Is California Insane?

We are all familiar with the stories of the California governor ignoring his own Covid-19 rules to dine at an exclusive upscale restaurant with friends and supporters and of the LA County Supervisor who dined outdoors at her favorite restaurant hours after voting to ban such activity as too dangerous but before the ban took effect. They go out and party, then lock down the people who elected them.

 

That’s just simple hypocrisy. That happens across the nation, although California does seem to have a talent for electing some real nutcases to various levels of government. 

 

We almost expect that kind of hypocrisy from any politician, most of whom are elected on the basis of their charm, good looks or name recognition rather than their ethics and intelligence. But that’s not why California stands out. Here are just two of many examples.

 

The Glock Company manufactures and sells guns. On their site they list the GLOCK 19, a 9 mm Luger. It’s a handgun with a magazine capacity of 15 to 33 rounds. It’s not unlike side arms carried by police. The site carries a warning, only one warning, and it has nothing to do with gun safety. It reads: “This Product can expose you to chemicals including lead [in the bullets?], which is known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other productive harm.” 

The sun can also cause skin cancer. Will they soon require that all doors that lead outside carry a similar warning? The danger of catching cancer from a gun falls far behind other, more immediate dangers.

 

Last August an estimated 3.3 million in California were “Facing [the] Largest Power Outages In Its History … Amid Record Heatwave.” On October 23 the news came:  “Due to extreme fire risk the utility is shutting off 466,000 customers between Sunday and Tuesday.” Then on December 5 the news read: “As parts of California rev up for another round of potentially fire-fueling gusty winds, Pacific Gas and Electric is warning 130,000 customers across 15 counties that they could lose power starting early Monday morning.”

 

Disregard the fact that many experts believe California added to the wildfire problem with poor forestry management. Just think about those stories in light of this headline from last September, “California Governor Signs Order Banning Sales Of New Gasoline Cars By 2035.” 

Picture hundreds of thousands of citizens stuck at home on a regular basis without electricity to charge their cars (or their phones). It’s just one more good idea – unless you can see the unintended consequences. California citizens can sit at home in the dark and applaud their governor for saving the planet. 

 

The antics of California would be funny if they weren’t completely crazy, and if the rest of the country weren’t slowly drifting in the same direction.

Flashback – Coke and Pepsi Warnings

Much as the news media tries to upset us at every turn and on every subject, we don’t have time or the energy to be afraid of everything. That’s where perspective and critical thinking come in.

 

The following entry from 2012 gives a couple of examples of how the news media plays to our emotions, not only to enhance their profits, but often hoping we will take the bait and panic. It’s a power play, pure and simple, to push the public in a desired direction. If enough people back a belief, whether it's true or false, the government steps in with more regulations.

[One day I overheard discussion of a news item about using radiation to kill bacteria on vegetables. A colleague asked the rhetorical question, “Who would buy that?” I told her that I had done some reading on the subject recently and the irradiated vegetables were perfectly safe to eat. In fact, those vegetables had been exposed to radiation for at least half of the time they were growing and couldn’t have grown without it. It’s called sunlight. But people don’t think of sunlight as radiation. They don’t consider cellphone signals as radiation (except when falsely warned about cancer dangers). Radiation is thought to be always bad and dangerous – no distinction is made between harmless and dangerous. That would take some critical thinking.

People also fear carcinogens. If it might cause cancer, regardless of the conditions or dosage level, it’s bad. But so many things have been shown to cause cancer (including good-old sunlight, by the way) that comedians joke about it. There are even substances that were once considered dangerous but have earned a reprieve. It seems you can hardly move without bumping into something that at one time or another wasn’t considered deadly.

Now we get a recent news article about a substance in Coke and Pepsi coloring being banned in California because it caused cancer in lab animals. Later in the article it states that humans would have to drink over one thousand cans per day to reach the dosage level given to the rodents. Of course, if you tried to drink that much in a day the amount of water would kill you long before you reached the danger point for developing cancer. (Yes, you can overdose on water!) 

Perspective is about moderation, understanding that you can keep trying to make your food, your beverages and your environment purer but you reach a point where an extra dollar of effort yields pennies in benefit, and finally a point where an extra dollar of effort yields no benefit at all. Yet there are still those with so little perspective and no understanding of science who insist that the water and the air are never clean enough (and the soda never pure enough). Then it’s left to politicians and judges, not scientists, to sort it out.  And who pays any additional costs? – you guessed it!]

Flashback – Consumer Protection Gone Crazy

Back in 2011 I explained how new legislation regarding credit cards led to the companies increasing fees and interest rates. More recently, about a year ago, I once again emphasized how well intentioned consumer protection laws often have unintended consequences. Here is that entry from August 23 of last year.

[Last time I wrote about a lawmaker introducing a bill to protect Americans from Internet addiction, a condition that has no formal definition or diagnosis. Whenever a problem or “epidemic” arises, someone in power decides that there is a government solution to change the conditions or behavior. (Even when the government was the source of the problem.)

People are not trusted to solve their own problems, often because they don't. In the end everyone loses some freedom because of the bad decisions of a few. It takes critical thinking to identify the root of the problem and personal responsibility to own the solution instead of passing it off to a higher power.

This dynamic was reinforced a few days ago when a package arrived from one of those catalogs that frequently appear in the mailbox. In the package was a gift pen, similar to those used by various companies as promotional items. It was an ordinary retractable ballpoint similar to those from a dentist’s office or a job fair but with one difference. It came in a plastic sleeve with the words, “WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm” followed by a web address.

The address led to the California Proposition 65 page. “The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is establishing this website to provide the public with information on chemicals, products and locations often associated with Proposition 65 warnings.  These warnings inform Californians about their exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” 

Notice that the above statement reads, “cause cancer” not “may cause cancer,” implying that they have studies to definitively prove a direct causal link. Since the list includes over 900 chemicals, that is a doubtful assertion. Looking at one random example: “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide DEA) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen, which identifies this chemical as possibly carcinogenic to humans."[Emphasis added] Apparently it only takes possibly to make the list. 

The full list includes a large number of arcane-sounding chemicals, e.g., Amikacin Sulfate and Zalcitabine, but it also includes alcoholic beverages, aspirin, tobacco smoke, nicotine and oral contraceptives.  

How helpful is this? Is tobacco smoke or nicotine a surprise? Why do Californians need the information and not everyone else? Coffee contains acrylamide, which is on the list, so last year a judge decided, "coffee sellers in the state should have to post cancer warnings.” But in “2016, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization moved coffee off its ‘possible carcinogen’ list.”

This isn’t science; it’s judges and lawmakers deciding what should or should not be on a list. It’s “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” gone crazy. People don’t have time to be careful about 900 chemicals and all the products they go into. I have no idea which part of the promotional pen I should worry about or how it might hurt me. Tanning beds and sunlight are not on the list only because they are not chemicals. The situation is so bad that my seven-year-old granddaughter upon returning from a vacation in San Diego commented about how silly it was seeing all the warning signs everywhere coffee was sold.

Not only is this not helpful, it adds cost. The extra warning labels and signs cost money. It is costly to reformulate products to avoid having to post warnings, or worse, to avoid the threat from lawyers, “some of whose businesses are built entirely on filing Proposition 65 lawsuits” on behalf of “straw man plaintiffs." The cost of these nuisance consequences comes back on all of us. (Economic understanding reminds us there is no magic money tree to make up the difference. It all gets passed along to the end consumer.)

Does the list ever shrink or become reasonable, or do we get to the point where everything needs a progressively more meaningless label? I’m sure many people thought this was a great idea back in 1986 not realizing that they may be creating a monster.]

What’s All the Fuss about CBD?

As I was walking through the local mall, I had to steer around a large sign in front of the GNC store. It read: “CBD Products Available.” It did nothing to raise my opinion of GNC, which I consider to be the epitome of junk science, but I thought I should do some research to make sure my eye rolling was justified.

Cannabidiol (CBD) oil is an extract from industrial-grade hemp or the marijuana plant. It does not have the effect of getting the user “high” as the THC in marijuana does. It recently surged onto the market with a wide variety of health claims. What are the facts?

There is so much information, but it has to be sorted careful, as much of it is pure advertising, telling the stories of miracle cures. Many promises are unreliable to the point that in September the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered three companies to stop making claims that they: relieve pain better than opioid painkillers and that they treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), fibromyalgia, cigarette addiction, colitis, autism, anorexia, bipolar disorder, PTSD, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS), stroke, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, traumatic brain injuries, diabetes, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and AIDS – while using the words miracle and magic to describe the effects. The following month both the FTC and FDA warned a Florida company marketing CBD products about making similar unsubstantiated claims. (These were only the ones that were caught.)

Stepping aside from the hype, Science News published a story earlier this year that is a little more down to earth. “A gaping chasm separates the surging CBD market and the scientific evidence backing it. While there are reasons to be excited about CBD, the science just isn’t there yet.” Trials are underway, but “much of the existing research was done with cells in the lab or in lab animals, with results that don’t necessarily translate to people.”

The next stop was a WebMD article, “CBD Oil: All the Rage, But Is It Safe & Effective?” They remind readers, “experts say the evidence is scant for most of these touted benefits” and it is being sold as a supplement, “produced without any regulation, resulting in products that vary widely in quality.” So far “only one purported use for cannabidiol, to treat epilepsy, has significant scientific evidence supporting it.”

CBS recognized the quality problem in this piece from about three months ago with the warning that “without wide federal oversight, there is no way of really knowing what's inside CBD [products].” They commissioned lab tests of samples from all over the country and found no harmful chemicals but significant differences between the amount of CBD on the label and actual contents making proper dosage a big problem. In addition, “cannabinoids do interact with prescription drugs. But because we lack reliable controlled trials, we don't have enough detail to understand all the interactions.”

The same viewpoint comes from Harvard Medical School. “Without sufficient high-quality evidence in human studies we can’t pinpoint effective doses, and because CBD is currently mostly available as an unregulated supplement, it’s difficult to know exactly what you are getting.” The JAMA network notes that in studies to date "evidence of effectiveness was scarce," and that a California testing company found 85% of samples inaccurately labelled.

This Slate article makes the point clearly. As more and more products, from foods and beverages to creams and lotions, have CBD added “CBD is in everything, but it hasn’t been proven to do much of anything." Despite this, it is forecast to become a $22 billion industry by 2024.

In summary, with no scientific evidence of health benefits outside of the treatment of epilepsy, CBD oil has become all the rage with companies adding it to all sorts of products and selling it as a miracle cure. Some companies have crossed the legal line with their claims, but those that are more careful can easily imply that it’s curative powers are enormous without coming right out and saying it. Instead they rely on endorsements from beneficiaries of the placebo effect, as do many of the other supplements on the market. (In other words, my eye rolling was justified.)

Consumer Protection Gone Crazy

Last time I wrote about a lawmaker introducing a bill to protect Americans from Internet addiction, a condition that has no formal definition or diagnosis. Whenever a problem or “epidemic” arises, someone in power decides that there is a government solution to change the conditions or behavior. (Even when the government was the original source of the problem.)

People are not trusted to solve their own problems, in part because often they do not. In the end everyone gives up some free choices because a few of us made some bad decisions. It’s about critical thinking to identify the root of the problem and personal responsibility to own the solution, instead of passing it off to a higher power.

This dynamic was reinforced a few days ago when a package arrived in the mail. It was an order from one of those catalogs that frequently appear in the mailbox. In the package was a gift pen, similar to those used by various companies as a promotional item. It was an ordinary retractable ballpoint similar to those in a dentist’s office or at a job fair but with one difference. It came in a plastic sleeve with the words, “WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm” followed by a web address.

The address led to the California Proposition 65 page. “The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is establishing this website to provide the public with information on chemicals, products and locations often associated with Proposition 65 warnings.  These warnings inform Californians about their exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” 

Notice that the above statement reads, “cause cancer” not “may cause cancer,” implying that they have studies to definitively prove a direct causal link. Since the list includes over 900 chemicals, that is a doubtful assertion. Looking at one random example: “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide DEA) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen, which identifies this chemical as possibly carcinogenic to humans. [Emphasis added] Apparently it only takes possibly to make the list. 

The full list includes a large number of arcane-sounding chemicals, e.g., Amikacin Sulfate and Zalcitabine, but it also includes alcoholic beverages, aspirin, tobacco smoke, nicotine and oral contraceptives.  

How helpful is this? Is tobacco smoke or nicotine a surprise? Why do Californians need the information and not everyone else? Coffee contains acrylamide, which is on the list, so last year a judge decided, "coffee sellers in the state should have to post cancer warnings.” But in “2016, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization moved coffee off its ‘possible carcinogen’ list.”

This isn’t science; it’s judges deciding what should or should not be on a list. It’s “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” gone crazy. People don’t have time to be careful about 900 chemicals and all the products they go into. I have no idea which part of the promotional pen I should be concerned about or how it might hurt me. Tanning beds and sunlight are not on the list, but they are not chemicals. It is so bad that my seven-year-old granddaughter upon returning with her parents from a vacation in San Diego commented about how silly it was seeing all the warning signs everywhere coffee was sold.

Not only is this not helpful, it adds cost. The extra warning labels and signs cost money. It is costly to reformulate products to avoid having to post warnings, or worse, to avoid the threat of lawsuits from lawyers, “some of whose businesses are built entirely on filing Proposition 65 lawsuits” on behalf of “straw man plaintiffs." The cost of these nuisance consequences comes back on all of us. (Economic understanding reminds us there is no magic money tree to make up the difference. It all get passed along to the end consumer.)

Does the list ever shrink or become reasonable, or do we get to the point where everything needs a progressively more meaningless label. I’m sure many people thought this was a really good idea back in 1986 not realizing that they may have created such a monster.

Don’t Just Shrug

So often, especially on TV, a news story can go flashing by so fast that we hear the main point and don’t pay much attention to the rest and don't think too much about implications. Before we know it, they've moved on.

Last week the news came out with such a story, that the FDA has approved an exciting new cancer drug. According to an NBC report: “While several drugs are approved to treat a variety of different cancers based on genetic mutations, Vitrakvi, known generically as larotrectinib, is the first that is approved from the beginning to treat cancers solely based on the mutation.” Instead of being approved to treat specific cancers that arise in certain parts of the body, Vitrakvi goes after the genetic characteristic of a cancer arising anywhere in the body. Although it doesn’t work for all types of cancer, this appears to be a significant breakthrough.

But there is a huge downside. In the sub-headline NBC mentions that the wholesale cost is expected to be $393,000 a year.

Another website discussed the cost in a little more detail. “The wholesale cost for the children's syrup is $11,000 for a month's supply and the oral capsules for adults wholesales for $32,000 per month. With insurance, most patients would pay $20 or less for a 30-day supply.” (This last comment is the part that I think would blow past most people causing them either to shrug or to decide that the downside was minimal.) 

But it’s not, and it should make everyone slow down and ask where that money to pay the difference, that is, $31, 980 per month, is coming from. Initially it comes from the insurance companies, but ultimately it would come from premium payers, you and me - either directly or indirectly when employers count the benefit costs as part of total compensation.

Assuming that the estimate is correct and that this drug could benefit up to 3000 people a year, that’s $90 million a year that has to come from somewhere. And neither the insurance companies nor Bayer, the manufacturer, is going to foot the bill out of the goodness of their hearts. The cost will be distributed. Everyone must understand that this is true for all drugs that are covered in part by insurance. As newer, better and more expensive drugs are developed to treat or cure a wider variety of diseases, that same pattern is followed every time. This is basic economic understanding; there is no magic money tree.

This is the kind of information that slides by when we shrug it off without thinking it through.

Side comments: 

Is there any irony in the fact that the same company that makes this new cancer drug also makes RoundUp, a substance many people believe causes cancer and that some lawyers are now advertising about to solicit clients?

How would a member of the if-you-can’t-pronounce-it-don’t-eat-it crowd react if the cure to their cancer turned out to be larotrectinib? 

In other words, why clutter the courtroom and the dinner table with real science when you can rely on misinformation and Internet memes for guidance?

Why Do We Even Pay Attention?

So many scientific studies make the news that it’s hard to keep track of them all. Many of them contradict earlier studies and some don’t make much sense at all. I have given examples of both in the past, but here is one more in the nonsense category.

This headline appears in the UPI Health News section and reads, “Study: Morning people less likely to develop breast cancer.” Researchers from the University of Bristol in England analyzed data from over 400,000 women. That’s a very large sample size, in fact, it includes "the largest collection of genetic data on women with breast cancer obtained so far.” Unfortunately the first paragraph of the story is completely misleading. “If a woman regularly wakes up early in the morning, she has up to a 48 percent lower risk of developing breast cancer.”

That would seem to be something to pay attention to, but not without looking into the details.

A little later in the article, the utility of the information quickly breaks down. The study found “approximately one less person per 100 will develop breast cancer if they have a morning preference compared with people who have an evening preference.”

Suddenly they are no longer talking about actually waking up early. The subject has changed to having a preference for mornings versus a preference for evenings. It's a kind of energy-level situation rather than an alarm clock situation. And the 48 percent lower risk is now expressed as one less person in 100. Calculating that out comes to about 25 in 1000 who are not morning people versus 15 in 1000 who are. This is a minor risk either way, with a 975 in 1000 chance of it not applying at all.

Further on it mentions two additional pieces of information worth noting: the findings have not been peer reviewed and much of the data was based on self-reporting. 

Peer review occurs before publication in reputable journals. Fellow scientists review and approve data collection methods, the mathematics used in the analysis and the experimental design. And one of the least reliable data collection methods is self-reporting where, for any number of reasons, subjects have been known to embellish, exaggerate and misrepresent their actual habits.

Finally, what can an individual woman do about this? Remember, the study was actually about preferences. If you are not a morning person, is it possible to change? It seems as likely as hearing that left-handed people are more creative and suddenly deciding to become left handed. So the information may be useful to scientists who can further study genetic differences, but it’s pretty worthless to the general public.

Why, then, would news media bother to report on this? After all, I got every piece of the above information from one of several articles, all blaring the same eye-catching headline. Other than causing some people to needlessly worry, it serves no purpose.

They do it because it’s easy. They receive a press release from scientists motivated by the need for publicity to ensure a continuation of funding. Then they simply add a snappy, but not necessarily accurate headline, and their work is done. Throw in the scary word "cancer" and everybody wins - except for the unsuspecting public!

Any question about why critical thinking is more important than ever?

Cancer is Nothing to Toy With

Last week some troubling news came by way of a Harris Poll conducted for the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Based on a sample of 4,038 adults and an additional 849 cancer patients, they found that 39% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement, "Cancer can be cured solely through alternative therapies, without standard cancer treatment(s)" despite clear evidence that those patients “have much higher mortality rates.” Another  statement, "Alternative therapies are a good supplement to standard cancer treatments(s)," reached a level of 75% overall agreement. 

Some experts commented that the high level of agreement likely was due to strong promotional efforts by the alternative and complementary medicine industry combined with a weak public understanding of science. The opposite of alternative medicine is called evidence-based medicine. In the latter case there is evidence from well-conducted experiments to back up the efficacy of treatment; in the former there are only stories, endorsements, myths, legends, ancient wisdom and uncorroborated, so-called clinical trials. To paraphrase one doctor, “There is no alternative medicine; there is only medicine that works.” (Late addition, 11/20/2018: Spain plans to ban alternative medicine in health centres.)

Walking down the vitamin and supplement aisle of any pharmacy or grocery store exposes the shopper to a wonderland of miracle cures and preventive pills and potions. The only problem is that many studies have shown them to have little or no value (unless prescribed by a doctor for a specific need). And news about supplements found to contain little or none of what’s printed on the label, and sometimes containing dangerous substitutes comes out periodically. A law passed decades ago with a boost from the nutritional supplement lobby ties the hands of the FDA until after problems are reported. 

The industry survives on heavy promotion, a vast amount of shelf space and the placebo effect. But cancer is serious business and should be treated as such.

Here is a case in point involving Robert Young, author of the bestselling pH Miracle books. Sixteen months after going to jail for practicing medicine without a license he has been ordered to pay over $100 million in a civil trial brought by one of his cancer patients. Her suit alleged negligence and fraud after he advised her “to forego chemotherapy and traditional treatment, and instead go with treatment in line with his alkaline theories.” She now has stage four cancer and her oncologist gives her three to four years to live.

The 39% who say they would do this on a survey may be overstated. When it’s life and death people will make more considered decisions than when checking a box on a Harris Poll. But it does happen and every instance is unfortunate and avoidable.

I have advised many times in the past that words like miracle in "health" ads are clear warning signs of something fishy. After Young was found guilty of two counts of practicing medicine without a license, to avoid further jail time he “had to make a public admission [in court] declaring that he is not a microbiologist, hematologist, medical or naturopathic doctor or trained scientist." He may have been sincere about his belief in his miracle cure, but he had no evidence to back it up – as it turns out, and to the distress of his patient, he had just the opposite.

I like people to be able to do what they want with their time and money. If they want to throw it away on dubious pills, oils or ancient remedies, let them be. But when it comes to serious illnesses like cancer, please apply some critical thinking, and stick with real medicine from trained doctors. The odds are so much better.

Living Longer (continued) – Are Multivitamins the Answer?

Last time we investigated the headline about how taking at least three weeks vacation was the key to living longer. The bad news is that the study was seriously flawed and the conclusion seemed very questionable. Realistically, there is no need to despair as the three-week-vacation option is out of reach for most Americans anyway. But how about those vitamins so many people take daily? As I wrote last time, “Not so fast!”

Many articles and studies agree that, for the most part, taking multivitamins is a waste of time and money. This recent item from NBC puts it bluntly: “The multivitamin industry rakes in billions of dollars. But science says we're not getting healthier. Unless you have a clinically identified deficiency, the research tells us there is little reason to consume supplements.”

Remember my August 17 entry about what we think we know for sure? This is another subject that falls into that category of believing what we want to despite scientific evidence. About half of all Americans take a vitamin or other supplement with annual spending expected to grow to $300 billion within the next five years. (Reflecting on the Labor Day question of why do we work, imagine if that $300 billion could go into individual retirement accounts instead.)

So people are convinced (by the smooth-talking advertisers), but science continues to tell us the opposite, with reports citing “little evidence” and “no clear health benefit” and that “their use is not justified.” The only upside is that people who fall into the multivitamin trap tend to take better care of themselves in other ways. 

The downside is that these pills, like all other dietary supplements are under-regulated leading to consumers not getting what they pay for. In some cases, it’s not just a matter of throwing money away on ineffective pills. Instead, some contain fillers or substitute ingredients, and tests have found some containing contaminants, which may “pose serious health risks.” 

Even pure vitamins can be dangerous, especially in mega-dose amounts. High doses of vitamin E or A can be harmful, possibly increasing cancer risk. A 2017 study “noted that 20 percent of all cases of liver toxicity are caused by herbal and dietary supplements. Another study found that 23,000 emergency department visits a year are the result of adverse reactions to supplements.”

Well, now that the word is out, can we expect Americans to heed the warnings, make better choices and save their money? It’s doubtful, because this is not breaking news! Besides the fact that I have been writing about it off and on for the last five years, the headlines have rolled in for at least that long and been ignored. See the sampling below.

From earlier this summer: “The truth behind multi-vitamins: You may do more harm than good taking them.” 

“In the recent study published by the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, it says vitamin supplements aren’t doing anything for your health.”

From articles in November 2013 and November 2015: “Even though half the U.S. population pops vitamins in the belief they can help people live longer, healthier lives, a very extensive look at the studies that have been done show it may be a waste of time when it comes to preventing the diseases most likely to kill you.”

From HealthDay News in December 2013: “With three new studies finding that a daily multivitamin won't help boost the average American's health, the experts behind the research are urging people to abandon use of the supplements. The studies found that popping a daily multivitamin didn't ward off heart problems or memory loss, and wasn't tied to a longer life span.”

From WebMD around the same time: “The studies, published in the Dec. 17 issue of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, found that multivitamin and mineral supplements did not work any better than placebo pills.” 

CBS added in 2015, “taking lots of supplements may raise a person's risk.”

The articles and studies have all stressed the futility of using vitamins and other supplements as the magic answer to better health and longevity. The consistent reminder in every one of these reports is that, unless prescribed by a doctor for a specific deficiency, they are ineffective and never a substitute for healthy eating.

So apparently the vitamins are not the answer to health and long life either. But people don’t worry about any of this if they have been blessed with good genes – not so fast! We’ll look at that idea next time.

What We Think We Know For Sure

A few weeks ago my niece was in the mall talking on her phone to her mom, my sister. In the middle of the conversation, a man working there walked up and interrupted to tell her that it was a proven scientific fact that holding a cellular phone next to her head would cause brain cancer. She politely thanked him and continued her conversation.

In point of fact, there is no such proven science, and this has been known for many years. This government website states: “The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating…Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy.” They go on to cite findings from several organizations including the American Cancer Society, the FDA and the CDC. Those groups’ conclusions vary slightly between evidence not strong enough, no conclusive evidence and no relationship.

But people get these ideas stuck in their heads and swear by them. Even if you can quote the findings, backing them up with links and references, they will likely not change their minds. A couple of similar examples come from omega-3 fatty acids and dairy fat from milk and butter. Many believe the former is good for your heart, so gulp down the fish oil pills, and the latter causes heart problems. New research puts both these ideas in doubt.

From a recent Medical News Today article: “Studies have shown that those who consume fish regularly as part of a healthful, balanced diet are at a lower risk of heart problems. But the National Institutes of Health (NIH) explain that research is unclear as to whether these benefits come from fish or omega-3 in particular.” So no one knows if omega-3 itself has a positive effect, yet 20 million Americans buy supplements believing that they are doing the heart-healthy thing.

The HIH study reviewed 79 randomized trials with a total of over 112,000 subjects, which looked at the cardiovascular effects of taking omega-3 supplements. The supplements had "little or no effect" on death risk from any causes or on the risk of cardiovascular events, stroke, or irregular heartbeat. Eating walnuts or fortified products such as margarine "probably makes little or no difference.” Their overall conclusion – “Diet may help, but supplements do not.”

Of course advertisers take advantage of any misconception. They keep posting contains omega-3 on packages. If enough people believed in it and were influenced to buy, companies would add any substance endorsed by the current craze. (At least the superstitious American health enthusiasts don’t endanger elephants and rhinos like their Asian counterparts do.)

On the opposite side of the fence is the dairy industry. We have been misinformed for the last 60 years about the harmful effects of fat, told to avoid whole milk and butter. The theory was that fat eaten was absorbed into the blood and distributed around the body – wrong. The problem is sugar, but the fat-banners won the battle for the hearts and minds of the public and the politicians. 

Hence, average per capita annual milk consumption in America has dropped from 30 gallons in 1970s to 18 gallons today. This report tells of a new study of 2,907 adults that found “people with higher and lower levels of dairy fats in their blood had the same rate of death during a 22-year period.” They describe it as part of an “ongoing vindication process for saturated fats” like those found in milk, cheese, and butter. (Even 15 years ago the evidence was coming to light.) “The researchers concluded that dairy-fat consumption later in life does not significantly influence total mortality.’”

What do advertisers and food companies do in light of the facts that have been emerging over the last ten years? They play to the misinformed and to the conventional wisdom by developing (more expensive) milk from almonds, soybeans, cashews, hemp, rice, etc. to save the health-conscious from the dreaded “moo-juice.” They prominently display omega-3 (and other hyped-up additives) on their labels to give the impression of putting our health ahead of profits. It's left to the consumer to sort it out. Be skeptical, not gullible.

Real Medicine

There is no such thing as alternative medicine.  There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t. (Paraphrased from Dr. Harriet Hall’s excellent lecture series on YouTube.)

 I’m reminded of this wisdom when I hear news like this from NBC. “Complementary therapies may sound good, but they don't cure cancer.” Last Thursday researchers published the results of a study showing that “cancer patients who choose alternative medicine over standard, proven cancer treatments are more likely to die.”

The practice of using herbs or meditation is fairly common among cancer patients and may make them feel better and more at ease; but it does nothing to cure the cancer. People who rely solely on complementary medicines are more likely to opt out of proven treatments and twice as likely to die from the cancer.

The study also found that those who relied on alternative cures tended to be younger women with more education and more money. This is an exception to data showing that the poor generally have worse outcomes. It is only natural to look for a gentler, less intrusive solution, but better-informed people should know that doctors and the FDA “have warned for years that unproven treatments may lure patients away from legitimate therapy that can save their lives.”

That last sentence is interesting in light of another recent piece of medical news. “The Center for Inquiry has filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia on behalf of the general public against drug retailer CVS for consumer fraud over its sale and marketing of useless homeopathic medicines.” Their objection is that CVS sells homeopathic products side by side with scientifically proven medicines, leading customers to believe that the products are as effective as standard remedies for pain, insomnia, and cold/flu symptoms.

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) characterizes homeopathy as “a total sham” and explains their reasoning. Of course, they are a skeptical group, and this opinion would be expected. However, the experts come down on their side. “The FTC declared in 2016 that the marketing of homeopathic products for specific diseases and symptoms is only acceptable if consumers are told: ‘(1) there is no scientific evidence that the product works and (2) the product’s claims are based only on theories of homeopathy from the 1700s that are not accepted by most modern medical experts.’ And last year, the FDA announced a new...policy of regulatory action against homeopathic products.” (It's only the CAM lobby that deflects stronger action.)

 Isn’t this CVS that seems to endorse homeopathy as legitimate medicine the same CVS that made headlines a few years ago by refusing to sell tobacco products, because they cared so much about our health?

That’s right. And now they are trying to take credit for a 1% decrease in the number of packs of cigarettes sold in 13 key states where they do business. But critics of the CVS claim see it a little differently and don’t think CVS should get much credit for the improvement.

With such a small percentage of the market, most analysts don’t believe the CVS claim that smokers made the switch from cigarettes to “mostly ineffective nicotine patches and quit smoking. [It] only illustrates how little the company knows about the difficulty of quitting." With so many smokers trying to quit anyway, it’s hard to believe the CVS decision had much influence.

CVS counters that their studies show an impact on public health. Also, a spokeswoman adds that the company is trying to drive impulse buying away from the traditional junk food by “placing healthier foods – such as yogurt and fresh fruit – in key locations in the front of the store.” But they still place homeopathic products under signs that imply real curative power when CFI, the FTC and the FDA see a problem with that.

CVS and many others try to convince us that they are really interested in our health while they sell ineffective homeopathic products, dietary supplements and "alternative" medicines.  I wouldn’t trust them with my health decisions, but I’m a critical thinker.

"I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Help"

As I pointed out about 18 months ago, our lawmakers are always eager to help us solve our own problems.  This often leads to more regulations with ineffective solutions, solutions to problems that don’t exist or unintended consequences.  Motives are good but are based on the assumption that we are unable or unwilling to take care of ourselves or we otherwise acting irresponsibly.

The original post described how Congress was seeking to supplement the ineffective “Do Not Call” list with a special requirement to eliminate computer-generated calls.  The ROBOCOP Act was intended to require that telephone service providers come up with technology allowing their customers to block them.  They felt that these calls were “an annoying problem for telephone customers” as companies delayed dealing with them.  The simple solution of responsible citizens using caller ID to answer only recognized numbers and not buying into every sales pitch that comes over the phone apparently never came up.  We were assumed to be victims.

Now we face another crisis that we are unable to deal with, colorful soap tablets.  A couple of New York State lawmakers want a law to force companies to change the color of the laundry detergent tablets to make them less appealing to children.  I guess they didn’t understand that the “Tide challenge” was teenagers showing off, not children being poisoned. (One baby died in FL back in 2013 and only “eight deaths as a result of eating detergent pods were reported from 2012 to early 2017 in the US, involving six adults suffering from dementia and two children.”)

The company argues that consumers have a choice.  They make Tide in an all-white tablet and in liquid and powder form.  “But New York lawmakers and consumer advocacy groups said more should be done, including the Legislature passing the bill.  They call the new law ‘a sensible measure to address the products' dangers.’”  Yes sensible, if you want to step in to protect people from every possible danger. How many other laws do we need to prevent one death per year?

If that’s not bad enough, California wants to put a warning on coffee due to cancer risk.  Scientists found that high doses of the chemical that gives coffee its color, acrylamide, causes cancer in mice.  They have a law, referred to as Proposition 65, that forces companies to warn customers of all products on the list that they might come in contact with.  California coffee shops are fighting a lawsuit forcing them to comply.

There are currently over 800 chemicals on that list.  Their website explains:  “The list contains a wide range of naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that are known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. These chemicals include additives or ingredients in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs, dyes, or solvents. Listed chemicals may also be used in manufacturing and construction, or they may be byproducts of chemical processes, such as motor vehicle exhaust.”  You likely can’t run any business without posting warnings – even for chemicals that in high doses may cause cancer in mice.  The only thing they are not protecting their citizens from is information overload!

But why would state and federal lawmakers feel justified in assuming citizens are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves or would choose to act irresponsibly?  One doesn’t have to look very far for examples.

Recently LL Bean, the Maine-based company specializing in clothing and outdoor recreation equipment had to change its generous lifetime return policy.  “The company, which has touted its 100 percent satisfaction guarantee for more than a century, is imposing a one-year limit on most returns to reduce growing abuse and fraud.”  They found that over the past few years people have been returning “items that have been destroyed or rendered useless, including some purchased at thrift stores or retrieved from trash bins.”  The expense is unsustainable.

When lawmakers make these assumptions and pass more laws trying to protect us from ourselves it impinges on our freedom and raises our costs.  Until everyone begins to act more responsibly, we can expect more of the same.

Now Sugar Causes Cancer?

Eating healthy gets more and more difficult with so many warnings to heed.  Every other day someone is telling us that some other food may cause cancer.  Alternatively, we often find that the ones we were warned about last year are either less dangerous or actually good for us.

This report from the PBS News Hour is a good example.  “Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, said they have uncovered documents demonstrating that members of the sugar industry called off a study, named Project 259, in the 1960s because it linked sucrose – a common sugar – to heart disease and bladder cancer in preliminary experiments.” 

Several questions spring to mind.  Is the science from 50 years ago as good as the science of today?  Is calling off a study that same as confirming that the unfavorable findings are true?  What was the objective of this Project 259 that they happened to stumble upon these findings – surely the sugar industry didn’t say, “Look into the health benefits of our product, but if you find anything scary, stop!”  Does PBS not understand that linked to is not the same as causes?  And, what are these scientists doing poking around into documents from studies done in the 1960s other than trying to stir things up and make headlines?  Finally, haven't we been told over and over that it's artificial sweeteners, like aspartame, not sugar, that supposedly cause cancer?

Back in the 1960s they were denying that sugar was the cause of obesity, pinning the blame instead on fat.  It took scientists and the government over 50 years to get that straight and still some want to argue.

A more recent source from a couple of years ago brings this sugar/cancer issue up to date:  “It’s true that sugar feeds every cell in our body – even cancer cells. But, research shows that eating sugar doesn’t necessarily lead to cancer. It’s what sugar does to your waistline that can lead to cancer.”

How do we keep these conflicting and confusing stories straight?  Another source provides some helpful information.

In 2013 the American Society for Nutrition reviewed 264 studies on cancer risk for “50 common ingredients from random recipes in a cookbook.”  They found at least one paper reporting a cancer risk for forty of those fifty ingredients.  In total, “191 (72%) of the studies concluded that the tested food was associated with an increased (n = 103) or a decreased (n = 88) risk.  It seems that if you look hard enough, you can find a study that confirms what you want to believe about the dangers or benefits of almost any food.

The conclusion of this wide-ranging review confirms that notion.  “Associations with cancer risk or benefits have been claimed for most food ingredients. Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak.”

One writer put it into perspective with this comment:  “Perhaps the best example is processed red meat, which the WHO thinks will raise your relative risk of cancer by 18 percent. That sounds scary. That's still debatable, but even if it's true, then it would mean that if I declared today that I would eat an extra three pieces of bacon every day for the next 30 years, my absolute risk of colon cancer might go from 2.7 percent to 3.2 percent. That's… not that scary. And I'm not going to eat that much bacon, so it's likely much less.”

So, there we have it.  If sugar causes cancer, it’s in some good company.  It’s always important to put these reports in perspective, never counting on the news media to do it for us.  (But do take it easy on the Christmas cookies.)