Tag Archives: Medical Research

Tara Parker-Pope: A Reporter Who Needs a Different Job

The New York Times, a newspaper you either love or hate, typically has a fine line-up of reporters and writers but one in particular needs resign from her position and find another line of work that does not require the ability to do careful research and intelligence. Tara Parker-Pope, needs to switch from reporting to something that only requires manual labor. Her recent article, “News Keeps Getting Worse for Vitamins” is an embarassment and is just another example of an inability she has to find out what the word truth means.

If she had bothered to research the studies she cites instead of choking the nonsense down like an obese person at an all you can eat buffet, she would have seen that what was presented was biased and consisted of terribly constructed research. The quantities of vitamin C and E used in the cardiovascular and cancer study were ridiculously low. Go to my podcast site labinterpretation.podhoster.com and listen to episode 13 where I discuss the issues that should have made the studies Ms. Parker-Pope cites go unpublished.

One of the major problems I have with the study on Vitamin C was the insanely low dose used. They used 500 mg of C daily when all intelligent researchers and clinicians know that you need a minimum of 2 grams and with cancer, 10 grams daily to get the needed effect. It is similar to the nonsense from the Mayo Clinic when they tried to disprove Dr. Pauling and Dr. Cameron’s work on cancer. They used intravenous vitamin C and Mayo used oral C and yet they claimed it was the same (it is definitely not). This is blatant dishonesty and the media is supposed to be objective and uncover the truth, not chow down on anything the so-called experts say. Ms. Parker-Pope, find a new job.

More Deceit From the Pharmaceutical Industry

It just keeps coming it seems, the pharmaceutical industry has stooped to levels even I didn’t think possible. Merck was just found to have paid academic scientists to put their names on papers they didn’t write. Who wrote the papers? Company hired medical writers of course.

According to Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, JAMA’s editor-in-chief, “The manipulation is disgusting. I just didn’t realize the extent.”  I think her use of the word disgusting pretty much sums up my opinion of this revelation. The article about this scandal is in today’s Journal of the American Medical Association. You can read the two articles, one by Ross, Hill, Egilman, and Krumholz and the other by Psaty and Kronmal. 

One JAMA report says internal company data showed in 2001 that Vioxx patients in two Alzheimer’s studies had a higher death rate than patients on dummy pills. Merck didn’t publicize that “in a timely fashion” and provided information to federal regulators that downplayed the deaths, the report said. It’s time to reign in the industry through Congressional legislation.

Lest you think that only Merck is guilty of this deception, think again. I am sure that you will see more of this cropping up in the coming months. In my opinion, this type of behavior is driven by executives of pharmaceutical companies need to impress Wall Street and fluff up their balance sheets instead of having patient’s health in mind.

Here is the result of a paper done by Choudry, et al published in JAMA about how pervasive the industry’s hooks into medicine is:

“Eighty-seven percent of authors had some form of interaction with the pharmaceutical industry. Fifty-eight percent had received financial support to perform research and 38% had served as employees or consultants for a pharmaceutical company. On average, CPG authors interacted with 10.5 different companies. Overall, an average of 81% (95% confidence interval, 70%-92%) of authors per CPG had interactions. Similarly, all of the CPGs for 7 of the 10 diseases included in our study had at least 1 author who had some interaction. Fifty-nine percent had relationships with companies whose drugs were considered in the guideline they authored, and of these authors, 96% had relationships that predated the guideline creation process. Fifty-five percent of respondents indicated that the guideline process with which they were involved had no formal process for declaring these relationships. In published versions of the CPGs, specific declarations regarding the personal financial interactions of individual authors with the pharmaceutical industry were made in only 2 cases. Seven percent thought that their own relationships with the pharmaceutical industry influenced the recommendations and 19% thought that their coauthors’ recommendations were influenced by their relationships. “

What is truly sad is how many people have suffered health and financial wise due to the greed and immoral behavior by the pharmaceutical industry.

My Book is Out and Available

My book, Achieving Victory Over a Toxic World is now available through multiple outlets. It is the story of a child, my daughter, and her battle with a rare type of epilepsy, given little chance of recovery by the medical world, but through it all she has made it through, not perfectly, with the ability to live a normal life.

It also deals with what I believe caused her disorder, environmental toxicity. We are polluting our world at a staggering ratewhich is causing epidemics of diseases unheard of in human history. Big corporations would want you to believe this is not happening but my book shows you the truth.

The scariest part of my research delved into the effect these toxins are having on our most vunerable citizens, our children, and the up coming generations. In the final two parts of the book, I give you real world ideas on how to cope with the toxins and how you can begin the movement toward changing our world before it is too late. The increase in the rate of autism, asthma, epilepsy, ADHD, childhood cancers, cannot be explained by a “genetic epidemic”. We are poisoning ourselves and we can change that.

To order the book, you can go to either Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble.com or for faster service my publisher –  AuthorHouse’s web site . This book represents my 20+ years of research along with the passion that comes with fighting for a daughter’s life. I can guarantee one thing about the book and that is it will move you, both emotionally and physically to help us change the world.

Book Cover Picture

Antidepressants – Hidden Drug Trials Show Negative Results

It almost seems to be an everyday issue, but more and more we see how drug trials that don’t show benefits are being either ignored, hidden or modified by the pharmaceutical industry. In a review of the studies on 12 antidepressant drugs, researchers led by Erick H. Turner found that 31% of the studies on these drugs went unpublished and the majority were negative or were conveyed to have a positive outcome which was contrary to the data. The paper was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, in their January 17, 2008 issue. What was truly remarkable was how much the perceived benefits of the drugs were changed because of the lack of publication of all of the data. According to the authors, if you looked at the published research, the antidepressant drugs had positive outcomes 94% of the time. If you include the unpublished research that number drops to a mere 51%. This is a huge difference and should make everyone think twice before agreeing to be put on the medications or at least safer, alternatives should be investigated first.

According to the papers conclusion, “We cannot determine whether the bias observed resulted from a failure to submit manuscripts on the part of authors and sponsors, from decisions by journal editors and reviewers not to publish, or both. Selective reporting of clinical trial results may have adverse consequences for researchers, study participants, health care professionals, and patients.” In my opinion, it is the sponsors who are probably most likely to apply pressure to stop publication. This would mean that the pharmaceutical industry is to blame. We need to take research on drug efficacy out of their hands and into the hands of real researchers without the onus of pressure and conflict of interest.

Why is this so damaging? When you do a search on meta-analysis of antidepressant drugs, you find a number that show how beneficial the drugs are, like the one by Drs. Dubika, Hadley and Roberts entitled, “Suicidal behaviour in youths with depression treated with new-generation antidepressants” published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2006. Would that study’s conclusion, which is that “Antidepressants may cause a small short-term risk of self-harm or suicidal events in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder” have changed to a large short-term risk or a small long-term risk or maybe worst case scenario, a large long-term risk? Chances are, based on the Turner paper that the answer is yes, the results would have changed but by how much, we cannot tell.

What we can say is that there is a major problem that needs a solution and it has to come sooner than later. How many of us are on medications that may not be helping us or maybe damaging our health and that of our loved ones?
So what do we do about it? Determine biochemical imbalances and toxicity influences on behavior as well as inflammatory processes that have been shown to cause depression in people for decades. The research exists but it is being downplayed by greedy pharmaceutical giants whose obvious intention is to make money at all costs and deflect criticism and downgrade safe alternatives.

Tomorrow, I will discuss a few tests I think are extremely helpful in working with mild to moderate depression in both adults and children.

Cholesterol Lowering Drugs are Worthless in Most Cases – Part One

Some of you may have noticed a lack of posts from me this week well I have a pretty good reason. My 86-year old father underwent triple-bypass surgery due to three 90%+ clogged arteries. Since this makes two parents out of two having this dangerous procedure, I wanted to research heart disease a bit. Then I saw an article in Business Week magazine while walking through the SeaTac Airport that made me smile as it was saying what I have been saying for years, which is, statin drugs really don’t prevent heart disease.  

Aside from the Vytorin®/Zetia® debacle, the whole idea of lowering cholesterol (LDL especially) to prevent heart disease is nothing less than a scam. In my upcoming book, Achieving Victory Over a Toxic World, I devote a few pages on the medical communities fascination with LDL and heart disease and how bogus the idea is. Well, the evidence is coming in that I was indeed right, as were a number of researchers I mentioned like Dr. Ufe Ravnskov and Dr. John Abramson.

When I make my comments at lectures around the world about the lack of a real link between LDL cholesterol and heart disease I get mixed reactions. Knowledgeable health care practitioners nod in agreement with big smiles; others grimace with a backdrop of anger and disbelief. Individuals look mystified, bewildered and highly skeptical. How can a guy with a doctorate in business be right when so many physicians who have studied heart disease be wrong? If you stay on the side that thinks statin drugs and lowering cholesterol are proven preventive treatments for coronary heart disease after reading this three-part blog, either you are in a major state of denial or you are on the payroll of a pharmaceutical company that is benefiting from the sale of these ill-conceived toxins.

An important concept to understand is a number called the NNT (Number Needed to Treat). This number tells us the number of people that must take a drug for one person to benefit. If a drug is perfect, than that number should be one, which means for every one person who takes the drug, one person will benefit from it and prevent or successfully treat the disease or syndrome.

For people taking an antibiotic cocktail to kill off the bacterium (H pylorii) that causes ulcers, the NNT is 1.1, which is pretty darn good.  For Lipitor®, whose sales last year for Pfizer was about 13 billion dollars, the NNT is between 16-23 for people who have had a heart attack or have definitive signs of heart disease. Not horrible, but an ok number.

So what does that number mean? To prevent one person having a heart event 16-23 people need to be taking the drug. To prevent a death, 48 people would have to take the drug for 5 years to save one life. But we are saving lives would (and is) the industry answer. Guess what? Change your lifestyle just a little bit (eat better, exercise more, stop smoking, etc) and you’ll do much better than that and you won’t have any nasty side effects.

For those of you with a risk factor like high blood pressure and no existing heart disease or heart attack history, the NNT goes to 75-200. If you have no risk factor except what the medical community would deem “high” cholesterol (over 220 mg/dl) the NNT is a ridiculous 500+ as there is no measurable reduction in deaths or serious events. Very little potential benefit, lots of profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

What about Zetia®? The NNT is an astounding 1000+. It is basically worthless. No benefits seen at all. The same can be said for the diabetes drug Avandia® which does lower blood glucose, but does not prevent any disease caused by diabetes.

“Lipitor® reduces the risk of heart attack by 36%… in patients with multiple risk factors for heart disease.” This is what Dr. Jarvik claims (as does Pfizer) in that insipid ad he appears on TV. Now let’s talk about the real numbers. In the clinical trial he mentions, three percent (3%) of the people taking placebo had a heart attack while two percent (2%) of the people taking Lipitor® had a heart attack. So, 99 people had to take Lipitor® for five years with no benefit for one person to gain a benefit over placebo to prevent a heart attack. I don’t know about you, but that isn’t a 36% improvement. Statistics lie when put into the hands of people with an agenda, especially a multi-billion dollar one.

Come back on Monday to find out how this is only the tip of the iceberg. On Tuesday I’ll be discussing the laboratory tests necessary to help prevent heart disease and help improve your overall cardiac health.

Alcoholism Cure? Media Nonsense and Poor Medical Research

The latest in a series of research papers being published by once respected journals has reared its ugly head today.  According to the lastest issue of JAMA and the media, you would think that the drug Topamax, can help cure alcoholism. Turns out that the reality calls for a much different read on things.  Not only was the drug also known as topiramate not that much better than placebo, there was a 20% dropout rate amongst the rather small 371 person study.

Now comes the real news about the drug and the study. I won’t embellish anything, I’ll quote the study which is available free of charge here and let you decide whether this treatment modality is worth pursuing.

“Adverse events that were more common with topiramate vs placebo, respectively, included paresthesia (50.8% vs 10.6%), taste perversion (23.0% vs 4.8%), anorexia (19.7% vs 6.9%), and difficulty with concentration (14.8% vs 3.2%).”

Hmmmm, increases in paresthesia a sensation of tingling or numbness is 5 times higher in those who take topiramate versus placebo, taste perversion 5 times higher, anorexia, a very serious disorder occurred 3 times more in the drug group and a 4 1/2 times higher rate of mental concentration difficulties in those taking the drug. Now let’s think about this. Those taking the drug had lots of side-effects and all they got was an 8% improvement over placebo. That isn’t very good.

Of course, the papers authors all belong to the Topiramate for Alcoholism Advisory Board and/or the Topiramate for Alcoholism Study Group which are funded by Ortho-McNeil, the makers of Topamax which goes for $350 a month. Save your money and look into nutritional ways of reducing alcohol intake at a much lower cost with far fewer side-effects.

Real Life Health Issues and More…. Podcast on Autism and More

Welcome to my second attempt at podcasting and hopefully the start of a regular series of shows devoted to disseminating the science of health.  Today’s podcast is on autism and the latest research that has just burst on the scene.  Enjoy,