 Reduce Injury Risk With Chiropractic Treatment Researchers looking to study the risk of injury following chiropractic treatment found a surprise.
Researchers analyzed Medicare data of patients aged 66-99 who were treated for neuromusculoskeletal complaints by their primary medical physician or chiropractic physician. They specifically looked for risk of traumatic injury to the head, neck, or trunk following an office visit for chiropractic spinal manipulation. The risk of injury after chiropractic treatment was significantly lower than risk of injury after a medical visit. Data showed only 4 injury incidents per 10,000 chiropractic visits, as compared to 15.3 incidents per 10,000 primary care medical visits. Risk of Traumatic Injury 76% Lower One Week Following Chiropractic Treatment Researchers concluded that among Medicare beneficiaries aged 66-99 with an office visit for a neuromusculoskeletal problem, risk of injury within 7 days was 76% lower among subjects with a chiropractic office visit as compared to those who saw a primary care physician. The safety of chiropractic treatment has been well documented for years. Chiropractic adjusting has also been shown to help improve balance and reduce falls in the elderly, which may play an important role in the reduction of injury following treatment.
0 Comments
 With the CDC announcing this year's flu vaccine is less effective than usual, some medical experts are predicting a bad flu season. That means more cases of flu and those with weakened immune systems dealing with bothersome symptoms.
What's a doctor to do? Prescribe Tamiflu is they don't read research. Dr. Andrew Buelt (DO) recently wrote an article for Medpage Today about doctors continuing to prescribe Tamiflu to treat the flu when the research shows no significant benefit. Here are some excerpts: "Oseltamivir, brand name Tamiflu, was released onto the market in 1999 for the treatment of influenza... It's easy to see why everyone thought this was a wonder drug. A meta-analysis...concluded that "Oseltamivir treatment of influenza illness reduces LRTCs [lower respiratory tract complications], antibiotic use, and hospitalization in both healthy and 'at-risk' adults." However, the same authors (Kaiser L, et al) also said acute bronchitis requires antibiotic use, which we know it doesn't, and that eight of the 10 trials were unpublished or published only in abstract form. Finally, 68% of the randomized patients tested positive for influenza when, on average, only about 14% of those in a given flu season test positive, according to U.S. virological surveillance data. When Tom Jefferson, MD, of the Cochrane Review, asked for the clinical studies and full research, he was turned away. This started a 4-year stall by Roche, makers of Tamiflu. For those of you who are interested in the exchange, you should follow the paper trail on The BMJ website... Finally, Roche started to release the clinical studies. First, a report with access to some of the full clinical data concluded "there is no evidence that oseltamivir reduces the likelihood of hospitalization, pneumonia, or combined outcome of pneumonia." And what was more shocking was that this trial, WV15912, which took 401 adults with at least one cardiac or respiratory condition, had an end result of a nonsignificant 1-hour reduction in symptoms. I repeat only 1 hour, only 60 minutes, only 3,600 seconds. When the Cochrane reviewers were finally able to look at and sort through the body of information, and not just the abstract data, they came to similar conclusions, and reported that there were no differences for hospital admissions, reductions in confirmed pneumonia, or other complications. However, I don't want to say the drug did nothing, as there were increases in symptoms of nausea (NNH 28), vomiting (NNH 22), and headaches (NNH 32). Yes, Tamiflu is too good to be true. Patients who have the flu feel bad, they want a drug to help them feel any amount of relief. Sadly, we have nothing for them. We can encourage hydration and rest, but that's about it. The easy path is to write a prescription for Tamiflu and move to the next patient. The hard path is to discuss why you are not going to write the script to someone who doesn't want to hear it." When a drug manufacturer can't prove their drug causes a reduction in symptoms for only one hour (could you ask of any less from a drug?), it's pretty clear the drug is not effective. Try some simple natural solutions instead - at least they shouldn't increase nausea, vomiting, and headaches.  Some argue America's patent system for medications unfairly allows drug companies a monopoly to make billions in profit while restricting access to new medication, while others argue it's a fair bonus to encourage drug companies to manufacture new medications.
Regardless of what consumers think, drug companies apparently feel a monopoly that allows them to makes billions off a single blockbuster medication in one year is not enough. Recent court battles illuminate drug company schemes to extend their medication monopolies beyond the normal patent to produce billions more in profit. Drug Companies Can Pay to Extend Their Monopoly The idea behind drug patents (which exclude competitors from selling similar products) is that they last long enough to give companies time to benefit financially from their newly created medication. Then the patent expires, and competitors can make generic versions that tend to be dramatically cheaper. Drug companies have been using a strategy called "pay to delay" to extend their monopolies by paying generic competitors who promise not to sell competing medications. Medpage Today reported on a court case that ruled these anti-competitive payments are allowed. It's win-win for big drug companies and their competitors, but what about the patients? Drug Company Forced to Maintain Access to Medication Drug companies were not so successful in their attempts at another money-making scheme. Reuters reported: "A U.S. judge ruled on Thursday that Actavis Plc must continue to sell its Alzheimer's drug [set to lose patent protection next year] in a lawsuit alleging that the company was scheming to limit generic competition while it launched an extended-release version of the widely used drug... The company planned to withdraw Namenda IR from the market in August to focus sales on its new but similar drug, called Namenda XR, which is taken once instead of twice daily, according to the lawsuit... The move, also called a 'forced switch,' asks doctors to transition patients to Namenda XR, which will not face generic competition for years." These schemes are pervasive throughout the drug industry (as well as billion dollar fines and settlements). It's apparently hard to do what's right for patients when the alternative is making billions of dollars. The best response is making healthy lifestyle choices so you can live a long and healthy life without medications. Start now by eating better and being active.  The risks associated with antibiotic use in children continues to grow as new research finds a strong link between antibiotic use and the development of arthritis in children.
Medpage Today reports, "Children who were exposed to antibiotics had an increased risk of developing juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)...any antibiotic use was associated with more than twice the risk of JIA." Antibiotics are made to kill microbes throughout the body, but end up killing helpful bacteria with the harmful bacteria. Researchers noted this disruption of healthy bacteria has been linked to multiple autoimmune diseases..."including rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, and exposure to antibiotics has been linked with inflammatory bowel disease in children." The researchers went on to note that 25% of antibiotics used for children are for respiratory infections and are not needed. For a reminder of when antibiotics should NOT be used (common colds, flu, runny nose, bronchitis, fluid in ears, etc.) click here. To keep you and your children healthy, avoid antibiotics whenever possible and include probiotics or fermented foods in the diet to make sure there is plenty of good bacteria in the gut.  Medpage Today reported on a recent study linking knee surgery to increased rates of arthritis. Individuals with knee pain who had undergone knee surgery were significantly more likely to experience loss of cartilage, developing arthritis of the knee.
Radiologists examined imaging of patients with knee pain for signs of arthritis. All of the knees showing signs of arthritis were those that had undergone surgery, while none of the 354 patients who avoided surgery developed arthritis. They reported, "Individuals with knee pain who undergo surgery to repair meniscus cartilage tears often develop osteoarthritis in that knee within a year of the operation..." "...the type of surgery was not apparent from the records accessed for the study but [researchers] believed that most of the procedures were performed through arthroscopic rather than open surgery." With current research on arthroscopic knee surgery finding no significant improvement compared to sham (fake) surgery, this study provides more reason to try conservative treatment first and only choose surgery with caution.  Home births can be safer than hospital births Britain's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently updated quality care guidelines for childbirth, noting that research shows it is safer for healthy mothers to have their babies at home, or in a birth center, than in a hospital.
"Women with uncomplicated pregnancies...were better off in the hands of midwives than hospital doctors during birth...For these low-risk mothers-to-be, giving birth in a traditional maternity ward increased the chances of surgical intervention and therefore infection, the regulator said." The difference in safety is related to doctors' frequent use of cesarean sections, episiotomies, and epidurals (which increase the risk of protracted birth that requires forceps and tissue damage). All of these medical procedures carry increased risk of infection and other complications. For years, doctors have recommended hospital delivery over home or birth center delivery, but the research doesn't support those recommendations for healthy mothers. Compared to the United States, home births are more common in Europe where the government provides health care and there is no financial incentive for doctors to recommend birth at a hospital. Dr. Jeffrey L. Ecker, the chairman of the committee on obstetrics practice for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists noted that if a recommendation for home births were made in the United States, doctors might worry about losing patients to midwives. Read more of the article in the New York Times. |
THE NATURALS
AuthorsDr Aaron McMichael + Dr Ryan McMichael Categories
All
Archives
June 2025
Information and statements made are for education purposes and are not intended to replace the advice of your treating doctor. This blog is not a doctor and will not diagnose or treat your problems.
|
RSS Feed