MMedsolution – Medical Dental Tourism Resource On-line

Health insurance customers with four-legged friends could be at a much higher risk of catching Lyme disease than their non-pet owning counterparts.
According to new research, the debilitating disease, which can have similar long-term effects to ME, is much more prevalent in the UK than previously thought.
Experts at Bristol University claim that the number of cases of Lyme disease is rising and one of the causes for the increase could be dog ownership.
In 2010 there are 953 reported cases, but the scientists behind the new study believe the problem could be much worse as 14.9 per cent of the 3,534 pets they checked had ticks – which can carry the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi.
Research leader and veterinary expert Faith Smith said: “Lyme disease appears to be a rapidly growing problem in the UK with important health and economic impacts in terms of loss of working hours and potential decrease in tourism to tick hotspots.
“Without considerably better surveillance and routine diagnostic testing, Lyme disease is only likely to become more prevalent.”
She noted that warmer winters could extend the period during which ticks are active and as a result the problem will be exacerbated in some regions – particularly those that are known for their wild deer populations.
The condition can be controlled with strong doses of antibiotics and health insurance customers who suspect they are showing symptoms of the disease – which can include an inflamed skin rash – should consult a medical professional immediately.
One of the best ways to avoid the condition is to ensure you are properly covered when walking in areas that are known for their ticks. Pet owners should also check their pooches regularly – and thoroughly – as dogs often carry ticks, particularly if they are walked in the countryside.

http://www.usaycompare.co.uk/health-insurance-news/article/medical-insurance-news—dogs-pose-lyme-disease-risk-801274439

Medical Tourism Resource Online

THE Institute of Medicine (IOM) has been claiming for almost a decade that as many as 98,000 Americans are killed by medical errors every year. This is based on 173 deaths in the Harvard Medical Practice study and extrapolating to the entire U.S. population.

Bill Waters lll, M.D., writes, (Few) “people actually read the original 200-plus-page IOM report. I did. There were 45 references but they only used 3 studies all back in the 70s and 80s. One was done by librarians, another by administrative nurses and overseen by a medical student, and the third by clerical personnel, reviewed by two doctors. These deaths, dubiously attributed to errors, were then summarily extrapolated to the entire population and rushed to the headlines. Many people have detected this abrogation of scientific responsibility but only the original report has been touted.”

The IOM’s proposed solution was electronic records with constant surveillance of compliance with government-approved protocols. The IOM claimed that its methods could reduce errors by 50% over 5 years.

The IOM’s definition of error, the assumption that a death was a result of the error and would not have occurred anyway, and its guesstimate of the number of deaths all lack independent confirmation. The IOM number is three to seven times higher than a 1998 estimate by the National Safety Council.

Although the IOM analysis is uncritically accepted by the AMA and other influential bodies, there is no evidence at all that the proposed solutions would result in any improvement in mortality or other patient outcome measurements. More likely results are:

Choice of therapies not embraced by mainstream medicine would be much curtailed. Nutritional approaches, long-term antibiotics for Lyme disease, chelation, hyperbaric oxygenation, acupuncture, prolotherapy, treatment for multiple chemical sensitivities, and other innovative, nonstandard, or “alternative” modalities could become unavailable.

Intensified oversight and rigid protocols might make physicians even less likely to provide adequate relief for chronic pain. National electronic databases of prescription drugs would facilitate stigmatizing patients who use controlled substances whether for pain or mental health reasons.

Patients’ freedom to decline “recommended” therapy-such as vaccines and psychotropic drugs-would be threatened as doctors feared being penalized as “outliers.”

“Recommended” therapy has possibly done more harm than medical errors and more rapid and widespread adoption could amplify the harm resulting from a misdirected “guideline.” For example, more than 50,000 individuals are estimated to have died from encainide (Enkaid) and flecainide (Tambocor), used as directed to treat abnormal heart rhythms, before their adverse effects were recognized (Kilo CM, Larson EB. Exploring the harmful effects of health care. JAMA 2009;302:89-91). A trial of aggressive blood sugar control was stopped because the “common wisdom” was apparently wrong: more patients died from the “improved” treatment (Couzin J. Deaths in diabetes trial challenge a long-held theory. Science 2008;319:884-885).

Guidelines focused on cost control would deprive patients of newer, more effective drugs. Oncologist Karol Sikora states that thousands of premature deaths result from the British National Health Service’s restrictions on new drugs through its National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) (Union Leader 5/12/09).

So lets not forget that the IOM was then, and is now, in bed with the government and their goals. The same pungent study done under the name of a rose would not smell so sweet to the media and not be immediately plucked by the press for sensational dissemination. As for the AMA – “ditto.”

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0809/medicine.men082109.php3