Black Raspberries

Without a doubt black raspberries are good for you. They contain more antioxidants than most other fruits along with anthocyanin, ellagic acid, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Calcium and many other nutrients. But let’s not get carried away!

The subject came up in one of those health stories on the news last week. The big announcement was that a new study indicates that eating black raspberries might reduce inflammation associated with skin allergies.

The story went on to say that in a study done with mice at Ohio State University and recently published in Nutrients “found that a diet high in black raspberries reduced inflammation from contact hypersensitivity.” They fed one set of mice a normal diet while another set had the equivalent of a daily serving of black raspberries added to their diets. After three weeks the ears of all the mice were exposed to an irritant “that caused contact hypersensitivity. Then, they measured the reductions in swelling, comparing the ears of each mouse.” It turned out that the swelling went down more quickly in the group of black raspberry eaters.

This is interesting and promising, but why does it make the news? Mice are not the same as people, or else drug companies could save a lot of time on human trials. They plainly state, as do most initial studies that it was “an early indication that those benefits might exist” and “more work needs to be done.” 

The health benefits of black raspberries are well known. Other studies both at OSU and elsewhere have shown promise in reducing inflammation associated with some types of cancer. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) published this paper on the benefits of the anti-inflammatory properties of freeze dried black raspberries on ulcerative colitis, a disease that can dramatically increase the risk of colon cancers. Again, the studies were done with mice, not people.

From another OSU press release three years ago: “The researchers have demonstrated the remarkable ability of black raspberries to reduce the development of tumors in animal models of cancer, including the oral cavity, esophagus, and colon.” At that point they were ready to start some limited human trials and were soliciting smokers to test whether giving them regular doses of a black raspberry-rich drink could “protect [them] from oral disease and lower the risk of oral cancer.”

They are clear in their conclusions however. This does not necessarily mean that black raspberries prevent cancer.. “A definitive human study to answer that question would take decades and be cost prohibitive. Instead, researchers will continue to evaluate the influence of berries on biomarkers of cancer in both animal models and short-term clinical trials.”

Of course that sounds too much like science and doesn’t prevent this website from boldly proclaiming: “Black raspberries are a cancer-fighting superfood,” while pushing copies of his book.

This is so typical. News organizations release as health news a preliminary study done with mice, as they cover the TV screen with stock footage of berries at the grocery store. It's an easy job; they don't have to do any work to get the story. Meanwhile, limited studies and early indications are misrepresented as definitive results and to promote the superfood du jour. (A few years ago açaí berries were the new superfood.)

All this hype comes around regularly because Americans tend to ignore the details (critical thinking) and look for the easy answers in the form of supplements and superfoods (discipline). 

Why FDA Approval?

With the desperate search for a coronavirus vaccine and medicines to reduce the seriousness of the disease comes a lot of discussion about FDA approval. One side argues that speed is of the essence and we need to accelerate the process. The other side argues that we can never be sure of a drug’s effectiveness without proper testing. (This will reflect some of the information from last week’s entry, “Understanding Experiments.”) 

The FDA admits, “It takes on average 12 years and over US$350 million to get a new drug from the laboratory onto the pharmacy shelf.” The first step requires about three years of laboratory testing before testing on humans. “Only one in 1000 of the compounds that enter laboratory testing will ever make it to human testing.” 

Next comes a three-phase process. First they must test for safety. Next they need 100 to 300 volunteers to test for basic effectiveness. Finally 1000 to 3000 patients in clinics and hospitals are monitored for effectiveness and to identify adverse reactions. Each phase can easily take years to complete. (And some people wonder why drugs cost so much and why the companies fight and scheme to protect their patents.)

In the interim some drugs that have been previously approved for other diseases are being tested on coronavirus patients. This practice of prescribing drugs off-label is really quite common in the US. WebMD writes, “Off-label prescribing isn't necessarily bad. It can be beneficial, especially when patients have exhausted all other approved options.”

This is why FDA approval is so valuable and why makers of so many pills, salves, ointments and medical devices are so eager to try to take credit for having cleared this hurdle. Otherwise the law requires them to post the familiar disclaimer: “The statements made regarding these products have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” (But the disclaimer is familiar only to those who bother to read the fine print.)

If companies fail to do this, it’s not the FDA but the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that comes after them for misrepresentation, as they did in this case – one of many that show up almost weekly.

“Under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, the marketers of an electrical nerve stimulation device called Quell have agreed to pay at least $4 million and stop making deceptive claims that the device treats pain throughout the body when placed below the knee and is clinically proven and cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to do so.” (From an FTC press release.)

I checked their website and found that they no longer show the device as FDA approved (to treat or cure), but still do try to give that impression through endorsements and research posters. They continue to mention the FDA at least twice on the site, referring only to registration, not approval – big difference. In summary, the “FTC alleged that the defendants lack scientific evidence to support widespread chronic pain relief claims…” but the site lists no such disclaimer. It’s big business and a $4 million fine pales in comparison to a $350 million development cost.

That it is “100% drug free and non-surgical” while it “stimulates sensory nerves with safe and precise electrical pulses to trigger a natural pain relief response” appeals to people with chronic pain trying to avoid addictive drugs. It’s understandable how such a device would tempt people, and if placebo does the trick it might be worth $300 plus an on-going expense for fresh electrodes.

Like so many other health and medical decisions, avoiding such questionable products is all about a little research and critical thinking.

Appropriately Skeptical

From time to time I see an ad from a local doctor promoting stem cell therapy for pain. It includes one endorsement telling how the office was so easy to work with and how the pain went away. For some time now I have been skeptical about the validity of this promotion. I thought stem cell research was not yet in the mainstream of medical practice, and I know that endorsements are not reliable evidence. It seemed suspicious, so I decided to look into it.

The promotional material on line states in part: “Stem cell therapy uses your body’s most powerful and flexible cells to promote natural regeneration in damaged joints.” It claims to be effective for a list of conditions: surgical wounds, tendon damage, severe muscle strain, arthritis, damaged cartilage, torn meniscus and many other joint and soft tissue injuries and conditions.

“The stem cells … come from your own body … a small quantity of bone marrow from your large hip bone.” (Using the recipient’s own stem cells avoids the need for FDA approval.) The on-site lab processes the harvested cells. The doctor then can “precisely inject your stem cell mixture where you need it … where they morph into new cell types” and provide “long-lasting relief” for “many [but not all] patients.”

My first stop was WebMD with a sub-headline reading: “Unproven, Risky Treatments Mislead Patients to Seek Cutting-Edge Therapy.” International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) “advises patients to seek only stem cell treatments being tested in clinical trials approved by the FDA”… or some approved smaller studies.

There is a lot of information on the site but it is summarized like this: “Every treatment has some risks. So the question comes down to whether the benefits outweigh the risks. And those studies haven't been done yet.” 

This Healthline report from about 18 months ago says that stem cell therapies are being promoted for a wide variety of conditions, but “very few of these applications have any scientific backing, [however] stem cell therapy for knees has been the subject of quite a few promising studies.” It would be a big improvement over knee replacement, but promising studies hardly qualify a procedure for routine outpatient application. They list the cost of this treatment at “approximately $3,000 to $5,000 per knee, depending largely on geographical location.” 

The FDA gives much of the same information. “Stem cell products have the potential to treat many medical conditions and diseases. But for almost all of these products, it is not yet known whether the product has any benefit—or if the product is safe to use.”

Consumer Reports chimes in with a sub-headline: “A new industry is booming. But critics worry that the treatments are ineffective and dangerous.” Here is a very brief summary: “Stem cells are special cells with the potential to repair damaged tissue and organs.” But “not all of them are possessed of equal power.” According to the current scientific consensus, the therapeutic potential of stem cells taken from fully developed tissues, adult cells, is believed to be much more limited. (Does this include marrow from hipbones? I wonder.)

That Consumer Reports piece is a long article with many warnings about the confusion in the field and the inability of regulators to keep up with the proliferation of clinics, both legitimate and otherwise.

Another reason I am skeptical is that the same doctor offers many other questionable services including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), calling it “one of the most powerful natural healing methods available today.” Some conditions include dry eyes, hair loss and erectile dysfunction.

The Pain Science website opinion published earlier this year describes it this way: “injections bathe troubled cells in a concentrated mixture made from your own blood. Hopefully this stimulates healing where it is otherwise failing … but no one really knows for sure yet.” Regardless, it’s not hard to find someone willing to do it for you, but it’s not cheap. “Without any clear evidence of benefit beyond placebo, PRP is now being marketed aggressively as a cure-all for sports injuries.”

I did this research not because I would consider going to a pain specialist unless I was referred by my primary care doctor. I did it just to show how careful we need to be to avoid spending a lot of money on dubious treatments. 

I didn't name this doctor because I'm sure there are similar ads running all over the country. I am not demonizing any doctor who may truly believe in such treatments, but it is a warning to patients everywhere. 

It is nearly always better and safer to be appropriately skeptical.

Why Aren’t We Insulted?

When companies and politicians treat us like compete idiots or pander to us by latching on to the latest trends, I think we should be insulted. We are being manipulated, but continue to respond predictably. The latest example that caught my attention was the CNN headline: “Colgate toothpaste goes vegan, organic and all-natural.” Using words like vegan, natural, organic and sustainable are sure to draw in customers, because they are supposedly synonymous with healthy and conscientious. The lemmings fall in line.

CNN continues that the new products “appear to be aimed at the same younger, more health- and eco-conscious crowd that buys from niche, smaller competitors like Tom's of Maine and Dr. Bronner's,” as part of a rebellion against artificial ingredients, a trend that Colgate-Palmolive believes “is making its way to non-food products as well.”

But not so fast! The Only Buy Vegan website objects to using toothpaste that may be vegan in name, but is not also “cruelty-free.” They provide a list of products that meet their criteria, including Tom’s as listed above. But Tom’s is owned by Colgate-Palmolive, which the Vegan Rabbit warns is not a cruelty-free company, because they do animal testing; and you shouldn't contribute to a company like that!

The vegan toothpastes are also “free from all the bad chemicals such as fluoride, SLS, parabens and gluten” and they warn us that regular toothpastes are poison. It’s true, warnings on the package tell us to keep it out of the reach of children and not to swallow more than the amount used for brushing. This is puzzling because fluoride is good for teeth, it’s in city drinking water, and reasonable people don’t swallow toothpaste. Of this list of scary ingredients, only fluoride was listed on my tube of Colgate; and since I don't eat toothpaste, I not worried about being poisoned.

This dental website is reassuring about those supposed dangers. “The benefits of a fluoride additive far outweigh the risks” and “just use 1/3 as much [as they show on the TV ads], the size of a pea.”

However, those vegan websites make it clear that it’s not totally about what people ingest (or brush with). It’s also about animal testing. I suppose that’s fine, but is testing necessarily cruel and is a blanket opposition to all animal testing an informed stance?

As a veterinary science professor once told me, “People who oppose animal research should consider how many of their friends and family could have suffered horrible deaths were it not for cures developed through animal testing.” The Foundation for Biomedical Research points out, “Nobel-winning animal research happens practically every year. In fact, of the 216 award recipients in the Physiology or Medicine category, 180 used animal models in their research.” 

This has led to many important breakthroughs. “Through the development of vaccines and other medical procedures, animal studies have accomplished amazing things, extending and improving the lives of both humans and animals.” The National Association for Biomedical Research details how it has led to significant progress in fighting the five leading causes of death in the world.

Anyone who wants an all-natural, organic, gluten-free solution, need look no farther than the kitchen cabinet. According to WebMD, “That box of baking soda…can do some major things” including holding off tooth decay by using it to brush your teeth and keeping your gums healthy. “A half-teaspoon of baking soda mixed in a glass of water can also freshen your breath.” It’s a traditional solution.

Problem solved, without undue expense. It may even be kind to animals, but be sure to pick the right brand. PETA says  Arm & Hammer is a no-no. 

As long as there are fads and trends, the advertisers and politicians will continue to use their magic words to get us to buy their product or their message before critical thinking has time to kick in. It’s so much easier to live that way, continue to be manipulated and follow the crowd.

Flashback - Health Advice

[Here is a combination of a flashback and an example of how easy it is to predict future news. In November 2013 I wrote the below essay with the title "Secrets to Good Health." This month the BBC ran an article about a BMJ (British Medical Journal) report that men can live an extra 7 years, 10 years for women, of quality life by adopting five healthy habits: never smoking, healthy diet, exercise, body mass index (BMI) between 18.5 and 24.9 and moderate alcohol use. That's substantially what I told readers over 6 years ago in the following flashback.]

As I read this information from Johns Hopkins on how to maintain good eyesight, it occurred to me that products advertised as the secret to good health must be a scam.

This article from a group of medical experts tells that other than regular checkups, to maintain good eyesight “many lifestyle factors that protect our heart health may also help keep our eyes healthy, including being active; getting enough sleep; controlling blood pressure and diabetes; not smoking; maintaining a healthy weight; and eating a diet rich in fish and leafy, green vegetables like spinach and kale. Wow, that’s almost the same advice for every other health concern, not only heart health, but also improving the effects of arthritis, preventing chronic illness , promoting memory and general mental health.

The real secret to good health is that there is no secret.  Health authorities have not been trying to hide anything from us. There is no big secret "doctors don't want you to know."  In fact they have been shouting from the rooftops at every opportunity. We are told over and over on a number of issues that if we want to avoid problems and just generally feel better we should: get enough sleep, eat healthy, drink alcohol only in moderation, stop smoking, get plenty of exercise, drink enough liquids, use sunscreen, wear work gloves or protective eyewear as appropriate, learn relaxation techniques to reduce stress, brush and floss, wash your hands and get a flu shot. This should come as a surprise to no one. We have heard all this advice or subsets of it many times for many years.

The problem with advice like this is that no one wants to hear it. Americans are looking for the easy way, one that requires little discipline. So every time a new diet book is published or the doctors on TV tell us about a miracle cure or another health secret, people want to sign up for the program (and send in their money). They can’t hold an audience by saying the same things over and over, especially when we are so desperate for secrets, so the authors and television personalities must give us secrets.

The real secret is the boring truth – that there is no secret. Like every other endeavor in life, staying healthy requires a little luck and a lot of discipline to stick to the best course of action. The rest is distraction.

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.)

Food Labels are Confusing

It began with a local health-news report that led me to the Consumer Reports website. The problem: Food labels are confusing. Not all claims and seals on food packaging can be trusted. 

Consumer Reports wants to help shoppers by making sense of some of the more common labels. But the labels they refer to are the ones designed to lure uninformed shoppers, enticing them to pay more for imaginary benefits like all-natural, non-GMO and organic.

I’ve written before about the science behind GMO foods and organic growing practices. Genetic modification acts as a short cut to the crossbreeding that has been practiced in farming for thousands of years. In some cases it will be the only way to save certain crops from going extinct due to diseases or pests. Organic produce has been tested and found to be marginally cleaner than traditionally grown crops, but if you wash your fruits and vegetables before preparing them, as everyone should, it makes no difference. (See the links for a fuller explanation or enter GMO or Organic in the search box in the upper left of this screen.)

Consumer Reports lists 6 seals of certification rated from fair to excellent: Grass Fed, Certified Humane, Animal Welfare, Non-GMO Project Verified, United Egg Producers, and USDA Organic. A deeper dive tells more about the certification process of each. For example, United Egg Producers Certified is rated fair overall for being very good in terms of verification but poor for animal welfare. Three labels are rated poor: Natural or All Natural, No Antibiotics, Non-GMO.

At a local grocery store I found seven different varieties of large eggs. Prices ranged from $1.09 for one dozen generic eggs in a gray container to $5.79 for a dozen labeled as organic and pasture raised. Priced between them were the cage free; cage free brown; free range; and the no-hormone, no antibiotic eggs. Apparently people will pay five times more for eggs to be reassured that the hens were leading a happy life, frolicking in a pasture. Of course, there is no label to tell how the hens are treated after they reach their 5- to 7-year period of peak production.

These decisions are mostly made by people who have never seen a chicken, pig or cow close up or visited a farm. They get their news from websites like this one that claims “rearing of farm animals today is dominated by industrialized facilities…that maximize profits by treating animals not as sentient creatures…” Each animal, according to them, is a “social, feeling individual capable of experiencing pleasure. The vast majority, however, are only familiar with deprivation, fear, and pain.” (Perhaps they called in an animal psychic or Dr. Doolittle to confirm this statement.)

Another site, with a more realistic and less of a concentration camp concept of farms, contradicts the factual part of the above statements. “About 98% of U.S. farms are operated by families – individuals, family partnerships or family corporations (America’s Diverse Family Farms, 2018 Edition).”

 Is this another form of virtue signaling, paying almost $6 per dozen for eggs because we care so much about chickens we will never meet? It’s no wonder that earlier this month the headline read: Consumer debt reaches record-high of $14 trillion.” As long as the cows, pigs and chickens are happy, what’s five dollars here and there?

Perhaps instead of trying to make sense of the seals and claims to help you understand the meaning behind them, Consumer Reports should have published the fact that most of those are simply marketing tactics playing on the egos, guilt and fears of consumers following the popular sentiment of the day.

What comes in the next issue, how to buy the right saddle for your unicorn?

Salt is Salt - Part 2

Almost seven years ago I wrote here about the sea salt scam. In that piece I quoted Mayo Clinic as saying, “Sea salt and table salt have the same basic nutritional value, despite the fact that sea salt is often marketed as a more natural and healthy alternative.” The American Heart Association (AHA) agreed.

But then a few weeks ago, I ran across an article with the headline: “How Pink Salt Took Over Millennial Kitchens.” Immediately it goes on to explain that, like sea salt, it’s not healthier than common table salt. It’s labeled as Himalayan, but does not come from the Himalayas. “Most of that comes from the enormous Khewra Salt Mine, situated between Islamabad and Lahore in Punjab, a bit south of the actual Himalayas in Pakistan.” 

Despite that, it has become another foodie fad, skyrocketing in popularity, featured at Trader Joes with it’s own grinder. The popularity stems not only from the color – it’s prettier than plain old white salt – but because it’s also rumored to be healthier. Take the warnings from the AHA and others about salt consumption, combine that with the fact that salt makes food taste good, mix that with the mistaken notion that this special salt is really healthy because of some mythological “trace minerals” and voila! - gullible people are willing to pay $2.70 a pound at Costco in bulk. For comparison, sea salt at Costco goes for 1.76 per pound and Morton Salt at a restaurant wholesale site is $0.38. Those must be some expensive trace minerals!

Contrary to what pink salt enthusiasts claim, real nutritionists agree that the amount of trace minerals in any salt “is too minuscule to make any difference, and we already get plenty of the same trace minerals from other foods.” Another site confirms that “The ‘84 minerals’ in himalayan salt is an unsupported claim.” It’s all marketing hype.

It’s so easy to go on line, though, to find glowing endorsements of pink salt pushing these imaginary health benefits. This one is a good example: “Many people believe that this pink salt is the purest salt that can be found on the planet.” Maybe so, but many people believe a lot of things that aren’t true.

In case you aren’t convinced by the purity and naturalness alone, it goes on to claim that pink salt stores “vibrational energy,” whatever that is. Supposedly it aids vascular health, supports respiratory functions, reduces the signs of aging, promotes healthy sleep patterns, increases libido, lowers blood pressure, and detoxifies the body of heavy metals – among other benefits. (Apparently, to get some of these benefits, we must add it to our bath water.)

First, the word detoxify should raise warning flags to anyone with any scientific understanding of how the human body functions. Second, the idea that any salt lowers blood pressure flies in the face of all medical understanding. Increased salt consumption increases the risk of high blood pressure. Finally, supports and promotes are words often used by snake oil salesmen regarding all sorts of magical supplements, potions and ointments to cure all sorts of ailments. Promoting and supporting cannot be measured, thus they are meaningless. It’s junk science at it’s finest.

But don’t let that stop Millennials searching for the magic potions allowing them to live forever. Set the grinder of pretty pink salt on the table to impress friends and mix it with the bathwater to increase libido and conquer aging. Then wonder why you are no healthier or younger looking and can’t afford to retire when you expect to. They fall for hype and fads in the same way their parents do. Gullibility must be hereditary.

How Can Facts Compete With Fads?

A couple of years ago beet juice was all the rage. Promoters sold a powder to dissolve in water.  They called it a circulation super-food. They backed up their claim with a pile of testimonials but scant scientific evidence; except that beets are vegetables, and vegetables are healthy. Does that make any vegetable a super food?

Well, step aside beet juice. It’s time for celery to take a turn.

How do we know celery juice is the latest super food? – Testimonials, of course! Says one article, “Celery juice is everywhere. So much so, that the two New York Whole Foods locations I’ve gone to in the past two weeks have been out of celery” as people buy it in bulk to take it home and run it through the blender.

These are not ordinary testimonials. Apparently the fad start when the Medical Medium (MM not to be confused in any way with MD) told his thousands of on-line followers that celery juice was “one of the most powerful and healing juices we can drink.” Since then it has been “rising in popularity within the health and wellness world” with tens of thousands of personal endorsements on Instagram. Among them are celebrity/influencers including Gwyneth Paltrow, Kim Kardashian and Debra Messing.

When I looked up articles about celery juice, though, most that I found said that those claims are false. This one begins with a headline, “Celery Juice ‘Benefits’ Are Total B.S., According to Nutrition Science.” The claims of it reducing chronic inflammation are grossly exaggerated. It doesn’t necessarily help with weight loss, because juicing any vegetable “will yield a higher concentration of sugar.” Any mention of detox should automatically be a red flag for anyone with an ounce of nutritional common sense.

Another website mocks the whole idea of the detox claim saying, “this entire celery juice trend is the epitome of bullshit pseudoscience.” It’s all about being a member of the super cool crowd that crowed about kale until celery juice was declared the new kid in town. It’s more about a need to belong, than a desire to be healthier.

Another reason people are drawn to juice fads is the convenience. The answer to not having time for fruit and vegetables is to grab a bottle or tumbler of the liquid equivalent, but it’s not really equal. The process of juicing compromises some of the nutritional value because it loses the beneficial fiber you find in raw veggies.

And Americans don’t get enough fiber.

This BBC article argues, “people who eat more dietary fiber are actually feeding their gut microbiome,” and “fiber leads to greater satiety, less insulin secretion, and more short-chain fatty acids, which all amounts to one thing: less body weight.”

Studies show that “those who had the highest intake of fiber or total fiber actually had an almost 80 percent greater likelihood of living a long and healthy life over a 10-year follow-up, [and] were less likely to suffer from hypertension, diabetes, dementia, depression, and functional disability.” 

This fiber, that BBC calls a lifesaving food, is easily available. “You find it in fruit and vegetables, some breakfast cereals, breads and pasta that use whole-grains, pulses such as beans, lentils and chickpeas, as well as nuts and seeds.” That’s whole fruits and vegetables, not the ones that have been run through a blender.

Once again, that’s the truth about another so-called super food. But how does the truth compete with celebrities, influencers and self-declared wellness experts with thousands of Instagram followers but no formal training in nutrition or science? All these fad diets are based on testimonials and endorsements that appeal to the emotions without any scientific basis with the sole intent of selling to gullible people their books, products and other secrets of good health.

Essential Oils and Climate Change

To try to win an informal debate, I remember hearing a woman once say, “I don’t care what the scientists say; I just feel better when I eat gluten free.” I also happened to know that this same person took the opposite view on climate change. She was convinced that climate change was a real, impending disaster based on information that the vast majority of climate scientists agreed on the premise.

Furthermore anyone who held a different view on climate change would be condemned, labeled a “denier,” someone whose opinion on that or any other subject should be disregarded because they were stupid. But it was not enough to ignore them. Anyone who disagrees in the least must be branded, cast out, unfriended or otherwise ostracized for the good of the world.

Using the opposite arguments in defense of two strongly held points of view did not faze her or the people she associated with at all. On one hand, science was good; on the other, science was too skeptical of the ancient wisdom or the latest fad.

Speaking of the latest fad, one that has been going strong for the last few years is a belief in the power of essential oils.

Although the name might imply it, there is nothing particularly essential about an essential oil, in the sense of it being necessary for life. The name comes from the fact that the oils extracted, usually by fermentation, contain the essence of a plant’s fragrance.

As this article written by a scientist, professor at McGill University with a PhD in Chemistry, explains, most of the claims about the powers of essential oils are unproven, untrue, misrepresented or exaggerated. For example, promoters claim that “either sniffing the right essential oil or rubbing it on the skin can support the immune system, enhance mood, promote sleep, cleanse the body’s organs, boost the libido, ease breathing, foster alertness, treat kidney stones, oxygenate the blood, relieve pain, reduce anger, prevent constipation and, of course, eliminate toxins, … readjust chakras, harmonize bio-electrical frequencies, cleanse negative energies, drive out evil spirits and promote sexual stimulation.”

He explains that a few of these are backed by evidence, such as using lavender aroma as a sleep aid. Many of the other claims have resulted in warnings to companies by the FDA, but that can’t control all the outrageous claims. “Sales of essential oils are dominated by multi-level marketing (MLM) companies,” who sell to independent distributors relying on commissions. No one can monitor what every one of these sellers promises in private conversations. 

Once again it is so easy to ignore the science, or simply not ask what studies have confirmed the seemingly magical powers. Take it on faith.

Interesting how, in one particular realm, scientific consensus is considered a strong argument in favor, with any minor expression of doubt leading to the accusation of being a denier. Meanwhile, in so many others areas, from psychic powers to performance bracelets to the healing power of magnets to detox cleanses to super foods to essential oils, taking the opposite stance is the favored response. No deniers there! No critical thinking either.

The Latest Big Thing – CBD Oil

I began to wonder about CBD oil when I saw on the local television news a very non-critical report about a new store in town. It was like a press release from the store that the reporters used as an excuse to fill airtime with a very positive interview of the owner, but without questioning any of the exaggerated claims about the its curative powers. I knew that it had been until recently illegal, making good scientific research very difficult and sparce, and that researchers generally look at only one effect at a time when testing any treatment. How could this substance arise out of the blue with so many promises?

This webpage, for example, lists seven benefits including: relieving pain, reducing depression and anxiety, alleviating cancer related symptoms, reducing acne, having neuroprotective properties and benefiting heart health. Of course the last three are conditioned with “may," “might” and “could.” It warns: “Although CBD is generally considered safe, it can cause adverse reactions like diarrhea and fatigue in some people. It may also interfere with certain medications.”

Based on such reviews, it appears to fall into the familiar too-good-to-be-true category. So I was not surprised to find the headline: “FDA warns company marketing unapproved cannabidiol products with unsubstantiated claims to treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, opioid withdrawal, pain and pet anxiety.” And if you are going to advertise in the realm of too good to be true anyway, why not throw in that it counteracts the growth of [and/or] spread of cancer, kills breast cancer cells, treats Parkinson’s disease, reduces the severity of opioid-related withdrawal, addresses symptoms of chronic pain, anxiety and ADHD, and helps with PTSD, schizophrenia, fibromyalgia and eating disorders. The FDA objects to all these claims (and more) as “unsupported and unapproved.”

 WebMD calls it “all the rage” but warns that “experts say the evidence is scant for most of these touted benefits." Like many other over-the-counter products and supplements, it is “being produced without any regulation, resulting in products that vary widely in quality.” Dosages vary from one product to another, possibly from one production run to another and from one brand to another. “Only one purported use for cannabidiol, to treat epilepsy, has significant scientific evidence supporting it.”

Last April the USA Today piled on, asking: “Is this hemp plant derivative snake oil or a legit remedy?” In addition to all the powers listed above, they add that it’s also hyped as a cure for inflammation, stress, unsatisfying sex and PMS.  But it's sold at local pharmacies (including the one that stopped selling cigarettes because they care so much about our health) in the form of creams, lotions, oils, tinctures, pills, powder or liquid. But this story also comments that the marketers' therapeutic claims are "rarely supported by medical evidence that CBD is significantly better than a placebo.”

Again from USA Today in a different story: “The head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse said there’s no evidence that marijuana [or CBD] weans people from opioid addiction – and promoting such treatment might deny people a chance at recovery.”

The Mayo Clinic sums it up: “While CBD is being studied as a treatment for a wide range of conditions, …research supporting the drug's benefits is still limited." It can cause more serious side effects than those mentioned above and “can interact with other medications” such as blood thinners.

And remember that part about it being unregulated? “Another cause for concern is the unreliability of the purity and dosage of CBD in products. A recent study of 84 CBD products bought online showed that more than a quarter of the products contained less CBD than labeled. In addition, THC [the psychoactive ingredient found in marijuana] was found in 18 products.” But don’t sweat those pesky details – it’s all-natural and I heard on Facebook…!

Save Your Vitamin Money

At least once a month we see reference to one or another survey or report about people being unable to afford retirement. They haven’t saved enough money, but may not be able to keep working either. But now just when it’s needed, along comes a reliable tip on how to save a little more: Don’t waste your money on vitamins. 

This is not the first time I have written about the waste and potential dangers of dietary supplements. The last entry on the subject of supplements in general was about two years ago where I quoted from the New York Times saying that annual spending in America averages about $100 per person. I focused on vitamin and mineral supplements as recently as last September. I was hoping after many attempts to have wrapped it up, but it’s good advice, so I will give it another shot based on some fresh headlines.

About two weeks ago researchers from West Virginia University School of Medicine published a study in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine showing “that although reduced salt intake and certain supplements may lower the risk of cardiovascular diseases, most nutritional supplements do not improve the risk for heart disease or death.”

An article reviewing that study quotes the lead researcher: “The reason we conducted this study was that millions of people in the United States and across the world consume supplements or follow certain dietary patterns, but there was no good-quality evidence to suggest that these interventions have any effect on cardiovascular protection." 

The study itself was not a clinical trial but a review of 277 other studies with a total of nearly one million subjects. It looked at the effectiveness of many popular nutritional supplements and 8 diets. “Findings show that of the 16 dietary supplements, only two showed beneficial effects on heart health, namely omega-3 long-chain fatty acids and folic acid….[whereas] selenium, vitamin B6, vitamin E, vitamin C, iron, and vitamin A, among others, show no significant effect on heart health.” 

Other important findings were that some supplements by themselves, not just the tainted ones that appear in the news from time to time, are potentially harmful. Another surprising finding was that “most diets, like modified fat intake, the Mediterranean diet, and reduced saturated fat intake, had no effect on the heart at all.”

Some other sources reporting on the same study had more watered down headlines. This one says, “For Heart Health, Some Popular Supplements Aren't as Helpful as We Thought.” But the sub-headline is more direct: “Consumers should ‘stop wasting their money on these products.’ ”

Another one is even more careful in its wording: “Nutritional supplements and diets not always protective, research suggests.” But they did provide a link to another study from 14 months ago that also came to the conclusion that “most commonly consumed vitamin and mineral supplements provide no consistent health benefit.”

The final conclusion as always is “only eating a healthy balanced diet is the key to overall health.” That shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying any attention to and looking into health news over the years. Once again, it’s looking for the easy, magical answers that cause us to waste time and money on pills and fad diets. Avoiding that mindset is, though, an easy way to come up with some extra money for that problematic retirement savings plan. 

Always a Good Excuse

Studying pea plants during the years around 1860, Gregor Mendel, a scientist and Augustinian friar at St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, suggested the presence of discrete inheritable units in nature. He studied inheritance patterns in 8000 varieties, tracking the transfer of identifiable physical characteristics passed down from the parent plants to next generations. Almost 50 years later Wilhelm Johannsen coined the term “gene.” After almost another 50 years Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins use X-ray crystallography to try to detect these inheritable units, leading to Watson and Crick’s discovery of the double-stranded helix DNA molecule.

Today we hear references to genes every day, but the science is still developing. Regardless of that, many people know just enough about genetics and inherited traits to use it as an easy excuse for any fault they don’t want to correct. Genes represent the hand nature has dealt us, and there is nothing we can do to change them – no diet, no exercise, no vitamin, nothing.

This point was made in a book I recently read, The Cure for Everything by Timothy Caulfield. In the introduction to the chapter about genes as health factors, he lists several headlines telling not of the scientific advances in the field, but of how the field has become popularized by promising cures for these immutable factors through some type of gene technology. (These are another variant of the news philosophy that I described back in early March when I wrote Stoking the Fear.)

His list of popular headlines included:

• Is Laziness Gene to Blame for Couch Potatoes?
• The God Gene, Does Our DNA Compel Us to Seek a Higher Power?
• Always Lost? : It May Be in Your Genes
• Party Animal: It May Be in Your Genes
• Marriage Problems?: Husband’s Genes May Be the Problem
• Genes May Affect Popularity, Researchers Say.

Since the book was published in 2012, I thought I could go on line and add to the list of handy  excuses:

• Pity the poor murderer, his genes made him do it
• "Mom gene" discovered in mice: Do you have it?
• "Binge-drinking gene" discovered
• Intelligence genes discovered by scientists
• Sweet-tooth Gene Discovered
• Obesity gene Discovery Could Lead to New Treatments
• Anxiety, Aggression Gene Discovered

So if you are not too bright, overweight due to your sweet tooth, tend to binge drink, are lazy, unfaithful to your spouse, a bad parent, unpopular and may be prone to anxiety or aggression or even more brutal forms of violence, not to worry. It's not your fault; you're not responsible. You can blame it all on your genes, sit back and wait for science to fix you! Of course if the headline, “First 'placebo gene' discovered” applies to you, you don’t even have to wait. With your increased susceptibility to the placebo effect, you can look up the first charlatan or natural medicine guru selling a sham treatment or a miracle cure and talk your self into getting better.

Gene research is important and may lead to some significant progress toward real cures, but so far all these somewhat outrageous health-related headlines are just a distraction. Responsible people don’t go looking for easy excuses.

The Miracle (?) of Homeopathy

One week ago I compared adults’ belief in psychic abilities to children’s belief in the Easter Bunny. But that is not the extent of these false notions. Another subject that adults love to believe in is miracle cures. It reflects a problem in the areas of discipline, not wanting to do the hard work or stick to a routine, and critical thinking, not wanting to accept evidence over stories. A good example of this is homeopathic medicines.

The theory dates back to the 1700s and is based on the idea that the body can be stimulated to cure itself by means of a like-cures-like reaction. In other words, substances that cause an adverse reaction in a healthy person can (supposedly) cause the body of a sick person to fight against the same condition.

Here is how WebMD explains it. “Red onion makes your eyes water. That’s why it’s used in homeopathic remedies for allergies.” Similarly, they may use poison ivy, white arsenic, crushed whole bees, and various herbs to evoke a beneficial effect.

“Homeopathic doctors weaken these ingredients by adding water or alcohol. Then they shake the mixture as part of a process called ‘potentization.’ They believe this step transfers the healing essence [from the ingredient to the liquid]. Homeopaths also believe that the lower the dose, the more powerful the medicine. In fact, many of these remedies [are so diluted that they] no longer contain any molecules of the original substance.”

The theory sounds a little like vaccinations where a small number of living or dead cells are injected to fire up the body’s immune system, but it’s not the same. Vaccines have something in them. Homeopathic medicines are diluted to the point where they contain only water, plus any contaminants the water carries. Therein lies the problem.

Last summer the FDA released a warning about one particular manufacturer saying, “Consumers and pets who use these products could have an increased risk of serious infection, that could require medical attention, due to the high levels of microbial contamination.” They warned three other companies for violations of (1) inadequate investigation of test results that found high levels of microorganisms, (2) lack of quality oversight of ingredients with potentially toxic effects, including snake venom, and (3) having insects in their ingredients.

The usual disclaimer applies to all these remedies: "Products labeled as homeopathic have not been approved by the FDA for any use and may not meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness and quality." 

It strains credibility that medicine containing not a single molecule of the active ingredient would be effective. The doctor who runs this site calls homeopathy “the ultimate fake,” giving a thorough explanation of his position. So if it does actually work, it must be a miracle. But what does the evidence show?

Here is a headline from Science Direct a few months ago: “A randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing antibody responses to homeopathic and conventional vaccines in university students.” Their conclusions from this well designed experiment were four-fold: 

• Homeopathic vaccines failed to elicit an antibody response.
• The antibody response to homeopathic vaccines was similar to placebo.
• In contrast, conventional vaccines showed a robust response.
• These findings suggest homeopathic vaccines should not be licensed.

How does a half-billion-dollar industry react to these facts? They continue to promote their products as “a safe, gentle, and natural system of healing that works with your body to relieve symptoms, restore itself, and improve your overall health. It is extremely safe to use, even with very small children and pets, has none of the side effects of many traditional medications, is very affordable, is made from natural substances, and is FDA regulated.”

Add "holistic" and "alternative" to that sales pitch and people will ignore facts and fall all over themselves trying to obtain some magical relief! Of course, with nothing in it, it is safe and has  no side effects, except possibly from contamination the manufacturer has overlooked. Here’s an idea: skip the trip to the health food store and feed your children and pets tap water. It’s basically the same thing, but even safer. 

Short Subjects

Gluten-free dog food: There are a couple of bad reasons for buying gluten-free dog food and only one good one. But first a little background.

“Gluten is the term for proteins found in wheat, rye, barley and oats. It has glue-like properties, allowing food to stay together. Celiac disease occurs in people with a genetic predisposition and results in damage to the small intestine because of gluten sensitivity. It makes digestion difficult for the affected population.”

The first bad reason is the same one explaining why people buy gluten-free food for themselves. The same website that supplied that explanation above goes on to say, “If you purchase a grain-free dog food, that generally means it’s also gluten-free. A manufacturer might label a grain-free food as also being gluten-free, but that’s marketing for the uninformed.” The only reason they would do that is to sell more product by driving an imaginary competitive advantage. (It might allow them to charge more, too.)

The second bad reason is to assume a gluten-free diet would benefit the pet. “Most dogs do not suffer from celiac disease, so a gluten-free diet is not necessary.” The sole exception is Irish setters that may have inherited a gluten intolerance, but this includes just a few Irish setters. 

The only good reason would be if a dog had celiac disease, confirmed by a vet with blood tests and a biopsy of the intestine. This would be a rare situation even if Irish setters were very common. To make sure I checked for the 10 most popular dog breeds according to the American Kennel Club. Irish setters didn’t make the list.

Then why do we see so many ads and associated material for gluten-free dog food? – The same reason we see gluten-free posted on so much people food – “marketing for the uninformed.”

Workplace Wellness Programs: These became all the rage over the past decade or so, especially within large companies. This website echoes the universal sentiment:

“Considering the improvement to the well-being and productivity of a healthy workplace, and the amount of time we spend at our workplaces, it makes sense to foster workplace wellness programs. Not only does it affect the output of team members, but it makes them feel good in all areas of life—including work.”

Having a suite of such programs makes an employer appear to be progressive and caring while making a wise investment. “One of the signs of a top-notch employer will be a workplace wellness program.”

Top-notch or not, a program that doesn’t work is not a good use of time and money, and according to this NPR health report, that might be the case. Workplace wellness programs, now an $8 billion industry, have received conflicting marks over the years from various studies, but none have been carefully designed enough to rely on – until now. 

Researchers from the University of Chicago and Harvard conducted the first large-scale, peer-reviewed study with a randomized controlled trial design. “They published their findings [last] Tuesday in the medical journal JAMA.” Details of the study can be found by following the link.

In the end, participants self-reported healthier behavior than those not enrolled, such as exercising more or managing their weight better. “But the efforts did not result in differences in health measures, such as improved blood sugar or glucose levels, how much employers spent on health care or how often employees missed work. Their job performance and how long they stuck around in their jobs also seemed unaffected, the researchers say.”

Since a benefit given is nearly impossible to take back, the large number of companies that have them will be forced to assume some hidden return on investment, but the latest scientific data does not really back that up.

Death Threats: Now that the Internet allows people to make death threats without leaving the comfort of their homes or even on the go from their phones, there seem to be more of them – and for more and more trivial reasons. Just last week an Atlanta meteorologist received death threats and other “inappropriate messages” for interrupting the Masters golf tournament to update viewers on tornado watches in the area. Of course a watch is not as serious as a warning, but it’s far more serious than watching golf on TV – except to some who accused the meteorologist of being pretentious and wasting their time. Perspective, anyone?

Stoking the Fear (Continued)

This is a brief follow-up to last Friday’s comments on how news and advertising use fear, especially the fear of death and illness, to sell products and capture viewers' attention. (When a study can point out that toasters and air purifiers cause indoor air pollution, eyebrows shoot up.)

Now comes another story highlighting how companies use the same tactics to sell products and services to fight aging.

“A company that charged patients thousands of dollars for infusions of blood plasma from younger donors said [recently] that it had stopped treating patients after the Food and Drug Administration warned consumers against such treatments, purported to prevent aging and memory loss.” That’s right, a company called Ambrosia, cleverly named after “the food or drink of the Greek gods, often depicted as conferring longevity or immortality upon whoever consumed it,” offered customers over the age of 35 an infusion of one liter of blood donated by 16- to 25-year-olds, all for only $8,000.

The FDA said that there was “no proof that plasma from young donors can be used as a treatment for dementia, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease or post-traumatic stress disorder, as some companies have claimed.” Plasma infusions are only approved for treating blood-clotting deficiencies in patients who are bleeding and in a few other very specialized cases. (Only one small study showed a slight benefit to Alzheimer's patients.)

Furthermore, the FDA warns that no matter how well screened they may be such treatments can result in: infections; serious allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, which can manifest as hives and airway obstruction; transfusion-related acute lung injury; overload of the circulatory system leading to swelling of the body and difficult breathing.

This company and others are operating outside of FDA guidelines and are charging big bucks for an unproven technology. These companies are capitalizing on that fear of aging and dying to prey on unwitting customers.

This one is just a single example. So many ads and news stories use the same tactics. Our only defense, as I wrote last time is to use critical thinking and perspective. If it seems too good to be true… 

It’s also odd that when people get outraged at corporations, they typically attack big companies such as banks, food conglomerates, Wal-Mart or McDonalds. At least these companies deliver a product that has some benefit. Companies like the ones above that offer products of zero or questionable value get little pushback, and it takes a government agency to warn everyone of potential dangers and about how they are wasting their money. Despite the lack of evidence and possible dangers, many still continue to patronize these and so many others like them. (See, for more evidence, all my previous blogs on dietary supplements.)