Category Archives: Opinion

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.

Tidbits and Findings From the World of Medical Research

Can Standard Cancer Treatments Cause Metastasis? 

In an article in the May 2007 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, discovered a protein known as transforming growth factor beta (TGF-bets) which can increase the likelihood of developing additional tumors after the use of traditional cancer therapies such as chemotherapy and radiation. While TGF-beta is normally found in healthy individuals, its presence in cancer patients can present a problem if this mouse study is confirmed in human studies. The future may be brighter for cancer victims if methods to lower the prescence of TGF-beta while treatment is ongoing.

Men, Migraines and Heart Attack Risk

According to the Archives of Internal Medicine, men between the ages of 40-84 who have migraines are 24 percent more likely to have a heart attack than non-sufferers. While the reason is unknown to researchers, I have an idea.

I believe that a large number of migraine sufferers suffer from an inflammatory reaction to foods and food additives. This is borne out by the positive results from Signet Diagnostics and their LEAP MRT blood test which looks for the pro-inflammatory reaction of foods on people. Their success rate with migraine sufferers is a astonishing 67%. Basically, they check to see which of 150 items your body reacts to in an inflammatory manner and has you change your diet accordingly.

Heart disease is really not so much about cholesterol and fat as it is about inflammation. If we reduce inflammatory processes, we will probably reduce heart disease as well as many other diseases and syndromes. Just something to think about.

Are Your Food Packages Harmful to your Health?

According to researchers reporting in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, the answer is yes. A coating put into food packaging called polyfluoroalkyl phosphate surfactants (PAPS) that acts as a oil and water repelent may convert into the toxic substance known as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), This chemical which helps make TeflonTM, is a known carcinogen and is being found with increasing regularity in people around the world.

What is disturbing about the revelation is that the researchers found that our bodies are converting the PAPS into PFOAs and the chemicals created in the intermediate steps between the two may be even more toxic. This is also found in the detoxification pathway of Xylene and Toluene where the intermediate of 2- or 3-methylhippurate (final stage of those solvents detoxification and excretion) is 2- or 3- methylbenzoate which is highly toxic.

What the researchers led by Dr. Scott Marbury and Jessica C. D’eon of the University of Toronto are now doing is finding out how prevalent and widespread PAPS are in our environment. My guess is that it is all over and in higher quantities than expected.

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.

Vitamins, Minerals and Antioxidants – Safe or Not? The Debate Rages On.

In the May 2007 issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition an interesting series of comments can be found in the letters to the editor. John Hathcock, an employee of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a dietary supplement advocacy group, questioned a study published in the same journal last year that doubted that antioxidants and vitamin/mineral supplementation was beneficial in the prevention of cancer or cardiovascular disease. He made some compelling arguments against the use of meta-analysis (a statistical method) when reviewing the benefits or lack there of, of supplements. First off, he points out that they included only a small number of clinical trials which is a problem using a meta-analysis. Others argue that all we really need is the RDA to avoid disease but he points out that the prevention of neural tube defects through the use of supplemented folic acid is not a sign of deficiency but a need for extra supplementation.

Donald McCormick of Emory University and Joachim Bleys, et al of Johns Hopkins Medical Institution argue in their correspondence that indeed their findings do show no benefit to the use of antioxidants or B-vitamins. While Hathcock says that the famous Women’s Health Study showed a benefit to the use of vitamin E in reducing cardiovascular death, McCormick and Bleys quote the study conclusion that states “These data do not support recommending vitamin E supplementation for cardiovascular disease or cancer prevention among healthy women.” Both are correct but the later is misleading.

First off, the studies were done on a form of vitamin E known as alpha-tocopherol which is not the optimal type. Gamma-tocopherol should make up at least 40% of the vitamin E used for many reasons (to be discussed at a later date). Secondly, the study showed benefits to unhealthy women but the conclusion states that they can’t recommend vitamin E use to “healthy” women. That is a blatant misleading conclusion and is easily misconstrued to show no benefit to anyone.

My real problem with both sides of the controversy is the use of large population studies to support or deny the benefits of supplementation. It is preposterous to suggest that these studies are beneficial in any way, shape or form when you looking at the concept of biochemical individuality. You are different from me, and what would benefit me, may either have no effect on you or may actually harm you. Are all supplements beneficial?  Depends. To some people, some nutrients may be harmful or wasteful. To others, it can be life saving or dramatically life enhancing. What you need to do is to laboratory testing to determine what you really need.

In my 20+ years of reviewing lab test data, I have yet to see two sets of results that are the same. Fifty thousand tests in the bag and still no two people who are alike. I have seen people who have taken too many supplements, the wrong array and many who don’t have adequate intake of essential nutrients to stay healthy. If we can only get researchers to adopt a new paridigm and look at individuals instead of populations, we might, just might get better health care and a real improvement in the quality of our lives.

Prescription Drug Abuse – A Growing National Problem

In the May 5-11th, 2007 issue of The Lancet, Michael McCarthy tells a disturbing tale about the dramatic increase in the abuse of pharmaceutical drugs in the United States. There were 1.4 million visits to the emergency room in 2005 related to drug misuse. While illegal drug use is down, prescription and over-the-counter drug use is way up, especially among children and teens.

So why is this happening?  The pharmaceutical industry would like you to believe that it is due to the easy access people have to these drugs via internet drugstores. While this is certainly a reason why teens can get the supplies, I believe that it is in large part due to the excessive advertising of drugs on television. They make the drugs seem harmless and essential to enjoying life. This is the wrong message that is being sent to our society. I believe we need to seriously curtail pharmaceutical companies from advertising to the general public.

The site run The Partnership for a Drug-Free America is a good resource if you have a child or know an adult who may be abusing drugs.

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.