Health Tips for a Better Life

The Victorians were right up with the trend started in Ancient Greece where arthritis was treated by the application of electricity – the Greeks used the Torpedo fish to deliver the shocks. Electrotherapy became the most popular form of treatment being used somewhat indiscriminately by both the medical profession and “quacks” to cure more or less any ailment. But its popularity was its downfall. Just as the indiscriminate use of steroids in the 20th Century was slowly recognized as harming more people than it cured, the power of electricity to heal was slowly seen as non-existent in most cases. The only real exception was in the mental health field where electricity was used as a therapy to treat depressive disorders that had not responded to any other forms of treatment. However, flying somewhat under the radar was a more interesting use of electricity – as an aversion therapy where shocks were administered to discourage people from finding pleasure in different activities. It became moderately popular among families as a treatment for alcoholism and drug addiction, but it attracted extreme controversy when used to treat homosexuality and other aspects of sexual behavior. On ethical and legal grounds, the use of electricity in an attempt to change human sexuality is banned in most countries.

It therefore comes as something of a surprise to see research from the Rambam Medical Center in Haifa. The clinical trial applied electric shocks to the penis, testicles and groin area generally as a treatment for erectile dysfunction. The results are claimed to show a high success rate, matching or exceeding the results achieved by taking pills of different colors, shapes and sizes. Unlike those who specialize in the use of electricity as torture, this team administered very low energy shock waves. Something the men were no doubt grateful for. So, after regular treatment with three hundred mini-shocks being applied within a three minute window, most of the men demonstrated a rapid rise to a hard erection the moment anyone approached them with electrodes or a cattle prod in hand. None of the participants complained of pain – either they were enjoying the experience or were frightened the voltage would be cranked up in the next session.

The claimed scientific effect of these shocks is to either stimulate the growth of new blood vessels or to encourage tired old blood vessels back into life. This has a significant advantage over the use of drugs. If new blood vessels are formed or the hardening of old vessels is reversed, this would represent a “cure”. All the drugs can do is produce a temporary dilation of the relevant arteries. They do not cure the underlying condition.

Ignoring the potential humor of threatening to attach electrodes to your gonads as a medical treatment, the skeptical Victorians were right. There never has been any convincing scientific evidence to show electricity is or can be an effective treatment for any condition. Which leaves the vast majority of men back where they started. Viagra is the best treatment for erectile dysfunction. No matter what the claims of the Israeli team to produce a long-term cure, the experience of taking one viagra gives more than enough time to enjoy a length period of sexual activity. To repeat the activity, take another pill. Anyone else should go to their local BDSM club.

Of course, no one should blame the Boomers. They just happened to be the largest group to challenge the political and medical communities’ view that marijuana (aka cannabis) was a dangerous drug and its use should continue to be a crime. The establishment ignores the facts. In many countries around the world, marijuana is considered a medicine and routinely used both for inhaling and as an infusion for drinking. But what they do in other countries should have no bearing on what happens in the US. Libertarian arguments that all drug-taking is victimless has also never really taken off. The cost of lost production forces us to pay higher prices for goods and services. The cost of hospital treatment for drug abuse means every taxpayer is a victim. So the Republican “tough on crime” policies have always favored the use of the criminal law to penalize those who abuse drugs.

Yet, looking around the US today sees a different landscape. Fourteen states have passed laws allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Leading the way, as always, California has a proposition in the November midterms to legalize marijuana outright. What has happened to produce such a revolution? There are two answers. The first has been a general toning down of the rhetoric in favor of scientific debate. When marijuana was first criminalized back in the 1930s, the medical profession stood together and denounced the drug as a tool of the Devil, tempting people into sin and depravity. Today sees a significant number of doctors singing a different tune. First, a gesture to the traditional group: there is no doubt that smoking marijuana can and does cause lung cancer and, over time, there is evidence suggesting loss of memory and some brain damage. But there is also an impressive body of international evidence proving marijuana highly effective in giving pain relief. The use has to build up over at least six months. Once a stable concentration is achieved in the blood stream, it relieves chronic pain from arthritis, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis and cancers.

The second justification is fiscal. The sale of medical marijuana already makes a significant contribution to state funds through the tax system. In a recession, all contributions are gratefully received. If the outright legalization goes through in California, it is estimated the annual tax take will rise from about $200 million to $1.5 billion. It will also lead to a better system of regulation so that, like alcohol, its distribution can be controlled. None of this changes the need for “conventional” drugs to relieve pain. Tramadol in its different forms will remain the first response to moderate to severe pain. But in chronic cases, the continuing use of any drug can lead to dependence and the debate shifts. Which of the drugs is better when use may be indicated for years? In the fourteen states with Illinois perhaps about to join them, you have the possibility to buy marijuana rather than to buy tramadol is there to be freely made. Legalization has undermined the criminal gangs and reduced prices. The quality of the product is also guaranteed whereas, on the street, marijuana can be cut with many strange and sometimes dangerous substances. This is the practical reality on the ground and there is no point in trying to turn the clock back. Pain management in these states now includes marijuana. For those who disapprove, tramadol and the other traditional drugs remain available.

The US healthcare system is often torn between conflicting forces. On a professional level, doctors are supposed to place the interests of their patients first. So, it is reasonable for the profession to respond to a shortage of proper pain management facilities in the hospital sector by establishing “pain clinics”. In theory, these clinics will provide short-term care with mixed teams of doctors, physical and psychological therapists, and nursing professionals able to counsel and advise people on how to manage their pain. Unfortunately, the medical profession is strongly for profit. It would be good if there was a major stream of altruism running through the modern ranks of healthcare professionals. Unfortunately, an increasing number of doctors are abandoning general practice in favor of employed status in clinics and hospitals. This gives stability of earning with the least possible work commitment. It also enables the management to run their facilities to generate the most income from the lowest cost base. Thus, the reality of many pain clinics is they are “pill mills”, i.e. their main function is to supply people with every possible painkiller with the least possible time spent in expensive face-to-face contact between doctors and the people. Such clinics are characterized by long queues of people waiting to see a doctor to collect prescriptions. Doctors are on a quota target to see a minimum number of patients every day. This maximizes the claims to the health insurers by the volume of people seen. For those not on a health plan, it is a cheap consult system since no treatment is involved.

This is not to deny that some clinics are attempts to offer a professional service to those in genuine need. But such beacons of light are few and far between. How do we know this? Because there is an explosion in the number of pain clinics opening across America. In some areas, the local government is trying to control the problem. At least, there are political calls for the profession to rein in these fast prescription services. At best, there are local bans on the approval of new clinics. Sadly, the lobbying power of the medical profession means there are very few state-wide limits either on the establishment of clinics or on the practice of writing prescriptions for hundreds of pills at a time. Some local politicians are proposing ordinances to prohibit clinics from prescribing pain medication except in emergency situations and then only offering a 72-hour refill, expecting the individuals to return to their regular doctors for proper care. Their chances of being able to control the problem are slim without the support of state governments and the medical profession.

This is a tragic situation. There is a real need for professional pain management services at both a local and county level. Unfortunately, the medical profession is exploiting the public and feeding their growing addiction to pain medications. People, being practical, take pain relief in whatever form is available. If that means endless supplies of drugs, they take it. The best practice standards in other countries with public healthcare services does provide mixed teams of pain management specialists who focus on training people to cope using only low level painkillers. For example, they are allowed to buy tramadol. Because the higher labor costs are absorbed by the taxpayers, a significantly better service results. Because tramadol is not habit-forming to the same degree as more powerful drugs, this is a safer system for managing pain.

The diagnosis of a disorder in relation to anxiety is always a question of fact and degree. It is perfectly natural for people to worry or feel anxious in different situations where a threat is present. Allowing for the sensitivity in the use of the words, our ability to foresee and predict has been essential to our evolution as a species. We survive because we see the risks in our environment and take precautions. Thus, drawing a positive line between “natural” anxiety and irrational levels of anxiety suggesting a disorder is always a matter of opinion – the victim of the uncontrolled anxiety sees the quality of life disappear, and objective observers see a need for intervention to protect the individual or others from the possibility of harm. This diagnosis can often be complicated by physical factors such as substance abuse. It may be necessary to treat the physical problems including, say, alcoholism, before or alongside the anxiety. Similarly, the presence of depression will require a different approach.

For the medical profession, the constant debate is how to strike a balance between the need to give effective treatment, and the healthcare model which, for the most part, is for-profit. Almost all the research during the last century proves the benefits of the various types of psychotherapy. Making the patient the focus of attention and relating to that patient as an individual with needs is, in itself, a major therapy. Allowing the patient the time to talk through problems and devise strategies for coping gives the individual ownership over the solutions – a necessary mental step in making the strategies effective. The moment you approach the patient as an inconvenience – reduce choice over treatment options in favor of medication – the majority either give up or grow defensive and resentful. Doctors have often responded by making treatment using medication compulsory. Listen to hospital administrators and they will tell you the cost of labor in providing psychotherapy to all patients is impossible to fund. Listen to the pharmaceutical industry and it will tell you there are effective drugs to cure all problems without the need for expensive therapy. In a capitalist model, medication therefore tends to win out over psychotherapy.

This is not to say that drugs like valium are not effective. In fact, the majority of people feel less anxious when they begin taking it. But drugs like valium do not “cure” the underlying problems. For that, you need physicians, psychiatrists, therapists, counselors and social workers to reach out to each person and offer support. With proper care, most people with anxiety disorders can live normal lives as self-confidence returns. This places valium in its most effective role – to provide a respite, a breathing space during which the psychotherapy can encourage the individual to start making the changes necessary for the anxiety to fade. For these purposes, the best type of psychotherapy is cognitive behavioral therapy where people are trained to rethink the way in which they respond to pressure. They are exposed to the feared social situations and grow less sensitive. They learn how to cope without worrying. It would be wonderful if you could patent this and put it in a bottle. The manufacturer would make a fortune and earn the profound gratitude of everyone who has ever had an anxiety or panic attack. Until then, we have to rely on talk as the best form of treatment.

According to Sarah Palin, the European healthcare service operates like the Canadian cull of seals. On a regular basis, men armed with clubs go out among the unhealthy and older members of society, and put down those who no longer contribute to the strength of the group. Death panels decide who shall live and die. That means, by her standards, one of the leading panels is UK’s NICE – the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. This group of so-called experts draws up guidelines to be used by the medical profession. Whenever there is good research evidence that a particular treatment is effective, it is incorporated into the national practice standards. But if a given treatment or drug is not shown effective, the medical profession and hospitals are instructed not to use them. So, many of the procedures that are standard in the US are not allowed in the UK, and many of the drugs routinely prescribed in the US are either not available in the UK or only available if the patient pays privately. Despite this, people in the UK live longer and enjoy better health than Americans.

Anyway, NICE has just launched a consultation process to decide what advice to give pregnant women about weight loss. If you want to offer an opinion, you can do so during the next month through http://guidance.nice.org.uk/PHG/Wave18/3. NICE offers the opinion that women do not need to increase the amount they eat during the first six months of pregnancy. The idea that pregnant women are “eating for two” is a myth. The most needed is an extra 200 calories a day during the last three months. That said, it is always better for women not to get pregnant if they have a BMI of 30 or more. This is not to suggest there is a high risk to the fetus. But the evidence shows there are fewer complications during pregnancy if women lose weight before getting pregnant. In general, trying to lose weight during pregnancy is not advisable. Stability and consistency of behavior are more important. That means women who routinely exercise before pregnancy should continue. Finally, women should not be misled by celebrities who slim dramatically after giving birth. It is better to lose weight gradually. Even so, there is no evidence that the quantity or quality of milk is affected in women who do crash diet after giving birth. NICE simply suggests women do what feels right for them. If they are tired, they should rest. Hopefully, they are eating a healthy diet anyway. As long as they get back to their pre-pregnancy weight at some point, this will be good for their long-term health.

There have been no tests performed in the UK or the US to determine whether it is safe for women to take phentermine hcl during pregnancy. So applying the precautionary principle, it better if you do not take this drug during pregnancy unless your doctor has specifically approved it. What can be said with certainty is that the active chemicals do enter the mother’s milk and can have an adverse effect on nursing babies. Thus, if you do want to lose weight after giving birth, do not buy phentermine online and take it while breast-feeding. You should either wean the baby or find another drug that suppresses your appetite without endangering your child.