Book Review: Medical Myths That Can Kill You And 101 Truths That Can Save, Extend, and Improve Your Life, by Nancy L. Snyderman, M.D. Published by Crown Publishers, 2008.

There are currently over 800,000 physicians practicing in the United States. By definition, some of these physicians are mediocre. That is to say, if we are to accept the idea that a particular physician is a superior physician, then we must also accept the idea that he or she is superior to other physicians who would, of necessity, be considered to be mediocre. But our acceptance of the idea of the existence of mediocre physicians within our health care system should in no way imply that we also accept, without challenge, the idea that these mediocre physicians should be allowed to write mediocre, irresponsible, and ill-informed books, and in Medical Myths That Can Kill You, And the 101 Truths That Will Save, Extend, and Improve Your Life we have just such a book. The book is written by Dr. Nancy L. Snyderman, the Chief Medical Editor of NBC News, and based upon the book's content, viewers of the NBC Nightly News may want to avoid taking seriously any advice that the doctor may provide.

The irresponsible writing actually makes it's first appearance on the dust jacket of the book, where one finds the following statement: “Fact: Donating blood may lower your risk of heart disease.” It is understood that Dr. Snyderman is not the author of what is written on the dust jacket, but she should certainly be cognizant of what is found there, and one would hope that a medical doctor would have knowledge of the meaning of the word “fact.” Maybe in Dr. Snyderman's touchy-feely world of medical care, a doctor is allowed to state that a “possibility” is a “fact,” but here in the real world we draw distinctions between the two words. In the real world, I am not allowed to say “Fact: The Phoenix Lander may find three-eyed aliens on Mars tomorrow,” because I am not stating a fact. Some may say that I am being a bit too severe in a criticism that is largely semantical, but I would respond with a question: Are we not to expect a proper adherence to semantics in a book that is written by a physician and is purportedly written for the unwashed masses in an effort to set us misguided souls on the correct path to avoiding the medical myths that will kill us? I would think that a book about medical myths should be very clear and concise about what is an actual fact. If Dr. Snyderman is allowed to say that “possibilities” are “facts,” then are we not allowed to conversely treat the so-called “facts” in her book as mere “possibilities?”

Unfortunately, the book is not an improvement upon it's dust jacket. One of Dr. Snyderman's “truths” that is found in the book proper is the following: “Truth: Statin drugs help fight cancer.” The foregoing statement demonstrates that either Dr. Snyderman is an irresponsible person or that she has a rather vague understanding of the word “truth.” In explaining this “truth,” Dr. Snyderman says the following: Taking statins “may halve your risk of developing colon and advanced prostate cancer while reducing the risk of pancreatic and esophageal cancer more than 50 percent.” Once again, Dr. Snyderman provides us with a possibility masquerading as a fact. Does she not see the difference between the definitive statement, “Statin drugs help fight cancer,” and the follow-up statement that they “may” decrease the risk of certain cancers? Dr. Snyderman cannot say definitively that statin drugs help fight cancer because even the National Cancer Institute is unwilling to make such a ridiculous statement.

Which is more evil? Lead or estrogen? Keep reading and find out.

As often happens, I did not notice the trend until it affected me, personally. A few nights ago, in a game against the Cincinnati Reds, Albert Pujols had to be carried off the field due to a strained calf muscle. He pulled up lame in the seventh inning.

This affects me personally because I am an Albert Pujols fan. I should also point out that, while I was a St. Louis Cardinals fan for many years, and I hope to be a Cardinals fan again in the future, I will not be a Cardinals fan as long as they have as their manager Tony LaRussa, the guy who personally ushered in the steroids era by turning a blind eye to what was demonstrably happening with the players that he managed. But we will devote another article to an invective against Tony LaRussa. For now, I will just say that I wish Albert Pujols all of the success in the world, but I root for the failure of the Cardinals, because one more year of failure might cause the permanent exit from baseball of the vegan lawyer who fancies himself a manager, but who is truly a blight upon Major League Baseball.

Referring back to the first paragraph, the injury to Pujols caused me to think of all the similar injuries that have recently occurred. Here are just a few, with links to the web articles on each of them:

Alfonso Soriano of Chicago Cubs Injures Calf

Sean Casey of Detroit Tigers Injures Calf

Thomas Jones of New York Jets Injures Calf

Ronnie Belliard of Washington Nationals Injures Calf

Moises Alou of New York Mets Injures Calf

Jack Wilson of Pittsburgh Pirates Injures Calf

Maria Sharapova Injures Calf

Felix Hernandez of Boston Red Sox has Tightness in Calf

Anthony Thomas of Buffalo Bills Injures Calf

Brent Barry of San Antonio Spurs Injures Calf

The potential list of all of the calf injuries in professional sports could fill several pages.  Indeed, my Google search, which I limited to just professional baseball, basketball, and football, returned over three thousand results.  We all know that some of those returned results are duplicates, but the search does demonstrate that there is something of a trend, if not an epidemic, in calf muscle injuries.  Why are the calves of athletes attracting so much attention?

PART IV OF A FOUR-PART POST

When statin drugs were first beginning to be commonly prescribed, many physicians were amazed at the near-miraculous-cholesterol-lowering results of the drugs, and I often heard physicians jokingly say that “They should put the stuff (referring to statin drugs) in the drinking water.” That was prior to any real public knowledge of the many negative side effects of statin drugs, and many of those physicians have certainly re-thought their whole-hearted endorsement of the drugs. But there is some irony to the idea of putting statin drugs into the drinking water, in that the most important cholesterol-lowering cure may be untainted drinking water, in and of itself.

The consumption of adequate amounts of water each day provides documented health benefits to an extent that it may be suggested that a person can not claim to seriously care about their personal health if they are not consistent and disciplined in their daily hydration. Stated another way, adequate daily water consumption is always the first step toward good health. The move toward improved health does not require one to purchase a fitness club membership, or to visit a physician, or to purchase a dieting book, or to spend fortunes on dietary supplements. Although a person may want to eventually do all of the foregoing, the first, simple step to good health should always be to turn on the water tap. The late Dr. F. Batmanghelidj, who probably was the foremost expert on proper hydration, recommended a daily water intake in an amount equal to 1 ounce per 2 pounds of body weight. So if you weigh 200 pounds, you need to drink 100 ounces of water every day.

There are numerous health benefits associated with adequate water consumption that we will discuss in a future article, but it can be argued that the most signicant health benefit of water is it's role in lowering cholesterol levels. We will discuss here two ways in which drinking water may lower cholesterol.

Obesity and protecting us from ourselves

It was great that Mississippi State Representative John Read, a Republican, helped write a bill that would require restaurants to not serve people who are obese. What a hoot.

What was even funnier was the response from nutritionists and health experts as pointed out in a local editorial, "Weighing for a table".

According to the editorial, "The bill drew international attention, but mostly from health experts condemning his efforts with word[s] like "offensive" and "insane."

"Are these legislators fighting to get rid of soft drinks in schools? Are they working to stop the relentless marketing of unhealthy foods to children? Are they doing anything about the fact that poor people do not have access to healthy foods?" asked Kelly Brownell at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity."

The local paper opined, "Banning people from restaurants obviously isn't part of the answer. Removing unhealthful items from our personal diets is."

No where in the world is there more healthy food available to us and our children than in the United States. Kelly Brown from Yale needs to take me to a place where "poor people do not have access to healthy food". Even in McDonald's you can buy a very healthy salad and get a glass of water for free.

Where ever there are vending machines you can find a choice between regular Coke or Pepsi, diet sodas, water and juices. Marketing by restaurants, supermarkets, local health stores and fast food chains is common, we can listen to these ads or not.

The whole point is government cannot and should not try to protect us from ourselves. Families are best suited to promoting positive behavior. Let's make sure we have strong traditional families and most of our health and social problems will disappear.

Visit a primary care Doctor for only $10? In Rhode Island you can!

Democrats and the liberal media's double standard on toxic chemicals

The liberal Sarasota Herald-Tribune's editorial board has an interesting article lamenting the removal of Dr. Deborah Rice from an EPA panel titled, "Chemical conflicts".

They and the Democratic leadership are concerned that politics may get in the way of public health and safety because Dr. Rice was not allowed to stay on a panel reviewing the potential dangers of a chemical (olybrominated diphenyl ether [PBDE] known as deca) used in flame retardants in electronic equipment.

What the Herald-Tribune does not tell you is that Dr. Rice is also an expert on the effects of methylmercury exposure to children and adults.

In 2003 Dr. Rice addressed the effects of methylmercury to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. During this testimony she concluded that, "at least eight studies have found an association between methylmercury levels and impaired neuropsychological performance in the child....there is a substantial percentage of women of reproductive age in the United States with levels of methylmercury in their bodies above what EPA considers a safe level."

She went on to say, "As a result of this, over 300,000 newborns each year are exposed to methylmercury above levels US EPA believes to be “safe”....increased exposure to methylmercury may result in atherosclerosis, heart attack, and even death from heart attack in men, suggesting that an additional large segment of the population may be at risk as a result of environmental methylmercury exposure."

This is the same Herald-Tribune editorial board that touted a new energy bill passed by the Democratic Congress this year in their editorial, "Jump start for energy policy".

Dropped into this new energy bill by the Democrat leadership in Congress is a provision to mandate the phase-out of the 125-year-old incandescent bulb in the next four to 12 years in favor of a new generation of trendy, supposedly energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs), pictured above.

These bulbs contain mercury!

Mercury helps create the increased efficiency of a CFL bulb. If the bulb breaks, the mercury will contaminate an area. Secondly, when these millions of bulbs burn out they will be disposed of in our land fills.

Our question is why didn't the Democratic leadership listen to Dr. Rice and the serious health consequences of mercury? Given the current health risks from mercury exposure why did they add this new risk and mandate that the risk be brought into American homes?

It is interesting how the Democratic leadership is concerned when a scientist that disagrees with the chemical industry is dismissed from a panel but that same scientist is not listened to by the Democratic leadership when it comes to the dangers of another chemical made by the same industry that they mandate be put in all our homes.

Democrats mandating the use of light bulbs that contain mercury is like mandating the use of toys or paint that contain lead. There is no difference. Democrats are putting our children, our homes and our lives at risk in the name of the environment.

This is insane. What do you think?

PART THREE IN A FOUR-PART POST*

One of the most discussed issues in America today is the theory of global warming, that is, the idea that man-made carbon gases are creating a greenhouse effect and that greenhouse effect is warming our planet. Please allow me to assure you right now that this article is indeed about alternatives to Lipitor, and not global warming. But in order to illustrate a point, let us suppose for a moment that you and I decided to have a debate about global warming, but before we began our debate, we decided that recorded history and trends in the earth's temperature were of no importance to the discussion, and that our debate would be limited to what is happening to the earth's temperature today. In addition to that peculiar rule of ignoring history in our debate, we decided that the debate would last twenty years. There were no other rules.

Let us also suppose that, unknown to you, I had invented a magical machine that could rid the earth's atmosphere of carbon. In this world of magical supposition, my motivation for winning our global warming debate had very little to do with saving the planet. I was only interested in selling my magical carbon-removing machine to every house in America and thereby making grotesque amounts of money. Indeed, large profits had been my motivation for intentionally framing our debate to exclude all previous history. I did not want people to be aware of any historical data that might indicate that there was no need for my magical carbon-removing machine.

Finally, let us suppose that throughout the twenty years of our debate, I did not really debate you at all. I simply wined and dined meteorologists. When the meteorologists wanted to go to trade shows and conventions in Hawaii and Belize, I paid for their trips. I took them golfing. I even paid the meteorologists large sums of money to be spokespersons for my magical carbon-removing machine. I showed the meteorologists the results of all kinds of controlled studies showing the benefits of my machine, and I was able to convince them that any danger to the environment that might be done by my machine was minor. Ten years into the period of our debate, people began to notice that trees and plants were becoming gradually weak and sickly, and eventually dying because they did not have enough of the carbon dioxide that was vital to them.

You may have already guessed that my magical carbon-removing machine is analogous to the magical cholesterol-removing pill, Lipitor, and regardless of Pfizer's claims to the contrary, I will insist that my analogy is totally valid. Pfizer does indeed wine and dine their doctors, they do indeed pay for doctor's trips to exotic places, Pfizer sales reps do indeed take doctors golfing, and doctors do indeed glibly accept Pfizer's assurances that the side effects of Lipitor are minor. Everyday more people are discovering that Lipitor is weakening them and Lipitor is indeed killing people. But the part of the analogy that I want to focus on is the idea that a debate can be framed in such a way as to completely ignore prior history.

PART 2 IN A FOUR-PART POST 

I stopped by the friendly, neighborhood Borders bookstore this morning in order to enjoy a cup of coffee and to count books. I was specifically interested in the books that were written by medical doctors and that had as their primary subject matter the prevention and/or reversal of heart disease. This particular Borders store had forty-nine different books that met the criteria.

After counting the books, I then went to the index of each book, located the pages associated with the use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs such as Lipitor, and then I read what each of those physician-written books had to say about the use of those drugs. It was a highly enjoyable way to spend a morning, and the morning would have been perfect had it not been for an anal-retentive bookseller hovering around me and fussing over the books being placed back on the shelves in correct order. He ignored my assurances of my understanding of the term “alphabetical by author.” Maybe he just had too much time on his hands.

If a physician has been successful in publishing a book about heart disease and that book is being marketed at Borders, then I think that it is safe for us to assume that the physician-author is something of an expert on the subject of heart disease. So it may interest you to know that not one of the forty-nine expert physicians that I consulted this morning would recommend the use of Lipitor or any other cholesterol-lowering statin drug in treating or preventing heart disease. One of the physicians did admit that she prescribes Lipitor occasionally, but only after the patient has demonstrated no ability to maintain their own health.

And so the presumed experts in heart healthcare do not recommend the use of Lipitor and yet it is the most prescribed drug in the U.S. and it continues to grow in popularity. What is wrong with this picture?