Change in the right direction for patientsBMJ 2017; 356 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1072 (Published 02 March 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;356:j1072
All rapid responses
“............how can its leaders ensure that changes are those that matter most to patients?”
That indeed is the primary problem. With No credible safety policy and based on US figures on “medical error” suggest that some 50,000 patients may die from this cause. I have commented elsewhere on this problem.
“..........95 meta-analyses (doi:10.1136/bmj.j477) Kyrgiou and colleagues find evidence of an association between adiposity and nine cancers (of 36 assessed).”
This raises the issue of the reason for that adiposity. Even the media are catching on to the fact that flawed governmental advice, on this aspect of nutrition despite much evidence to the contrary, has contributed substantially to the epidemic of obesity and ill health. It seems that it is impossible for supporters of that advice are unwilling to admit error, presumably because patients can be blamed for having a “poor diet (http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j1026/rr-1)
There is also the problem that the medical establishment concentrates on ill health and its cure; the cause of a condition is often due to poor nutrition which is ignored. For example the UK Government CMO has drawn the attention to Vitamin D deficiency on at least two occasions but the NHS has done to facilitate measuring this factor. One gets the impression that good health is of no importance, just ill health to be cured. The use of Vitamin C is ignored though if one searches PubMed on the word “ascorbic” a mere 50,000+ reports are identified; but officially there is “not enough research”. Certainly there are not the huge RCTs that are reported for profitable drugs. But who is going to put money into research into an unpatentable nutrient that could well prove to be more effective and cheaper than drugs?
Where is the support for those researching good health and identifying poor nutritional status?
Competing interests: No competing interests