From and article in the London daily Mail, May 12, 2006
There are growing concerns about the safety of medicines, after it emerged that some are prescribed without their full effects being known.
Over 250,000 patients are admitted to hospital each year because of adverse rections to drugs - and doctors estimate 10,000 patients a year died from them. Children, pregnant women & the elderly are particuarly vulnerable to the dangers, which include sudden death, respiratory failure & heart attacks.
and now you are supposed to believe that by avoiding one of the main concerns of drug management - ALLERGY - is fine to be overlooked according to the new greed guidelines from Big Pharma.
It used to be that if a person showed signs of allergy to a prescribed pharmaceutical, it was stopped immediately. It was stopped to prevent anaphylactic shock which leads to death.
Technique Eases Patient Allergy to Plavix
FRIDAY, May 12 (HealthDay News) -- A new method developed by U.S. researchers can help patients overcome an allergy to a common anti-clotting drug, clopidogrel (brand name Plavix).
Doctors often prescribe the drug to help prevent new blockages inside coronary stents, but about two out of every 100 patients who receive clopidogrel develop an allergic reaction marked by rash, itching, hives, or swelling of the tongue and airway. Some patients develop an anaphylactic reaction and go into shock.
"Allergic reactions can be quite frightening to patients and physicians, and can lead to discontinuation of the medication. We showed we could successfully and safely desensitize patients who had just recently had a drug-eluting stent placed. That's a critical population to manage," Dr. Nicolas E. Walker, a cardiology fellow at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in a prepared statement.
The desensitization protocol was used on eight patients. While being monitored in the cardiac ICU, the patients were first given a small dose of clopidogrel mixed into a drinkable solution. Every 15 minutes over the next few hours, the patients received an additional, higher dose of the drug. This continued until they were able to tolerate the target dose of 75 milligrams of clopidogrel. In total, the patients received nine doses totaling 150 milligrams of the drug.
Antihistamines and other anti-allergy medicines were used to treat patients who developed allergy symptoms during the desensitization process. All eight patients completed the process and were able to safely take a daily 75 milligram dose of clopidogrel at home without suffering allergic reactions.
Patients who suffer the most severe reaction -- anaphylactic shock -- to clopidogrel were not included in this study.
The findings were presented Thursday at a meeting of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions in Chicago.
The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more about clopidogrel.
so how about them apples, eh?
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Thursday, May 4, 2006
Doctors Object to Gathering of Drug Data
Doctors Object to Gathering of Drug Data
By STEPHANIE SAUL
Although virtually unknown to consumers, the information has long been considered the most potent weapon in pharmaceutical sales — computerized dossiers showing which physicians are prescribing what drugs. Armed with such data, a drug sales representative can pressure a doctor to write more prescriptions for a name-brand medicine or fewer orders for a competitor's drug.
But now a rebellion is under way by some doctors, who consider the data-gathering an intrusion that feeds overzealous sales practices among the nation's estimated 90,000 drug company representatives. Public officials are also weighing in. A vote on a state bill to clamp down on the practice is scheduled for today in New Hampshire, and similar bills have been introduced in other states, including Arizona and West Virginia.
To appease the doctors and try to stave off the state restrictions, the American Medical Association will soon give individual physicians the choice of declaring their prescription records off limits to drug sales representatives. The new measure is viewed as a self-policing move that the drug industry and the A.M.A., which has lucrative contracts with data-mining companies, hope will keep states from banning sales of prescription data altogether.
If the A.M.A effort succeeds, "legislators will turn their attention elsewhere, and the industry can hang on to one of its most valuable data sources," according to an article this week in the industry trade magazine Pharmaceutical Executive, which was co-written by an A.M.A. official and an executive with the leading vendor of prescription data. Even many critics concede that patients' privacy is apparently not an issue, because the tracking systems identify only the prescribing doctors, not patients. But many doctors find the use of the data by sales representatives an intrusion into the way they practice medicine.
"These doctors were outraged that people came into their office and talked to them about how many times they prescribed a particular drug," said Dr. John C. Lewin, the chief executive of the state medical association in California, one of the states where complaints about the current system arose.
The California group is beginning its own program under which doctors who do not opt out under the A.M.A. system will get comparisons of their prescribing patterns in 17 classes of drugs from the data companies, said Dr. Lewin, who added that the program was being started as a pilot effort that he hoped would be extended statewide.
Among the doctors who raised an early complaint about the system was Dr. Brad Drexler, an obstetrician in Healdsburg, Calif., who said he was surprised four years ago when pharmaceutical representatives began thanking him for writing prescriptions — the first time he realized that the drug representatives had information he assumed was private.
"I think it adds to the potential that physicians could be targeted one way or another for perks," said Dr. Drexler, alluding to the practice by drug companies of deciding which doctors to reward with the gifts, meals and other perks that sales representatives have dangled over the years, or to gauge which physicians might be worthy of signing up as paid speakers or consultants.
"It's the most powerful tool a drug rep has, for sure," said Jamie Reidy, a former drug salesman who was fired last year by Eli Lilly & Company after writing "Hard Sell," a humorous exposé of the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Reidy said the pharmaceutical representatives received updated prescription data every two weeks. The information also sometimes characterizes each physician's prescribing patterns, Mr. Reidy said.
For example, "early prescribers" — also known among drug representatives as "cowboys," according to Mr. Reidy — are those doctors who start prescribing a drug as soon as it comes to market. If you are a drug sales representative, "you go to see that doctor in the first week," Mr. Reidy said.
Although the drug representatives are told not to share the prescribing details with doctors, some nonetheless have confronted doctors with the data. A representative might become frustrated, for example, if after providing numerous lunches to a doctor's staff, the data show that the doctor is not writing prescriptions for the company's drug.
"It just creates a weird atmosphere," Mr. Reidy said.
State Representative Cindy Rosenwald of New Hampshire, lead sponsor of her state's bill, said she was motivated partly by high Medicaid drug costs, which she said she believed had been driven up by the pharmaceutical industry's success in coaxing doctors to prescribe expensive brand-name drugs.
"To me this is a money issue," Ms. Rosenwald said. "When I look at our state's budget, the fastest-growing part of the Medicaid program here in New Hampshire is for prescription drugs. It's an enormous cost for a small state like New Hampshire."
Ms. Rosenwald's legislation has been adopted by the New Hampshire House and is tentatively set for a Senate vote this afternoon.
She said she did not believe the A.M.A.'s self-policing measure would provide enough protection, partly because even if doctors specify that their prescription records not be available to drug sales representatives, the information would still be sold to drug companies for other marketing and research purposes. The drug companies, she said, would be on their honor not to share the data with their sales staffs. A Gallup Poll commissioned by the A.M.A. in 2004 found that two-thirds of doctors surveyed were opposed to the release of such data to pharmaceutical representatives, and that 77 percent felt that an opt-out program would alleviate concerns about the release of data. Nearly a quarter of the doctors were not even aware that the pharmaceutical industry had access to such information.
That same year, the American College of Physicians requested that the A.M.A. prohibit the release or sale of doctors' prescribing information. The college represents internists and related medical subspecialties, while the A.M.A. is a broader trade group whose members include all doctors, including surgeons.
Dr. Dean Abramson, an Iowa physician, is among the doctors who plan to opt out under the new A.M.A. process, which will involve a sign-up registry that goes into use on July 1. His opposition began nearly a decade ago, he recalled, when a representative from TAP Pharmaceutical Products let slip during a sales call that Dr. Abramson wrote more prescriptions for Prevacid, a treatment for acid reflux, than any other doctor in the state.
"I was pretty surprised that they kept that data, and I was not happy at all," Dr. Abramson said. "I said, 'Why is that data even kept?' She didn't really give me an answer."
Since then, Dr. Abramson has become something of an activist against the lunches and gifts that the pharmaceutical industry dispenses to doctors. His gastroenterology group in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, accepts neither, he said.
The leading compiler and vendor of prescription data is IMS Health, a publicly traded company based in Fairfield, Conn., that had revenue last year of $1.75 billion. IMS and its competitors gather the data through contracts with retail pharmacy chains and companies that manage drug plans for insurers, then sell it to pharmaceutical companies.
IMS and its competitors — the main ones are Verispan, Dendrite International and a Dutch company, Wolters Kluwer — also pay the A.M.A. for access to its repository of information on approximately one million doctors who are graduates of American medical schools, as well as foreign medical school graduates licensed in the United States.
The A.M.A., which calls this repository Masterfile, begins collecting the information when a doctor enters medical school. Over doctors' careers, additional material includes information on their board certifications, types of practice and disciplinary records. The Masterfile information is among data that companies like IMS use in developing physician profiles.
In an interview, IMS officials said they believed that state efforts to curtail their activities were misguided. "Limiting the access to our data will not stop pharmaceutical marketing," said Robert J. Hunkler, whose job with the company includes serving as a liaison with the medical profession. Mr. Hunkler also says that the data his company collects is valuable for medical research and is sometimes shared free with researchers.
Mr. Hunkler was a co-author of the Pharmaceutical Executive article describing the new A.M.A. program. The other writer was Robert A. Musacchio, the A.M.A.'s senior vice president for publishing and business services. While Mr. Musacchio declined to disclose the exact value of its Masterfile contracts with the four main data companies, he said that the organization made $40 million a year selling information, which also includes mailing lists and a service through which hospitals can check the credentials of doctors. Mr. Musacchio said that doctors had always been able to put a "no contact" status on their Masterfile record, meaning their name would not be licensed for marketing by mail, telephone or fax.
The A.M.A.'s new registry, administered partly through a Web site, will enable doctors listed in its Masterfile to indicate that they do not want their prescribing data shared with pharmaceutical sales representatives. The decision will remain in force for three years.
And yet, even those doctors' prescription information will still be collected and transmitted to drug companies, whose other uses of the data include tallying bonuses paid to pharmaceutical representatives, which are based on sales. "What we've always stressed is that physicians have rights and they can always tell pharmaceutical representatives that they don't want to be called upon," said Mr. Musacchio. But he said the organization had always made clear to the pharmaceutical industry that its representatives should never "badger or embarrass or harass" physicians.
"They sometimes try to get their point across a little too strongly," he said.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
4 May 2006
By STEPHANIE SAUL
Although virtually unknown to consumers, the information has long been considered the most potent weapon in pharmaceutical sales — computerized dossiers showing which physicians are prescribing what drugs. Armed with such data, a drug sales representative can pressure a doctor to write more prescriptions for a name-brand medicine or fewer orders for a competitor's drug.
But now a rebellion is under way by some doctors, who consider the data-gathering an intrusion that feeds overzealous sales practices among the nation's estimated 90,000 drug company representatives. Public officials are also weighing in. A vote on a state bill to clamp down on the practice is scheduled for today in New Hampshire, and similar bills have been introduced in other states, including Arizona and West Virginia.
To appease the doctors and try to stave off the state restrictions, the American Medical Association will soon give individual physicians the choice of declaring their prescription records off limits to drug sales representatives. The new measure is viewed as a self-policing move that the drug industry and the A.M.A., which has lucrative contracts with data-mining companies, hope will keep states from banning sales of prescription data altogether.
If the A.M.A effort succeeds, "legislators will turn their attention elsewhere, and the industry can hang on to one of its most valuable data sources," according to an article this week in the industry trade magazine Pharmaceutical Executive, which was co-written by an A.M.A. official and an executive with the leading vendor of prescription data. Even many critics concede that patients' privacy is apparently not an issue, because the tracking systems identify only the prescribing doctors, not patients. But many doctors find the use of the data by sales representatives an intrusion into the way they practice medicine.
"These doctors were outraged that people came into their office and talked to them about how many times they prescribed a particular drug," said Dr. John C. Lewin, the chief executive of the state medical association in California, one of the states where complaints about the current system arose.
The California group is beginning its own program under which doctors who do not opt out under the A.M.A. system will get comparisons of their prescribing patterns in 17 classes of drugs from the data companies, said Dr. Lewin, who added that the program was being started as a pilot effort that he hoped would be extended statewide.
Among the doctors who raised an early complaint about the system was Dr. Brad Drexler, an obstetrician in Healdsburg, Calif., who said he was surprised four years ago when pharmaceutical representatives began thanking him for writing prescriptions — the first time he realized that the drug representatives had information he assumed was private.
"I think it adds to the potential that physicians could be targeted one way or another for perks," said Dr. Drexler, alluding to the practice by drug companies of deciding which doctors to reward with the gifts, meals and other perks that sales representatives have dangled over the years, or to gauge which physicians might be worthy of signing up as paid speakers or consultants.
"It's the most powerful tool a drug rep has, for sure," said Jamie Reidy, a former drug salesman who was fired last year by Eli Lilly & Company after writing "Hard Sell," a humorous exposé of the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Reidy said the pharmaceutical representatives received updated prescription data every two weeks. The information also sometimes characterizes each physician's prescribing patterns, Mr. Reidy said.
For example, "early prescribers" — also known among drug representatives as "cowboys," according to Mr. Reidy — are those doctors who start prescribing a drug as soon as it comes to market. If you are a drug sales representative, "you go to see that doctor in the first week," Mr. Reidy said.
Although the drug representatives are told not to share the prescribing details with doctors, some nonetheless have confronted doctors with the data. A representative might become frustrated, for example, if after providing numerous lunches to a doctor's staff, the data show that the doctor is not writing prescriptions for the company's drug.
"It just creates a weird atmosphere," Mr. Reidy said.
State Representative Cindy Rosenwald of New Hampshire, lead sponsor of her state's bill, said she was motivated partly by high Medicaid drug costs, which she said she believed had been driven up by the pharmaceutical industry's success in coaxing doctors to prescribe expensive brand-name drugs.
"To me this is a money issue," Ms. Rosenwald said. "When I look at our state's budget, the fastest-growing part of the Medicaid program here in New Hampshire is for prescription drugs. It's an enormous cost for a small state like New Hampshire."
Ms. Rosenwald's legislation has been adopted by the New Hampshire House and is tentatively set for a Senate vote this afternoon.
She said she did not believe the A.M.A.'s self-policing measure would provide enough protection, partly because even if doctors specify that their prescription records not be available to drug sales representatives, the information would still be sold to drug companies for other marketing and research purposes. The drug companies, she said, would be on their honor not to share the data with their sales staffs. A Gallup Poll commissioned by the A.M.A. in 2004 found that two-thirds of doctors surveyed were opposed to the release of such data to pharmaceutical representatives, and that 77 percent felt that an opt-out program would alleviate concerns about the release of data. Nearly a quarter of the doctors were not even aware that the pharmaceutical industry had access to such information.
That same year, the American College of Physicians requested that the A.M.A. prohibit the release or sale of doctors' prescribing information. The college represents internists and related medical subspecialties, while the A.M.A. is a broader trade group whose members include all doctors, including surgeons.
Dr. Dean Abramson, an Iowa physician, is among the doctors who plan to opt out under the new A.M.A. process, which will involve a sign-up registry that goes into use on July 1. His opposition began nearly a decade ago, he recalled, when a representative from TAP Pharmaceutical Products let slip during a sales call that Dr. Abramson wrote more prescriptions for Prevacid, a treatment for acid reflux, than any other doctor in the state.
"I was pretty surprised that they kept that data, and I was not happy at all," Dr. Abramson said. "I said, 'Why is that data even kept?' She didn't really give me an answer."
Since then, Dr. Abramson has become something of an activist against the lunches and gifts that the pharmaceutical industry dispenses to doctors. His gastroenterology group in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, accepts neither, he said.
The leading compiler and vendor of prescription data is IMS Health, a publicly traded company based in Fairfield, Conn., that had revenue last year of $1.75 billion. IMS and its competitors gather the data through contracts with retail pharmacy chains and companies that manage drug plans for insurers, then sell it to pharmaceutical companies.
IMS and its competitors — the main ones are Verispan, Dendrite International and a Dutch company, Wolters Kluwer — also pay the A.M.A. for access to its repository of information on approximately one million doctors who are graduates of American medical schools, as well as foreign medical school graduates licensed in the United States.
The A.M.A., which calls this repository Masterfile, begins collecting the information when a doctor enters medical school. Over doctors' careers, additional material includes information on their board certifications, types of practice and disciplinary records. The Masterfile information is among data that companies like IMS use in developing physician profiles.
In an interview, IMS officials said they believed that state efforts to curtail their activities were misguided. "Limiting the access to our data will not stop pharmaceutical marketing," said Robert J. Hunkler, whose job with the company includes serving as a liaison with the medical profession. Mr. Hunkler also says that the data his company collects is valuable for medical research and is sometimes shared free with researchers.
Mr. Hunkler was a co-author of the Pharmaceutical Executive article describing the new A.M.A. program. The other writer was Robert A. Musacchio, the A.M.A.'s senior vice president for publishing and business services. While Mr. Musacchio declined to disclose the exact value of its Masterfile contracts with the four main data companies, he said that the organization made $40 million a year selling information, which also includes mailing lists and a service through which hospitals can check the credentials of doctors. Mr. Musacchio said that doctors had always been able to put a "no contact" status on their Masterfile record, meaning their name would not be licensed for marketing by mail, telephone or fax.
The A.M.A.'s new registry, administered partly through a Web site, will enable doctors listed in its Masterfile to indicate that they do not want their prescribing data shared with pharmaceutical sales representatives. The decision will remain in force for three years.
And yet, even those doctors' prescription information will still be collected and transmitted to drug companies, whose other uses of the data include tallying bonuses paid to pharmaceutical representatives, which are based on sales. "What we've always stressed is that physicians have rights and they can always tell pharmaceutical representatives that they don't want to be called upon," said Mr. Musacchio. But he said the organization had always made clear to the pharmaceutical industry that its representatives should never "badger or embarrass or harass" physicians.
"They sometimes try to get their point across a little too strongly," he said.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
4 May 2006
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
The FDA Attacks Again! Both vitamin purveyors and consumers could be the losers.
Our thanks go to the Vitamin Lawyer for his update on the recent CODEX meeting in Ottawa, Canada. You'll read (and see I hope) the FDA under control of BIG PHARMA as it fails to support your right to health care supplements and your right to know what they can do for your health. For more information on this topic, and to see the BIG PICTURE go to IAHF
Ottawa – 05/02/06 - The thirty-fourth session of the Codex Alimentarius committee on food labeling (CCFL), held at the Congress Center in the Canadian capitol, is witnessing the continuation of bickering among various delegates,with each nation or block seeking advantage over the others.
Both vitamin purveyors and consumers could be the losers.
In recent years the Codex process has been criticized by the international agency’s parent organizations, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization for failing to contribute to better health. WHO and FAO have mandated the Codex Commission to implement the WHO/FAO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. The GS puts good nutrition, including dietary supplements, in the forefront of efforts to improve world health. The Commission has, in its turn, mandated the CCFL, and other Codex Committees, to take steps within their terms of reference to implement the Strategy.
While the representatives of many nations paid lip-service to the Strategy, when it came time to take action, calls for specific action from states such as South Africa and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the National Health Federation were marginalized or ignored.
As observers, to assess the impact of the agency on the world health crisis, we and
other NGO observers, were dismayed to see a coordinated attack on natural health lead by the otherwise rival US and EU delegations. This impacted both nutrition issues and organic issues.
When one NGO (NHF) asked to have a reference to the use of nutrition for optimal health added to the committee recommendations for implementation of the Global Strategy, the US delegation (controlled by the FDA) demanded that such language not be allowed. The Chair of the meeting complied.
When South Africa made 11 specific proposals, including the significant proposal that dietary supplements be encouraged as foods, not treated toxins, as had been the standard Codex anti-nutrient approach prior to the Global Strategy mandate, the well-constructed proposals, vigorously supported by the pro-health NGOs, were ignored by the Chair. South Africa had to insist that the proposals be included in the minutes of the meeting. These proposals can be seen at: http://www.who.int/nutrition/comment_southafrica.pdf. South Africa raising the banner that "Dietary Supplements are Foods, not Toxins" (drugs) was a very significant step to supporting health freedom of choice.
While this may seem to be dry bureaucratic infighting, the impact of the World Food Code, in our growing globalized food marketplace, cannot be under estimated. We are particularly concerned that cheap, safe, advanced natural approaches to optimal health will be ignored, in favor of expensive and dangerous pharmaceutical interventions that developing countries and under insured people in the developed world cannot afford, thereby denying billions of people access to the improved diet that the Global Strategy says is essential to their health and very survival.
While “business as usual” predominated, with a dangerous assault on the integrity of organic agriculture along with the marginalization of the Global Strategy, the good news is that various states and NGOs are allying themselves with the Global Strategy and demanding that the Codex system make a real effort to implement rules for better diet for better health. The pro-health lobby did attain a consensus that WHO/FAO would review all comments and make further recommendations to the Codex Commission meeting scheduled for the WHO headquarters in Geneva this July. At that time the Commission will have to commit itself to implementing the Global Strategy without delay or prevarication.
Ralph Fucetola JD
Ottawa – 05/02/06 - The thirty-fourth session of the Codex Alimentarius committee on food labeling (CCFL), held at the Congress Center in the Canadian capitol, is witnessing the continuation of bickering among various delegates,with each nation or block seeking advantage over the others.
Both vitamin purveyors and consumers could be the losers.
In recent years the Codex process has been criticized by the international agency’s parent organizations, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization for failing to contribute to better health. WHO and FAO have mandated the Codex Commission to implement the WHO/FAO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. The GS puts good nutrition, including dietary supplements, in the forefront of efforts to improve world health. The Commission has, in its turn, mandated the CCFL, and other Codex Committees, to take steps within their terms of reference to implement the Strategy.
While the representatives of many nations paid lip-service to the Strategy, when it came time to take action, calls for specific action from states such as South Africa and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the National Health Federation were marginalized or ignored.
As observers, to assess the impact of the agency on the world health crisis, we and
other NGO observers, were dismayed to see a coordinated attack on natural health lead by the otherwise rival US and EU delegations. This impacted both nutrition issues and organic issues.
When one NGO (NHF) asked to have a reference to the use of nutrition for optimal health added to the committee recommendations for implementation of the Global Strategy, the US delegation (controlled by the FDA) demanded that such language not be allowed. The Chair of the meeting complied.
When South Africa made 11 specific proposals, including the significant proposal that dietary supplements be encouraged as foods, not treated toxins, as had been the standard Codex anti-nutrient approach prior to the Global Strategy mandate, the well-constructed proposals, vigorously supported by the pro-health NGOs, were ignored by the Chair. South Africa had to insist that the proposals be included in the minutes of the meeting. These proposals can be seen at: http://www.who.int/nutrition/comment_southafrica.pdf. South Africa raising the banner that "Dietary Supplements are Foods, not Toxins" (drugs) was a very significant step to supporting health freedom of choice.
While this may seem to be dry bureaucratic infighting, the impact of the World Food Code, in our growing globalized food marketplace, cannot be under estimated. We are particularly concerned that cheap, safe, advanced natural approaches to optimal health will be ignored, in favor of expensive and dangerous pharmaceutical interventions that developing countries and under insured people in the developed world cannot afford, thereby denying billions of people access to the improved diet that the Global Strategy says is essential to their health and very survival.
While “business as usual” predominated, with a dangerous assault on the integrity of organic agriculture along with the marginalization of the Global Strategy, the good news is that various states and NGOs are allying themselves with the Global Strategy and demanding that the Codex system make a real effort to implement rules for better diet for better health. The pro-health lobby did attain a consensus that WHO/FAO would review all comments and make further recommendations to the Codex Commission meeting scheduled for the WHO headquarters in Geneva this July. At that time the Commission will have to commit itself to implementing the Global Strategy without delay or prevarication.
Ralph Fucetola JD
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Cosmetics and Consequences
This issue of cosmetic care products and toxic ingredients isn't a new one if you have been to any of the Leaflady's classes or read her articles over the years.
What strikes me funny is the 'latecomers' who feign knowledege, as if the were the first on the block to have some of this information. I guess I can take umbrage at these 'gurus' who at the same time they condemn one or two toxic chemicals in certain products, while promoting other so-called natural products as safe.
Let's look further.
One of the major problems with chemically based cosmetics, even those sold in health stores, is that the FDA does not require the ingredients to be tested in combination. And that's the rub!
So here we have one self-proclaimed natural health 'expert' on NewsTarget that wants readers to believe that its just methylisothiazoline, or MIT, causes damage. He states that MIT is in Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner. He tells the reader he frequently warnsing about the dangers of using brand-name personal care products. Stating in a quote from a recent article, "The vast majority of these products contain toxic chemical compounds like MIT that contribute to cancer, liver disorders and neurological diseases. In fact, this chemical, MIT, is just one of dozens of such chemicals that are found in personal care products." (Adams attacks SLS here too.)
At the end of this article he asks if you want a real shampoo, then suggests you "purchase Olive Oil Shampoo from Heritage Products, available at most natural health stores".
Health Lies Exposed editor Greg Ciola promotes this and sometimes some other less than factual information. My problem with Ciola is that when I have contacted him with some questions about information he posts on his web site or sends out in his newsletter, he doesn't answer.
Well I thought I'd answer this concern with some facts about the recommended "real shampoo" and let you decide for yourself.
Out of these ingredients we have:
DEA - An emulsifier and sufactant that causes nitrosamines whne in contact with skin, and is carcinogenic.
SLS - Detergent, emulsifier and surfactant. Degreaes and dries the skin, and damages DNA inside the cell.
Benzene - A known bone marrow poison, carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic and causes many adverse reactions. (Benzene is a recent issue as it is found in sodas.)
Cetearyl Alcohol - May cause contact dermatitis and sensitivity.
Cetrimonium Chloride - A toxic quarterary compound used as a and anti-static compound, surfactant, emulsifier and moisturizer.
Stearalkonium Chloride - Developed originally as a fabric softener.
Fragrance - It is commonly known that most fragrances are made from petroleum.
If you'd like to know where to purchase 'real' shampoo that is organic and free of toxic chemicals, ask the Leaflady.
So now you be the judge!
What strikes me funny is the 'latecomers' who feign knowledege, as if the were the first on the block to have some of this information. I guess I can take umbrage at these 'gurus' who at the same time they condemn one or two toxic chemicals in certain products, while promoting other so-called natural products as safe.
Let's look further.
One of the major problems with chemically based cosmetics, even those sold in health stores, is that the FDA does not require the ingredients to be tested in combination. And that's the rub!
So here we have one self-proclaimed natural health 'expert' on NewsTarget that wants readers to believe that its just methylisothiazoline, or MIT, causes damage. He states that MIT is in Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner. He tells the reader he frequently warnsing about the dangers of using brand-name personal care products. Stating in a quote from a recent article, "The vast majority of these products contain toxic chemical compounds like MIT that contribute to cancer, liver disorders and neurological diseases. In fact, this chemical, MIT, is just one of dozens of such chemicals that are found in personal care products." (Adams attacks SLS here too.)
At the end of this article he asks if you want a real shampoo, then suggests you "purchase Olive Oil Shampoo from Heritage Products, available at most natural health stores".
Health Lies Exposed editor Greg Ciola promotes this and sometimes some other less than factual information. My problem with Ciola is that when I have contacted him with some questions about information he posts on his web site or sends out in his newsletter, he doesn't answer.
Well I thought I'd answer this concern with some facts about the recommended "real shampoo" and let you decide for yourself.
Olive Oil Shampoo contains the following ingredients: Water, Cocamide DEA, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS), Potassium Dodecyl Benzene Sulfonate, Sodium Cocoyl Sarcosinate and Hydrolyzed Wheat Protein Olivate (Olive Oil Glutinate).
Olive Oil Conditioner contains Water, Standamul (Cetearyl Alcohol, Hydrogenated Castor Oil and Stearalkonium Chloride, Olive Oil, Vegetable Derived Emulsifier (Cetearyl Alcohol and Cetearyl Polyglucose), Dehyquart (Cetrimonium Chloride), Citricidal, Lanolin, Aloe, Gardenia Oil and Herbal Fusion Fragrance: Rosemary, Yarrow, Sage, Lemon Grass, Nettles. Lavender Oil.
Out of these ingredients we have:
DEA - An emulsifier and sufactant that causes nitrosamines whne in contact with skin, and is carcinogenic.
SLS - Detergent, emulsifier and surfactant. Degreaes and dries the skin, and damages DNA inside the cell.
Benzene - A known bone marrow poison, carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic and causes many adverse reactions. (Benzene is a recent issue as it is found in sodas.)
Cetearyl Alcohol - May cause contact dermatitis and sensitivity.
Cetrimonium Chloride - A toxic quarterary compound used as a and anti-static compound, surfactant, emulsifier and moisturizer.
Stearalkonium Chloride - Developed originally as a fabric softener.
Fragrance - It is commonly known that most fragrances are made from petroleum.
If you'd like to know where to purchase 'real' shampoo that is organic and free of toxic chemicals, ask the Leaflady.
So now you be the judge!
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Most Get Mediocre Health Care
Well this is no surprise. I have watched the quality of health care slide into murky waters over almost four decades now, especially since the insurance companies began dictating how health care is (or isn't) delivered.
Unfortunately most people are not aware of the basics that are required of health care professionals. My guess is that most doctors and NPs, as with pharmacists and dentists et al, don't know either.
This issue is probably the key componenet to why my work is so very different.
If you are looking for a sound second opinion, information on Rx drugs, nutrient depletion information about Rx drugs and nutritionally based health care, consider using the services of Creating Health Institute, www.leaflady.org. We appreciate your trust.
YODA
Most Get Mediocre Health Care
By JEFF DONN, Associated Press Writer
Startling research from the biggest study ever of U.S. health care quality suggests that Americans — rich, poor, black, white — get roughly equal treatment, but it's woefully mediocre for all.
"This study shows that health care has equal-opportunity defects," said Dr. Donald Berwick, who runs the nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Cambridge, Mass.
The survey of nearly 7,000 patients, reported Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, considered only urban-area dwellers who sought treatment, but it still challenged some stereotypes: These blacks and Hispanics actually got slightly better medical treatment than whites.
While the researchers acknowledged separate evidence that minorities fare worse in some areas of expensive care and suffer more from some conditions than whites, their study found that once in treatment, minorities' overall care appears similar to that of whites.
"It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, white or black, insured or uninsured," said chief author Dr. Steven Asch, at the Rand Health research institute, in Santa Monica, Calif. "We all get equally mediocre care."
The researchers, who included U.S. Veterans Affairs personnel, first published their findings for the general population in June 2003. They reported the breakdown by racial, income, and other social groups on Thursday.
They examined medical records and phone interviews from 6,712 randomly picked patients who visited a medical office within a two-year period in 12 metropolitan areas from Boston to Miami to Seattle. The group was not nationally representative but does convey a broad picture of the country's health care practices.
The survey examined whether people got the highest standard of treatment for 439 measures ranging across common chronic and acute conditions and disease prevention. It looked at whether they got the right tests, drugs and treatments.
Overall, patients received only 55 percent of recommended steps for top-quality care — and no group did much better or worse than that.
Blacks and Hispanics as a group each got 58 percent of the best care, compared to 54 percent for whites. Those with annual household income over $50,000 got 57 percent, 4 points more than people from households of less than $15,000. Patients without insurance got 54 percent of recommended steps, just one point less than those with managed care.
As to gender, women came out slightly ahead with 57 percent, compared to 52 percent for men. Young adults did slightly better than the elderly.
There were narrow snapshots of inequality: An insured white woman, for example, got 57 percent of the best standard of care, while an uninsured black man got just 51 percent.
"Though we are improving, disparities in health care still exist," said Dr. Garth Graham, director of the U.S. Office of Minority Health.
Graham, who is black, pointed to other data showing enduring inequality in care, including a large federal study last year. He also said minorities go without treatment more often than whites, and such people are missed entirely by this survey.
Some experts took heart in the relative equality within the survey. "The study did find some reassuring things," said Dr. Tim Carey, who runs a health service research center at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
But all health experts interviewed fretted about the uniformly low standard. "Regardless of who you are or what group you're in, there is a significant gap between the care you deserve and the care you receive," said Dr. Reed Tuckson, who is black and a vice president of United HealthGroup, which runs health plans and sells medical data.
Health experts blame the overall poor care on an overburdened, fragmented system that fails to keep close track of patients with an increasing number of multiple conditions.
Quality specialists said improvements can come with more public reporting of performance, more uniform training, more computerized checks and more coordination by patients themselves.
___
New England Journal of Medicine: http://nejm.org
National Healthcare Disparities Report: http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr05/nhdr05.htm
Unfortunately most people are not aware of the basics that are required of health care professionals. My guess is that most doctors and NPs, as with pharmacists and dentists et al, don't know either.
This issue is probably the key componenet to why my work is so very different.
If you are looking for a sound second opinion, information on Rx drugs, nutrient depletion information about Rx drugs and nutritionally based health care, consider using the services of Creating Health Institute, www.leaflady.org. We appreciate your trust.
YODA
Most Get Mediocre Health Care
By JEFF DONN, Associated Press Writer
Startling research from the biggest study ever of U.S. health care quality suggests that Americans — rich, poor, black, white — get roughly equal treatment, but it's woefully mediocre for all.
"This study shows that health care has equal-opportunity defects," said Dr. Donald Berwick, who runs the nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Cambridge, Mass.
The survey of nearly 7,000 patients, reported Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, considered only urban-area dwellers who sought treatment, but it still challenged some stereotypes: These blacks and Hispanics actually got slightly better medical treatment than whites.
While the researchers acknowledged separate evidence that minorities fare worse in some areas of expensive care and suffer more from some conditions than whites, their study found that once in treatment, minorities' overall care appears similar to that of whites.
"It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, white or black, insured or uninsured," said chief author Dr. Steven Asch, at the Rand Health research institute, in Santa Monica, Calif. "We all get equally mediocre care."
The researchers, who included U.S. Veterans Affairs personnel, first published their findings for the general population in June 2003. They reported the breakdown by racial, income, and other social groups on Thursday.
They examined medical records and phone interviews from 6,712 randomly picked patients who visited a medical office within a two-year period in 12 metropolitan areas from Boston to Miami to Seattle. The group was not nationally representative but does convey a broad picture of the country's health care practices.
The survey examined whether people got the highest standard of treatment for 439 measures ranging across common chronic and acute conditions and disease prevention. It looked at whether they got the right tests, drugs and treatments.
Overall, patients received only 55 percent of recommended steps for top-quality care — and no group did much better or worse than that.
Blacks and Hispanics as a group each got 58 percent of the best care, compared to 54 percent for whites. Those with annual household income over $50,000 got 57 percent, 4 points more than people from households of less than $15,000. Patients without insurance got 54 percent of recommended steps, just one point less than those with managed care.
As to gender, women came out slightly ahead with 57 percent, compared to 52 percent for men. Young adults did slightly better than the elderly.
There were narrow snapshots of inequality: An insured white woman, for example, got 57 percent of the best standard of care, while an uninsured black man got just 51 percent.
"Though we are improving, disparities in health care still exist," said Dr. Garth Graham, director of the U.S. Office of Minority Health.
Graham, who is black, pointed to other data showing enduring inequality in care, including a large federal study last year. He also said minorities go without treatment more often than whites, and such people are missed entirely by this survey.
Some experts took heart in the relative equality within the survey. "The study did find some reassuring things," said Dr. Tim Carey, who runs a health service research center at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
But all health experts interviewed fretted about the uniformly low standard. "Regardless of who you are or what group you're in, there is a significant gap between the care you deserve and the care you receive," said Dr. Reed Tuckson, who is black and a vice president of United HealthGroup, which runs health plans and sells medical data.
Health experts blame the overall poor care on an overburdened, fragmented system that fails to keep close track of patients with an increasing number of multiple conditions.
Quality specialists said improvements can come with more public reporting of performance, more uniform training, more computerized checks and more coordination by patients themselves.
___
New England Journal of Medicine: http://nejm.org
National Healthcare Disparities Report: http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr05/nhdr05.htm
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Too much news to comment, but this one is urgent
Breast Cancer and EMFs
For many years I have been educating about the risks of EMF/ELF. In the general realm of this industry, few, if any, customers realize the health risks, even while the evidence in solid research is mounting rapidly. It is not just thermal damaage one has to worry about.
Now, should you take the time to read the linked article you'll see that that cell phone you think is so conveninet is now linked to interfereing with taxol treatment.
Of course, should you be a regular visitor to leaflady.org and read the women's health, electro-smog or x-rays and health sections you'd be ahead of the curve.
I just love the 10 year old fact I learned recently from UK patent applications from the top 3 cell phone compnaies: YES, they know that these little gadgets emit radiation, and the radiation is indeed harmful. Dr. Neil Cherry told us this, as have many other qualified reseachers and scientists.
If you like to reduce your exposure, just do a little reading, then proceed to help CHI and this blog to keep on educating.
As usual, more to come!
YODA
For many years I have been educating about the risks of EMF/ELF. In the general realm of this industry, few, if any, customers realize the health risks, even while the evidence in solid research is mounting rapidly. It is not just thermal damaage one has to worry about.
Now, should you take the time to read the linked article you'll see that that cell phone you think is so conveninet is now linked to interfereing with taxol treatment.
Of course, should you be a regular visitor to leaflady.org and read the women's health, electro-smog or x-rays and health sections you'd be ahead of the curve.
I just love the 10 year old fact I learned recently from UK patent applications from the top 3 cell phone compnaies: YES, they know that these little gadgets emit radiation, and the radiation is indeed harmful. Dr. Neil Cherry told us this, as have many other qualified reseachers and scientists.
If you like to reduce your exposure, just do a little reading, then proceed to help CHI and this blog to keep on educating.
As usual, more to come!
YODA
Sunday, February 5, 2006
Aspartame Ban in Process in New Mexico
Aspartame/Formaldehyde Ban Press Conference; NM Capitol Rotunda 2 PM, Monday regarding New Mexico Senate Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde Ban Bill, SB 654 (Senator Ortiz y Pino)
Cori Brackett and her film revealing the vast epidemiological scourge of Aspartame, will be presented in Senator Ortiz y Pino's Press Conference. A copy of her film will be given to every legislator. After seeing it, they will recognize the urgent public health crisis if Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde is not banned in New Mexico, and perhaps all 112 Legislators will ask Governor William Blaine Richardson III to champion this legislative ban on Aspartame. To not do so before this legislative session ends: what a carte blance and green light it sends to every neurotoxic and carcinogenic food additive manufacturer in the world, that they, not the Legislature and the Governor, are in control!
Dr. Betty Martini, Founder of Mission Possible Interntional, an organization of physicians, lawyers, and aspartame poisoning victims, will be present as well in this important press conference.
We look forward to screening Cori Brackett's film, Sweet Misery, in the New Mexico Capitol, on Tuesday, Native American Day, and recognize the fortuitous coincidence of this effort reaching out to inform one of the groups most vulnerable to neurotoxic carcinogens, the Native American
population of New Mexico.
Please let nearest Associated Press Office Bureau Chief know, as well as medical/Consumer Desk at several newspapers, plus apprise all of your physician and journalist friends.
For information, please read http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/38994.html
You are most welcome to post a comment after reading the article.
Bill Text is at: http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/_session.asp?
chamber=S&type=++&number=654&Submit=Search&year=06
The press conference is in response to NM Senate Public Affairs Committee
voting 7-2 on Friday to table SB 654. 6 our of 7 of the Senators voting to
table regularly drink Diet Coke. Corporate lobbyists spoke at length,
representing Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, Ajinomoto of Japan (the world's largest
manufacturer of neurotoxic aspartame and of Monosodium Glutamate), the
Calorie Control Council (an industry front group), and the New Mexico Soft
Drink Association, all of whom have so much to lose if aspartame is banned.
Majority Whip Senator Mary Jane Garcia (D-Las Cruces), one of the bill's
original signators and cosponsors, spoke of her need as a diabetic to
continue to consume Diet Coke, and apologized for her having to withdrawal
her support of the bill, despite medical counsel for her not to continue to
consume a product metabolized as formaldehyde as a way of protecting not
destroying her pancreas. We are sure that her "about-face" in support
resulted from pressure by corporate lobbyists from Coca Cola.
The lobbyists for Ajinomoto now include Michael Stratton of Colorado, U.S.
Senator Ken Salazar's campaign manager, currently on the Democratic National
Committee's (DNC) Presidential Nomination and Scheduling Commission.
There are several Parliamentary procedures that can be used to achieve the
enactment of this SB654, which includes a $100,000 to the office of the New
Mexico Attorney General for enforcement.
_______________________________________________________________________
Such a ban on Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde as a food additive will
prevent and heal numerous neurodegenerative and carcinogenic illnesses.
Further, Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde has been allowed by the United
States Food and Drug Administration to be included in hundreds of children's
medications, aspirin, vitamins, as well as used as a sweetener for many
adult medications, for example: Parcopa (Schwarz Pharmaceuticals-Chicago,
Illinois), used to treat Parkinson's Disease.
The presence of Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde in medications is presently
the subject of a petition for rule change before the New Mexico Board of
Pharmacy, as well as a petition to end the use of Thimerosal/Mercury in
vaccines, based on the same statutory powers of the New Mexico Board of
Pharmacy.
http://www.wnho.net/statutory_powers_nm_pharmacy_board.htm
To contact H.J.Roberts, M.D., author of Aspartame Disease: An FDA Ignored
Epidemic--------hjrobertsmd@aol.com
http://www.aspartame.ca/epidemic-s3.pdf
Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock's articles and books are excellent:
Excitotoxins: the Taste that Kills
Dr. Blaylock's letter to Miami Herald regarding Calorie Control Council's
Neonatologically disastrous recommendation of
Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde, disastrous in terms of neurodegenerative
effects on fetuses:
http://www.wnho.net/mh_aspartame_letter.htm
Media Interviews with Dr. Roberts and Dr. Blaylock may be scheduled through
Dr. Betty Martini (770) 242-2599
Further medical information on effects of Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde:
at website for the World Natural Health Organization, www.wnho.net
For media scheduling requests, Senator Ortiz y Pino is at (505) 986-4380
Governor Richardson is at (505) 827-3000.
President Pro Tem of the NM Senate Ben Altamirano is at (505) 986-4733
Stephen Fox is at: stephen@santafefineart.com (505) 983-2002
Cori Brackett and her film revealing the vast epidemiological scourge of Aspartame, will be presented in Senator Ortiz y Pino's Press Conference. A copy of her film will be given to every legislator. After seeing it, they will recognize the urgent public health crisis if Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde is not banned in New Mexico, and perhaps all 112 Legislators will ask Governor William Blaine Richardson III to champion this legislative ban on Aspartame. To not do so before this legislative session ends: what a carte blance and green light it sends to every neurotoxic and carcinogenic food additive manufacturer in the world, that they, not the Legislature and the Governor, are in control!
Dr. Betty Martini, Founder of Mission Possible Interntional, an organization of physicians, lawyers, and aspartame poisoning victims, will be present as well in this important press conference.
We look forward to screening Cori Brackett's film, Sweet Misery, in the New Mexico Capitol, on Tuesday, Native American Day, and recognize the fortuitous coincidence of this effort reaching out to inform one of the groups most vulnerable to neurotoxic carcinogens, the Native American
population of New Mexico.
Please let nearest Associated Press Office Bureau Chief know, as well as medical/Consumer Desk at several newspapers, plus apprise all of your physician and journalist friends.
For information, please read http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/38994.html
You are most welcome to post a comment after reading the article.
Bill Text is at: http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/_session.asp?
chamber=S&type=++&number=654&Submit=Search&year=06
The press conference is in response to NM Senate Public Affairs Committee
voting 7-2 on Friday to table SB 654. 6 our of 7 of the Senators voting to
table regularly drink Diet Coke. Corporate lobbyists spoke at length,
representing Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, Ajinomoto of Japan (the world's largest
manufacturer of neurotoxic aspartame and of Monosodium Glutamate), the
Calorie Control Council (an industry front group), and the New Mexico Soft
Drink Association, all of whom have so much to lose if aspartame is banned.
Majority Whip Senator Mary Jane Garcia (D-Las Cruces), one of the bill's
original signators and cosponsors, spoke of her need as a diabetic to
continue to consume Diet Coke, and apologized for her having to withdrawal
her support of the bill, despite medical counsel for her not to continue to
consume a product metabolized as formaldehyde as a way of protecting not
destroying her pancreas. We are sure that her "about-face" in support
resulted from pressure by corporate lobbyists from Coca Cola.
The lobbyists for Ajinomoto now include Michael Stratton of Colorado, U.S.
Senator Ken Salazar's campaign manager, currently on the Democratic National
Committee's (DNC) Presidential Nomination and Scheduling Commission.
There are several Parliamentary procedures that can be used to achieve the
enactment of this SB654, which includes a $100,000 to the office of the New
Mexico Attorney General for enforcement.
_______________________________________________________________________
Such a ban on Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde as a food additive will
prevent and heal numerous neurodegenerative and carcinogenic illnesses.
Further, Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde has been allowed by the United
States Food and Drug Administration to be included in hundreds of children's
medications, aspirin, vitamins, as well as used as a sweetener for many
adult medications, for example: Parcopa (Schwarz Pharmaceuticals-Chicago,
Illinois), used to treat Parkinson's Disease.
The presence of Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde in medications is presently
the subject of a petition for rule change before the New Mexico Board of
Pharmacy, as well as a petition to end the use of Thimerosal/Mercury in
vaccines, based on the same statutory powers of the New Mexico Board of
Pharmacy.
http://www.wnho.net/statutory_powers_nm_pharmacy_board.htm
To contact H.J.Roberts, M.D., author of Aspartame Disease: An FDA Ignored
Epidemic--------hjrobertsmd@aol.com
http://www.aspartame.ca/epidemic-s3.pdf
Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock's articles and books are excellent:
Excitotoxins: the Taste that Kills
Dr. Blaylock's letter to Miami Herald regarding Calorie Control Council's
Neonatologically disastrous recommendation of
Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde, disastrous in terms of neurodegenerative
effects on fetuses:
http://www.wnho.net/mh_aspartame_letter.htm
Media Interviews with Dr. Roberts and Dr. Blaylock may be scheduled through
Dr. Betty Martini (770) 242-2599
Further medical information on effects of Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde:
at website for the World Natural Health Organization, www.wnho.net
For media scheduling requests, Senator Ortiz y Pino is at (505) 986-4380
Governor Richardson is at (505) 827-3000.
President Pro Tem of the NM Senate Ben Altamirano is at (505) 986-4733
Stephen Fox is at: stephen@santafefineart.com (505) 983-2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
