REMEMBERING WHAT DOCTORS USED TO RECOMMEND. WHY WE SHOULD ALWAYS QUESTION WHAT'S ON OFFER.

Today I found myself combing through various bits of literature concerning natural remedies in historical texts and their uses today. It's all well and good to say that a plant has certain properties, but if I can't find a study done on it I tend to shy away. This doesn't mean I believe the data presented in every study out there though as many are just a justification for the large scale marketing of what tend to be ineffective and sometimes harmful medications. But what makes a study valid? Why should we "Talk to our doctor" to see if blah blah is right for us?

I found myself dumping through work by John Ioannidis a University of Stanford statistician with a background in epidemiology; as well as the research of Brian Nosek who is a University of Virginia psychologist. Nosek put together the Center For Open Science which works towards improving the validity of modern scientific research. It makes for interesting reading no doubt. Particularly the "Evaluation of Very Large Treatment Effects of Medical Interventions" which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Basically Ioannidis and his research group went through 85,000 studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews which covers "highly effective treatments".

A quick summation of what was found is as follows:

1. 9 out of 10 preclinical peer-reviewed cancer research studies CAN'T BE REPLICATED!

2. According to Edinburgh University researcher Daniele Fanelli science became "softer" in researcher that yielded positive results. Any negative results even if dominant in a study were filed away..

So I can't help but feel that there is a large swindle underfoot here. When you consider that well over 70% of Americans today are on a prescription drug of some description. My mind goes back to when there was huge issue on regulating pseudoephedrine and how large pharmaceutical companies threw their collective might at keeping it widely available. Health is secondary and money is a first. Most of us already know this really.

But this little excursion into post research took me right back to history. My goldfish like attention span had me taking a break from the serious, and scrolling through old advertisements regarding health and what "Doctors Recommend!". So I've compiled a few for your entertainment. Chances are if we make it another 50 years without waking up on the wrong side of a mushroom cloud, future generations will be looking back at medicine and health with the same sense of incredulity we feel when we look at these old adverts.

So to wrap this post up... If we went with what used to be recommended we could eat tapeworms, do cocaine, eat pure sugar, watch television, and get our infants buzzed out of their little minds and have a great shot at living forever..... This isn't me saying we should throw modern medical advancements out. Just pointing out why we should explore alternatives and hybridize them with those advancements. Above all question the hell out of current popular opinion in regards to treatments available. Most of the time it's money driven and your over all health has little to do with whats on offer. There's nothing wrong with assuming sovereignty over your own health.

Well guys that's it for now. Just a little post that was more or less a quick thought. More babble and rant than anything else. Thanks for giving it a look and best of luck with all your posts and projects. Keep on steeming. :)

image credits:
pintrest
takepart
tobacco stanford
LAtimes