Hormones or medication

I would like to share with you an excellent article by Dr. Italo Rachid, which I think is very valuable:

Chatting about health with Dr. Ítalo Rachid – Hormones or medication?

Having the duty and responsibility to choose the safest and most effective treatment for their patient, doctors must take into account both the results of scientific studies and practical clinical evidence and results before deciding to adopt a particular therapeutic strategy. Both pillars must have exactly the same weight when making the decision.

Evidence-based medicine involves the synthesis and global analysis of all available data and information when comparing different therapeutic options for patients.

Evidence-based medicine does not mean that expressive and tabulated clinical information, data and results should be ignored until a randomized controlled trial of a certain size and duration has been completed.

First and foremost, it requires access to the current database and information that allows doctors to decide which therapeutic model is potentially capable of promoting the greatest benefits with the lowest possible risks for patients.

Almost 30 years of published scientific studies and, above all, systematic clinical use on a worldwide scale have shown that Human Homologous Hormone Modulation is not only safer and clinically superior, but is also not associated with the clear, measured, proven and serious risks of synthetic hormone replacement.

In Brazil, these hormones have been used in clinical practice for around 18 years, by a group currently made up of around 4,800 doctors who obey rules and respect limits, inclusion and exclusion criteria in their prescriptions. They are professionals who, as a whole, have the responsibility of looking after the lives of approximately 1,000,000 (one million) patients, without there having been a single reported case of an event with an unfavorable outcome, death or serious side effects that would justify classifying hormone replacement therapy as experimental, risky, illegal or harmful to human health.

The opposite, unfortunately, cannot be said of medicines.

Today, side effects from FDA-approved drugs, regularly prescribed by doctors during a consultation, already account for the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, responsible for more than 150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand) deaths a year - a real public calamity!

This means that not only are medicines not fulfilling their primary role of curing diseases, but even more seriously, they are killing human beings in a perverse and unnecessary way!

Today, drugs only kill more than heart attacks, cancer and strokes.

Why?

That would be the question any human being would ask when faced with this irrefutable and easily verifiable finding.

And the answers are painful, but absolutely unquestionable:

1 - It is the drug manufacturers themselves who create, direct and conclude research into the efficacy of their products.

2 - They have a permanent legal team to deal with the constant and permanent complaints about serious failures, severe side effects and even a high number of deaths among users.

3 - Some drugs are launched despite their minimal ability to actually have a beneficial effect on patients.

4 - Many drugs are launched even though clinical trials have clearly shown their potential dangers and pointed out their serious side effects, many of which are fatal.

5 - Research is much more focused on diseases that make a profit.

6 - There is deliberate omission about the adverse effects caused by their products.

7 - Intensive advertising to the medical profession.

8 - An ostentatious campaign to attack, devalue and demoralize other non-pharmacological therapeutic approaches.

9 - Interference in surveillance agencies, such as the FDA and the like.

10 - Aggressive lobbying in the US Congress.

11 - Many independent studies show that the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry, medicine, medical professors, doctors and regulatory agencies, such as the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration), is incestuous and fraudulent.

12 - Purposeful manipulation of results in much of the work carried out by the pharmaceutical industry.

13 - Permanent lobbying of regulatory agencies to issue favorable opinions on their drugs.

14 - The inclusion of specialists under his guidance on regulatory commissions within these agencies.

15 - Collusion between laboratory test patent holders and the pharmaceutical industry when a certain drug is capable of modifying laboratory tests.

16 - “Buying one recognized academic researcher - the kind who gives lectures, writes textbooks and journal articles - is equivalent to the workforce of 100,000 salespeople.” Says Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of New England Journal of Medicine.

17 - The promiscuous relationship reached such a point that the American Congress approved the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, The new law, which from 2013 requires the pharmaceutical industry and medical equipment manufacturers to disclose the origin of the money used to pay doctors.

18 - Today, many doctors feel ethically obliged to follow strict guidelines on various procedures, which they often disagree with or, at the very least, question. Most of these guidelines are propagated and supported by biased “scientific” studies, with serious design errors, sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. In other words, within the context of the model dubbed “Evidence-Based Medicine”, there are no patients, only diseases. There are no human beings, only protocols, which is a clear inversion of the basic principles that have always underpinned the art of practicing medicine - where what really counted was a good anamnesis, a well-done and thorough physical examination, a consultation in which the professional was much more concerned with the human being in front of them and much less with the watch on their wrist. Scenarios that lead us to gradually forget, with each passing day, that the most important thing, when formulating a therapeutic proposal, is and always will be to use our knowledge and experience, the fruit of long years of training and practice; our eyes, our ears, our common sense, our professional responsibility, our ethics and our brains to simply decide whether or not a patient will benefit from a particular form of treatment and, at the same time, be able to assume all the consequences and responsibilities inherent in our actions.

19 - In other words: to treat diabetes mellitus, heart failure, hypertension, multiple sclerosis, cancer, depression, among hundreds of other diseases, the only thing that matters is the protocol.

20 - “There is not a single sector of academic medicine, academic research or medical education in which relations with the pharmaceutical industry are not omnipresent.” Says Dr. Eric Campbell, professor at Harvard University Medical School.

21 - Recruiting doctors to be the industry's poster boys.

22 - Recommending drugs that have had clinical studies in which data on unacceptable and fatal side effects has been deliberately omitted.

23 - Disseminate concepts and protocols that benefit drugs that have not yet been fully tested and whose safety has not yet been fully established.

Regardless of which model is adopted, whether curative or preventive - since both have their virtues and flaws - there is a set of questions that each of us, as doctors, should ask and answer before opting for either model, whether it's prescribing synthetic drugs to control symptoms of disease, or applying, on an individual basis, a set of techniques and strategies, including hormonal rebalancing, in order to promote a better quality of life. These include

1 - Is my diagnosis correct?

2 - Was the drug prescribed with trust in the pharmaceutical industry?

3 - Has this drug been thoroughly researched, and are the risks of using it known and widely publicized?

4 - Were the risks of undesirable, serious and even fatal side effects, as well as cross-effects with other drugs or even interference with the hepatocyte's natural detoxification and metabolization systems - mediated by the cytochrome P450 enzyme complex in phase I and by glucuronic acid in phase II - rigorously and carefully evaluated by the prescribing doctor before signing this prescription?

5 - Are those responsible for its release ethical people, who would never license it for sale if there was any doubt about its efficacy or ability to cause harm?

6 - Is my patient's problem caused by a lack of this substance or pharmacological principle in their body?

7 - Am I treating the cause of the problem or just controlling its effects?

8 - And finally, and most importantly: does the patient feel better, the same or worse with the proposed treatment?

And finally: To be unaware, whether on purpose or not, and/or to deny the existence of the robust range of high-quality scientific evidence that demonstrates and proves, in a complete and unequivocal manner, the fundamental role of hormones not only in promoting health, but also in reducing the risk of diseases such as Alzheimer's senile dementia, depression, hypertension, cancer, myocardial infarction, strokes, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, among many others, not only constitutes a perverse, unethical and unacceptable act of omission against human beings, but also takes medicine back to the dark times of the Holy Inquisition in the 21st century!

Have a great Sunday, everyone!

Dr. Ítalo Rachid - CREMESP 114612
Original text in: https://www.facebook.com/italo.rachid.1/posts/1681806128747741

Learn more at: https://icaro.med.br/hormonios/