Enough of modern health scares – we should be trusting our instincts
Enough of modern health scares we should be trusting our instincts
?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=5020e55e654795e6e70c93a79b8a9dc0
Just because the so-called medical experts tell us something, it doesnt mean its true
Surely it should be up to a woman to decide whether to take HRT.
On Thursday, a million women experiencing the toughest time in the menopause hot flushes, insomnia, startling mood swings could have read the news that GPs are once again being encouraged to prescribe hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
A study, published in 2003, had shown a significant increase in the risk of cancer. Last week, the health watchdog, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, said GPs had wrongly lost confidence in the drug. Women had been left to suffer in silence. Now, according to Nice, the benefits of HRT far outweigh the risks. Twenty-four hours later, a different story was reported. Nine experts on the 18-strong panel advising Nice were claimed to have financial links with drug companies behind HRT, companies that have seen their market shrink from 33% of menopausal women on HRT to only 10%. Moreover, two Oxford academics, Professor Klim McPherson and Professor Valerie Beral, who have spent 12 years studying the risks associated with HRT, were not consulted about the new guidance.
Prof McPherson says that if GPs follow Nices advice, there could be 7,000 extra cases of breast cancer within 10 years. That contradicts Nices view or does it? that out of 1,000 women taking HRT for five years, there could be just six extra cases of breast cancer and 1.5 additional cases of ovarian cancer.
Confused, dazed and addled? We ought to be, not least because we have allowed two warring tribes managers and experts to infantilise us as they bombard us with conflicting advice and shaky metrics. (Is a glass of wine one unit or three? How big is the glass? How generous the host?) On booze, sugar, bacon butties, salt, fat and tobacco, percentages are tossed about, fear stoked and guilt heightened by headline after headline that, too often, misread research findings and fail to correctly interpret levels of risk.
. . . .
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/15/health-scares-trust-our-instincts
bemildred
(90,061 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)NICE publishes guidelines in four areas: the use of health technologies within the NHS (such as the use of new and existing medicines, treatments and procedures); clinical practice (guidance on the appropriate treatment and care of people with specific diseases and conditions); guidance for public sector workers on health promotion and ill-health avoidance; and guidance for social care services and users.[5] These appraisals are based primarily on evaluations of efficacy and costeffectiveness in various circumstances.
NICE was established in an attempt to defuse the so-called postcode lottery of healthcare in England and Wales, where treatments that were available depended upon the NHS Health Authority area in which the patient happened to live, but it has since acquired a high reputation internationally as a role model for the development of clinical guidelines. One aspect of this is the explicit determination of costbenefit boundaries for certain technologies that it assesses.[6] NICE also plays an important role in pioneering technology assessment in other healthcare systems through NICE International, established in May 2008 to help cultivate links with foreign governments.[7][8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_and_Care_Excellence