|
|
|
|
Orthomolecular Medicine on the ‘Net |
|
Internet Bias |
|
Orthomolecular Medicine on the Internet Andrew W. Saul (Reprinted
with permission from J Orthomolecular Med, 2005. Vol 20, No 2, p
70-74.) Hundreds of millions of people daily search the Internet for
health information. What, exactly, are they getting? A 0.12 second Google
search of over 4 billion webpages with the keyword "health" gets
you over 200,000,000 results. The At Healthfinder, self-described as "your guide to reliable
health information," it says: "Our Web site is built on a selection process that begins
by evaluating the reliability of organizations as providers of health
information. Only after we carefully
review an organization do we choose information from its Web site for our
health library." There follows a directory of what they consider
"reliable." Try a search for "orthomolecular." You will
find nothing at all. But with a site search for "supplement,"
Healthfinder's number two listed link will then take you directly to the Food
and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting webpage where you get the
following bold-faced, large-print offer: "Report an Illness or Injury
Associated with a Dietary Supplement" with this accompanying text: "FDA can be contacted to report general complaints or
concerns about food products, including dietary supplements. You may
telephone or write to FDA. If you think you have suffered a serious harmful
effect or illness from a dietary supplement, your health care provider can
report this by calling FDA's MedWatch hotline at 1-800-FDA-1088. . .
Consumers may also report an adverse event or illness they believe to be
related to the use of a dietary supplement by calling FDA . . . FDA would like to know when a product
causes a problem even if you
are unsure the product caused the problem or even if you do not visit
a doctor or clinic." (1) With supplements, perhaps anecdotal evidence is of value after all,
provided the anecdotal reports are negative. Censorship by
Selection What does "reliable" or "carefully selected"
or "the best" really mean? On the medical Internet, it seems to
mean selection that purposefully excludes orthomolecular medicine. The power
of selection might seem similar to censorship. Is there a medical blacklist,
and if so, is orthomolecular medicine is on it? Consider this. One major
referral site (number 5 out of 200,000,000 health websites retrieved by
Google) is http://www.healthweb.org This is a more or less non-governmental
resource. "HealthWeb is a collaborative project of the health sciences
libraries of . . . over twenty actively participating member libraries. This
project is supported by the National Library of Medicine." That means taxpayer money pays for it. (Or more correctly, paid for it. As of 2013, this "service" appears to be unavailable. Small loss.) "The HealthWeb project was conceived in 1994, with the
following expressed goals (one of which is) to develop an interface which
will provide organized access to evaluated non-commercial, health-related,
Internet-accessible resources. . .The interface will integrate educational
information so the user has a one-stop entry point to learn skills and use
material relevant to their discipline." (2) I call your attention to the words "non-commercial"
and "one-stop." At this site, a search for "orthomolecular" brings up
nothing. So I tried a search for "vitamin." The response? May I
quote: "Sorry, your search retrieved no results." So I tried it
again, several times, just to be sure. Zero. Without a single response for "vitamin," it is
difficult to accept this website's prominently displayed assertion that it is
"Linking you to the best in health information." Surely, somewhere
on this planet's electronically searchable Internet, information about
vitamins is rightly to be considered to be a part of health. Or so one would think. So I tried one of HealthWeb's displayed "nutrition"
links and here is the "non-commercial" website it sent me to: http://www.ific.org Would you like to know a bit more about who
that is? "About the International Food Information Council (IFIC)
Foundation (April 25, 2004) "IFIC's mission is to communicate science-based information
on food safety and nutrition to health and nutrition professionals,
educators, journalists, government officials and others providing information
to consumers. IFIC is supported primarily by the broad-based food, beverage
and agricultural industries . . . to help translate research into
understandable and useful information for opinion leaders and ultimately,
consumers." (3) This, in my opinion, indicates that the “The best," “reliable” and “carefully selected” are all
indications of editing. When the entire discipline of orthomolecular medicine
is excluded, it is censorship by selection. Who will decide when
doctors disagree? Now back to Google, where there is no evidence of editorial
restriction. A Google search for "nutrition" will bring 21,000,000
responses in 0.14 seconds. "Vitamin" will get a Google response of
9,200,000 in 0.13 seconds. A search for "orthomolecular" will bring
up 45,000, but bear in mind that many of the sites found are anti-orthomolecular.
Pharmaceutical medicine's presence on the internet is very
strong, although less dominant that its presence on TV and in the print
media. At the largest and most frequented "health" websites,
information about orthomolecular medicine is entirely absent. Therefore, when
the layman searches for nutritional therapy, they often get false or
misleading information from pharmaphilic (drug-loving) internet sources. Of
course, the conventional medical sites say this very same thing about
alternative sites. The public is understandably confused, and seeks answers
with every internet search. Based on my website's 25,000 hits a day, and the
attendant email correspondence I receive, I think the public is earnestly
looking for clarification of contradictory nutritional research. People have heard many a mega-nutrient factoid, myth or outright
falsehood from their friends, their doctors, or the media. It is truly odd
that the public has been warned off the very thing that can help the most:
nutritional supplementation. As Ward Cleaver once said to his son, Beaver:
"A lot of people go through life trying to prove that the things that
are good for them are wrong.” Let's turn to the official website of the American Dietetic
Association, www.eatright.org
. Here is what the "world's largest organization of food and nutrition
professionals" (5) currently states about supplements: "Dietary supplements cannot make up for poor food choices. They have not been proven to boost
energy or prevent or cure diseases." (6) Such a statement is
remarkable indeed. Cure and especially prevention of disease by vitamins is
thoroughly established and repeatedly demonstrated by decades of
well-controlled studies, literally numbering in the thousands. At its
website, the American Dietetic Association also states, "If you need a
multivitamin/mineral supplement, be sure to check the "Supplement
Facts" panel and select a product that provides no more than 100 percent
of the Daily Value for vitamins and minerals. (7) So the American Dietetic Association's published stance remains
that, with precious few exceptions, 100% of the government standard is all
that people need to take in a supplement, if they even need a supplement at
all, which they probably don't. This cannot help but confuse any web surfer who has ever heard
the name "Linus Pauling." Accentuating the
Negative Negative reporting sells newspapers and pulls in the web
traffic. The old editors' adage is “If it bleeds, it leads.” Pharmaceutical
companies lobby government and feed the media to get the “wonder drug”
positive spin. They have been remarkably successful in so doing, in spite of
the 106,000 patients killed annually by their products when properly
prescribed and taken as directed. (8) Here's one way for anyone to quickly see how safe vitamin
therapy is. Invite an internet or Medline search for “vitamin death.” What
will be found is information on how vitamins prevent death. The Merck Manual states there have been
two fatalities from vitamin A overdose. (9) This grand total of two spans
many decades of use. There has been a total of one single death from vitamin
D overdose. That death was due to side effects of medication. (10) There have
been zero deaths from any other vitamin. Non-fatal "vitamin danger" allegations are almost
entirely without scientific foundation. For example, "Harmful effects
have been mistakenly attributed to vitamin C, including hypoglycemia, rebound
scurvy, infertility, mutagenesis, and destruction of vitamin B-12. Health
professionals should recognize that vitamin C does not produce these
effects." (11) Since vitamin myths persist, the facts of orthomolecular
medicine must be presented in straightforward, memorable terms, such as: “The number one side effect of vitamins is failure to take
enough of them.” "Negative vitamin studies use low doses. Positive vitamin
studies use high doses." "There is not even one death per year from vitamins."
(12) I think that all orthomolecular medicine websites would do well to
have a section entitled, “If you have been told that vitamins are harmful,
please read this.” However, it is best to avoid being bogged down in
refutation, for as Abram Hoffer, M.D., says,
“All attacks on supplement safety are really attacks on supplement
efficacy.” Instead, remembering that patients’ needs come first, accentuate
the positive by repeatedly citing successful orthomolecular studies. Two More Needs Because people's primary concerns are with their own illness, or
that of a family member, when they search on the internet, they also
frequently have two additional purposes. First, people seek dosage information. Outside of the
patient-doctor relationship, the only prudent practitioner response to such
Internet inquiries consists of suggested references to the scientific
literature, or to well-written, interpretive books and articles. There is
much to be said for free public access to orthomolecular medical papers.
Although many are now posted on the internet, more need to be made available electronically. Second, people also commonly seek a practitioner. It is not easy
for the public to locate an orthomolecular physician. One of my most common
emails is a request for "a natural health practitioner near where I
live." It is practical and expedient for every orthomolecular
practitioner to have his or her own website. Individual practitioner websites
make location searches easier. Practitioner websites are easy, economical,
effective, educational, and essential. Every Practitioner a
Publisher Rather than merely introduce a private practice, a practitioner
website can post informative, practical articles for free reading. When
asked, many authors and publishers will allow your website use of their work
with attribution. Sources not granting permission may still be linked to.
This means you refer your readers to existing articles at the source's own
website via a clickable hyperlink. When you write and post your own work,
other websites can and will link to you. This increases website traffic and readership.
Journals reach many thousands; the Internet reaches hundreds of millions. Before committing to writing an original article, it makes sense
to see what is already out there, and link to it. If you find yourself saying
the same thing to everybody, there is your first article. Then, try to limit
your idea to one page. As Strunk puts it in The Elements of Style: “Omit needless words.” There are few
speeches, movies or monographs that would not benefit from being shorter.
President Calvin Coolidge is remembered not for his presidency but for his
brevity. Then, if your article requires another page or two, go ahead. If you do not yet have a literary style, good. Just keep it
short and to the point. That alone is good style. When Will Rogers began his career
as a columnist, his terrible spelling and grammar became his style. He was
also brief and to the point. An American president delivered his Gettysburg
Address in three minutes; the speaker before him spoke for two hours. Which
speaker's name do you remember? The general reader needs simplification and clarification.
Therefore, never use a big twenty-dollar word when a short word will do.
There is a hidden benefit here. The shorter your word, and the shorter your
sentences, the less education the reader has to have to understand you. (13)
One in five Americans is functionally
illiterate. (14) Effective writing can be aptly summarized by the “KISS” rule:
Keep it Simple and Short. Write about something you know well. When in doubt,
use case histories. Make the idea stick. Let your personality and humor come
through. Use short, succinct sentences. Select nontechnical, simple words.
Remember: everybody wants brevity; everybody needs references; everybody
loves anecdotes. Use the problem-based approach; in other words, What's the
matter? Put yourself in the reader's place. The best formula may be as simple
as Case histories + References = Understanding. Don't be afraid of simplification. Anyone can take a plain idea
and make it complicated; just look at government. It takes real talent to
take a complex idea and make it simple. It is a gift for the writer, and a
relief to the reader. Always go for the bottom line. When in doubt,
summarize. The trick is to “sum it up” without “dumbing it down.” Articles Made Better Here's the crux of what I learned as an educator: Get their
attention. Tell them what you are going to say. Say it with examples.
Finally, tell them what you said. Behaviorist B.F. Skinner said that all
learning is the mastery of a very large number of very small steps. SUNY
biology Professor John I. Mosher, whom I studied with for over two decades,
reminded me a long time ago to put myself in the student's seat and deliver
the kind of presentation that I myself would want to listen to. When you
write your articles, put yourself in the reader's position and keep asking
yourself what is most important. Then put that down on paper. Cite your sources. Literature citations substantially contribute
to an article's academic credibility. Professor Mosher chose to describe this
in terms of baboons. Sometimes a potential rival challenges the leadership of
a baboon troop's dominant male. The issue is generally decided by a form of
majority vote. If most of the baboons stand behind the challenger, he takes
over. If most stand behind the current leader, he remains in charge. Dr.
Mosher said it is about the same with bibliographical references: try to get
as many as you can to back you up. Proofread and edit your work. How I love word processors. In
the old days, we had to paint over mistakes with whiteout, physically cut and
paste paragraphs, or else redo entire pages. Now that corrections are so easy
on a computer, they are all the more essential. Re-read your work for style
and flow, not just for typos. Have your family read your articles. Go out of
your way to have your kids read your articles. If they get the point, you
made your point. What the public needs is nontechnical translation and
interpretation. To demystify medicine is to gain a grateful patient. A
problem-centered focus on the illness, not the theory, will immediately
engage and help motivate the reader. The key to health communication may be
problem-based articles. Websites Made Better Most health websites have a product presence. This is surely one
excuse used by orthodox medicine to dismiss the rest of a website's content.
The first thing critics seek to do is to discredit a practitioner or writer
via his or her product affiliation. A non-commercial stance builds both web
traffic and credibility. The public and the critical media can spot a vested
interest a mile away. Avoid financial conflicts of interest. Omit product
names. Use a clear disclaimer: “I have no financial connection to the
supplement or health products industry.” Or, if you do, say so and say why.
An educational, non-commercial stance is the most respectable. Again, always
put yourself in the reader's place: what kind of website would you yourself
trust? Then, strive to present exactly such a website. Some specific recommendations for orthomolecular websites
include: * Model your website on other practitioners’ sites. An Internet
search (with Google, Lycos, Yahoo, or other search engine) will provide many
excellent examples, with more being added all the time. * Include links to important articles at other websites. This is
a good way to begin if you have not done a website before. * Post papers you have authored, or chapters from a book you
have written. * Periodically send out a free email newsletter that is also
free of any advertising. * Provide a recommended reading list, with annotations as to why
each book is especially worthwhile. I think this approach is sound. My orthomolecular website,
DoctorYourself.com, was begun in 1999 and averaged about 30 hits a day. In
2004, the site received 25,000 hits a day. In 2007, nearly 35,000. What Remains to be
Done An increased orthomolecular medicine presence on the Internet,
and in media reporting, requires action. “Feeding” the press is practiced by all professions. Put the
media on your email newsletter mailing list. As practitioners need technical
journals, so the press and the public need non-technical orthomolecular
information. I think an Orthomolecular News Service, like AP, Reuters or UPI,
would be a good idea. It could furnish practitioners, the public and the
media with headlines, abstracts, reviews, commentary, and journal-quality
articles, all keyed directly to the layman. This is already being done by the
pharmaceutical-surgical branches of healthcare. It is time for orthomolecular
medicine to make itself heard. References: (All Internet sources were accessed August, 2004.) 1. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-rept.html ,
emphasis added. 2. http://www.healthweb.org/aboutus.cfm 3. http://www.ific.org./about/index.cfm 4. http://www.ific.org./newsroom/index.cfm 5. Press release, January 3, 2000. 6. Dietary supplements: Do you know all the facts? March 24,
2004. http://www.eatright.org/Public/NutritionInformation/index_19201.cfm
, emphasis added. 7. http://www.eatright.org/Public/NutritionInformation/92_11826.cfm
, emphasis added. 8. Lazarou J et al. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in
hospital patients. JAMA. 1998, Apr
15;279(15):1200-5. See also: Leape LL. Institute of Medicine medical error
figures are not exaggerated. JAMA.
2000 Jul 5;284(1):95-7, and Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA. 1994 Dec 21;272(23):1851-7. 9. The Merck Manual of
Diagnosis and Therapy. Vitamin deficiency, dependency, and toxicity.
Section 1, Chap 3. http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section1/chapter3/3a.jsp
10. Tarpey v. Crescent
Ridge Dairy, Inc., 11. Levine M et al, JAMA, April 21, 1999. 281:15, p 1419. 12. American Association of Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure
Surveillance System, cited by Rosenbloom M. Vitamin toxicity. http://www.eMedicine.com, updated
August 3, 2004. 13. Fry readability graph, Journal
of Reading, December 1977, p. 249. 14. http://www.broometiogaliteracy.com/facts.htm
and http://www.plsinfo.org/healthysmc/202/social_human_serv_20.html (For further information,
you might want to read DOCTOR YOURSELF (http://www.doctoryourself.com/saulbooks.html)
and FIRE YOUR DOCTOR! (http://www.doctoryourself.com/review.html)
by Andrew W. Saul) |
|
|
|
AN IMPORTANT NOTE: This page is not in any way offered as prescription, diagnosis nor treatment for any disease, illness, infirmity or physical condition. Any form of self-treatment or alternative health program necessarily must involve an individual's acceptance of some risk, and no one should assume otherwise. Persons needing medical care should obtain it from a physician. Consult your doctor before making any health decision. Neither the author nor the webmaster has authorized the use of their names or the use of any material contained within in connection with the sale, promotion or advertising of any product or apparatus. Single-copy reproduction for individual, non-commercial use is permitted providing no alterations of content are made, and credit is given. |
||
|
|
|
| Home | Order my Books | About the Author | Contact Us | Webmaster | |
|
