Varmus at National Cancer Institute: Harmful to Health

CHICAGO, IL, December 6, 2010 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- On October 22, 2010, Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, wrote to Dr. Harold Varmus, who was appointed director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) by President Obama three months previously. The senator raised questions on the amount of "sponsored travel," sometimes a dozen or more trips a year and almost exclusively to international conferences paid for by outside organizations or companies, taken in recent years by "numerous NCI employees, notably senior leadership."

According to ScienceInsider, many of the 16 scientists involved took at least 10 trips a year in 2008, 2009, and 2010. However, a subsequent letter from Dr. Varmus and the National Institutes of Health director, Dr. Francis Collins, attempted to claim that this travel was part of their scientific work!

"Varmus, the current director of the NCI, has a distinguished track record on basic research on cancer treatment. However, this is paralleled by frank and dangerous unawareness of longstanding, well-documented scientific evidence on the causes and prevention of cancer," warns Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

As long ago as 1998, in Natalie Angier's Natural Obsessions book, Varmus claimed, "You can't do experiments to see what causes cancer - it's not an accessible problem, and not the sort of thing scientists can afford to do - everything you do can't be risky."

"The claim by Varmus that 'you can't do research to see what causes cancer' is bizarre. At best, it reflects unbelievable ignorance," asserts Dr. Epstein.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has published annual reports on carcinogens, largely based on carcinogenicity tests on rodents, since 1964. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has also published systematic and comprehensive reviews on carcinogens, again largely based on carcinogenicity tests, since 1980. Both the IARC and NTP reports reflect decades-old unarguable scientific evidence on "what causes cancer."

"The ignorance or indifference of Varmus to cancer prevention is reinforced by his unrecognized personal conflicts of interest," Dr. Epstein declares. "In 1995, Varmus, then director of the National Institutes of Health, struck the "reasonable pricing clause," as detailed in my 2002 publication in the International Journal of Health Services. This clause protected against exorbitant industry profiteering from the sale of drugs developed with taxpayer money."

"Varmus also gave senior NCI staff free license to consult with the cancer drug industry, a flagrant institutional conflict of interest," reveals Dr. Epstein. In this connection, he explains, the 2008 edition of Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report listed Varmus with a compensation package of about $2.7 million. According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, this is the highest compensation of directors in over 500 major non-profit organizations ever monitored.

"As disturbing," Dr. Epstein warns, "is the longstanding abdication of responsibility by the NCI, the primary federal institute explicitly charged by President Richard Nixon in 1971 to fight the war against cancer. This charge clearly prioritized the allocation of adequate resources to investigate and eliminate known avoidable causes of cancer."

However, he points out, while the NCI budget has escalated 25-fold, from $200,000 in 1971, to over $5 billion currently, this has been paralleled by an escalation in the incidence of a wide range of cancers. These include liver, 165%; thyroid, 145%; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 82%; childhood, 24%; and breast, 19%.

"These increases also reflect the NCI's longstanding and reckless indifference to prevention, matched by exclusionary emphasis on treatment and related research," states Dr. Epstein.

Reflecting these disturbing concerns, a July 29, 2003 report by the National Academy of Sciences, requested by Congress, charged that:

• The leadership of NCI is marred by pervasive conflicts of interest, and a revolving door with industry, particularly the cancer drug industry.
• Contrary to NCI's exaggerated claims and misleading public assurances, overall cancer incidence rates, including those of childhood and non-smoking adults, have sharply escalated over recent decades.
• NCI policies and priorities remain fixated on damage control - screening, diagnosis, and treatment and related research--with minimal priorities for prevention.
• Contrary to the requirements of the 1971 Act, the NCI has still failed to inform the public of a wide range of avoidable causes of cancer. This denial of the public's right to know has even been extended to the withholding of readily available scientific information.

"These criticisms of the NCI are as germane and timely today as they were seven years ago. However, and disturbingly so," Dr. Epstein warns, "they remain unrecognized by Congress, let alone the public."

As President Obama has stated in September 2008, "It is critical to understand the relationship between environmental factors and risk or onset of disease, particularly cancer."

CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chicago, Illinois
Email: epstein@uic.edu
www.preventcancer.com

Quentin D. Young, M.D.
Chairman
Health & Medicine Policy Research Group
Past President, American Public Health Association
email: quentin@pnhp.org
www.hmprg.org

Rosalie Bertell, PhD
Regent of the International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
Past President of International Institute of Concern for Public Health
Email: rosaliebertell@greynun.org
www.iicph.org

Ronnie Cummins
Executive Director
Organic Consumers Association
email: ronnie@organicconsumers.org
www.organicconsumers.org

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; Recipient of the 1998 Right Livelihood Award ("Alternative Nobel Prize") and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention; Author of over 270 scientific articles and 20 books on the causes and prevention of cancer, including the award-winning The Politics of Cancer (Sierra Club Books, 1978) and Cancer-Gate: How To Win The Losing Cancer War (Baywood Publishing, 2005).

Please join the CPC on Facebook

Health Bill Still Too Cozy with Big PhRMA

Obama has already given away a big pHat prize to PhRMA on the very disguised and very limited cut in the "doughnut hole" of the Medicare D plan. I'd like to know just when all these crooks in DC are going to do something for the people.

I also think it is rather strange that representatives are 'elected' yet are treated as employees rather than as independent contractors. This about this one because as elected independent contractors there are NO benefits.

Dems tap drug maker millions for PhRMA-friendly bill
Read complete article

How About Political Reform over Health Reform

62% Disconnect between insured and uninsured in the US

and as you think about this Big PhARMA wants another 9% price increase as Medicare expects payment and service cuts.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 (UPI) -- U.S. drug manufacturers have been raising their prices at the fastest clip since 1992, industry analysts say.

Wholesale prices for brand name prescription drugs have increased by about 9 percent in the last year, even as the industry has agreed to support Obama administration healthcare reforms that would cut the nation's drug costs by $8 billion, The New York Times reported Monday.

Drug makers say they need to raise prices to plow money back into research and development to find new drugs, contending they need to replace popular drugs whose patents will soon expire. But critics say the manufacturers are trying to raise the price bar before Congress passes reform measures aimed at curbing future drug spending.

"When we have major legislation anticipated, we see a run-up in price increases," Stephen Schondelmeyer, a University of Minnesota pharmaceutical economics professor, told the newspaper.

Joseph Newhouse, a Harvard University health economist, told the Times a similar pattern of unusual price increases happened in 2006 just before Congress added drug benefits to Medicare, when prices shot up by their widest margin in the six previous years.

"Price adjustments for our products have no connection to healthcare reform," said Merck spokesman Ron Rogers.

At the same time, Michelle Obama calls for healthcare reform but you have to ask what her definition is.  Mrs. Obama is a former hospital executive and this discussion hasn't even begun to go past drugs and insurance.  We aren't even close to discussing health care except some hairbrained idea to change doctor pay as a best bet to curb costs when the number of primary care doctors is decreasing over income.

Following on this I am distressed to learn that so many people with chronic health problems have to cut drugs because of cost or no insurance, but no one in mainstream medicine is there to educated them about what natural remedies can replace the drugs and help them get well. (This is why we designed our services and educational programs.)

See NYT article on this topic

What's Good for the Goose...

Just before receiving this little gem, someone alerted me to the "Public Option" being tacked on to the TARP legislation that seems to be up for votes next week.

And while Congress just upped their budget, Obama gave a big chunk of change to NIH to research "cures" for health problems that already have known and effective cures, and they want more money to fund the fool's folly of war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So why isn't this good enough for Joe and Jane Six Pack?

The Real Public Option: Congress' Private Medical Clinic
— By Dave Gilson | Wed September 30, 2009 Mother Jones

You can't say this enough: While members of Congress are busy protecting us from the inefficiency and danger of government-run health care, they're receiving top-notch taxpayer funded health care—seemingly without complaint. The LA Times recently detailed the benefits: A choice of 10 insurance plans and access to a wide network of doctors and HMOs. Plus, they "get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers." ABC News has more on that in-house clinic for lawmakers, officially known as the Office of the Attending Physician:

Services offered by the Office of the Attending Physician include physicals and routine examinations, on-site X-rays and lab work, physical therapy and referrals to medical specialists from military hospitals and private medical practices. According to congressional budget records, the office is staffed by at least four Navy doctors as well as at least a dozen medical and X-ray technicians, nurses and a pharmacist.

Sources said when specialists are needed, they are brought to the Capitol, often at no charge to members of Congress.

Explains a former doc from the Congressional clinic, patients who can't get treated on-site get referrals to top specialists all over the country. "You would go to the best care in the country. And, for the most part, nobody asked what your insurance was." And the cost? $503. A year.

Health Care Debate?

UPDATE: 13 August - If you've missed it because mainstream media dis little to report it, Obama mad a deal with Big PhRMA some weeks back that basically let them off the hook regarding Plan D in Medicare and price negotiating.

Thanks to Huffington Post we have a story that confirms what Natural Health News knew when the "deal" was briefly reported.

Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big PharmaA memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.

The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."
complete article

First of all, Listen up! The US does not have health care, The US has sickness care and every effort to make you think otherwise is just smoke and mirrors.

Sickness drives profit and for a minute don't believe that insurers or drug companies have one altruistic cell in their high rolling enterprises.

I've got plenty of examples collected over 3+ decades as I found myself in various positions in the medical industry. I'm just a very good observer with a photographic memory.

So here's the latest in the "debate" (more like forced pablum) that caught my eye this morning. And I am trying not to post on weekends...or so I tell myself, and really trying not to be cynical.

Drug industry backing Obama's health care plan

Consumer protections lost in health care debate

I happened to see news coverage of a meeting WA Rep Rick Larsen held in the district. I watch this district because I used to live in it. I'm also not a Larsen fan because he is, like Gary Locke and Maria Cantwell, one of those penultimate politicians who's in it for lining his pockets. He's also skilled in the art of the slippery and fork-ed tongue, the best any politician can hope for, eh?

If you see this news video, the look on Larsen's face was most telling when a fellow in the audience stated that he wanted the same health care as members of Congress enjoyed. There was a dead pan face and dead silence from Rick.

Now of course we did hear from Obama that the constituents would get the same care as members of Congress, but then you've probably noticed that's dropped off the radar of late.

What you do read and hear on every radio or TV channel is that Big Insurance and Big PhRMA are rolling out the big PR campaigns to reign in any substantive change in the way people get care from the medical establishment in the US.

Big PhRMA's already conned the Seniors by their pitiful deal with the Obama insiders to drop costs in Medicare D's "doughnut hole" by 50 percent. I'd personally rather see Obama scrap the Bush corporate welfare handout to PhRMA and re-create it with required price negotiation. I'm sure unsuspecting Seniors who've been made drug dependent via the medical industry would like this too!

However, the biggest jolt to getting reform off dead center would be required use of the universal claim form.

Medical Insurance Issue in SPIN: Obama's Way Off the Fulcrum

UPDATE: 10 June - Interesting to note that Aetna has been cited for loss of records for 450,000 people as reported by UPI.
If this is the case for one of the top medical insurance firms, just think of how secure your electronic health records AREN'T.
If you missed Ralph Nader's talk on the Politics of Health Care aired on public radio recently you can find out more about how he is saying exactly what we have said for decades.
Though we are not as famous as Nader we concur with the majority of his findings.
Yes, 60 + years since reform in the medical industry was proposed as was single payer. I'll be posting more information shortly but consider that the universal claim form would save billions and this has been ignored for at least 30 years.
There's more to consider.
------------------------------------------------------
The SPIN cycle is in overdrive and it is clear that those in the US get wrung out in the wash one more time as this insurance issue debate begins picking speed.

For one, I'd say Barack is too close to insiders based on his wife's former job as a hospital executive.

I'd say he'll waffle on this one and once again people will be the losers, Big Insurance and SOS will be the winners. It's all in the politics of "as if consituents don't matter".

If you read the reports on what Kennedy and Baucus are up to you can see clearly through the smoke and mirrors and know exactly what's on the block to be spun out the other end of the sausage stuffing machine. Remember it's small intestine that's stuffed with you don't know know what, then gets sold as sausage.

I know the medical industry and I know the history of "reform" over about the last 50 years. It has never worked. I am pretty sure that what is coming form the pundit's high priced mouth spilling out of congressional and oval offices is about as close to real change as a dead skunk in the middle of the road.

All this talk about electronic medical records is not worth the $20+ million or more destined to be spent on failed software that we know the government gets taken for in almost every agency. The cost of implementing this fiasco is much more that what ever will be saved. Real economists know this.

And, did anyone ask the question about how many people will opt out because of privacy concerns if electronic records are a mandate? I know I would.

The there are those of us that know the medical system in the US is failed and we do not want MOS. We want right of choice and coverage for natural care not provided by the hybrid NDs that are wanna be docs and want to hang on the same old Newtonian mechanistic model based on insurance reimbursement. Aye, there's that Idaho law I helped revamp that is a voice in the wilderness.

No talk yet on prevention. Can't be because there's no money in prevention nor is there money in keeping people healthy and well.

And just what was the problem 20-30 years ago with implementing the UNIVERSAL CLAIM FORM?

Haven't heard a word on this huge money saver. Obama could put it in immediate effect with the swipe of his hand. Being a "lefty" too I'd like to push him along this path, pronto.

Big Insurance was against it, all those different forms let the different companies add on to time and money in their pocket, less care delivered and no monitoring of real outcome.

Stay tuned for the next SPIN cycle. And in the interim, contact those idiots you elected to "represent "you and demand Universal Claim Forms NOW!

The Importance of Being Earnest

In the Oscar Wilde play of the same name Wilde uses Lady Bracknell to embody the mind-boggling stupidity of the British aristocracy, while at the same time, he allows her to voice some of the most trenchant observations in the play.

Lady Bracknell state's “I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone. The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did, it would prove a serious danger to the upper classes, and probably lead to acts of violence in Grosvenor Square.”

Perhaps we are dealing with mind boggling ignorance of the pundits in the new administration - and Members of Congress - when it comes to the health care debate.

If one is familiar with current health care concerns, they know all too well that people who are the "Medicare eligibles" and "Medicaid recipients" are in between the proverbial 'rock and a hard place' because they already are being turned away from care because of low reimbursement rates.

Now on top of the excessive costs and privacy risks of electronic health care records, Obama wants to further reduce reimbursement.

"...make big changes to health care, including lower reimbursements for Medicare and Medicaid treatments and prescription drugs."

We do not see any effort to reduce reimbursements, treatments and Rx from the health care plan used by members of Congress.

We also haven't seen any move to reverse the horrendous gift to the drub industry by Bushites AKA Medicare Plan D. Changes here would save millions, just starting with bidiing for supplying the drugs and elimination of the estra level of bureaucracy called "case management".

I remind you that it is a violation of the equal protection clause to continue these dualistic and more costly in the long term type of patches to the long broken health care system.

Your effort in learning what you can do to build your health is the key. You'll find some of our many health education programs at TOC, and of course we also offer consultation to you and to health care providers.

A move to reign in lobbyists is just as massive an undertaking - and of course we have the culture of bureacracy, something not unfamiliar with the new crew in the White House and the pack of hardline cronies with no vested interest in real change.

Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer
Sat Feb 28, 3:39 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama challenged the nation's vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.

"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."

He said the ambitious budget plan he presented Thursday will help millions of people, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.

"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."

The bring-it-on tone underscored Obama's combative side as he prepares for a drawn-out battle over his tax and spending proposals. Sometimes he uses more conciliatory language and stresses the need for bipartisanship. Often he favors lofty, inspirational phrases.

On Saturday, he was a full-throated populist, casting himself as the people's champion confronting special interest groups that care more about themselves and the wealthy than about the average American.

Some analysts say Obama's proposals are almost radical. But he said all of them were included in his campaign promises. "It is the change the American people voted for in November," he said.

Nonetheless, he said, well-financed interest groups will fight back furiously.

Insurance companies will dislike having "to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs," the president said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy."

Passing the budget, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, "won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."

Obama also promoted his economic proposals in a video message to a group meeting in Los Angeles on "the state of the black union."

"We have done more in these past 30 days to bring about progressive change than we have in the past many years," the president in remarks the White House released in advance. "We are closing the gap between the nation we are and the nation we can be by implementing policies that will speed our recovery and build a foundation for lasting prosperity and opportunity."

Congressional Republicans continued to bash Obama's spending proposals and his projection of a $1.75 trillion deficit this year.

Almost every day brings another "multibillion-dollar government spending plan being proposed or even worse, passed," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who gave the GOP's weekly address.

He said Obama is pushing "the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States, while driving the deficit to levels that were once thought impossible."
___

On the Net:Obama address: http://www.whitehouse.gov
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press.

Stimulus package and your health

UPDATE: Here is the foreshadow of care rationing

New debate on how to decide best health treatments
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer, Mar 12, 09

WASHINGTON – People's lives and plenty of money are at stake when it comes to determining which medical treatments work best.

So some prominent health industry and patient advocacy groups are trying to reframe the debate over how such decisions are made in order to ensure their interests are protected.

Spurred by $1.1 billion in the recent economic stimulus bill for "comparative effectiveness research," their coalition unveiled a new campaign Thursday with a prominent Democrat and disability rights advocate, former California Rep. Tony Coelho, as its spokesman.

Coelho, who suffers from epilepsy and was a key sponsor of the Americans With Disabilities Act, said the issue comes down to whether disabled people and other patients would get the medical care they need.

"On this issue we need to be at the table," Coelho said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Comparative analysis is wonderful, if it's done appropriately."

Coelho's concerns about what could happen if it's not done right line up with those articulated most loudly until now by Republicans and conservative commentators — that "comparative effectiveness" could morph into "cost effectiveness," with bean-counting government bureaucrats refusing treatments to patients who need them.

It's a big concern for drug and biotech companies too since they could lose out if a treatment they've developed is found to be less effective than a competitor's. But a drug company's bottom line isn't likely to draw as much public sympathy as a disabled person's needs.

That makes Coelho a good face for the Partnership to Improve Patient Care, which formed as the issue began to surface last fall and is funded by groups including the Easter Seals, Friends of Cancer Research, the Alliance for Aging Research, the Advanced Medical Technology Association and the powerful pharmaceutical and biotech industry lobbies.

The partnership also includes some minority and women's groups, mostly as nonpaying members. These groups say they can be underrepresented in studies of medical procedures and want to ensure that doesn't happen with the stimulus money.

The fear is that "research done with a very limited segment of the population would be applied to everyone," Alicia Diaz, federal affairs director for the Cuban American National Council, said after the partnership's press conference Thursday.

Obama administration officials insist that won't happen, noting that the economic stimulus bill specifies that comparative effectiveness research include minorities and women, and promising that disabled people will be included, too.

The purpose of the research is to provide doctors and patients with good information to help them get the best outcomes, and improve the performance of the U.S. health system, administration officials say.

"Information about the relative advantages of different treatments is critical to helping people with disabilities be better advocates for their own care," Health and Human Services spokeswoman Jenny Backus said Thursday.

Asked whether saving money was also a goal, Backus said the first step was to conduct the research and the program is "really about quality of care."

But controversy was stoked when language accompanying a House version of the bill suggested the result of comparative effectiveness research would be that less effective and in some cases more expensive procedures "will no longer be prescribed."

The final bill had different language, specifying there was no intention to "mandate coverage, reimbursement or other policies for any public or private payer."

On the Net: Partnership to Improve Patient Care: http://www.improvepatientcare.org/
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press.

UPDATE: The issue of electronic records and privacy concerns the public in the UK where their NHS plans to make documents avialable to pharamcists...
D. Mail 12.2.09 "CHEMISTS COULD BE GIVEN ACCESS TO PATIENT DATA"
High street chemists will be able to view patients' medical records under controversial plans, it emerged last night. But doctors - including the BMA - & campaigners warn that patient confidentiality could be put at serious risk.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been involved in health freedom activities since the 1960s when I worked in mental health and later on in Haight-Ashbury and at a famous commune in conjunction with the local public health nurse.

From there I stopped off at Chicago 68 and then back home to the east coast for more education in the health professions, future studies, management and whole systems design.

This is some of the path I travelled to get where I am now, an advocate for health freedom and a person known internationally for helping you learn to do the same.

Now we have a clear picture of the backwards spiral, or what you may also call positive entropy, as the system falls in on itself.

Speak Now!

Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research
Columnist George Will in the January 29 issue of the Washington Post first noted that “The stimulus legislation creates a council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. This is about medicine but not about healing the economy. The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical ‘items, procedures, and interventions’ that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They ‘will no longer be prescribed’ by federal health programs….” Private insurers are expected to follow suit. The CER would dramatically advance government control—and rationing—of healthcare, and the natural health community will have to make its case to this governmental body.

There is deepening cause for concern regarding government involvement in healthcare as the stimulus legislation becomes law. There is abundant evidence that vested interests, which have become pervasive in every aspect of federal legislation, are pulling attention away from wellness, individual responsibility, and true innovation in healthcare. AAHF’s drive to reform the FDA stems from the fact that the FDA—which is truly our government’s involvement in medicine—is responsible for many flawed and destructive policies. The FDA:

• systematically obstructs medical science and innovation;
• forbids and censors the communication of legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific research;
• protects entrenched medical monopolies that pay the FDA’s bills and hire its employees;
• interferes with the rights of consumers to learn about good science (especially relating to food and supplements) that could prolong and save lives and promote health; and
• unnecessarily drives up the cost of healthcare to the point where employers can no longer afford to hire new employees (or even keep old ones), and the entire American economy is threatened.

Every American citizen who values health care freedom of choice must remain ever vigilant that the federal stimulus plan threatens to put a huge government footprint on their healthcare. Help us reform the FDA now!
Thank you to American Association for Health Freedom

Down home cookin?

UPDATE: 24 January, 2009
Top chefs push Obama to improve food policy
--------------------------------------------------
Well, one chef has her job as administrations change, and that may be good because of how "Comerford cooks with the best organic and local produce available".

Of course now that Vilsack is in at AG, and he's one of Monsanto's henchmen, we hope there'll be some research at the Obama household.

Start here to learn how organic is the only form of sustainable agriculture, then move to the next square. This one tells you that all those Monsanto herbicides and pesticides create health problems for all, and even seep into the water table.

Turn the next corner to wonder how this health promoting organic food is going to be affordable in poor neighborhoods around the country.

And - not the least to be considered - understanding exactly how health care costs are saved when Big Pharma, Big Insurance and industrial medicine are driving the car, while very few know the first thing about food plans and nutrition, dietitians included.

And don't forget - we already know that when genetically modified into a Franken-food, potatoes promote cancer. I guess I forgot the military industrial complex needs us to keep creating patients for their Franken-medicine that Daschle will slip into the trough...

Time for CHANGE you say?

Who's cookin' in the White House?
Does it matter who serves as chef to the Obamas?
By Maria C. Hunt | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
from the January 21, 2009 edition

Amid the excitement leading up to Barack Obama's inauguration as the 44th US president, foodies had been dishing about who they thought might be the chef the Obamas would bring to the White House.

But that pot-stirring speculation ended earlier this month when Michelle Obama issued a statement saying that the Obamas would retain the current White House Executive Chef, Cristeta Comerford.

Ms. Comerford became the first woman and the first minority to hold the post when she was appointed by Laura Bush in 2005. She has worked in the White House kitchen since 1995, including serving as sous-chef under the previous executive chef, Walter Scheib III. She was born in the Philippines and worked in hotels in Austria and Washington, after receiving a degree in Food Technology from the University of the Philippines.

"Cristeta Comerford brings such incredible talent to the White House operation and came very highly regarded from the Bush family. Also the mom of a young daughter, I appreciate our shared perspective on the importance of healthy eating and healthy families," said Mrs. Obama in a statement issued by the transition team. "I look forward to working with her in the years to come."

Two chefs who were thought to be under consideration for the post were Art Smith, owner of the upscale Southern comfort food restaurant Table Fifty-Two in Chicago and the new Art and Soul in Washington, and Rick Bayless, who creates inventive regional Mexican cuisine at Topolobampo in Chicago.

Perhaps Comerford will ask Mr. Smith to share his recipe for the macaroni and cheese Michelle Obama likes so much or Mr. Bayless for tips on making his Sopa Azteca (tortilla soup) and guacamole, which are popular with the first couple.

The choice of a chief cook may seem frivolous compared to challenges such as reversing the recession, creating jobs, and extricating US troops from Iraq. But with pressing food-related issues such as obesity and the pollution created by conventional farming, an influential group of foodies including Gourmet Magazine editor Ruth Reichl had hoped that the Obamas and their chef would seize this opportunity to get the nation thinking about eating local, seasonal, and organic fare and sustainably raised meat and seafood.

"Probably the fastest way you could get people in America to change the way they eat is to have the president eating consciously and eating with not only his mouth but his mind," Ms. Reichl says. "Everybody is looking to the Obamas as an example in so many things and this could be really powerful."

People seem to be interested in what the new first family does: A small Iowa bakery found itself swamped with orders for its chocolate chunk cookies after word got out the Obama girls liked them.

Before the announcement to retain Comerford was made, Reichl dreamed of a "first chef" who could help be a culinary thought leader for the nation, issuing weekly menus detailing what the first family ate, offering tips on cooking with turnips or pole beans in season or ideas for creating meatless meals.

Reichl – along with influential Chef Alice Waters of Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Calif., and New York restaurateur Danny Meyer – had penned a letter to the Obamas offering to help head a committee to select a chef who would champion organic, sustainable, and seasonal cuisine.

Attempts to lobby for a change in chefs annoyed Mr. Scheib – the White House chef for 11 years before Comerford – who said all along that he thought the Obamas would retain her.

"She is an extremely high-level cuisinier, very flexible, and she knows how it works at the White House, which is how you work with the family and take the right attitude and strike the right pose," Mr. Scheib says. "The ... only thing important to the chef in the White House is serving the first family. If that means macaroni and cheese 10 days in a row, that's what you cook."

Scheib says that, just as he did, Comerford cooks with the best organic and local produce available.

The Bushes have praised Comerford's skills in creating American cuisine. An official press release on the White House website says that Comerford has collaborated with Chef John Ash and others showcasing American regional styles of cooking.

In the next four years, observers hope that Comerford's skill in creating organic and health-conscious fare that highlights American gastronomy will be put to greater use in diplomatic settings.

"I was shocked to see the paltry number of state dinners held over the past eight years in the White House," Mr. Meyer says. "It's clear to me the Bush White House had very little interest in gastronomy or the pleasure of the table or using the table as a way to bring people together."

Meyer, whose New York restaurant empire includes such institutions as Gramercy Tavern and Eleven Madison Park, says that he sees the Obamas as a cultured couple who, he hopes, will recognize the power and pleasure of conviviality and entertaining in the same way the Kennedys did.

"Food is one of the most potent ways I know to bring people together from different cultures," Meyer says. "And to make a statement for the rest of the country on how to enjoy food in a way that is both pleasurable and responsible."

Find this article at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0121/p17s01-lifo.html

Corruption at the FDA? You Betcha Red Rider!

What big eyes you have my dear, and now let me explain why you should avoid the digital mammography scam -

"In the letter the group singled out mammography computer-aided detection devices as an example of a technology that should not have gone forward. The devices were supposed to improve breast cancer detection, but instead studies showed they were associated with false alarms that led to unnecessary breast biopsies.

Since 2006, FDA experts have recommended five times against approving the devices without better clinical evidence, the letter said. In March of last year, a panel of outside advisers supported some of the concerns of the FDA's in-house scientists. Nonetheless, FDA managers overruled the objections and ordered approval."

Remember to "question authority" because your life and your health depend on it.

FDA scientists complain to Obama of 'corruption'
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR – Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — In an unusually blunt letter, a group of federal scientists is complaining to the Obama transition team of widespread managerial misconduct in a division of the Food and Drug Administration.

"The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the scientific review process for medical devices at the FDA has been corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk," said the letter, dated Wednesday and written on the agency's Center for Devices and Radiological Health letterhead.

The center is responsible for medical devices ranging from stents and breast implants to MRIs and other imaging machinery. The concerns of the nine scientists who wrote to the transition team echo some of the complaints from the FDA's drug review division a few years ago during the safety debacle involving the painkiller Vioxx.

The FDA declined to publicly respond to the letter, but said it is working to address the concerns.

In their letter the FDA dissidents alleged that agency managers use intimidation to squelch scientific debate, leading to the approval of medical devices whose effectiveness is questionable and which may not be entirely safe.

"Managers with incompatible, discordant and irrelevant scientific and clinical expertise in devices...have ignored serious safety and effectiveness concerns of FDA experts," the letter said. "Managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify scientific evaluations, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the laws, rules and regulations, and to accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid."
A copy of the letter, with the names of the scientists redacted, was provided to The Associated Press by a congressional official.

"Currently, there is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around," the scientists wrote.

FDA spokeswoman Judy Leon said in response: "We have been working very closely with members of the transition team and any concerns or questions they have on any issue, we will address directly with the team. Separately, the agency is actively engaged in a process to explore the staff members' concerns and take appropriate action."

Senior Democratic and Republican lawmakers are urging Obama to appoint a commissioner who will shake up the FDA and restore the confidence of its working-level scientists and medical experts. But industry officials fear that approval of new drugs and devices could be delayed by endless scientific disputes — which is the agency's reputation.

The FDA dissidents have previously taken their concerns to Congress and found support from lawmakers in the House.

In the letter the group singled out mammography computer-aided detection devices as an example of a technology that should not have gone forward. The devices were supposed to improve breast cancer detection, but instead studies showed they were associated with false alarms that led to unnecessary breast biopsies.

Since 2006, FDA experts have recommended five times against approving the devices without better clinical evidence, the letter said. In March of last year, a panel of outside advisers supported some of the concerns of the FDA's in-house scientists. Nonetheless, FDA managers overruled the objections and ordered approval.

Top FDA managers "committed the most outrageous misconduct by ordering, coercing and intimidating FDA physicians and scientists to recommend approval, and then retaliating when the physicians and scientists refused to go along," the letter said.

A spokeswoman said the Obama transition team had no comment.

And as an additional comment -

Report: FDA lax in oversight in trials Published: Jan. 12, 2009

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 (UPI) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does little to oversee doctors' financial conflicts of interest in clinical trials, government inspectors said Monday.

The inspector general's report from the Department of Health and Human Services also said its investigators were told by FDA officials trying to protect patients from such conflicts was essentially a waste of time, The New York Times reported.

The agency received no forms disclosing doctors' financial conflicts in 42 percent of clinical trials of drugs and medical devices, and regulators did nothing about the problem, the inspector general said.

In 31 percent of the trials in which the agency did receive the required forms, FDA reviewers gave no indication they'd looked at the information, the inspector general said.

And in 20 percent of the cases in which doctors admitted significant financial conflicts, neither the FDA nor the sponsoring companies did anything to deal with the conflicts, the investigators found.

An FDA spokeswoman told the Times the agency did not review doctors' financial conflicts before trials because the conflicts represented only one possible source of bias.

Studies have found that 20 percent to 33 percent of all doctors who help oversee clinical trials have financial conflicts, the Times said.
Source: UPI.

Sanjay for Surgeon General? Absolutely a Resounding NO!

I listen to news mainly to get the weather report. I've had a fascination with weather ever since I was about in the second grade.

Along with waiting for weather to come up in the schedule I listen sort of inattentively to the background chatter which is called "news".

I try to stop and listen to the health news or read health related articles. Some days I wish I didn't.

Because I am so incensed about bias in health news reporting I was floored when I heard the Obama gang suggesting Sanjay Gupta for US Surgeon General.

Hey, Barack, just in case you aren't paying attention, we citizens deserve much better. But then it appears you keeps selecting those who will do the bidding of others as told, not unlike the outgoing administration. So much for change, eh?

Be that as it may, Gupta is just another example of a status quo administration coming down the pike.

And now for some other views on the selection.

Alan Graham

Troubling TV Health News Trends Created at HealthNewsReview, 03/14/07

In the February issue of Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), Trudy Lieberman writes about TV news stations accepting pre-packaged new stories created by health care behemoths such as the Cleveland Clinic or the Mayo Clinic, creating stories that are "a hybrid of news and marketing, the likes of which has spread to local TV newsrooms all across the country in a variety of forms, almost like an epidemic. It’s the product of a marriage of the hospitals’ desperate need to compete for lucrative lines of business in our current health system and of TV’s hunger for cheap and easy stories. In some cases the hospitals pay for airtime, a sponsorship, and in others, they don’t but still provide expertise and story ideas. Either way, the result is that too often the hospitals control the story. Viewers who think they are getting news are really getting a form of advertising. And critical stories—hospital infection rates, for example, or medical mistakes or poor care—tend not to be covered in such a cozy atmosphere. The public, which could use real health reporting these days, gets something far less than quality, arms-length journalism."

Some recent network TV segments point to an unquestioning – almost cheerleading – approach to health news coverage.

On March 10, Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s HouseCall program on CNN featured a story on anxiety disorders, and offered one of those handy self-assessments that allows you to diagnose yourself with almost anything under the sun. Gupta said only one in five people with anxiety disorders get help. Then he offered a self-assessment from the Anxiety Disorders Association of America (ADAA). He said if you answered yes to any of the questions, you could seek help from your doctor or from ADAA.

He did not mention that the ADAA’s corporate advisory council is made up of drug companies Eli Lilly & Company, Forest Laboratories, Pfizer, Inc. and Wyeth.

On February 6, CNN reported on "ArteFill, billed as the first permanent filler." CNN said "known side effects are minimal."

But it's easy to find the following on the FDA website:


Side effects of ArteFill® include:
* Lumpiness at injection area more than one month after injection
* Persistent swelling or redness
* Increased sensitivity
* Rash, itching more than 48 hours after injection

Let's let consumers decide if those sound "minimal" or not. The story never mentioned that one of the conditions of FDA approval last fall was that a five-year study for safety be done after approval, a clear sign that reviewers were not convinced that all the evidence on safety was yet in.

And NBC hit the trifecta with three recent stories:


NBC’s Mike Taibbi getting his lungs scanned for cancer, then personally endorsing the scans. (The benefits of such scans were questioned in a study in JAMA in March.)

NBC’s Josh Mankiewicz reporting on the “benefits” from GlaxoSmithKline ads for a restless leg syndrome drug – ads they featured during the NBC Nightly News.
NBC using some of its tight 22-minutes of airtime to report on a “laser hair comb” showing a graphic - “Hair breakthrough?”.
Lieberman concludes her CJR article: “…stories about profitable, high-tech, yet often unproven procedures stimulate demand for them, fueling ever-rising health care costs. Local TV health journalism doesn’t often discuss those big issues, or even often take on the smaller stories that together weave a tale of a health care system in trouble.”

And, as you can see, sometimes network TV news isn't much better. This is a growing concern, one we will continue to analyze on this site.

Therapy Better than Drugs

Now with the specter of universal health care looming upon us with the Daschle/Clinton/Obama clique at hand, I believe we need to be vigilant.

For those of you who recall Hillary's first attempt to force universal coverage for the masses, to the exclusion of her governmental cronies, the Clinton's were pushing for drugs only (such as Prozac) with no therapy.

Of course those of us who have seen the fall out from Prozac and similar fluoride based SSRI drugs, we now have the zombie generation performing homicide and suicide as the fallout.

And of course Big Insurance is sitting on the side lines until after January 20 to get the same handouts as Big Pharma has received over the last eight years.

Obama just doesn't get it when it comes to health care, todays drugs and insurance.

Depression Treatment: Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy As Effective As Anti-depressant Medication, Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (2008-12-02) -- Research shows for the first time that a group-based psychological treatment, Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy, could be a viable alternative to prescription drugs for people suffering from long-term depression. In this study, MBCT proved as effective as maintenance anti-depressants in preventing a relapse and more effective in enhancing peoples' quality of life. The study also showed MBCT to be as cost-effective as prescription drugs in helping people with a history of depression stay well in the longer-term. ... > read full article

Health Lobby Still Plans to Stick with Health Reform

With Tom Daschle now selected to head HHS, don't think he won't be followed by a pack of lobbyists. Don't expect anything different in the House or Senate.

The pack of thieves are circling the wagons, and guess who might just be the target...

I suppose if you say reform you have to ask by whose definition and on whose standards.

Daschle has been in a lobby group lately and he is for vaccines and mammogram.

Surely we can't believe that his tenure in the US Senate led him to stay clear of the rafts of rubles handed out by the lobby groups, even under the cover of supposed change and reform.

What happens can cgange but only if you are wililng to stand up to the status quo and fight for your health rights, level the playing field, and get the agenda to truly be people first!

Health Care Reform Stays in the Picture; Health Lobby Probably Does, Too
By Andrew Green
Conventional wisdom had it that the current economic morass might temporarily sideline President-Elect Obama’s push to reform health care. But today brings news that a handful of influential Washington players might not be willing to wait.

Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and the chairman of the Finance Committee, today released a 104-page position paper mapping his vision of health care reform. Meanwhile, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy is convening a spectrum of stakeholders in hopes of getting legislation together by Obama’s inauguration, according to The Washington Post.

And health care reform advocates are likely not the only ones excited by this news. The health care lobby — one of Washington’s largest — is probably already gearing up for a fight similar to that of the early ’90s, when the Clinton administration unsuccessfully attempted to overhaul the health care system. The Center spent a year documenting the millions of dollars and thousands of hours spent lobbying various players in the health care reform effort, culminating in our 1994 report, Well Healed: Inside Lobbying for Health Care Reform.

The landmark investigation ripped the lid off the special-interest hijacking of the Clinton administration’s efforts to reconstitute our country’s health care system. Among its findings: At least 80 former congressional and executive branch officials had gone through the “revolving door” to work for health care interests. Almost a hundred public relations, lobbying, and law firms were hired to influence the debate. Hundreds of special interests cumulatively spent in excess of $100 million to affect the outcome.

Now, 14 years later, is there any doubt that those numbers will do anything but go up?

Big Insurance Seeking Spoils

While the Obama transition team wields the ugly power of spoils for the victor, all those with vested interests are jockeying viciously for position.

And while everyone seems to have been spoon fed on the idea of national health insurance, Big Insurance is seeking an eye on profits as it uses ploys that are trendy and seem to get them a big payoff for superficial pandering with their manipulated media statements in line with what their pundits think COngress will swallow.

Of course Hillary is back in this fray, trying to cut deals, hubby Bill trying to cut deals, and Teddy Kennedy seemingly blocking some of them.

Kennedy has been wheeling and dealing with the big players on a health plan, but you can be sure it isn't with Joe and Jane Six-Pack in mind.

Maybe its more like roulette, le juet sont fait!

I'm not against everyone having access to care, but the question has to be who really is controlling the care.

The Hillary Plan was dead before it started in her husband's administration. Has she really kept in touch with the "outside" over all these years to allow her to start on this with a clean slate?

We need reform on many levels. Reform requires new ideas and fresh folks who aren't mired in the Beltway Bandit band and their tunnel vision.

If you haven't been keeping up with the G8 that is now the G20, you do need to know what their plan is and how it will effect your health. If you dare to risk reading much more truthful interpretations of their actions than what you'll ever read or hear in the media as it is today start here.

Insurers make pitch for health coverage mandate
By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The health insurance industry says it will support a national health care overhaul that requires them to accept all customers regardless of pre-existing medical conditions.

In return, the industry said Wednesday, it wants Congress to require that everyone buy coverage.

Lawmakers have signaled their intent to craft health care legislation early next year, and the insurance industry's support would make passage much easier. That legislation is expected to closely track the proposals of President-elect Barack Obama.

Karen Ignagni, president of the board of directors for America's Health Insurance Plans, says she hopes the endorsement will help members of Congress fashion their proposal.

Vitamin 'may be Alzheimer's aid'

Now you see it and now you don't: Vitamin B3 of all things.

Back in the late 60s I stumbled upon Orthomolecular Medicine while working at The Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital, the US' oldest psychiatric hospital.

At that time orthomolecular treatment was showing very good success in the treatment of schizophrenia, along with vitamin C, in very high doses.

Vitamin B3, or niacin, is also very helpful for fetal alcohol syndrome treatment, lowering cholesterol and other inflammatory states.

The non-flushing type of B3, niacinamide, is very helpful for Rheumatoid arthritis.

Now that the push is on for Big Pharma to take over control of supplements, and if the senior senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, has his way President-Elect Obama may close a noose around your access to supplements too.

In the mean time this study shows that supplements are very successful in treating serious health concerns, and there is no record of death or serious injury from using them.

Tell your doubting doctors that science back this up! And don't forget to let your members of Congress know you want not control over supplements by the pharmaceutical industry, and you want them covered in all health care plans.
(Note that presently the only vitamins approved under the Senior Medicare Drug Plan are Pfizer's)

A vitamin found in meat, fish and potatoes may help protect the brain from Alzheimer's disease - and even boost memory in healthy people.

US researchers found vitamin B3 lowered levels of a protein linked to Alzheimer's damage in mice.

The Journal of Neuroscience study also showed the animals performed better at memory tests.

UK Alzheimer's charities said people should not start taking the vitamin before results from human studies.

This suggests that not only is it good for Alzheimer's disease, but if normal people take it, some aspects of their memory might improve
Professor Frank LaFerla
University of California, Irvine

The vitamin, also called nicotinamide by scientists, is sold in UK pharmacies and health food shops.

It has already been shown to help people suffering from diabetes complications and has some anti-inflammatory qualities.

The researchers, from the University of California at Irvine, added the vitamin to drinking water given to mice bred to develop a version of Alzheimer's disease, then tested the levels of certain chemicals associated with the condition.

They found that levels of one, called phosphorylated tau, were significantly lower in the animals.

This protein is involved in abnormal 'deposits' in brain cells, called 'tangles', which contribute to the brain damage which progressively affects people with Alzheimer's.

Using 'water mazes', the team also found some evidence that memory was enhanced in both 'Alzheimer's' mice and unaffected mice.

Normal memory

Dr Kim Green, who led the study, said that human tests were progressing: "Nicotinamide has a very robust effect on neurons. It prevents loss of cognition in mice with Alzheimer's disease, and the beauty of it is we already are moving forward with a clinical trial."

His colleague Professor Frank LaFerla, said: "This suggests that not only is it good for Alzheimer's disease, but if normal people take it, some aspects of their memory might improve."

Susanne Sorensen, the head of research at the Alzheimer's Society, said the research was "interesting" and pointed to new ways to treat the condition.

"From the research, it appears that Nicotinamide has more than one beneficial effect on nerve cells including the facilitation of the recycling of the 'bad' phosphorylated tau.

"Nicotinamide occurs naturally in meat, fish, beans, cereals and potatoes and is cheap and easy to take.

"However, more research is now needed to explore the possible mechanisms involved so we can better understand if Nicotinamide could have the same effect in people and, if it does, what level of vitamin intake would be required."

Rebecca Wood, Chief Executive of the Alzheimer's Research Trust, said until the human research was completed, people should not start taking the supplement.

"These are exciting findings, but until the results from the human clinical trial are announced, people should be wary about changing their diet or taking supplements. In high doses vitamin B3 can be toxic."

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7710365.stm

Published: 2008/11/05 10:04:04 GMT © BBC MMVIII