THE RESHAPING OF MEDICAL NEWS: THE EMERGING MEDICAL PORNOGRAPHY
<<< Back to main page
ARCHIVES - SECOND OPINION
By RFD Editor Nicholas Regush
May 19, 2004
THE RESHAPING OF MEDICAL NEWS: THE EMERGING MEDICAL PORNOGRAPHY
I�d truly like to be more cheerful about the future of medical news, but, sorry, I can�t make up what I don�t see and feel. The future of medical news will be a total mess.
If you think the alphabets � ABC, NBC, CBS � and more recently CNN and Fox have made a mess of things, by focusing much of their news content towards medical Establishment concerns and sensibilities, wait, just wait until you really get the drift of what�s coming.
Sorry, some of you are going to hate me for this, but I do not feel particularly happy that there are a ton of health sites on the Net. Why not? Because many of them � and, indeed, before long, most of them � will be MEDICAL HYPESITES. Ah, what does that mean? It means that their prime interest will be to screw us out of money and time. Can things get worse than that? More advertising, more poorly-researched �opinion,� more clear-cut agendas energized by the search for profits.
I�m particularly ticked off by many of the doctor sites on the Net. Mainly because the oddballs who run the most unsavory ones do not have a clue about what constitutes conflict-of-interest. They offer advice, pretend they are presenting news and manage to infuse their content with a series of product pitches. How can anyone in his or her right mind believe anything they have to say?
I�ve really had it with the medical screwballs on the Net. They have polluted what might have been a damn good thing � namely the broadening of the scope of ideas (without the stupid practice of shilling everything from fish to the latest hybrid supplements).
It�s sad, really. Here we thought the Net was going to open up our reality. Sure, in a way it has. Isn�t it great that the news gathering and dissemination of ideas need not be processed by editors who work for conglomerates? And isn�t it really great that intelligent people can produce their own videos, columns, and reports, and send them around to excite the passions of others? This is what the Net was supposed to be all about. This still occurs these days, thankfully, but the Net is increasingly degenerating into a free-for-all shill campaign, particularly in the health area: more and more breakthroughs in mainstream and alternative care, baloney cures, and opinions masquerading as facts. I view all this as a form of medical pornography.
It�s also sad because technology is getting cheaper, which means, in theory, at least, that more and more people could get involved in producing their own shows or mini-networks; such enterprise, if fashioned with grace and deep commitment, could truly make a real difference in the way we learn about developments in health. It would mean maintaining a critical eye, not getting snowed by the latest BS from the alphabets (who spew out one breakthrough after another) and the latest BS from some of the alternative health sites that appear to be run by morons who have no idea what constitutes substance as opposed to hype. And yeah, forget about the science. What in hell is that? And the real bummer here is that some of these people don�t seem to give a damn.
In the future, not so far from now, it will be possible for many more people to create videos (V-blogging, for example), and use a wide range of equipment to produce medical news. I�m predicting that a ton of this will be wedded to product sales and will become part of the ever-increasing amount of medical bilge available for daily digestion.
If you think I�m being too pessimistic, take a day and scan the countless health sites on the Net. Then tell me I�m wrong.
May 11, 2004
A PERSPECTIVE ON THE ABUSE OF IRAQI PRISONERS
By Nicholas Regush
Editor, Redflagsdaily.com
When we look closely at the violent villains in the high-profile shockers of the day, and that would likely include at least some of those accused of abusing Iraqi prisoners, we see that horrific violent acts are not necessarily committed by people who appear to be monsters.
After a mass murderer or serial killer is apprehended, neighbors interviewed by the press are often surprised: "He was such a nice man, very quiet" or, "Looking at him, you'd never think he could hurt anyone."
A sociologist might refer to the belief that killers should look different from "us" as "Lombrosian." In 1876, Cesare Lombroso, the Italian crime specialist, wrote Euomo Delinquente (translated into English in 1911), in which he argued that the "born criminal" could be identified by his "physical stigmata" - such characteristics as lobeless ears, receding chin and crooked nose.
We may have cast Lombroso's data aside as academically weak, if not silly, but we nonetheless seem to nurture his self-serving illusion. For, by whatever means, society has always distinguished between "them," the evil-doers, and "us," the good people. Yet the line of separation is crossed more easily than we like to admit, as shown by a classic study published in 1963.
Psychologist Stanley Milgram was interested in the relationship of aggression and obedience in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Like other social scientists, he was perplexed by the savagery shown toward other human beings during wartime by so-called normal German individuals. At Yale, he selected forty male subjects, aged twenty to fifty, from a cross-section of the population and convinced them to participate in a study that would focus on memory and learning.
These subjects were asked to think of themselves as teachers. Milgram instructed them to inflict higher and higher levels of electric shock on a "student" when he incorrectly performed a word skill. The student was, of course, Milgram's accomplice in the study, as was the "researcher" in the white lab coat supervising the test. The shock generator was, of course, fake. Milgram actually wanted to see if his subjects would become sadists. The results were provocative. Milgram reported that most of the "teachers" reacted negatively to the task, even showing signs of stress, but nonetheless obeyed the researcher's commands to continue to inflict pain, even when they heard screams from the accomplice, who had informed the teachers that he had a heart condition. An amazed Milgram wrote:
"In a large number of cases, the degree of tension reached extremes that are rarely seen in sociopsychological laboratory studies. Subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, bite their lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into their flesh ... A mature and initially poised businessman enter[ed] the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes, he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse ... yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end." Milgram concluded that his subjects became obedient in the name of science, adding that, in a society that teaches children to obey authority unquestioningly, such extreme behavior might be expected.
Although Milgram's study has been. replicated in several countries, the laboratory conclusions cannot-and should not-be extrapolated unreservedly to "real life" situations. The study, however, demonstrated that ordinary people under strong pressure will obey orders that might be reprehensible to them under "normal" conditions. Indeed, it appears that anyone may be capable of inflicting pain, or of killing .
In Eichmann in Jerusalem , political historian Hannah Arendt, writing of the Jerusalem trial of Nazi Adolf Eichmann, concludes that "the trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted, nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal."
Were the American soldiers who went on a well-documented three-hour killing orgy in My Lai , Vietnam, perverted or sadistic, or were they, too, revealing their human potential for violence? On March 16, 1968 , a platoon of U.S. soldiers, under the command of Lieutenant William Laws Calley, Jr., slaughtered about 500 unarmed civilian women, children and elders, raping some of the women before killing them. Many of the soldiers even joked as they threw grenades at the innocents. According to accounts gathered by Subnev Babuta and Jean-Claude Bragard in their book, Evil , the men later understood that the horrors of war had led them to perceive their victims as 'things,' not as human beings.
Perhaps pivotal in this case of wartime savagery is the fact that Calley's initial order to kill was ignored. Only when he returned to the scene and himself started shooting did his troops go berserk. Authority ruled the day.
Students of military training know that such a display of desensitization is the result of fairly common indoctrination. U.S. lieutenant-colonel Dave Grossman states in On Killing , his analysis of killing patterns in the military, that conditioning techniques to overcome a common resistance to killing have become increasingly sophisticated. The programming aims to develop quick firing behavior in a soldier. Grossman points out that authority and group pressure and feelings of being distant (either culturally or morally) from the enemy eventually overcome strong resistance to killing.
This is not a theory. The military banks on the fact that anyone can kill.
****
DOES A MILK BUG CAUSE DISEASE?
The bug is mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis. Let's just call it MAP. Also, let's say at the very outset that this is a bug that won't go away. The latest chapter in the MAP saga is that this bug, found in livestock and capable of surviving pasteurization - and therefore possibly spreading from cows to humans via milk - is now very much on the radar of British health officials. So much so that dairy farmers will now need to follow tough guidelines and will be required to screen their herds for Johne's disease, which is said to be caused by MAP. The major concern is that MAP may play a role in Crohn's disease. It appears that some research suggests that many people with Crohn's show signs of MAP. But as we all know the presence of a microbe does not necessarily mean it is the cause of a disease. Hence the ongoing controversy.
A conundrum indeed because many herds in the UK (and elsewhere, such as in the U.S.) are infected with MAP. And Crohn's, an often severe gastrointestinal illness, causing symptoms such as abdominal pain, disabling diarrhea, and loss of appetite, affects millions.
The fact that infected cattle continue to be used for milk production is of growing concern, particularly since some studies have indicated that live cells of MAP can sometimes be found in some raw milk samples and pasteurized retail samples. This is why UK health officials have called for screening cattle and measures to prevent infection. I suspect the move has been triggered by new research showing that as many as 90 per cent of people with Crohn's may have been infected by MAP. But the move has been deemed as "precautionary" because there is still no clear-cut causal association between MAP and Crohn's.
What bothers me about the ongoing MAP saga is that there has been limited testing of cattle for many years. There has not been a lot of incentive offered to test animals. Farmers fear heavy losses. It's often as simple as that. It also hasn't help to have the dairy industry yapping for years that milk is totally safe. This hard line may eventually run into big trouble. Maybe when the lawsuits begin.
THE SUPPLEMENT BATTLEFIELD: TIME FOR A RETHINK
At the slightest indication that some media report is warning about the potential side-effects of certain supplements, some people immediately react in knee-jerk fashion and condemn the messenger. This goes on predictably. The big mean media is once again socking it to the alternative health movement. The big mean FDA is on the prowl. The FDA should be focusing their attention on the big issues � namely the corruption and abuses heaped upon us all by the drug industry and their lackey doctors who prescribe often unnecessary and poorly-tested products.
Frankly, I sometimes experience some of those strong emotions myself. Having worked at a major U.S. TV news network as a producer for a decade and also as a print reporter for many years, I have been able to get a very close look at the ways that copy and script are sometimes produced and I can tell you that it is often not a pretty sight. There is too little thought that goes into some of these reports on alternative medicine and the baby is often thrown out with the bath water. I�m sure we can at least agree on that.
However�the sad fact is that there are disturbing signs that alternative medicine is rapidly going down the tubes. The legitimate practitioners � and I am fortunate to know many (some are even members of RFD) � are just as appalled as I am of the corruption and abuses that are occurring more often these days. That concern includes the way supplements are being hyped and packaged. I�m not, for example, referring here to your basic vitamin C, D, E (and so on) that are clearly of value for many people. I am, for example, referring to some of the marketing and packaging of herbal remedies, including the uses of these products in drinks, chocolate bars, and just about anything you can think of. And also, yes, ephedra. As far as I�m concerned, the FDA had no choice but to FINALLY go after the absolutely hideous, crackpot hucksterism that used this age-old product in a totally disrespectful, greedy, and utterly stupid fashion. And lo and behold, once the agency did finally make a move � much too late - there was all this whimpering from the knee-jerk supplement activists about the bad FDA. It is exactly this kind of indiscriminate thinking that is destroying the credibility of alternative medicine.
I think it�s time that those legitimately involved in alternative medicine begin to voice their anger and frustration about the rip-off artists in our midst. Being quiet and demure just doesn�t do it anymore. There is a major clean-up job that has become necessary and unless it is done quickly and thoroughly, there is not much hope for alternative medicine because the hucksters will take over completely. They are getting there now.
Read my lips. This position is separate from whatever one might say about Big Pharma, and I�m sure you�ll agree that RFD is quick to point out Big Pharma�s hucksterism. But let�s not confuse the issue. Supplements have become a huge business and so far it is pretty clear that the industry cannot manage on its own to chuck out the growing number of bad apples � those who do not have quality control for their products; those who mix and match just about everything imaginable because they think they have a bunch of suckers buying their products; those who do not warn their customers about possible bad reactions based on the latest information from studies; those who grossly exaggerate health claims; and those who take undue advantage of the prevalent anger about some FDA extremism (and unfortunately there is some of that injustice when it comes to alternative medicine). It�s time to stick it to the rip-off artists. And it�s time to get serious about protecting the credibility of new ideas about how to help the human body heal and stay well.
A NEW WAY OF THINKING ABOUT THE CAUSE OF MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
This is a must-read article for anyone who is interested in MS, but also in the never-ending process of reevaluation in science. Unfortunately when certain thinking patterns about disease become entrenched, anyone who challenges the orthodoxy is sure to be viewed by the Establishment as a heretic.
With this in mind, I wonder how two researchers, John Prineas and Michael Barnett, of the University of Sydney, will manage to hang on to their reputations and, in fact, their careers, because they have just published a study in the Annals of Neurology that, in essense, challenges the key idea in multiple sclerosis research that the immune system attacks nerves and strips them of their myelin sheaths, thereby causing neurological degeneration. This " autoimmune" theory has very strong proponents. In fact, these proponents, I'll bet, will be less than eager to give the work of Prineas and Barnett its proper due. Too much status and money is at stake. Too much drug industry money has been committed to an "autoimmune" theory of MS.
The work of Prineas and Barnett, which involved studying corpses, suggests that those wrappings around nerves - the myelin sheaths - are destroying themselves. The researchers suggest the process involves something called "apoptosis," or cellular suicide. This, for example, could occur if a virus infects a cell or if a cell becomes part of a tumor. Very intriguing, because a viral trigger of MS has often been proposed; most recently there has been some evidence that a herpes virus - HHV-6 - may well be that trigger.
Scientists who have proposed this possibility have found themselves battling an MS Establishment almost entirely focused on the body's immune system and how it attacks itself. There has been very little room for the introduction of new ideas in this fiercely-guarded sector of medical science.
-Nicholas Regush, RFD Editor
DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD AND THE MMR CONTROVERSY
By Nicholas Regush, RFD Editor
It doesn�t look very good for Dr. Andrew Wakefield, an English physician and researcher who has championed the need to investigate the potential relationship between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism.
Today, the scavengers of British journalism surfaced and attacked him and his work, and attempted to destroy whatever chance he may have to rescue his scientific reputation.
And today, British mainstream medicine hit-men also surfaced to stick him with a knife and twist it round and round.
I am not surprised by these events. It is what one can expect these days when a so-called �maverick� researcher dares to challenge the Medical Establishment. And it is certainly what one expects when the �maverick� runs against the drift of vaccine promotion and zealotry. And it is what one expects of the mainstream press when someone has been wounded.
Nor am I surprised that politics have now entered the fray. Tony Blair, undoubtedly still traumatized by his recent encounters with Iraq realities, has stepped in to add his cent or two, calling for an end to the MMR vaccine debate. An end to the MMR vaccine debate? Really? But I suppose this is a fitting sophmoric intellectual stand for a British Prime Minister who desperately needs to remove attention from his own trials by stuffing his nose once again where it doesn�t belong.
As for Wakefield , let there be no doubt that he appears to have been caught in a vice of his own making. In 1998, his study (along with numerous colleagues) published in The Lancet, possibly linking bowel disease with autism and suggesting, however briefly, that the relationship may have been triggered by the three-in-one shot MMR vaccine, should have carried a rider indicating that he had received money from a legal aid group via a lawyer representing parents, to conduct a separate investigation of whether the MMR was linked to autism. The fact is, he reportedly didn�t even bother to tell his research colleagues about this contract.
At a time when conflict of interest issues were percolating in medicine (at long last), there was no excuse to not have this potential conflict foremost in mind. The Lancet might have regarded the science differently had it known about Wakefield �s relationship with attorneys who were seeking to prove an MMR-autism link. To say, as Wakefield has, that he had nothing to be embarrassed about � apparently the journal�s simplistically-stated test at the time for conflict of interest � is to show a tremendous lack of smarts for what needs to be done to protect one�s reputation and integrity in science. I�m assuming here, of course, that the timeline established in an investigative piece yesterday in the Sunday Times is accurate, namely that Wakefield had already received up to $55,000 pounds sterling from the legal aid group prior to publication of his study in The Lancet .
There have been calls for an inquiry. Even Blair immediately knee-jerked in this direction, following others who want to see the General Medical Council investigate.
Here is what Blair told the press: �There�s absolutely no evidence to support this link between MMR and autism�If there was, I can assure you that any Government would be looking at it and trying to act on it.� If Blair actually believes what he said, he must either be loopy or very poorly briefed..
A defiant Wakefield is also eager for a broad airing of the issues surrounding the 1998 study. By his expressed desire to participate in an investigation, one assumes that Wakefield either has something in his hip pocket that might dispel the conflict-of-interest accusation or that he believes he can make a strong case for the integrity of the science he produced. This will be a tall order because it is generally and rightly believed that a conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict taints a study, no matter how it may have been conducted. The issue is credibility and this is why conflict of interest rules are in place � to allow others to decide whether to look upon research seriously or not. Conducting science is not an objective enterprise. Human personality and desires enter the picture whether one realizes this or not. Too many doctors and researchers think they are somehow immune to this process. They actually believe they can withstand outside influence of any kind � if they wish to do so. How utterly foolish this is. What do they teach in medical school?
When the Wakefield story first broke, my immediate reaction was that the hit-men of the Medical Establishment would exploit the opportunity to condemn the very idea that the MMR could be associated in some way with some cases of autism. This is what has happened.
Imagine the so-called �top doctor� in Britain, Liam Donaldson, telling the press today that �Dr. Wakefield�s original study was poor science...(and) independent experts and independent medical bodies around the world have criticized it.� So what? Numbers win in science? Apparently yes. But here we also discover the type of hyperbole that appears to be political. Either that or Donaldson is blissfully uneducated about the scant research of value actually done on the MMR and the fact that there is insufficient evidence to rule out a relationship between the vaccine and autism. Top Doctor wouldn�t have a prayer in a public forum on the issue with some intelligent researchers who understand the complexity and difficulty of researching vaccines. Donaldson also avoids, out of ignorance or stealth, the simple fact that there is some evidence produced elsewhere in the world that suggests that Wakefield may have been on a good track to get to the bottom of a major medical mystery. But more about that in another column.
As for the other man on the hot seat, editor Richard Horton of The Lancet, he is also living on another planet. He�s been quoted as stating that the MMR is safe. How revealing? And he is the editor of The Lancet? I think it's time for him to go. And How does he know that the MMR is safe? I'd give a tooth or two to be on a public stage with him. I thought he was a scientist, but apparently he is into some sort of crystal-ball gazing. Or worse.
The simple fact is, Wakefield has raised some major issues about autism and vaccines and the entire area is begging to be investigated in great detail, and not in the shameful manner that drug companies and their drone researchers conduct business.
The press. Well, what can one say that hasn�t been said many, many times before? That ludicrous headlines trample on any attempt to get at the truth? No, that�s often been said. That many health reporters show their ignorance of basic ethics and the fundamentals of research all too often when they tackle medical controversies? No, that�s also been said many times. In other words, business as usual.
The sad part of all this is that this sorry episode will likely drain further attempts to better determine if the MMR is safe. The conclusion that is absolutely safe, now so strongly pushed by the press, is a huge disservice to parents, children and the whole damn world.
DIETS AND SCIENTIFIC BALONEY
What a scoop! "Revenge Of the High-Carb Diet- Ha! It Works, Too."
What revenge? They call this science? As some of you may know, I don't endorse diets. And that goes for the Atkins as well. I've indicated my concerns that far too many people are jumping into the tank with half of their brain cells cooking. True believers. Just because they've done well, big deal. That doesn't necessarily lock up a diet as scientifically worthy. I prefer to keep an open mind and take hard, rather than soft, looks at the science behind diets. I typically find the science wanting - for all diets. There is too much that remains unknown to become a groupie. Sorry to refer to it that way, but get a life, will ya. Be happy that it works for you and, yes, by all means, speak proudly about it, but maybe you should do a little more research before you make the FINAL commitment. There isn't a gun pointed to your head, you know.
Having now completely shamed you, let me move on. Read the article linked to above and have a grand laugh. Anyone who buys this junk as science should go into basket weaving as a hobby. The main reason for laughing is the size of the sample. Get real. Can we do some big-time research first before we decide that a high carb diet wipes out the Atkins? Pretty please. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be hugely qualified in press reports, but no, the idiots always have to goose the data beyond belief. I imagine that the researchers may have a point or two to make, but making the argument for a high carb diet appear to be strongly scientific is an absolute crock.
And please let me go on. Consider the grapefruit diet. Sure, it probably helps people shed a few pounds, but again, big deal. For how long? And can we also have a bigger research sample before we assume the study is sufficiently powered statistically to even be worthy of promotion?
Good grief. The buzz these days is all about diets and now we have to endure hyped- up science and hyped-up news reporting. Be wary. Most of these small studies are not worth the paper they are printed on.
-RFD Editor, Nicholas Regush
