“SUSTAINABLE HEALTH IN AN AGEING POPULATION” (Part 3) | 老龄化人口的可持续健康 （三）

Contributions by: Prof Ian Brighthope

So, let’s look at some of the problems of our disease-care system. The medical authorities have estimated that, each year, more than 200,000 hospital admissions are due to adverse reactions to doctor prescribed medicines. This costs our disease budget over a billion dollars per year, and an immense amount of sickness and death. Some drugs are worse than others. The main offenders include cardiovascular drugs, antibiotics, blood-thinners, anti-cancer drugs, psychiatric medicines and anti- inflammatory drugs. Aspirin causes haemorrhages in the gut, betablockers are implicated in diabetes and asthma, calcium channel blockers can increase the risk of a heart attack, and prescription antidepressants increase the risk of suicide. So many drugs have side effects, which are treated with more drugs that have ever more serious side effects. Thus the drug-disease merry-go-round persists until the patient's health and natural chemistry of life, their biochemistry, is so compromised that other disorders and diseases emerge. For decades, the informed public have been made aware of this, but still the leaders of the medical profession continue supporting the toxic synthetic drug route. Despite its persistence with the spin that ’there is no evidence that vitamins or probiotics work’, the truth is that a massive volume of evidence exists to counter this nonsense from the profession. Natural health care has become extremely popular with the Australian public making the medical authorities look uninformed and potentially very d The recent information about antibiotics destroying the healthy microbiome should come as no surprise to anyone with a simple understanding of germs and infections. This change to the microbiome is directly related to inflammatory diseases, autoimmune diseases and serious allergies. An appreciation of the historical and social context of medicine is critical if health care is to become more than just medical care and the search for and treatment of pathologies. Without question, modern medicine absolutely excels in emergencies and acute interventive care. Heart attacks, road accident victims, birth trauma, appendicitis – whenever a life needs to be saved, this is orthodox medicine at its finest hour. Unfortunately, when the problem is subtle, or revolves around prevention and health promotion, the same sledgehammer approach is applied. The human body is a beautiful and delicate machine, and completely altering its biochemistry with synthetic chemicals for years on end should be considered an extremely radical therapy, not as a routine solution to a natural problem. We need to develop the mindset that this is a last resort, and careful monitoring is required. There are many natural alternatives to drugs. Let’s try these first. Natural healthcare can be used to improve a person's health – but how can we integrate more of it into our disease-focused system? Firstly, we need to educate, inform and change the ‘doctor will fix it' mindset. Then the appropriate recognition by government, the media and the community for the important contribution exercise, foods, natural health products and services make to the real health of Australians. And we need rewards for the positive changes in behaviour by individuals. People who take proactive care of their health should be re-warded, not punished. We need greater access to the media in regard to consumer choices in healthcare. We can provide expert comment on most health issues. We also need a fair go from the media – some of the worst designed and poorly conducted trials critical of natural medicine get front page treatment, while better trials are completely ignored. The media needs to change radically and tell the truth; the truth being not only the published science but the clinical experiences of clinicians based on the science. ‘Specialists' in medicine make serious mistakes when they comment, without training and experience, on published nutritional and health sciences and take a negative position on it. This behaviour by professionals is unethical, immoral and frankly deadly. Almost every press release from a major pharmaceutical company that parades a highly paid specialist showing off an expensive ‘breakthrough’ new drug is treated as gospel. We need the same kind of analysis that journalists show in their coverage of business and economic issues in health re-porting. We need increased government funding for research on our natural health care, and we can fund this by the savings we can make to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We are possibly spending, or giving to multinational "Big Pharma", billions of dollars more than we should.

We need changes within the government regulatory body, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, to reduce regulatory costs to the health care industry, facilitate registration of new products and reduce the barriers to exporting products to make us competitive with the rest of the world. And we need a re-training of the medical profession, including a focus on nutrition and lifestyle issues at medical school, and a requirement that some continuing education points be achieved through learning about prevention of our killer diseases. Most continuing education GP’s receive is about new drugs, and this has contributed to reducing the doctor’s role to that of prescription writer. However, over the past 4 decades, there has been a shift by medical graduates to nutritional, environmental and integrative medicine. A shift that has come about by graduates who discover they cannot honestly continue prescribing toxic chemicals to the sick and dying. It seems that the growth in the influence of the multinational drug companies has robbed doctors of any other weapons in their therapeutic arsenal. While some Australian institutions do this training very well, they are too rare and unfortunately they don’t include any medical schools. The general public is crying out for more options and more information, and many doctors are letting themselves and their profession down. There is also a need for high quality, independent pharmaco-economic research that answers the question of value in both medicine and health. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine is a national and international issue. If we could make everyone healthier, we would have the extra dollars to spend on education, research and other services, including better health -related infrastructure for the Australian public such as gymnasiums, meditation and food preparation centres . Making people healthier is cheaper and faster than developing new innovative drugs. We must always ask the question in each and every clinical encounter – how much medical intervention and how much natural health promotion is appropriate in this patient for the achievement of optimum health? There are double standards that exist in judging orthodox and natural health-care (medicine), and these double standards should not remain unchallenged. It was reported in the British Medical Journal that, and I quote “the critics of natural/complementary medicine often seem to operate a double standard, being far more assiduous in their attempts to outlaw unevaluated complementary medical practices than unevaluated orthodox practices" unquote. This claim, made by Dr. Iain Chalmers, the director of the UK Cochrane Centre, and a vociferous proponent of systematic reviews, also stated that 'these double standards might be acceptable if orthodox medicine was based solely on practices which had been shown to do more good than harm and if the mechanisms through which their beneficial elements acted were understood, but neither of these conditions applies.' There is a paucity of scientific evidence to support the notion that the majority of present day medical practices are good for the health of the nation; many of which could be replaced by safer, more economical and more sensible Natural Health Practices. I suggest you read my paper on the current Coronavirus pandemic, the brainwashing on vaccinations and the fateful denial of the power of the sunlight vitamin, vitamin D, on preventing coronavirus infections and death.

那么，让我们来看看目前医疗系统的一些问题。

据医疗当局估计，每年有20多万人因对医生开的药物产生不良反应而住院。从而导致每年的疾病预算花费超过10亿澳币，以及大量的疾病和死亡病例。在一些药物中更为严重。

容易产生问题的包括心血管药物、抗生素、血液稀释药物、抗癌药物、精神疾病药物和消炎药。阿司匹林可能导致肠道出血，β受体阻滞剂可能导致糖尿病和哮喘，钙通道阻滞剂可能会增加心脏病的风险，处方抗抑郁药可能会增加自杀的风险。很多药物都有副作用，为了治疗这些副作用又使用更多的药物，进而导致更严重的副作用。因此，药物与疾病之间形成恶性循环，直到病人的健康和生命的自然化学和生物化学遭到破坏，导致其他疾病出现。几十年来，一些公众已经意识到这一点，但医学界的领袖们仍在继续沿着有毒合成药物的路线前进。尽管某些医学人士坚持认为“无证据表明维生素或益生菌的有效性”，但事实上是有大量的证据来反驳这个谬论的。自然医疗保健在澳大利亚公众中变得非常受欢迎，这使得医疗当局显得很无知，也可能产生危险的后果。

对于任何一个对细菌和感染略有了解的人来说，近期关于抗生素破坏健康微生物群的报道应该不足为奇。这种微生物群的变化可能直接导致炎症性疾病、自身免疫性疾病和严重过敏。如果医疗系统不仅仅是关于医疗保健和病理治疗，那么对医学史和大背景的认知是至关重要的。

毫无疑问，现代医学非常擅长急诊和紧急重症监护。

心脏病发作、交通事故受害者、分娩创伤、阑尾炎——当一个生命需要拯救时，就是正统医学最辉煌的时刻。

然而，当问题不这么明显，或是主要针对预防和促进健康方面，却使用同样一刀切的方法。人体是一台精密的仪器，多年来用合成化学物质彻底改变人体的生物化学结构，应该被认为是一种极端激进的疗法，而不是作为解决自然问题的常规方法。

我们需要养成这样的心态：这应该是不得已的方法，需要密切监控。有许多天然药物可以替代合成药物。我们可以先尝试这些天然的药物。

天然保健可以用来改善人们的健康——但我们如何将更多的自然保健整合到我们以疾病为中心的系统中呢?

首先，我们需要教育、告知和改变“医生总会有解决办法”的心态。政府、媒体和社会需要对运动、食品、天然保健产品和服务对澳大利亚人真正健康的重要贡献给予适当的承认。我们需要奖励个人行为的积极变化。那些积极注意自己健康的人应该得到奖励，而不是惩罚。

我们需要更多地接触媒体，了解消费者在医疗保健方面的选择。就大多数健康问题提供专家意见。同时还需要媒体的公平对待——一些对天然药物批评的糟糕的设计和试验得到头版报道，而更好的试验则完全被忽视。媒体需要彻底改变，讲出真相;真相不仅仅是发表的科学论文，还有基于科学的临床经验。医学专家在没有受过培训和经验的情况下评论那些发表的科学论文，并对其持否定态度，这大错特错。专业人士的这种行为是不道德的，甚至是致命的。

几乎每一份大型制药公司的新闻稿，只要有拿着高薪专家炫耀一种昂贵的新药，就会被视为医学的福音。我们需要记者在健康报道中展现出报道商业和经济问题时的那种分析。

我们需要更多的政府资金来投入到对自然医疗保健的研究，我们可以通过药品补贴计划节省下来的资金来资助这项研究。我们可能在以向跨国“大型制药公司”提供资金的方式，额外花费数十亿澳币。

我们需要对政府监管机构(药品管理局)进行改革，以降低医疗保健行业的监管成本，便利新产品的注册，减少产品出口壁垒，提升我们与世界其他地区的竞争力。

我们需要对医学专业进行再培训，包括提升医学院对营养和生活方式问题的关注，并要求在继续教育中学习如何预防致命疾病。

大多数全科医生接受的继续教育都是关于新药的，这导致医生的角色降低成处方者。然而，在过去20年里，医学毕业生转向了追求营养、环境和综合医学。这一转变是由大学毕业生引起的，他们无法问心无愧地继续给病人和垂死之人开有毒地化学品处方。

跨国制药公司影响力的增长似乎已经使医生们失去了他们治疗疾病的其它手段。虽然澳大利亚的一些机构在这方面做得很好，但是这样的机构凤毛麟角，而且很遗憾没有任何一家医学院位列其中。公众迫切需要更多的选择和更多的信息，许多医生辜负了他们的这份职业。

我们还需要高质量、独立的药物经济学研究，以解决医药和医疗的价值问题。

保健和医药的成本效益是国家问题也是国际问题。如果能让每个人都更健康，我们就会有多余的资金花在教育、研究和其他服务上，包括为澳大利亚公众提供更好的卫生相关基础设施，如健身房、冥想和食物准备中心。让人们更健康比开发新的药物更便宜也更快。

我们必须在每次临床治疗中问这样一个问题:对于这个病人来说，为了达到他的最佳健康状态，多少医疗干预和多少自然健康干预是合适的?

在判断传统保健和自然保健(医学)方面存在双重标准，需要有人挑战这种双重标准。《英国医学杂志》报道中称，"对自然/补充医学的批评似乎经常实行双重标准，他们在试图取缔未经评价的补充医学实践上比未经评价的正统医学实践要努力得多"。

这是英国科克伦中心(UK Cochrane Centre)主任伊恩·查默斯(Iain Chalmers)博士提出的，他是系统评估的坚定支持者。他还指出，如果正统医学仅仅基于已证明利大于弊的做法，如果人们理解了其有益成分发挥作用的机制，但这些条件都不适用，那么这些双重标准是可以接受的。

当今大多数的医疗实践缺乏科学的医学证据支持，其中很多可以被更安全、更经济和更明智的自然健康方式所取代。建议大家读一读我的论文，内容包括当前的新冠疫情、对接种疫苗的洗脑以及否认通过阳光获取维生素D在预防新冠病毒感染和死亡的积极作用。