Almost Normal (a.k.a. Pre-Ill)

First off, thanks to everyone who has contacted me about the recent death of my father. Your kind sentiments are immensely appreciated.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

So, let me fill you in on what I've been thinking about lately. There is a trend, I think, to get as many people as possible into "pre-ill" categories. There are real advantages to this, from the standpoint of pharmaceutical companies and others in the sick care industry. Change a guideline and create thousands of new product consumers literally overnight. What a marketing strategy!

Look at blood pressure, for example. A reading of 120/80 used to be considered optimal. Over the past couple of years, it's been relabeled as pre-hypertensive (as can be seen in this article). Pretty slick, considering that the normal range of blood pressure measurements goes up to 140/90. Hmmm, maybe anti-hypertensive drugs can be taken by those with the new "bad" reading as a preventative. [Can't be too careful with your health, you know. Ask your family physician about it. In fact, demand to be put on our drug today!! You owe it to yourself, and your family (insert picture of puppy-eyed youngster here)]

Blood sugar (blood glucose) is another measure worth considering. Traditionally, a measurement of between 75 and 100 mg/dl (fasting) is considered normal. Between 100 and 125 mg/dl is often called pre-diabetic, while anything higher is classified as diabetes.  (A sometimes contradictory, sometimes scary article on the subject can be found here.) Turns out, this is not so cut and dried. Different labs have different ranges for what is considered a normal fasting glucose level. To muddy the waters even further, a recent AARP publication recommended that ideally, one should keep fasting glucose between 70 and 130 mg/dl. Who's right? Everybody? Nobody?

I believe what it boils down to is a tendency in the sick care industry to shoehorn everyone into a one-size-fits-all (see picture) characterization. In this view, individuality is to be shunned, because it is messy and not scientific - let alone unprofitable. Unfortunately, nobody told Mother Nature about this, as she goes about her merry way making individual after individual.

Of course, values will cluster about a mean, and large samples will approximate the so-called normal curve. However, single data points can and do vary widely. What makes one person normal may not work for another. How we feel and how we function would seem to me to make more sense than a given measure on a given day. That may sound heretical, but it is, I think, the way Nature works.

And for all the peri-menopausal women out there, did you realize that your osteopenia is based on measurements compared to 18 year-olds? Of course your bone mineral density is going down compared to someone in the prime of life. But the solution offered by Big Pharma? Take a drug which interferes with the action of your body's osteoclasts, the natural re-cyclers of bone. In other words, when you take such drugs you accumulate old bone, rather than increasing new bone. Books such as Dr. James Carter's Racketeering in Medicine look at studies which show just how much we are being drugged for no or minimal positive outcome. Unless you're a pharmaceutical company, that is.

The mind boggles.

Comments

[Linda Jensen]

Dr Santangelo!
I just found your blog!

I was a student of EastWind a few years ago... then I disappeared! lol
I think of you and Candida quite often... and miss you both. I'm looking forward to reading back entries here.

And... I'm sorry to hear of your dad's passing.

in peace,
Linda Jensen