http://www.wellbeingjournal.com/things.htmTitle: Things That Make You Go Hmm
RECREATIONAL DRUG. “The New York State Medicaid program will now reimburse for prescriptions of Viagra for males age 19 and older. The cost of one pill would be about the same as that of a few beers, if I bought it and handed it to the patient. Add on the bureaucracy, and the cost is much more. If the drug is successful, there will be more Medicaid babies . . . .” —Robert L. Soley, M.D., White Plains, NY, in AAPS News, January 2000, 1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Ste. 9, Tucson, AZ 85716, 1-800-635-1196, www.aapsonline.org. v BUSINESS AND SPIRIT. Of the world's 100 largest economies, 51 are now global corporations—not governments ... the best bet for saving the planet is to ... [have leaders] in corporations understand the bottom-line payoffs when they become good stewards to their employees, communities, and the environment.... If you feel you have to leave your values in the parking lot when you go to work, you will not be operating at your full potential. You need to transform your workplace or find a better place to work. —Richard Barrett, Liberating the Corporate Soul. v KIDS AND DRUGS AND ADHD. “With all the hoopla about...natural medicine...you would think prescription drug use would be slowing down, but the opposite is true. Pharmaceutical companies are geniuses when it comes to marketing and they have one of the most credible sales forces in the world—doctors. Pushing drugs on the public has never been easier.” Marsha Rappley at Michigan State University checked Michigan's state-sponsored Medicaid records and found 223 children age three and under who had been diagnosed with ADHD. Of these, 57 percent were being given drugs and 1/3 of those were taking 2 or more drugs at the same time. “We're subjecting children to drugs at the very time when their permanent neurological pathways and brain patterns are being formed. At the other end of the spectrum, we're giving middle-aged and older adults drugs that destroy or interfere with brain chemistry, leading to problems like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, senility, heart disease, cancer, and an ever-growing list of other `new age' diseases.” —David Williams, D.C. (Alternatives, January 2000, 1-800-527-3044.) v TEACHERS: NO RITALIN. The Colorado Board of Education passed a resolution discouraging teachers from recommending prescription drugs such as Ritalin and Luvox for students. Debate has intensified around the nation regarding behavioral drug administration to children. The Colorado resolution urges teachers and other school personnel to use discipline and instruction to overcome problem behavior, rather than encourage parents to put their children on drugs for attention deficit and hyperactive disorders. (One of the teens at the Columbine school who shot others had been taking Luvox.) The use of these drugs has increased to a level of 2.5 million children. Some say some parents are too quick to seek out prescription medicine as a solution to a problem that can be solved more simply. Many parents complained to Colorado school board members that teachers insisted their children go on Ritalin. One case, which many health professionals think mirrors millions of cases, involved a girl who was showing signs of attention-deficit disorder through mood sweeps and napping in class. She was later diagnosed as hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) and just needed to change her diet (from high refined sugar and carbohydrate intake to more whole foods). (The Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, November 25, 1999.) v FDA PEDIATRIC RULE. Together with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Citizen Action, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) submitted a Citizen's Petition on December 2, 1999, asking the FDA Commissioner to revoke the “Pediatric Rule” as published at 63 Fed. Reg. 66,632 (1998). This rule requires manufacturers to subject children to tests of a drug with a “foreseeable” pediatric use, even if the company does not intend to market the drug for such use. Petitioners object to the FDA's unprecedented assertion of authority to order manufacturers to conduct studies of products they do not wish to market. AAPS argues that the rule is an unwarranted intrusion into the practice of medicine. The “off-label” use of drugs approved for other indications is recognized as a common and integral feature of medical practice. Between 20% and 60% of prescriptions written each year are for such uses. Failure to prescribe off-label could actually constitute malpractice, especially in areas such as cancer chemotherapy or AIDS treatment. Taken to its logical conclusion, the theory underlying the Pediatric Rule would require manufacturers to conduct clinical studies to establish the safety and efficacy of all arguably foreseeable uses of drugs. (From AAPS News, the voice for private physicians, January 2000, 1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Ste. 9, Tucson, AZ 85716, 1-800-635-1196, www.aapsonline.org.) v PHYSICIANS SHUN SURGERY. “Physicians are almost 50% less likely to go under the knife than any other single group, reports a study in the British Medical Journal. Their reluctance to surgery is based on their knowledge of the procedure itself, as well as its risks, benefits, and alternatives.” (Natural Health, May/June 1998.) v REMOVING PROSTATE gland leaves 59% of men impotent. The Journal of the American Medical Association (January 19, 2000) reports about a new, broad-based population study where 1,291 men, 59.9 percent were impotent 18 months after prostate surgery (usually for the removal of cancer). Far more men admitted they had problems after a radical prostatectomy, including incontinence, than eariler estimates, which were as low as 20 percent. “It's an important study,” said Charles Brendler, M.D., chief of urology at U. of Chicago Medical Center. “It gives patients and physicians a realistic expectation about the outcomes and complications after surgery.” Treatment of the disease is one of the most controversial areas in conventional oncology; however, see the lead story on protecting the prostate naturally, this issue. v FIXED PRICES ON VITAMINS may be a thing of the past. Seven vitamin makers who, together, sold almost all of the most popular vitamins in the U.S. from 1990 to 1998 are expected to settle a price-fixing class-action lawsuit today for $1.5 billion...the largest [settlement] ever in an antitrust class-action lawsuit. (USA Today, 11-3-99.) v PHONES AND RADIATION. Most individuals still have no clue of the harm they expose themselves to by putting the microwave transmitter, otherwise known as a cell phone, next to their head. Solution: purchase a new phone model that allows the user to plug in a hands-free adapter. Ideally, even though this adapter allows you to keep your phone away from your brain and possible tumor formation, it would be best to keep the phone as far away from the body as possible until real objective research and federal guidelines establish the exact outcomes of usage. Keeping the portable phone in your house away from your head is also a good idea. Purchase a newer model that allows you to put a headset on and talk without holding the transmitter next to your head. Portable phones have less radiation than cell phones, but they still transmit radiation. Also, such a headset will allow you to talk hands-free, and neck-pain-free. (Dr. Joseph Mercola, D.O., Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, January, 2000, p. 24, 1-360-385-6021.)
THE FEEDING of inorganic, cooked flour and grain products and pasteurized or boiled cow's milk to infants is the contributing factor in the development of diabetes in children and adolescents primarily and in adults eventually. (N.W. Walker, D.Sc., in Fresh Vegetable and Fruit Juices: What is Missing in Your Body? page 76; O'Sullivan Woodside & Company, 1982, Caroline House Publishers, distributor.) v MILK AND DIABETES. In the mid-1980s, a study of breast feeding practices in Scandinavia showed a higher incidence of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) in children born during years when breast feeding was less common, suggesting that either lack of breast milk or the introduction of cow's milk contributed to the development of IDDM. Since then, many researchers have examined the relationship between exposure to cow's milk and development of diabetes in childhood. The trigger appears to be a 17-amino acid fragment of bovine serum albumin, which is immunologically distinct from the human variety. Neal Barnard, M.D., president of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C., thinks that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations that infants be breast fed and, in families with a history of IDDM, commercially available cow's milk and products containing intact cow's milk protein be avoided during the first year of life are too weak. Barnard suggests that cow's milk could be triggering diabetes in children of any age and even in young adults. (Alternative & Complementary Therapies, October, 1999, p. 275, 2 Madison Avenue, Larchmont, NY 10538; 1-914-834-3100.) v GM TREE DANGER. WWF exposes GM tree threat to world's forests. A new report launched today in London by WWF, the conservation organization, reveals that a rapidly increasing number of genetically modified (GM) trees are being planted without proper controls around the world. This poses a serious threat to the global environment. The WWF report, called “GM Technology in the Forest Sector” (1), warns that commercial GM tree production could begin within the next 2 years, probably in Chile, China and Indonesia, funded principally by private capital from industrialized nations. This might happen despite inadequate regulations and inadequate research into the environmental impact of GM trees. (Abundanteearth.com.) v BREAST CANCER RISK. A recent study suggests environmental factors—such as the use of pesticides, professional lawn services, and dry cleaning services—as possible contributors to breast cancer. Researchers from the Silent Spring Institute, a nonprofit research organization, have announced the results of the Newton Breast Cancer Study, which reported some differences between women living in areas of high and low breast cancer incidence in Newton, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston. Residents of the high-incidence area tended to have higher income and education levels, consistent with previous research findings that higher socioeconomic status is associated with higher breast cancer risk. But this study—which included evaluating questionnaire responses from 1,350 women—suggests some possible reasons for that increased risk factor. Among the findings: 65% of the women in the high-incidence area reported using professional lawn services, compared with 36% in the low-incidence area; 30% in the high incidence area reported routine high use of pesticides, compared with 23% in the low-incidence area; 45% in the higher incidence area used dry cleaning at least once a month, compared with 32% in the low-incidence area. While the breast cancer risk related to these types of chemical exposure is not known at this time, the data is intriguing. Many pesticides contain endocrine-disrupting compounds that mimic our natural hormones. Since increased lifetime exposure to the body's natural estrogen increases breast cancer risk, exposure to compounds that mimic estrogen and other hormones may also increase risk. (Silent Spring Institute, www. silentspring.org.)
“ARSENIC WAS ONE HERB mentioned in the Edwin Smith papyrus. Well, last year Sloan-Kettering issued a press release about this `new' treatment they had helped to develop for a kind of leukemia. And guess what it contained? So it's come full circle: The new treatment for cancer is the one mentioned in the oldest medical book there is.” —Ralph Moss, Ph.D., interviewed in The Herb Quarterly, Fall 1999. v TODDLERS OVERMEDICATED. American parents are much too quick to give over-the-counter medication to their toddlers for such things as sniffles, achy throats or queasy stomachs, notes a federally funded study at the National Center for Health Statistics. A preponderance of evidence suggests that many medications provide few benefits and, in some cases, may even be harmful. “Everyone thinks that if you take a pill, you'll get better, and that's a terrible message for anybody,” notes Debra Esemio-Jensen, M.D., head of the pediatrics clinic at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, NY. She is opposed especially to the use of cold medicines. “I think there are a few indications for [use of] Tylenol, but not for cold medications: zero, zippo, none.” Pediatrician Anne Gadomski, M.D. also notes: “The high use of these medications may be a tremendous waste of money, and many of them unnecessarily expose children to toxicity.” (From Journal of American Medical Association, quoted in Way of Life Newsletter, September 1999.) v GENETICALLY ALTERED FALL. Deutsche Bank, the largest bank in Europe, advised thousands of large institutional investors to sell stock in companies developing genetically modified organisms—because consumers do not want to buy their products. The report, circulated in July, warns that “growing negative sentiment” is causing problems for the leading GMO companies. It notes that “Monsanto has spent more than $1.5m to persuade English consumers of the rectitude of their position, but to no avail. Monsanto is little match for Prince Charles, an anti-GMO advocate, when it comes to sensitivity for the English people's desires.” In May, a previous Deutsche Bank research report, titled “GMOs are dead,” stated: “We predict that GMOs, once perceived as a bull case for this sector, will now be perceived as a pariah. The message is a scary one—increasingly, GMOs are, in our opinion, becoming a liability to farmers.” At that time, non-GMO grains were already gaining a premium price projected to outweigh any economic benefit in growing GMOs, should the trend continue. Since the most recent report was circulated, shares in the companies named—including Monsanto and Novartis—have fallen in value, despite a rising trend in the stock market. The bank's Washington analysts, Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell suggest that this trend will continue and that the biotech industry will be “going the way of the nuclear industry” in the U.S. They say, “Domestic concerns regarding ag-biotechnology are clearly on the rise. For the most part, though, it has not gotten the attention of the ordinary U.S. citizen, but when it does—look out.” (The Guardian, August 25, 1999.) v VACCINE MANDATES. “Although we recognize that vaccines, in the past, have prevented many serious illnesses, it is simply a fact that every insurance policy has a premium. Every medical intervention carries both risks and potential benefits. The risk:benefit calculation is different for each individual patient, and can only be made by the patient (or the patient's guardian) in consultation with the attending physician.” “It is the right of every patient to refuse a medical intervention, even if recommended by the attending physician, and it is the duty of the physician to advise according to his or her own best judgment. Informed consent is a prerequisite for ethical medical treatment (or for research), as is internationally recognized in the Nuremberg Code....” The above excerpts are from a letter that was sent by the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) to Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala in July. The AAPS also wrote to Harold Margolis, M.D., Chief, Hepatitis Branch, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), requesting details concerning the initial safety testing in children and ongoing studies on possible neurological and other complications of hepatitis B vaccine. Reason: Methods used to implement universal hepatitis B vaccine in newborns are questionable. Burton Waisbren, M.D., states that vigorous peer review may have been circumvented by publishing of “invited” articles from drug company-sponsored seminars in journal supplements. He also notes that CDC officials make personal visits to state boards of health. One potential method of persuasion is to tie federal welfare funding to immunization compliance. All Kids Count, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project set up to establish immunization registries in every state, conceivably might play a role. The program emphasizes enrolling newborns, and hepatitis B is the only vaccine administered to newborns. “People really are seeing [registries] as the way to institutionalize immunizing our real young kids,” stated William Watkins, executive director of the Decatur-based All Kids Count organization. The AAPS testimony has sparked numerous inquiries (including many by newspapers and radio stations in Connecticut, and school district officials in Philadelphia). And policy is beginning to change. All but two of Connecticut's birthing hospitals have suspended routine hepatitis B vaccines. A Virginia parent (who was notified of the vaccines his child received only after the fact) told AAPS that his state has also suspended hepatitis B vaccines in newborns of uninfected mothers. In a surprise statement by the Surgeon General—almost as a footnote in a larger announcement on halting the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative—federal policy now deems the vaccine appropriate at birth only if the mother is infected or of unknown status. “Federal officials did not acknowledge that recent criticism from Congress, parents, and doctors played any role in the policy change,” wrote John Hanchette of Gannett News Service. See www.house.gov/refor/hearings for testimony from the Aug. 3 hearing before the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and www.aapsonline.org for the AAPS written statement distributed at the hearing. (AAPS News, 9/99, 1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Ste. 9, Tucson, AZ 85716.)
SUGAR RELATED TO HEART disease. Simple sugars (sucrose and fructose) should be minimized, according to researcher Wm. B. Grant, Ph.D. “Reducing simple sugars will certainly lower serum triglyceride and cholesterol levels, which is much safer than using cholesterol-lowering drugs.” (Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, Feb./March, 1999, 911 Tyler St., Port Townsend, WA 98368-6541, 360-385-6021, www.tldp.com.) v PROSTATE CANCER and diet. Animal fats and products, hydrogenated oils and high calorie consumption are most strongly associated with deaths from prostate cancer. Diets high in vegetables, cold-pressed vegetable oils, whole grains, fruits and nuts and fish have protective effects. (Alternative & Complementary Therapies, June 1999, 914-834-3100, www.liebertpub.com.) v BREAST MILK KILLS CANCER? “When Catharina Svanborg and her research associates began mixing mothers' milk and cancer cells together seven years ago, she wasn't looking for a cure for cancer, she was after a way to fight germs. Nevertheless, the physician and immunologist at Lund University in Sweden has discovered that a previously taken-for-granted component of ordinary human breast milk compels cancer cells—every type of cancer cell tested—to die. Now Svanborg must prove her discovery, demonstrating to wary scientists that her surprising find is for real.... Svanborg leads a team of dedicated young researchers who have worked overtime to make their discovery matter. With the first phase of research finally finished, the group has decided to launch a fusillade of papers to scientific journals. Soon skeptics may have a tough time denying that they are onto something big.... Seven years ago her student Anders Hakansson rushed into Svanborg's office with perplexing news. He had been experimenting with human cancer cells, microbes, and mothers' milk... The idea was to pinpoint how the milk, a terrific germ-fighter, blocks bacteria from infecting other cells. But the cancer cells in this experiment were acting up. `Their volume was decreasing,' Hakansson recalls. `Their nuclei were shrinking. Something was wrong.” When Svanborg sat down at the microscope, she diagnosed the problem immediately. `The cancer cells,' she announced, `are committing suicide.'... Somehow, the breast milk induced these cancer cells to take their own lives. The circumstance opened up an enormous vista of mysteries... [Svanborg said] `this cancer find is pure serendipity, and serendipity arises when people are in a situation that fosters creativity. Nobody can define how it happens, but there's a lot of happiness involved.'”—Discovery, June 1999. v TOXINS & WOMEN. “The more fat cells one has, the more [chemical] toxins one is able to absorb. Since women have more body fat than men, they are at a greater risk for many of the diseases linked to exposure to pesticides and other pollutants. Researchers have learned that women exposed to environmental pollutants are more likely to develop...cancers of the breast, cervix and uterus.... 14% of all Danish women now develop breast cancer—over twice as many that did so in the late 1960s...pesticide exposure was one of the major contributing causes. After measuring blood concentrations of 46 different pesticides commonly stored in body fat, they determined that the presence of two compounds [lindane and dieldrin] could reliably be used to predict the development of breast cancer.... Those with the highest blood levels of dieldrin had double the risk of developing breast cancer.”—Alternatives, April 1999. v UNTESTED SWEETENER. A petition was submitted to the FDA on February 8 to allow a new sweetener on the market without safety testing. The new product, developed by Monsanto, is a variation on the Aspartame formula and is said to be forty times sweeter than Aspartame. Its chemical name is L-phenylalanine, N-[N-3,3-dimethulbutyl)-L--aspartyl]-1-methyl ester, and the proposed brand name is Neotame. The FDA's comments period ended on April 10. Given the controversy around Aspartame's safety, consumers should be aware of this product's potential appearance on their grocery store labels. (Sources include: One Voice, Patient Coalition of Naturopathic Physicians, Spring 1999, PO Box 1154, Wenatchee, WA 98807, 509-884-0717) v PESTICIDES ON FOOD. The brochure “Pesticides and Food: What you and your family need to know,” published by the Office of Pesticide Programs, in consultation with the FDA and Department of Agriculture, suggests: “Peel fruits and vegetables when possible to reduce dirt, bacteria, and pesticides. Discard outer leaves of leafy vegetables. Trim fat from meat and skin from poultry.” For more information: www.epa.gov/pesticides/food, or the National Pesticide Telecommunications Network: 800-858-7378. (Special insert for Choices, Summer 1999, Citizens for Alternative Health Care, PO Box 25312, Seattle, WA 98125-1212; 425827-4405; www.cchoices.com). v PERSONAL DATA PRIVACY? “Ursula Smith, a nurse and mother of five, volunteers at school. `I have worked directly with the Missouri state health department and seen their vision of the future,' she writes. `It is scary.' The lengthy data base required for participation in the state school health program includes family income, social security history, social history, etc. The only thing parents are required to sign is a form that says, in effect: `In order to provide the best care possible for your child, we may need to share information with other interested professionals. Please sign below to allow us to do so.' Without knowing it, the family has agreed to put its most personal information on a national computer data base, accessible to almost anyone who tries at all. Moreover, all of this data has been promised (not even sold, just given) to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to use however they wish.” (AAPS News, Aug. 1999, American Assoc. for Physicians & Surgeons, 1601 N. Tucson Blvd, Ste 9, Tucson, AZ 85716; 800-635-1196; www.apsonline.org) v DISABLED BABIES REPORTED. “Pursuant to Assembly Bill 238, passed this spring, the chief administrative officers of hospitals or obstetric units must report to the state any child under age 7 with a “birth defect,” defined as “any structural or biochemical abnormality.” The names of such children may be used for research unless the parent makes a written demand for exclusion, in the prescribed manner. Physicians, midwives, or even relatives assisting any woman at childbirth are required to report babies with defects. According to Twila Brase, R.N., of the Citizens' Council on Health Care, such laws result from the Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1998, which makes $70 million available for registry development and tracking. (AAPS News, August 1999.)
“I AM JUST UNWILLING to get a ... lobotomy in order to achieve success as a doctor under managed care.”—Jerome Lackner, M.D., 72-year-old internist and former health director under California Governor Jerry Brown, in a letter to his patients, explaining why he was closing his practice of thirty years in 1997 to become a salaried prison doctor. (Seattle Times, April 1, 1999.) v “AFFLUENZA” EPIDEMIC. The AFL-CIO's most recent figures “show the average boss [CEO] taking home $7.8 million, 326 times the pay of the average factory worker. In the 1960s the ratio was 44 to 1.” This trend continues on Wall Street, where in 1997 the average salary was $182,000. And, even in other industries, “managers of large companies now own around one in ten of their firms' shares, either directly or through share options and other incentive schemes.” (World Press Review, April 1999.) v FLUORIDE is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century—if not all time,” states Dr. Robert Carlson, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientist. Recent studies have linked fluoridation to lower IQs in all age groups of children, to infertility, to fluoridosis of the teeth and to central nervous system damage. It has been banned or resisted in France, Switzerland, Sweden, Holland and Germany. The Washington Lodge of the National Federation of Federal Employees, composed mainly of government scientists from the EPA, has unanimously condemned fluoridation. In the U.S., “we have a glut of fluoride in our water, foods and beverages, along with fluoridated dental products,” stated Paul Beeber, president of the NY State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. Solution: act locally to convince water officials to purify drinking water; do not allow dentists to treat your children or yourself with fluoride. (What Doctors Don't Tell You, Vol 9, No. 3, 105 W Monument St., Baltimore, MD 21201.) v FOODS AND CLING WRAP. A plasticizing compound in cling wrap grocery stores use to wrap cheese and meat (DHEA) has been found to leach into foods on contact and is seen as an endocrine system toxin. A Consumers Union study found that 36% of wrapped cheese samples contained an average of 153 parts per million (ppm). The European Community safe limit is 18 ppm. DHEA is an endocrine disrupter, seen to have potential to cause birth defects, cognitive deficits, cancer, and infertility. Suggestion: request that your meat and cheese be wrapped in paper. Purchase cheese from a wheel. If you do buy in cling wrap, remove the product immediately, scrape off and discard the outer layer. Purchase plastic wrap made with polyethelene; never permit plastic wrap to touch food when microwaving. (Julian Whitaker, M.D., Health and Healing Newsletter, March, 1999.) v TOXIC TUNA. A coalition of environmental and health care groups has issued a report showing that the levels of mercury in samples of tuna averaged 0.09 ppm—the FDA's allowable limit is 0.1 ppm—and the report claims that a four-year-old child could suffer subtle but permanent brain and nervous system damage from eating one 6-ounce can of tuna per week for several months. (New York Times, May 1, 1999.) v THE BEST MEDICINE. During the first two decades of this century, a great number of babies under one year of age wasted away in hospitals and children's institutions and died from unknown causes. In some institutions it was customary to enter the condition of all seriously sick infants as “hopeless” on admission cards.... Fritz Talbot, M.D., had uncommon success in dealing with sick children. Dr. Joseph Brennermann, one of his interns, told this story: “Many times we would see a child for whom everything had failed. For some reason the child was hopelessly wasting away. When this would happen, Dr. Talbot would take the child's chart and scrawl some indecipherable prescription. In most cases, the magic formula took effect and the child began to prosper. My curiosity was aroused and I wondered if the famous doctor had developed some new type of wonder drug. I turned to the head nurse and asked her what the prescription was. `Old Anna,' she said. Then she pointed to a grandmotherly woman seated in a large rocker with a baby on her lap. The nurse continued: `Whenever we have a baby for whom everything we could do has failed, we turn the child over to Old Anna. She has more success than all the doctors and nurses in this institution combined.'” (Do Whatever He Tells You, by Henry Libersat, Voicings Publications.) v SHAMPOO OR SOLVENT? Propylene glycol—a chemical used in antifreeze solutions, brake and hydraulic fluids, de-icers, and paints, and as a solvent—has been implicated in contact dermatitis, kidney damage, and liver abnormalities, as well as gastrointestinal disturbances and depression of the central nervous system It is known to be “harmful by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption,” according to its material safety data sheet. Yet, propylene glycol also is used as a humectant, a substance that helps retain moisture content, in cosmetics, shampoos, toothpastes, deodorants, moisturizing lotions, baby wipes, and pet foods. Apparently, in 1938, the FDA grandfathered in the use of propylene glycol and certain other ingredients as safe for personal care items, with certain restrictions and they are still being used today. (Home Brewed Cancer, Network News and Publications, 1997.) v PHYSICIANS CONCERN about vaccinations. In a recent study almost one-third of physicians fear there is a risk of serious adverse reaction to the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, and 13 percent thought the same about the measles vaccine. Many are concerned about litigation from parents. Many said they were unlikely to recommend a third dose of the DTP (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis) vaccine. Findings were based on a survey of 1,236 doctors in the U.S.” (Arch Ped & Adolesc Med, 1998; 152: 12-19.) For up-to-date information subscribe to the Vaccine News, 251 W Ridgeway Dr., Dayton, OH 45459, 937-435-4750. v EYES AND SUGAR. When blood sugar levels are too high, eyesight frequently blurs for those who have diabetes. Besides eroding the retina at the back of the eye, sugar in the blood scars the lens. The lens eventually fogs, becoming clouded or even opaque. The affected portion is called the cataract. So-called “sugar cataracts” typically develop in people with diabetes some years earlier than do senile cataracts in people free of blood-sugar disorders. The clouding progresses at a pace directly related to the concentration of glucose in the aqueous humor, the fluid that fills the inside of the eye and bathes the lens. Any of a variety of sugars—including the glucose and fructose in sugar and fruit, sorbitol, xylose, arabinose, and the galactose in milk and commercially pasteurized yogurt—can cause cataracts. The most basic way to minimize the risk of cataracts is to lower your refined carbohydrate intake. Also, a general protein deficiency has been associated with accelerated cataract development, as has a lack of antioxidants in the diet. (Health Revelations, Robert Atkins, M.D., August, 1998, 105 Monument St. W., Baltimore, MD 21201.) v CONSCIENCE. The Nuremberg Trial of German WWII criminals tacitly established that “Criminal Actions cannot be excused if committed on government orders; conscience supersedes the authority of the law of the state.” —Albert Einstein, “On Human Rights,” an address made to the Chicago Decalogue Society, February 20, 1954, published in Ideas and Opinioins, Bonanza Books/Crown, New York, mCMLIV.) v COLD SHOULDER? “It looks
to me as though there has been a concerted attempt to try to stop
this project going further.” -Martin Fleischmann, University
of Utah researcher commenting on cold fusion research on a 1998
BBC radio program. (See Cold Fusion review, p. 17, this issue.)
“I WANT TO LEARN about the family patterns and the deeper spiritual issues of my patients, because I know that's the information they need to heal. They need more than drugs, which only temporarily mask their symptoms.”—“A medical doctor,” cited by Caroline Myss, Ph.D., in Anatomy of the Spirit: The Seven Stages of Power and Healing, Three Rivers Press, 1996. v WITH COLON CANCER at age 60, Kenneth Forror, M.D., was told by his oncologist he would probably only live one more year, provided he started with chemotherapy or radiation immediately. Forror was a surgeon himself, who routinely recommended chemotherapy to other patients. He refused the treatment. He is now retired at age 82. Instead of conventional treatment, Forror started drinking large amounts of fresh vegetable juices and changed his diet to more natural foods, and then he began following the Virginia Livingston Program. He later became the Center's medical director, until he retired in 1994. Previously, in 1975, when Forror refused the chemotherapy treatments though facing cancer, his wife had asked him why. “Because,” he replied, “I am the patient now, and I don't have to follow that routine. It never did that much good. I had to keep prescribing it to keep my hospital privileges.” (Choices, Spring, 1999, P.O. Box 25312, Seattle, WA 98125-1212, www.cchoices.com.) v UNSAFE DRUGS APPROVED. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed three approved drugs from the market in 1998—more than in any other year. Redux caused heart valve defects; Posicor, serious drug interactions and fatal heart problems; and Duract, sometimes-fatal liver damage. Why were these drugs ever approved? According to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, Congress—on the behalf of sponsors in the drug industry—has been systematically weakening the U.S. drug approval process. In 1992 Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), authorizing drug companies to pay user fees to the FDA for the hiring of additional medical officers to review new drugs. Then, in 1997, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) expanded the use of “accelerated approval” mechanisms for drugs for life-threatening conditions, included mechanisms for speeding FDA review, and allowed new drugs to be approved on the basis of one clinical trial, instead of two. In September, 1998, Peter Lurie, M.D., and Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D., of Public Citizen's Health Research Group surveyed the FDA's medical officers to find out what was going on inside the agency. Among their findings: Of the 53 medical officers who responded, 19 mentioned 27 drugs that were approved in the past three years over the opposition of the reviewing medical officer. Eight reported 14 instances in which they had been instructed not to present their own opinions or data to an FDA Advisory Committee because to do so would have reduced the likelihood that a drug would have been approved. Thirty-four medical officers stated that the pressure on them to approve new drugs was “somewhat greater” or “much greater” than before 1995. One medical officer reported, “In the last two years, I recommended that two drugs not be approved. They were both approved without consulting me. This never happened before. In one case, the drug did not meet the standards set up by the division, so they modified the standards.” Lurie and Wolfe concluded that “changes in FDA review and approval policies ... appear to have led to a significant decline in the safety and efficacy standards for new drugs.” They also stated that new drugs have a greater likelihood of approval because of “inappropriate pressure from Congress, the drug companies, and senior FDA employees.” (Washington Post 12/30/98, and Public Citizen's Health Research Group, www.citizen.org.) v EARNING A LIVING. William G. White, M.D., writes: For the longest time I have had an eerie feeling that something fundamental had changed about the way I earn my living.... I have practiced medicine for more than 20 years, and, in spite of huge changes in payment mechanisms, I thought that my essential activities in patient care had remained unchanged. I still see patients, take histories, perform examinations, order diagnostic tests, make diagnoses, order treatment and try to educate patients. Finally, after puzzling over the situation for a while, I realized that the attitudes of many of my patients have subtly shifted over the years. They no longer seem as grateful for my expertise, my time, my efforts to understand them and to help them understand their illnesses. Many no longer feel a sense of personal responsibility to make an honest effort to pay my bill or to be sure that their insurance company pays their claims. Somehow their attitude seems no longer to be, “Doctor, you have helped me freely because of your professionalism and your concern, not just because you wanted to collect your fee, but because you cared about my need. Now I would like to show my gratitude by doing my best to pay your fee.” (Like every other private physician I know, I ask only for a good faith effort to pay “whatever you can whenever you can.”) Instead, now the attitude of many patients seems to be, “I have already paid (a heck of a lot) for your services (to my insurance company); now you owe me whatever I demand in return. It's up to you to collect whatever you can from insurance. If they pay you, it's probably more than you deserve. (Why else would my premiums be so high except for greedy doctors?) If they don't pay you, that's your problem, not mine.” More and more of my time and that of my office employee has been taken up with completing insurance forms. It is not enough to report straightforward information. Now insurance companies demand code numbers. And code numbers are only tenuously related to actual diagnoses. When I tell my secretary the diagnosis, she tries to look it up in the code book, then comes to me for help. Either there is no code in the book which matches my diagnosis or there are six sub-codes based on clinical variations, none of which fits my patient. If I omit the code, the insurance company won't pay; if I select an inexact code (remember, there is no exact code), then I have committed insurance fraud, and am subject to fines and jail. Nevertheless, we do our best, send in the form, and wait for the insurance company to reject it. There are always a thousand reasons why the claim was not just so. Often, the reasons are pure fabrications. I've had claims rejected because information is said to be missing—information printed on the rejection letter itself. I know a physician whose claim was rejected because his identification number was said to be missing, so he dutifully copied the number from the sticker on the envelope addressed to him by the insurance company and returned it to them. A cynic might say that such tactics of harassment are merely meant to delay payment. (It usually takes weeks to months for insurance companies to pay even those claims they do approve.) And managed care! Now physicians face the insult of having their fees slashed by multi-billion dollar insurance companies—fees they themselves would have gladly discounted or waived if the patient were needy. Furthermore, many have been pressured into the conflict of interest of capitation, further tainting the patient-physician relationship. The managers and systematizers, of course, would snort derisively at the idea that a physician should hope for the gratitude of his patients. “Everyone knows” that physicians are robber barons, motivated by greed alone. The reformers on their white chargers are selflessly trying to bring doctors under their control for the sake of the poor suffering masses whose interests they champion against our rapacity. It is said of Hillary Clinton, for example, that on one occasion when she decried the six-figure incomes of physicians, she was asked about the six-figure income of lawyers. In all sincerity, she replied, “But lawyers deserve to make a lot of money. They help people!” Somehow the Madison Avenue charlatans have driven a wedge between physicians and our patients. Often on the basis of slick advertising patients now choose their insurance company (their “health plan,” as though that contract with a distant corporation will somehow give them “health”) rather than their doctor. They assume and expect that the insurance company is the real provider of medical services and that the physician is its agent, not theirs. It finally dawned on me that I no longer make my living by practicing medicine. I practice medicine for nothing. I make my living playing “Mother, may I?” with insurance companies. “Mother, may I have compensation for the hours I spent, the effort I expended, the hard thinking I did, the worry I endured, the sleep I lost, the anxiety I sustained, the wise words I spoke, the diagnostic puzzles I solved, the pain I relieved, the diseases I cured, the lives I saved?” “No, you scum, you parasite, you expender of scarce resources, you bloodsucker, you blight upon society—no, you may not! You entered the wrong code number, you left out the proper ID number, your patient wasn't eligible, your diagnosis isn't in our book, your treatment is unapproved. You are not worthy!” I wonder why medicine isn't as
much fun as it used to be.... (Reprints available from:
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, 1601 N. Tucson
Blvd. Ste 9, Tucson, AZ 85716 1-800-635-1196. Pamphlet No. 1066,
April, 1999.)
|
