The study investigators found that red meats and processed meats have similar amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol but processed meats can have about four times the amount of salt and 50% more preservatives.

You can now enjoy eating your steak with a little more confidence.

It’s discouraging to know that Americans eat 31% more processed food than fresh food. We consume more processed food per person than almost any other countries on the planet.

Our diet and other individual behaviors can influence health outcomes as much as the quality and frequency of the care we receive from the healthcare system.

Medical errors have historically been dealt with through lawsuits and hostile litigious means, despite the fact that most errors are the result of system-wide deficits rather than the shortcomings of individual healthcare providers.  In a recent Newsweek interview, Quaid says that “he doesn’t blame individual doctors, he blames a health-care system that is ill equipped to prevent mistakes.”

Quaid and his wife considered filing a lawsuit against Cedar-Sinai but opted for the more sensible option of working with the hospital to improve its safety measures:

I really don’t know [what happened to the nurse that administered the overdose]. We didn’t meet with her afterwards. There were several nurses involved. I don’t blame any of the nurses. They’re overworked, underappreciated. The reason they get into health care to begin with is they’re there to ease human suffering and they really do care. They’re great people; they’re heroes in our lives. But human error occurs. If I make a mistake in my business, I get a take two. They don’t. And when a mistake occurs, they need help as much as the victims as well, because they’re traumatized by it.

Promoting a culture of safety and reducing medical errors requires selfless leadership, institution of safe-practices such as checklists, and proper use of well-designed technologies. There is currently a lot of room for improvement in all of these domains.

Today, the WSJ cites the results of a study by the California HealthCare Foundation on electronic medical records stating that 15% of the 1,849 adults surveyed reported concealing information from a physician if “the doctor had an electronic medical record system” that could share  information with other groups. Another 33% would “consider hiding information.”

Calling lying to doctors “practically an American tradition,” the WSJ highlights a recent survey of over 2,000 Americans by General Electric, the Cleveland Clinic and Ochsner Health System that outlined what patients mostly lie about as follows: Lack of exercise  (13%), compliance with medication instructions (9%), dietary habits (9%), drinking (7%), smoking (7%), use of illegal drugs (4%) and unprotected sex (4%).

Other interesting results of the General Electric study were the findings that:

• Most Americans give themselves ”A” or “B” grades, while doctors give Americans low grades on personal health
• Many Americans say they would rather live in pain than visit their doctor – and prioritize household chores over healthy living
• Most Americans see health of others on wrong track – but not their own
• Many Americans have an easier time answering non-health-related questions than facts about their own health

The study also revealed “opportunities for improvement in patient-doctor communication,” which is perhaps the best way to enhance patients’ trust in their physicians and their attitudes towards sharing information on- and offline.

The number of people diagnosed with and dying from cancer is increasing.

Actually, the number of new diagnoses of all cancers combined decreased steadily between 1999 and 2006, and the number of deaths from all cancers combined decreased steadily between 2001 and 2006, according to the most recent study by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Cancer Society, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. More people with cancer are now living longer lives with a better quality of life due to early diagnosis, lifestyle changes, and better treatment options.

The medical establishment is hiding a cure for cancer.

The medical community is not withholding a miracle treatment. There is no one single cure for cancer. More than 100 types of cancer exist, and they respond differently to various methods of treatment. Those who work in the medical field have the same likelihood of developing cancer as the general population, and they are eager for new and better treatments to emerge.

If you are diagnosed with cancer, you will probably die.

Cancer is not a death sentence. There are many effective treatments. In fact, more than 60% of people with cancer survive five years or more after the initial diagnosis.

Hair dyes and antiperspirants can cause cancer.

To date, there is no conclusive scientific evidence that these items increase the risk of developing cancer. Some studies have suggested that hair dyes used before 1980 could be linked to an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but the unsafe chemicals have since been removed from hair dye products. There is limited and inconsistent evidence that hair dye can increase the risk of other cancers. Meanwhile, some research suggests skin may absorb aluminum-based compounds—the active ingredient in antiperspirants—and cause hormonal effects, which has led some to believe that antiperspirants could contribute to the development of breast cancer. However, there is no good evidence to support that claim.

A person develops cancer because they have a weakened immune system.

Although this is partially true among certain people—such as those with AIDS or those who take immune-suppressing drugs following an organ transplant—the “strength” of someone’s immune system does not affect the chance of developing cancer. Most common cancers do not occur in people with immune system problems. That also means that attempting to “strengthen the immune system,” which is actually not possible for most people, is not an effective treatment for cancer.

Positive thinking will cure cancer.

Although a positive attitude can improve your quality of life during cancer treatment, there is no scientific evidence that it can cure cancer. Placing such importance on attitude can lead to unnecessary guilt and disappointment if—for reasons beyond your control—your health does not improve.

Cancer treatment is usually worse than the disease.

Although cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation are known to have some side effects that can be unpleasant and sometimes dangerous, recent advances have resulted in many chemotherapy drugs and radiation treatments that are much better tolerated than past treatments. Symptoms like severe nausea and vomiting, hair loss, and tissue damage are much less common these days. For each patient, oncologists always try to balance the known risks and side effects of the treatment with the expected benefits.

As physicians, we are struggling to figure out how best to use this technology in the interests of our patients and ourselves. Although the Internet is reshaping the content of the conversation between doctor and patient, we believe the core relationship should not change. A relative recently asked us, “What can you possibly learn from your doctor that is not available on the Internet?” We suspect we’ll hear such radical sentiments increasingly in the future.

The authors make a statement similar to what I’ve written on this blog before: “information and knowledge do not equal wisdom” and to truly empower individuals you need the wisdom of an expert:

… it is too easy for nonexperts to take at face value statements made confidently by voices of authority. Physicians are in the best position to weigh information and advise patients, drawing on their understanding of available evidence as well as their training and experience. If anything, the wealth of information on the Internet will make such expertise and experience more essential.

So is all the information on the Internet empowering us as much as we think it is or is it creating what can be called an information bubble?

Writing for the Harvard Business Review Blog, Umair Haque talks about how the Internet has created what he calls a “social media bubble:”

Despite all the excitement surrounding social media, the Internet isn’t connecting us as much as we think it is. It’s largely home to weak, artificial connections, what I call thin relationships.

Call it relationship inflation. Nominally, you have a lot more relationships — but in reality, few, if any, are actually valuable. Just as currency inflation debases money, so social inflation debases relationships.

I think a parallel phenomenon on the Internet is creating an information bubble that debases expertise. As a patient, it’s relatively easy to get a thin understanding of the facts about a particular disease by surfing the Internet but when it comes to serious health concerns, such information can lead to unwarranted patient-anxiety and even bad health outcomes. There is a lot of medical information about specific diseases on the Internet, some good and some bad. For a nonexpert, it’s not always easy to differentiate the two. Even if one finds a reliable source, it’s not always easy to digest the information and wrong conclusions can be made.

My recommendation is to generously use the Internet for health information but before you act on any advice or self-diagnose, “please talk to your doctor” or if you have a physician like me, email him.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) recently published a case about a 66 year-old man with heart disease and an enlarging abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Once these aneurysms grow beyond a certain size, they may rupture and place one at the risk of bleeding to death. What I found unique about this case was not the story about the AAA but the patient’s own account of his situation, published in the same article. As the physicians taking care of this patient closely monitored the size of the AAA and aggressively managed his heart disease risk factors, the patient gradually came to accept his disease as a reality of life:

I was first diagnosed with my aneurysm about 4 or 5 years ago. My doctors found it accidentally when they were looking for problems with my esophagus. After the tests, my doctor called me and said, “I need to see you . . . now.” So I went in and she told me about the aneurysm and I went, “Oh,” feeling as if there wasn’t much else to say. I backed up, relaxed a little bit, and tried to grasp what was going on. She referred me to a cardiovascular specialist who follows me. We’ve been following the aneurysm now for about 4 years. I see my cardiovascular surgeon about every 6 months and so far it hasn’t gotten big enough for me to worry about.

I know the aneurysm can break or rupture and have dire consequences. It took about a year to let that information settle. But when it did, I realized that we have winter too, and I don’t like it either.

I came to terms with my aneurysm on an intellectual basis. There’s nothing I or anybody else can do. At some point I’m going to die, so all I can do is enjoy what I’ve got. I can’t spend my life worrying about an inevitability. That’s a waste of my time and a misdirection of my efforts.

Last year I was introduced to Nancy Pando, the producer of a new documentary that is taking a bold look at the frustrations of practicing physicians in the country:

Being a physician today carries a complexity and responsibility, known only to those whom are expected to tend to the ills of society. But when doctors are suffering themselves – who really cares? We are all patients and come the day that we allow for money to supersede humanity, we all become collateral damage. Crash Cart Productions.

The documentary is being pre-screened for one day in NYC::

Sunday, October 25th at 4:10PM

Village East Cinema
181 2nd Avenue at 12th Street Manhattan, New York

I’m looking forward to seeing the documentary. It’s certainly a timely topic. Let’s hope that the hippocratic oath is not really vanishing.