Naturopathic Maine

Photo by   Pixabay  from   Pexels When someone reaches the “ripe” old age of 95 and dies , we can feel good that they’ve had a long life. But in medicine we see far too much ageism, decisions being made based on age. A twenty-year-old may get a surgery that an 80-year-old is refused. For stomach cancer, a recent analysis found that elderly patients were as good as younger patients at recovering afterward. But stomach cancer is usually found too late to do anything for any patient. The early symptoms of stomach cancer are so much like heartburn that a patient may let symptoms advance for a decade or more before seeking medical help. Gloria Vanderbilt’s stomach cancer was already advanced, meaning that it had progressed beyond the stomach. Even at earlier stages, the survival rate for patients is 18% . Beyond that stage, virtually no medical intervention could have prolonged her life more than six months . It is common to also look at her life and wonder if something

The concept of herd immunity leading to disease eradication is simple. More vaccines, less disease, right up to the point of everybody gets vaccines, no more disease. But that's simply wrong. It's not because herd immunity doesn't help decrease disease, but because the idea of herd immunity is based on too-simple math. We can all get the idea easily. In a homogenous human population, there should exist a level of vaccination at which no more disease can be transmitted. Notice the fatal flaw is not in the concept, it's in the word "homogenous." Human populations will never be like bricks or milk cartons. You can't just line them up and expect everyone to be the same. So the concept of hitting a magic point and having that point mean no more disease is a mathematical graph, not a human reality. But it's such a nice graph. You can see a version here . The more you vaccinate, the fewer cases. But if you look at that graph, you see something like m

The answer is of course you would, because you have to. Novartis has a patent on the drug, they want 2.2 million dollars for a single dose, so that's the only way to get the drug for your sick child.  Medical cost-benefit number crunchers think that 2.2 million is a good deal because the drug Zolgensma treats a genetic condition. One dose might alter a child's life. Only about 400 kids in the U.S. have the condition, so they need to charge a lot.  But if you think about it, 400 kids at 2.2 million is over 800 million dollars a year from the U. S. market alone. When you price human life at priceless, of course it's worth it. But should they be charging that much?  Even the company itself recognizes the obscene profits they are getting might raise eyebrows in our jaded world. So they " will give partial rebates if the treatment doesn't work ." Wait, what? If these parents have a sick child that isn't helped, you'll refund some of their money