March 2010 Health in the News Archive

[ Monthly Index of New Briefs ]

Congress passes health care reform bill

March 22, 2010

The historic debate on health care passed out of the U.S. Senate Sunday night and is now headed to the President's desk to be signed into law, regardless of whether the Senate acts on the package of changes the House also passed. The bill squeaked by on a 219-212 vote. The Republican members of the Senate voted unanimously against the bill; they were joined by 34 Democrats.

Outside the Capitol Sunday, protesters, chanted "Kill the bill" and waved yellow flags declaring "Don't Tread on Me." They carried signs saying "Doctors, Not Dictators." House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said lawmakers were defying the wishes of their constituents. "The American people are angry," Mr. Boehner said. "This body moves forward against their will. Shame on us."

Republicans said the plan would saddle the nation with unaffordable levels of debt, leave states with expensive new obligations, weaken Medicare and give the government a huge new role in the health care system.

Democrats hailed the votes as a historic advance in social justice, comparable to the establishment of Medicare and Social Security. They said the bill would also put pressure on rising health care costs and rein in federal budget deficits.

In the end, groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business tried to stop the bill, saying it would increase the cost of doing business. But other groups, including the American Medical Association and AARP, backed it, as did the pharmaceutical industry.

Mike Adams who maintains a popular alt med website, wrote on his site today: "This new legislation puts America under the stranglehold of the medical mafia while doing absolutely nothing to address real health care reform. There is no mention in the bill, for example, of vitamin D for preventing cancer, or orthomolecular medicine for preventing degenerative disease. There's not even a word about protecting health freedom or ending the century of oppression that has been waged against naturopathic practitioners by the AMA, FDA and FTC. The new legislation does, however, lock in billions of dollars in monopoly profits for the pharmaceutical companies - the same companies who spent millions of dollars pushing for its passage and who depend on the continuation of sickness and disease for their future profits."

Dr. Grout's Comment:

This is a complex piece of legislation. Typically, it takes years for such complexities to reveal themselves in actual practice and for the most part, this bill doesn't kick in for another 5 years. We have heard much about how this bill might pay for sickness, but almost nothing was said about how to create a healthier population. This legislation does not incentivize doctors to educate their patients about how to prevent chronic illness. The passage of this bill perpetuates the disease management practice of medicine. It will be interesting to see if my colleagues find the profession of medicine more or less rewarding 8 years from now.

According to what Rep. John Shadegg told Arizona audiences a few months ago, the bill will not change anything for those of us who do not use insurance to pay for medical services. It will, however, increase the availability of insurance to those of us who have been called "uninsurable" because of prior existing conditions. That is at least a step in the right direction.

---

Growing number of children now extremely obese

March 19, 2010

A Kaiser Permanente study of children ages two through 19 shows a large number are now considered extremely obese and may face a shorter life span than their parents.

The survey of more than 710,000 southern California children found 7.3% of boys and 5.5% of girls were extremely obese. That's about 45,000 children in this study group alone. Extreme obesity is defined as having a body mass index of more than 35. Obesity is defined as a BMI of more than 30, so these children are significantly heavier than that.

The survey found that 12% of black teenage girls and 11.2% of Hispanic teenage boys had extreme obesity. In comparison, the least extremely obese were Asian-Pacific Islanders and white children.

Study lead author Corinna Koebnick, PhD, pointed out that the study is the first using the new CDC definition of extreme obesity. Overweight is defined as the 85th or higher percentile on the growth charts, according to guidelines from the CDC. While obese is defined as the 95th percentile or higher, the CDC defines extreme obesity as 120% of the 95th percentile for weight for age and sex.

"Without major lifestyle changes," Koebnick said, "these kids face a 10 to 20 years shorter life span and will develop health problems in their twenties that we typically see in 40-60 year olds."

"Our focus and concern is all about health and not about appearance," a co-author of the study, Dr. Amy Porter, said in a news release. "Children who are morbidly obese can do anything they want -- they can be judges, lawyers, doctors -- but the one thing they cannot be is healthy."

Dr. Grout's Comment:

Too many kids today transition from the breast and bottle to soda and pizza. Our bodies are not designed to process so much sugar. Not only is the stuff empty calories, but sugar leaches the body of precious vitamins and minerals. The sudden shock of a heavy intake of sugar disrupts the pH balance of the blood which has a very narrow range of acceptability. The body then mobilizes neutral acids and minerals including sodium, potassium, magnesium, and calcium in an attempt to correct the pH balance. Eating sugar daily exacerbates the problem – producing a continuously over-acid condition, which means that more and more minerals are required from deep within the body to rectify the imbalance. Ultimately, so much calcium is taken from the teeth and bones that decay and general weakening begin.

Highly processed carbs like "enriched" breads (think hamburger buns) are so stripped of nutrients, fiber – anything that slows absorption – that the body processes them like sugar. Processed breads, etc., cause insulin levels to surge just as a candy bar would. Most kids eat a lot of processed bread, crackers, cookies and such. As they grow, they develop hard to lose fat around the middle that is different than the fat used to hold body parts together or give us energy. Storing abdominal fat causes you to store excess fat in your liver, which makes the liver less able to remove insulin from your bloodstream after it has done its job of driving sugar into your cells. This stored "belly fat" is more metabolically active, meaning that every day it is sending out inflammatory signals that lead to chronic diseases like heart disease.

We find the HCG diet – we use the homeopathic version – is the one sure way to lose dangerous belly fat. People lose about one pound a day. Our patients tell us they not only look better, but now that they understand how dangerous this kind of fat it, they are very happy to have greatly reduced their risk for health problems.

---

Autism link to vaccines censored, denied

March 16, 2010

Age of Autism is reporting that Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), has asked newspapers, magazines, television journalists, etc., not to report on research or concerns that autism may be linked to vaccines.

"There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary," Sebelius said. "We [HHS] have reached out to media outlets to try to get them not to give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting."

Meanwhile, an author of frequently cited "vaccines do not trigger autism" studies, Dr. Poul Thorsen, appears to have done fraudulent research. Dr. Thorsen has allegedly absconded with about $2 million of CDC research money and is the target of an international police manhunt. He was simultaneously and secretly employed at the University of Aarhus, Emory University, Drexel University, and as a "visiting scientist at the CDC." Senator Charles Grassley is conducting an investigation a pervasive pattern of corruption among Emory researchers who fail to disclose significant financial conflicts of interest in the outcomes of the research they conduct. The Thorsen case raises further questions about the integrity and validity of the much criticized epidemiology that underlies the no mercury-autism link.

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims released its decisions in the second set of test cases for the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. These three cases alleged that thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative used in vaccines, contributed to autism. The Special Masters who heard the claims ruled against the three petitioners, just as they had ruled against three test cases last year on a related theory that thimerosal and the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine together caused autism. "HHS is the defendant in vaccine injury cases and is also responsible for carrying out the very vaccine safety research that should be integral to court decisions," wrote SafeMinds. "This conflict of interest means the deck is stacked against families when they enter 'vaccine court' and is yet one more reason for parents to doubt the integrity of the National Immunization Program."

More than 5,000 petitions have been filed in the vaccine court alleging that vaccines caused a variety of damage to the developing brain, immune system, and other metabolic pathways ultimately giving rise to a diagnosis of autism. The Hannah Poling case is the most well-known; the court ruled autism was caused by vaccines affecting her mitochondrial condition.

Petitioners have said they are unable to gain access in this Court to taxpayer-financed data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the most important source of data on vaccine safety. "The government has its thumb on the scales of justice," said Laura Bono, parent of a vaccine injured child whose case was dismissed. "The Vaccine Injury Compensation Act passed by Congress in 1986 gave immunity to vaccine manufacturers and diminished the incentive to create safer products. Meanwhile, the law only gives the illusion that parents will have their day in court.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

There is a crisis of confidence in the U.S. vaccine program, and it is well-deserved. A recent study of the American Academy of Pediatrics found that half of all parents have serious concerns over vaccine side effects, and one in four believe that some vaccines cause autism.

A lack of confidence in the national vaccine court is pushing the issue to the highest court in the land. This fall, the Supreme Court will take up the case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, a vaccine injury case. It will decide whether petitioners in vaccine court can file in civil court to claim that a vaccine design was defective.

Back in the old days - before kids got so many vaccines so soon - measles and mumps, for example, were rights of passage. Many viewed them as positive events that helped the body excrete toxic buildup, and the fever accompanying these infections provided lifetime immunity against the diseases and strengthened the body's immune system overall.

There are some vaccines that I think have merit, but not all, and not even most of them. There is no need for a routine Hepatitis B vaccine at birth, or a mumps or measles vaccine. On the other hand, rubella – the last part of the MMR vaccine – may be worth having. Giving babies the vaccine stops rubella from being prevalent in the population. If, when pregnant, a woman is infected with rubella in the first trimester (at time when she often has no idea that she is pregnant), her infant has a markedly increased risk of being born deaf. Some diseases present a real risk to infants, for instance bacterial meningitis, and that vaccine is worth the risk. But measles and mumps? No. We've posted a good source for reading about the various vaccines – click here.

---

Sen. McCain withdraws Dietary Supplement Safety Act "Reform"

March 8, 2009

Senator John McCain is withdrawing support for the bill he sponsored, "The "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010" or S. 3002. The bill was in response to the use of steroids by Major League Baseball players. Some supplement companies were illegally selling steroid drugs over the counter by camouflaging them as "dietary supplements."

On March 5, the McCain staff acknowledged the Senator will no longer support S. 3002, however, the bill is still alive.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

One group taking some credit for McCain's about-face is the Alliance for Natural Health who geared-up a petition drive:

"Hundreds of thousands of messages poured into the Senate opposing Senator McCain's bill, the bill that would have wiped out current legislative protections for dietary supplements. More and more messages were arriving by the day. The entire Congress began to take note. Senator McCain was embarrassed by our ad whose headline pointed out that he was misrepresenting and did not seem to understand his own bill … The democratic process worked."

HealthFreedomsUSA.org also spearheaded a public opposition campaign:

"This bill needs to be seen in the context of the other fake "Safety" bill pending in the Senate, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, S 510, which does "for" family farms and ranches, natural and community food production what the McCain bill does to dietary supplements: create restrictions that the "Bigs" can live with but which will drive ethical, local production out of the market. We've believed the McCain bill was just a stalking-horse for S.510 and intend to continue to push against that bill to make sure it is not amended to include McCain's imposition of international Codex restrictions on our Dietary Supplement freedoms."

S. 510 was sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin, D-IL, who co-sponsored S. 3002. Some describe S.510 as a bill for multinational corporations such as Monsanto, Cargill, Tysons, and the pharmaceutical industry. The bill will allow "the Administrator" to enforce regulations that would require farmers to use "best practices" in agriculture. Those will be defined by "the Administrator" who is expected to be Michael Taylor, Monsanto VP and the man who deregulated GMOs and facilitated getting rBGH into the food supply. Organic supporters see that under S. 510, the Administrator would impose GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, irradiation of food, chemical washes, and other unhealthy products and processes that are the lifeblood of the multinational agriculture and pharmaceutical industries.

---

Prostate screening test, like mammograms, not so good

March 4, 2010

The American Cancer Society is urging doctors to make clearer to men that the test used to screen for prostate cancer has limits. Major studies have suggested routine screening doesn't save lives and often leads to worry and unnecessary treatment. New guidelines from the ACS say screening should not even take place unless a patient is fully informed of the trade-offs.

The cancer society has not recommended routine PSA screening for most men since the mid-1990s, and that is not changing. But the recommendations go further now – doctors should stop giving the rectal exam as a standard prostate cancer screening because it has not clearly shown a benefit, though it can remain an option. The guidelines recommend that doctors give men videos, brochures and other "patient decision aids."

The new advice is the latest pushback from routine screening to hunt for early cancers. Last year, a government task force said most women don't need mammograms in their 40s and a doctors group said most women in their 20s don't need annual Pap tests.

The new guidelines could have a chilling effect on community prostate screening clinics in which hundreds of men line up and get free, quick exams. That was the intent, said Dr. Andrew Wolf, a University of Virginia physician who led the group that write the new guidelines. "Yes, the guideline was explicitly crafted to put a damper on those community prostate screening activities that do not offer men the opportunity to make an informed decision whether to screen," Wolf said.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

First mammograms, now PSAs. The American Cancer Society doing the sensible thing.

Prostate cancer screening became a medical mantra in the 1990s, thanks to the development of the PSA test. Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer in American men. An estimated 192,000 new cases and 27,000 deaths from it occurred last year in the United States. But it is a very slow-growing cancer in many cases, and depending on a man's age, he is more likely to die of something else. The American Urological Association - a longtime proponent of regular screening - considers the cancer society's advice too simplistic and says it's important to consider any rapid rise in PSA results.

A key issue here is when is screening a preventive tool and when is it merely a marketing tool to drive new business? That was the problem also with early, regular mammograms. There were too many false positives and unnecessary biopsies; the taskforce said too many women were put through a fearful and expensive experience for no good reason. I would add that with regular mammograms, too many women are unnecessarily exposed to an annual dose of radiation, and we know radiation causes cancer. If a woman wants to screen for breast cancer, the better alternative is thermography which does not use radiation and can detect suspicions of a tumor or other inflammatory lesion forming years earlier than mammography. But, economic interests interfere here. Cancer screening and treatment is big business.

The new PSA test guidelines will spare some men the devastation of chemotherapy or surgery, and that's a good thing because in far too many cases, the medical intervention does more harm than the cancer itself.

---

Sen. McCain pushing Dietary Supplement Safety Act "Reform"

March 2, 2009

Introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) on February 4th, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010" or S. 3002, is designed to "more effectively regulate dietary supplements that may pose safety risks unknown to consumers."

Senator McCain said he introduced the bill because "a little over a year ago the NFL suspended six players for violating the league's anti-doping policy. Several of the players were surprised that they tested positive for a banned substance because they used a dietary supplement they believed to be safe and legal."

On the surface, this legislation would require dietary supplement manufactures to register with the FDA, fully disclose the ingredients contained in the supplement, and give the FDA the ability to recall supplements.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

In the early 1990s, the FDA proclaimed that many of the supplements used today, including CoQ10, selenium, and chromium, were inherently dangerous. The public's revolt against that absurd proclamation led to passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994. It provided that vitamins, minerals, herbs and botanicals, amino acids, and other dietary substances to supplement the diet would not be regulated by the FDA. It was a major victory for consumer choice in preventing degenerative disease.

The 2010 bill supposedly originates from the use of steroids by Major League Baseball players. Some unethical companies illegally sold steroid drugs camouflaged as "dietary supplements." On this shaky ground, McCain proposes to hand over natural supplements to a government agency which is funded and staffed in significant measure by the pharmaceutical industry.

The FDA already has all the legal authority it needs to remove supplements that contain illegal drugs from the market. If the FDA continues to fail to do its job, then these companies will continue to sell drug-tainted supplements no matter what new laws are created by Congress.

William Faloon, writing for Life Extension Foundation, says, "If this bill is passed, it will make it far easier for pharmaceutical companies to file use patents on what are now inexpensive dietary supplements and convert them into outrageously priced 'drugs.' Just look at the cost of prescription drug fish oil that so many cardiologists are prescribing to their patients. It costs about seven times more than the same amount of EPA/DHA fish oil you can buy as a dietary supplement. Just imagine if the FDA was given arbitrary power to ban omega-3 dietary supplements! Since [the pharmaceutical industry] controls a large percentage of Congress, the logical solution is to have legislation enacted that will enable the FDA to remove supplements that compete with drugs. That is exactly what the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 (DSSA) will accomplish if Big Pharma has its way."

Just last year, the FDA bent to industry pressure and banned a more effective form of vitamin B6 (pyridoxamine) because a pharmaceutical company wants to have it approved as an expensive new prescription drug to treat diabetic kidney failure. More recently, the FDA made moves to take away natural, desiccated thyroid. The FDA cannot objectively oversee natural supplements, even if that were necessary.

According to a published report by the American Association of Poison Control Centers, no one died in the year 2008 as a result of taking a dietary supplement. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical drugs kill more people every year than are killed in traffic accidents.

The problem this bill is trying to solve is not one of safety, but perhaps one of economic loyalties at the expense of the free market. According to an analysis of the 111th Congress from the nonprofit, independent group Consumer Watchdog. Sen. McCain tops the list of top 10 Senate recipients of Health Insurer Money ($251,834) and top 10 Senate Recipients of Drug Company Money ($294,603). During the last presidential campaign, the pharmaceutical industry poured more money into Democratic coffers than Republican. Money is king in American politics; Republicans need to get back in industry's good graces.