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

(NaturalNews) Weight loss drugs may result only in minor weight loss, even after long-term use, according to a new study conducted by Brazilian and Canadian researchers and published in the British Medical Journal.

Researchers conducted meta-analyses of a number of studies conducted on the weight-loss drugs orlistat (marketed as Xenical and Alli), rimonabant (marketed as Acomplia) and sibutramine (marketed as Meridia), and found that users lost an average of less than 11 pounds, even after one to four years of use. Several key indicators of cardiovascular health were improved by taking the drugs, however.

Researchers examined 16 studies on orlistat, which operates by preventing the body from digesting fats. The average long-term user of orlistat lost only 7 pounds and had reduced diabetes risk, blood pressure and cholesterol. As many as 30 percent of users experienced digestive side effects.

Ten tests on sibutramine were also examined, along with four on rimonabant. Both drugs work by interrupting neural signals in the brain.

Sibutramine was found to reduce patients' weight by an average of only 9 pounds. In up to 20 percent of patients, however, it induced side effects including insomnia, nausea, and elevated blood pressure and pulse.

Rimonabant users lost an average of 11 pounds. Six percent of users experienced an elevated rate of mood disorders, however.

After receiving reports of psychiatric side effects such as anxiety and depression, the FDA refused to approve rimonabant for U.S. sale last year. Orlistat, in contrast, is approved for over-the-counter sale in a weakened form (Alli).

The move to sell weight loss drugs over the counter has drawn substantial criticism, including in an editorial accompanying the recent study.

"Selling anti-obesity drugs over the counter will perpetuate the myth that obesity can be fixed simply by popping a pill," Dr. Gareth Williams of the University of Bristol wrote.

The total failure of modern psychiatry

(NaturalNews) Modern psychiatry went wrong when it embraced the idea that the mind should be treated with drugs, says Edward Shorter of the University of Toronto, writing in the Wall Street Journal.

Shorter studies the history of psychiatry and medicine.

Modern U.S. psychiatry has adopted a philosophy that psychological diseases arise from chemical imbalances and therefore have a very specific cluster of symptoms, he says, in spite of evidence that the difference between many so-called disorders is minimal or nonexistent. These "disorders" are then treated with expensive drugs that are no more effective than a placebo.

"Psychiatry seems to have lost its way in a forest of poorly verified diagnoses and ineffectual medications," he writes.

Shorter calls for U.S. psychiatry to abandon its emphasis on "psychopathology" and instead adopt the European approach, which focuses on the symptoms and needs of people as individuals. Yet the draft of the latest edition of psychiatric diagnostic "Bible," the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), shows that U.S. psychiatry has no intention of changing course.

"With DSM-V, American psychiatry is headed in exactly the opposite direction: defining ever-widening circles of the population as mentally ill with vague and undifferentiated diagnoses and treating them with powerful drugs," Shorter writes.

U.S. psychiatry was not always obsessed with psychopharmacology, he notes. Its early years were marked by a psychoanalytic approach that categorized mental disorders in broad, fluid categories such as "nerves," "melancholia" or "manic-depressive illness." These categories sufficed because similar treatments would work for people suffering from any version thereof: lithium treated both mania and severe depression, for example, while the specific symptoms experienced by an anxious person had little influence on the therapies needed.

"Our psychopathological lingo today offers little improvement on these sturdy terms," Shorter said. "A patient with the same symptoms today might be told he has 'social anxiety disorder' or 'seasonal affective disorder.' ... The new disorders all respond to the same drugs, so in terms of treatment, the differentiation is meaningless and of benefit mainly to pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for these niches."

In the 1950s and '60s, a new wave of psychiatrists sought to turn away from psychoanalysis -- perceiving it as focusing excessively on "unconscious psychic conflicts" -- and toward a more "scientific" model instead. As a result, the DSM-III introduced the vague new categories of "major depression" and "bipolar disorder," even though evidence suggests that there is no substantial difference between the two conditions. At the same time, "major depression" absorbed what Shorter calls two very different conditions, "neurotic depression" and "melancholia."

"This would be like incorporating tuberculosis and mumps into the same diagnosis, simply because they are both infectious diseases," he writes.

DSM-V only continues the trend of extending the disordered label to more and more normal people, Shorter warns: "To flip through the latest draft of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, in the works for seven years now, is to see the discipline's floundering writ large."

For example, the new disorder of "psychosis risk syndrome" associates a whole new class of people with full-blown schizophrenia, under the logic, Shorter says, that "even if you aren't floridly psychotic with hallucinations and delusions, eccentric behavior can nonetheless awaken the suspicion that you might someday become psychotic." The implication, of course, is that such people should be treated with antipsychotics.

Symptoms of "psychosis risk syndrome" include such vague descriptors as "disorganized speech."

Other new "disorders" include hoarding, mixed anxiety-depression and binge eating. "Minor neurocognitive disorder" describes a reduction in cognitive function over time, such as that normally experienced by people over the age of 50, while "temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria" refers to children who suffer from outbursts of temper.

"DSM-V accelerates the trend of making variants on the spectrum of everyday behavior into diseases," Shorter says, "turning grief into depression, apprehension into anxiety, and boyishness into hyperactivity."

Sources for this story include: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100....

Anti-seizure drug linked to birth defects

(NaturalNews) The FDA has issued a warning that certain anti-seizure drugs have been linked to an elevated risk of birth defects and should be avoided by pregnant women.

The agency sent a letter to neurological and obstetric health workers warning that when taken by pregnant women, valproate sodium (marketed as Depacon), valproic acid (marketed as Depakene and Stavzor), divalproex sodium (marketed as Depakote, Depakote CP and Depakote ER) and related products have been shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular malformations, craniofacial defects, neural tube defects and other major birth defects.

For example, while the risk of neural tube defects in the general population is only 1 in 1,500, it is 1 in 20 among children born to women who took Depacon during the first 12 weeks of their pregnancy. The rate of overall birth defects is nearly four times higher in women taking valproate than in women taking different anti-seizure drugs.

Because neural tube defects often develop before a woman even knows she is pregnant, the FDA emphasized that the drugs should not be used in women who are planning a pregnancy, and that birth control should be used by all women of childbearing age who are taking the drugs.

Women are considered "of childbearing age" between the onset of puberty and the end of menopause unless they have had their ovaries or uterus removed.

The drugs are currently approved for the treatment of epileptic seizures and bipolar disorder, but are often prescribed "off label" for less severe conditions such as migraine headaches. The FDA emphasized that women of childbearing age should not be prescribed valproate or related drugs except for life-threatening conditions or in cases where other treatments have been ineffective.

Untreated epilepsy or bipolar disorder can also pose a risk to developing infants. Stopping anti-seizure medications suddenly can also be dangerous. The FDA recommends that any women being treated with valproate or related products consult a doctor immediately if they become pregnant or are planning a pregnancy.

Sources for this story include: www.attorneyatlaw.com.

FDA Finally Admits That Drugs for Crohn's Disease and Arthritis May Promote Cancer

(NaturalNews) The FDA has ordered makers of drugs for a variety of inflammatory diseases to add a "black box warning" about an increased risk of cancer in children and adolescents.

A black box warning is the most severe warning that the FDA can place on a product without withdrawing it from the market.

The FDA began analyzing the drugs, known as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers, when reports emerged that dozens of children had developed cancer while taking the drugs. TNF blockers are used to treat inflammatory and autoimmune diseases such as Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis. They include adalimumab (marketed as Humira), certolizumab pegol (marketed as Cimzia), etanercept (marketed as Enbrel), golimumab (marketed as Simponi) and infliximab (marketed as Remicade.

"FDA announced that it has completed its analysis of TNF blockers and has concluded that there is an increased risk of lymphoma and other cancers associated with the use of these drugs in children and adolescents," spokesperson Crystal Rice said . "This new safety information is now being added to the boxed warning for these products."

The drugs already carry warnings about the risk of fungal infections and other side effects.

Since people with the inflammatory diseases that TNF blockers treat are already at an increased risk of cancer, those who take the drugs are at particularly high risk.

"It's good to have this information out there," said Patience White of the Arthritis Foundation. "It gives people with arthritis an opportunity to go to their doctor and talk about the risk/benefits."

The FDA advises all patients currently taking TNF blockers that the drugs may increase their risk of lymphoma, leukemia and other cancers; may worsen pre-psoriasis; and may increase the risk of psoriasis. Such patients should watch for cancer warning signs such as swollen lymph nodes in the neck, underarms or groin; unexpected weight loss or fatigue; or easy bruising or bleeding. Any such symptoms should be discussed with a doctor. Patients should not stop or change prescription drugs without consulting a physician first.

Sources for this story include: health.usnews.com.

AstraZeneca Denied Drug's Link to Diabetes for Years After Admitting Link to Japanese Physicians

(NaturalNews) Drug giant AstraZeneca attempted to obscure the connection between one of its blockbuster drugs and diabetes risk for years after it knew of the problem, according to documents recently unsealed as part of lawsuits against the company.

More than 15,000 patients have sought damages from the company, alleging that they were harmed by side effects from its atypical antipsychotic Seroquel. According to the plaintiffs, AstraZeneca deliberately hid information linking the drug to an increased risk of weight gain and diabetes. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case for the purpose of pre-trial proceedings.

The recently unsealed documents include notes from a meeting between salesperson Nancy White and a doctor in July 2006, during which the doctor said that his patients were expressing concern about Seroquel's links to diabetes. White reported telling the doctor that "there has been no causative effect" proven between the drug and the disease.

Yet in November 2002, AstraZeneca had issued a warning to doctors in Japan that due to dozens of reports linking Seroquel to diabetes, "causality with the drug could not be ruled out." The company cautioned doctors not to prescribe the drugs to diabetics and to encourage all Seroquel patients to monitor their blood sugar. Just over a year later, the company issued a similar warning to doctors in the United States.

"It's pretty clear that if a drug poses a diabetes risk in one country, it poses that risk in others," said psychiatrist Dan Carlat of Tufts University. "I don't think it's ethical to warn doctors in Japan about this drug and then downplay or ignore the risk in the U.S."

Other documents reveal that the company trained its salespeople to dodge questions about the connection between Seroquel and weight gain.

Seroquel remains AstraZeneca's second-best selling drug, pulling in $4.45 billion in 2008.

Sources for this story include: www.bloomberg.com.

Antidepressants dramatically raise risk of cataracts

(NaturalNews) Of the 35 million Americans who are age 65 or older, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) claims about 7 million of them suffer from clinical depression -- and millions are on the prescription antidepressant drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as Prozac, Paxil, Lexapro and Zoloft. Hyped by Big Pharma as the way to solve depression problems in all age groups, these medications come with a litany of serious side effects, including some that are particularly dangerous for elders.

For example, a University of Minnesota study found SSRIs increase the rate of bone loss in older men and women. And now there's even more reason for seniors to be wary of taking SSRIs. New research just published in Ophthalmology, the journal of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, concludes taking these antidepressants substantially raises the risk of sight-threatening cataracts.

A cataract is a clouding of the lens in the eye that affects vision. In fact, as cataracts progress, they can cause enough deterioration of eyesight that surgery is needed to remove them. Although cataracts are common in older people, there are many factors that can increase a person's risk of actually developing the eye problem, including exposure to cigarette smoke, air pollution, and heavy alcohol consumption. And now you can add taking SSRIs to that list.

22,000 more victims of SSRI drugs each year

The new study, led by Mahyar Etminan, PharmD, of Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute in Canada, involved analyzing data on nearly 19,000 people 65 years old or older. Then their health records were compared to about 190,000 controls. The research team found that, overall, taking SSRIs raised the risk of cataracts by about 15 percent. In the U.S., that translates to 22,000 additional cataract cases caused by the drugs each year.

Those overall findings may sound worrisome enough. But when you look at what the study showed about specific drugs, it is clear that three commonly prescribed antidepressants greatly up the risk of cataracts. Paxil (paroxetine) elevated cataract risk by 23 percent, Effexor (venlafaxine) pushed the odds of getting cataracts up 33 percent and Luvox (fluvoxamine) increased the risk by a whopping 39 percent.

The good news is that the increased risk was associated only with current, not past, drug use -- so those who are no longer taking SSRIs can breathe a little easier about their cataract risk. The research team also found that some antidepressants did not appear to be associated with cataract risk, but they acknowledged this could have been because the numbers of study participants using these drug types were too small to show effects.

So how could SSRIs spur on cataract formation? "The eye's lens has serotonin receptors, and animal studies have shown that excess serotonin can make the lens opaque and lead to cataract formation," Dr. Etminan said in a statement to the press. "If our findings are confirmed in future studies, doctors and patients should consider cataract risk when prescribing some SSRIs for seniors."

As NaturalNews reported last March, researchers have found that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increases the risk for cataracts, too (http://www.naturalnews.com/028349_H...). Swedish scientists found that women who were taking or who had ever taken HRT had significantly higher rates of cataracts so severe they had to be removed.

For more information:
http://www.healingfoodreference.com...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...

Baby boomers still love to get high, now using prescription meds

(NaturalNews) Nearly one in 20 U.S. residents above the age of 50 regularly abuses illegal or prescription drugs, according to a report issued by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

"This new data has profound implications for the health and well being of older adults who continue to abuse substances," agency head Pamela Hyde said. "These findings highlight the need for prevention programs for all ages as well as to establish improved screening and appropriate referral to treatment as part of routine health care services."

Researchers warn that the number of Baby Boomers seeking drug abuse treatment is expected to double in the next 10 years.

According to the survey, 4.7 percent of adults over the age of 50 -- 4.3 million people -- have used an illicit drug in the past year. Forty-five percent of these reported using marijuana, 33 percent reported non-medical use of a prescription drug, and the remaining 22 percent reported using an illegal drug other than marijuana.

Men were more likely to use marijuana, with 4.2 percent of respondents reporting use of the drug in the past year and only 2.3 percent reporting prescription drug abuse. In contrast, 1.9 percent of women reported prescription drug abuse and 1.7 percent reported marijuana use.

Use of marijuana appeared to be more common among younger Baby Boomers, with adults aged 50 to 59 preferring that drug while adults 65 and older were more likely to abuse prescription drugs. In contrast with the overall 4.7 percent drug use statistic, a full 8.5 percent of men between the ages of 50 and 54 reported using marijuana in the past year. This suggests that many now-seniors who came of age during the drug culture of the '60s and '70s simply never stopped using drugs as they got older.

"It could be an adult who used to smoke a joint every night before bed and now they take a sleeping pill," said Gary Kennedy, director of Geriatric Psychiatry at Montefiore Medical Center.

Kennedy noted that while not included in the federal study, alcohol is "still the king of abused substances."

Sources for this story include: www.nydailynews.com; www.cbsnews.com.

Big Pharma blackmails Greece; halts medicine supply over cash demands

(NaturalNews) In the midst of runaway economic problem in Greece, the pharmaceutical industry has decided to blackmail the nation and halt shipments of medicines to Greece until it agrees to pay full price for the drugs. In order to cut costs during its severe debt crisis, Greece had announced it would pay drug companies 25 percent less for their products, but this loss of profit was enough to convince several pharmaceutical companies supplying key drugs to the country to initiate their own medical blockade where they simply refuse to deliver any more medicines.

In doing this, Big Pharma shows its true character. When the profits are flowing and the companies are raking in full-price profits, they're you're best friend. But when budgets get tight and everybody is asked to take a cut, Big Pharma betrays your country and its citizens, withholding medicines in a thinly-veiled blackmail attempt to force you to cough up more cash.

The Big Pharma betrayal

Such is the danger of any nation depending on the pharmaceutical industry. If nations based their health care systems on natural products such as healing foods, herbs, and nutritional supplements, they couldn't be held hostage by patent-holding drug companies that will obviously use their medicines as economic weapons to try to extort yet more profits out of a nation.

Pharmaceutical companies are determined to get their profits, you see, no matter what the cost. If a few thousand people have to die during a pharmaceutical blockade, that's a small price to pay for them ensuring years of billion-dollar profits as a result.

That drug companies would engage in this behavior exposes the real scam of drug-based medicine. Drug companies approach nations with the false promise that their patented chemicals will make people well. And yet they don't. In reality, pharmaceuticals only cause more disease requiring more pharmaceuticals. There is no such thing as a "pharmaceutical cure" for any disease.

If anything, using pharmaceuticals only creates more dependence on pharmaceuticals. This cycle of drug-symptom-drug continues until Big Pharma has most of your nation hooked on dangerous, high-profit chemicals. And if you try to negotiate a lower price, they'll yank your chain and cut off their supply, leaving your entire population without medical options. All during this, by the way, they will also attack dietary supplements and healing foods, claiming those are all quack products while only their own patented chemicals have any medical merit.

It's all so blatantly obvious, isn't it? These companies don't care about your health; they only care about profits and market share. They are only your friend for as long as you keep writing those inflated checks that buy their drugs at ridiculous mark-ups such as 65,000 percent of the cost of ingredients.

Danish drug companies blackmail Greece

So far, two Danish pharmaceutical companies have announced their blackmail efforts targeting Greece: Leo Pharma and Novo Nordisk.

Leo Pharma is withholding distribution of its anti blood-clotting drug, sending Greece's pharmacies and hospitals into a panic. (Gee, don't these people know omega-3 oils will accomplish the same thing?)

A few days ago, Novo Nordisk halted supplies of its insulin product, leaving Greece's diabetics with few options (and there are a LOT of diabetics running around that country, remember My Big Fat Greek Wedding?).

The BBC is now reporting:

"Greek government officials believe the Danish companies are blackmailing Athens because they monopolise the market with certain key drugs. Stefanos Combinos, the director general of the economy ministry, told the BBC that Greece was one of the three most expensive countries in Europe for medicines. He said pharmaceutical companies had enjoyed great profits out of Greece over the decades and had an obligation to accept price reductions."

Too bad, Greece! This is what you get when you deal with the devil. You would have been better off favoring natural remedies over pharmaceuticals, and had you done that, you wouldn't be in this mess!

I wonder how many people will die from lack of insulin drugs or anti blood clotting medicines because of this Big Pharma blackmail attempt? I also wonder how long it will take for Greek patients to simply turn to natural, alternative remedies that can accomplish the same thing as these drugs but without all the toxic side effects?

Any nation that lives by pharmaceuticals will die by them.

The drug industry is not your friend. It is in business to make money, period. And it will do anything and everything it can to make as much money as possible regardless of whose lives it will risk in the process.

Your life means nothing to these drug companies compared to the value of their bottom-line monopoly profits. If you don't believe me, just ask the Greek government.

Sources for this story include:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/eu...

Bill Gates funds covert vaccine nanotechnology

(NaturalNews) The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is gaining a reputation for funding technologies designed to roll out mass sterilization and vaccination programs around the world. One of the programs recently funded by the foundation is a sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man's scrotum to render him infertile for six months. It might accurately be called a "temporary castration" technology. Read more about it here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028853_u...

Now, the foundation has funded a new "sweat-triggered vaccine delivery" program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin. The technology is describes as a way to "...develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines."

The research grant money is going to Carlos Alberto Guzman of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research in Germany and Claus-Michael Lehr and Steffi Hansen of the Helmholtz-Institute for Pharmaceutical Research.

These are both part of the Gates Foundation's involvement in the "Grand Challenges Explorations" program which claims to be working to "achieve major breakthroughs in global health."

...breakthroughs like mass sterilization and nanoparticle vaccines that could be covertly administered even without your knowledge, it turns out. These nanoparticles could be used in a spray mist that's sprayed on to every person who walks through an airport security checkpoint, for example. Or it could be unleashed through the ventilation systems of corporate office buildings or public schools to vaccinate the masses. You wouldn't even know you were being vaccinated.

This technology is potentially very dangerous to your health freedom. Using it, governments or drug companies (which are all the same thing these days) could create a vaccine skin cream that's handed out and described as "sunscreen." But when you put it on, you're actually vaccinating yourself as the nanoparticles burrow underneath your skin and burst, releasing foreign DNA inside your body.

A history of covert mass medication

But why would the government medicate people without their knowledge or consent, you ask? They already do it with water fluoridation. Fluoride is a drug, and regional and national governments all over the world are using the water supply as a way to deliver the fluoride drug to people whether they need it or not -- and without any proper medical diagnosis or prescription.

So if governments are already covertly medicating people with fluoride in the water supply, they've set the stage mass-vaccinating people through similar channels, such as the air supply in buildings. And thanks to Bill Gates, this nanotechnology needed to pull this off is now being funded.

Is this really a "major breakthrough in global health?"

I suppose it is if you believe in covert medicine where you dose people with drugs or vaccines without their knowledge. Western medicine is so offensive to rational people that it can't even operate out in the open. That's why it resorts to covert contamination of the water supply in order to force the public to swallow its drugs.

Fluoride and covert medicine

Oh, by the way, to anyone who argues that fluoride is not a drug, remember this: According to the FDA, any chemical substance that has a biological effect on the human body is, by definition, a drug. Therefore fluoride is a drug, too.

Even more, fluoride is promoted with outlandish claims about "preventing cavities" by swallowing it, making it an "unapproved drug" according to the FDA. So how is it that this unapproved drug can be dripped into the water supply and forced upon hundreds of millions of people without a single diagnosis of fluoride deficiency or even a single prescription from a doctor?

The answer is that western medicine is so arrogant that it does not believe it needs to follow any rules, regulations or laws. It is a system of "bully" medicine where drugs are shoved down your throat by being covertly dripped into the water supply without your consent. So why should we believe vaccines will be any different? If mainstream medicine can find a way to force every person to unknowingly be injected with vaccines, make no mistake they will pursue it!

And such efforts will no doubt have the continued financial support of Bill Gates.

Sources for this story include:
The Daily Tell: http://www.thedailytell.com/2010/05...

Puget Sound Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/...

Normal human problems are turned into medical conditions, spiking healthcare costs

(NaturalNews) Mainstream medicine has a huge new growth industry underway -- the "medicalization" of the human condition. That's the conclusion of a study headed by Brandeis University sociologist Peter Conrad that was just published in the journal Social Science and Medicine. The report, the first study of its kind, documents that over the last several decades, numerous common problems -- many of which are simply due to being human -- have been newly defined as medical disorders that supposedly need prescription drugs and other costly treatments.

For example, menopause is a perfectly natural part of womanhood but it is now considered a "condition" complete with symptoms that physicians often believe need treatment with hormones and anti-depressants. Likewise, normal pregnancies, taking longer-than-average time to get pregnant and impotence (now known by the medical term "erectile dysfunction") are all now seen as medical conditions that may need intense medical monitoring and treatment. And if a child fidgets in class -- bingo! He or she is frequently classified as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and quickly placed on stimulant drugs like Ritalin
.
Conrad and his colleagues used national data to estimate the costs of these and other common conditions -- including anxiety and behavioral disorders; worries over body image; male pattern baldness; normal sadness; being overweight; difficulty in sleeping through the night and substance-related disorders. In order to document what role medicalizing these problems could be playing in escalating U.S. healthcare spending, the Brandeis research team evaluated current data showing just how much medical spending results from the diagnosing and treatment of these "conditions".

Their findings? The researchers concluded there is a strong and undeniable trend toward a medicalization of human conditions, with a constantly increasing number of medical diagnoses and treatments for behavioral problems and what the researchers called "normal life events".

When they analyzed payments to hospitals, pharmacies, doctors and other health care providers for medical treatments of these medicalized conditions, the researchers discovered that the costs accounted for $77.1 billion in medical spending in 2005. That amounts to almost 4 percent of the total U.S. healthcare expenditures.

"We spend more on these medicalized conditions than on cancer, heart disease, or public health," Conrad said in a statement to the press.

Conrad added that medicalization of human problems may have several causes, including increased consumer demands for medical solutions and Big Pharma's expanding markets for drugs. "By estimating the amount spent on medicalized human problems, we've raised the obvious question as to whether this spending is 'appropriate'. The next question is whether we can more directly evaluate the appropriateness of these medical interventions and consider policies that curb the growth or even shrink the amount of spending on some medicalized conditions," Conrad said in the press statement.

For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...

Big Pharma Fabricates "Female Sexual Dysfunction" to Sell More Drugs

(NaturalNews) The pharmaceutical industry is attempting to convince the public that a variety of normal conditions affecting the majority of women should be classified as "female sexual dysfunction" and treated with drugs.

The medical establishment has a long history of treating the female body as sexually dysfunctional, from when Hippocrates first attributed "hysteria" to a wandering uterus. According to JoAnn Wypijewski, former senior editor of The Nation, this perspective fell out of favor with the sexual revolution of the 1970s but has since re-emerged.

"Today the cultural air is thick with sex, but the rhetoric of freedom and rights largely serves a commodified notion of sexual satisfaction," Wypijewski said. "The politics has dropped out, and without politics we're all just ... potential patients."

A 2005 article in the medical journal BMJ noted the emergence of drugs intended to treat "female sexual dysfunction." In spite of skepticism from the medical establishment, the pharmaceutical industry has pressed ahead, insisting that conditions such as an inability to regularly achieve orgasm through intercourse alone, low levels of sexual desire, and sexual dissatisfaction are medical disorders in need of treatment.

All these conditions are normal for women at various points throughout their lives. Yet proponents of the label "female sexual dysfunction" claim that anywhere from 43 percent to 70 percent of women are actually ill; Oprah has called it as an "epidemic."

The cure, according to the pharmaceutical industry, is testosterone treatment or other drugs. Meanwhile, Wypijewski notes that rates of "vaginal rejuvenation" (tightening) among middle-aged women and "laser labiaplasty" (reshaping of the labia) among younger women continue to rise. A doctor in North Carolina even offers to implant an electrode in women's spinal columns to help them achieve orgasm during sex.

"Female sexual dysfunction, it turns out, was wholly created by drug companies," Wypijewski said. "The more obstinate question is ... whether a resistant politics can grow up to say ... 'We want out' of the profit system and ... out of a medical model that elevates a doctor over ... a more sensual ease with oneself and others."

Sources for this story include: www.alternet.org.

Drugs for HIV Infection and AIDS Might Prematurely Age Brains

(NaturalNews) In a report just published online in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, scientists at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the University of California at San Diego say they've found a reduction of blood flow in the brains of people who are infected with HIV, the virus believed to cause AIDS. What makes this so concerning is that it indicates something is rapidly aging the brains of these patients. In fact, the blood flow in the brains of the HIV-infected research subjects was reduced to levels normally seen in uninfected persons who are 15 to 20 years older.

Does this mean HIV is causing premature brain aging? Maybe. However there's another possibility: according to the researchers, the drugs used to treat HIV/AIDS might play a role in this super fast brain aging.

AIDS drugs may damage the brain

Previous studies have found the HIV virus may adversely affect many parts of the body, including the heart, liver, kidneys, endocrine system and skeleton. Although a strong "cocktail" of antiviral medications has been credited with extending the life span of those with HIV, these drugs are known to come with a host of side effects -- many of which are health problems often associated with aging. For example, the drugs can cause anemia, digestive problems, peripheral neuropathy and osteoporosis. So it can be difficult to distinguish between any signs of rapid aging that are due to HIV or to the drugs used to treat it.

When it comes to the brain, HIV patients are sometimes known to develop dementia. And HIV infected people often complain of thinking problems.

"The graying of the AIDS patient community makes this infection's effects on the brain a significant source of concern," Beau Ances, M.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor of neurology at Washington University and first author of the new study, said in a statement to the media. "Patients are surviving into their senior years, and a number of them are coming forward to express concerns about problems they're having with memory and other cognitive functions."

To investigate possible premature brain aging in HIV patients, Dr. Ances and his research team used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners and a new technique known as arterial spin labeling that allows precise, non-invasive blood flow measurement to check the brain blood flow in 26 subjects with HIV. The scientists also looked at the brains of 25 uninfected controls. Both groups were about the same age and had the same education.

When the study participants were resting in the scanner, the brain blood flow was found to be significantly reduced in those who tested positive for HIV compared to those in the uninfected control group. Significantly, the scientists found that having HIV was associated with reduced brain blood flow even among the younger, most recently infected patients.

The research team asked the research subjects to perform a visual task which normally triggers blood flow to increase in specific regions of the brain involved in the task. The MRIs revealed the HIV group had greater blood flow increases, suggesting their brains had to work harder in order to accomplish the task.

"Brain blood flow levels decline naturally as we age, but HIV, the medications we use to control it or some combination of the two appear to be accelerating this process independent of aging. Could we reduce the harmful effects of the virus if we started treatment earlier, or does treatment significantly contribute to the harm that's being done?" Dr. Ances said in a press statement. "These are the kinds of issues we urgently need to start examining as the AIDS patient population ages."

For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/HIV.html
http://www.aids.org/factSheets/550-...

Beware of side effects of PPI drugs in acid reflux (GERD) patients, warn doctors

(NaturalNews) A new commentary published in the November, 2009 issue of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Survery warns doctors to be cautious when prescribing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), drugs commonly recommended for reflux diseases such as gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Research is revealing that acid is not the only contributor to reflux diseases and that PPIs are not always an effective treatment.

PPIs come with a slew of negative side effects that include inhibited calcium absorption that can lead to hip fractures, alteration of the gastric pH levels that can negatively affect vitamin B12 and iron assimilation, and increased propensity to develop certain types of diarrhea and pneumonia. For these reasons, researchers are urging doctors to carefully monitor patients prescribed these drugs.

In the past 20 years, there has been a four-fold increase in the number of people in Western countries seeking medical help for their reflux symptoms. As a result, there has been a corresponding increase in the volume of PPIs being administered despite the fact that they may often be causing more harm than good.

The study authors are encouraging doctors to weigh the pros and cons and carefully consider whether PPIs are necessary before prescribing them so freely. They implore doctors to consider venturing towards a more holistic approach in which dietary modifications and lifestyle changes are prescribed rather than drugs.

Mainstream medicine claims ignorance about the causes of acid reflux but it is increasingly clear that the over-processed, nutrient-deficient Western diet is to blame for the rapid increase in acid reflux problems among the population. For this reason, it is wise advice to consider a dietary reformation in response to acid reflux symptoms.

Regular intake of probiotic-forming foods like kefir, fermented fruits and vegetables, raw milk, yogurt, kombucha, and probiotic supplements will help tremendously in balancing the digestive system and eliminating the problems of over-acidity. Reducing carbohydrate intake while increasing intake of other foods like fruits and vegetables, nuts, and grass-fed meats may help to eliminate the symptoms of acid reflux as well.

Many people have had great success treating acid reflux symptoms with apple cider vinegar. Highly inexpensive and incredibly alkaline-forming, apple cider vinegar is an excellent addition to one's daily health regimen. Keeping digestive enzyme supplements on hand for use as needed is another great option; they work great in a pinch and will not damage the body like PPIs do.

Sources for this story include
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
http://www.earthclinic.com/CURES/ac...

Warning: drug ads are harmful to your health

(NaturalNews) If you watch TV or ever flip through a glossy magazine, you are bound to have seen ads conjured up by Big Pharma working with slick advertising agencies. As it turns out, what they are selling isn't necessarily health -- or the truth. They are pushing pills, even if they have to twist the facts a bit about what their drugs do, who needs them and why. Now a new study just published in the American Journal of Public Health concludes this prescription drug direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) carries significant risks for the public.

Currently, some members of Congress, including Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California), are calling for stricter FDA regulations of DTCA because the ads can lead to inappropriate prescribing. They also portray what may be a non-medical problem (such as over-active bladder, the latest "malady" discovered by Big Pharma) as a treatable medical illness requiring side-effect-laden medication.

For the new study, Dominick L. Frosch, Ph.D., assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and colleagues reviewed the evidence pro and con for DTCA. Their conclusions? There could be some benefits to drug advertising, but they are limited. On the other hand, the researchers found the current way prescription drug ads are presented to the public carries significant risk and potential harm.

Ads intentionally misinform viewers

For example, the researchers noted that the majority of ads fail to provide enough information to inform consumers about whether they actually need an advertised drug. What's more, the highly dramatized, emotional presentation of a medication's supposed benefits can also be misleading. Meanwhile, any information about risks tends to be diluted by the use of imagery that contradicts facts about side effects and warnings.

"American television viewers see as many as 16 hours of prescription drug advertisements each year, and the reality is that these ads are not doing a good job of helping consumers make better decisions about their health," Dr. Frosch said in a statement to the media. "If the pharmaceutical industry isn't willing to change the ads to make them more useful to consumers, Congress should consider passing legislation that will regulate the ads to improve the information provided in order to help patients make more informed choices."

Several drug company ads have already been changed or pulled because they were so blatantly misleading. Take the now defunct ad campaign for the statin drug Lipitor which featured Robert Jarvik, inventor of the artificial heart, for example. Wearing a white coat, Jarvik looked straight into the camera and proclaimed: "I'm glad I take Lipitor, as a doctor and as a dad." Then, in the final shot, we saw how super fit, cardiovascular-wise, this middle-aged, statin taking man was as he powerfully rowed a boat across a lake. The problem? He's not licensed as a medical doctor. And that wasn't even him rowing -- it was a muscular body double.

Another statin fiasco: the ad campaign hyping the efficacy of Vytorin seemed to blame high cholesterol not just on diet but on quirky relatives (and all anyone had to do was take a pill to resolve the problem). The Vytorin commercials were finally pulled after research emerged that Vytorin failed to show any benefit over a cheaper drug.

For more information:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cg...