The Art of Medical Deception (Part III)

So now we have a "risk" but the detailed mechanism of why they are dying are unknown to the villagers.

But there is still a definite "risk."

A "risk" just like finding out that people who have higher cholesterol also get heart attacks in ads these days.

But that does not mean the two are directly related (risk does not imply cause).

The sniper might be killing them because they are easier to see in the clearing, for example.  Or because light reflects off the surface of the water being fetched. Or because those who use that particular well wear colorful clothing that makes them easy targets. Or for any other number of mysterious reasons.

No one knows except the sniper and he is not telling.

So next we have the "patent medicine man" who comes to town. He discovers the research about the well so he starts selling bottled water.

No more need to go to the well.

And the million billion trillion dollar question is: does the bottled water really reduce your chance of dying?

Now let's remember risk is a predictor of something, a chance, as I wrote about "Cholesterol, Heart Disease, and Magical Thinking" - its not concrete.  So to talk about risk we have to look at the population of the village, the number of deaths, and the places where people went, i.e., the well.

So if over a year seven people die in the village (both from the sniper as well as other causes) then there is a 7% (7 out of 100) risk of death.  So let's say that four people die by the well, or a 4% risk.

So 4% divided by 7%, which gives our epidemiological risk, is a 57% risk of going to the well and dying.  But that's only if you're going to die.

Wow, not sure I would want to go to the well with that level of risk.  But that's not the "chance" I would die - its the potential increase in chance from dying in general over dying by the well.

So let's think about how this works in advertising.  A 57% risk of something bad is pretty scary.  People easily deal with small risks, .01% in things like sky diving, mountain climbing, and so on.  But 57% is almost 2 out of 3.  That's because the chances of actually dying in these situations is small.  But these ads don't talk about chances because they are unknowable in this context and everyone has a 100% chance of dying - so that's not news either.

So the ad starts out by talking about something bad - in the case of our village dying when you go to the well.  "System 1" as defined by Kahneman will immediately pick up on this because its a threat and one of "System 1's" jobs is to react to threat.  "System 1" cannot differentiate between "risk" and "chance" in this context.  ("Danger" - whether there is a risk or chance - is simply bad as far as its concerned.)

So the first thing the ad does is get our attention because it scares us, or rather, our "System 1".

Next the ad will say something like "Our bottled water will reduce your risk of death."

Now in the sense of "truth in advertising" they will say more (either very fast or in small print) but not in a way "System" 1 will notice - and this is on purpose.

So "System 1," who feels threatened, will pick up on the solution to its fear: "reducing risk".

"System 1" hears this and things "I better by this bottled water so I can be safe."

In truth its unclear whether this will actually reduce your chance of death or keep you alive longer.  For one thing, we don't know why the sniper likes the well - their can be many reasons: clothing, actions, the fact that there is a clearing, and so forth.  And in fact we don't even know that it will make you safer - we know that "things staying as they are" if you go to the well less often then you may have a reduced chance of dying.

Its not that you will have a reduced chance - you might.  The bottled water changes the ratio of the 4%/7% but the sniper doesn't know or care about those numbers.

So this is quite a bit different that showing pictures of "sizzling pizza" to make you hungry.

If you eat the pizza you will be less hungry - "System 1" knows this too.

Your chances of dying may not be changed by drinking the bottled water.

But that's not what the ads make you think.

And that's simply lying.

Yet from "System 1's" perspective the two types of ads seem the same: purchase X and gain satisfaction.

Personally I think ads based on the adjustment of "risk" should be banned.  The cause of heart attacks is not cholesterol - its inflammation.  This is well known to the medical community but you would never know based on the TV ads.

I think that the old FCC was right to ban this type of ad in the past.

People are not equipped to understand the notion of "risk" as defined by "Big Pharma."

The Art of Medical Deception (Part II)

The well in the clearing...

I started this with Part I a few days ago.

I'd like to think about the difference between advertising medicine and advertising food.

Its been known since the time of Pavlov (the late 1800's) that animals (including humans) process stimulus-based links - ring the bell every time you feed the dog and soon the dog salivates when the bell is rung.

I suspect that in the Kahneman "Thinking, Fast and Slow" world of "System 1" this is how System 1 is trained.  Anyone who owns a pet knows that the pet usually learns the habits of its owners.  My dog knows me so well he goes and lays in the shower right before I take one...

Like Pavlov's dogs we respond directly and predictably to stimulus.  Show a picture of a big, juicy hamburger or fresh, hot pizza on a TV and the phone lines start to ring with orders.  Show a fantastic looking body and people call the "weight loss" clinic.

"System 1" doesn't usually wait around to figure out if calling is a good idea, it simply creates a desire for whatever it thinks would be good for you.

After all, its always, at least historically, a good idea to eat when food is available.

Similarly in the animal world.  Before civilization and pets you ate when you could because you could not predict when you would be able to eat again.  I think in large part this is how our thinking about things like food (which is stimulated with sight as well as other things) evolved.  See the food, go after it.  Those that saw food and thought about, say, taking a nap, probably didn't do as well over all.

Now let's compare this to medical ads.

First of all food is something that is driven with immediate satisfaction - no one usually goes more than eight hours with eating.  The results of eating are a state of "fullness" that tells you you don't need to eat more.  If you see a vacation spot that attracts your attention - you think about it or order tickets.  If you see a weight loss ad you call up or go online and join up.

But in all cases there is a direct "result" - a membership, an airline ticket, a full stomach, nice memories.

Now when I think about medical ads (say something like Lipitor) I believe the model is different.  Since these things are generally sold to "reduce the risk of X" its not the same as, say eating.  Eating is generally good and it keeps you alive.  The medical version is vague and there is no obvious immediate direct benefit, i.e, a full stomach, and long term there may or may not be a measurable benefit associated.

So let me try and make an analogy (I am going to try and pretend to be like Kahneman):

Suppose you live in a primative village on a remote ridge.  You live there with one hundred or so other folks.

On a far away ridge there lives a sniper.  He has a high powered rifle with a silencer that shoots magic bullets that kill you but leave no obviously identifiable marks.

On average the sniper kills five people each year.  To do this he uses a high-powered scope and, sitting on his porch, he picks off one of your villagers.

In your village people are periodically found dead of no obvious cause.  Your job is to study this and figure out why.

So you make up a table listing all the dead people on the left and you make columns to the right listing facts about their deaths: time of day, where they were found, various facts you can associate with each death.

Since life is primitive death is no stranger but there does seem something odd about this.  One thing you notice is that, near the clearing where the well is, more people seem to die of the mysterious and unexplained cause than any other.

So in your primitive scientific mind you associate the deaths with a location.  But now, what's the cause?  Could the well water have something to do with it?

To find out you tell everyone to draw water from the other will in the woods - its inconvenient but the water's good and the deaths associated with the old well diminish - people still die but there is no apparent concrete cause like the well.

So for medical ads we now have an analogy for "risk."

There is a known risk with drawing water from the well in the clearing.

The root cause is unknown be there is demonstrable showing that time around the well is hazardous to your health.

So to conclude this portion of my post here is the question for you to think about for next time:

Why do more villagers die when taking water from the well in the clearing?

What could a village do to increase or decrease their risk of death?

The Art of Medical Deception (Advertising, Part I)

 One of the things that's so interesting about Kahneman's book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is the notion of "self deception."

Basically as I understand what he says there is "What You See Is All There Is" or WYSIATI.  WYSIATI is what your "System 1" uses to assess your current position in the world and it does this by only using what it can see, i.e., if I can't see it I'm not worrying about it now.

Since you really cannot see that much of what's around you at any given point in time your "System 1" (the part of your mind that grabs sensory input from the outside and draws conclusions, e..g, "there's my friend Bob") manufactures the rest of the reality it needs to complete its world view (like what's behind Bob, what's Bob wearing, and so on).

Much of the first part of the book (I am now about 1/2 way through) is relegated to how this happens, experiments conducted by Kahneman that demonstrate how "System 1" leaps to conclusions with very little data and how hard it is to detect this, i.e., you don't consciously realize that you are drawing these conclusions yet you act on them.

I interpret this all to mean that your mind (at least "System 1") is a vast, holographic pattern matcher.  Visual, auditory and other sensory input is continuously received and shoveled into the pattern matcher.  The pattern matcher takes all of this and jumps to a simple conclusions about your current "world state"  The patterns match at all levels - this is my house, my dog, the route to work, I'm hot, its raining, and so on and so forth and yield a kind of "how I am now" state in your mind.

Things that are not easily matched get "ignored" by "System 1" basically sweeping them under the rug, as it were.  This is why people do double takes, why you can hide things in "plain sight" (your mind simply ignores them as if they were not there - which is why you "overlook" your keys lying right in front of you), why you can drive on "autopilot" (I don't remember driving to work yet here I am), and so on.

The patterns get matched into states of consciousness I guess, e.g., I am home, I am at work.

Your mental "model" of the world is updated - but not directly by all the sensory input - only when your actually realize something is new or different.  "System 1" I think says "you are at work" - and the rest of your brain handles the model of "work."  (This is why when someone moves a chair in a familiar room you have to bump into it a few times - your mind does not work off of what you see but instead a mental model of the room and the "moved chair" doesn't fit in at first.  The chair is just "assumed" by "System 1" to be where it always was so it not looking for it somewhere else.)

Now what about the state of your body?

At least so far Kanheman does not relate these ideas to how "System 1" models your internal body status.

But I think it must, and in the same general way.

As I wrote in the last post new studies show that your "brain and digestive system" are connected (Duh!) in ways that modern medicine has not thought about (this article).

But it makes sense if you think about.

You don't normally have conscious recollection of, for example, the details of what your small intestines are doing while digesting your dinner - somehow your brain translates those experiences to high-level ones: I'm full, I'm sick, I have gas, and so on.

Yet clearly your brain is controlling them (either directly or indirectly).

One thing I think "System 1" does relative to your digestive system is focuses on things you need to eat, i.e., cravings.  Anyone familiar with a pregnant woman knows this: "I need licorice and pickles right now, honey...".  Presumably "System 1" received input to this effect.

Your mind must understand what your bodies nutritional requirements are at some level and directs your conscious mind to act on those needs.  Similarly for things like thirst, going to the bathroom, and so on.  At least for me when I am really thirsty I imagine or "see" images of a large glass of cold water, etc.  You probably do too.

Even the dog knows when he needs to go out, eat, etc.  He nudges your arm, pulls your foot, barks, scratches at the door.  Clear even his animal brain is able to convert bodily needs into "higher level" functions like "scratch at the door."

"System 1" also understand about things like timing: "Should I pull over at this rest stop or the next one...?"  It can provide you a model of what will happen to you if you don't pull over now: squirming, stopping at the side of the road, etc.  Again your bodily needs are translated into simple high-level thoughts by your brain and body automatically and without thoughtful intervention on your part.

More intriguing is the relationship between your gut bacteria, your health and what your brain thinks is going on.

But what's the point of all of this.

I guess a couple of things.

First off, it seems pretty clear that from the perspective of what you body is doing medical science has a long, long way to go.  Last post I mentioned it was like trying to understand an oil refinery with a microscope.  I think that's a pretty accurate analogy.

While the microscope reveals what is going on - its only at a small scale relative to the entire refinery and its without knowledge of how what is being observed fits into the larger picture.  (Of course the more microscopes and coordinated effort the more pieces you can obtain and, hopefully, correctly fit together.)

But this is like the keyhole problem - you don't know how much you don't see.

Sure you can find a wire, tap in and send in a signal to toggle a relay - but what does that do the overall refining process?  Does it work better?  Maybe it turns off something so the refinery works with less energy, that is, until it explodes.

I guess this is the reverse of WYSIATI: You Don't Know What You Don't See (YDKWUDS).

Our minds have to simplify what they perceive in order for us to make immediate sense of the world (another of Kahneman's points).  In doing this he has shown that our minds are perfectly happy to take short cuts (often incorrect ones) without out conscious knowledge (again documented by Kahneman).

So I am thinking that our minds generally are unable to process the wealth of information that flows to them every day through all the various media sources because they are not designed to function in that way.

Our minds are not designed to handle today's information flow.

On the medical side we might see ads for various medications, read articles about various health problems, but at the end of the day our "System 1" has to pattern match all of that into something it (and the conscious you) can easily grasp and identify with.

So we get things like "cholesterol is bad," "nicotine causes cancer" and "I want to be able to have sex when I am old."  All "System 1" gross generalizations of what otherwise occupies many, many researchers and millions or billions of dollars.

Secondly I see that unscrupulous marketers take advantage of that by packaging things in such a way as to amplify the generalizations - often by using a sort of "reverse placebo" effect.

You see an ad for a woman holding her stomach and looking uncomfortable.  "System 1" hones in on it.  "Buy my yogurt!" says Jamie Lee Curtis.

Is the yogurt going to solve my problem?  "System 1" doesn't care because the image you saw relates through the pattern matching I described to how you feel about yourself (or someone else).  Maybe I have gas for other reasons, but because of YDKWUDS you can't process what else might be the cause - at least not quickly. Maybe I just feel as if the product might help me because I might (reverse placebo) have the same problem.  In fact, maybe I'll start to worry about it, my stomach will hurt, and I will buy the yogurt as well.

So, for example, the marketing company is literally targeting your brain/digestive system interface with these yogurt ads because of the visceral reaction you might have through "System 1".

Kahneman has shown that this reaction really cannot be controlled.  Your reaction is almost fully automatic.

So if you have a gurgling stomach I believe that your mind is going to leap to the conclusion that this yogurt product is something I must buy (unless you've had a lot of conditioning to the contrary).  Your "System 1" brain is linking its feelings about your internal body state (gurgling stomach) with the image on TV of a happy customer eating yogurt.

This linkage happens in milliseconds, is beyond your control and so fast that you cannot react quickly to the result (your "System 2" - the "thinking" part of your mind is lazy, according to Kahneman), and so if "System 1" thinks the yogurt is a good idea it goes on the shopping list almost outside of your control.

The same for sizzling pizza when you're hungry.

The same for Cialis if little "mr. happy" is feeling blue or troubled.

And so on.

Personally I think that medications and food are two different things as far as advertising goes.

You can decide if your hungry or not fairly easily on your own.

But what about that nagging cholesterol thing...?

Then there is the social aspect: what if I am the only person at the party not on Lipitor?

Magical Medical Thinking Might Be Killing You

Simple Check Lists Dramatically Reduce Surgical Errors

I have written quite a bit about medical issues and "big pharma."

One of the interesting aspects of "big pharma" (and in parallel the "big government FDA" that rules over it) is how the placebo affect comes into play with what they do and do not do.  (See this as a good source of thoughtful material.)

For one thing, the placebo effect (which is that the mere suggestion that something might provide aid) is pervasive.  What I mean by that is there are many studies (as linked above) that show the effect for placebos by themselves.  What's I find interesting is how much you can separate placebo effects from supposedly "legitimate" medications and their effects.

One supposes that these effects are accurately measured but imagine the "placebo effect" of something like Lipitor.  You tell someone this is "good for your heart" and then you proceed to measure "risk" as opposed to something concrete, as in "Lipitor reduces your risk of heart attack."

But does it?  Or does the "effect" of you taking Lipitor reduce and/or affect this risk as well?

Another thing that is troubling is the concept of what I would call a "reverse placebo" effect.

Suppose I tell you that you look really bad today - peaked, pale, dark circles around your eyes...

Does that have an effect on you?  How about on your mood?  Are you now worried that something might be wrong?  Maybe that headache was really a symptom of something more serious?

So I see the "reverse placebo" as you reacting to the suggestion that you are "less well" than you were.

I wonder if, for example, these ads for things like Lipitor have the reverse effect on people.

Making them question their health in the first place.  While there is a correlation between cholesterol and heart attacks there isn't a causal link.  So you are informing someone about a risk to their health, but its not a certainty.

Then we have articles like this one (I am not picking on the WSJ's health coverage - its just a handy source of material).

Medical science discovering unknown relationships between brain and digestive system.  Personally I wonder if they know this little how can they say for sure that the "purple pill" is really doing the right thing as far as your health is concerned?

What if these pills are simply treating some part of what is really a larger problem?

Based on this article its really hard to believe that medical science really knows...

Now let's mix this in with this article.

This talks about a lot of things but one of the quotes that stood out for me was this one: "... as many as 25% of patients who arrive at the center with diagnoses for certain cancers such as lymphoma may receive a different diagnosis".  The discussion here is about patients arriving at a particular medical center with cancer.

When you think about this that's a pretty significant error rate.

What if 25% of everything you bought at the store was wrong?

What if 25% of your house was built incorrectly.

What if 25% of your car was broken?

What if even 25% of all your car repairs (or dental work) was done for the wrong reasons?

To me this is pretty scary.  Would you shop where 25% of the groceries were mistakes?

Is this even really a "science?"  Or is it just ritual?

Quite honestly this does not even seem like engineering.  After all one would expect that given the same series of tests two doctors ought to come to the same conclusion about what the results mean... but they don't.  They have "opinions" instead.

(Like when your brother-in-law shows up and says "oh, that's the alternator" when looking at your car that's not running right...  he's probably right about as often unless he's a mechanic... and even then...)

If your body's correct function is linked to your brain and what your brain does - which among other things is thinking - then if we don't understand your brain how can we understand what its telling the rest of your body to do?

At the end of the day this seems to me to be the real problem with "medical science."

While we can study chemical and biological reactions, DNA, RNA, etc. we really are just using a microscope to examine an oil refinery - there is a "big picture" as in what's controlling the oil refinery - which is going to be fairly hard to discover with the microscope.

Certainly we can see chemicals, reactions, knobs turning, electricity flowing through wires to operate values, and so on.

But how do we understand its purpose and what's controlling it?

Modern medicine has become too irresponsible and arrogant.  And yes, we have less typhoid, we live longer, and so forth.

Advances in disease, for example, have been concrete, as with the creation of vaccines.  Vaccines continue to work if they are specific - but look at the CDC flu shots - just mumbo jumbo about how they might be working or not (see "Flu Shots and Magical Thinking").  Is this science?  Should people rely on this data?

On the other hand, the microbes are out-smarting us in the areas of antibiotics - our gains were relatively short-lived.

I think that we are missing the big picture here.

Minds are responsible for the much of how the body operates.

And medical "science" does not appreciate this nor does it account for this, e.g., placebos.

My guess is that "medical ads" drive a lot of what people think about (there were none until the last 35 or so years) - like the last explosion of catheter ads.  (Catheter ads?  With smiling young women explaining how they don't have to touch it?)  My guess is is that the ads at least in part drive up revenue because people see the ads and believe they need catheters even if they don't - can't pass up a good deal can we?

Mostly modern medicine from the "user's" perspective (you and me) is to a large degree simply "magical thinking" on the part of those who purvey it.

Don't believe me? See "Ritual Surgery or Surgical Ritual."  Huge reductions in surgical errors just by using a simple "check list."  Probably another post worth of stuff on how this old post relates to Kahneman and his "Thinking, Fast and Slow" - the surgeon's mind making him believe he's on top of it and the fact that a check list reduces mistakes substantially telling the rest of us he's not...

Our minds deceive us and we don't even know it...

Classifying Stupid or "Stupid Gone Wild"

ICD-10 - No better example.

(Side Note: "Everyone is asked to wear Steelers attire to the funeral." A friend passed away recently.  This above quote was the last line of the obituary.  We will miss you.)


Medical billing is going to be taking a large leap into the future very soon.  And yes, all those ads for "medical billing from home" will no doubt see a spike.

Today about there are about 18,000 standardized medical codes describe medical procedures for billing - I guess mostly for government systems like Medicare and Medicaid.  The system is called the International Classification of Disease or ICD-10.

Unfortunately for all of us this system of codes is going to expand from 18,000 codes to almost 140,000 codes over the next couple of years - hold on to your wallets!

In the new version we see things like (in case you don't believe me see this):

W22.02XA, "walked into lamppost, initial encounter"

W22.02XD, "walked into lamppost, subsequent encounter"

It goes on - encounters with furniture, multiple air bag strikes from the same side (W22.12xD, "Striking against or struck by front passenger side automobile airbag, subsequent encounter"), nearly every kind of ball (W21.02xA - "Struck by soccer ball, initial encounter"), and so on, oh my God!

I suppose W22.12xD is used when what, the airbag in your car goes off twice?  Sadly airbags are on designed to go off once.  Or perhaps you've been slammed into the airbag more than once by multiple impacts to the car? 

I wonder if parts of the door still clinging to the airbag count for another code?

According to this WSJ article there are codes for injury by sewing, ironing, playing a brass instrument, crocheting, doing handcrafts, or knitting as well.  Isn't knitting a handcraft?

In the V91 series we find V91.07XA, "burn due to water-skis on fire."

And how about V91.04xA,"Burn due to sailboat on fire, initial encounter."

Or V93.22xA, "Heat exposure on board fishing boat, initial encounter" as compared to V93.24xA, "Heat exposure on board sailboat, initial encounter."  And finally there's V93.23xA, "Heat exposure on board other powered watercraft, initial encounter."

What if I am fishing from my sail boat?  What if my sailboat has a motor?

Will my "heat exposure" be somehow different?

Perhaps only for insurance purposes...

There are more series of codes specifying "pedestrian" injuries with skateboards, roller skates, and so on - but nothing for roller blades per se.

While we might want to laugh about this you can bet your wallet that its going to dramatically increase the cost of healthcare - in fact it is already.

Massive amounts of training are required so someone can divine meaning from this manifest stupidity.  Every one from medical billers to hospital IT to government agencies will be affected.

New expensive channels of communication will need to be built between doctors, healthcare facilities and insurance companies to ensure that little Johnny's heat stroke was properly obtained on a sailboat as opposed to a powered water craft - though there will be problems if there is a motor on that sailboat.

Insurance companies will rewrite policies to restrict coverage further with this new knowledge: we don't cover carple tunnel for brass players.

The title itself is a lie: International Classification of Disease?  Heat stroke on a sail boat is a disease?  Airbag impact a disease? 

No... as I've said before: Any sufficiently (stupid, asinine, idiotic, moronic, foolish, lazy, ...) act is indistinguishable from pure evil.

This to me seems to fit the bill of evil.  The cost of implementation alone would probably cover decades of meals on wheels for seniors in some state.

Are we that much better off knowing that someone got sunburned on a sailboat as opposed to a fishing boat?

I don't think so.

This is stupidity gone wild.  Sure people do stupid things - their people - people are stupid.  So rather than fight stupidity we create a system to classify it.

And imagine the possibility once this system becomes part of everyday life.

Fines for injuries, which should normally be accidents and not crimes, could now focus on the fact that the injuror was wearing skates as opposed to riding a skate board when colliding with the injurie. The officer at the scene will be able to use his tablet computer to find the right code and tack on an additional $50 fine for skate board as opposed to skates.

The home owners policy for little Johnny on the skate board will prohibit coverage in case of collisions so Daddy and Mommy will have to fork over the cash themselves and pay the fine.

No, I am afraid this is all about money.

If you think for one minute that this has to do with healthcare you are a fool.  This will be used to make your medical life an order of ten (18,000 codes to 140,000 codes - nearly a factor of ten) more confusing, stupid and insane.

Your doctor not up to speed on the new codes?  Payment delay - and guess who will get dinged for the bill?

Hospital computer system not up to speed?  Bingo! A ten thousand page bill to you to cover the difference until its all straightened out.

Of course this is all not without a controversial element as well.  Consider the various "F" codes which cover various mental illnesses along with transgender issues.

No, the ICD-10 is merely good government in action:

"No one will be happy. Everyone will pay.  More government jobs!"

Dr. Dan Nelson and Mugs

I found out about Dr. Dan Nelson in a rather roundabout way.

I have a dog named Mugs.  Mugs is a refugee from a family members house.  It turns out that Mugs is a good dog save for his propensity to try and snatch low-hanging food from small hands.  Mugs, who always believes he is starving, is a bit too indiscriminate about this.

So I acquired him about 5 or 6 years ago to save him from an otherwise uncertain fate.

Mugs also had some health problems - a peculiar itching affliction, rotten bowels (Mugs could easily clear a large room by passing gas), and various associated skin issues.

Over the last several years we have worked out many of Mugs's problems.

The bowl problems were cleared up by "rebooting" his digestive system.  Mugs had been to the doctor many times before we had him for rounds of "penicillin and steroids" to clear up his itching and skin problems.  As I have written here before antibiotics are a scourge on humanity and, as it turns out, pets as well.

In the case of Mugs the antibiotics had done in all his digestive bacteria leaving him in a bad way.  The solution was twofold: first give him probiotics to reinfest his innards with good bacteria.  This took about six months but it worked.

His digestive system slowly returned to normal and now Mugs no longer has an odor problem.

Mugs also suffered from years of ear infections.  These were caused, I believe, by allergic reactions to things in his environment.  While the steroids and antibiotics helped for short periods of time they were never a good long term solution.

We worked to reduce his ear infections through cleaning and using a "cone" when his allergies would break out.

So by about a year ago or so we were down to only the allergic problems - which seemed to be seasonal.  He still broke out several times per year - each time with itching, smelly skin, itchy ears which he would scratch bloody, clumps of fur would come out, and he would get crusty scabs all over which would persist after the breakout.

The vet I was using was not interested in anything but extensive traditional allergy tests (living on a farm this would unlikely whittle it down much), blood work ups, sending poor Mugs to the giant vet hospital for specialist treatment, prescribing steroids that would shorten his poor little life and so on.

But about six months ago my daughter reported on a "holistic vet" who had worked wonders for a coworkers dog.  Being interested in this sort of solution I followed up.

This new vet prescribed something called "Dr. Dan's Water" - 1/2 oz added to one gallon of spring water which was given to Mugs 5 oz per day.  He also prescribed a few days of antibiotics with probiotics to kill off a ear skin infection.

Within about a month Mugs was up to 100% - something I had never seen - no itchy crust, no redness, smooth luxurious coat.  I wondered what this "water" was but was too busy to do further research.

Mugs did have his usual summer breakout in mid-July but it was significantly attenuated.  Still itching and fur coming out - less ear problems (only one ear scratching incident) - overall, better.  Not 100%, but measurably better.

So on a return visit we discussed "Dr. Dan's" in more detail and he gave me some info to Google (see this and this).

It turns out that Dr. Dan is a nuclear physicist who became interested in the structure and behavior of water at the atomic level - apparently something not done by the medical community.  (He makes some interesting comments on this point and compares, in one video, the accuracy of Quantum Mechanics as a predictive model to the results of modern medicine (some estimates indicating that various "mistakes" kill up to almost a quarter million a year - link or Google "annual deaths from medical mistakes").

Most people think of water as simply water - H2O.  But because its also a molecule it has a variety of interesting behaviors.  There are a number of Dr. Dan videos where he discusses this in more detail.  (I have not yet been able to watch them all yet.)

At any rate the upshot of this is that Dr. Dan finds structure in water.  Water molecules have a magnetic orientation which causes them to "clump" and the clumps interact with your bodies cells differently than "monatomic" (single molecule) water.

Quite interesting stuff - and even more interesting that, at least according to Dr. Dan - no one in the medical community has thought about the structure of water and how it works with cell boundaries at the atomic level.

I will write more about Dr. Dan as I learn more.

But the bottom line is that this has significantly helped Mugs.

The vet himself says he takes the Dr. Dan's water as well - he is close to 70 and still in good shape.

So Mugs will be getting more water to see if further improvement is available.

Medical Confusion

First off, in December of last year I wrote "Type 2 is Not Diabetes."

I talked about how various dietary elements like processed plant oils can inhibit and otherwise wreak havoc on your ability to process glucose.  Today I came across an article here talking about giving an Alzheimer brain a glucose "fuel" (actually a "medical food") which contains elements of a good oil (coconut oil in this case).

Among other things the article also indicates that there is medical research linking glucose uptake with Alzheimer's.

In "ADHD & A Spoon Full Of Sugar" I wrote about how I was testing cod liver oil on myself.  I work hard not to ingest the bad oils (soybean, cottonseed, corn, etc.) these days - though they are unavoidable in foods you eat out or do not prepare yourself.

For the last nine months I have been taking a tablespoon of cod liver oil once a day.  I feel a significant and noticeable improvement in mental function.  One of the primary benefits is that I am much less forgetful - particularly about things like keys, cell phones, putting things away, that sort of thing - and I have taken over the roll in the house of "finding it" as in "Honey - I can't find my ____" - now I remember where I saw things that are not even my own.

(Cod liver oil naysayers typically complain that it has "too much" vitamin A and D - just make sure you check the label and have a grasp on your over all intake...)

My ability to focus has dramatically improved as well.  For me focus involves staying on task and not having to "break" to gather my thoughts.  A year ago I could not focus for more than an hour or two without need of a break.  Today I can easily focus for six or even eight hours at a stretch.

To anyone over age 40 I would recommend looking into taking cod liver oil (and its not nearly as unpleasant as its cracked up to be).

I believe that Alzheimer's (as well as other elderly mental ailments) are probably a nutritional problem stemming from a long term lack of proper oils in your diet.  Clearly a "low cholesterol" causes mental issues (see "Lower Cholesterol = Memory Loss") - I think in part because the brain not provided necessary nutrients.  Given such a significant impact on the brain of diet I wonder what a lifetime of improper diet might do.  With these latest thoughts and articles on Alzheimer's and glucose I have come to believe this even more strongly.

Second today is the latest saga of medical incompetence as it relates to my poor mother.  Mom, who is in her 80's) was in a fender-bender and the airbags went off giving her a fractured sternum.  Apparently this is a common injury with air bags and, though it hurts, its not really dangerous and heals on its own.  Nor does it require any special behavior or restrictions.

So in the emergency room the doctor told her she could take up to two Advil three times a day - six Advil every 16 hours (they missed the cracked sternum the first time).   At a second visit (a few days later after having excruciating pain) they also gave her a prescription for five days of 3x a day 5/325 Vicodin.

Mom, aware of the bad reputation of these types of pain killers, was concerned so she began to ask around (other doctors, pharmacists, various other health professionals) about what to take and in what dosages.

The range of answers (compiled over a couple of days) were completely astounding:

1) One 5/325 Vicodin 3x

2) Two 325 Advil 3x a day.

3) One 325 Advil every 4 hours.

4) Don't take Advil at all, take Tylenol one every 4 hours.

5) Taking even 3 Advil a day for two weeks will ruin your stomach.

6) Two 325 Tylenol every 8 hours.

7) One 325 Tylenol every 4 hours.

8) Take as little as you can of X (where X was all of the above).

However, none of these professionals were concerned about the problems with Tylenol (see this as an example) or Advil (save one doc though admittedly we are only talking about taking this for a few weeks total).

No wonder they call it "practicing medicine".

Imagine giving this range of answers to a cop who has just pulled you over ("were you drinking, sir?" - and then giving a set of answers with this level of consistency - off to DUI school you would go...)

The problem here as well as with Alzheimer's is that modern medicine has a huge vested interest in the status quo for a number of reasons: legal, income, laziness, and so on.  No one wants to "rock the boat" by running out and screaming the "emperor has no clothes" - so they confuse my poor elderly mother with this sort of drivel.

Medicine, a supposed "science" where each of the tens of thousands of practitioners all give their own, unique and conflicting answers.

Its little wonder people have such littler regard for medicine.

Arthur C. Clarke once wrote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Paraphrasing, the more I see and read about this kind of stuff the more I believe "Any sufficiently (stupid, asinine, idiotic, moronic, foolish, lazy, ...) act is indistinguishable from pure evil."