Don't immunise your child, lose benefits?

[JFKvsNixon]

I wasn't aware that anyone had suggested Dr Mcdougal 'can and does make money out of persuading people not to have colonoscopies'.

 

How would he do that?

 

He pushes his diets that he sells in his books as an alternative to needing a colonoscopy, and the books push the food that his company sells.

 

Here from Wiki:

 

McDougall is the co-founder and chairman of Dr. McDougall's Right Foods Inc., which produces food products for grocery stores....... The Press Democrat described McDougall and his wife as operating "a small industry, with several cookbooks, a newsletter, a Web site, vegetarian meal cups sold across the country, and a nationally syndicated TV show."

[onewheeldave]

He pushes his diets that he sells in his books as an alternative to needing a colonoscopy, and the books push the food that his company sells.

 

Here from Wiki:

His books advocate starchy vegetables. Potatos, corn etc can be bought from any grocery.

 

I doubt his site sells potatos, from what I can see it's mainly low fat vegan pot noodles/soups. I previously put forward my theory that he sells it for those who after a life time of eating processed junk, needed something to ease the switch to actual food.

 

He doesn't say a healthy diet is an alternative to needing a colonoscopy!

 

A colonoscopy is a diagnostic procedure- he critisises it on the grounds that, in his opinion, it unecessarily risky in proportion to it's benefits.

 

For that reason, I'm sure he'd advocate extreme caution to anyone considering a colonoscopy, including those on a diet of processed junk.

[Tommo68]

this proposal hasn't got anything to do with our government!

....................

 

mmmmmm

 

. .................................................... Not Yet !

.

.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Tommo68

[Phanerothyme]

If only we could devise a vaccine against stupidity.

 

'Cause our herd immunity is clearly compromised.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 13:51 ----------

 

A colonoscopy is a diagnostic procedure- he critisises it on the grounds that, in his opinion, it unecessarily risky in proportion to it's benefits.

 

What are the figures for death/serious injury risk from a colonoscopy, incidentally?

[onewheeldave]

What are the figures for death/serious injury risk from a colonoscopy, incidentally?

 

From this site (by a person who lost their entire intestinal tract after a complication from an unecessary colonoscopy, and, who has devoted a lot of time after their transplant in alerting others to the what he considers to be the dangers and misinformation surrounding them) it's 1 in 200.

 

http://roarofwolverine.com/archives/2772

 

He links to a paper here-

 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/550252

 

but you'll propbably need to register to view it (I had to).

 

Here's a copy/paste from that link-

 

Of the 16,318 eligible colonoscopies (96% performed by board-certified gastroenterologists), the incidence of serious complications was 5/1000 procedures (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.0-6.2). The 82 cases of serious complications that occurred involved 15 perforations, 6 cases of postpolypectomy syndrome, 53 cases of bleeding requiring hospitalization (15 requiring surgery or transfusion), 38 cases of bleeding requiring inpatient observation, 6 cases of diverticulitis, and 2 unusual complications (1 snare caught in a large polyp requiring surgery and 1 case of diabetic ketoacidosis associated with the colon preparation). There were 10 deaths (0.6/1000) within 30 days of the procedure, but only 1 of these was directly related to colonoscopy (a patient with congestive heart failure and sepsis after a transfusion for postpolypectomy-related bleeding).

[Tommo68]

This country is an island perhaps we should quarantine and inocculate all living things including people for a few weeks before letting them in, would that not reduce the need for the widespread use vaccines.

 

To paraphrase some other people on here.

 

Surely no one would object to imposing quarantines unless they have something to hide.

 

 

It would probably boost our economy as more people from the uk holiday abroad than foreigners come here for holidays.

.

.

[JFKvsNixon]

His books advocate starchy vegetables. Potatos, corn etc can be bought from any grocery.

 

I doubt his site sells potatos, from what I can see it's mainly low fat vegan pot noodles/soups. I previously put forward my theory that he sells it for those who after a life time of eating processed junk, needed something to ease the switch to actual food.

 

He doesn't say a healthy diet is an alternative to needing a colonoscopy!

 

A colonoscopy is a diagnostic procedure- he critisises it on the grounds that, in his opinion, it unecessarily risky in proportion to it's benefits.

 

For that reason, I'm sure he'd advocate extreme caution to anyone considering a colonoscopy, including those on a diet of processed junk.

 

He says that if you buy his book so you can follow his diets and if you buy his food, it lowers the risk of contracting colon cancer which implies that you do not need to have a colonoscopy.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 14:17 ----------

 

I feel you're building up to making a point here. Perhaps you should just go on and make it?

 

I asked, so I could judge whether or not you understood the source that you're quoting. It's always a good idea to understand the research that you are quoting from isn't it?

[L00b]

If you seriously think that Dr Mcdougal selling low fat vegan pot noodles is a coinflict of interest, then you should immediately contact the GMC, so they can deal with it

I doubt that very much, since Dr Mcdougal is a US practitioner and thus not subjected to the jurisdiction of the GMC

Interesting that you don't think it's a conflict of interest that professionals whose careers depends on administering a procedure that seriously damages 1 in 200 of those who undergo it, aren't in a conflict of interest situation when it comes to recommending that procedure.

How so?

 

Unlike you (seemingly), I understand medical research, medical practice, social and national interest and conflicts of interest perfectly well: risk zero does not exist, never has, never will; full-funding does not exist, never has, never will; until and unless machines can replace humans reliably (consistently so) for diagnosis purposes, human error shall remain a factor.

Interesting that you don't think a underfunded medical system that is financially sustained by donation from pharmaceutical companies, isn't in a conflict of interest when it prioritises symptom management via drugs, over curing with dietary interventions.

A 'medical system' cannot be conflicted, ever. Only those people in positions of responsibility attracting duties to others, can be. And the first duty of any medical practitioner is to their patient, not to their wallet or shareholding. That implies accepting and practicing established (researched, peer-reviewed and normalised) best practice, not promoting experimental practice with financial gain in tow. Edited April 14, 2015 by L00b

[Obelix]

From this site (by a person who lost their entire intestinal tract after a complication from an unecessary colonoscopy, and, who has devoted a lot of time after their transplant in alerting others to the what he considers to be the dangers and misinformation surrounding them) it's 1 in 200.

 

http://roarofwolverine.com/archives/2772

 

He links to a paper here-

 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/550252

 

but you'll propbably need to register to view it (I had to).

 

Here's a copy/paste from that link-

 

You might want to engage your critical thinking then...

 

"16,318 eligible colonoscopies (96% performed by board-certified gastroenterologists)," - that means that 652 were not performed by a certfied gasteroentolonogist.

 

Perhaps then this figure could have a disproportionatly large series of screw ups and that would inflate the figures for the skilled 96%?

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 14:57 ----------

 

His books advocate starchy vegetables. Potatos, corn etc can be bought from any grocery.

 

I doubt his site sells potatos, from what I can see it's mainly low fat vegan pot noodles/soups. I previously put forward my theory that he sells it for those who after a life time of eating processed junk, needed something to ease the switch to actual food.

 

He doesn't say a healthy diet is an alternative to needing a colonoscopy!

 

A colonoscopy is a diagnostic procedure- he critisises it on the grounds that, in his opinion, it unecessarily risky in proportion to it's benefits.

 

For that reason, I'm sure he'd advocate extreme caution to anyone considering a colonoscopy, including those on a diet of processed junk.

 

 

1. Scare people that a colonoscopy is so very dangerous

2. Give people hope with an alternative semi plausible but unproven theory

3. Pander to their gullability and hope by selling the panacea

4. Profit!!

 

There is a clear cut conflict of interest here. The words to describe the good doctor are "quack" and "charlaton"

[onewheeldave]

He says that if you buy his book so you can follow his diets and if you buy his food, it lowers the risk of contracting colon cancer which implies that you do not need to have a colonoscopy.

 

He does say that following a plant starch based low fat diet lowers the odds of getting colon cancer, and backs up that view with references to research and evidence.

 

Lowering the risk would not, however, negate the need for effective screening- after all, the possibility of geting cancer is lowered, not eliminated.

 

He does on the article in question, make clear that both he and his wife would have the (in his opinion) safer alternative to colonoscopy, so he does make clear that cancer is still possible with good idea, just less likely.

 

What he actually does say about colonoscopy is that the cons outweigh the pros, whether you eat a healthy diet or not- that is why he's againgst colonoscopy screening.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 15:21 ----------

 

 

Unlike you (seemingly), I understand medical research, medical practice, social and national interest and conflicts of interest perfectly well: risk zero does not exist, never has, never will; full-funding does not exist, never has, never will; until and unless machines can replace humans reliably (consistently so) for diagnosis purposes, human error shall remain a factor.

 

No ones saying it does. Colonoscopy screening carries a 1 in 200 risk of serious complication. The issue isn't that it's not zero, it's that it's too high (to counter the potential benefits).

 

Neither is anyone saying full funding exists- I'm saying that our medical system vastly over-prioritizes symptom management with drugs, over prevention with, for example, diet; as a direct result of the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies.