including increased cases of violence (as people try to find ways to cope with their disabilities), worsening physical ailments induced by untreated mental illness, decreased work productivity (often by people who don't even recognize that they need mental health services), increased rates of suicide, unnecessarily over-run emergency rooms (most of which are poorly prepared to deal with mental health onslaughts), etc. 

12.  Dental care shouldn't be "optional" in any worthwhile medical healthcare plan or system. 

There is no question that one of the most glaring deficiencies in American healthcare insurance plans is the idea that dental health is, somehow, of secondary importance to regular physical medical care. The practice may save some money (in theory) but can it be defended on either scientific or medical grounds?

For the record, lack of proper dental care doesn't just lead to imperfectly aligned or ugly looking teeth, more cavities, or good reason for not smiling. The mouth, it turns out, is a leading pathway for many of the substances and germs that can make us sick--sometimes, seriously sick.

Most people know that an oral infection can lead to cardiovascular disease. That, however, is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to potential problems. 

As a general rule, disease-causing pathogens (bacteria, parasites, amoebas, viruses, etc.) have to find a way to get inside the human body. This usually involves a natural orifice (the nose, the ear canal, skin pores, etc.) or skin that has been compromised (i.e., a surgical incision, a cut, a burn, impaling after a car accident, etc.). It can also involve something deliberately or accidentally infiltrating the skin: an anesthesia-delivering syringe, a painkiller or illegal drugs; tattoos; punctures for decorative skin rings; acupuncture; etc.

The mouth, however, is often a much easier, constantly-opening medium. 

Germs, nevertheless, are not the only problem. Imperfect teeth and defective gums make it diffucult to chew food properly, can greatly affect the taste of food (making it more likely some people will eat the wrong types of food), can be the result of accompanying medical issues (bruxism), and can help diagnose serious medical problems (oral cancer, G.E.R.D., sleep disorders, vitamin deficiencies, food poisoning, kidney problems, etc.). 

Proper on-going dental care should be included, without exception, in all medical maintenance healthcare (insurance) plans, especially those claiming to emphasize disease prevention.

13. Most diseases can be explained by or be attributed to inflammation, pathological organisms, autoimmunity (the body attacking itself), genetic aberrations/mutations, nutritional deficiencies/excesses, or (usually excessive--though it's difficult to determine specific thresholds thereto) exposure to environmental/biophysiological contaminants, toxins and irritants.

In other words, there is usually a specific identifiable reason (or set of circumstances) for most medical ailments.  For that reason, reaching an accurate diagnosis is the first, most important step in successfully treating/addressing diseases and conditions. 

Secondly, as the Hypocratic Oath requires, physicians must make sure that they do no harm, unless absolutely unavoidable. For example, a surgeon must make dangerous incisions (which often open patients up for dangerous infections and other potentially deadly complications) when treating some diseases. Avoiding overly-invasive surgery when possible, therefore, has become an important goal in modern medicine; this goes for other treatments that continue to be justified for ulterior motives.

This concept, however, is sometimes overlooked or ignored, sometimes for the sake of profits, in order to preserve the massive number of jobs the procedures/treatments have created, or simply out of presumptuous arrogance.

The fact that X-rays are still used for mammograms is a perfect example. We have technology that doesn't involve the use of cancer-promoting ionic radiation (e.g. MRIs, sonography, etc.) and, what's more, these technologies are better suited for soft tissue diagnostic purposes than X-rays. In fact, X-rays are best suited for bone or hard tissue diagnostics. 

Why then are X-rays still pushed for cancer-screening mammography? Because they are cheaper than the other better-suited technologies and because too many jobs are at stake in the debate. "If X-rays were by-passed for the millions of mammograms imposed annually, millions of dollars would be lost and many of the people in the medical imaging industry would lose their jobs!" or, at least, that appears to be what the industry fears.

The fact that their logic if faulty doesn't matter; these laid-off X-ray entrepreneurs could vie for then-expanded sonography and MRI career opportunities--but that's not the way these people think!

Another deficiency #13 could help alleviate or "cure" is the penchant of the cancer cartel to deliberately ignore or overlook the importance of nutrition for cancer prevention and treatment. It's very likely that what we drink and eat (GMOs, irradiated foods, bromine in breads, fluoridated water, nitrates in processed meats, MSG in practically everything, etc.), as well as what we fail to consume (adequate amounts of vitamin D, vitamin C, anti-radicals/inflammatories, Omega 3 & 6 oils, etc.), is greatly contributing to the out-of-control global cancer epidemic.

Yet, how many doctors put emphasis on what their patients eat (preferring, instead, a putting-out-the-fire style of medicine); more importantly, why has the medical establishment fought so hard to keep nutrition-based cures/solutions for cancer out of reach of Americans?  Read about the unforgivable nonsense that took place regarding the Hoxsie, Gerson and laetrile treatment plans, if you're not familiar with this dark side of American medical history! 

14.  How well informed you are on health issues greatly matters; many problems would be averted if more people were healthy-living literate. 

Some people erroneously think that only the paranoid or obsessed need to worry about health matters. These people prefer to live basically sheltered lives, preferring to leave such matters to the government, insurance agencies and their doctors. 

If they hear that vaccines may have things in it that may be harmful for them and their children, they prefer to think that these are just unfounded conspiracy theories. After all, why would the government and pharmaceutical companies want to lie about such things? 

Unfortunately for these people, ignorance (especially in health matters) is never "bliss"; on the contrary, what people don't know hurts many people, often in ways that they don't even realize.

Take women who yearly offer their bodies for human experimentaion under the guise of "mammograms."  This test is supposed to detect cancer in early stages, thereby allowing for early treatment.  What these women don't ask, though, is why they need to be subjected to something (radiation) that may end up giving them cancer. Well, it's what their doctors ordered, they would tell you, as if that justifies their ignorance. 

By all means, get a mammogram but insist that safer technology (which actually works better) be used! 

The same kind of bovine misplaced "trust" is seen with vaccines. "You and your children will revive the Bubonic plague if you don't get vaccinated!" these gullible people are told. If they bothered to educate themselves (instead of depending on a system focused on profits, not our welfare), though, they would know that you don't need 100% of a population to be vaccinated for vaccines to work; in fact, more people have been vaccinated in modern society than ever before. 

Why then does the government/corporate America-owned mainstream press keep crying that unvaccinated kids are threatening the so-called herd immunity? Because scare tactics are sure to drive brain-dead cattle--excuse, "citizens"--to the profit-motivated Vaccine Machine cash registers. 

Much of what the Vaccine Machine is mumbling to the masses is inaccurate or exaggerated, including the idea that vaccines single-handedly changed the world from an "infectious disease fatality environment" into a "chronic fatalities" setting.  Many of the vaccines we have today weren't even available at the turn of the century (when the major changes began); more importantly, our national vaccine program did not begin in earnest until the middle of the century. 

This change, in fact, came about because of improved sanitation, cleaner water, better food production/packaging practices, better work and living conditions, much better sewage treatment technology/practices, etc.  Vaccines, in other words, played only a limited part. Addtionally, vaccines in the past did not contain the many blatantly experimental chemicals and genetic materials they contain today; whether they may be doing more harm than good, in fact, is a very reasonable question/concern that must be considered. 

Clearly, what the Vaccine Machine fears is, not the spread of disease, but the loss of profits; they also fear losing the control vaccines give the government, especially in regards to depopulation agendas (which are sure to come in handy when the US dollar collapses and we discover that there won't be enough food, water and petroleum for an over-populated world, possibly within the next 10 years).

15.  Yes, we are all our "brothers' keepers." What harms other people will eventually harm us, unless we find ways to stop the process. We are all trapped (for lack of a better word) in a fragile, hopelessly-interconnected, symbiotic biosphere.

Many people view environmental degradation in other countries (especially the still developing ones) as something that affects only those poor souls thousands of miles away. Many of the lakes, rivers and ponds overseas, for example, have been turned into virtual chemical and radioactive cesspools, as these once-agronomy based economies evolved into industrial centers. The price paid has often been unregulated and unrestrained pollution.

Is this something, though, that Americans and Europeans need to worry about? The massive pollution in question is bound to reach other people, including those in developed countries. The water tables that run under the earth, for example, will all be affected, as will the air we're all forced to breathe. Pollution cannot be hidden or isolated; it's ramifications are, to put it, bluntly inescapable. 

We all need to start working much harder to protect our environment. This is especially important in regards to our food supplies. The ocean, for example, may have been big enough to feed the world for decades to come, had it been properly managed and preserved. Instead, we have chosen to use it as a toxic waste dump site. 

Now, tons of garbage can be seen floating on the ocean's surface; what's worse, we have been dumping radioactive waste into the same water ways that have been feeding much of the world for centuries. As a final blow, we are over-fishing the ocean to the point of possibly driving several species into extinction. 

The recent outbreaks of ebola have demonstrated how glaringly inter-connected we are these days. With this in mind, we need to start thinking in terms of global consequences for all our actions and policies. If we won't mend our ways for the sake of others' welfare, then we need to do it for our own sake.           

Conclusion for Part 3

Yes, we can make things better but, it will take major effort on our part. We can start the ball rolling by recognizing that there are well-established principles that can help guide our actions, both as individuals and as citizens of a mutually-dependent global community. 

There are areas that we need to delve into further, perhaps leading to a better understanding of health matters. As our over-all knowledge base expands, we can perhaps avoid mistakes made in the past. 

This collective knowledge, one hopes, may lead us to bigger and better things; such growth, however, cannot take place without a solid understanding of useful, broadly beneficial facts and principles we can pass on to the next generation, and the ability to overcome serious differences of opinion, misinformation put out in order to preserve something that benefits some people at the expense of others' welfare, and the repression of solutions that can work (even if they are opposed by selfish, profit-obsessed and power-hungry Neanderthals).  

Miss parts 1 & 2 of this series?

Public Health--15 Irrefutable Certainties (Part 1 of 3)

Public Health--15 Irrefutable Certainties (Part 2 of 3)

Copyright, 2015.  Fred Fletcher.  All rights reserved.

References & Resources

(see embedded links)