Author Archives: Mark Schauss

About Mark Schauss

History was always a passion for me since I was a little kid. Even majored in it in college. Loved my Russian history professor, the late Dr. Paul Avrich who inspired this podcast. Also to my mother Alla who kept the Russian side of me going. Wish I had listened to her to learn Russian when I was younger.

Lybrel – Breakthrough in Contraception or a Potential Time-Bomb?

Lybrel, the new contraception pill for women from Wyeth Pharmaceuticals was just given its ok by the FDA and I have to really wonder why. This drug, will reduce or in some cases eliminate a women’s period while protecting against unwanted conception. While I, as a man, should have little to say about this issue, I will bring up a few concerns I have about this drug.

First off, what kind of long-term studies have they done on this drug and its potential for creating health issues down the road? I can pretty much guarantee that the answer is no. As with the use of HRT (hormone replacement therapy), I see the potential of opening a can of worms that will cause women who take this drug to have an increased risk of certain cancers and cardiovascular disease.

Second issue is the findings from the study which indicated that half the women enrolled in studies of Lybrel dropped out, said Dr. Daniel Shames, a deputy director in the FDA’s drugs office. Many did so because of the irregular and unscheduled bleeding and spotting that can replace scheduled menstruation. I find this somewhat disturbing when fifty percent of the people studied drop out because of unwanted on intolerable side-effects. The response by the FDA? “If you think you don’t want to go down this road, this is not for you,” Shames told reporters. Hey, if it turns out this drug had other unwanted side-effects tough luck? This is just not an acceptable stance for a government agency to take that is supposed to be protecting the public.

Others have said that Lybrel should really help women who suffer from nausea, headaches, cramping and other problems during their period. Problem with that statement is that this “benefit” wasn’t even studied!

On other main problem I have here is that this drug is seemingly trying to treat a natural process known as menstruation as if it were some sort of disease. University of New Hampshire sociologist Jean Elson had this to say “For women in that situation, I certainly can understand the benefits of taking these kinds of medications, but for most women menstruation is a normal life event — not a medical condition, why medicate away a normal life event if we’re not sure of the long-term effects?” Why indeed.

The last issue I have hear is that while this drug does seem to be effective at lowering the risk of getting pregnant, because it eliminates periods, a women who does somehow get pregnant won’t be aware of it as there will be no missed periods to tip her off. Because of the need to be health conscious during the early stages of pregnancy, like with folic acid supplementation to prevent some birth defects, this can be a dangerous problem.

Truths, Half-Truths and Myths Surrounding Global Warming

One of my favorite weekly reads is the British magazine – The New Scientist.  In their May 19-25, 2007 issue, their main article is about laying out some truths and dispelling myths about the issue of global warming. Here are some of their major points:

  • Myth – “Carbon dioxide levels only rose after the start of warm periods, so CO2 does not cause warming.” Anti-warmists claim that the evidence does not show that CO2 levels were causative factors in global warming in the past, which is true. The problem is that never in history did humans add carbon dioxide into the atmosphere above and beyond what nature has.
  • Half-truth – “It has been warmer in the past, so what’s the big deal?” Just because it has been warmer in the past doesn’t mean that getting warmer now does not have a potential for disaster.
  • Half-truth – “Human carbon dioxide emissions are tiny compared with natural sources.” True but the average CO2 levels over the past half-million years have been between 180 – 300 parts per million. Only in recent time, since the start of the Industrial Revolution, has it gone to 380 ppm. Due to carbon dating and the levels of carbon-14 in ice cores, we are pretty sure that it is human caused.
  • Myth – “…volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities.” That is simply not true. Volcanoes emit .3 gigatons of CO2 annually which is about one hundreth of the amount humans emit.
  • Myth – “It’s too cold where I live. A bit of warming will be great.” What a myopic attitude. This issue is not about weather (which is local), it is about global climate. If your area gets better, others who are too warm already, will get worse eventually affecting you. Current predictions claim that agricultural yields in most of the world will halve by 2100. Yeah but we’re warmer up north than before?  Ugh.
  • Myth – “It’s all down to cosmic rays.” Measurements of cosmic ray intensity has only started in the late 20th century and no data model has shown any relationship long-term.
  • Half-truth – “Antarctica is getting cooler and the ice sheets are getting thicker.” Yes they are but it is in part due to air circulation because of the hole in the ozone layer. As that repairs itself, the circulation is expected to change and the ice is expected to rapidly melt.
  • Myth – “It was warmer during the Middle Ages than it is now, with vineyards in England.” Actually, this seems to be a regional phenomena (local weather versus global climate).

One other issue is that it is not just how warm it is now but how much warmer it is going to get. Anti-warmists love to point out that science claimed that the planet was heading towards an ice age back in the 70’s so ha ha, why should we believe them now?  Boy is that a silly way of thinking. Hey, we thought that most ulcers were caused by stress and stomach acid back in the 70’s but now they say it is caused by heliobactor pylori so why should we believe doctors?  Hey guys, we have better science and computers than back in the 70’s. If you don’t believe it go to climateprediction.net and check the project they are doing that could not have been done 30 years ago.

Bipolar Disorders and Children – Growing Epidemic or Drug Company Bonanza?

Nothing is as painful as having a child with emotional issues. I should know, I have one. My daughter Tasya has had emotional problems ever since she started having epileptic seizures 7 years ago. She has had mood swings and temper tantrums which by themselves is not unusual (most kids go through that) but the number and severity has been a problem. Most every doctor we see wants to put her on one medication after another without regard to the potential for long term damage.

In a report coming from the British magazine, New Scientist, they question whether doctors in the United States are too quick to treat children with what they are diagnosing as bipolar disorder. Since 1996 the number of children being diagnosed with this behavioral problem went from 13 out of every 100,000 to 73 out of every 100,000 in 2004, a five-fold jump in the number of diagnoses in a scant 8 years. Children as young as 3 are being diagnosed with the disease despite the absolute ridiculousness of even attempting to diagnoses this in children that young.

The use of psychotropic drugs on young children should be viewed as a crime unless there is overwhelming evidence. The fact that we have absolutely no evidence that in the long-term, these drugs are anywhere near safe should be a red-flag. Add to that the fact that a child who was 4 years old has died when given not one, not two, but three drugs for supposedly having a bipolar disorder. The child, Rebecca Riley, was given clonidine, Depakote (anti-convulsant also known as valproic acid) and the anti-psychotic Seroquel (quetiapine fumarate). Her parents are on trial to see if they deliberately overdose her or it was an accident. My finger is pointing straight at the physicians who prescribed the drugs to this unfortunate little girl with the hopes of stabilizing her mood.

No other country is seeing this increase in the incidence of bipolar disorder despite following the same guidelines from the DSM-IV (the official psychiatric manual).  Instead of seeking natural and much, much safer means, drug companies are throwing parties for doctors who would prescribe their money making drugs for children. My daughter had enormous success and improvement in mood and seizure activity following her eliminating foods that were causing an inflammatory response (LEAP MRT Test). Amino acid therapy, nutrition and even psychotherapy should be our first line of attack on neuropsychiatric disorders and NOT harsh and life threatening drugs.

Thankfully the editors at the New Scientist call into question whether the diagnoses and treatments are real, or as I suspect, profit driven by an increasingly money hungry pharmaceutical industry.

Skin Deep – Improved Database from the Environmental Working Group

The Environmental Working Group, a pro-environment lobbiest group, has released the newest version of their skin care toxicity product database. Anyone who uses cosmetics, deodorants, shampoos or conditioners needs to look at this product safety database.

Skin Deep is the only tool available to consumers to assess and compare the safety of personal care products.

Looking for safer sunscreen to protect the kids this summer? Or shampoos without dangerous preservatives? Skin Deep helps you learn what not to buy, and helps you find safer options for you and your family.

And along with adding thousands of products and a dozen new toxicity databases, we have also overhauled the look and feel of Skin Deep. You’ll find it easier to search for products and find answers about how chemicals affect our health.

Is the FDA About to Ban Supplements?

There is no doubt in my mind that some people (not the majority) in the Food and Drug Administration would like nothing better than to stop the public from having access to nutritional supplements in order to help their buddies in the harmaceutical industry to sell more drugs. A recent attempt was made to grab more power over supplements but it was defeated by the power of the public and lobby efforts from the supplement industry as well as Senators Orin Hatch (R-Utah) and Tom Harkin (D-Nebraska). Unfortunately, the fear mongers out there who want you to donate money to their pet charities (themselves), continue to say that bill SR-1082 will give the FDA the ability to control supplement use above and beyond the DSHEA law already on the books. This is simply not true.

If you follow this link, you can read the truth of the situation along with a transcript of the discussion between Hatch, Harkin, Kennedy and Enzi about protecting DSHEA.  As a matter of fact here is a quote from Senator Enzi of Wyoming, “Yes we took great pains to make certain that there would be no conflict with DSHEA.” Senator Harkin further stated “So to make this absolutely clear, what you are saying is that the bill we are debating would in no way interfere with consumers’ access to dietary supplements.” Senator Hatch even said that the language in the bill would be beneficial to consumers.

Come on, stop the fear-mongering and spend more time making sure the supplement industry gets rid of unscrupulous purveyors of garbage and multi-level companies who promise the moon at super high prices and deliver nothing more than overpriced junk. This is what we need to work on, not scaring people half to death about an issue that isn’t.

Multivitamin Use Causes an Increase in Prostate Cancer? Not!!!

In a paper published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Goran Bjelakovic (a noted anti-supplement warrior and well known harmaceutical shill) along with Dr. Christian Gluud insinuate that men taking multivitamins seven days a week have a much higher risk of dying of prostate cancer than those who take none. They further go on to dribble that their findings “underscore the possibility that antioxidant supplements could have unintended consequences for our health.”  You know, if I were as bad of a scientist and published garbage like this, I wouldn’t be allowed to speak at any conferences ever again. There are so many flaws and misjudgements in this as to be embarrassing to the National Cancer Institute.

Here are a few problems off the top of my head.

  1. Men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer are more likely to take multivitamins than those with no health issues. This was not looked at.
  2. The use of multivitamins was done using an intake questionnaire which is notorious for false numbers.
  3. The authors had no idea how long any of the people in the study used the multi vitamins a truly serious flaw.
  4. They claim that the population in question was “well nourished” despite a lot of evidence to the contrary. Our food supply is notorious for poor nutrient levels (see my blog).
  5. They used a cohort study which does not look at all of the variables possible. Statistics are easily manipulated (as they are here) to find something you want to find regardless of whether it really is there or not.
  6. There is no way, using the data supplied that a causative relationship can be developed. The authors admit this yet make conclusions that suggest a causal relationship. This is scientific dishonesty at its worse.

There are more problems with this paper but my biggest issue is how it got out of peer-review unless it was done nefariously, with a pointed agenda attached, aka anti-supplement. As I mentioned earlier, these are well-known anti-nutrient shills and this should be made very well known before giving any credence to the paper.

Shame on the National Cancer Institute.

Phthalates in Toys – Time for a Ban

In their drive to make money, a number of toy manufacturers have thought nothing of having known toxins in the goods they sell to children. They bury their heads in research, funded by industry, that flies in the face of what unbiased science tells us which is that phthalates and Bisphenol A have no place in a childs world.  Here is a well written article about the subject, thanks to my friend David Vaughn, who has the best food nutrient diet software program anywhere.

Drug Companies Are Buying Your Doctors

Articles published in both the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association are showing that drug companies are spending big bucks try to influence physicians to buy their brand of drugs over the competitors even though there are rarely any real clinical benefits to a new drug. Many of the companies deny this practice is really effective but it makes you wonder why they keep spending more each year on it if it doesn’t work. Doctors claim they aren’t influenced but all the research suggests otherwise.

If the doctors groups like the American Medical Association are unwilling to force their members to change this practice and deny entrance to their offices to big pharma reps then legislation is in order. We need our physicians to be impartial and objective, not beholden to the purveyors of gifts and free lunches. We need a change in the way our country goes about its health care and we need a change now. If not we will continue to slip down the rankings of countries when it comes to delivering health care to our citizens.

Science in the News

Here are some recent tidbits and factoids that might be of interest.

  • Women who live in polluted areas with poor air quality have babies with lower birthweights. This finding, according to researchers at Yale University should make it clear that air quality improvements are critical in protecting new born babies. Low birthweight equals poor health so it would behove us to work to make our cities healthier.
  • According to a study done in the U.K., researchers found that women who had an early start to puberty were more likely to have obese children. While it is obvious to some of us that hormone disrupting chemicals in the environment are partly to blame, we also have to ensure that these high risk women are educated in the field of proper nutrition so that their children don’t become obese,
  • When it comes to air quality, ethanol and gasoline are pretty much the same.  To this date, I can’t seem to wrap my brain around the whole ethanol is good for America mantra. It isn’t that efficient, takes a lot of fuel to make, and will cause food prices to go up as ethanol producing corn gets planted over a greater area. Bad politics following bad science is a sure fire way to a big mistake.
  • In 2005, industrial and federal facilities in the United States released 4 billion pounds of chemicals into the environment, up 3 percent from the previous year or 117 million pounds more. This number explains why the present administration is so hell bent on not making some companies report their toxic releases. Not for business sake, but to hide the frightening numbers. Lead, a known neurotoxin, was added to our environment to the tune of 469 million pounds. Mercury, one of the deadliest poisons known, had 4.4 million pounds injected into our world by industry. Just think that only a few milligrams can spell disaster for a person and we are talking in the millions of pounds.
  • Polyphenols found in green tea, may have negative side effects when taken in large quantities. Taking 10 cups or the equivalent as a supplement form of green tea is the limit. Too much of a good thing can be bad for you in this case.
  • Every mother knows them and dreads them, the infamous baby growth chart. Ub a review published by the New Scientist, those charts may have been flawed, causing mothers to overfeed their children thereby leading to an increased risk of obesity.  Oops. According to Laurence Grummer-Strawn of the Center for Disease Control, “rapid growth in infancy has been shown to be associated with increased obesity.” My tip to mothers, dump the charts and watch your baby, if they look healthy and not emaciated, they are probably fine. To pediatricians, do the same.

 

    For the Environments Sake – Stop Buying Bottled Water

    When it comes to wasting reseources, there are few things that can highlight human folly than bottled water.  As I mentioned in a previous post, buying bottled water, especially Fiji water, is a terrible drain on the environment. What is sad is many of the people who drink bottled water are the same people who want to protect the environment. Time to change folks.  Here is an article from a Tasmanian on-line newspaper (I go to the ends of the internet world for my readers) that spells out how bad bottled water is for our world. Hopefully it will make you stop buying it. I did.