Pricey heart disease screening program virtually useless

(NaturalNews) Researchers in the U.K. are questioning the effectiveness of a $387 million a year heart screening program started in the country back in 2008. According to a report published in the British Medical Journal on the issue, the money being spent on this program would be much better spent on patients who are actually at high risk of developing heart disease. In most developed nations around the world, cardiovascular disease is the primary cause of death. According to reports, $46.4 billion is spent every year in the U.K. dealing with heart disease, and more than $503 billion is spent each year in the U.S. Many countries have been working on programs to help curb the disease. But rather than screen basically everyone between the ages of 40 and 74 as is currently being done in the U.K., some experts are now suggesting that only people whose medical records indicate that they are at a “high risk” of developing heart disease be screened. And according to the research, following this approach, which is much less expensive than screening everyone, will achieve the same results. “There are untreated patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease, most of whom can be identified from their electronic primary care records. We should act on this information,” explained Tom Marshall, a public health expert from the University of Birmingham, in a commentary on the study. The research basically concluded that the government program to screen everyone was no more effective at preventing heart disease than a targeted, scientific approach that identifies people who are actually more susceptible to developing cardiovascular problems. The team evaluated various alternative strategies including changing the screening age range, altering screening criteria, and using heart disease risk questionnaires, but the ultimately came to the conclusion that the government could save a lot of money by simply testing high-risk patients. In other words, it is wasting money on a program that is essentially useless. “A universal screening program for cardiovascular disease might prevent an important number of new cardiovascular events…but it may be unrealistic to implement it in increasingly resource-constrained health systems,” explained Simon Griffin, author of the study. Britain’s Conservative Party has indicated that it may get rid of the screening program but, thus far, the program is still in full operation. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63O2AF20100425

Weight Loss Drugs Produce Only Minimal Weight Loss, Even After Taking Them for Years

(NaturalNews) Weight loss drugs may result only in minor weight loss, even after long-term use, according to a new study conducted by Brazilian and Canadian researchers and published in the British Medical Journal. Researchers conducted meta-analyses of a number of studies conducted on the weight-loss drugs orlistat (marketed as Xenical and Alli), rimonabant (marketed as Acomplia) and sibutramine (marketed as Meridia), and found that users lost an average of less than 11 pounds, even after one to four years of use. Several key indicators of cardiovascular health were improved by taking the drugs, however. Researchers examined 16 studies on orlistat, which operates by preventing the body from digesting fats. The average long-term user of orlistat lost only 7 pounds and had reduced diabetes risk, blood pressure and cholesterol. As many as 30 percent of users experienced digestive side effects. Ten tests on sibutramine were also examined, along with four on rimonabant. Both drugs work by interrupting neural signals in the brain. Sibutramine was found to reduce patients’ weight by an average of only 9 pounds. In up to 20 percent of patients, however, it induced side effects including insomnia, nausea, and elevated blood pressure and pulse. Rimonabant users lost an average of 11 pounds. Six percent of users experienced an elevated rate of mood disorders, however. After receiving reports of psychiatric side effects such as anxiety and depression, the FDA refused to approve rimonabant for U.S. sale last year. Orlistat, in contrast, is approved for over-the-counter sale in a weakened form (Alli). The move to sell weight loss drugs over the counter has drawn substantial criticism, including in an editorial accompanying the recent study. “Selling anti-obesity drugs over the counter will perpetuate the myth that obesity can be fixed simply by popping a pill,” Dr. Gareth Williams of the University of Bristol wrote.

Few Women Truly Understand the Risks of Mammograms

(NaturalNews) One in three breast cancers detected by mammograms would never have posed a threat to the patient’s life, making all the treatments that follow unnecessary, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, and published in the British Medical Journal . “The question is no longer whether overdiagnosis occurs, but how should we react to it,” said H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, author of an accompanying editorial. “It’s not an imperative to be screened; in fact, it’s a close call.” Overdiagnosis refers to the detection of a non-life threatening cancer. In general, breast cancers come in three types: aggressive cancers that spread before they can be detected, cancers that spread slowly enough to be detected and treated early, and cancers that spread so slowly they pose no threat. Unfortunately, mammograms are best at detecting cancers in the latter category and not in the first two, and there is no way to distinguish the cancers from each other without watching them progress. In the new study, researchers examined breast cancer rates in parts of Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom both before and after national screening programs begin. If mammograms are actually saving lives, then there should have been an increase in the number of aggressive breast cancer cases being diagnosed. Yet while the rate of cancer diagnosis did increase, there was no increase in diagnosis of the dangerous kind. The researchers estimated that for 2,000 women who receive mammograms regularly over a 10-year period, one life will be saved and 10 women will be needlessly treated for cancer — including chemotherapy, radiation and even breast removal. “For too long, we’ve taken a brain-dead approach that says the best test is the one that finds the most cancers — but that’s wrong,” Welch said. “The best test is the one that finds the right cancers and nothing else.” Sources for this story include: bulletin.aarp.org.

Diabetes drugs warning: they cause heart problems

(NaturalNews) Widely used diabetes drugs appear to increase patients’ risk of potentially fatal heart problems, according to a study conducted by researchers from Imperial College London and published in the British Medical Journal . Researchers examined patient and prescription records to examine rates of heart failure, heart attack and death from any cause among 900,000 patients taking all different kinds of diabetes drugs. Patients were followed for an average of seven years each. Diabetes drugs fall into three classes: sulphonyureas, glitazones and biguanides. The sulphonyureas include chlorpropamide, glibenclamide (marketed as Daonil and Euglucon), gliclazide (marketed as Diamicron), glimepiride (marketed as Amaryl), glipizide (marketed as Glibenese and Minodiab) and tolbutamide. The glitazones, also called thiazolidinediones, include rosiglitazone (marketed as Avandia) and pioglitazone (marketed as Actos). Metformin is the only anti-diabetes biguanide on the market. The researchers compared all other drugs to metformin, which is an older, well-proven diabetes drug that is often used as a first line of treatment. They found that patients taking sulphonyureas were between 24 and 60 percent more likely to die of any cause than patients taking metformin, and also significantly more likely to suffer heart failure or heart attack. Patients on rosiglitazone had an increased risk of heart failure over metformin. Pioglitazone appeared to offer the same risk of heart failure as metformin, and both glitazones had the same risk of heart attack or death as the older drug. Because the elevated blood sugar levels characteristic of diabetes tend to damage blood vessels, all diabetics are at an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. Combined with the fact that chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease can take a long time to develop even when caused or exacerbated by drugs, this means that heart-related side effects to diabetes drugs can be very hard to detect. Often, they only emerge after products have been on the market for years. Sources for this story include: www.guardian.co.uk.

Drug side effects "neglected, restricted, distorted and silenced" by drug companies

(NaturalNews) New research shows that information on potentially lethal side effects of the blockbuster painkiller Vioxx was “neglected, restricted, distorted and silenced” by pharmaceutical giant Merck, writes London-based physician and author John Briffa in The Epoch Times . Vioxx was first approved for sale in 1999 and quickly became a top seller. Yet according to an analysis published in the Archives of Internal Medicine , clear evidence existed by 2001 that the drug increased the risk of cardiovascular thrombotic events, including heart attack, stroke and death. This evidence was contained in studies conducted by and for Merck. “Most of the information we are using in this study was never published, or if it was published, they never included the key safety data,” co-author Harlan Krumholz said. It has been proven Merck promoted Vioxx through the popular industry practice of ghostwriting articles and scientific studies for publication in respected medical journals. In addition, a recent article in the British Medical Journal shows that the company employed tactics designed to “neutralize” and “discredit” doctors who tried to raise concerns about Vioxx. Yet Merck still insists that it did not know about the heart risks of Vioxx until 2004, when it voluntarily withdrew the drug from the market. Practices like those Merck used to promote Vioxx are widespread in the drug industry, as revealed by numerous recent lawsuits against companies for concealing drug side effects, illegally promoting drugs for off-label uses, and using questionable marketing techniques. Briffa notes that Merck may now be engaged in an attempt to save the image of the cholesterol-reducing drug ezetimibe (also marketed as Vytorin), which does not appear to reduce the risk of heart attacks but may actually increase the risk of cancer death. “Never mind, though, because it appears Merck has managed to find some scientists who claim that this association is likely to be due to chance, even though the stats show it’s very unlikely to be due to chance,” Briffa writes. “Let’s hope history isn’t repeating itself.” Sources for this story include: www.theepochtimes.com.

New study: Breast cancer deaths lower in areas without mammograms

(NaturalNews) A 2005 study concluded that a push in Denmark to screen large numbers of women for breast cancer with mammography had reduced breast cancer deaths in Copenhagen by a whopping 25 percent. Sounds like proof that regular mammograms are truly life-savers, right? Wrong. Scientists from the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen and the Folkehelseinstituttet in Oslo have re-examined this pro-mammogram study along with additional data and come up with an entirely different conclusion. First, they found that the scientific validity of the 2005 study doesn’t hold up because the research was deeply flawed. Even more important: the new report shows there’s no evidence mammography itself was the reason behind any reduction in breast cancer deaths. In fact, deaths from breast cancer were lower in areas where women didn’t undergo those screening tests. The Danish research team looked at annual changes in breast cancer deaths in two Danish regions where breast cancer screening programs were offered to the public and compared this to data collected in non-screened regions throughout the rest of the country. To get a broad picture of the trend toward more or less breast cancer mortality, they analyzed breast malignancy rates in the decade before the screening was started and also looked at the ten years after screening was introduced. The results showed that breast cancer deaths declined by 1% in women between the ages of 55 and 74 in the areas where regular mammography was frequently used. However, breast cancer rates went down more — 2% per year — in women of the same age living in non-screened areas. And this trend was the same in younger women, too. For those between the ages of 35 and 54, breast cancer mortality went down by 5% per year in the screened areas but it went down more, 6% per year, in the non-screened areas during the same time frame. The researchers noted that there’s no evidence that the drops in cancer deaths in the women screened for breast cancer had anything to do directly with mammograms, either. “We were unable to find an effect of the Danish screening program on breast cancer mortality,” the researchers concluded in their study, which was just published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) . “The reductions in breast cancer mortality we observed in screening regions were similar or less than those in non-screened areas and in younger age groups, and are more likely explained by changes in risk factors and improved treatment than by screening mammography.” The BMJ study also noted that for women in the oldest age group (75-84 years), there was virtually no breast cancer mortality difference between those who were in areas where breast screening was pushed on the public and in non-screened areas. As NaturalNews has previously reported, in the U.S. even elderly women who are not expected to live long because they suffer from severe dementia are often regularly subjected to the expense, discomfort and added x-ray exposure of mammography (http://www.naturalnews.com/028095_mammograms_Alzheimers.html). Two members of the same Danish research team that published the BMJ study also published an additional paper in the March edition of the Polish medical journal Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnetrznej (Pol Arch Med Wewn) . It directly addressed the balance between the supposed benefits and known harms of cancer screening programs. “By attending screening with mammography some women will avoid dying from breast cancer or receive less aggressive treatment. But many more women will be over-diagnosed, receive needless treatment, have a false-positive result, or live more years as a patient with breast cancer,” they concluded. Moreover, as readers of NaturalNews are aware, studies over the past few years have actually implicated mammograms in causing some breast cancers to develop in the first place. For example, a study published in the Archives of of Internal Medicine in 2008 found that the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with an increased incidence of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html). For more information : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20332715 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20332505 http://www.naturalnews.com/028407_mammograms_radiation.html

NIH researchers are up-front about their support from drug companies, right? Wrong!

(NaturalNews) Medical research that is sponsored by drug companies has long been a conundrum. After all, scientists often welcome the big bucks of the drug industry in order to finance their studies — but can they be totally objective when they are supported by Big Pharma? NaturalNews has previously covered this problem and how mainstream medicine, including the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), has glossed over issues of researchers failing to disclose their association with drug companies (http://www.naturalnews.com/019914_JAMA_medical_journals.html). But at least the U.S. government’s own National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded scientists are open about their financial arrangements with drug companies, right? Wrong. And the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), an independent nonprofit group that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in the federal government, is calling the NIH out on this problem. POGO has gone public to urge NIH Director Francis Collins to deal strongly and openly with financial conflicts of interest among researchers funded by the NIH in universities and medical schools. Currently, the financial arrangements are reported on a strictly confidential basis only to the researchers’ institutions. This secrecy has obviously created opportunities for abuses and conflicts of interest involving scientists funded by Big Pharma. In a letter sent to Dr. Collins on March 11, POGO demanded that NIH sponsored scientists’ financial arrangements be made easily accessible to not only members of the U.S. Congress and journalists but to anyone in the public who wants this information. For example, POGO suggested that the information be made available in a public database posted on a website. “This kind of public disclosure is one of the best ways to protect against financial conflicts of interest in medical research,” POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian said in a press statement. In a published interview six months ago, Dr. Collins claimed he supported the public release of NIH researchers’ financial backing. “I personally am in favor of the idea that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The idea of having a public database where all investigators disclose what kinds of financial arrangement they have with outside organization is a good thing,” he stated. However, a move toward public access of this information remains, so far, all talk and no action. Meanwhile, yet another worrisome all-too-cozy relationship between Big Pharma and scientists has just been revealed by Mayo Clinic research published by the British Medical Journal . It turns out that virtually all researchers who came up with positive results for the anti-diabetic drug rosiglitazone had financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. In 2007, a large scale review of rosiglitazone concluded the drug wasn’t the safe medication it was hyped to be. In fact, taking the drug caused a significant increase in heart attack risk. So Mayo researchers decided to assess over 200 articles on rosiglitazone to see if they spotted any possible links between authors’ financial conflicts of interest and the scientists’ contentions the drug was safe and effective. The results showed about half of the study authors (45%) had financial conflicts of interest and almost a fourth did not disclose this information. The authors of three studies included in the latter group apparently downright lied — they published a statement declaring they had no conflict of interest. Most telling was the bottom line: almost all, 94% of researchers who reported glowing results on the safety of rosiglitazone were more likely to have a financial conflict of interest with a Big Pharma company than were researchers who reached negative views about the drug. For more information: http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/public-health/ph-iis-20100315.html http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/bmj-dfi031810.php

Vitamin D slashes risk of bowel cancer by 40 percent

(NaturalNews) A recent study published in the British Medical Journal found that high levels of vitamin D help to lower the risk of developing bowel cancer. The study, which was the largest of its kind, evaluated nearly 2,500 people with and without bowel cancer to see how vitamin D plays a role in preventing the disease. Scientists from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, and Imperial College London, compared 1,248 bowel cancer patients with 1,248 control group patients. Observers were able to make a clear connection between bowel cancer and low vitamin D levels, indicating that maintaining higher blood serum levels of vitamin D may help to prevent it. Vitamin D is primarily derived from exposure to natural sunlight where the skin converts UVB rays to the vitamin D. During the winter months or other times when sun exposure is limited, though, it can be difficult to get adequate levels of vitamin D. Few foods are rich in vitamin D but a few of the best sources include fish, cod liver oil, and raw milk. Despite their findings, study authors do not suggest supplementing with vitamin D. They claim that further studies are needed to verify that vitamin D does not increase the risk of developing other types of cancer or inflicting harm. They did estimate, however, that even a 10 percent increase in vitamin D intake among the U.K. population would reduce bowel cancer cases by 7 percent. It is unclear precisely why the researchers would not endorse vitamin D supplementation when considering that truly therapeutic doses of vitamin D range in the tens of thousands. Though the U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of vitamin D is a mere 400 IU, proper daily dosages range upwards of 10,000 IU for maximum health. According to the Vitamin D Council, fears over vitamin D toxicity and taking too much of it are unwarranted. To date, there is no solid evidence indicating that any reasonable dose of cholecalciferol, the natural form commonly labeled as D3, is dangerous. Twenty minutes of summer sunlight will produce roughly 20,000 IU of sunlight in the body, so supplementing with that amount will not cause harm. Research conducted by Dr. Robert Heaney from the American Dietetic Association also shows that vitamin D3 has a therapeutic index of 10, making it twice as safe as water when taken in reasonable doses below 40,000 IU a day. Sources for this story include: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7048340/Vitamin-D-guards-against-bowel-cancer-research-suggests.html http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vitaminDToxicity.shtml

Vitamin D deficiency now so widespread that rickets is on the rise once again

(NaturalNews) A clinical review paper published in the British Medical Journal is warning the public that widespread vitamin D deficiency is resurrecting the once-obsolete disease called rickets. According to Professor Simon Pearce and Dr. Time Cheetham, authors of the paper, people are getting far too little sunlight exposure which is necessary for the body to produce adequate levels of vitamin D. Nowadays, children spend most of their time indoors staring at computer and television screens rather than playing outside in the sunlight. On the rare occasion that they venture outside, zealous parents are quick to apply UV-blocking sunscreen that prevents the sun’s useful UVB rays from penetrating their skin and producing vitamin D. The result is an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency that is leading to all sorts of illness and disease. Rickets, a disease in which a person’s bones do not properly develop and harden, results when a person is getting too little vitamin D and most likely not enough calcium. The U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D is a mere 400 IU, an amount that is said to be adequate for preventing rickets. To put this amount into perspective, however, exposure to the summer sun for about 20 minutes is enough to produce up to 20,000 IU of vitamin D in the body. At this level, far more optimal health can be achieved. Yet the fact that children are beginning to develop rickets suggests that they are not even getting 400 IU a day, an amount that should be relatively easy to attain through a moderately healthy diet or a few minutes in the sun every day. In the U.K., there are several hundred cases of rickets reported every year. According to statistics, more than 50 percent of the adult population in the U.K. is deficient in vitamin D as well. During the winter and spring months, more than 15 percent experience severe deficiency. Researchers suggest that people with darker skin pigmentation are at a higher risk for rickets because they do not assimilate vitamin D from the sun’s UVB rays as easily as those with lighter skin do. Some experts believe that the changing ethnic profile of the U.K. may play a significant role in the onset of rickets while others point primarily to an overall lack of vitamin D among all ethnic groups. Either way, the changing lifestyles among all people are partially to blame as people are not spending enough time outside and, when they do they are using too much sunscreen to obtain any sort of benefit from the sun. Overuse of sunscreen can be blamed on government health authorities, regulatory agencies, medical professionals, and mainstream media outlets that continually exaggerate the threat of developing skin cancer from sunlight exposure to the point that some people are afraid of getting any at all. Sources for this story include: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/22/sharp-rise-vitamin-a-deficiency

Prostate Cancer Screening: 50 Percent False Positives

(NaturalNews) As many as 50 percent of all prostate cancer diagnoses may be cases of over-diagnosis, according to a study published in the British Medical Journal . Over-diagnosis refers to the detection of a cancer that, if left untreated, would never have any negative effects on a person’s life. This happens with cancers that grow slowly and do not spread to other organs, so that a patient dies of other causes before ever experiencing any symptoms. Because prostate cancers tend to be very slow growing, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended against screening men over the age of 74 for prostate cancer. Treatments for the disease can have severe side effects, including impotence and incontinence, and may even increase the risk of early death. Another paper, published in the same issue of the journal, found that the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test commonly used to assess prostate cancer risk cannot reliably predict this risk in most cases. The PSA is a marker of prostate inflammation, which in turn is believed to be a risk factor for prostate cancer. Yet in a study on 1,540 Swedish men, researchers found that PSA levels were not correlated with prostate cancer risk. The only exception was levels below 1 nanogram per mililiter, which suggest a prostate cancer risk of almost zero. The British National Health Service recommends referral for cancer screening such as biopsies for men between the ages of 50 and 59 who have a PSA level of 3 nanograms per mililiter or higher, and for older men who have levels of 5 nanograms per mililiter or higher. Another recent study found that regular PSA screenings did not decrease men’s risk of dying from prostate cancer. The British Parliament has been considering promoting more regular PSA screening, but so far has declined to do so. According to general practitioner James Kingsland, a member of the government advisory group on prostate cancer risk management, the new studies lend support to this decision. “It is using a test for something which it was never designed for, which is always dangerous,” he said. Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk.

« Previous Page — Next Page »