Media failed to protect babies against BPA

In a follow up post to the one above, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) has an article by Candice O'Grady showing that there had been evidence of the danger of Bisphenol-A (BPA) as early as 1999. BPA is found in plastics and baby bottles. BPA was already being linked to serious developmental illnesses as early as 1996. It is in many common items- hard clear plastics, sippy cups, dental sealants. There was virtually no coverage of the hazards because the media accepted the FDA's official line that the levels were benign. This was an opinion based on (you guessed it) industry-funded science.
In 2008 an overwhelming amount of independent research, non profit activism and international concern finally pushed BPA into the spotlight. A scathing report by the FDA's own science board (CNN.com10/31/08) said the agency had created a false sense of security... and overlooked a wide range of potentially serious findings.
In 2008 over 500 stories about BPA finally came to light since the impetus came from the FDA. So the media sat on this important story instead of reporting the data as it existed. In protecting industry, it endangered the public they are supposed to be serving.
As the Fair article concludes "The mainstream press has an inglorious history of muddying science that conflicts with corporate interests: think of the coverage given to climate change deniers or big tobacco. The story of BPA is no different."
(For more information about my practice, please click here.)

Overlooking the Evidence on Environmental links to Breast Cancer

In an excellent review of the media's response to evidence of environmental toxins and breast cancer, author Miranda C. Spencer does a break down of the media's behavior over the last several decades. Her article appeared in the latest edition of "Extra!" the magazine of FAIR(Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) Feb 2009.

A study issued in May 2007 by researchers at the Silent Spring Institute and three other institutions including Harvard Med School reviewed and identified some 216 chemicals that induce mammary tumors in animals. The study appeared as a special supplement in the journal Cancer. They stated that "laboratory research provides evidence that environmental pollutants may contribute to breast cancer risk by damaging DNA, promoting tumor growth or increasing susceptiibility by altering mammary gland development." The report goes on to say "These compounds are widely detected in human tissues and in environments, such as home, where women spend time."

The paper points out that PAH's (car exhaust) and PCB's were as likely to cause harm as the factors that have received vastly more attention, such as age at first full-term pregnancy and inactivity. No media outlets reported the Cancer study except the LATimes, which later backed off making any sort of conclusions about pollutants.

The author, Ms. Spencer asks, "why is it so hard to get the most influential media to pay attention to the possibility that, in addition to better-understood risks, unnatural substances entering women's bodies might also be a factor?". Apparently, reporters act as though chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. This places an enormous burden on health advocates to prove that there might be harm.

As with many environmental concerns (GMO's for example) there might be quite complicated causality for harm, and the press should be willing to engage in the conversation. I'm afraid that it is, as always, a case of following the money. Brody, from Silent Spring, says that Magazines, TV, and newspapers all depend on advertising from companies that "produce the compounds targeted in our studies." Schardt, a former Newsweek editor puts a finer point on it saying that "Scientists are always attacked by industries with a stake" in the science. They have the deep pockets and will "pull out all the stops to discredit the source." Understandably journalists tend to shy away from these stories.

The self censorship and hedging of data, or ignoring data does a tremendous disservice to the public. If they could simply publish the facts, as we know them today, and let the public decide whether they are willing to take the risk with certain exposures or not. These issues can be quite complex, but to frame the data in a reassuring way to assuage the concerns of advertisers and corporate interests certainly does not help the public.

Take your Vitamin D! Good for chronic back pain and fighting dementia

Two new studies give even more reasons to be sure to take your Vitamin D.
In an article in a Family Medicine Journal (JABoard Fam Med 2009 Jan-Feb;22(1):69-74 they review 6 selected cases of improvement/resolution of chronic back pain or failed back surgery after vitamin D repletion in a Canadian family practice setting. They concluded "Vitamin D insufficiency is common; repletion of vitamin D to normal levels in patients who have chronic low back pain or have had failed back surgery may improve quality of life or, in some cases, result in complete resolution of symptoms."

In other Vitamin D news, on 2.23.09 New York Times reported that British Researchers found a correlation between low levels of Vitamin D and dementia.
"Scientists measured blood levels of the vitamin in a representative sample of 1,766 people over 65 and assessed their mental functioning with a widely used questionnaire. About 12 percent were cognitively impaired, and the lower their vitamin D level, the more likely they were to be in that group. Compared with those in the highest one-quarter for serum vitamin D, those in the lowest were 2.3 times as likely to be impaired, even after statistically adjusting for age, sex, education and ethnicity. Men showed the effect more strongly than women."

Obviously, in both conditions, back pain and dementia, the causation is multifactorial, but this is a cheap, easy, and safe thing to try. I think it's of note that both studies took place in countries with less sunshine and more cloud cover than we have in California. Studies have shown that Vitamin D deficiency is somewhat common in Canada. Of note is that it is particularly common in Muslim women who remain covered in the northern climes.
(For more information about my practice, please click here.)

The F.D.A. Neglected Testing Standards for Medical Devices

Apparently the Food and Drug Administration endangered countless patients' lives when it stopped enforcing 30-year-old requirements that medical device makers meet federal lab standards before testing their products on humans. The report was by the non-profit Project on Government Oversight.
The rules cover studies on defibrillators, pacemakers, heart valves and coronary stents.
The repercussions of faulty defibrillators, pacemakers, heart valves and stents could be quite horrific if you consider that all of these devices are aimed at the smooth functioning of the heart.
This is another result of cutting back on regulatory agencies bending to corporate interests at the expense of the public. We saw the same dangerous result with the FDA fastracking big time drugs like Vioxx.
With Vioxx, there were alternatives (I always counsel my patients to wait at least 7 years after a new drug release), but with heart devices, there are very few alternatives, so their safety is paramount.
Thank goodness that there are watchdog groups out there.
(For more information about my practice, please click here.)

Another Insurer Settles With N.Y. Over Faulty Reimbursement Standards

From the Wall Street Journal

“Cigna has reached an agreement with New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo to pay $10 million to settle charges the insurer underpaid doctors by basing payments on flawed data from UnitedHealth's Ingenix database.”
“ Mr. Cuomo has also notified Excellus BlueCross BlueShield of his intent to sue over its manipulation of reimbursement rates for out-of-network services. Last month UnitedHealth agreed to pay $50 million to create an independent database to replace Ingenix. “

It turns out that Ingenix is owned by United Health. D’oh! Problem is, that many other insurers use Ingenix for their fee rates, so many patients are affected.

I’m not convinced we need these insurance companies. They have an overhead of 30% and still deny claims. Hey, we can extend Medicare to more people since it has only a 2% overhead, we can get all our claims denied much more cheaply!
(For more information about my practice, please click here.)

Acupuncture use is up dramatically since 2002, and studies show efficacy

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), which is a part of the National Institutes of Health, has reported that 3.1 million Americans used acupuncture and Oriental medicine in 2007, a 50% increase since 2002. The most recent report was posted January 9,2009.

Part of what’s causing the increase is the frustration with the standard health care system in the U.S. With ever increasing co-pays, reports of dangerous drug side effects, and sometimes ineffective and costly surgeries, natural and safe alternatives are seeing increasing popularity.

In 2002 2.1 million patients used acupuncture, but in 2007 the number jumped to an estimated 3.1 million.

In 2007 17% of adults used CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) most often for musculoskeletal problems, including back pain, neck pain, joint pain, arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions.

The study also gave acupuncture particularly high marks for its research quality. Out of 40 systematic reviews identified by the National Library of Medicine involving acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy or yoga published between 2002 and 2007, the only studies that found sufficient evidence to conclude that the given therapy was effective for a given condition all used acupuncture as a form of treatment.

http://nccam.gov/news/camstats.htm

(For more information about my practice, please click here.)

Medications can make headaches worse

This report was recently “re” reported: the original was posted in 2007 in the New York Times.

The facts are that a sizable and growing number of headaches are caused by painkillers taken to relieve the suffering.

The numbers are stunningly large.

Up to 3 million Americans are suffering from headaches they are actually causing themselves by overusing medications.

Up to 50% of chronic migraines and 25% of all headaches are actually a “rebound” effect from overuse of medications. Medications implicated can be prescriptions or over the counter. The most likely culprits are the triptans or caffeine containing meds. Fiorinal and Fioricet have been banned in Germany because of this effect, but are still prescribed here in the U.S.

This is perfectly understandable. The patient experiences a headache and takes medication to relieve it, but the medication can cause a sort of “hangover” which leads to another headache, so the patient needs to take even more medication.

If patients are taking medications more than 15 days a month, they may be in this category, though the amount taken is also taken into consideration.

Unfortunately, patients may have to stop taking medications for up to 2 months(!!) before they see any diminution in headache. This obviously would be perceived as a great hardship for many patients.

In the context of this report the use of stress reduction techniques and, of course, ACUPUNCTURE is a logical and prudent course of action.

(For more information about my practice, please click here.)