Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
stupid and irresponsible
- david clarke (22 December 2007)
-
Picking on straw myths
- Geoffrey J Russell (22 December 2007)
-
Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight
- Klaus Dr. Schmid (22 December 2007)
-
Carrots for the eyes, Spinach for the muscles
- Jecko Thachil (23 December 2007)
-
unbelievable and shameful !
- Mikhail Vinin (23 December 2007)
-
Re: Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight
- Phillip J. Colquitt (23 December 2007)
-
Stupid and Irresponsible, IS RIGHT!
- Pamela B Wilson (23 December 2007)
-
Other myths that might interest you:
- Sheila Wolf, RDH (24 December 2007)
-
Re: stupid and irresponsible
- simon white (24 December 2007)
-
Biochemical and Haematological Myths
- Dr Andrew J Misiura (24 December 2007)
-
Orders of magnitude?
- Andrew J Rees (24 December 2007)
-
The risks of propagating a new myth - drinking water is bad for you
- Cameron Sellars (24 December 2007)
-
PatientLine and phones
- Guy King (24 December 2007)
-
Stupid? Words like that say more about those who use them.
- Jason S. Crenshaw (26 December 2007)
-
Medical myths in Kurdistan.
- Mohammad Shaikhani (26 December 2007)
-
Re: PatientLine and phones
- Phillip J. Colquitt (26 December 2007)
-
Brain power
- Mark W. Goddard (27 December 2007)
-
Cell Phones Have Changed
- Frederic C Lewin (29 December 2007)
-
Hyponatremia
- Christopher G Colenso-Dunne (30 December 2007)
-
Medical beliefs or practices of disputable scientific validity that I have met in Greece.
- Argirios Argiriou (1 January 2008)
-
We use 10% of our brain
- Michael U-A Eshiett (2 January 2008)
-
Re: PatientLine and phones
- Vicky J Burr (3 January 2008)
-
Eight Glasses of Water Theory May Come from Education Journal
- Debra A. Henning (12 January 2008)
-
Of Course We Need Water!
- Stacey K. Newton (13 January 2008)
-
On the prevention of myopia
- Kaisu A Viikari (14 January 2008)
-
We only use 10% of our brain
- William L. Rackliffe (16 January 2008)
-
Considering Cell Phones
- Rachel C Vreeman (18 January 2008)
-
Re: Stupid and Irresponsible, IS RIGHT!
- Marc S Soller (18 January 2008)
-
Cell Phone Interference
- Bing Huang (19 January 2008)
-
Myopia - many conclusions without data
- Frank Schaeffel (21 January 2008)
-
What Einstein May Have Said (and What I Say!)
- Robert J Peers (25 January 2008)
-
Is tea good for you?
- Hugh Mann (31 January 2008)
-
Not so stupid or irresponsible
- David M Weingarten (11 February 2008)
-
Just relax, it is real important.
- Yan TANG (20 February 2008)
-
Shaving and water
- Gerald D Dreaver, New Zealand (19 December 2008)
|
|
|||
|
david clarke, technical director bskyb, grant way, osterley, TW7 5QD
Send response to journal:
|
This article contained factual inaccuracies and is very irresponsible in 'debunking' a 'myth' that has been proven to be true - namely that mobile phones can effect hospital equipment. As a medical journal, publishing junk that some half-arsed researcher found on Google is irresponsible in the extreme, which is compounded when this is picked up by broadcasters and transmitted as fact. The research by Dutch scientists into mobile phones and hospital equipment was published here: http://ccforum.com/content/11/5/R98 and reported in the New Scientist in September 2007 here: http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19526214.000- cellphones-are-an-increasing-danger-in-hospitals.html Nothing short of a full apology and a printed retraction will suffice, and I hope that you reflect on all those doctors reading your article, who now do not realise that they ARE putting patients lives at risk – and that your journal is partly responsible for this. Shame on you. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Geoffrey J Russell, Computer Programmer St Morris, Adelaide 5000
Send response to journal:
|
Rachael Vreeman is absolutely correct that doctors, like the rest of us, can believe things with very little evidence. But her examples are fairly harmless. I'm more concerned with myths that dominate the practice of medicine but which are false and positively harmful. Two spring to mind: you need to eat red meat, you need to eat dairy products for strong bones. The first frequently repeated myth gives high rates of heart disease and colorectal cancer in addition to being a global ecological disaster (see recent Lancet article by Tony McMichael et al), the second is false and is also the cause of a global ecological disaster. It also contributes to high rates of prostate cancer (WCRF) and doesn't prevent osteoporosis. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Klaus Dr. Schmid, retired physicist 82152 Planegg, Germany
Send response to journal:
|
Sorry, but I think it was not a good idea to tell people that reading in dim light is never a problem for the eyesight. From my extensive collection of published research results about myopia, which can be found at www.myopia-manual.de it becomes rather clear, that even when not necessarily everybody ruins the eyesight by reading in dim light, this habit is definitely a risk for becoming myopic, especially for children. Kind regards Klaus Schmid Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jecko Thachil, Specialist Registrar Royal Liverpool University Hospital
Send response to journal:
|
Carrots for the eyes, Spinach for the muscles The article by Vreeman and Carroll in the festive issue of BMJ was an interesting read. To add to their list, are two other medical myths - eat more carrots for better nightvision and more spinach to be stronger (like the cartoon character popeye). The popular belief that carrots are good for eyes comes from its beta -carotene content, which the body converts to vitamin A, which is useful in the function of the eyes. However, the doses of vitamin A or beta- carotene required for this effect when equated to the number of carrots, would amount to something that would prove quite difficult for daily intake. So how did the “carrot supervision” myth arise? In World War II, the British Intelligence wanted to keep secret the Interception Radar, which was contributing to the Royal Air Force's successes. They publicized in the British press about the extraordinary abilities of their personnel especially Flight Lieutenant John Cunningham (dubbed "Cats Eyes" being the top-scoring night fighter pilot), whose exceptional night vision was due to his love of carrots. The English public took the example of the RAF pilots and started growing and eating more carrots, so that they could better navigate at night especially during the blackouts that were compulsory during the war. The belief surely stayed on counting the number of carrots for daily forced consumption until my teenage years. The common myth about spinach, which lends itself to the creation of the famous cartoon character, Popeye, is its high iron content. This muscle bulging amount of iron in spinach was thanks to an error in 1870, by Dr. E. von Wolf who did research on the nutritional value of the vegetable. He misplaced a decimal point in his publication leading to a figure ten times too high. T.J. Hamblin reported this in his article ‘Fake’ in the BMJ in 1981 about fraudulent works [3]. German chemists in the 1930s reinvestigated the iron content of spinach and had identified the mistake. Though in actual fact, spinach does contain a slightly higher amount of iron compared to other vegetables, (a 60 gram serving of boiled spinach contains around 1.9 mg of iron), this is non-heme iron, which is slowly absorbed, and the higher amount of oxalates in spinach will also reduce the iron absorption. Whether more carrots will make someone have supervision or more spinach will help others compete in the next bodybuilding championship or become a better sailor is not in doubt anymore. However the parents` tricks to get their children to eat their veggies including more carrots and spinach will definitely add to a healthy diet and reduce many other maladies – this is certainly not a myth. References 1. Vreeman RC, Carroll AE. BMJ.2007; 335:1288-1289. 2. Hamblin TJ. Fake. BMJ.1981; 283: 19-26. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mikhail Vinin, head researcher Edinburgh, EH3 5AB
Send response to journal:
|
I could not believe to read this publication in a supposedly reputable journal. BMJ has now achived the dubiously glamorous status of a street yellow paper! For only such sort of publication can purport results of a Google search to be scientifically valid results...! - Reading in dim conditions: It is ridiculous to compare a study that concludes that reading in poor light "could result in impaired ocular growth and refractive error" with negative findings of an internet search. Furthermore, although "in the past reading conditions involved even less light" one must remember (which the authors ignore) that the amount of reading has increased many times more. And we are, obviously, discussing whether an average *for our day* amount of reading in poor light conditions can be harmful for development. - Drinking water: Lack of supporting evidence cannot uner any circumstances be taken to refute a hypothesis. This is taught in the first class of graduate school. The fact that the authors do this questions their competence. Also, there have been numerous studies showing that caffeinated drinks actually dehydrate our body due to the effect of caffeine on cell metabolism. So, only water (preferably non-boiled) and juices could towards the daily liquid intake. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Phillip J. Colquitt, Technician/RN Independent
Send response to journal:
|
So will reading in dim light cure presbyopia, and reduce the carbon footprint of readers? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Pamela B Wilson, Nurse Hospital 81501
Send response to journal:
|
Get your facts straight, guys! It is hard enough, getting patients and their families to take the cell phones outside of the hospitals. Ladies are texting, these days, in LABOR! Here are the facts on in-hospital cell phone use: (It was the link provided by the previous response) MANY hospitals already restrict cellphone use to prevent signals interfering with sensitive medical equipment. Now a study suggests that modern cellphones have a bigger effect on equipment than older phones and that regulations may need to be beefed up to protect patients. Erik van Lieshout and colleagues at the University of Amsterdam's Academic Medical Centre in the Netherlands tested 61 pieces of medical equipment commonly used in critical care units, such as ventilators and syringe pumps, and found that 33 per cent of the devices were adversely affected by cellphone signals. Problems included mechanical ventilators shutting down, safety alarms being disabled and external pacemakers malfunctioning. "Any effect on such equipment could be extremely detrimental to patients," says van Lieshout. "Mechanical ventilators shut down and external pacemakers malfunctioned" General packet radio service (GPRS) signals, used in most internet- enabled phones, were the worst offenders, affecting some equipment from up to 3 metres. Conversely, universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) signals used on 3G networks were less harmful, with phones needing to be within centimetres of equipment to have an effect (Critical Care, DOI: 10.1186/cc6115). While many authorities offer guidelines to hospitals, these are often ignored, says van Lieshout, "and doctors are some of the worst offenders". So! How do you feel about your "DE-BUNKING" now? I can only hope that after your article, the reader might take a look at the comments. OTHERWISE, you NEED to print a retraction. It's your responsibility for printing this inaccurate and potentially dangerous information. How about a little social responsibility? How about a little journalistic integrity? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sheila Wolf, RDH, Oral wellness educator, coach, dental hygienist San Diego, CA 92115
Send response to journal:
|
Here are seven of the most common myths that people have shared with me over the past 35 years: 1. My gums will just naturally recede as I age 2. My teeth will become loose as I get older 3. Bad breath comes with old age 4. Cavities are only for young people 5. Tooth loss is inevitable and just a fact of old age 6. I don’t really need my teeth. They are just for appearance 7. Once I have dentures, I won’t have to see a dentist anymore ____________________________________________________________________________________ Competing interests: Author of two books on oral health |
|||
|
|
|||
|
simon white, dentist birmingham
Send response to journal:
|
For some time my understanding of this issue is that all medical equipment carries shielding against electromagnetic radiation, and it is only if this shielding becomes defective can there be an adverse incident due to interference from mobile phones. Surely this aught to be the case as the power output of phones is small; (hence the emitted radiation is not harmful) and one might imagine how exposure of this equipment to more powerful sources of electromagnetic radiation might come about due to human activity e.g. the telecommunications infrastructure; the aviation industry, and the military; or due to natural phenomena such as solar flairs. Remember too, that if the results of one investigator were accepted as fact, all here might well be looking at blank screens, pondering what malfunction had afflicted the domestic cold fusion unit. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr Andrew J Misiura, Senior Lecturer in Exercise Biochemistry University of Gloucestershire, Oxstalls Lane, Gloucester, GL2 9HW
Send response to journal:
|
My research interest is immunology and I continue to be concerned that requests for particular blood tests by doctors are illogical and do not provide valid information on which to base clinical decisions - consideration should be given to alternative parameters and or samples such as saliva. For example, the measurement of serum IgA (immunoglobulin A) in those suffering from recurrent URTIs (upper respiratory tract infections)or recurrent gut infections is illogical as sIgA (secretory IgA) present in respiratory and gut secretions is secreted via a completely independent mechanism to that of serum IgA and the two have no relationship to one another. Another example is the obsession with cholesterol measures for CHD (coronary heart disease)risk when ignoring the evidence for the use of the sensitive CRP (C-reactive protein) test. It is also noteworthy that when FBCs (full blood counts)are taken no questions are ever asked about whether the patient has been exercising just prior to the test which can radically change white blood cell populations. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andrew J Rees, GP Registrar Tasmania
Send response to journal:
|
I note the response of Wilson to this article. I also note that the article in "Critical Care" indicates the following: "Critical care equipment is vulnerable to EMI by new-generation wireless telecommunication technologies with median distances of about 3 cm." The 3 metres suggested in Wilson's response relates to a single episode. Indeed, the authors in "Critical Care" sensibly suggest an inner limit of 1 m from critical care equipment. To accuse the authors of the present article of "stipidity and irresponsibility" seems inappropriate. They have legitimately raised issues for discussion and pointed out the possible advantages of being able to use mobile telephony in the health care setting, rather than just accepting "conventional wisdom". The fact that labouring ladies sometimes text others during childbirth does not seem relevant to the discussion here. CTG (cardiotocograph) machines are probably not "critical care" devices, and in any event, continuous CTG monitoring is not always clinically indicated. Affording women the opportunity to communicate with their friends at a difficult time seems like a good idea to me. For many young women today, SMS is the mode of choice. As to the separate issue of hydration; physiologically, the mythical 70 kg man needs about 2 L of water intake each day. Unless he is being fasted, a good deal of that intake is an ingredient of various foods. Thus the suggestion that 8 glasses of water a day is excessive might be correct. However, we also need to consider the environmental factors. In the Australian summer for example, physical workers and sportspeople exercising in the outdoors often consume three or four litres of water in order to maintain their wellbeing. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Cameron Sellars, Speech and Language Therapist Glasgow Royal Infirmary, G61 3ET, UK
Send response to journal:
|
While I am all for dispelling a few myths, the means to do so should be solidly grounded. Relying solely on the iconoclastic paper by Valtin in respect of minimum water intake risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A later report by the US National Academy of Sciences (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10925 for a press release overview) reinforces the point that adequate hydration is achieved through a number of routes but that average fluid intake is of the order of 3.0 litres (101 fluid ounces) and 2.2 l. (74 fl. ozs.) for 19-30 year old men and women respectively.
Perhaps we should be offering informed guidance rather than (potentially) suggesting giving up water drinking entirely.
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Guy King, Kept man. None W1A 1AA
Send response to journal:
|
The most likely reason for hospitals banning the use of mobile phones is that allegedly their contract with PatientLine for the provision of patient telephony services requires them to prohibit the use of mobiles by patients. Anyone in a position to confirm or deny this? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jason S. Crenshaw, Researcher University
Send response to journal:
|
Say what you will about Drs. Vreeman and Carroll, but they are presenting their work in the public venue in the time honored tradition of peer review. You may agree with them or not, but calling them "stupid" and "irresponsible" is unworthy of this forum and the hallmark of someone with little of value to say. If you read the manuscript carefully, they did not perform "only" a Google search. They searched the medical literature AND Google. I am sure that there were instances when no peer reviewed literature could be found. In that case, what would you have them do? At least they tried to continue to look for evidence before saying that none exists. Another person claims that they were "shameful" for saying that "Lack of supporting evidence [should] be taken to refute a hypothesis." They did no such thing. A careful read shows that Drs. Vreeman and Carroll said that lack of any evidence should lead us to question the veracity of the "myth". Why should we claim something to be true that has no scientific evidence behind it? Is that not "shameful" science? Yes, another person points to a very recent manuscript showing that newer cell phones may interfere with medical equipment. First of all, you cannot fault the authors for not citing it, when this paper appeared after theirs was accepted. They could not have "ignored" something that was not published yet. Moreover, Drs. Vreeman and Carroll do not say that cell phones cannot interfere with medical equipment. They say the myth is "Mobile phones create considerable electromagnetic interference in hospitals". We can parse the meaning of "considerable", but from my read of their manuscript, I take it to mean life-threatening. And, as they say, no reported deaths have ever occurred from cell phone use, nor any serious injuries. Moreover, they appear to be against banning cell phones from hospitals indiscriminately, not for removal of all restrictions. This bears out in interviews they have given. It is of note that the very paper you describe as damning evidence of cell phones as death machines recommends in its conclusion that the "one meter" rule continue. Even that paper does not recommend banning cell phones, but instead concludes we should continue to keep them one meter away from equipment. Is it shameful? Stupid? Irresponsible? I applaud the BMJ for keeping this forum free for open discourse. But you do nothing to promote your arguments and everything to lessen the chance to move debate forward by name calling and childish behavior. You have every right to argue your points and offer alternative theories backed up by evidence. But let's give the authors, the journal, and the peer review process the respect they deserve. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mohammad Shaikhani, Consultant physician Sulaimanyah-Iraqi Kurdistan 0532
Send response to journal:
|
Other medical myths common among our local populations, having no sound scientific basis & include: 1. Acidic food as lemon are good for hypertension. 2. Bitter food are good for diabetes. 3. Honey & dates are safe for diabetics. 4. Typhoid & measles patients should not eat yougurt. 5. Typhoid, measles & infleunza patients should not have a bath untill cured. 6. Jaundice clears by looking at moving fish in water. 7. Whooping cough can be cured by passing through tunnels. 8. Inhalers for asthma are addicting. 9. Garlic prevents heart disease & lowers blood pressure. Competing interests: none |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Phillip J. Colquitt, Technician/RN Self-employed - Public Australian Hospital
Send response to journal:
|
Can't say for sure if you are right suggesting it's all about who gets the money, but the situation where I work(big city public teaching hospital in QLD) in Australia is presumably similar to yours - enough to compare at least. Here are some the cost related facts, and observations, as I know them: 1] Each bed has a hospital supplied phone(HSP)-buttons on the hand piece style. 2] The HSP works automatically to receive calls in – no cost. 3] Calls to the HSP are channeled through the ward reception, not direct to the patient. 4] A purchase must be made to use the HSP to make calls out, and debit system then applies. 5] The point of purchase for the debit system authority to make calls out, is several floors away, in a private enterprise "shop", along with other retailers. 6] The HSP does work for a limited number of “free” calls, such as contact to get one's TV connected(about 9 AUD per day), and staff to staff related numbers. Emergency alarm button systems independent of HSPs are at each bed. 7] Patients make few out calls on HSP due to the inconvenient nature of out call activation and costs. 8] About 95% of patients in the <60 years age group have mobile phone with them, and use them with great variety in their compliance with the edict to have said mobiles turned off in clinical areas. There have been innumerable instances where the edict was corrupted by the patient taking their mobile, together with their IMED® infusion device to a non- clinical area to make a call. 9] The age group >80 years are generally neither mobile phone users or owners in hospital. 10] The >80 years group are the most compliant with the edict to turn mobile phones off, due to not possessing them in the first place. Yet they are subject to any effects of mobiles caused by others. 11] The >80 years group do often use the hospital supplied phone, in response to calls directed to the bedside by ward reception. 12] Distance from the hospital is a factor in Australia, and it is not unusual for patients to come from “the regions” where consultants, and indeed people, are hard to find. Relatives sometimes demand to be put through immediately, because they are calling from “woop woop”(common AU slang word denoting distant rural place), mindful of the pending costs. This demand is discouraged, since clinical matters cannot be subject to extra-mural competing interests. A call back at hospital expense is often the best option. 13] About 98% of nursing staff have mobile phones, yet some nursing staff members expect to use the reception and publicly funded nursing time, to be put in contact with a spouse or significant other, for non- urgent matters, using the hospital phones. 14] Mobile phones, with their electromagnetic radiation(EMR) emissions vary enormously in design and capability, while the infusion and other devices are almost completely under the control of hospital purchasers, and manufacturers. 15] Complaints about invasion of privacy from both patients and hospital staff, caused by the photographic and recording capability of mobile phones do increasingly occur. 16] There are many well known electronically controlled devices, each with alarm capability, hence each competing with mobile phone ring sounds, operating at the bedside in non-critical surgical wards, and the number is increasing each year:- 1. electronically positioned bed. 2. pressure sore prevention mattress 3. fluid infusion device(up to eight separate lines each with alarm) 4. analgesic infusion device 5. oxygen humidifier 6. vacuum dressing device 7. oxygen saturation device 8. blood pressure monitor 9. thermometer 10. sequential pressure anti-embolism stockings 11. odour controlling negative ion generator. Distinguishing alarms from each of the above is often difficult, and directional properties of alarms are non-existent. Yet nurses often subscribe to the myth of distinguish-ability without any research evidence. 17] Patients are often drug affected by centralCNS drugs, and can confuse sights and sounds to their own detriment. One recalls a case where the patient heard her bedside phone, reached over to what her drugs led her to believe was the hand set, only to place her hand into the opening of the swinging lid of the poorly located, yet well intended, bedside sharps container. 18] Doctors, lawyers, professors of physics, and such elite professionals, are rare patients in public hospitals. 19] Doctors(anesthetists excepted) do not directly program,observe, and document infusion rates and volumes on wards. They merely prescribe them. Nurses do the rest. Doctors don't even have access to the drugs room. 20] Doctors as staff members, use mobile phones frequently, yet responsibly, tempting the conclusion that the real reason doctors are so confident about the safety of mobile phones, is their own wish to use such phones, rather than a detailed appreciation of the general surgical ward situation. In conclusion, my guess is that even if the hospital could make money from the liberalization of mobile phones, as your post suggests, that would in no way mean that the total of the issues with mobile phones would be resolved to the satisfaction of all. Some very important issues are only camouflaged by EMR and cost considerations. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark W. Goddard, self employed Kelowna, BC Canada V1Y9H2
Send response to journal:
|
Regarding the statement that we only use ten percent of our brain, I don`t think that is what the original concept was. The original idea was that we only use ten percent of our brain power, not our brain. I think most people realize that our brain has different fuctions and that these functions are scattered throughout, using more than ten percent. If only ten percent was used, evolution would have given us smaller brains. So the question remained unanswered. Just how much brain power do we use? We see with idiot savants that their brain power is focused on music for example. They can play classical music on the piano easily. Our brains are used to do everything from walk and talk to think and create. Are we using the full potential that our brain has to offer? If we study hard or practise at something, our brain adapts and learns and the task becomes easier. Obviously it seems the potential is greater and not limited. So do we only use ten percent of our brain power? Would it be possible to use more? Or do we use all of the power of our brains? Is that all there is? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Frederic C Lewin, Science Writer Minnesota 55443
Send response to journal:
|
Last year the frequency of all cellphones in the USA was mandated to be changed. We all had to get new cellphones and recycle the old units. I had noticed less power output and improved reception of weak signals from prior upgrades to cellphone technology, so I had expected similar results from this change. I routinely use the cell phone while working at this PC, which does NOT have any sort of wireless equipment attached to it. With the "old" phone (which was "Digital PCS" technology) I occasionally could detect a little interference when the phone was placed beside the PC, but no problem 1 meter away on the desktop. I have to place the NEW phone almost 2 meters from the PC on a chair behind me - as far as the cord on my handsfree earpiece will reach, or the interference can be heard cracking through the PC speakers. Either the output signal is stronger, or the new frequency hits a vulnerability in my PC. This would support the distance rules cited by Pamela Wilson. This is not a scientific test, but given that the studies I have seen were carried out before the frequency change, I think it is enough evidence to suggest we need to repeat the tests of medical equipment. Likewise, any new, improved, or unique medical equipment needs to be tested against the current cell phone technology. Just revising a circuit board could make it sensitive to interference. Manufacturers should make it part of their internal quality assurance programs. People forget that they have the phone in their pocket, so you never know who is going to walk past with his phone turned on. For another range of frequencies, First Responders all wear radios, and they cannot turn them off if they are called in for an emergency. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christopher G Colenso-Dunne, Writer Far North Queensland, 4879
Send response to journal:
|
One large body that has considerable experience of the effects of dehydration and overhydration leading to hyponatraemia is the US military. In the abstract of his 1999 paper (Mil Med. 1999 Mar;164(3):234-8), Gardner JW of the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rockville, MD 20850, USA wrote: “With recent emphasis on increased water intake during exercise for the prevention of dehydration and exertional heat illness, there has been an increase in cases of hyponatremia related to excessive water intake. This article reviews several recent military cases and three deaths that have occurred as a result of overhydration, with resultant hyponatremia and cerebral edema. All of these cases are associated with more than 5 L (usually 10-20 L) of water intake during a period of a few hours. The importance of maintaining adequate hydration in exertional heat illness prevention cannot be overemphasized, but excessive fluid intake may lead to life-threatening hyponatremia. Current guidelines provide safety by limiting fluid intake during times of heavy sweating to 1 to 1.5 L per hour”. We may conclude from this review that it is as much a medical myth to state that "an ordinary standard for diverse persons is 1 millilitre for each calorie of food" as it is to state that we need to drink eight glasses of water a day. Couch potatoes will need less water to remain correctly hydrated than will the more active. Moreover, if the general population is to be encouraged to exercise more, then it is likely that they may also need to be encouraged to drink more water at either the same time or shortly following exercise. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Argirios Argiriou, Specialist in General Practice. Private surgery, Dagli 4, Kavala 654 03, Greece.
Send response to journal:
|
I am working as a General Practitioner in Kavala, Greece, and these are some medical beliefs or practices of disputable scientific validity that I have met in Greece: Cancer in old people is less aggressive because the cells in the bodies of old people have a slower metabolism. Eating grape fruit or lemon diminishes the progression of atherosclerosis. If the Doctor has prescribed an antihypertensive medicine the patient should check the blood pressure at home every morning and take the antihypertensive medicine only if the blood pressure is high. If you ever start with a lipid lowering drug you should never disrupt such a medication and you will have to continue with a lipid lowering drug forever. The main reason for headache is high blood pressure. If you smoke only one or two cigarettes a day it is not dangerous. Measuring the urate level should be a substantial part of a general check-up of a healthy person without symptoms. Eating tomatoes will increase your blood urate concentration. It is better to drink the same kind of alcoholic drink during the same night. If you drink different kinds of alcoholic drinks during the same night you will get drunk more easily even if you consume the same amount of alcohol in both cases. Safety belt in a car may harm your heart if you already have a heart disease. Safety belt in a car harm more than help in case of car accident because it can be difficult to escape from the car after the accident if you wear the safety belt. Red wine is good for people with anaemia. Red wine diminishes anaemia. Nevi should never be operated because then they can turn malignant. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael U-A Eshiett, Consultant Physician in Neuro-Rehabilitation Wrightington, Wigan & Leigh NHS Trust, Wigan WN1 3XD
Send response to journal:
|
I neither think, nor believe, that using 10% of our brain power at any one point should be interpreted to mean that the remaining 90% of the brain is permanently "non-functioning", which is what your article seems to suggest. Does using one limb for a specific task at a particular time mean that the other three limbs are permanently "non-functioning"?. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Vicky J Burr, Science Student TW14 8HA
Send response to journal:
|
It was certainly my understanding that the use of mobile phones in hospitals would cut off a valuable source of income for the NHS, so they were banned - another myth perhaps? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Debra A. Henning, Educator and Dewey Scholar Detroit Public Schools, Detroit, MI 48227
Send response to journal:
|
Eight Glasses of Water A Day Theory May Come from Education Journal Authors Vreeman and Carroll1 may have missed one of the earliest scientific studies to recommend “two quarts” of water a day because the report was not published in a medical journal, but rather in the Journal of the Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association. The study comes from John Dewey’s Chicago Education Experiment. In the fall of 1900, as Dewey’s School and Society2 brought his now famous Laboratory School to the attention of an international community of educators, the University of Chicago trustees voted to recommend, “That the university permit the school formerly called the Chicago Physiological School to announce itself under the supervision of the University of Chicago…on the condition that the Departments of Philosophy [headed by Dewey] and Neurology [under the headship of Henry H. Donaldson] assume the responsibility of supervision…and on condition that a more suitable name, viz., The Chicago Hospital School for Nervous [and Delicate] Children be adopted.”3 From its origins in 1899 until the under-financed institution closed in 1904, the Chicago Hospital School served as a research laboratory for investigations into the general medical, psychiatric, and educational problems of “subnormal” children.4 Research has turned up several published references to the school, a long list of the names of scientists and medical doctors once associated with the institution, and a small number of research reports. In “Some Laboratory Investigations of Subnormal Children,” Mary Rachel Campbell, director of the school, reports the results of her 1901 “study in the correlation of the physical and mental states of nervous children,” including a study of the daily liquid intake of the children.5 According to Campbell, “The primary object…of this study was to determine to what extent nutrition and feeding were directly effecting the mental, and in particular the emotional, states of these particular children.” Campbell discusses the methods used in the investigation, her observations, and the tentative results of the preliminary study, which “covered a period of about thirty days.” Observations on “Liquid foods” included: “(a) the kind and approximate quantity of liquids taken, (b) with apparent indifference, (c) with apparent relish, (d) that for which with positive dislike was shown, (e) preferences in particular were noted, and the results of this preference on kidney elimination.” Investigators also studied excretions, including “the kind and the exact quantity of kidney and intestinal eliminations, and the apparent effect of food preferences,” along with “The relation of non-elimination to emotional tone.” Results of the study showed that, “The majority of the children were averaging three to four glasses of liquid food per day. (This included water taken.) ...The majority of the children showed kidney elimination to be much too infrequent and very small in quantity – 500-900 c.c. per day, or approximately one-third of what it should be.” Elsewhere Campbell notes an average of 1,600 c.c. as “normal” daily urinary elimination. In an extended study, Campbell and her associates worked out a general diet consisting of 1,140 g. of solids, 740 c.c. of cocoa, and 1420 c.c. of water daily. “The above was the actual amount of food supposed to represent an ideal diet producing 2,200 units of heat, sufficient for a child or youth.” Campbell’s report includes a detailed account of the methods used for the chemical analysis of foods and eliminations, along with data on the daily urinary eliminations of six children. She writes, “It will be seen that at the close of the experiment the children had been brought up to very nearly the normal quantity of kidney elimination.” In the “tentative conclusions…formed after the investigation had been underway for some six months,” Campbell recommends that, “Children from five to twelve years of age require from six to twelve glasses of water per day – two quarts at the very least,” a recommendation which may have given rise to the 8 glasses a day theory. Given the short career of the Chicago Hospital School, we might conclude that Campbell’s investigation had little impact on the medical community or the larger public. However, reports from the school suggest otherwise. First, it should be noted that Campbell presented her report at the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the National Education Association, an event that was scheduled to coincide with the city’s Louisiana Purchase Exposition, and the report was soon published in the N.E.A. journal. Further, Campbell had organized a costly exhibit about the school and its work that now was on display in the popular Education Hall of the St. Louis Exposition. Although the Hospital School would soon close, Campbell’s address, which credited Dewey with suggestions for the investigation, gained wide circulation. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, interest in the Hospital School experiment grew in large part through the prominent reputations of its directors. Over the course of its career, the Chicago Hospital School was under the direction of a large number of distinguished scientists and medical professionals, each with his or her own network of colleagues in scientific communities in the U.S. and Europe. Among the most active were University of Chicago neurologist, Henry Herbert Donaldson, who later became head of the Wistar Institute as well as President of the American Association of Anatomists and the American Neurological Association; University of Chicago’s George Herbert Mead, one of the founders of social psychology; Lewellys F. Barker, a prominent neuro-pathologist and member of the University of Chicago faculty; and Chicago physician, Warren S. Christopher who initiated psycho-physical testing in the Chicago Public Schools and served in 1902 as President of the American Pediatric Society. The Hospital School also profited from the contributions of several additional University of Chicago professors and graduate students, including the following: physiologist Jacques Loeb whose investigations into the role of water in the growth of plants and animals were surely relevant to Campbell’s investigation;6 Otto Folin, a Chicago Ph.D. graduate and pioneer in the development of methods for the quantitative analysis of urine and blood; psychiatrist, Adolf Meyer, who consulted with Campbell, and, John Dewey, “who, in his person and his functions tied together philosophy, psychology, and education.”7 As we see in Campbell’s report, Dewey also united the study of education with medical science. Through the professional and personal ties that connected such individuals, the staff of the Hospital School had access to groundbreaking studies in research biology, psychiatry, education, and medicine. It is easy to imagine but often difficult to document that news from the school spread through these personal and professional networks. In consideration of the prominence of the individuals associated with the Hospital School and the many ties that bound the school to the larger scientific community, Campbell’s investigation merits the attention of scientists interested in the origins of the “Eight Glasses of Water a Day” question. Like the larger Hospital School experiment, Campbell’s work exemplifies the cooperative inquiry that characterized the study of education and medicine and as it was carried out under the guidance of Dewey’s Chicago Experiment, an undertaking that suffers from its own share of myths. References 1. Vreeman R, Caroll A. Medical Myths. BMJ 2007; 335: 1288-89. 2. Dewey, J. The School and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1899. 3. University of Chicago Board of Affiliations. Volume One of Minutes. Special Collections, Regenstein Library. University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Campbell, M. The Chicago Hospital School for Nervous and Delicate Children: Its Educational and Scientific Methods. J of the Proceedings and Addresses of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the National Education Association, Held in St. Louis, Missouri June 27 – July 1, 1904. Winona, MN: Office of the National Education Association, 1904. 952-62. 5. Campbell M. Some Laboratory Investigations of Subnormal Children, J of the Proceedings and Addresses of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the National Education Association, Held in St.Louis, Missouri June 27-July 1, 1904 744-54. 6. Loeb J. The Mechanistic Conceptions of Life. Ed. by D Fleming. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1964. 90-94. 7. Rucker D. The Chicago Pragmatists. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1969. 160. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Stacey K. Newton, Organic Horticulturist The Natural Gardener 78745
Send response to journal:
|
Of course we need to drink water! Such a claim as, “Existing studies suggest that adequate fluid intake is usually met through typical daily consumption of juice, milk and even caffeinated drinks” is not only ridiculous, but irresponsible and criminal, coming from medical professionals whose purpose it is to preserve and promote health. How long did they conduct that existing study to back up such a statement? (The Effect of Caffeinated, Non-Caffeinated, Caloric and Non-Caloric Beverages on Hydration by Ann C. Grandjean, EdD, FACN, CNS, Kristin J. Reimers, RD, MS, Karen E. Bannick, MA and Mary C. Haven, MS, reported in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition) Twenty-four hours! How much information can one derive from a study that was conducted in only one day? Even that study concluded that, “Further research is needed to confirm these results and to explore optimal fluid intake for healthy individuals.” What company sponsored that study? How does our body feel when we don’t drink enough water? After feeling dehydrated, how does that glass of water feel going down? People need to listen to their own bodies and question their doctors more often. Doctors no longer belong on a pedestal. The original article from Drs. Vreeman and Carrol of the Indiana University School of Medicine cite how drinking too much water “can be dangerous, resulting in water intoxication, hyponatraemia, and even death.” What about illnesses and premature death from dehydration? “Untreated severe dehydration may result in seizures, permanent brain damage, or death.” This comes from the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. Do Drs. Vreeman and Carroll think that the NIH et. al. are just regurgitating erroneous blather when they state this? How many people die of thirst each year compared to those who die of drinking too much water? Why do Drs.Vreeman and Carroll want to promote poor health practices? Do they have anything to gain? Why are they saying to the public that we don’t need to drink plenty of water daily, as any self-aware person knows to be true? Why are they saying that this is a “Medical Myth” that isn’t “true or lack(s) scientific evidence to support (it)? For example, what about the book, Your Body's Many Cries For Water by F. Batmanghelidj, M.D? In it, “A formally trained doctor who has conducted extensive clinical and scientific research exposes for the layman a wondrous discovery — that in most cases of pain and disease we are not sick, merely thirsty. Learn the relationship that exists between deep, chronic dehydration and disease emergence, then learn the needed adjustments to daily water intake and the complementary diet to prevent, or even cure, disease conditions.” Why would doctors, especially pediatricians who are caring for our most vulnerable, imply that there is not a problem at all from drinking caffeinated drinks and avoiding drinking water? What would happen if the reverse were true, I wonder? For example, what if doctors promoted all of the most important self-care practices and real nutritional information? Would they have fewer patients? What if doctors educated patients and the public about the links between life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, and the poisons in our foods and the poisonous products sold by the millions every day, such as chemical herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides? Where are the doctors who are actually interested in promoting health? I am outraged by such a fluffy, “lighthearted” article that will do so much harm when gullible citizens believe the contents. All authors involved should be ashamed, especially the medical professionals promoting poor self-care practices under the guise of a cute and catchy article, claiming to espouse current medical studies. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kaisu A Viikari, MD, PhD, retired Rykmentintie 43 as 20, FIN-20880
Send response to journal:
|
I was astonished to read that still today one can question the development of myopia when working in dim light (1). The extra accomodation strain that it causes on the reading eye is indisputable. Suboptimal lighting, however, is only a minor factor in the development of myopia. The constant haste combined with vast close-work in the modern society maintain accomodation stress that often leads to accomodation spasm. Thus the present prevention of myopia is a global disgrace. It has been allowed to be continued unchanged for the past 100 years! The old beliefs of myopia being inherited hinder the acceptance of the fact based on practical experience that this is not the case. The most important way to counteract the development of myopia is if a child as early as possible would use reading glasses (+3.0, possibly as add to the plus-distant correction) in all close work. In the case that myopia already has developed it is of uttermost importance to avoid close work with distant correction. Bifocals with significant plus addition is the method of choice. In year 1972 I published Tetralogia (2), which arosed severe resistance among my Finnish colleagues. Tetralogia deals with accommodation strain leading to accommodation spasm and pseudomyopia and the prevention of myopia. I have developed polyphasic fogging method for revealing the spasm of accomodation (3). I stressed also the clinical significance, which accommodation strain has to our organism as a whole (2,4). From the year 1973 Donald S Rehm has handled the same theme. As the President of International Myopia Prevention Association he, in year 2005, wrote a petition to FDA, which became rejected (5). It is sad to see, that all the leading American Institutions have done everything in their power to hide this knowledge from the parents and to retain the business of minusglasses and the billions- bringing operative activity of healthy corneas. Quoting President Rehm if professionals “had any concern for the people of the world they could expose and end this tragedy almost overnight”. For an ophthalmologist it is impossible to think that a professional on the eyebranch would not understand this much about the physiology of accommodation. Is this unconcernedness thus a question of conscious denying of the truth or is this all about the money? References: 1. Rachel C Vreeman and Aaron E Carroll, Medical Myths. BMJ 2007; 335: 1288-89. 2. Viikari, K. Tetralogia. Monistepalvelu, Turku 1972, 3. Viikari, K. The polyphasic fogging method for revealing spasm of accomodation. Acta Ophthalmol 1975a: Suppl 125:17. 4. Viikari, K Panacea. The clinical significance of ocular accomodation. Turun Sanomat, Turku, 1978, 5. Rehm, DS. http://www.agingeye.net/myopia/ fdapetition.pdf 6. Viikari, K. New observation on the pathophysiology of holiday-migraine. BMJ, rapid responses October 2003. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
William L. Rackliffe, Computer Programmer Salt Lake City, Utah
Send response to journal:
|
Once upon a time, a scientist wanted to find out how much of our brains we actually use. He asked for volunteers and one brave soul came forward. The subject was put under local anesthesia and his skull was removed. The scientist asked, “What is 2 plus 2?” The subject responded, “4”. The scientist then removed 10% of the brain and asked again, “What is 2 plus 2?” The subject again answered correctly. This experiment proceeded with the scientist removing 10% of the brain each time. Finally, when there was only 10% of the brain remaining, the scientist asked the question again. The subject said, “3”. That’s how we know. Competing interests: Didn't like carrots as a kid, but my mom made me eat them for my vision. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rachel C Vreeman, Research Fellow, Children's Health Services Research Indiana University School of Medicine
Send response to journal:
|
First of all, I want to state how much Dr. Carroll and I have appreciated all of the discussion about this paper on medical myths. We appreciate both the scientific debate and the general interest and passion. We also wanted to respond to particular questions about one of the myths and about our methods. There has been much confusion about the cell phone myth. Yes, cell phones can cause “interference” in certain conditions. Although it was a concise summary, our article documented the results of studies in which interference was found. In the earliest studies, only a small percentage of devices caused interference, and the phones needed to be centimeters away to do so. Phones are not used in such conditions. The most recent studies available when the article was written suggested that even this minimal interference may have decreased, finding no interference of any kind using multiple devices during 300 tests in 75 real life treatment rooms. Evidence on this issue continues to gather, and we are strong proponents of continuing to gather and examine the evidence. The Dutch study offers continued evidence on this topic. Testing newer phones, van Lieshout et al showed interference at median of 3cm and recommended continuing restrictions to keep cell phones 1 meter from critical care equipment. We are not arguing that all restrictions should be removed, just that they be rational. Even van Lieshout et al recommend that the “one-meter rule” remain in place, not that cell phones be banned entirely. We think that’s reasonable, especially in the ICU setting. But the evidence would suggest that hospitals reconsider whether those in other parts of the hospital, or in hallways, or in cafeterias, or who have given birth could not use cell phones. Hospitals may also want to consider the circumstances under which doctors are allowed to use cell phones, especially when there is some evidence that cell phones could reduce medical errors and even provide better clinical care. Furthermore, we did not randomly search out Google for facts. We always performed a thorough search of the medical literature first to try to find any scientific evidence on these myths. Only after finding nothing would we resort to Google in a last ditch effort to make sure that we had missed nothing. Should we have been less thorough? We don’t think so. For example, we wanted to make sure that we were not missing any accounts of cell phones causing death or harm by interference and so we verified that there were no reports in the specific medical literature or identifiable on broader searches. If you have any further questions about our sources, we have a list of citations documenting our work which are available at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7633/1288/DC1 We encourage you to remember the two most important points we hoped to make. First, only by open discussion and debate can we shine light on myths and beliefs and move the field of medicine (and science) forward. And second, doctors are human beings, just as likely to make mistakes as others, and should not be afraid to admit as such. Thanks again for your interest! Rachel C. Vreeman, MD Research Fellow, Children's Health Services Research, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Marc S Soller, Physicist/Engineer GM Technical Center, Warren MI 48090
Send response to journal:
|
When quoting scientific or technical references, it is important to read the entire reference. For example, the Dutch study referred to used a signal strength of two watts, (from a signal generator - not a cell phone), which is at least three times more power than any U.S. cell phone would emit. U.S. cell phones usually fall below the 600-milliwatt output level, and some are even capped at 250 milliwatts. Even Erik van Lieshout's study concluded that a distance of one meter was safe, as the National Public Radio (NPR) article and the British Journal of Medicine (BJM) article it was based on pointed out. So where is the stupidity and irresponsibility? It lies with people drawing quick conclusions based on partial information. Before deciding that a well-respected source (such as NPR or the BJM) has gotten information wrong, one should make some effort to research at least one alternate reliable source COMPLETELY, and preferably research multiple sources. If they all clearly indicate an error was made, then perhaps some acusations can be made. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bing Huang, engineer Montreal, QC, H2X-2C6
Send response to journal:
|
Several years ago an article published in IEEE Spectrum (an electronic engineering magazine published by IEEE, Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers) by a former engineer from FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) responsible for the control of electromagnetic interference in aircraft revealed some interesting facts. He stated that the reason for banning cell phones is NOT because of interferences to navigation equipment. It is because of the altitude of the phones that causes multiple cell sites on the ground to response (usually there should be only one or two cell sites involved for ground based cell phones). The cell phone service providers are strongly against having thousands of phone calls being made in the air and cause havoc for their ground based systems. Now FAA is seriously considering allowing cell phones to be used on planes (there is money to be made by the providers). The approach is to install pico cell site on the plane itself. When a call is made using any cell phone, there is a handshaking between it and the cell site. Based on the strength of the cell phone signal, the site will send control signal to increase or decrease the power output of the cell phone appropriately. Thus having a pico cell site on the plane, the cell phones output power will automatically be reduced to a very low level because of the proximity of the pico site, and will not interfere with ground based cell sites. Maybe in the future similar system can be implemented in hospitals if necessary. In the meantime, airlines are still telling passengers to turn off cell phones on planes because of "interference to navigation equipment". They have to do an about face with permission to use cell phone on planes. One should be more concerned with the radiation effect of cell phone on users. So far several national studies have indicated possible potential biological effects of radiation from cell phones (both ionizing and non-ionizing). Cell phone usage has been called the largest human experiment ever conducted, and is still ongoing. But that is another story. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Frank Schaeffel, Professor, Neurobiology of the Eye, Myopia Research Tuebingen, Germany, 72076
Send response to journal:
|
It is a frustrating experience for laboratory researchers on myopia to see that lots of effort is invested to make the area as diffuse and mysterious as possible. This articles is ideal for this purpose. It sells statements as solid which are spontaneous at best. The bad thing is that the public press further distributes such claims which adds to the confusion of patients. Based on which ("real") data can you EXCLUDE that reading at low light has an effect on eye growth? I agree that no experimental data are available from monkeys or humans to show the opposite. But at least in the chicken model, myopia development was stimulated by low retinal image brightness, perhaps because the retinal dopamine levels are reduced (Feldkaemper M, et al, Experimental Eye Research, 1999). We have not claimed, based on these findings, that low light reading is a risk factor for human myopia - but there are some data, at least, to raise this hypothesis. I have checked the other "references" of your article: Can the "experiment" described in "http://health.ninimsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=113116" contribute to the understanding of the problem? If yes, there is no need to do any further research on myopia. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Robert J Peers, GP Rathdowne Village Medical Centre, N Carlton, Victoria, Australia 3054
Send response to journal:
|
He may have said, eg to his scientific opponent Nils Bohr: You use 10% of your brain; I use 100% of mine! Heisenberg, inventor of The Uncertainty Principle, may have been present during this conversation. Einstein also said--definitely, it was at the end of a long, confusing physics lecture--"I could have explained it more simply." Think what Einsteinian Simplicity (i.e. simple causes, complex effects) would do to some prevailing Medical Myths, if we applied 100% of our brains to the problem: 1. We might come up with a simple explanation for Type 2 Diabetes, which Mike McCarthy in Oxford, like most other researchers, sincerely believes is due to multiple genes, each of small effect, of varying penetrance, acting in subtle combinations, together with (unspecified) environmental factors (which act only through the genes, in yet-to-be-discovered ways). Despite the recent triumphal discovery of a few such genes, the prevailing genetic hypothesis of Type 2 is a Medical Myth based on very loose observations (like familial aggregation and high twin concordance, which nutrition could equally explain); pure speculation (witness J V Neel's bizarre Thrifty Gene hypothesis, shown by John Speakman in Aberdeen to be ridiculous); and intellectual laziness (ever see it NOT running in the family?). This is one Medical Myth that deserves to be demolished--go and find Professor Sir Harry Himsworth's superb study "The Diet Of Diabetics Prior To The Onset Of The Disease" (Clin Sci 1936). They simply eat too much fat, and that's it! A few trendy genes of weak effect, even in combination, will not save this long- running Medical Myth, which mesmerizes us and distracts us from our urgent duty, to cut sat fats out of our patients' diets, because they are the real killer. 2. Medical Myth #2: Alzheimer's Is Due To Ageing. This one's really hard to bust, because the young don't get demented, no-one (except Yours Truly) can think of a Simple Cause, and it just seems so obviously related to the ageing process, despite what brain pathologists tell us to the contrary. However, if you bother to ask your patients, even your younger ones, if they consume much refined vegetable oil (oil-fried fast food, salad dressings, oily dips and cakes, kitchen oil), Lo and Behold you will discover a new syndrome--Refined Oil Syndrome (ROS)--memory blanks, photophobia and night blindness! This is an amnesic pre-Alzheimer syndrome caused by lipid membrane peroxidation in brain and retina, the result of consuming vitamin E-depleted deodorized seed oils. This Simple Cause, via lipid peroxidative stress, activates the key Alzheimer enzyme BACE 1, so increasing beta- peptide formation and accumulation, which will one day cause your ROS case to use only 10% of their brain, because that's all he'll have left! 3. A related Medical Myth about Alzheimer's is that it's all basically genetic, but as in diabetes, we are going to find multiple weakly acting etceteras, acting in strategic alliances (rhubarb, rhubarb), together with the factor of natural ageing of the brain (yawn). A leading proponent of this stupefying hypothesis is Professor Julie Williams, in Cardiff, who seriously means to spend the colossal sum of 2,000,000 pounds of the Wellcome Trust's hard- earned on a wild-goose chase through the human genome, looking for genes that may not even exist. We already have ApoE4, an important AD accelerator, but not a starter-motor for the disease; and now--after many years of fruitless searching-- SORL 1 on chromosome 10, which is unlikely to be sufficiently causative on its own. One or two more genes, unknown at present because so weak and ineffective, won't rescue this Beautiful Hypothesis from the Ugly Fact, that industrial refining of otherwise healthy seed oils has been producing, since about 1920, vitamin E depleted food oils that are known to impair memory in rats, and which produce AD in proportion to their consumption in different geographical regions (low risk in India, moderate in Western nations, very high in Wadi Ara Arabs in Northern Israel). AD, which has often been known to strike only one of a pair of like twins, is also far more common in aged Afro-Americans than in matched West Africans OF SIMILAR GENETIC BACKGROUND, whose dietary oils come as palm oil and peanut paste. Since my theme here is Simplicity, might I suggest that Alzheimer geneticists, like most laboratory hermits, do not read the literature, cannot therefore frame an inductive hypothesis, and are Simply Uninformed? So there goes another Medical Myth. 3. Medical Myth #3: Most pediatricians sincerely believe that ADHD/Hyperactivity is genetic, because there is high identical-twin concordance, and lower unlike-twin concordance. These data, however, were obtained from telephone interviews with parents (done to save 1000s of parents and kids coming in to a research centre). It is now realized that parents often report "no ADHD" in an unlike twin, merely because the child is less affected than the co-twin--less affected, but still affected, which (with hindsight) completely wrecks the concordance statistics and, with it, the case for a genetic etiology. Even easier to demolish is the lazy assumption that familial aggregation proves a genetic basis: pellagra and TB used to cluster in families (are they genetic?). Even more telling, there is strong circumstantial evidence (such as from older teachers) that ADHD was simply not seen, or only rarely, a few decades ago (except in the USA), so could not become so common as we see it now, if it was in the genes. So does it have a Simple (Non-Genetic) Cause? Yes, indeed, using 100% of my brain, I have deduced that it has--wait for it--EXACTLY THE SAME CAUSE AS SPORADIC ALZHEIMER'S! That's Science for you--full of unexpected and delightful surprises. The difference is, that the refined oils have to be consumed during pregnancy, which will result in an ADHD child and a ROS-affected mother (who will remain permanently glare-sensitive, even if she switches to olive oil). Both AD and ADHD are therefore preventable, by topping up deodorized seed oils with the vitamin E inadvertently stripped out of them during steam- refining--a Simple Thing to do! PS-I realize that a few modifier genes have been found in ADHD, but they have only modest effects, as Mike Owen in Cardiff concedes: Simply not strong enough, but they do sustain the deluded ADHD gene lobby. 4. Another Medical Myth--another "brown dog that must be finally destroyed"--is a looming threat called The Genetics Of Complex Diseases (common, chronic diseases--diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, cardiovascular, obesity, cancer and the like). Tim Frayling and Andrew Hattersley, at Exeter, are spending taxpayer's money on this baloney. OF COURSE, we expect to find a few quite interesting genes here, especially for illnesses we already think are partly inherited--autoimmunity and allergy, for example--but even in these, not all gene-carriers are affected, as discordant twins show. But the hypertension/vascular/diabetes/cancer area is the big challenge--we GPs often see these allegedly genetic disorders, each with its own unique combinations of imaginary multiple weakly acting genes, clustering in one individual patient-often together with anxiety, depression, arthritis, obesity, lumbar degeneration, and even Parkinson's--all due to imaginary combinations of combinations! What are the odds, I ask, of seeing such common clustering, such extensive co-morbidity, of so many chronic disorders, each of which has spawned its own genetic research industry lobby, each grant-hungry lobby ignorant of and unable to explain these combinations of combinations! When Ptolemy couldn't fit into his cosmic theory the backward motion of Mars, he invented epicycles--small circles adorning big ones. What will save us from Death By Epicycle? If only GPs, who see and write long prescriptions for all these multiple illnesses and their co-morbidities, had the time to Theorize, they might come up with Something far more Simple, to explain them. Unlike academic geneticists, we already have a strong clue--the rotten fatty diet that we know our patients are telling us lies about. To save time, I'll give the answer, which does indeed offer a Simple Solution to a complex puzzle--especially the anxiety, depression and Parkinson's side of it, and the comfort-eating as well: In 1956, Oxford biochemist Dr Hugh Sinclair proposed, in The Lancet, that the fatty Western diet, being rich in non-essential sat fats (and trans), and low in Essential Fatty Acids (EFA) from good oils, created EFA-deficient "Faulty Cell Membranes", the true cause of chronic diseases like diabetes, vascular disease and cancer. It is now known that EFA deficient skeletal muscle cell membranes cause insulin resistance, the basis of Type 2 Diabetes (the best Type 2 gene so far, TCF7L2, causes only impaired insulin secretion, a very weak factor on its own). Sinclair also noted that EFA deficient mitochondrial membranes caused respiratory uncoupling (ATP deficiency and cellular oxidation): widespread aqueous oxidation is a feature of diabetes, hypertension and cancer patients, and is the likely direct cause of Parkinson's disease (cases are known to eat fatty diet, while EFA intake protects). However, Parkinson's often involves another factor--chronic anxiety, which can be accurately traced to maternal sat fat consumption during late pregnancy. Fatty pregnancy diet, via Sinclair's faulty cell membranes, upsets placental function, allowing maternal cortisol to breach the placental barrier and programme permanent fear in the fetal brain. The resulting anxiety, seen in 20-30% of people in affluent nations, causes dyslipidemia, shyness, comfort-eating, hypertension, Metabolic Syndrome, addiction to food, alcohol, smoking and drugs, central obesity, depression, Charcot's Parkinsonian Personality, panic attacks, suicide, irritable bowel, impaired immunity, sarcopenia and osteoporosis. No need for polygenes here--we have, at last, a Simple Explanation. And an equally simple answer to the problem: low-fat diet for the population, and for pregnant women; as for those already anxious, a simple low-fat, slightly oily, rather Seedy Diet. All seeds, nuts and grains contain Inositol, a simple sugar that relieves anxiety centrally via serotonin 2A receptor inhibition, lowering blood pressure, glucose, insulin and weight, increasing confidence, HDL and muscle mass, and curtailing cravings for food, smokes, alcohol and drugs. Any patient who recalls being shy at school entry, or who worries excessively, will respond dramatically to Inositol powder 5 g/day, plus Seedy Diet (corn, cereals, legumes). A Simple Solution to a bunch of complex diseases of Simple Origin. Besides treating anxiety, the Inositol in seeds (IP6: Phytic Acid) is a potent iron-chelating antioxidant with strong anti-cancer and anti-ageing properties, while IP5 exerts similar effects by inhibiting the key life-extension and cancer target, the enzyme PI3 Kinase. So much for the mighty sounding Genetics Of Complex Disease, with its ludicrous weak genes-acting-in-special-combinations: this is Epicyclic Rubbish--As Einstein said: I could have explained it more simply! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hugh Mann, Physician Eagle Rock, MO 65641 USA
Send response to journal:
|
There's a lot of folklore and literature about the health benefits of tea. This is unfortunate, because tea is toxic and addictive. I advise against all tea, including herbal, black, oolong, and green. Herbal tea is not really tea, but a brew of herbs, which supposedly are beneficial, but actually are quite toxic. Black, oolong, and green tea all come from the same plant. Black tea has more caffeine; green tea has more antioxidants; and oolong tea is intermediate between black tea and green tea. The current antioxidant fad is based on a distortion of biochemistry. We need some antioxidants, but not an overabundance. We get more than enough antioxidants from fresh fruits and vegetables, without resorting to a toxic, bitter, addictive beverage like tea. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David M Weingarten, Resident GWU, 20037
Send response to journal:
|
To the people who are suggesting that this article was stupid and irresponsible, have you actually read and understood the references that you site? I went and read them, and I wasn't impressed. The Dutch study showed effects primarily by one type of phone (GPRS phones), with a mean distance of **3cm** from the equipment in question. That's barely over ONE INCH. Note to self: do not lick patients' external pacemakers or sleep with head on ventilator while talking on GPRS-enabled cell phone! The study was also designed in a "worst-case scenario" model. Here's a line from it: "Special attention was paid to poorly shielded locations in device housings (such as connectors, sensors, and seams in the housing)." Translation: if you aim your antenna directly at the most poorly shielded part of the device and hold it one inch away, you might make it malfunction. Maybe. If you hold it just right. The likelihood of getting within range of these devices with a cell phone of this type is extremely slim, particularly for clinicians. Patients and family members should perhaps be advised not to keep these devices turned on in their rooms (like setting the phone down on dad's ventilator), but there is no need for this alarmist "oh my God, everybody's going to die if I talk on my cell phone" nonsense. If anything, the Dutch study reinforces the fact that even the worst offenders in the cell phone world are generally safe at >1m. In fact, that's exactly what they recommend: a "1 meter rule." Please, folks, if you're going to be so alarmist and judgmental, read the studies you quote and recognize the true consequences. At least read the authors' own conclusions! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Yan TANG, lecturer Wuhan university, China
Send response to journal:
|
A very interesting article and a very interesting discussion.It may ask those biomedical scientists and clinical doctors to be awareness and more responsible before publishing their paper.It may also ask us to consider more before accept some "very correct" ideas. Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight, yes, we were told like that when we were 6-years old.But I always confused why I have myopia rather than my sister, who had worse reading habits than me.It may be real important for us to find the original cause of the myopia, and other some "multifactor-caused" diseases. Human body is a wonderful self-modulating system, so let it tell us what we should do, it may be more correct than the exact guidance by scientists. If we feel bad when reading in dim light, than turn to bright place; if we forgot is is a dim light place, that's OK. But always remember not two much and not two less, it is correct in many aspects. Just relax, it is real important. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Gerald D Dreaver, Non-medical Non-medical, New Zealand
Send response to journal:
|
I'm a layperson with no claim to medical expertise. I found the article interesting and useful, but I think there is an element of attacking straw men in some items. I comment on a couple of these. I have never heard anyone claim that shaving makes hair grow faster, just that it makes it look darker and coarser (which the researchers acknowledge) and feel coarser (which is consistent with the researchers' comment that shaved hair is not tapered). I think most people these days realise that the 8 glasses includes water in food and drinks. I also believe that the amount of water in caffeinated and alcoholic drinks is generally insufficient to offset the dehydrating effects of those toxins. Repeated experiments indicate to me that drinking large volumes of water before going to bed and during the night significantly improves my well-being after a heavy drinking session - contrary to the claim in the related article on festive matters. THe extra water also results in a night somewhat interrupted by visits to the bathroom, but it's worth it. My understanding is that a hangover is largely the effect of the dehydration caused by excessive alcohol. So, doctors, am I wrong? Competing interests: I should really be in bed. |
|||