What Doctors Don’t Tell You

Once I got better (which took, all told, a year), I became drawn in my freelance work to medicine. I began studying the professional literature in medical libraries and learned how to read medical studies. I followed around exhausted junior doctors working a standard 84-hour shift in a special baby unit, to get a taste for the extreme conditions which young doctors had to endure (and the kind of questionable care their patients would receive under these conditions).

In time I began to feel I’d walked through the looking glass. Nothing in my university training prepared me for the peculiar, often tortured logic of medical studies. Treatments had been adopted with little or no scientific basis in fact. Studies which cast doubt on a drug’s effectiveness were nevertheless applauded as evidence of success. Many of the gravest, sloppy mistakes in study design had been overlooked. Studies clearly showed that certain drugs cause cancer, yet here were top scientists dancing all around the numbers to avoid acknowledging the obvious. Medicine’s own scientific literature offered overwhelming evidence that some of it not only didn’t work, but was highly dangerous. This was not a ‘science’. This was a belief system so fixed, so inherent, that any truth to the contrary was dismissed as virtual blasphemy.

Fired by the missionary zeal of the newly converted, at some point I became extremely boring on the subject. Probably out of desperation, my then new partner (now my husband), Bryan, suggested that I start a newsletter about the true risks of medical practices – so I didn’t have to tell him anymore, but could tell the world.

At the time, we didn’t expect that this newsletter, which we planned to call What Doctors Don’t Tell You, would be much more than a hobby. I was pregnant by that time, and we thought it might be a way for me to stay home with our child and make a modest living.

From the outset, after our launch at the 1989 Here’s Health show, people showed keen interest in subscribing. By then I had assembled an advisory panel of 25 top doctors, chosen because they themselves had blown the whistle on unproven medical practice or pioneered less invasive medical procedures. Although we rarely advertised during the first year, the newsletter seemed propelled forward by its own steam and the zealous faith of our initial subscribers; by the end of that first year we had somehow managed to accumulate 1,000 readers, and now we have many thousands of loyal subscribers in Britain, the United States, and all over the world.

Outrage is now the passion that powers the newsletter – as well as this book. I am livid every time I open my post. Each morning I wade through piles of letters containing heart-rending stories of personal catastrophe – children who have been killed, or husbands and wives mutilated or incapacitated through medicine. Whenever we study their cases we usually discover that the dangers of the treatments given to them were well known. Their doctors just hadn’t bothered communicating this vital information to them.

The problem is, by the time they write to us, it is too late.

I have written this book because I don’t want you to be another statistic in my morning post. I do not promise you a comfortable read. Many of the facts in this book are likely to unsettle you. You may learn that much of what your doctor tells you isn’t true. But that is my intention. I want to help you to become a more informed medical consumer by determining when you actually need your doctor and when his advice is best ignored. I want to save you from unnecessary treatments and dangerous cures, from ‘preventive just-in-case medicine’ that will leave you damaged even before you’ve actually become ill. Besides being alerted to the hazards of many accepted practices, you’ll also find many proven, safe alternatives for diagnosing, preventing or treating many illnesses. I want to help you to learn not to be a ‘good’ patient. Good patients, the kind who blindly follow orders instead of demanding answers, sometimes die.

The following pages will open up to you the trade secrets of what has been largely a closed shop. You’ll have a chance to listen to the private conversation that medicine conducts with itself. And, once you discover just how much hokum resides in your doctor’s medicine cupboard, just how much medicine relies on blind faith, received wisdom and selective facts, not reason, science or common sense, you can grab the power away from this false shaman and begin to take back control of your health.

PART I MEDICINE’S FALSE SCIENCE (#ulink_93b046e2-5fcb-5289-a43a-6f1846604910)

1 The Un-science of Modern Medicine (#ulink_d4300781-d85b-5690-8948-681527057a83)

It’s comforting in life to have certainties. One of the cosiest of certainties we’ve grown up with is that modern medicine works miracles and doctors cure diseases. In the stories we tell ourselves, Dr Kildare, Marcus Welby, Dr Finlay, clad in symbolically pure white, engage in the business, all day, every day, of saving lives. And even though more people die in our modern-day equivalents like ER and Casualty, those doctors in the emergency room still have gadgets capable of raising the dead.

Our greatest certainty about medicine is that it is a lofty and reputable science, arrived at by scientists in laboratories by exhaustive testing and review. We proudly point to the fact that science has progressed and triumphed over chaos and darkness, over the time when doctors didn’t even know that they had to wash their hands.

Since the Second World War, and the discovery of the two great miracle drugs of this century – penicillin and cortisone – medicine has indeed worked miracles. People who would have died from hormone-related deficiencies such as Addison’s disease, and life-threatening infections such as pneumonia or meningitis, can now recover easily and return to normal lives. Most of the great medical discoveries – painless surgery, antiseptic hospital environments, x-rays – only discovered in the last century, have given us in the West the best emergency medicine in the world. If you have an unforeseen heart attack, an operable brain tumour, a near fatal car accident, an emergency in childbirth, then Western medicine, with its array of space-age gadgetry, is without parallel for sorting you out. If a building ever falls on me, I’d like all the very latest in Western gee-whizz technology to put me back together. Indeed, if it hadn’t been for 20th-century drugs, my mother would have died in her early twenties and I never would have been born.

It was also these discoveries during the Second World War, ending abruptly with the ultimate scientific discovery, the atomic bomb, which left us with a great expectancy about science. The aftermath of victory was also the dawning of the scientific age of medicine. Science had helped us to conquer our human enemies. Now it would do battle with our microscopic ones. We were beginning to conquer space; it wouldn’t be very long, as Life magazine promised my generation in America, before we conquered disease.

Doctors and medical authorities contribute to this view of infallible medical science. Whenever discussing its own track record, especially against that of alternative treatments, medicine stakes out the moral high ground, flying the territorial flag of established scientific fact. In mounting an attack on alternative medicine, a British Medical Journal editorial self-congratulatingly trumpeted medicine’s ‘record of objective evaluation of claims.’

(#litres_trial_promo)

By the same token, orthodox medicine denounces alternative medicine as not following suit. The Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Pathologists once denounced alternative treatments for allergies as unscientific, warning that ‘until the methods have been evaluated by reputable, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials they cannot be accepted into routine clinical practice.’

(#litres_trial_promo)

Our faith in medical science is so ingrained that it has become woven into the warp and woof of our daily routine. In any average day in Britain, a family may place its entire future in the hands of medical advance. For a pregnant mother, the result of prenatal tests may determine whether she carries her pregnancy to term. Her child may be given his vaccine and her husband his blood-pressure lowering drugs on the premise that this medicine will prevent them from getting future disease. Medical tests determine whether we can have children, continue working, have operations, are eligible for insurance, require caesareans, or, as with an HIV test that comes back positive, are shunned as pariahs. It is doctors with their miracle treatments, we believe, who will deliver us from evil, which, these days, is not temptation so much as the frightening randomness of disease.

But much as we cling to the notion of science as a force of redemption, our faith is misplaced. The truth of it is that medical science actually isn’t working too well. The United States and Britain are losing the ‘War on Cancer’.

(#litres_trial_promo) Despite state-of-the-art mammogram screening equipment and surgical techniques, breast cancer mortality rates stubbornly refuse to fall. Despite millions of people following low-fat diets, heart disease is still the biggest killer in the West. With all the fancy chemicals and computerized testing equipment we have to hand, asthma, arthritis, diabetes, cancer – virtually all the chronic degenerative diseases known to mankind – are thriving, and medicine hasn’t affected their incidence one tiny bit.

One glance at the statistics shows that, except in the case of getting run over or needing an emergency caesarean, orthodox Western medicine not only won’t cure you but may leave you worse off than you were before. In fact, these days, scientific medicine itself is responsible for a good percentage of disease. If you’re in hospital, there’s a one in six chance that you landed there because of some modern medical treatment gone wrong.

(#litres_trial_promo) Once you get there, your chances are one in six of dying in hospital or suffering some injury while you’re there. Since half this risk is caused by a doctor’s or hospital’s error, you’ve got an 8 per cent chance of being killed or injured by the staff.

(#litres_trial_promo) At last count, about 1.17 million Britons end up in hospital each year because of doctor error or a bad reaction to a drug. In the United States, if we extrapolate the results of a 1984 study, over one million Americans are being injured in hospital every year, and 180,000 die as a result.

(#litres_trial_promo) Recently, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the official organ of the primary organization representing physicians in America, recently admitted that doctor-induced disease is the third leading cause of death in America, responsible for a quarter of a million deaths per year.

(#litres_trial_promo) Dr Allen Roses, the only worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), shocked the world by recently admitting that 90 per cent of his company’s – or any other drug company’s products – don’t work on the majority of patients.

(#litres_trial_promo) In Britain, the latest statistics are that 10,000 Britons die every year from a reaction to a drug, and one in every 16 patients is put in hospital because of an adverse reaction to everyday drugs – even aspirin. To put the magnitude of the problem in perspective, the entire population of a city the size of Birmingham is put in a hospital bed every year by medical error. If you live in the US, where about 40,000 people are shot dead every year, you are nevertheless three times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by a gun.

(#litres_trial_promo)

This appalling track record has nothing to do with incompetence or lack of dedication. Most doctors are extremely well-intended, and probably a majority are highly competent in what they’ve been taught.

The problem isn’t the carpenter, but his tools. The fact is that medicine is not a science, or even an art. Many of your doctor’s arsenal of treatments don’t work – indeed, have never been proven to work, let alone to be safe. It is a false science, built upon conjuring tricks, supposition and blind preconception, whose so-called scientific method is a vast amount of stumbling in the dark.

Many of the treatments we take for granted – for breast cancer or heart surgery, even treatments for chronic conditions such as arthritis or asthma – have been adopted and widely used without one single valid study demonstrating that they are effective or safe.The so-called ‘gold standard’ respected by medical scientists as the only scientific proof of the true worth of a drug or treatment is the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial – that is, a study in which patients are randomly assigned to receive either a drug or a sugar pill, with neither researchers nor participants aware of who is getting what. Nevertheless, despite the fact that thousands of studies are conducted every year, very few of the treatments considered to be at the very cornerstone of modern medicine have been put to this most basic of tests – or, indeed, to any test at all.

For all the science-speak in medicine about risk-factors and painstakingly controlled data, the stringent government regulation, the meticulous peer review in professional literature – for all the attempts to cloak medicine in the weighty mantle of science – a good deal of what we regard as standard medical practice today amounts to little more than 21st-century voodoo.

In their own literature, medical authorities openly acknowledge this fact. New Scientist once announced on the cover of one issue that 80 per cent of medical procedures used today have never been properly tested.

(#litres_trial_promo)

Medicine as it is practised today is largely a conspiracy of faith. Probably because of the miracle of drugs such as antibiotics, doctors have come to believe that their little black bag ought to be filled, in effect, with magic. The late medical critic Dr Robert Mendelsohn was one of the first to liken modern medicine to a church, with doctors its high priests following the teachings with blind faith: ‘Modern Medicine is neither an art nor a science. It’s a religion,’ he wrote in his book, Confessions of a Medical Heretic (Contemporary Books), ‘just ask why? enough times and sooner or later you’ll reach the Chasm of Faith. Your doctor will retreat into the fact that you have no way of knowing or understanding all the wonders he has at his command. Just trust me.’

(#litres_trial_promo)

Doctors believe so fervently in the power of their tools that they are willing to suspend all reasonable scepticism about current and new medical treatments – so long as these treatments fit in with orthodox medical practice. Most doctors and researchers operate on the assumption of a priori benefit, whether or not a given remedy has actually been proven: we know what we’re doing is right. Enthusiasm for statins, the current favourite for high cholesterol, is so great, for instance, that doctors are willing to ignore the grossest of scientific lapses in safety testing in order to promote what is looked upon prima facie as a good thing. We know what we’re doing is right.

Even if studies have been done demonstrating that a treatment is ineffective or even downright dangerous, so powerful is this faith that these results often get ignored. Virtually every good study of foetal monitoring – devices employing ultrasound testing supposedly to measure the condition of the foetus during labour and birth – all show that this procedure produces a worse outcome for mother and child.

(#litres_trial_promo) This information appears well known to many senior obstetricians – the former head of the Oxford Perinatal Unit repeatedly has written widely about this fact – yet foetal monitors continue to be employed in every delivery room in the land. We know what we’re doing is right.

This is probably why doctors make such rotten logicians. Many in medicine get tied into logical knots, attempting to justify apparent contradictions with the most arcane Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning. Robert Mendelsohn used to say that his favourite line spouted by doctors was: ‘Breastfeeding is best, but bottlefeeding is just as good.’

‘High serum cholesterol levels are an important risk factor for coronary disease,’ once wrote noted heart researcher Dr Meir J. Stampfer of the Harvard School of Public Health, repeating the prevailing view. In the next breath, however, he added, parenthetically: ‘but most patients with [heart attacks] have normal cholesterol levels’ (my italics).

(#litres_trial_promo)

The faith in the infallibility of their tools allows doctors to adopt as the ‘gold standard’ what are usually little more than experimental treatments, and employ these on millions before their effects are fully understood or the procedure has stood the test of time. The favourite line of doctors, when steam-rolling ahead without proof, is that if they had always waited until they had proper evidence, goodness knows how many advances in medicine would have been held up (and how many millions of people would have died). That argument does not, of course, take into account the vast number of people who have died taking unproven treatments later found to be dangerous. The new Cox 2 arthritis drug Vioxx, one of the biggest money spinners of all drugs, was withdrawn by its manufacturers Merck after it was discovered that it doubled the risk of heart attacks. Still others, such as amalgam in dental silver fillings and the radical mastectomy, are treatments devised a century ago and never properly tested or reviewed to determine whether they are as safe or effective as has always been presumed.

Medicine as it is now practised relies entirely on numbers. When judging the worth of any treatment, researchers must weigh the risks of the drugs or treatments (and all treatments in orthodox medicine carry some risks) against their likely benefits and against the risk of the illness being treated. A drug known to be effective but with serious side-effects might be worth taking if you have a life-threatening illness, but not if your medical problem is a hangnail.

Medical science is, in the main, a triumph of statistics over common sense. When bumping up against unpalatable truths in the study, medical scientists, who again always assume a medical treatment to be beneficial, are inclined to put the best face on the whole exercise, or cut and paste, refine and edit, to fit the premise or explain away an undesirable result.

Some years ago, a large study from the Netherlands Cancer Institute showed that all women taking the Pill, no matter what their age, had an increased risk of breast cancer. Most worryingly, 97 per cent of women under aged 36 who contracted breast cancer had taken the Pill, for any length of time.

(#litres_trial_promo) For more than 30 years, doctors have been touting the Pill as the safest drug ever developed. The Dutch study, now the fifth and possibly most damning to show a link between the Pill and cancer, was a colossal embarrassment to an entire industry devoted to contraception at all costs.

However, once they trumpeted the negative findings in the beginning of their article, the Dutch researchers began back-pedalling, by qualifying the overall implications of their findings. They emphasized that the increased risk mainly occurred among certain subgroups. Because the numbers supposedly showed no increased risk of breast cancer after long-term use among women in their latter thirties, their study was, in effect, good news: ‘Our findings accord with the mass of evidence that [oral contraceptive use] by women in the middle of their fertile years [25–39 years] has no adverse effect on breast cancer risk’ (my italics).

Doctors can often minimize the risks of drugs by magnifying the risk of not using them. Most studies have been able to justify that the Pill is safe by turning pregnancy into a dangerous disease. This risk-benefit equation only works if you believe it is better to risk breast cancer, cervical cancer, a stroke or thrombosis – all known risks associated with the Pill – than to have an unwanted baby or to use a condom instead.