|
Drug / Chemical Name (Manufacturer) |
Prescribed For |
Adverse Effect |
|
Vioxx / rofecoxib (Merck) |
arthritis, acute pain, polyps |
heart attack, stroke |
|
weight loss, obesity |
pulmonary hypertension, heart valve
disease |
|
|
weight loss, obesity |
pulmonary hypertension, heart valve
disease |
|
|
seasonal allergies |
heart problems when taken with other drugs |
|
|
hypertension and angina |
reduced activity of liver enzymes lead to
harmful drug build-up, interactions too numerous for risk management |
|
|
Pain relief |
hepatitis, liver failure after treatment
exceeded 10 days |
|
|
seasonal allergies |
heart arrhythmia caused by interaction
with other drugs |
|
|
antibiotic (pneumonia, bronchitis, some
STDs) |
Severe cardovascular problems (torsade de
pointes, a ventricular arrhythmia) |
|
|
Type 2 diabetes mellitus |
liver toxicity |
|
|
night time heartburn |
Cardiac arrhrythmia |
|
|
irritable bowel syndrome |
ischemic colitis, constipation |
|
|
airway muscle relaxment during surgery |
Bronchospasm |
|
|
high cholesterol |
rhabdomyolysis (muscle deterioration),
possible renal and other organ failure |
According to the AHS Guidelines for the
Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management of Patients with Hereditary
Hemochromatosis/Iron Overload, patients with high iron overload should be
warned NOT to:
Vitamin C is well
known to enhance tissue iron absorption, which may be good for children and
menstruating women, but very bad for people with any form of excess tissue iron
storage. Even familiar bread and vitamin C should NOT be consumed by everyone.
How can
food quacks and ineffective pill pushers be recognized?
Quacks tell you all the wonderful things
that vitamins and minerals do in your body and/or all the horrible things that
can happen if you don't get enough. Many claim that their products or programs
offer "optimal nutritional support." But they conveniently neglect to
tell you that a balanced diet provides the nutrients people need and that the
USDA food-group system makes balancing your diet simple.
This is an appeal to fear that is not only
untrue, but ignores the fact that the main forms of bad nourishment in the
United States are overweight in the population at large, particularly the poor,
and undernourishment among the poverty-stricken. Poor people can ill afford to
waste money on unnecessary vitamin pills. Their food money should be spent on
nourishing food.
It is falsely alleged that Americans are so
addicted to "junk" foods that an adequate diet is exceptional rather
than usual. While it is true that some snack foods are mainly "naked
calories" (sugars and/or fats without other nutrients), it is not
necessary for every morsel of food we eat to be loaded with nutrients. In fact,
no normal person following the U.S. Dietary
Guidelines is in any danger of vitamin deficiency.
Most vitamin pushers suggest that everyone
is in danger of deficiency and should therefore take supplements as
"insurance." Some suggest that it is difficult to get what you need
from food, while others claim that it is impossible. Their pitch resembles that
of the door-to-door huckster who states that your perfectly good furnace is in
danger of blowing up unless you replace it with his product. Vitamin pushers
will never tell you who doesn't need their products. Their "be wary
of deficiency" claims may not be limited to essential nutrients. It can
also include nonessential chemicals that nobody needs to worry about
because the body makes its own supply.
This simply isn't so. Consult your doctor or
any recognized textbook of medicine. They will tell you that although diet is a
factor in some diseases (most notably coronary heart disease), most diseases
have little or nothing to do with diet. Common symptoms like malaise (feeling
poorly), fatigue, lack of pep, aches (including headaches) or pains, insomnia,
and similar complaints are usually the body's reaction to emotional stress. The
persistence of such symptoms is a signal to see a doctor to be evaluated for
possible physical illness. It is not a reason to take vitamin pills.
It is true that food processing can change
the nutrient content of foods. But the changes are not so drastic as the quack,
who wants you to buy supplements, would like you to believe. While some
processing methods destroy some nutrients, others add them. A balanced variety
of foods will provide all the nourishment you need.
Quacks distort and oversimplify. When they
say that milling removes B-vitamins, they don't bother to tell you that
enrichment puts them back. When they tell you that cooking destroys vitamins,
they omit the fact that only a few vitamins are sensitive to heat. Nor do they
tell you that these vitamins are easily obtained by consuming a portion of
fresh uncooked fruit, vegetable, or fresh or frozen fruit juice each day. Any
claims that minerals are destroyed by processing or cooking are pure lies. Heat
does not destroy minerals.
Food quacks relate diet not only to disease
but to behavior. Some claim that adverse reactions to additives and/or common
foods cause hyperactivity in children and even criminal behavior in adolescents
and adults. These claims are based on a combination of delusions, anecdotal
evidence, and poorly designed research.
Curiously, quacks are not always interested
in real deficiencies. Fluoride is necessary to build decay-resistant teeth and
strong bones. The best way to obtain adequate amounts of this important
nutrient is to augment community water supplies so their fluoride concentration
is about one part fluoride for every million parts of water. But quacks usually
oppose water fluoridation, and some advocate water filters that remove
fluoride. It seems that when they cannot profit from something, they may try to
make money by opposing it.
These claims are used to promote the sale of
so-called "organically
grown" foods. If an essential nutrient is missing from the soil, a
plant simply doesn't grow. Chemical fertilizers counteract the effects of soil
depletion. Quacks also lie when they claim that plants grown with natural
fertilizers (such as manure) are nutritionally superior to those grown with
synthetic fertilizers. Before they can use them, plants convert natural
fertilizers into the same chemicals that synthetic fertilizers supply. The
vitamin content of a food is determined by its genetic makeup. Fertilizers can
influence the levels of certain minerals in plants, but this is not a
significant factor in the American diet. The pesticide residue of our food
supply is extremely small and poses no health threat to the consumer. Foods
"certified" as "organic" are not safer or more nutritious
than other foods. In fact, except for their high price, they are not
significantly different.
This is another scare tactic designed to
undermine your confidence in food scientists and government protection agencies
as well as our food supply itself. Quacks want you to think they are out to
protect you. They hope that if you trust them, you will buy their
"natural" food products. The fact is that the tiny amounts of
additives used in food pose no threat to human health. Some actually protect
our health by preventing spoilage, rancidity, and mold growth.
The RDAs have been published by the National
Research Council approximately every five years since 1943. They are defined as
"the levels of intake of essential nutrients that, on the basis of
scientific knowledge, are judged by the Food and Nutrition Board to be adequate
to meet the known nutrient needs of practically all healthy persons."
Neither the RDAs nor the Daily Values listed on food labels are
"minimums" or "requirements." They are deliberately set
higher than most people need. The reason quacks charge that the RDAs are too
low is obvious: if you believe you need more than can be obtained from food,
you are more likely to buy supplements.
Many vitamin manufacturers have advertised
that "stress robs the body of vitamins." One company has asserted
that, "if you smoke, diet, or happen to be sick, you may be robbing your
body of vitamins." Another has warned that "stress can deplete your
body of water-soluble vitamins . . . and daily replacement is necessary."
Other products are touted to fill the "special needs of athletes."
While it is true that the need for vitamins
may rise slightly under physical stress and in certain diseases, this type of
advertising is fraudulent. The average American -- stressed or not -- is not in
danger of vitamin deficiency. The increased needs to which the ads refer are
not higher than the amounts obtainable by proper eating. Someone who is really
in danger of deficiency due to an illness would be very sick and would need
medical care, probably in a hospital. But these promotions are aimed at average
Americans who certainly don't need vitamin supplements to survive the common
cold, a round of golf, or a jog around the neighborhood! Athletes get more than
enough vitamins when they eat the food needed to meet their caloric
requirements.
Many vitamin pushers suggest that smokers
need vitamin C supplements. Although it is true that smokers in North America
have somewhat lower blood levels of this vitamin, these levels are still far
above deficiency levels. In America, cigarette smoking is the leading cause of
death preventable by self-discipline. Rather than seeking false comfort by
taking vitamin C, smokers who are concerned about their health should stop
smoking. Suggestions that "stress vitamins" are helpful against
emotional stress are also fraudulent.
Food quacks belittle normal foods and
ridicule the food-group systems of good nutrition. They may not tell you they
earn their living from such pronouncements -- via public appearance fees,
product endorsements, sale of publications, or financial interests in vitamin
companies, health-food stores, or organic farms.
The very term "health food" is a
deceptive slogan. Judgments about individual foods should take into account how
they contribute to an individual's overall diet. All food is health food in moderation;
any food is junk food in excess. Did you ever stop to think that your corner
grocery, fruit market, meat market, and supermarket are also health-food
stores? They are -- and they generally charge less than stores that use the
slogan.
By the way, have you ever wondered why
people who eat lots of "health foods" still feel they must load
themselves up with vitamin supplements? Or why so many "health food"
shoppers complain about ill health?
This claim is a flat lie. Each vitamin is a
chain of atoms strung together as a molecule. With minor exception, molecules
made in the "factories" of nature are identical to those made in the
factories of chemical companies. Does it make sense to pay extra for vitamins
extracted from foods when you can get all you need from the foods themselves?
No questionnaire can do this. A few
entrepreneurs have devised lengthy computer-scored questionnaires with
questions about symptoms that could be present if a vitamin deficiency exists.
But such symptoms occur much more frequently in conditions unrelated to
nutrition. Even when a deficiency actually exists, the tests don't provide
enough information to discover the cause so that suitable treatment can be
recommended. That requires a physical examination and appropriate laboratory
tests. Many responsible nutritionists use a computer to help evaluate their clients'
diet. But this is done to make dietary recommendations, such as reducing fat
content or increasing fiber content. Supplements are seldom necessary unless
the person is unable (or unwilling) to consume an adequate diet.
Be wary, too, of questionnaires purported to
determine whether supplements are needed to correct "nutrient
deficiencies" or "dietary inadequacies." These questionnaires
are scored so that everyone who takes the test is judged deficient. Responsible
dietary analyses compare the individual's average daily food consumption with
the recommended numbers of servings from each food group. The safest and best
way to get nutrients is generally from food, not pills. So even if a diet is
deficient, the most prudent action is usually diet modification rather than
supplementation with pills.
Diet quacks would like you to believe that
special pills or food combinations can cause "effortless" weight
loss. But the only way to lose weight is to burn off more calories than you
eat. This requires self-discipline: eating less, exercising more, or preferably
doing both. There are about 3,500 calories in a pound of body weight. To lose
one pound a week (a safe amount that is not just water), you must eat about
five hundred fewer calories per day than you burn up. The most sensible diet
for losing weight is one that is nutritionally balanced in carbohydrates, fats,
and proteins. Most fad diets "work" by producing temporary weight
loss -- as a result of calorie restriction. But they are invariably too
monotonous and are often too dangerous for long-term use. Unless a dieter
develops and maintains better eating and exercise habits, weight lost on a diet
will soon return.
The term "cellulite" is sometimes
used to describe the dimpled fat found on the hips and thighs of many women.
Although no medical evidence supports the claim, cellulite is represented as a
special type of fat that is resistant to diet and exercise. Sure-fire cellulite
remedies include creams (to "dissolve" it), brushes, rollers,
"loofah" sponges, body wraps, and vitamin-mineral supplements with or
without herbs. The cost of various treatment plans runs from a few dollars for
a bottle of vitamins to many hundreds of dollars at a salon that offers heat
treatments, massage, enzyme injections, and/or treatment with various gadgets.
The simple truth about "cellulite" is that it is ordinary fat that
can be lost only as part of an overall reducing program.
Often the promises are subtle or couched in
"weasel words" that create an illusion of a promise, so promoters can
deny making them when the "feds" close in. False promises of cure are
the quacks' most immoral practice. They don't seem to care how many people they
break financially or in spirit -- by elation over their expected good fortune
followed by deep depression when the "treatment" fails. Nor do quacks
keep count -- while they fill their bank accounts -- of how many people they
lure away from effective medical care into disability or death.
Quacks will tell you that
"megavitamins" (huge doses of vitamins) can prevent or cure many
different ailments, particularly emotional ones. But they won't tell you that
the "evidence" supporting such claims is unreliable because it is
based on inadequate investigations, anecdotes, or testimonials. Nor do quacks
inform you that megadoses may be harmful. Megavitamin therapy (also called orthomolecular
therapy) is nutritional roulette, and only the house makes the profit.
Although vitamins are useful as therapeutic
agents for certain health problems, the number of such conditions is small.
Practitioners who sell supplements in their offices invariably recommend them
inappropriately. In addition, such products tend to be substantially more
expensive than similar ones in drugstores -- or even health-food stores. You
should also disregard any publication whose editor or publisher sells dietary
supplements.
Instead of promising to cure your disease,
some quacks will promise to "detoxify," "purify," or
"revitalize" your body; "balance" its chemistry or
"electromagnetic energy"; bring it in harmony with nature;
"stimulate" or "strengthen" your immune system;
"support" or "rejuvenate" various organs in your body; or
stimulate your body's power to heal itself. Of course, they never identify or
make valid before-and-after measurements of any of these processes. These
disclaimers serve two purposes. First, since it is impossible to measure the
processes quacks allege, it may be difficult to prove them wrong. Moreover, if
a quack is not a physician, the use of nonmedical terminology may help to avoid
prosecution for practicing medicine without a license -- although it shouldn't.
Some approaches to "detoxification"
are based on notions that, as a result of intestinal stasis, intestinal
contents putrefy, and toxins are formed and absorbed, which causes chronic
poisoning of the body. This "autointoxication" theory was popular
around the turn of the century but was abandoned by the scientific community
during the 1930s. No such "toxins" have ever been found, and careful
observations have shown that individuals in good health can vary greatly in
bowel habits. Quacks may also suggest that fecal material collects on the
lining of the intestine and causes trouble unless removed by laxatives, colonic
irrigation, special diets, and/or various herbs or food supplements that "cleanse"
the body. The falsity of this notion is obvious to doctors who perform
intestinal surgery or peer within the large intestine with a diagnostic
instrument. Fecal material does not adhere to the intestinal lining. Colonic
irrigation is done by inserting a tube up to a foot or more into the rectum and
pumping up to 20 gallons of warm water in and out. This type of enema is not
only therapeutically worthless but can cause fatal electrolyte imbalance. Cases
of death due to intestinal perforation and infection (from contaminated
equipment) have also been reported.
We all tend to believe what others tell us
about personal experiences. But separating cause and effect from coincidence
can be difficult. If people tell you that product X has cured their cancer,
arthritis, or whatever, be skeptical. They may not actually have had the
condition. If they did, their recovery most likely would have occurred without
the help of product X. Most single episodes of disease end with just the
passage of time, and most chronic ailments have symptom-free periods.
Establishing medical truths requires careful and repeated investigation -- with
well-designed experiments, not reports of coincidences misperceived as cause-and-effect.
That's why testimonial
evidence is forbidden in scientific articles, is usually inadmissible in
court, and is not used to evaluate whether or not drugs should be legally
marketable. (Imagine what would happen if the FDA decided that clinical trials
were too expensive and therefore drug approval would be based on testimonial
letters or interviews with a few patients.)
Never underestimate the extent to which
people can be fooled by a worthless remedy. During the early 1940s, many
thousands of people became convinced that "glyoxylide" could cure
cancer. Yet analysis showed that it was simply distilled water! [1] Many years
before that, when arsenic was used as a "tonic," countless numbers of
people swore by it even as it slowly poisoned them.
Symptoms that are psychosomatic (bodily
reactions to tension) are often relieved by anything taken with a suggestion
that it will work. Tiredness and other minor aches and pains may respond to any
enthusiastically recommended nostrum. For these problems, even physicians may
prescribe a placebo. A placebo is a substance that has no pharmacological
effect on the condition for which it is used, but is given to satisfy a patient
who supposes it to be a medicine. Vitamins (such as B12 shots) are commonly
used in this way.
Placebos act by suggestion. Unfortunately,
some doctors swallow the advertising hype or become confused by their own
observations and "believe in vitamins" beyond those supplied by a
good diet. Those who share such false beliefs do so because they confuse
coincidence or placebo action with cause and effect. Homeopathic believers make
the same error.
Many vitamin pushers would have us believe
that refined [white] sugar is "the killer on the breakfast table" and
is the underlying cause of everything from heart disease to hypoglycemia. The
fact is, however, that when sugar is used in moderation as part of a normal, balanced
diet, it is a perfectly safe source of calories and eating pleasure. Sugar is a
factor in the tooth decay process, but what counts is not merely the amount of
sugar in the diet but how long any digestible carbohydrate remains in contact
with the teeth. This, in turn, depends on such factors as the stickiness of the
food, the type of bacteria on the teeth, and the extent of oral hygiene
practiced by the individual.
The backbone of educational integrity in
America is a system of accreditation by
agencies recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education or the Council on Higher
Education Accreditation (CHEA), which is a nongovernmental coordinating agency.
"Degrees" from nonaccredited schools are rarely worth the paper they
are printed on. In the health field, there is no such thing as a reliable
school that is not accredited.
Unfortunately, possession of an accredited degree
does not guarantee reliability. Some schools that teach unscientific methods
(chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, and even quack nutritional methods)
have achieved accreditation. Worse yet, a small percentage of individuals
trained in reputable institutions (such as medical or dental schools or
accredited universities) have strayed from scientific thought.
Since quacks operate outside of the
scientific community, they also tend to form their own "professional"
organizations. In some cases, the only membership requirement is payment of a
fee. We and others we know have secured fancy "professional member"
certificates for household pets by merely submitting the pet's name, address,
and a check for $50. Don't assume that all groups with scientific-sounding
names are respectable. Find out whether their views are scientifically based.
Some quacks are promoted with superlatives
like "the world's foremost nutritionist" or "America's leading
nutrition expert." There is no law against this tactic, just as there is
none against calling oneself the "World's Foremost Lover." However,
the scientific community recognizes no such titles. The designation "Nobel
Prize Nominee" is also bogus and can be assumed to mean that someone has
either nominated himself or had a close associate do so.
Some entrepreneurs claim to have degrees
and/or affiliations to schools, hospitals, and/or professional that actually
don't exist. The modern champion of this approach appears to be Gregory
E. Caplinger, who claims to have acquired a medical degree, specialty
training, board certification, and scores of professional affiliations -- all
from bogus or nonexistent sources.
Even legitimate credentials can be used to
mislead. The American Medical Association's "Physician's Recognition
Award" requires participation in 150 hours of continuing education over a
three-year period and payment of a small fee. Most practicing physicians meet
this educational standard because it is necessary to study to keep up-to-date.
Accredited hospitals require this amount of continuing education to maintain
staff privileges, and some states require it for license renewal. However, most
physicians who do this don't bother to get the AMA certificate. Since the award
reflects no special accomplishment or expertise, using it for promotional
purposes is not appropriate behavior.
Various health-food industry members and
unscientific practitioners utilize tests that they claim can determine your
body's nutritional state and -- of course -- what products you should buy from
them. One favorite method is hair
analysis. For $35 to $75 plus a lock of your hair, you can get an elaborate
computer printout of vitamins and minerals you supposedly need. Hair analysis
has limited value (mainly in forensic medicine) in the diagnosis of heavy metal
poisoning, but it is worthless as a screening device to detect nutritional
problems [2]. If a hair analysis laboratory recommends supplements, you can be
sure that its computers are programmed to recommend them to everyone. Other
tests used to hawk supplements include amino acid analysis of urine,
muscle-testing (applied
kinesiology), iridology,
blood typing, "nutrient-deficiency" and/or lifestyle questionnaires,
and "electrodiagnostic"
gadgets.
The "conspiracy charge" is an
attempt to gain sympathy by portraying the quack as an "underdog."
Quacks typically claim that the American Medical Association is against them
because their cures would cut into the incomes that doctors make by keeping
people sick. Don't fall for such nonsense! Reputable physicians are plenty
busy. Moreover, many doctors engaged in prepaid health plans, group practice,
full-time teaching, and government service receive the same salary whether or
not their patients are sick -- so keeping their patients healthy reduces their
workload, not their income.
Quacks also claim there is a
"controversy" about facts between themselves and "the
bureaucrats," organized medicine, or "the establishment." They
clamor for medical examination of their claims, but ignore any evidence that
refutes them. The gambit "Do you believe in vitamins?" is another
tactic used to increase confusion. Everyone knows that vitamins are needed by
the human body. The real question is "Do you need additional vitamins
beyond those in a well-balanced diet?" For most
people, the answer is no. Nutrition is a science, not a religion. It is
based upon matters of fact, not questions of belief.
Any physician who found a vitamin or other
preparation that could cure sterility, heart disease, arthritis, cancer, or the
like, could make an enormous fortune. Patients would flock to such a doctor (as
they now do to those who falsely claim to cure such problems), and colleagues
would shower the doctor with awards -- including the extremely lucrative Nobel
Prize! And don't forget, doctors get sick, too. Do you believe they would
conspire to suppress cures for diseases that also afflict them and their loved
ones? When polio was conquered, iron lungs became virtually obsolete, but
nobody resisted this advancement because it would force hospitals to change.
And neither will scientists mourn the eventual defeat of cancer.
Quacks, who want you to trust them, suggest
that most doctors are "butchers" and "poisoners." They
exaggerate the shortcomings of our healthcare delivery system, but completely
disregard their own -- and those of other quacks. For the same reason, quacks
also claim that doctors are nutrition illiterates. This, too, is untrue. The
principles of nutrition are those of human biochemistry and physiology, courses
required in every medical school. Some medical schools don't teach a separate
required course labeled "Nutrition" because the subject is included
in other courses at the points where it is most relevant. For example, nutrition
in growth and development is taught in pediatrics, nutrition in wound healing
is taught in surgery, and nutrition in pregnancy is covered in obstetrics. In
addition, many medical schools do offer separate instruction in nutrition.
A physician's training, of course, does not
end on the day of graduation from medical school or completion of specialty
training. The medical profession advocates lifelong education, and some states
require it for license renewal. Physicians can further their knowledge of
nutrition by reading medical journals and textbooks, discussing cases with
colleagues, and attending continuing education courses. Most doctors know what
nutrients can and cannot do and can tell the difference between a real
nutritional discovery and a piece of quack nonsense. Those who are unable to
answer questions about dietetics (meal planning) can refer patients to someone
who can -- usually a registered dietitian.
Like all human beings, doctors sometimes
make mistakes. However, quacks deliver mistreatment most of the time.
A century ago, before scientific methodology
was generally accepted, valid new ideas were hard to evaluate and were
sometimes rejected by a majority of the medical community, only to be upheld
later. But today, treatments demonstrated as effective are welcomed by
scientific practitioners and do not need a group to crusade for them. Quacks
seek political endorsement because they can't prove that their methods work. Instead,
they may seek to legalize their treatment and force insurance companies to pay
for it. One of the surest signs that a treatment doesn't work is a political
campaign to legalize its use.
Portions
of this article appeared in The
Vitamin Pushers: How the Health Food Industry Is Selling Americans a Bill of
Goods.
Some of the above has merit, some of it does not. Only YOU can determine the difference. The “absolute truth” is elusive, as shown by the rate of change in modern scientific understanding about human health, nutrition and metabolic processes. The issues are VERY complex, and complicated even further by extremely biased and obsolete widely-held incorrect opinions.
We strongly encourage you to seek your own level of understanding. At least be aware that conflicting opinions exist, and try to understand why. Your life depends on it.
We enthusiastically invite the opinions of those who disagree with us. We will be glad to discuss JoyfulAging topics with you, so we may both understand why the other reached a conflicting conclusion. Although we have spent a lifetime seeking the scientific truth, we at least know that there is much more that we do not know on earth, and what the Hubble telescope has revealed to us about the infinity of our universe. We will appreciate your constructive comments about our work. JoyfulAging@AOL.com
See also Iatrogenic
Deaths Caused By Certified M.D.s
See also Medical
Minefield – Avoiding Common Errors