The Faster Times has published an investigative report showing the link between a particular physician expert and how pharmaceutical companies work.

It’s a damning indictment of the ways in which physicians and drug companies make use of each other for profit.

I can only wonder what happens to the consumer in this process? In North America, we are so conditioned to trust doctors over all other sources for health information. In fact, almost every medical report on your local news will end with, “If you have any questions, see your doctor”. What if your doctor isn’t really your best source of information? What if your alternative health professional or layperson yahoo group is actually a better source of information?

We are constantly warned away from the internet as a place to gather medical information. While it’s true that there are people promoting dangerous practices of all kinds, what would make the internet inherently dangerous for someone who is doing a thorough search for information? Surely we don’t think that people have suddenly lost all brain capacity and will blindly follow whatever they stumble upon.

At the same time, what makes western medical information “better”? If it’s double blind studies, then think again: your vaccines have never been through them. Is it because drugs are so much more effective? Not necessarily: placebos can be as much as 30 per cent effective! Therefore, a drug that claims to help 50 per cent of patients is still not that much more effective than a placebo - and many drugs don’t come even close to helping 1 out of every 2 patients.

So what really makes all those alternative cures dangerous? Seems to me that the real issue is that they often can’t be patented.

I’ve been lucky enough to work with some really great doctors in my lifetime who trusted me and were open to other options. I had a terrible battle with arthritis in my 20’s: my rheumatologist told me that if we couldn’t find a solution for my condition, that I would end up in a wheelchair by the time I was 30.( I’m now 49.)

I noticed that my symptoms seemed to vary and that I didn’t always need as much medication. My doctor said, “Trust your instincts. I’ll prescribe as if you are taking the full dose every day and then you do what’s right.” This is highly unusual in a doctor.

So, I did that. As I tracked my own symptoms and did research on auto-immune conditions (of which both allergies and arthritis are just two), I discovered that vitamin C is highly recommended. I decided to take at least 3000 milligrams a day, since it was clearly not toxic and it also was much less expensive than my prescriptions! Within 2 weeks of this approach, I was able to come off one prescription because my pain had decreased. Then I took red meat out of my diet because my research showed that it could help to fuel inflammation. Within another 2 weeks, I was off my other prescription. Removing gluten and most dairy helped with eliminating any remaining swelling and low grade pain.

Years later, it turned out that I had either food allergy or food intolerance to many of items I took out of my diet. Could there be a relationship? I don’t know: but the fact that both allergies and arthritis are auto immune conditions makes me wonder.

So, dietary changes and some extra vitamins healed my joints. I have no signs of arthritis now - more than 20 years later. Isn’t this infinitely preferable to drugs of any sort? But how many doctors would actually have you engage in this sort of experiment before prescribing?

They certainly won’t be doing it if their pay check comes from a pharmaceutical company.