Drug prices skyrocket, reports USA Today. I wonder what the conversation went like in the meeting at Questcor when the anti-spasm drug Acthar went up astronomically: ”I don’t think we should charge $1,650 a vial any more. How about…$23,000 a vial.” ”Sure.” This, at least, is the best guess one can come up with for the reasoning.
The NY Times reports on how drugs are overused in dementia patients. How about the bigger story–that there are no drugs that make any substantial difference in dementia, not a one, and yet we have PhosphatidylSerine, Acetyl-L-Carnitine, and GlyceroPhosphoCholine, three nutrients which have been found helpful in restoring the function of the senile brain, according to research in over 5,000 older adults. At a conference where I was lecturing, an attendee said that neurologists in her city didn’t like GlyceroPhosphoCholine. I said that’s like firemen not liking water–it’s irrelevant. It works, and it should be the front line therapy.Perhaps what is needed is a class-action lawsuit from dementia patients and their families to demand a higher standard of orthomolecular care. Not using therapeutic micronutrition with the aforementioned nutrients in light of available data should now be considered malpractice.
Searching for bodies was called off temporarily in the tragic incident of the capsized ferry off the coast of the Philippines after it was discovered the ferry also carried cargo consisting of toxic pesticides. The pesticide in question was endosulfan, which the European Union and Cambodia has banned but we still use. It’s a potent neurotoxin. We should do more than just not swim with toxic pesticides–we should ban them completely.
Reporter Jane Brody says that there is potential harm in dietary supplements. With anything that has a powerful clinical effect, there is danger for misuse. But her strident overstating of the facts is at odds with reality. She writes:
“A form of substance abuse rampant in this country is rarely discussed publicly or privately. It involves abusing legally sold dietary supplemets - vitamins, minerals, herbals and homeopathic remedies — all of which can be sold over the counter without prior approval for safety and effectiveness.”
Not so. You cannot sell something that is not safe. That is completely wrong, and a cheap shot. The FDA will be on your doorstep. What’s more, the supplement industry is regulated.But the bigger picture she is trying to paint is what is most distorting - that supplements either harm or do nothing. Let’s look at recent research:
Carnitine supplements have been found to lower LDL cholesterol, raise HDL cholesterol, lower body fat levels, raise lean tissue levels, and decrease mental and physical fatigue in older adults, and these benefits have been replicated. No drug has ever been shown to do that. References: Carnitine has a myriad of benefits for older adults. Carnitine benefits centenarians.Vitamin D, at doses of 1100 IU per day, have been found to decrease the relative risk of cancer in women by 78%. No drug can do that. Vitamin D decreases cancer risk in women markedly. Vitamin D has has been found deficient in a large segment of the US population, and few foods have little if any vitamin D. Even women in sun-drenched Arizona are low in vitamin D. Can any drug replace the power anti-cancer benefits of vitamin D? Can you get enough through your food without guzzling milk, which is associated with an increased risk to diabetes? No.
The documented, researched benefits of supplements are available for review in a vareity of online databases.
Ms. Brody says that salmon oil, ginkgo and turmeric taken together thin blood. She points out that when the supplements are stopped, the effect is reversed. Also correct. What is exciting is that nutrients can be used to replace dangerous blood thinning medications, under proper supervision. What is a beneficial clinical effect is seen as a problem by Ms. Brody.
What about drug toxicity? How about NSAIDS ability to dramatically increase the rates of kidney failure? Vioxx increasing mortality? How about the one billion Merck has set aside to pay for Vioxx related lawsuits, which will eventually be charged to consumers in higher health care costs? And how about the fact that we prefer expensive drugs to inexpensive nutrient therapies is going to, according to the top accountant of the United States, going to bankrupt us by 2030? David Walker, as head of the GAO, said that this high cost of health care is the greatest threat to American people and our way of life.
According to Jane Brody, nutrients and natural therapies are suspect. Drugs, by exclusion from her discussion, are therefore good, because they are more closely regulated. That’s because drugs are like guns: their dangers (and power) require that they be strictly regulated.
The true and most ominous danger of nutrients and natural therapies? Their ability to replace drugs and an entire industry. Their danger is economic, to an industry that is toxifying our bodies, our environment, and destroying our economy. So, Ms. Brody, and others in the drug-friendly media, are on the offensive.What is the most dangerous unregulated sector in our world? The 80,000 chemicals that are in our environment, which are in part responsible for the 23.5 million cases of autoimmune diseases in America today. Let’s regulate these chemicals, and ask they be proven safe, like the Europeans are doing. Otherwise, we’ll keep heading towards ever high levels of cancer and other toxicity related diseases. Five new chemicals are released in America every day, and they do not have to be proven safe in humans. And it is the very supplements Ms. Brody attacks that give us the best and only chance of detoxifying them before they do cause harm in our bodies.
So, when buying drugs, or standard medical therapies these days, the message is clear, both for your health and the health of the US economy: caveat emptor.
All of a sudden, Chinook Salmon have vanished from the Pacific Coast. One day, one wonders if some intergalactic newspaper will have a headline that reads, “Human Beings Suddenly Vanish Without A Trace.” We panic at the Dow diving, but show only shallow interest when our planet falters.
There is something deeply upsetting about the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. Of course, it is wonderful to donate money to help the victims of this hurricane, but imagine if our government helped the victims adequately. Isn’t that what government, ultimately, is for? To collect money to spend it where the greatest need is, on projects such as Amtrak, Katrina relief, etc.?
Or has that Katrina money been spent in another gulf?
I want to give money to the Bush-Clinton Katrina fund, but doing so would make me feel like I am being taxed twice.
I just had the pleasure of interviewing Michael Glade, PhD, on obesity and inflammation for an upcoming Nutritional Medicine Update CD, which will soon be available. Also, let me know by leaving a comment if you would like these put up as free podcasts.
Dr. Glade, for those who may not know, is one of brightest, best, and most sanguine nutritionists and researchers in the country: sanguine being a definite plus. He lives in Chicago, and his temperament reminds me of the Chicago writer Saul Bellow’s quote that “By the time the latest ideas reach Chicago, they’re worn thin and easy to see through.” Dr. Glade embodies that no-nonsense clarity to his distillation of the research.
The most interesting thing for me from Dr. Glade was that central obesity encourages the fat cells around the gut to become more inflamed, and in turn they respond to insulin better, and in turn they become larger, and in turn create more inflammation–and the downward spiral continues.
I attended Oberlin College, and a prank pulled by students there many years ago was to walk a cow up the steps to the top of Peters hall–and since cows cannot walk down stairs, the cow was trapped there. I still don’t know how they got the cow down–a crane? This reminds me of obesity–at first, in 99% of cases, simply too many calories. But the road down is not as simple or easy.
In my discussion below, do you object to my use of the word fat? I think the word obese is an enabling word. It softens the blow and says, “Have another piece of cake!” Fat people are fat. This doesn’t make them bad. They are, however, fat, just as sure as I am tall.
Once people are very fat, it is hard to lose weight because their insulin metabolism becomes disordered. So, firstly, it is too many trips to the fridge–not genetics. Obesity was rare 100 years ago, and no spaceships have come down and injected new genes in us in the interim. However, our species is not meant to withstand 64 oz soft drinks and other nutritional weapons of mass destruction leveled at us at fast food establishments. Obesity, an epidemiologist James Hill has written, is a normal response to the American environment. And we have to change that environment. Two trillion dollars a year is spent on just that portion of food that makes us fat. We spend another 2 trillion on the diseases caused by that obesity. So, a large part of our economy depends on people getting and staying obese.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the corporate media wants to send us the message that it’s OK to be fat by including more fat and very fat people in ads and TV shows. That may seem palliative to the pains of those who struggle with obesity and its attendant health problems, but it is actually cruel, and says its OK to eat your way to an early grave. One way or another, we must realize that while it might be OK to have a few extra pounds, an extra hundred is not OK. Walter Willett’s research at Harvard has shown that the biggest predictor of your longevity is not your blood markers, but your waist size. So, that’s reality–and if it offends some, pity, because if you listen to it you might add 20 years to your life.
Back to Dr. Glade: Michael, thank you for the interview and continuting contribution to the field. Keep up your brilliant work. We are going to need all hands on deck if we are going to solve the obesity crisis.