[dllfo]

I felt good yesterday and again today. This IS wonderful.

I have said all along, why can't they perform a test when we are 30, 40, 50 -- whatever, to determine a baseline of what our body has in it.

Example: I am 62 and have more problems than road kill at times.
If they can take the dirt in my yard, analyze it, then tell me to add pot ash or something --- why can't they do that with a human?

MRSD is the most knowledgeable person I have met on this subject and I am hoping she will take a moment to give us her opinion. But I know others on this forum know a lot too.

Am I totally off base with this theory? Specific example for a male is that they were convinced I had prostate cancer in 1999.
I took half the Saw Palmetto in the Western Hemisphere I think, and a host of other OTC things. When they did the biopsy I did not have cancer, but what came out of it was that my hormone level was way below normal. The doctor said they did not have a BASELINE to work with, so they keep me artificially low. I told them where I thought the level SHOULD be, but that is not enough. Same with my bodies vitamins and minerals.

I feel good today, why can't they take a bunch of lab samples and find out what my "balance" is? THEN wait until I feel bad and do it again. Now we might know what chemical imbalance is in place. Since MRSD was kind enough to educate me about my vitamin intake, I have modified it. MAYBE that is why I am feeling better today??? I wish I KNEW why I feel good some days and feel horrible on others. When I say I feel bad, I mean death would be a relief for me on some days. I just want to get a tent and go to some mountain top and not be a burden to my wonderful wife and family. I have serious medical problems, but my body can help me if I input the right things. Opinions???

[mrsD]

appreciate the confidence you have in me. But I am limited too.

I don't think that the technology is lacking. I think that interpretation of the data is not understood at this time. As long as the drug companies have a strangle hold on our economy, we won't see progress. We only have what the drug companies choose to give us at this time. A major political problem, based on economics and greed.

Doctors are historically trained in a very old fashioned way. They are taught to observe and label.

The chemistry and technology has far surpassed the training/teaching institutions. Changes in teaching do not occur quickly...and that delay imperils patients, unfortunately.
Dr. Andrew Weil who graduated from Harvard, has been working very diligently to change the training of new doctors. But I don't know how far he has gone or if he has succeeded.

There are for example tests available now to determine how people metabolize drugs. The tests cost a minimum of $300 each. But few doctors avail themselves of this new test so that drugs may be used well by their patients without toxicity or danger.

I have read some articles that predict that drugs and treatments will be tailored to individual patients within 10 yrs. I often wonder if I will really see this event.

[Vowel Lady]

Dllfo: I want to thank you for a post. The title of it was "classic." And having more "problems than 'road kill' .... we'll most of us on these boards have been there, but usually don't have such a good sense of humor about it. I hope you find good tests and answers and have many good days. Below is some info. I found on Dr. Oz's site (Oprah's guy) that is somewhat related to your question.

Mrs. D: I did NOT know that there was a test that costs $300 to determine how we metabolize our meds. AND especially if a person is well insured, this may not be a huge issue. I have seen the pattern you speak of re: how docs..."observe and label." And in a recent post where you mention how doctors might be inclined to label a patient as a "malingerer" if he/she does not know the answer to their health problem...really gave me "pause." Thank you for all the help that you provide on this site!

Here is what I picked up on Dr. Oz's site:

"To to learn more about how your body’s aging? Dr. Oz says scientists have developed a cutting-edge blood test that can tell you everything you need to know about how healthfully you are aging. The test—called the Biophysical250—can also reveal whether you’re at risk of developing cancer, cardiovascular disease and other disorders.
“Historically, we get a couple of blood tests here and there and hopefully they make sense together,” Dr. Oz says. “Now there are groups that actually can test all of the key indicators of your hormones, your body fat, your inflammation, your blood counts, and, by the way, how you’re aging. … It’s a way of carbon dating our bodies so we can actually figure out how old we are.”

Dr. Oz ordered a Biophysical250 for Oprah, and her results are in! “Here’s the deal. Your telomeres are actually really good, which is a little surprising because you live under a lot of stress,” he tells Oprah. “It really means you’re about two years younger than you should be.”

The Biophysical250 costs about $1,500 to $3,400—the equivalent of a flat-screen TV. Before you run out and order the test, Dr. Oz says that the testing of telomeres is brand new, and for now, primarily used for research. Also, a health assessment is just the first step for people hoping to live longer lives.

“Once you learn about [your health], then you actually have got to act on it,” he says. “There’s no point in figuring out your age really quickly if you’re not going to change that natural history.”

Find out more about the test at www.biophysicalyou.com."

[mrsD]

but I don't trust people on Oprah... even though they may mean well.

There was Dr. Phil... and look at what he is! Dr. Pill

Then there was the full body CT scan that Oprah had on her show, and that she had. Well, how to interpret that data seems too hard for some doctors....
The Ritter law suit, exposes that John Ritter had this scan a couple of years before his aortic aneurysm burst killing him. (ER physicians did not diagnose him correctly and he could have survived...and his radiologist who interpreted his CT scan did not pay attention or report his growing problem). Not to mention that now we know that the radiation level of these scans damage more people than they reveal secrets from.

Then there is the Airborne fiasco that Oprah fueled. That was just terrible.

The bottom line is that interpretation of the data is poor today. The technology always precedes successful interpretation of the data.

The test for P450 enzyme activity in the liver is NOT being utilized effectively and it has been years now that it has been available.

Insurances won't pay, your doctor doesn't know how to interpret the results?
Only the rich can afford it...even then it may be misapplied. Ask Mrs Ritter.

[Vowel Lady]

Thank you again Mrs. D.

This is what I read:

Ritter passed away in 2003 of a torn aorta and since then, his family has received more than $14 million in settlements related to the actor's death. Ultimately, in this case, the jurors noted that Ritter did not heed the advice of his radiologist to see a physician, after he was advised to do so upon hearing the results of his 2001 body scan.

However, my guess is that it really means very little. It probably was routine to tell patients to see their physician after a body scan, if for no other reason than to obsolve them of responsibility.


When you say "The bottom line is that interpretation of the data is poor today. The technology always precedes successful interpretation of the data," I wonder if it would pay to drag our test results to several different physicians for a variety of opinions. Of course, this doesn't mean that we are getting the right tests in the first place. AND we run the risk of being stigmatized AND we run the risk of having the new doctor just go along with what the previous doctor dx'd. However, it might give one better odds at getting some insight into their health problem, and hopefully a proper dx.

p.s. DH isn't much of an Oprah fan either! (Just kidding around! LOL!)

[mrsD]

Originally Posted by Vowel Lady

Thank you again Mrs. D.

This is what I read:

Ritter passed away in 2003 of a torn aorta and since then, his family has received more than $14 million in settlements related to the actor's death. Ultimately, in this case, the jurors noted that Ritter did not heed the advice of his radiologist to see a physician, after he was advised to do so upon hearing the results of his 2001 body scan.

However, my guess is that it really means very little. It probably was routine to tell patients to see their physician after a body scan, if for no other reason than to obsolve them of responsibility.


When you say "The bottom line is that interpretation of the data is poor today. The technology always precedes successful interpretation of the data," I wonder if it would pay to drag our test results to several different physicians for a variety of opinions. Of course, this doesn't mean that we are getting the right tests in the first place. AND we run the risk of being stigmatized AND we run the risk of having the new doctor just go along with what the previous doctor dx'd. However, it might give one better odds at getting some insight into their health problem, and hopefully a proper dx.

p.s. DH isn't much of an Oprah fan either! (Just kidding around! LOL!)

There was a long segment about this on TV...I forget which news show.
What was said was that the latest suit is against the radiologist for not
diagnosing the aorta problem. The hospital has settled out of court, and the radiologist is the last one. Mrs. Ritter said she is doing this to educate the public. And since John died, his brother had testing done and they found the same problem with him....runs in families.
The ER settled because they ordered an X-ray which would have shown the problem, and then it was not followed thru with...it fell thru the cracks, and John was treated as a heart attack, and bled out. Mrs Ritter stated that 10,000 people die of aneurysms mislabeled as heart
attacks each year in this country.

I think one has to be very careful of Oprah... and if we are not careful, we will have a new President that she managed to shoe in.

I don't watch her anymore. She is dangerous and destructive IMO...the power she has...and those decisions to air books (frauds) and the other medical stuff, gives me pause..those decisions come from producers, not her mostly.
She goes to Africa, sets up a school, which immediately becomes another scandal? She seems to have poor karma or bad decisions making traits. ( at least her money managing for HERSELF is done by good thinkers--so she is mega rich at least)
Oprah was singlehandedly responsible for the Airborne fiasco...pushing a
remedy that is totally bogus. I saw first hand how powerful that was..
We couldn't keep it on the shelves! Just because it was on her show! Sheeeesh!

[Vowel Lady]

Mrs. D...
I really like a woman who speaks her mind and you fit the bill.

Actually, my BA was in Mass Communications, so "journalism," if you can find it today in any healthy form, is an interest of mine.

I don't have too many issues with Oprah, because I think she provides a service for many women who would not normally have a way to find general medical information and/or information on other important topics. For example, she often does shows on financial management. Even her shows on proper clothing attire are most helpful. So many women need to know what to wear for a job interview for example.

However, Oprah has crossed the line of late.

I agree, her political endorsement is a bit concerning. I don't particularly have a problem with her making a very general comment that she backs a candidate, but I don't like her actually campaigning for the candidate since she does play an active role as someone in the communications field and should at least make an effort to be as impartial as possible.

In addition, it might be better for her to have more than one physician on her show and to step back and let them do most of the talking. She might even have two physicians on the show who could debate (in a civilized manner) how they might approach a treatment. Holistic vs. traditional, for example. We have wonderful universities in this country and physicians could be on the show representing their research findings; perhaps combined with medical journalists, etc. I'm sure with some thought/creativity a new approach could be formulated. It seems to me that she often has a financial investment/partnership with the medical people (and others) that appear on the show and this somehow makes them less credible.

Another thing that "bugs" me is that she often encourages presenters on the show to give her a "freebee." This drives me right up the wall. In Journalism classes, we were taught to discourage this sort of thing. I do realize that she is not a "true" journalist, but she should realize that getting freebees is going to create a bias and it certainly does seem inappropriate. Why can't she encourage presenters to give free items to those less fortunate in our country?

Unfortunately, I think she has strayed (or perhaps it wasn't really there in the first place) from having a largely altruistic reasons for presenting her topics. She has a powerful influence and with this power comes a lot of responsibility. BTW, I do think that this new book she has presented has some merit. However, generally speaking I think she needs to get more input when chosing her topics and guests and show more responsibility and care for her audience.

[mrsD]

You said that far better than I did or could.

I am not a very good writer... I often remind people of that. And at home I am
VERY often reminded of that!

I used to like Oprah, when I was younger. But age has done something to me
besides make me hurt.

I saw Oprah starting to show "racist" tendencies a while back, so I looked more closely and I guess for me, she has just offended me too often now, or as you say, become irresponsible. TV being what it is, I guess we have to be careful.
She started that FREEBEE thing when she was getting competition on another network (I forgot who it was--I think Rosie O'Donnell).

I have read on the net elsewhere that I am not alone about Oprah's comments seeming racial to others. And basically now she is SO RICH and you know what money does....? It can corrupt people, and does. I started to lose interest in her, when she became more of a TV personality rather than a journalist. I believe she has sold out to some extent. So when I was working more heavily in the recent past, I totally forgot about Oprah. I didn't miss her at all.

I had the impression that Oprah paid for the freebees. Maybe I am wrong in that? However the way she milks the audience is
sort of like bribery to me.

[Kitt]

Boy, do I ever agree with you guys. I can't stomach Oprah anymore and I'm not liking Dr. Oz either. Thanks all of you

Kitt

[Monica de Lara]

Oprahs show is not transmited in my conuntry so i know nothing about her, my only guess is that anyone who profitts with altruisms should be regarded with distrust.

On the onther hand, i am thankful for internet. Internet is a powerful tool. I would have never ever learned all i have learned only by reading this site and i would have never of course met Mrs D and all the people here who are willing to share what they know. Drug companies will keep on manipulating people until people comunicate, become empowered by reading and learning.