Wrong Questions and Invalid Assumptions

This is where things are as far as the insurance coverage debate.

Even though I disagree often with Dr. McDermott, whom I have known since the late 1970s, especially on the Farm bill he recently supported, this is an excellent retort to Republicans who are intimately intertwined with Big Pharma and Big Insurance.

"If the private sector is so good ... why do we have 50 million people with no health insurance today?" Jim McDermott, MD, D-WA.

Profiteering from Flu Pandemonium

Swine Flu: Bringing Home the Bacon
— By James Ridgeway | Mon April 27, 2009 Mother Jones

As the world gears up once again for a flu pandemic that may or may not arrive (it actually seems possible this time), we might want to remember some of the lessons of the last flu scare. One of these is that there are winners as well as losers in every high-profile outbreak of infectious disease. First and foremost among them, of course, is Big Pharma, which can always be counted on to have its hand out wherever human misery presents an opportunity to rake in some cash.

In 2005, I reported on the bird flu scare for the Village Voice in a piece called “Capitalizing on the Flu.” We can realistically hope that our current federal government will improve upon the bungled effort made by the Bush Administration to prepare for the onslaught of avian flu—which fortunately didn’t materialize. But certain aspects of the crisis are likely to be repeated, and profiteers will surely waste no time in gathering at the trough.

Then, as now, one of the two effective antidotes was a drug called Tamiflu. But this silver bullet came with side effects, as well as a high price tag. As I reported in 2005:

With no vaccine in sight, the U.S. government, along with others, is belatedly stocking up on Tamiflu, a drug that supposedly offers some defense against bird flu. But last week Japanese newspapers told how children who were administered Tamiflu went mad and tried to kill themselves by jumping out of windows. In a cautionary statement the FDA noted 12 deaths among children, and said there are reports of psychiatric disturbances, including hallucinations, along with heart and lung disorders. Roche, the manufacturer, is quoted by the BBC as stating that the rate of deaths and psychiatric problems is no higher among those taking its medication than among those with flu. The company is increasing Tamiflu production to 300 million doses a year to meet demand.

There are other reasons people are leery of Tamiflu. Given the rip-offs in Iraq and after the hurricanes, people are understandably interested in knowing just who is going to get rich off the plague. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, himself former CEO of drug company Searle, currently owns stock in the one company that owns Tamiflu patents—to the tune of at least $18 million. Rumsfeld says he understands why people might question his holdings, but selling them would raise even more questions. So he is hanging on to what he’s got.

A report by Citicorp at the time described which pharmaceutical manufacturers and other comapnies stood to make money:

Winners could include drug makers such as Gilead Sciences, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi-Aventis. Other possible winners are hospital chains such as Rhoen Klinikum, cleaning-products makers such as Henkel, Ecolab, and Clorox, as well as home entertainment companies such as Blockbuster and Nintendo….

In order for the pharmaceutical companies to profit from making flu vaccine in the administration’s $7.1 billion pandemic flu plan, Bush now is proposing to ban liability suits against them except in cases of willful misconduct. As for those injured by a flu vaccine, possible lawsuits remain an open question….

With a worldwide market estimated at more than $1 billion, there’s big money in a flu plague. Kimberly-Clark’s Chinese subsidiary is already ramping up manufacture of new lines of medical masks, wipes, and hand-washing liquids, according to Business Week, with consulting firms Kroll and Booz Allen Hamilton selling flu preparedness advice to companies and governments. “Crisis is an opportunity as long as you see it first,” Pitney Bowes’s Christian Crews tells the magazine.

Of course, that was then, and this is now. In the coming days we’re bound to discover who’s pulling in the pork this time. But even before the U.S. markets open this morning, early indications aren’t hard to find: “Fears of a potential pandemic are bringing down stock markets around the world today,” public radio’s “Marketplace” reports from London, ”but two big pharmaceutical companies are getting a boost from the news”:

Shares in Switzerland’s leading drug maker, Roche, are up nearly 4 percent this morning. The company says it’s scaling up production of Tamiflu. The drug’s been show to be an effective vaccine against the virus.

In the U.K., GlaxoSmithKline, which manufacturers its own vaccine against deadly flu viruses, is also gaining in the markets. Glaxo’s drug is called Relenza….

Both drug makers have been approached by the World Health Organization about their readiness to deploy stocks in the case of a pandemic. Roche says it stands ready with 3 million treatments, but warned further production could take up to eight months.

http://www.motherjones.com/print/23404

A Concern for All

I understand and believe in natural care. I have concerns too from time to time because of the many natural products now flooding the market that might not be as good as in years gone by.

Commercialism has its negative side, and along with that there is the worry that Big Pharma wants just too much control over natural products. That's a money issue, not a concern for health benefits.

What bothered me today is a UPI article on the synthetization of one element from the herb Club Moss.

Briefly, Club Moss has been used for many years as an effective diuretic that eases many conditions associated with suppressed urine, including the flushing of stones and gravel from the kidneys and gallbladder, accumulation of fluids in the tissues that produce swelling (edema), bladder irritation, cystitis, gout and rheumatoid arthritis. It is used in certain cases for Alzheimer's.

What Big Pharma fails yet to understand is that plants come as a whole. Singling out one elements may be beneficial is the lab or the short term, but this isn't the way things should be.

In its whole state, Club Moss has a number of Beneficial Uses:

Club Moss is a diuretic that has been used to treat chronic urinary complaints, such as mumps, dropsy (or edema, the accumulation of fluids in tissues that produces swelling), irritability of the bladder and cystitis.

Further supporting its diuretic applications, Club Moss helps to treat many ailments that are characterized by the suppression of urine, such as renal colic, stones and calculi in the kidneys and bladder (by helping to increase urine flow and flush debris through the system). This action also helps to relieve gout, hardening of the testes and rheumatoid arthritis.

Club Moss is said to be helpful in "women's complaints" and is thought to help treat irregular menstruation.

Used externally, Club Moss may be used as a dusting powder to relieve various skin diseases, such as eczema, itchy or irritated areas and erysipelas, and it can also be used to absorb fluids from injured tissues and as a powder to prevent chafing in infants. Moreover, it can be dusted on wounds to stop bleeding or inhaled to stop bleeding noses.

Club Moss is considered a stomachic that strengthens the function of the stomach, and as such, it has been used to aid digestion and ease gastritis. It is also thought to be an antispasmodic and nervine that helps to calm spasms, diarrhea, dysentery and hydrophobia.

The concern really is, "it's the whole herb that does the job".

Homeopathy Eases Cancer Therapy

NASHVILLE, April 16 (UPI) -- U.S. chemists say they have developed an efficient technique to produce the synthesized herbal alkaloid Serratezomine from the club moss Lycopodium serratum.

Vanderbilt University researchers said the moss -- a creeping, flowerless plant used in homeopathic medicine -- contains potent alkaloids. But the plant makes many of the compounds in extremely low amounts, hindering efforts to test their therapeutic value.

The scientists said their technique to synthesize Serratezomine is important because the alkaloid might have anti-cancer properties and could combat memory loss. The scientists said it took six years to develop the process because they had to invent entirely new chemical methods to complete the synthesis. But they said their success should make it easier to synthesize alkaloids and other natural compounds with therapeutic potential.

"This was a challenging problem," said Professor Jeffrey Johnston, who led the research. 'It takes years to develop a new chemical reaction and then apply it to the natural product target. So, once we start, we don't stop."

The study that included Aroop Chandra; Julie Pigza, Jeong-Seok Han and Daniel Mutnickwas was reported in the March 18 issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Drug Costs and Insurance Keep Prices High

The high cost of drugs for US consumers is directly related to the insurance industry and third party billing. The mentality for several decades has been "we can charge what the market will bear, because insurance will cover the costs."

Of course this system is failing. Since the welfare plan for Big Pharma was introduced under the euphemistic "Senior Drug Plan" or Medicare D, as a way the Bush administration repaid the favor for all the Big Pharma money that helped him get elected, and even wrote the drug plan, costs have skyrocketed.

Seeing falling profits the health insurers raised co-pays and developed new creative ways to keep their money.

Now we have a new economic plan leading further down the pike to universal care and the single payer model, in the coming days of the new administration.

We don't see any cost savings plans yet on the government side but there is a minor movement to do so - in exchange for data - at the big box retail companies, and the drug bus.

Drugmakers and retail chains offer meds are bargain prices. But are they worth it?

I keep wondering why it is that more people aren't getting on board for health classes like I taught for many years at Secure Horizons. I'll come teach these same programs at your community organization. All you have to do is ask. You'll not only save money, you may save your health.

Health Care is Facing a Terrible Dilemma

Here we are with s so-called stimulus plan with some serious detrimental impacts on your health care. Big Pharma has pulled out all the bells and whistles to get their heavily armed (with mega-bucks) lobbyists to fight this war.

So where do you stand?

I'm not sure where the citizen stands if you take a look at how Big Pharma pulled the wool over the eyes of Congress and AARP for the now known to be ruinous Senior Drug Health Plan (Part D). It just looks like it is all going from bad to worse, or to $#%^ in a hand basket.

Perhaps you should peruse the following two articles, think about what it means for you, and let you representatives know exactly what you think.

See Pfizer tips for managing journalists which is certainly a good idea as Pfizer is poised to release its ties to doctors.

Cash-strapped U.S. patients may be skipping drugs
Feb 10, 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Americans with financial worries because of the ailing economy may be skipping needed prescription drugs in a wrong-headed attempt to save money, according to a survey released on Tuesday.

Nearly 95 percent of doctors surveyed by Epocrates Inc. said they have some concern that patients may not be taking a prescribed drug correctly because of the economic climate.

The biggest concern among the 700 doctors surveyed was that patients were simply not filling prescriptions or skipping doses. The doctors also said they believed some patients were splitting pills.

The healthcare information company said 55 percent of the physicians surveyed said they wrote more prescriptions for generic drugs, which are cheaper than patented drugs, in 2008 than in 2007.

(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Will Dunham and Eric Walsh)
Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited

Sobering results for cost-cutting Medicare projectBy LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner
Feb 10, 2009

CHICAGO – An ambitious effort to cut costs and keep aging, sick Medicare patients out of the hospital mostly didn't work, a government-contracted study found. The disappointing results show how tough it is to manage older patients with chronic diseases, who often take multiple prescriptions, see many different doctors and sometimes get conflicting medical advice.

The study showed just how hard it is to change the habits of older patients and their sometimes inflexible doctors. And it points up the challenges the Obama administration will face in trying to reform health care for an aging nation.

Most of the patients had serious, but common, age-related illnesses including diabetes, heart disease and lung disease. Programs were set up at 15 centers around the country. Only two cut the number of times these patients were hospitalized, and those are still in operation. None saved Medicare any money.

The authors of the study called the results "underwhelming." An editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association, where the study appears Wednesday, used the term "sobering."

"The only way you can really do it is by changing patients' behavior and by changing physicians' behavior, and both things are really hard to do," said study author Randall Brown, a researcher at Mathematica Policy Research Inc., in Princeton, N.J., which was hired to evaluate the programs.

Often, these patients need to stop smoking, or lose weight, exercise more, eat healthier foods — a challenge even for generally healthy people. Those changes are especially tough for sick, older patients who often are set in their ways.

"The same thing with physicians," Brown said. "A lot of them feel like they know how to take care of patients, so why do they need a nurse calling up and asking them why the patient isn't on some certain medication?"

Many patients in the study had more than one chronic disease, a common Medicare scenario. In 2002 alone, half of Medicare patients had been treated for five or more ailments, and they accounted for 75 percent of Medicare spending, the study authors noted.

Seeking ways to reduce those costs and improve care, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services selected 15 proposals for test-site programs in 2002. The sites developed their own programs, enrolling a total of 18,309 fee-for-service Medicare patients through 2006.

About half got the patients got the usual care. The others got more intensive, coordinated care. That often involved nurses who acted as go-betweens, helping doctors give patients clear, appropriate advice; counseling patients on changing bad habits and recognizing worrisome symptoms. The nurses were available on a regular basis by phone or in person to answer patients' questions.

Jim Reid, a 74-year-old retired Pennsylvania welder, was among study patients who got coordinated care.

When he enrolled in 2002 in a test program run by Health Quality Partners, a nonprofit group in Doylestown, Pa., he was obese, had high blood pressure, high cholesterol and pre-diabetes.

But Reid was a rare success story.

He actually took the advice offered in group sessions run by nurses. He learned how to read food labels and avoid salty, calorie-laden foods. He also started exercising, walking with a pedometer and building up to a few miles daily.

Now, he breakfasts on oatmeal or vegetable omelets instead of coffee and doughnuts He's lost almost 60 pounds. His blood pressure and cholesterol have greatly improved and his pre-diabetes is gone.

Sticking with the program "is hard," he acknowledged. "As you get older, you don't want to do it." But he said it has "put an extra 10 years in my life."

Reid credits his success to the personal attention of a nurse coordinator.

"I have to have somebody to own up to," he said.

That close, in-person contact with nurses was also a feature of the project's other more successful, still-operating program, at Mercy Medical Center-North Iowa in Mason City, Iowa.

In both programs, each patient had face-to-face contact an average of about once a month with a nurse. That was far more frequent personal contact than in other programs. Both reduced hospitalizations — 17 percent yearly compared with usual-care patients at Mercy, and by about 20 percent in the Pennsylvania program, but only among its sicker patients. That program worked with Doylestown Hospital and recruited patients from area physicians' offices.

Targeting sicker patients and providing frequent in-person contact show the approach has some benefits and that success with future reform efforts "is possible, but it's not easy," Brown said.

Peter Ashkenaz, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the agency is evaluating the Iowa and Pennsylvania programs to see if their positive results persist.

He said there are other approaches being tested, some that offer incentives to doctors who meet quality benchmarks, or who use electronic health records to improve quality.

But so far, Ashkenaz said, "as the study shows, we have not yet found broad success."
___

On the Net:
JAMA: http://jama.ama-assn.org
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: http://www.cms.hhs.gov
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press

FEBRUARY 9, 2009,
Drug Makers Fight Stimulus Provision By ALICIA MUNDY
WASHINGTON -- The drug and medical-device industries are mobilizing to gut a provision in the stimulus bill that would spend $1.1 billion on research comparing medical treatments, portraying it as the first step to government rationing.
The fight over the provision is highlighting the tensions behind President Barack Obama's plan to overhaul the health-care system. The administration hopes to expand coverage while limiting use of treatments that don't work well, but any efforts that might reduce coverage are politically sensitive.

The House version of the stimulus package sent shudders through the drug and medical-device industry. In a staff report describing the bill, the House said treatments found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive "will no longer be prescribed."

A Senate version backed by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) doesn't mention cost as a subject to be studied. And the industry won a battle to add the word "clinical" in describing the research -- adding to the implication that the comparison studies won't look at bang for the buck. The final language is likely to be hammered out later this week in a House-Senate conference committee.

Mr. Obama is under pressure to find long-run health-cost savings as projections show that Medicare spending is on track to severely deplete the federal budget. "Without question, we're headed for more of a public and private push for which medicines work best at the lowest cost in particular patients," said Mark McClellan, former Medicare and Medicaid chief under President George W. Bush.

The $1.1 billion in research funding would be doled out to the National Institutes of Health and other government bodies. "We should focus on producing the best unbiased science possible," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), a strong proponent of the House language.

Mr. Obama supported research into comparative effectiveness during his campaign. Administration officials and leading Democrats in Congress say the idea will help government programs direct their dollars to treatments that are worth the money.

Officially, drug and device makers don't object to that sentiment. But they warn of a slippery slope where the government ends up axing useful treatments just because they cost too much. They have lined up patient groups that get industry funding to lobby Capitol Hill.

A coalition called the Partnership to Improve Patient Care includes the lobbying arms of the drug, device and biotechnology industries as well as patient-advocacy groups and medical-professional societies. Coalition spokesman David Di Martino says the research envisioned in the House bill may be used "in an inappropriate manner that may limit treatment options for patients."

A public-relations firm that is part of one of Washington's most influential lobby shops, Barbour Griffith Rogers, is representing the coalition. A major goal is to give industry a seat at the table when federal officials decide what to research with the $1.1 billion.

Companies "want to control the data, how it is reviewed, evaluated, and whether the public and government find out about it and use it," said Harry Selker, a Tufts University professor who directs its clinical-research program.

That also worries Jerry Avorn of Harvard Medical School, a frequent drug-industry critic. Comparative research "has the potential to tell us which drugs and treatments are safe, and which ones work," he said. "This is not information that the private sector will generate on its own, or that the industry wants to share."

Michael Cannon of the libertarian Cato Institute said comparative effectiveness research "isn't going to do any good because the industry will defund it as soon as it presents a threat."

When the government's Agency for Health Research Quality suggested in 1995 that there were too many unnecessary back surgeries, doctors and industry groups attacked the conclusion. Mr. Cannon noted that Congress at the time slashed the agency's budget and stripped its authority to make medicare-payment recommendations.

"They almost killed AHRQ," said Dr. Avorn. "The memory of their near-death experience hasn't been forgotten."

Dr. McClellan, the former Medicare chief, said effectiveness research can be useful but shouldn't assume pricey medicines are automatically bad. "The goal isn't to avoid expensive drugs, it's to get more value for our health-care spending," he said.

—Jacob Goldstein contributed to this article.
Alicia Mundy at alicia.mundy@wsj.com
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Not in the business of saving lives

Following on Pfizer's record another Big Pharma member admits its the DO RE MI

Roche: “Saving Lives Is Not Our Business”

The Swiss company Roche makes a range of HIV-related drugs. One of them is enfuvirtide, sold under the brandname Fuzeon. Fuzeon brought in $266 million to Roche in 2007, though sales are declining.

Roche charges $25,000 a year for Fuzeon. It does not offer a discount price for developing countries.

Like most industrialized countries, South Korea maintains a form of price controls. The national health insurance program sets prices for medicines, and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs listed Fuzeon at $18,000 a year. South Korea’s per capita income is roughly half that of the United States. Instead of providing Fuzeon at South Korea’s listed level—and still turning a profit—Roche refuses to make the drug available in South Korea.

South Korean activists report that the head of Roche Korea told them, “We are not in business to save lives, but to make money. Saving lives is not our business.”

Read complete article -
and you might enjoy this article as well -

Gary Null Video on FDA and other good videos

Prescription for Disaster is an in-depth investigation into the symbiotic relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, lobbyists, lawmakers, medical schools, and researchers, and the impact this has on consumers and their health care. During this thorough investigation, we take a close look at patented drugs, why they are so readily prescribed by doctors, the role insurance companies and HMO's play in promoting compliance, and the problem of rising health care costs. We examine the marketing and public relations efforts on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies, including sales reps, medical journals and conferences. Further, we look at alternatives to traditional pharmacology and drug therapy, such as vitamins and nutritional supplements, and why they are often perceived as a competitive threat to the drug manufacturers. Alternative therapies also include diet, exercise and a healthy lifestyle. Prescription for Disaster takes you on a journey through the tangled web of big business, the way disease is treated today, and the consequences we suffer as a society.«

Drug Trials Only Adverts?

An exquisite essay on just how it is!

Clinical Drug Trials: See them for what they often are — advertisements
by Warren Bell, MD

Just about every week, an announcement is made about research concerning some sort of new treatment. In just about every case, the treatment is a drug.

This does not mean, however, that drugs are the most important or valuable type of therapy, but rather that modernday, multi-national “big pharma” drug corporations have enormous, financial clout. Due to their patent-based monopolistic profits, drug companies earn 10 times more than all other types of treatment combined. Cnsequently, they can afford to hire the best advertising and public relations experts to relentlessly promote their products in the industry and public media.

So-called announcements from big pharma can more accurately be described as advertisements. They are, in point of fact, carefully crafted propaganda for the latest product generated by clever drug development teams, whose most important members are often public-relations experts and lawyers.

Reading between the profit lines

Let’s look at a hypothetical but typical drug announcement, one piece at a time:

“The results of a double-blind, multicenter trial of the new drug Zaronda, announced today by a research team at the University of Great Hill, reveal that this new breakthrough treatment significantly lowered levels of LDL cholesterol compared to placebo. Dr. Ronald McDonald, chief researcher and Head of the Department of Internal Medicine at UGH’s University Hospital, noted that this new drug represented “An exciting development in the battle against the growing epidemic of heart disease.”

Zaronda was developed in the research laboratories of Muck, Rake and Klink. Share values for the company rose 18 percent after the results of this study were announced.”

Double blind, multi-center trial:

This kind of phrase is used to make the ad sound scientifically impressive. “Double-blind” is thought of as the golden star of study models because neither the subject nor the researcher knows who is receiving the actual treatment in comparison to the placebo (dummy pill). The model and term are used in this case to create the impression of impartiality and rigour.

Multi-center trial: Using such a phrase suggests that large numbers of experimental subjects were involved, implying that it was a serious trial that cost a lot of money.

In actual fact, of course, size counts for nothing in many cases. In 1747, an experiment using only 12 subjects proved that limejuice prevents scurvy and ensured British naval dominance for 150 years.

The new drug: Drug companies want you to believe that what you’re reading about is “hot off the press,” creating the impression of excitement and hope.

Zaronda: Believe it or not, advertising geniuses in the drug industry have
figured out that certain letters are more “sexy.” The letters Z, X, and Y, for example, sell more drugs than most others. That’s why you see strange names for drugs, such as Xanax, Zostrix and Zyloprim.

Research team at the University of Great Hill: Drug companies know that there is still a veneer of respectability attached to educational institutions. They strive to mention either a university or hospital in association with any new drug research. Even if the research is carried out in the company’s own laboratories, the university or hospital connection will likely always come first.

Breakthrough: A key of almost all drug advertisements is the “breakthrough.”
Once again, the word creates the sense of excitement and drama that drug companies know will help to sell their product to desperate people. However, in a typical year, with say 800 new drug submissions, no more than half a dozen can actually be termed useful, let alone a breakthrough.

Significantly lowered levels of LDL cholesterol: Contrary to what many people think, high or low cholesterol is not a significant measure of your health, which makes this phrase a surrogate marker. Getting sick or dying is significant, but changing the amount of a substance in your bloodstream is not. (Some skeptical experts believe that there is no direct connection between cholesterol and heart disease.)

By taking advantage of the fact that many people—including many doctors—mistakenly
equate the lowering of cholesterol with improving a person’s health, drug companies cleverly create the impression that their drug can help. One of the most famous drug trials in medical history involved a drug that lowered cholesterol dramatically but markedly increased the number of deaths from gallbladder disease.

Compared to placebo: Here is one of the best tricks of the drug industry. Instead of comparing a new treatment to older, established treatments, the industry almost always compares a new product to a placebo. That way, they don’t have to worry that the public will compare the new drug to something already on the market—something that might be as good as the new product or even better.

Dr. Ronald McDonald... Chief...Head: The impression created here is of a researcher with an armload of qualifications and exceptional scientific expertise. What is never mentioned is that the good doctor is undoubtedly receiving substantial sums of money from the company making the drug being tested. Numerous studies in medical literature have shown that when this happens, research studies almost always show that the drug works well. He who pays the piper, plays the tune.

An exciting development in the battle against the growing epidemic of heart disease: Once again, this phrasing is attempting to drum up the impression of action, movement and excitement.

Heart disease is mostly caused by over consumption of food, lack of exercise and other lifestyle factors. Taking an expensive pill to deal with this behaviour can hardly be considered an effective weapon. Nevertheless, drug companies use military jargon and scare tactics to drum up business.

Share values for the company rose 18 percent: This kind of information is increasingly tagged onto the end of these ads. The fact that it’s there at all
reveals the true underlying purpose of these so-called treatment creations. They are designed to make money for shareholders of giant multinational corporations.

Patents for profit

By now you may think I’m against all drug companies, but I’m not. Evidence shows that approximately one percent of new drugs are significantly useful. I feel that the real problem with clinical trials is that the vast majority are done on patented drugs.

No one is eager to do trials on vitamins, herbal preparations, homeopathic remedies, physical therapies, or any of the other numerous non-pharmaceutical interventions that many people use every day. Why? Because the profit margin on these approaches
is trivial compared to the windfall profits earned by patented drugs.

If even one-tenth of the money currently wasted on patented drug trials were diverted into independent studies of natural health products, manual treatments and community health-related programs, therapy would be revolutionized overnight.

Treatments and interventions would become safer, less expensive, more accessible
and more sustainable.

Until that happens (and it will require public funding to be done properly)we’re going to have to go on swimming in a sea of flagrant advertisements for drugs of questionable value and unknown risk, disguised as legitimate.

My hope is that this article throws you a modest life raft to help you avoid
drowning.

Warren Bell, MD, is a HANS member practicing in the heart of the Okanagan Valley. He’s also President of the Association of Complementary and Integrative Physicians of BC.

Courtesy HANS.org magazine.