Category Archives: Controversial Issues

The Media Lies Continue – Antioxidant’s Do Help Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk

As I have pointed out in the past, the media seems to love to lie to the public about the benefits of nutritional supplements. Caleb Hellerman, a stalwart for media distortions with CNN wrote how there was no benefit to the use of supplements in the past, a clear distortion and lack of good reporting. Now the media jumped on one of the worst studies on antioxidants done to date. Their claim as I reported earlier, was that women gained no benefit from the supplementation of antioxidants like vitamin C and E. Turns out, that was a clear distortion of the findings of the study.

My original post showed that the researchers did not look at the lifestyles of the study subjects which distorts the data. Today, I found out more dishonesty about the study which sickened me. Mike Adams points out that they included the data on the benefits of antioxidants from women who DID NOT TAKE the supplements. They showed no benefits to supplementation of vitamins C and E. NO KIDDING!  How can any self-respecting journal publish a piece a garbage like that?  And unless the media purposely distorts the truth, how could they publicize this?  The only reason I can see is the incestuous relationship they have with the advertising dollars from the pharmaceutical industry.  This is just another reason why pharmaceutical advertising must be banned.

Back to the study. What was revealed yet not reported by the media is that those women who actually took the supplements showed a clear benefit and reduction of cardiovascular disease. What did the media report? That there was no benefit despite the evidence that there was one. How dishonest is this? Antioxidants ARE beneficial. The truth is out there, but when money from the pharmaceutical industry clouds minds, the truth is often hidden.

Pharmaceutical Companies are Ruining Our Health Care System

In a well thought out article, Robert Bazell, Chief science and health correspondent for NBC News, writes about the ridiculous and scandalous way drug companies are ripping us off. In this case he uses the example of the drug Nexium, that purple pill and how little of a difference there is between it and Prilosec a drug from the same company but costing 7 times more!

Remarkably, the FDA approved Nexium even though it was only proven to be 3% better than its predecessor which is virtually identical except for a minor difference which allowed it to be patentable. This was purely a money-making ploy and had nothing to do with helping patients. The cost to us?  Since seven million people use Nexium which costs $200 per month and Prilosec costs $30 that comes out to a waste of $1.19 billion a year. That is an out and out theft. Multiply this by 20 drugs and you can see the enormous amount of money being made with little benefit to any of us.

So how did they do it?  By spending up to $16 million a month on advertising. Don’t think advertising works?  In this case, there is clear evidence that pharmaceutical advertising drives physician’s prescription. How else can you explain the use of a far more expensive drug with limited benefits over a cheaper generic?  You can’t and it is an abomination. Congress needs to jump on this and stop pharmaceutical advertising to patients. It is a rip off of unprecedented magnitude. We need to reel in our health care costs and this is one way to do it. The other thing that needs fixing is the approval process in the FDA. Why approve this drug at all when no benefit to human health is seen?  Make them improve the drugs not just change something minor and rip people off again.

Better yet, look into nutritional and alternative means of controlling heartburn and you will save so much more than money. You will avoid all those side-effects from the drugs and needing treatment for them as well.

In another article written by the same author, he seems stunned that Lipitor’s maker Pfizer drags out Dr. Richard Jarvik who in Mr. Bazell’s words asks the question, “Would you buy a heart medication from someone whose own efforts to cure heart disease led to failure?”  Do people realize this man never practiced medicine and his claim to fame, the Jarvik Heart was actually based on work by the famous ventriloquist Paul Winchell. It was considered a barbaric medical device that caused pain and suffering to whomever it was tried on. This is who Pfizer hires to push its drug which by the way losses its patent protection in 2010. Wonder what crap they will roll out to replace it.

Avandia – Isolated Problem or a System Gone Bad

Despite research showing that the drug Avandia causes an increased risk of heart disease in patients with diabetes, the FDA yesterday voted to allow the drug to remain on the market. So how is this protecting the public? Isn’t part of the job of the FDA to protect us from drugs that can harm us? Apparently not. BTW a scientist from the FDA supposedly was taken off the case when he or she found information that suggested that the drug was not safe. Read the article here.

Is this an FDA problem or an issue that goes much deeper. My opinion is the latter. It is a system that no longer holds the pharmaceutical companies accountable in a real world manner. The FDA is shorthanded, under-budgeted and faced with billion dollar lobbyists pressuring them to “fast-track” their next blockbuster drug. This is a huge problem and will likely not get fixed any time soon. People I’ve talked to with an inside knowledge of the FDA tell me that there is a growing frustration level at the agency because they feel like they are being lied to and deceived by some of the pharmaceutical companies when it comes to adverse event reports and followup efficacy research.

What is needed is independent research into drug on the market. My proposal is to create a government agency under the FDA which would give out grants to universities to study the effects of drugs on patients, kind of a Phase IV research program. The research would be funded by the pharmaceutical industry in a pooled manner. You sell 1 billion dollars worth of a drug, you put in 3% into the pool. All the companies are mandated to put the money in depending on the sales figures for their drugs in the U.S. In the case of Avandia, since they sell 3 billion dollars a year of the drug, Glaxo would be forced to fork over 90 million to the project.

From this, we could have a top notch monitoring system to oversee the safety of the drugs being marketed to physicians. The other overhaul would be to severely curtail advertising of drugs to the consumer. The crap from the industry that they are just educating the public is just that, crap. The education, and I mean education not bribery, should be focused strictly on the physicians, with strict guidelines. No trips to the Bahamas to hear a sales pitch, just local lectures and information passed on in a professional manner. One other issue, no more marketing to physicians about off label uses of drugs. The sales rep should be banned from touting a drug for treatment of a disease that has not been approved by the FDA. This is dangerous and unscientific and needs to be prosecuted if found.

This issue is not going away anytime soon as long as the pharmaceutical industry is not run just for profit. Time for a change.

Terrorist Dry Runs? Another Administration Attention Getter.

This is simply getting ridiculous. Every few weeks the Bush Administration calls out another scare to take our minds off of serious issues. Remember the bottles of liquid gang who were going to blow up planes?  Not so. Unfortunately we can’t take water on planes anymore even though the threat wasn’t real. Now the latest “dry runs” being done by potential terrorists may not be real either. In San Diego, they claim that there were no dry runs being done in their airport despite media claims otherwise. Click here for the story.

My mother told me the story of Peter Wolf and I feel that our government is crying wolf too often. Is there a terrorist threat?  Of course. Is there concern amongst travellers?  Yes again. Do we need to have “gut feelings” made public by the head of Homeland Security?  Why?  Our democracy is at a crossroads. Do we continue to become more and more paranoid and act like Chicken Little’s and start banning everything from being carried on airplanes for safety purposes?

I am saddened by the way this administration is handling our country and this is another example of the distance they have with reality. As a proud American, I hope we as a people have the guts to stand up and say enough is enough. We want the respect the rest of the world once had for us back.

Antidepressant Use in America. A Depressing Situation.

Don’t like the way your husband is handling the family finances?  Take some antidepressants! Angry with the school about your child’s report card? Take some antidepressants.  According to a government funded study, more Americans take antidepressants than any other drug family. Over 118 million prescriptions were written last year which is up a staggering 48% over the past decade. Some of this increase is the fact that more physicians are becoming adept at diagnosing the disease but I feel that the majority of it is due to marketing done by the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Richard Dworkin even states, “Doctors are now medicating unhappiness. Too many people take drugs when they really need to be making changes in their lives.”

While depression is a serious disorder, there are way too many cases where physicians are prescribing drugs for issues that have nothing to do with the disease. These medications have serious side effects and should be used only when a clinical diagnosis of depression is clear. Still, an even better solution would be to try using amino acid therapy first. The book The Healing Nutrients Within recalls many stories of patients with depression improving using amino acid therapy.

It’s so much about profits, so little about really helping patients. Amino acids can help people far more than antidepressants can. They just won’t make the pharmaceutical industry any money. America, the land where we medicate unhappiness.

The Edge of Evolution – Is Michael Behe Right or Wrong?

Michael Behe is one of the leading advocates of Intelligent Design over Evolution and he just published a book called The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. In it he argues that while yes, parasites and viruses (to name a few) do show definitive evolutionary steps because of their ability to become drug resistant, humans, could not possibly have mutations like those by chance because in his words “…we would need to wait a hundred million times ten million years. Since that is many times the age of the universe, it’s reasonable to conclude the following: No mutiation that is of the same complexity as chloroquine resistance in malaria arose by Darwinian evolution in the line leading to humans in the past ten million years.” This is why he belives that humans could not have have evolved from apes. Nice argument but unfortunately, as pointed out by Professor of Biology Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University, his math is wrong as is much of his reasoning.

In this weeks issue (June 28th, 2007) of Nature, Dr. Miller puts forth a brilliant rebuttal of Michael Behe’s fundamental argument in his book. His comment about Behe’s error is powerful. He states, “It would be difficult to imagine a more breathtaking abuse of statistical genetics.” He further goes on to say “Behe obtains his probabilities by considering each mutation as an independent event, ruling out any role for cumulative selection, and requiring evolution to achieve an exact, predetermined result. Not only are each of these conditions unrealistic, but they do not apply even in the case of his chosen example.”

Behe is an example of someone who creates a supposed scientific fact using the right words but makes incorrect assumptions. His claim that life is irreducibly complex because “every part of such a system had to be in place for natural selection to favor it.” As Dr. Miller states, “A nice argument, except for the annoying fact that it is wrong.” He points out that many protein subsets have selectable functions that Behe claims don’t occur.

This is why intelligent design promoters fail in courts when they try to get I.D. taught in school science programs. Their science isn’t there. Not even a shred of scientific data to prove it.

It’s Time to Just Say No to Drug Ads

In an editorial from the journal New Scientist, one of the best arguments against allowing pharmaceutical companies to continue to advertise to the general public.  I have been a supporter of a ban of drug ads for years. There is no purpose and I believe it causes illicit drug use to go up. As long as the image is that drugs will solve all of your health problems, instead of talking about leading a healthy lifestyle, we are going to be a sick society with way too expensive of a health system.

Here is the editorial.

BACK in 2001, a series of poster advertisements appeared in US cities depicting athletic young men climbing mountains and sailing boats. The sun was always shining and everything seemed right with the world, though the men all had HIV. The clear implication of the ads, which came from pharmaceutical companies, was that thanks to a new generation of drugs, HIV-positive men could now live life to the full.

As marketing campaigns go, it was something of a failure. Gay activists complained that the ads did not reflect the reality of life on anti-retroviral medication. Eventually the Food and Drug Administration told the companies to stop using such unrealistic images, but by then the damage had been done: a survey by health officials indicated that by playing down the consequences of becoming infected with HIV the posters were encouraging unsafe sex.

This may be an extreme example of the dangers of “direct-to-consumer” drug advertising (DTCA), but the lesson has not been learned. Drug companies now spend more than $3 billion annually on DTCA, twice what they spent in 2001, despite the fact that the ads have repeatedly been shown to result in unnecessary or potentially harmful prescriptions. So it is worrying that US policy-makers are backing away from moves to restrict DTCA, and that in Europe, where such advertising is banned, drug companies are trying to bring it in by the back door.

Lobbyists for the industry argue that DTCA is a win-win business: the public gets access to information about new medicines at no cost to the taxpayer, and people who would benefit from them are prompted to visit their doctor to discuss treatments. None of these claims stands up. DTCA does encourage people to see their doctor, but it doesn’t follow that they get the right treatment. Very often their enthusiasm for a drug they have seen advertised persuades the doctor to prescribe it inappropriately. This was illustrated by a 2005 study in which actors claiming to be suffering from “adjustment disorder” – a strong emotional reaction to a stressful event – visited doctors and asked for an antidepressant they said they had seen in a television advert. It is unusual to prescribe such drugs for this condition, since it normally goes away of its own accord, yet more than half the doctors agreed. Many physicians admit it can be hard to resist pressure from patients, something drug companies are well aware of.

Part of the problem is that adverts rarely tell the whole story. Patients are often framed by the setting sun or pictured freewheeling down leafy avenues. The subtext is: here is a pill that can end your pain. What most adverts fail to mention is that many diseases can be tackled or prevented with lifestyle changes, such as diet or exercise. Little wonder that most doctors find DTCA unhelpful.

What everyone agrees on is that the adverts work. In New Zealand, the only other country that permits DTCA, a 1998 marketing campaign resulted in 16,000 asthma sufferers persuading their doctors to switch them to a new brand of inhaler. The adverts angered many doctors, who felt the new inhaler offered little or no extra benefit, and since it was more expensive the switch is estimated to have cost taxpayers over $2.5 million.

That kind of tale should be enough to kill off DTCA everywhere. Some US policy-makers want the government to be able to ban TV commercials for a new drug for up to three years if it thinks the drug poses unknown risks, but last week a House of Representatives subcommittee stripped the proposal from a bill making its way through Congress. Politicians in Europe are likely to face a similar battle as the pharmaceutical industry tries to introduce DTCA under the guise of providing health information to patients.

There is nothing wrong with giving consumers access to information – generally the more the better. The problem with DTCA is that the information is at best incomplete, at worst biased. There is a better way to provide people with data about medicines: the US Consumers Union, for example, produces free drugs guides in partnership with independent researchers who have no financial interest in the drugs they may recommend. It seems the US Congress has thrown away the chance to follow this enlightened approach. The European Commission should embrace it.

Obesity and Men – New Data Linking Toxins to Waist Circumference and Insulin Resistance

In a study published in the June 2007 issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, authors Stahlhut et al, report that they have found that “phthalate (a plasticizer) metabolites showed statistically significant correlations with abdominal obesity and insulin resistance.” The correlations were found in a cross-section of US males. The mechanism they believe is the way that this man-made chemical can reduce androgen (e.g. testosterone) production and/or function. In a number of human studies, men who have had androgen deprivation therapy have shown increases in serum glucose, total fat and have shown the propensity to have a greater chance of having metabolic syndrome.

The study, available from the EHP journal free of charge, has major implications. As some of you may know from my lectures around the world and some of my blogs here, I have always asserted that there is a link between toxicity and obesity. Here is yet another powerful study that shows yet another reason why we need to keep on our toes and make sure that our bodies are able to detoxify efficiently. It also leads to the answer to the proverbial chicken vs egg question, but here it is which came first, obesity (fat is a gerat storage place for toxins) or toxicity.  I firmly believe, toxicity is one of the causative factors of the obesity epidemic. My suspicion is that these toxins cause people (even young children) to crave, then eat to excess, sugars and fats to deal with their increasing insulin resistance issues.

Testing for two urinary metabolites of phthalates is easy and inexpensive. Have your physician contact Lab Interpretation LLC and ask for the Environmental Pollutants Biomarker test from US Biotek. Not only does it measure urinary output of phthalates and monoethyl phthalates, it looks at metabolites of xylene, toluene, benzene, trimethylbenzene, styrene and parabens.  Since almost every human on earth now has detectable levels of a number of toxins flowing through their body, it is imperative that we measure whether we excrete the toxins effectively.

In today’s toxic world, you need to know your enemy so you can effectively deal with it and find the sources of exposure.

Is Big Pharma in Trouble?

Recent political developments as well as series of problems with so-called blockbuster drugs have caused the pharmaceutical industry to go on the defensive. After the bad news surrounding VioxxTM followed up this year by the news that the diabetes drug AvandiaTM causes an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer have been forced to scramble to stem the tide of bad publicity. They are doing this by protesting that the data being presented is somehow biased and false instead of owning up to the error of their way and admitting that they didn’t do their homework.

There really seems to be a need to revamp the way clinical trials are being done in order to protect the public and secondly to help with the creation of newer and better drugs to help people. The profit above all modus operandi which at first held promise of incentivizing the pharmaceutical industry has instead created a monster who takes diseases and syndromes which may typically only address a small number of people and creates a marketing campaign to include people who have no business taking the drug. The side-effects that crop up are then treated with other drugs which that the patient wouldn’t have needed had they never taken the unnecessary first medication.

Do I have the answer?  Maybe. What we need is independent, for-profit companies that would be paid by the pharmaceutical industry to run the clinical trials. As a protection against collusion, the government could set up huge penalties for breaking the independence. 

Here are some of the benefits behind my proposal:

If bad results came out of a trial, it would have to be made public due to regulations that could be written into law.

  • The drug companies could no longer hide data that showed problems with the drug studied which would increase the protection to the public.
  • Independent research would bring back public confidence.
  • It would replace the development of minimally helpful drugs who only are slightly better (if at all) than existing ones with true blockbusters that might really improve peoples lives.

Here are some of the arguments that might arise:

It might stifle scientific innovation (which it wouldn’t, it just might cut into profit a wee bit).

  • It would slow down the process of bringing a new drug to market (actually it might speed things up).
  • It will delay or stop medications from being developed that only help small numbers of people (they already don’t do this enough anyway).

While this might not be the perfect system, it needs to be debated and at the very least a change is in order. It’s the perfect political climate with the Democrats in control of both sides of Congress since Big Pharma decided to donate 69% of its political contributions in 2006 to the Republicans which is the most of any major industry (excluding oil – surprise surprise). 

Instead of targeting the nutraceutical/alternative health industry whose track record of safety far surpasses the pharmaceuticals, it would be in their best interest to look inwards and come up with independent ways of running clinical trials. It’s time to change with the times Big Pharma.

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.