The Evidence Gap
Setting a Price on LifeArticles in this series will explore medical treatments used despite scant proof they work and will consider steps toward medicine based on evidence.
All Articles in the Series »My name is John Board. I'm an Assistant Director on movies and have been for more than a few years. This site will give you a look at my life and a chance to hear my views on health and how I see the world.
Spending on health care in the United States grew in 2007 at the lowest rate in nine years, according to government analysts — a sliver of good news for those worried about the relentless rise in health care costs. But buried within the overall statistics was sobering evidence that health costs continue to be a pressing concern that can only be remedied through deep-seated reform in the delivery of health services.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported this week that total health care spending rose 6.1 percent in 2007, slightly less than the growth of 6.7 percent in 2006. Even so, it continued to expand faster than the overall economy, reaching a total of $2.2 trillion in 2007, or 16.2 percent of the gross domestic product, a record.
The chief reason for the overall slowdown was much slower growth in spending on prescription drugs. Retail spending on prescription drugs rose only 4.9 percent in 2007. That was the lowest rate in more than four decades, well below the 8.6 percent growth the previous year and the average of 9.4 percent a year from 2001 to 2006.
Government analysts attributed the deceleration to increased use of generic drugs as many brand-name blockbusters lost patent protection, as well as to slower growth in prescription drug prices and safety concerns that depressed sales of some drugs. The big uncertainty is whether the slowdown will continue or is a temporary phenomenon.
In contrast to prescription drugs, spending for most other health care services, including payments to hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and home health services, grew at about the same rate or faster in 2007 as in 2006. Only the growth rate in spending for physician services declined, partly because Congress reduced Medicare payments to doctors for imaging services that many experts believe are widely overused.
Given that prescription drugs make up a relatively small slice of total spending on health care — some 10 percent — it will be imperative to reduce the growth rates in spending on hospital care, nursing care and other medical services if health care is to become more affordable.The U.S. FDA is urging the government to amend its advisory that women and children should limit how much fish they eat. They argue that the benefits of seafood outweigh the health risks and that most people should eat more fish, even if it contains mercury.
However, the FDA's recommendations have alarmed scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, who in internal memos criticized them as "scientifically flawed and inadequate" and said they fell short of the "scientific rigor routinely demonstrated by the EPA."
The FDA sent its draft report as part of an effort to update the existing health advisory. The report argued that nutrients in fish, including omega-3 fatty acids, selenium and other minerals could boost a child's IQ by three points.
The FDA and the EPA both play a role in protecting the public from mercury contamination. The EPA investigates and regulates mercury and other contaminants in recreationally caught fish, while the FDA regulates mercury in seafood sold in markets and restaurants.
| Dr. Mercola's Comments: | |||||||||||||
The FDA is hard at work again, protecting the health and welfare of big businesses that provide its funding. Four years ago, the EPA and FDA issued a joint advisory warning women of childbearing age, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children to stop eating swordfish, shark, tilefish and king mackerel, and to limit their consumption of other mercury-contaminated fish to a maximum of 12 ounces per week. Now the FDA is trying to backpedal against a raging river, stating the benefits of eating more than 12 ounces a week of fatty fish like tuna outweigh the health hazards of mercury. Folks, don’t believe this nonsense for even one second. There are plenty of studies showing that mercury contamination from fish consumption constitutes a health hazard for mothers and their babies, such as the 2007 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, showing fish consumption is positively associated with premature delivery. There are also plenty of real-life examples of people who suffered serious health problems from eating too much fish. Actor Jeremy Piven springs to mind, as he abruptly ended his Broadway run last week due to mercury poisoning from his frequent sushi habit. But how much is too much? GotMercury.org can help you answer that question with their handy mercury calculator. For example, if a woman weighing 145 pounds ate 12 ounces (about 2 fillets) of yellowfin tuna per week, her weekly mercury intake would be 240 percent over the current EPA “safe” limit! Multiply that over the course of a year, and you surely will not be looking at a health benefit from omega-3, but rather a health disaster from mercury poisoning. In response to the FDA’s plan to rescind the mercury in fish advisories for women and children, the Mercury Policy Project released an expanded case study, documenting 23 people who got sick from eating too much mercury-laden fish.
Dr. Jane Hightower, M.D. of San Francisco has even chronicled the seafood industry's interference in public health policy in her book Diagnosis: Mercury: Money, Politics and Poison.
There is no doubt in my mind that the benefits you get from eating fish and seafood – especially while pregnant – do NOT outweigh the risk of mercury toxicity to yourself or your developing child. Mercury is a real toxin and brain poison that can and will cause serious damage to your central nervous system. Sorting Through the Benefits and Risks of Fish First of all, animal-based omega-3 fats are absolutely vital for the complete development of your baby’s brain during pregnancy and the first two years of life. Of that there’s no doubt, and the FDA are correct in their assertion on that point. Being deficient in omega-3 has also been shown to increase your risk of premature delivery. BUT, as the study in Environmental Health Perspectives shows, so does being exposed to mercury from fish consumption… There is really no reason to argue for higher fish consumption, or urge people to choose between two evils. Why? Because there are SAFE ALTERNATIVES to fish! Why expose yourself to toxic heavy metals when you can get the goodness of omega-3 from safe, clean sources, other than fish and seafood? I’m talking about krill oil and fish oil, of course. It is obvious that the experts responsible for generating this recommendation have a similar appreciation of the amazing benefits that omega-3 fats have for your health. Unfortunately, I believe these experts are in denial and do not have a full appreciation of the serious dangers of heavy metal and chemical contamination, which has migrated into most commercially available seafood. Additionally, newer research suggests that optimizing your vitamin D levels into therapeutic ranges will upregulate intracellular glutathione production and help detoxify mercury. So make sure you get your vitamin D blood levels checked! Why You Should NOT Eat Fish The problem with high fish consumption is that most of your commercially available fish are highly contaminated with mercury, which can cause as much brain damage as omega-3 can bring health benefits. An alarming 40 tons of mercury are released into the United States alone every year due to burning coal to generate electricity. Mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants moves through the air, is deposited in water, and finds its way into fish, accumulating especially in fish that are higher up the food chain. Fish like tuna, sea bass, marlin, and halibut show some of the worst contamination, but dozens of species and thousands of water bodies have been seriously polluted. As a result, if you eat a lot of fish during pregnancy, or even as little as a single serving of a highly contaminated fish, you can expose your developing child to excessive levels of mercury. The toxic metal can cross through your placenta to harm your child’s rapidly developing nervous system, including your baby’s brain. Some fish are more problematic than others. These are some of the ones you should definitely avoid if you are pregnant or nursing:
For a more comprehensive report on fish recommendations and dangers, please review my previous report on this topic. In a perfect world, fish would be a near-perfect food -- high in protein and full of essential nutrients and fats. But our world is not perfect, and, sadly, neither is our fish supply. Therefore, I do not recommend eating any fish -- unless you have lab results in your hand that can attest to its purity. Safe Alternatives to Fish I believe supplementing with fish oil and krill oil is a safe and effective way to get all the health benefits of omega-3, without any of the risks of mercury. Eating smaller fish, like sardines, is also an option, as they are far less likely to be contaminated. If you insist on eating typical, store-bought fish, however, and want to know more about the extent of your mercury exposure, I urge you, for the sake of your health and that of your family, to check out the online mercury calculator at GotMercury.org. | |||||||||||||
I found this article in - http://www.hpathy.com/ which is a great source of all information. I am so pleased to recommend it to everyone. Books free to download, massive amounts of information for all people from novice to professional and articles like the one below. Have a read and know this article supports the blog earlier today about the big Pharma advertising which disseminates false information and information that hints at things without proof. We are being bilked by the most sophisticated and devious Snake Oil salesmen in history.
| Homeopathy 4 Everyone - Editorial | |
| | |
| November, 2008 | |
A Personal Decision- Alan V. Schmukler | |
| The question of whether to vaccinate is a personal and often difficult decision. One has to weigh the danger of the disease and the chance of contracting it, against the dangers of the vaccine. Neither side in the debate can guarantee 100% protection. On the one hand, a vaccine might protect you from a disease you were going to get and maybe die of. Benjamin Franklin opposed variolation (smallpox vaccination) and his unvaccinated son died of smallpox. He subsequently changed his mind and expressed regret for his former position. On the other hand, vaccines have been associated with everything from autism, retardation and immune suppression to death. In the U.S., the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (U.S.) has paid out over a billion dollars to parents of children injured by vaccines. Vaccine manufacturers, while insisting on the safety of their product, have steadfastly demanded immunity from lawsuit. So how does one make this decision? The answer is, by becoming knowledgeable about all aspects of this debate, including alternatives to vaccination. Homeopathy has for many years been used to prevent illness (homeoprophylaxis). Hahnemann used Belladonna successfully to prevent scarlet fever. During a smallpox outbreak in Iowa, 1902, the homeopathic remedy Variolinum proved 97% effective in preventing the disease. Thousands of people in Buenos Aires received the remedy Lathyrus sativa during a 1957 polio outbreak. Not a single case of polio developed in those so treated. In 1974, 18,640 children in Brazil were given Meningococcinum to prevent meningococcal meningitis. The protection rate was 97 %. Homeopath and researcher Isaac Golden has developed protocols for preventing illness with homeopathy (see interview in this edition and links to previous articles). While there is some debate about the mechanism of homeoprophylaxis, it clearly works. Homeopaths also use constitutional treatment as an effective alternative to vaccination. Aside from prevention, childhood diseases like measles can be treated easily and safely with homeopathy, which also helps prevent the sequelae. Having said all this, there are still many people who don’t know about homeopathy or have any practical access to homeopathic treatment. The first vaccine was developed by Edward Jenner (1796) who used cowpox to prevent smallpox. Pasteur developed a post- bite inoculation for rabies in 1885. While these first vaccines were rather simple, today’s vaccines contain many excipients that are highly toxic and can cause more harm than the diseases they are intended to prevent. These ingredients include Mercury, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, Phenol, MSG, Monkey kidney tissue, Chick embryonic fibroblasts etc. (see this month’s cartoon) The production of vaccines is a multibillion dollar business, where the bottom line of profits often conflicts with the desire to do good. Consider the issue of Thimerosal, the mercury added to preserve shelf life. In the U.S., government hearings determined that it was harmful and forbid it to be added to any future vaccines (after years of doing damage ). However they permitted vaccine manufacturers to continue selling their stockpiled Thimerosal laden vaccines, a supply which some estimate will last over a decade. In the end, you must make your own informed decision. We hope this month’s commentary and resources will help you do that. | |
A drug company is a commercial business whose focus is to research, develop, market and/or distribute drugs, most commonly in the context of healthcare; from wikipedia. But according to a study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.
But how could this be you might ask yourself. Well the answer is fairly easy; regardless of its purpose of helping people it is a bussiness and thus it has to make money and the way of making money is by advertising more and researching less. The researchers’ estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion.
In case you are wondering who made this study well the research is co-authored by PhD candidate Marc-André Gagnon, who led the study and Joel Lexchin, a long-time researcher of pharmaceutical promotion, Toronto physician, and Associate Chair of York’s School of Health Policy & Management in the Faculty of Health.
“In our paper, we make the case for the need for a new estimate of promotional expenditures by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry,” says Gagnon. “We then explain how we used proprietary databases to construct a revised estimate and finally, we compare our results with those from other data sources to argue in favor of changing the priorities of the industry.”
This study is very important as it shows the most accurate image yet of the promotional workings of the pharmaceutical industry, says Lexchin. But even this could be wrong a bit because there are other advertising campaigns which could not be taken into consideration such as ghost-writing and off-label promotion so in fact these companies are probably spending more than twice advertising rather then researching. As well, note the authors, the number of meetings for promotional purposes has dramatically increased in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, jumping from 120,000 in 1998 to 371,000 in 2004, further supporting their findings that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven.
When enough reputed Doctor come forward as Dr. Miller has and say that Flu shots are not supported by any research and in fact are dangerous then we may wake up as a nation. We will come to understand the Fear Factor played over and over again by the Pharmaceutical industry is creating a market and costing us billions of dollars. The country is reeling over health costs and the health system failing due to its cost and much of the money is going to all those high profile drug companies who say they are doing good when in fact they are only doing good to their own pocketbooks.
Here is a statement I found in Dr. Mercola's fine weekly magazine.http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/12/09/prominent-physician-advises-against-flu-shots.aspx
This is a talk about vitamin D and how it helps in many ways to strengthen us to fight disease including the flu.
Dr. Donald Miller, a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington, recommends avoiding the flu shot and taking vitamin D instead. According to Dr. Miller, “Seventy percent of doctors do not get a flu shot.”
Health officials say that every winter 36,000 people will die from it. But the National Vital Statistics Reports compiled by the CDC show that only 1,138 deaths a year occur due to influenza alone -- more than 34,000 of the “36,000″ flu deaths are actually pneumonic and cardiovascular deaths.
There is also a lack of evidence that young children benefit from flu shots. In fact, a systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo. But there is also a risk of harm from the flu vaccine itself, particularly from the mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde it contains.
The Drug companies should be forced to repay governments for their inappropriate touting of flu shots as a preventative. The FDA should not allow the Drug Companies to put ads on Television. America is one of the few countries in the world that allow Drug ads on TV.RUISLIP, England — When Bruce Hardy’s kidney cancer spread to his lung, his doctor recommended an expensive new pill from Pfizer. But Mr. Hardy is British, and the British health authorities refused to buy the medicine. His wife has been distraught.
Bruce and Joy Hardy of Ruislip, England, are awaiting a British agency’s reconsideration of its rejection of a medicine sought by Mr. Hardy, a kidney cancer patient.
Articles in this series will explore medical treatments used despite scant proof they work and will consider steps toward medicine based on evidence.
All Articles in the Series »“Everybody should be allowed to have as much life as they can,” Joy Hardy said in the couple’s modest home outside London.
If the Hardys lived in the United States or just about any European country other than Britain, Mr. Hardy would most likely get the drug, although he might have to pay part of the cost. A clinical trial showed that the pill, called Sutent, delays cancer progression for six months at an estimated treatment cost of $54,000.
But at that price, Mr. Hardy’s life is not worth prolonging, according to a British government agency, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The institute, known as NICE, has decided that Britain, except in rare cases, can afford only £15,000, or about $22,750, to save six months of a citizen’s life.
British authorities, after a storm of protest, are reconsidering their decision on the cancer drug and others.
For years, Britain was almost alone in using evidence of cost-effectiveness to decide what to pay for. But skyrocketing prices for drugs and medical devices have led a growing number of countries to ask the hardest of questions: How much is life worth? For many, NICE has the answer.
Top health officials in Austria, Brazil, Colombia and Thailand said in interviews that NICE now strongly influences their policies.
“All the middle-income countries — in Eastern Europe, Central and South America, the Middle East and all over Asia — are aware of NICE and are thinking about setting up something similar,” said Dr. Andreas Seiter, a senior health specialist at the World Bank.Cherry Plum - fear of the mind giving way
Clematis - dreaming of the future without working in the present
Impatiens - impatience
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081120/science/science_messing_up
Tue, Jan 8, 2008
Health, Studies