HealthBeat News

Author: Wellness Club

  • Flax Oil, Myatt Muffins and Microwaves – A reader Asks

    By Nurse Mark

     

    It never ceases to amaze me the power that urban legend has to alter peoples behavior. The microwave cooker or "oven" has been accused of all sorts of evil based on nothing more than superstition, misinformation, and urban legend. The fact that it is common for people to refer to the cooking process as to "nuke it in the microwave" has helped to perpetuate the confusion between the non-ionizing radiation of the microwave and the ionizing radiation of such things as atomic bombs, plutonium, and x-ray machines.

    Folks, things like atomic bombs, plutonium, and x-ray machines are indeed quite bad for us, to say the least – they are sources of ionizing, destructive radiation. But let’s not react unthinkingly to the word ‘radiation’ – for it simply describes something very, very common: when we speak we "radiate" sound. Our living bodies radiate heat. A light bulb radiates light and heat, as does a campfire or a candle. The electric element or gas burner in your stove radiates heat. Your television radiates light, sound, heat, and EMF or Electro Magnetic Fields which can be measured in units called Gauss.

    None of these common forms of radiation are anything like ionizing radiation – the stuff that is emitted by plutonium and A-bombs and X-ray machines.

    The microwave oven uses much the same principle as your conventional oven to do it’s work – it just does it quite a bit more efficiently (ie: more quickly) and it certainly does not utilize ionizing radiation.

    As Dr. Myatt mentions in her note below, she will be releasing a ‘White Paper’ – deeply researched, fully footnoted, and scientifically referenced, and exposing the misinformation that surrounds microwave cooking and frightens people unnecessarily. Watch for it soon!

    Dr. Myatt recently received this note from Michele regarding flax oil and the microwave oven for cooking her Myatt Muffins:

    Dear Dr. Myatt,
       Thank you for your interpretive results. They have been most helpful.  Also, I am anxious to try your Myatt muffins, although I have 2 concerns. In past research, I read that you are not supposed to heat flax oil at all and also there are dangers to using a microwave. We do not own a microwave for those reasons. Could you respond to this? I would like to know your views. 
    Thank you,
    Michele

    Here is Dr. Myatt’s answer:

    Hi Michelle:

    Flax oil is fragile beyond a certain time and temperature; i.e. it will be altered when cooked in a regular oven at 350 degrees. The 90 seconds in a microwave doesn’t heat the muffin hot enough to destroy or damage the O-3’s in the flax oil.

    Also, most of the stuff people believe about "dangers" of the microwave oven are totally unsubstantiated urban legend. In fact, the microwave does a good job of preserving nutrients because it cooks things at a much lower temperature. I am putting the finishing touches on a medical white paper (an expose) about microwave cooking. Be sure to grab a copy of this once I let you know that it’s available!

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    P.S. My Dad worked for Litton engineering, the first company to manufacture a commercial microwave oven. We were some of the first folks EVER to own a microwave. We just celebrated Dad’s 91st B-day this past May and Mom just turned 87 ( www.MyTributeToMom.com). If the microwave does something bad to food, please don’t tell my Mom and Dad. They’ve been using one regularly for 35 years and many 50 year olds would be glad to have their superb health and perfect lab reports!

  • Do You Really Take All That Stuff ???

    By Dr. Myatt

     

    I was in a local store recently; the owner and I are on friendly terms. In fact, we had given her a Wellness Club Holistic Health Handbook as part of a gift. Apparently, she has been reading it. She asked me today when I was in, "Do you really take all that stuff you recommend? Can’t you just get adequate nutrition from a good diet?" Good questions, and I was shaking my head "yes" and "no" before she even finished asking.

    Yes, I really take a lot of my own Wellness Club "stuff" (more in a minute). In fact, one of the main reason I started The Wellness Club almost 10 years ago was to ensure myself easy access to "the good stuff" (highest quality nutritionals). And "no," you can’t get adequate, much less optimal, nutrition from diet alone. Here are the reasons I take supplements.

    Why a "good diet" is not optimal. First let’s define some terms: "Adequate" means barely enough to sustain life. Yes, you can probably achieve that from an exceptionally good diet. Who eats an exceptionally good diet? But you can’t get "optimal nutrition" — vitamins and minerals at levels known to promote longevity— from even a very good diet.

    That’s because our food supply isn’t what it used to be. To see a complete chart of Optimal doses of vitamins and minerals, click here.

    Vegetables without Vitamins. The nutritional value of foods is rapidly declining. According to the USDA food tables, most commercial vegetables contain at least 50% less of the nutrients than they did in 1975. For example, broccoli has 50% less calcium than it used to; watercress has 80% less iron, cauliflower has 40% less vitamin C. The National Academy of Sciences reports that it takes twice as many vegetables as it used to to get the same amount of nutrients. The reason for this decline appears related to growing and agricultural practices. That, plus many foods are heavily contaminated with pesticides, synthetic fertilizers instead of the natural nutrients, and picked before their prime (full nutrient content) so they can be shipped to far away places for consumption. If the nutrients aren’t in the soil, they won’t be in the plants grown in that soil. The recommended 3 to 5 servings per day should rightly be changed to 6 to 10 servings per day of fruits and vegetables to get a basic complement of plant-derived nutrients. Do YOU eat this much in a day? Few Americans do.

    Meat without Omegas. The Omega-3 fatty acids, along with Omega-6 fatty acids, comprise the "Essential Fatty Acids" (EFA’s), so-called because they must be obtained from diet. The average American diet is far too high in O-6 fatty acids and drastically deficient in O-3 fatty acids. The result is that our immune systems tend to be hyper-reactive in many ways (allergies, autoimmune disease, heart disease, certain cancers and overweight are intimately related to this O-3 deficiency). The primary sources of O-3 fatty acids are meat (especially beef), eggs and seafood, particularly salmon, and flax seed. But even these "good foods" are not what they should be. The way we raise animals drastically alters— for better or worse— their Omega-3 fatty acid content, and therefore their Omega Ratios. [NOTE: as a reminder, a healthy Omega Ratio should be between 4 to 10. Less than 4 is super-healthy, more than 10 is an unfavorable ratio. Many nutritional scientists believe that the healthiest ratio is no more than 4]. Instead of grass-fed beef with an Omega ratio of 2.3, feed-lot and corn-fed beef has a less favorable OR of 8.6 or higher. (Still a decent OR). Feed-lot raised beef is also high in human hormones and antibiotics. Eggs raised from chickens fed a diet of Omega-3 rich grains and allowed to free-range will lay high Omega-3 containing eggs with an OR of 2.6, but most industrially-raised hens today lay eggs with an OR of 13.0. Salmon is by far the superior food for Omega-3 content, but there’s a wide variability in this, too. Wild-caught Pacific salmon has an OR of 0.5 and very low levels of contaminants. New information released this month shows that farm-raised salmon tend to have high levels of contaminants including methyl mercury and PCBs, antibiotics, pesticides, synthetic coloring agents, growth hormones and GMOs. The OR for farm-raised and Atlantic salmon is far less favorable at 6.8. (Still a good Omega Ratio, but is the toxicity worth the risk?).

    Even a diet that includes the USDA recommended fruits, vegetables and meats is still unlikely to be "adequate." Inadequate nutrition plus additional contaminants in the food mean that even a well-meaning diet may be less-than-adequate. But even if it were "adequate," adequate isn’t good enough for me.

    Why "Adequate" isn’t Enough

    Much is known about how to keep a human body healthy for life and maximize longevity. The sciences of nutrition, biochemistry, pharmacology, exercise physiology, and psychology have contributed much to improving both quality and quantity of life. Although drugs can be helpful and sometimes curative, they are not the surest option for maintaining good health. I take advantage of those diet and lifestyle methods that have proven to help hedge the bet for a long, healthy life.

    Studies have been done on elders (over 60 population) taking a multiple vitamin-mineral supplement. Those on low potency formulas (the "one little tablet per day" variety) did nothing more than placebo, but those taking higher potency formulas had a 60% lower rate of upper respiratory infection plus overall stronger immunity. Optimal, not merely "adequate" doses of various vitamins and minerals have far-reaching effects in the body. Consider the numerous benefits I get just from taking Maxi Multi — my ultimate basic multiple nutrient formula.

    A few of the many known deficiency/disease connections:

    A deficiency of antioxidant nutrients (especially beta carotene, vitamins C & E, and selenium) is associated with higher incidence of cancers of the colon, breast, prostate, mouth, lungs and skin. Some researchers believe that antioxidant deficiencies may be related to higher incidence of all cancers. Antioxidant deficiency is also associated with cataracts, macular degeneration, cardiovascular disease and premature aging.

    A mineral deficiency, especially magnesium and potassium but also calcium, is associated with high blood pressure.

    Deficiencies of vitamin E, C, B6, B12, folic acid (a B vitamin), and bioflavonoids are associated with cardiovascular disease. The connection between vitamin E and heart health is so well established that conventional medical cardiologists are instructed to recommend vitamin E to their patients.

    Healthy bones, and the prevention of osteoporosis, depend on sufficient levels of minerals, including calcium, magnesium, boron, zinc, copper, B vitamins, and vitamin D. Calcium deficiency is also associated with overweight and colon cancer.

    In males, benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer is associated with decreased levels of zinc and selenium. Zinc deficiency also correlates to decreased immune function. Hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and diabetes (high blood sugar) occur more frequently in people who are chromium deficient. After diabetes is present, low levels of vitamin A, C, E, plus zinc, selenium, choline, bioflavonoids and B complex vitamins are associated with more complications from the disease.

    Deficiencies of B complex vitamins are associated with heart disease, fatigue, muscle weakness, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, and senile (age-related) dementia.

    The list above represents only some of the diseases that nutrient deficiency can cause. Studies show that people who do not have nutrient deficiencies have a greatly lowered risk of these diseases. I’m hedging my bet by making up for any gaps in my diet by taking a high quality multiple vitamin/mineral supplement.

    What I Used to Take & Recommend for Patients

    Some years ago, patients and wellness club members recall that I recommended 4 separate supplements in order to get the solid daily basics of good nutrition. I would use the following nutrients for my "Basic daily formula:

    I.) High quality multiple (Usually Tyler’s brand called Nutrizyme; daily dose is 6 capsules)

    II.) Extra antioxidants (A formula with higher potencies of Vitamin A, beta carotene, vitamin C & E, and selenium. I would usually use Carlson’s brand of "ACES" for the extra antioxidants.(1 cap, 3 times per day with meals).

    III.) Extra calcium/magnesium and trace bone nutrients (boron, vanadium). I used one of several different formulas to "make up the difference" that the multiple didn’t contain. (3-6 capsules per day).

    IV.) Multi-B-Complex: extra-potencies of B complex vitamins, higher than even a good multiple, for the many proven health benefits. (1 capsule, 2 times per day).

    All together, this Basic program was 17-20 capsules per day of the finest nutritional supplement available. 4 separate products, but well worth the effort and money in my book. Many agreed with me. Then I decided to make it simpler. It was state-of the-art supplementation. Because this protocol is still valuable today (the individual formulas have been kept up-to-date), this is still a good program to follow. I just decided to make it simpler.

    The Best Made Better

    That above-listed regimen is the one I followed and recommended for many years, with outstanding results. Still, 4 separate products to achieve Optimal vitamin/mineral supplementation seemed like a lot of work, so I decided to make it simpler. After all, I "take all this stuff" myself, remember? And I knew I intended to continue taking my nutrients for the long-haul, making improvements in my program as new discoveries caused me to make dose or formula changes, but intending to stick with it because many studies also show that the benefits from nutritional supplementation accrue over the long-haul. I took the "optimal dose" list I had constructed from the medical literature and decided to put the "four separate items" into a single formula. That is when Maxi Multi was "born."

    Maxi Multi: The Four-in-One Formula for Optimal Supplementation

    Yes, I "take my own stuff." The benefits of optimal potency supplementation on health and potential lifespan are clear-cut in my medical opinion. I knew I was "in it for the long haul," and so were many of my patients. In order to make such optimal supplementation easier and more cost-effective, I devised a formula that had these optimal potencies in a single supplement. Maxi Multis have the combined benefits and nutrient levels as the previous four-supplement regimen I was prescribing. There were and still are other benefits to making my own formula, too.

    When I new bit of nutritional science is discovered, such as higher doses of vitamin E appear to be better at preventing heart disease, breast cancer and cataracts, I can and do make adjustments in the formula to keep up with the science. I also pick and choose each individual nutrient — it’s form, potency and purity— and I’m a stickler for these ingredients. It’s got to be that way, because there are little quality controls in the health and nutrition industry right now. I am the "Dragon Lady" when it comes to my formulas, because I want them to be the best. Remember, I "take this stuff" myself for health reasons and intend to for life. I want to best, so it will perform as I expect. I take my own stuff.

    My Personal Protocol for Good Health

    1.) Supplements:

    I.) Maxi Multi: 3 caps, 3 times per day with meals, without fail.

    II.) Maxi Greens: 2 caps, 3 times per day with meals, without fail.

    III.) CoQ10 (50mg): twice per day.

    IV.) Flax oil: caps or liquid, daily, or better, ultra-pure, high-potency Fish Oil.

    I take additional supplements, but this list forms the basis of my program. Please keep in mind that I do not have any medical conditions that I am treating. If I did, my basic program would reflect additional nutrients and/or herbs targeted to whatever my medical problem was.

    2.) Foods: I choose organic fruits and veggies whenever possible. I also look for wild instead of farm-raised salmon and grab organic beef whenever I find it. I search out Omega eggs (available in the regular grocery store). I follow The Super Fast Diet (low carbs, high in Omega-3 essential fats).

    3.) Exercise: every day in the outdoors. I live in an area where the air is clean. If I didn’t, I’d have an indoor and car air purifier.

    4.) Pure water: 64 ounces a day without fail.

    No one can guarantee us a long, healthy life. Some of this "equation" is up to fate: genetics, luck. Much of our health, however, is within our control. We can optimize our "healthspan" (how long we stay healthy) and our lifespan (actual years that we live) by taking reasonable and good care of ourselves. Given what I know about nutrition, basic supplementation in optimal doses seems a small price to pay for the return I anticipate on my investment. So "yes", I really do take "all that stuff."

  • Are You Headed For A Nervous Breakdown?

    By Dr. Myatt

     

    Every day, each of us have a number of simple choices to make. Those who consistently make good choices tend to stay emotionally and physically healthy. Those who consistently make poor choices lose physical and mental health much faster than the expected “aging” decline of the body. Some consistently poor choices can make a person downright crazy — what we call “certifiable” (as in “certifiably insane”). Even if one doesn’t drive them self to total insanity, anxiety, depression, anger and dissatisfaction with life are still mild symptoms of emotional imbalance.

    You may be surprised to learn that these choices are everyday “little things” that really add up — for good or for ill. Everything from high blood pressure, overweight, heart disease, diabetes and increased cancer risk to mood disorders, emotional instability and even a complete “psychotic break” can result.

    Here are the disaster-driven lifestyle choices that sick (or going to be sick) people consistently make:

    1.) Stay up late at night (no consistent bedtime). The healthiest choice for weight control, normal blood pressure and balanced hormones is a regular sleep/wake cycle. Since melatonin, a potent antioxidant produced in the body, is made during dark hours, sleeping at night is far more beneficial than sleeping during the day time.

    The unhealthy choice: stay up until 11, 12 or even the early hours, then sleep in late in the morning.

    The healthy choice: try to get to bed by 10 p.m., or 11 p.m. at the latest. And keep your bedtime consistent each night.

    2.) Find every excuse not to exercise. Consider that “running around” all day counts as good exercise (it doesn’t). Make excuses based on the weather, lack of gym membership, too tired, [put your excuse here].

    Interestingly, the people who “don’t have time to exercise” always seem to have time for less important activities, like playing games on the computer, watching mindless television shows, or yakking endlessly on the cellphone.

    It also amuses me that many of these same people who “don’t have time to exercise” have plenty of time to worry about their blood pressure or diabetes or overweight. They also have time to run to the doctor for check-ups for these illnesses.

    The unhealthy choice: continue making excuses for why you can’t exercise for 15 minutes every day, and count all your “running around” as exercise.

    The healthy choice: exercise for 15 minutes every day, and do something “brisk” (push yourself a bit until you sweat and breathe heavy). Read “Why Aerobic exercise is a Waste of Time” to learn how to maximize your 15 minutes per day:

    3.) Spend plenty of time doing “mindless’ things. Granted, everyone should have a relaxing hobby or two or three, ways to “switch gears” from “work mode” to pure “enjoyment mode.” Hopefully, these hobbies are ones that  enrich mind and/or body. Not every hobby falls into this category.

    For example, a game or two played on the computer can be enjoyable. For most people, however, there is little redeeming “nutritional value” from such games (exception: older folks can benefit from improved reaction times depending on what type of game they’re playing).

    For others, computer gaming becomes almost addictive, with little benefit to recommend it. Combine that with someone who stays up late at night to play (see health-destroyer #1), and computer game addiction can be some serious “junk food” for the mind.

    Likewise, watching more than one or two television shows per night — especially the “new breed” of comedy or inane dramas, often becomes a royal waste of time and mind.

    The unhealthy choice: spend lots of time playing computer games, watching mindless T.V. shows and reading “junk food” books.

    The healthy choice: engage in uplifting and nutritionally “rich” hobbies like gardening (good exercise), photography, sewing or knitting (at least you’ll produce something to show for your time). Watch uplifting movies and television shows (not to excess), and occasionally include a true story or geographical or historical adventure — something with redeeming mental “nutritional value.”

    4.) Eat a fast-food, junk-food diet. You know, the kind with high fat and salt, low in essential fats, protein and nutrients.

    Instead of cooking at home for nutrition’s sake, always order take-out. Hey — that neuron-destroying MSG, artery-clogging trans fat and diabetes-inducing high carb junk food will help your cause (which is to lose your health and your mind, as quickly as possible).

    The unhealthy choice: eat out, order take-out or buy fast food “heat and eat” from the grocery store often.

    The healthy choice: fix more home-cooked meals, including non-starchy vegetables, whole proteins and garden-fresh ingredients. (This is where a gardening hobby comes in healthy!)

    5.) Take a pill for everything that ails you. High blood pressure? Don’t bother to lose weight, exercise, get regular sleep and eat better —- take a pill to fix the problem instead. Even better: ignore the problem altogether.

    Diabetes? Don’t lose weight or exercise — take pills instead.

    Depressed? Everyone knows that mood disorders are caused by a Prozac or Effexor deficiency. Don’t bother to get regular bedtimes to regulate your hormones, or eat right to provide essential nutrients, or exercise to create those “feel good” endorphins. No, by gumpy! Just take a pill instead.

    The US ranks somewhere around 43 in the world for life expectancy. Over 200,000 people are killed each year by correctly prescribed medications. (It boggles the mind to think how many are harmed or killed by incorrectly prescribed drugs).

    The unhealthy choice: take a “pill for every ill.”

    The healthy choice: correct your little “everyday choices” and allow your body the opportunity to bring you back into healthful balance.

    Unfortunately, people who are making the worst lifestyle choices are often the ones least likely to recognize themselves in this report. Many people will simply experience poor health and mild states of mood disorder over these poor choices, but some will go so far as to have a “psychotic break” (a real “disconnection” from reality). Here are some warning signs of advanced mental instability:

    I.) Paranoid. Is everyone out to get you? Your spouse is mean and doesn’t understand you when he/she tries to make a suggestion? People who are “losing it” almost never recognize their part in their troubles.

    Instead, they blame everyone around them, their circumstances and “bad luck” for their miseries. Introspection, the art of self-examination, eludes them. Life is bad, and it’s everyone else’s fault.

    II.) Grouchy. No matter what friends or family try to do, the person headed for a breakdown seems perpetually grouchy.

    They get angry easily. They take offense easily. They go into a “rage” and do dumb things — like get in the car and drive (usually too fast) to nowhere.

    III.) Dissatisfied. Whatever they’ve got, it’s never enough. Happiness is always “just around the corner,” after more money has been spent and more things acquired. Spending is often out of control, and the headed-for-trouble person would drive him/herself and family into deep debt with the misplaced belief that a new car or a bigger house will buy happiness.

    If you see yourself in any of this (which you won’t if you’re “far gone”), I encourage you to start making some consistently better choices each and every day. The little things — like sleep habits and choices of hobby — have a much greater impact on mental and physical health than most folks realize.

    And by all means be sure to get a physical evaluation from a doctor, preferably an holistic doctor who isn’t just a “pill pusher.” This is to rule out hormone imbalances, circulation problems and other physical abnormalities that could account for your symptoms. Most times, however, nothing significant will be found.

    My bottom line? Make better choices more consistently so you can keep your health and your sanity.

  • More Thyroid Questions

    By Nurse Mark

     

    Thyroid continues to be one of the more common subjects for questions that we receive here, and it seems to be one of the most poorly understood by many folks. And no wonder – thyroid function, thyroid hormones, and hormones in general are a very complicated issue. The internet abounds with "Thyroid Information" – much of it incorrect and misleading – which only adds to the confusion

    Marilyn wrote to Dr. Myatt recently:

    Does your thyroid cytotrophin contain literally T3 and T4 hormones?  Also, does Maca inhibit the thyroid since it is a cruciferous vegetable and contains glucosinates?  Please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks so much!

    Here is Dr. Myatt’s answer

    Hi Marilyn:

    Cytotrophin does indeed contain T3 and T4, approximately 1/2 grain per tablet in a 1:5 ratio (T3:T4) as is the ratio made by the body. It cannot be listed on the label (or my website!) because then it is considered a drug and not a supplement.

    Glucosinolates can cause goiter (swollen thyroid gland with decreased activity) if taken in excess combined with a low-iodine diet. Though this is documented to occur with other glucosinolate-rich foods, it is not known if maca causes goiter.

    Anyone who has demonstrated low thyroid function should have an iodine test to determine if iodine deficiency is the cause of their hypothyroidism, but you probably knew that. And of course, if your iodine levels are low, they should be brought up to sufficiency.

    Thanks for your question and I hope these answers are what you were looking for!

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    As you can see, there is nothing simple about thyroid function – and similarly there is nothing simple about what does and does not affect thyroid function. Iodine – a lowly, forgotten mineral – is intimately involved in thyroid function and health.

    What is, and is not a goitrogen is also the subject of confusion – this is another area where there are really no absolutes, and everything must be considered in it’s relation to everything else. That is not meant to sound like weasel-words – it is an attempt to describe the intricate and delicately balanced interrelationships and interdependencies of this marvelous machine that is our human body. I recently wrote about goitrogens in the article What is a Goitrogen?

    Dr. Myatt has written an excellent resource page on Hypothyroidism and a well-researched article titled Iodine: the "Missing Mineral" for Thyroid, Heart, Healthy Immunity and Cancer Protection. Since Iodine is so intimately tied to thyroid health anyone with thyroid concerns will want to consider testing to determine your Iodine levels. Dr. Myatt is highly skilled at interpreting this Iodine test, and at treating and correcting thyroid problems – a Telephone Consultation is be a wise investment.

  • A Reader Writes About Universal Health Care

    Opinion by Nurse Mark

     

    I’m not sure just how many other of our readers had strong feelings about the opinion article that I wrote for our last HealthBeat Newsletter titled  "Some Thoughts On Universal Health Care" but at least one reader was somewhat unhappy with my thoughts on the subject.

    Linda has been a patient and Wellness Club member for many, many years – and she wrote to say that she felt that her side of the argument should be given equal coverage.

    Here is the exchange of emails between Linda and Dr. Myatt and me:

    Linda responded to my opinion article with this email:

    Dear Mark

    I must take issue with many points you and the WSJ author made about Canadian healthcare. I agree wholeheartedly with "Susan" who responded to the Journal. Unfortunately I was not able to respond directly as it would not accept my e-mail address!

    The obvious answer as to why Americans want a new healthcare system is that the system we now have is much too expensive. Remember also that money is saved not only by patients waiting but also by not duplicating expensive medical equipment unnecessarily! On the other side of the coin remember that Canadians have a lower neo-natal death rate than the US because ALL pregnant women receive prenatal care!

    I have had much first hand experience with the Canadian system (in Ontario) and have no complaints nor does my family living near Toronto. My sister in law recently experienced pancreatitis of unknown origin and she was treated as rapidly as she would have been here……….even over Christmas!! My experience with my mother’s terminal illness was just as positive with everything we needed to care for her at home provided for free.

    I am surprised, Mark, that you could not provide a less biased opinion. People like you will prevent change from ever happening here!!    Linda

    Then Linda sent this follow-up message:

    Dear Mark        

    This is a letter from my brother in Oakville Ontario that he sent after reading yours and the WSJ. I certainly hope you publish these so that your readers have both sides of the picture. Linda

    Subject: Health care

    Just read the article such a crock–they tend to focus on I would venture to say are isolated cases and ride them to death–where do they say that our life expectancy is greater than the US ? that the US has the highest per capata cost for health care in the world.? Don’t tell me that you don’t have to wait in US emerg rooms.and to focus on wait times for surgury for hips etc is wrong–Carol was diagnosed with breast cancer had two surgeries and was finished her radiation within 6mos –Sandy has had a knee and hip replaced all within 5 mo–I could go on but basically if your sick you will get treated–enough my bp is going up!

    G

    Dr. Myatt and I discussed these letters, and Dr. Myatt wrote back to Linda assuring her that her views would be published:

    To which Linda replied:

    Thank you. I think we all have a responsibility to know both sides of the picture.  Linda

    Dr. Myatt wrote Linda back for some additional information – since we like to be sure that we have our facts straight – Linda’s answers are embedded in Dr. Myatt’s note in italics:

    Hi Linda.

    You’re right; opposing opinions should be absolutely fair game. Of course, you must know that we will respond to your opinion with our opinion of your opinion!

    That’s only fair, don’t you think? Yes however I hope you will acknowledge the facts I sited.

    Will you please confirm these factoids with me? I don’t want to speak out of turn.

    How long have you lived in the US?  Over two decades if memory serves me right. Correct   

    Married to a US citizen, correct? Yes since 1963.

    You’re still a Canadian citizen, never naturalized to the US, correct? Yes interestingly enough I was about to get my citizenship but it costs $800. !! I figured I had better uses for the money. When I moved here dual citizenship was not permitted by the US

    How was your hip surgery paid for? (US medical insurance or other?) Private insurance and large out of pocket. I was not on Medicare then!

    How many years did you practice as a nurse in Canada? 2 years and don’t forget I have also practiced here.

    I don’t mind one little bit posting your opinion pieces, and let’s expect we’re still friends after this dialogue. I’m trusting we can "agree to disagree." That’s one thing I love about the US, that ol’ Freedom of Speech thing that hasn’t been totally stripped away just yet!

    In Health,

    Dr. Myatt

    So, there you have Linda’s communications to us, published here as promised.

    It seems that this is a subject that is destined to be forever mired in emotion, rhetoric, and misinformation presented by diametrically opposed political philosophies. That is unfortunate since all the shouting and gesticulating by those at the extremes of this issue make it difficult to concentrate on the more legitimate concerns of each side.

    Linda requested equal space so that we would “acknowledge the facts I sited.”

    Try as I might, I was only able to find one “fact” in Linda’s initial letter and two in her brother’s letter. Even those facts were not referenced – I had to search for the references to be sure they were indeed a fact.

    Linda asserted: “Canadians have a lower neo-natal death rate than the US because ALL pregnant women receive prenatal care!”

    I was able to track this down, and it is true – according to the Public Health Agency of Canada there are only 5.6 infant deaths per 1000 live births in Canada, compared to 7.8 infant deaths per 1000 live births in the US.

    But let’s be really fair here: the Public Health Agency of Canada also tells us that Canada ranks below countries such as Japan, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France, and Denmark – who have infant death rates as low as 3.8 per 1000 in the case of Japan. What’s more, according to these same figures New Zealand – another country boasting socialized health care that proponents often look to with envy – is listed as having an infant death rate of 7.4 per 1000 – only marginally better than that of the US, and rather poorer than that of Canada.

    Linda’s Canadian brother dismisses our views as “a crock” and asserts ”our life expectancy is greater than the US” and “the US has the highest per capita cost for health care in the world”. Well, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development this is true. Canada spends 9.9 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on healthcare or $3,165 (USD) per person, compared to the 15.3 percent or $6,102 that is spent in the US. In terms of life expectancy, Canadians can expect to live 79.9 years, compared to Americans who will live, statistically, only 77.5 years. But if spending less to get more is the name of the game here we must also consider Japan – where only 8% of GDP or $2,249 person is spent per person to achieve longevity of 82.1 years. New Zealand, spending 8.4% of GDP but only $2,083 per person sees it’s people living nearly as long as Canadians – 79.2 years.

    Perhaps this is all not quite as cut-and-dried as some would have us believe?

    As Wikipedia says: “Researchers caution against inferring health care quality from some health statistics. June O’Neill and Dave O’Neill point out that "…life expectancy and infant mortality are both poor measures of the efficacy of a health care system because they are influenced by many factors that are unrelated to the quality and accessibility of medical care"”

    Linda tells us with obvious pride that her sister received treatment in Canada “as rapidly as she would have been seen here” for an urgent pancreatitis. That is as it should be, for pancreatitis is considered a medical emergency no matter what country you are in, and treatment must be – and is – immediate no matter whose medical system is doing the treating. Linda tells us that her mother was cared for at home through her terminal illness, “with everything we needed to care for her at home provided for free” – as it might have been in the US under Medicare since her mother was presumably a senior.

    Her brother cites examples of a breast cancer patient who was diagnosed, cut upon, irradiated and presumably declared ‘done’ all within 6 months, and someone who had both a hip and knee replaced within 5 months.

    I will let these numbers speak for themselves – they do not seem particularly speedy treatment times to me, and we do not know enough about either example to know the urgency of the case. In either country emergencies are treated immediately, urgent cases come next, and the less urgent may wait longer. I will add that my own mother, living in Canada, has been suffering for several years with hip pain and begging for hip replacement surgery for well over a year, to no avail. She is quickly becoming weak and debilitated and losing her ability to walk but it seems her case is not considered “urgent” enough by the Canadian system and so she is required to wait.

    It is worth noting that in the US we would have the option of going outside of the Medicare system for mom, and finding a surgeon and a hospital to give her the new hip she needs by the simple expedient of paying for it. That is illegal in Canada – for it is considered “jumping the queue” and to allow people to do so would lead to the creation of a “Two-tier” medical system – an anathema to Canada’s more left-leaning or socialist political parties who derisively contend that this would result in the “rich” being able to buy faster care than the “poor”. Personally I have always considered that to be a weak argument – for it is my opinion that allowing someone who can afford to do so the opportunity to buy faster care would effectively open up their place in the line, letting someone else be seen sooner – somewhat the way the VIP desk at the airport check-in counter takes some of the load off the line of “regular-folk” in coach-class and lets them move that much faster.

    In my twenty years of Canadian experience as a practicing Nurse, surgeons are limited by the operating hours set by the hospital – which are dictated by the budget allotted to them by the government. When the OR is closed, no matter how much the surgeon wants to he cannot perform an elective surgery – the hospital will not provide the staff or the ancillary services. In the US, that surgery can be done as long as the patient is willing to pay – the hospital will be more than happy to take the money!

    I must also comment on this statement from Linda’s initial email to me: “Remember also that money is saved not only by patients waiting but also by not duplicating expensive medical equipment unnecessarily!”

    Linda, I truly hope that you miss-spoke with this sentence, and that you meant to phrase this differently – for the idea of saving money by making patients wait for medical care is repugnant to me and it bespeaks what I consider to be the evil of the rationing of health care that seems to inevitably creep into government enforced tax-funded plans. Whether it is Canada’s or Britain’s or New Zealand’s publicly-funded schemes or America’s own Medicare, Medicaid, V.A., or State Children’s Health Insurance Programs, demand always seems to outstrip the ability of the government to pay leaving legislators scrambling for more money and bureaucrats struggling with fixed and inadequate budgets.

    No, making patients wait is NOT an ethical way to save money, and I reject that strategy.

    As to the duplication of expensive medical equipment, if doctors and patients are demanding equipment, and are willing to pay for it, why shouldn’t they be entitled to it? Are the people of a town any less deserving of a CT scanner than the people of the city 50 miles away? If the people want it and are willing to support it, should they not have it?

    I recall the story told to me by our federal Member of Parliament (similar to a US senator) when I lived in Canada. It seems that the only MRI imaging machine in the province of British Columbia was located in Vancouver – a huge distance from most of the rest of the province. The government refused to allow another, more centrally-located MRI machine, citing the expense. Further, because of budgetary constraints, the machine was staffed only a few hours a day, and on weekdays only, severely limiting the numbers of patients who could be booked for imaging and diagnostics. Because of Canada’s laws prohibiting “private pay” for service, no patient could be seen during the times when the machine was not being operated under government funding. It should have been sitting, dark and idle, for all the time it was unfunded, but it did not. In an effort to bolster its meager budget the MRI clinic had found a solution: during the times that human patients could not be seen because of the rationing of funds, the clinic did a roaring trade (no pun intended) doing veterinary imaging. That’s right, a human was prohibited from buying service, but an animal could be seen simply by its owner plunking down cold hard cash! Since veterinary medicine is not covered by any government program in Canada, this was perfectly legal.

    No, rationing medical equipment, no matter how expensive, is NOT the way to save money, and I reject that strategy too.

    Linda, I fully agree that health care is expensive in the US – but I believe it is miss-named. We do not practice “health care”, we practice disease management. We do not promote health, we wait until years of soda pop, trans fats, smoking, obesity, physical inactivity and other “lifestyle choices” render us ill, then we demand that “everything possible” be done, no matter how expensive or futile. When the expensive and futile treatments fail to work, or if the doctor fails to perform some test or offer some treatment we call our lawyers to launch a lawsuit.

    Certainly, many procedures and tests are ordered by doctors more concerned with avoiding lawsuits than with whether the test is necessary and will provide meaningful information that simpler, less high-tech methods like good ol’ physical examination might provide. But that does not mean that many laypeople aren’t guilty of overkill in this regard, demanding that all possible tests be run, all possible treatments be tried, and no stone left unturned by their doctor.

    Defensive medical practice is a fact of life in the US, and there is no doubt that this raises costs. Malpractice payouts tend to be smaller in the US than in Canada or Britain, but more lawsuits are filed – 350% more lawsuits per person according to testimony. The costs for doctors to insure and defend themselves against this must be astronomical in terms of cash and emotional energy – can there be any surprise that a doctor’s fees are so high?

    Certainly the cost of the bureaucracy involved with the medical insurance industry is out of control. Something must be done to reduce this burden for doctors and patients – but I do not believe that introducing yet another bureaucracy in the form of a new government agency is the answer. Let’s remember, this is the government that has given us such paragons of efficiency and user-friendliness as the IRS, the DOT, the FDA, OSHA, FEMA and others.

    There is no doubt that there are many Americans who do not have health insurance, or to call it what it truly is, disease insurance. There are many reasons for this, and the actual figures are the subject of considerable debate. Census figures estimate that just over 59 % of Americans have disease insurance through their employers, nearly 28% have government-provided coverage, around 9% purchase coverage privately, and 15% were uninsured in 2007. There is no way to know how many of that 15% are uninsured by choice (i.e.: “self-insured” – as Dr. Myatt and I are).

    That brings me to another item that causes me some distress – the suggestion that health insurance must be made mandatory. The idea that I must be forced to buy insurance in order to help to underwrite the cost of insurance for others upsets me: I do everything possible to maintain my health and fitness. I find it repugnant that I would be required to help to pay to treat the diseases that are caused by the “lifestyle choices” of others. The lung cancer that comes from a lifetime of smoking, the quadruple bypass that is needed to correct the effects of years of sloth and junk food, the GERD that has resulted from stress and a miserable diet, the diabetes or obesity that is the result of simple overeating – these are preventable, so why should I be asked to subsidize them?

    If someone suggested that we all buy some form of simple, limited, catastrophic disease and accident insurance I might be more amenable – but I seriously doubt that any government scheme, even if it were begun to cover only catastrophic illness or injury, would remain simple for long – for wherever a politician is involved…

    Well, there you have some of my thoughts on the matter – in closing, Linda said to me:

    I am surprised, Mark, that you could not provide a less biased opinion. People like you will prevent change from ever happening here!!

    Here is my reply to that comment: As a newly-Naturalized citizen of the United States (I took my oath of American citizenship on Friday, June the 19th – see our HealthBeat announcement) I look forward to legitimately participating in the democratic process of this country to help bring about real, positive change.

     

    References and additional reading:

    The basics – a look at the 4 basic forms of health care systems in use around:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

    And a brief discussion of the systems in place in a number of countries:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/themes/socialized.html

    Anderson GF, Hussey PS, Frogner BK, Waters HR (2005). "Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world". Health affairs (Project Hope) 24 (4): 903–14. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.4.903. PMID 16136632

    A look at healthcare wait times in Canada by The Fraser Institute:
    http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/WaitingYourTurn2008.pdf

    A look at healthcare wait times in The US by Merritt Hawkins and Associates
    http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/mha2009waittimesurvey.pdf

    An interesting article by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) titles “10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care” http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649#_edn6

    A reasonably balanced look at the pro’s and the con’s of the concept of the government providing free universal health care to all Americans:
    http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

    The full text of Mr. Obama’s speech to the American Medical Association:

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/15/obama-health-care-business-washington-speech.html

    A Wikipedia discussion of life expectancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

    Some testimony regarding malpractice costs in the US: Testimony of Mark McClellan, MD, Ph.D., Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, before the Joint Economic Committee Hearing on Malpractice Liability Reform, April 28, 2005

    Health cost, expenditure, and life expectancy figures for OECD countries: "OECD in Figures 2006-2007" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/get_file.php3/id/25/file/OECDInFigures2006-2007.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-06-21.

    A comparison by Wikipedia of the American and Canadian systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

    The Public Health Agency of Canada discusses infant mortality improvements in that country – with statistics comparing neonatal mortality to other countries:
    http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/meas-haut/mu_c_e.html

    The US government Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services – for a look at what the US government currently provides for socialized health care services: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/