May 7th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Quackery Exposed
No Comments »
The global economy is a mixed blessing – while we may
benefit from access to less expensive goods and services, by using them we rely
on the quality standards of their country of origin. In an alarming expose, the New York Times
reveals how far behind China
is in the application of quality and safety standards to their food and
pharmaceutical products.
I have voiced concerns in this blog before about the
melamine/pet food scandal and the implications it may have for humans, as well
as the fact that many Chinese citizens trust western medicine over their own
traditional practices for matters of serious illness. But this latest Times article has further
described the risk that counterfeit Chinese products can pose to the global community:
Toxic syrup has
figured in at least eight mass poisonings around the world in the past two
decades. Researchers estimate that thousands have died. In many cases, the
precise origin of the poison has never been determined. But records and
interviews show that in three of the last four cases it was made in China, a major
source of counterfeit drugs.
“Everybody wants to
invest in the pharmaceutical industry and it is growing, but the regulators
can’t keep up,” Mr. Zhou said. “We need a system to assure our safety.”
… Families [in Panama] have
reported 365 deaths from the poison, 100 of which have been confirmed so far.
When it comes to your health and the safety of the medicines
you use, you’re only as safe as the weakest link in the manufacturing or regulatory
process. Prescription medications are
carefully regulated in the US,
but there is no such oversight in the herb and supplements market. So buyer beware… Check out places like consumerlab.com to get
some objective information about safety before you pop those “health pills.”
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
April 5th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Opinion
1 Comment »
I had dinner with a small group of people recently – and Harvey Fineberg, President of the Institute of Medicine, was our dinner speaker. A few things struck me as he reviewed the history of this 37 year old institution.
First of all, The British Medical Journal published a thought-provoking article about the top 5 things that Britain and the US could learn from one another’s healthcare systems. Of all the possible things that they could highlight about US Healthcare, the Institute of Medicine was listed in the #1 slot.
Well, my goodness – is that the very best of what US medicine has to offer? The IOM?
Maybe so. Here’s the Reader’s Digest version (forgive me Dr. Fineberg) of the history and purpose of the IOM.
President Lincoln founded the National Academy of Sciences back in 1863 for the purpose of advising the public in an objective manner on matters of science. The NAS has expanded to include 3 newer organizations: the National Research Council (1916), the National Academy of Engineering (1964), and the Institute of Medicine (1970).
The IOM consists of members elected by peers in recognition of distinguished achievement in their respective fields. It has about 1,200 members. But here’s why this organization is so unique: all of the members VOLUNTEER their time! Can you imagine another organization that could get 1,200 doctors to work for free? Yes, they volunteer – and they do so gladly because it is an honor to be part of the task force to advise the public in an objective manner on matters of medicine. The IOM gets no money from the government, it survives on donations and volunteerism.
The IOM is uniquely positioned to formulate unbiased assessments of important medical questions. It is medicine in its purest form – the facts and the data are the only foundation of their analyses. No government funding, no pharmaceutical intervention, no personal agendas. Just the pursuit of truth.
Apparently the IOM produces 1 report per week! The most famous of which may be their “To Err Is Human” (2000) report which uncovered the shocking frequency of medical errors, and included recommendations for new patient safety initiatives.
A lesser known report actually debunked lie detector tests…
And so, as I considered Dr. Fineberg’s description of the IOM I began to realize why other industrialized nations are jealous of our institute. I am so glad that President Lincoln had the foresight to create an objective, “collective wisdom” vehicle for advising the nation. The question now becomes: does the nation hear what they’re saying?
I think it would be wonderful for the IOM to allow Revolution Health to be an outlet for disseminating their information to the public. After all, our mission is to empower consumers with the most credible health information available… and my friends, after hearing Dr. Fineberg’s speech, I don’t think it gets any better than the IOM.
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
March 28th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
No Comments »
This is one of the coolest David & Goliath stories I’ve heard of in a while. As part of a science experiment, two 14 year old girls from New Zealand set out to test the amount of vitamin C in a popular black currant drink. Ribena’s marketing campaign suggested that the black currants in Ribena syrup had four times the Vitamin C of oranges, but the teen girls discovered that the syrup actually had about ¼ the vitamin C of oranges, and that the ready to drink form of Ribena had no detectable Vitamin C content at all!
The Commerce Commission had pushed for a fine between $275,000 and $350,000 and corrective television advertising. Glaxosmithkline wanted a fine of about $60,000 and no corrective television advertising.
GSK has a worldwide turnover of more than $61 billion, second only to drug giant Pfizer.
Although it’s unclear what the ultimate fine will be, this high school science experiment led to ensuring honesty in advertising. A far cry from the usual volcano/dry ice project that most of us worked on!
And by the way, Ribena is quite delicious.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
January 26th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Medblogger Shout Outs
4 Comments »
Wow, this was one of the best rants I’ve heard in a while (thanks to Kevin MD for linking to this article in his blog) – looks as if this writer is neither friend to homeopathy nor big pharma:
“Some homeopaths [say] that their cures are not amenable to scientific proof. That’s fine, if you want to call the multimillion dollar industry what it is: faith healing…
Homeopathy rests on three unproven tenets: First, ‘Like treats like.’ Because arsenic causes shortness of breath, for example, homeopaths prescribe its ‘spirit’ to treat diseases such as asthma. Second, the arsenic or other active ingredient is diluted in water and then that dilution is diluted again and so on, dozens of times, guaranteeing—for better and worse—that even if the dose has no therapeutic value, it does no harm. And third, the potion is shaken vigorously so that it retains a ‘memory’ of the allegedly curative ingredient, a spirit-like essence that revives the body’s ‘vital force.’
So what about the fact that some homeopathic patients get better? Part of the effect comes from the ritual of consultation with a practitioner who treats the patient like a person rather than a body part on an assembly line. And just taking anything can help; the placebo effect is real. In gold-standard, double-blind studies, placebos presented as possible cures sometimes rival pharmaceuticals for effectiveness, or beat taking nothing at all.
Nor are the effects simply psychological. When volunteers took a placebo that they were told contained painkillers, they experienced relief, while researchers watching PET scans of the subjects’ brains tracked increased levels of the body’s own pain-relieving endorphins. In other studies, research subjects given placebos instead of antidepressants also showed chemical changes in their brains. FDA data for six top antidepressants showed that 80 percent of their effect was duplicated in placebo control groups.
Which brings us to the patient’s dilemma: Have faith in 19th century magic or rely on a pharmaceutical industry that suppresses negative outcomes (including death), promotes drugs for nonexistent diseases, repackages old drugs in new bottles to circumvent patent expirations, bribes doctors with perks and cash and hires ghost writers to author favorable studies? Given the hype, toxicity, and expense of many drugs and Big Pharma’s snake-oil tactics, the side effects of water (laced with “memory”) start looking pretty damn good. If your condition is relatively minor, self-limiting or untreatable, you may be a lot better off drinking homeopathy’s Kool-Aid-less Kool-Aid.”
Ouch. What do you think of Mr. Allen’s remarks?
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
January 19th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Tips
5 Comments »
To tell you the truth, I used to think that there was no real difference between a generic drug and its trade name equivalent. The active ingredients in both formulations are identical, so I assumed that they worked the same way. Sure I knew that the inactive “filler” compounds are different – but what does a filler do anyway? It’s just there to hold the active ingredients into a pill shape, right?
Well, Dr. Barry Rumack, Founder of Micromedex, Inc. set me straight yesterday. According to Dr. Rumack, as many as 15% of people have drug sensitivities to fillers, therefore raising the question of whether or not people should take an even closer look at their prescription medications. In some cases generic medications might be best for a person, and in others the name brand might be worth the extra cost.
Dr. Rumack explained that he had previously tried to create a filler database that people could use to seek out the best formulation of their particular drug based on their personal allergy and intolerance profiles. Unfortunately, demand for such a tool was too low to make the database worthwhile. Maybe demand is low because people are unaware of this issue? Or maybe I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill. What do you think?
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
