Tainted Eggs and Scrambled Tubes

Two recent news stories caught my eye. Both are fairly common stories of public health hazards, but the results and reaction to both are stunningly different. Where do the real dangers lie? You decide.

Headline #1: AP:Associated Press, updated 8/20/2010

Recall expands to more than half a billion eggs

“Investigation of nationwide salmonella outbreak expands to 2nd Iowa farm

A half-billion eggs have been recalled in the nationwide investigation of a salmonella outbreak that Friday expanded to include a second Iowa farm. More than 1,000 people have already been sickened and the toll of illnesses is expected to increase.” (so far, no deaths)

How many times have we heard this story of a ‘nationwide salmonella outbreak; be it hamburger meat, tomatoes, spinach, and now eggs? In any event, the response to this public health hazard, where occasionally a few people die and many are made ill, is swift, decisive and far-reaching. The meat-packing plant and/or farm producer is shut down, and there are massive nationwide recalls of the suspected tainted animal or plant product.

Headline #2: NYTimes 08-20-2010, by Gardiner Harris

U.S. Inaction Lets Look-Alike Tubes Kill Patients

“Thirty-five weeks pregnant, Robin Rodgers was vomiting and losing weight, so her doctor hospitalized her and ordered that she be fed through a tube until the birth of her daughter.

But in a mistake that stemmed from years of lax federal oversight of medical devices, the hospital mixed up the tubes. Instead of snaking a tube through Ms. Rodgers’s nose and into her stomach, the nurse instead coupled the liquid-food bag to a tube that entered a vein.

Putting such food directly into the bloodstream is like pouring concrete down a drain. Ms. Rodgers was soon in agony. They soon learned that the baby had died…And then Robin Rodgers — 24 years old and already the mother of a 3-year-old boy — died on July 18, 2006, as well.

Their deaths were among hundreds of deaths or serious injuries that researchers have traced to tube mix-ups. But no one knows the real toll, because this kind of mistake, like medication errors in general, is rarely reported(*1). A 2006 survey of hospitals found that 16 percent had experienced a feeding tube mix-up.

Experts and standards groups have advocated since 1996 that tubes for different functions be made incompatible — just as different nozzles at gas stations prevent drivers from using the wrong fuel. But action has been delayed by resistance from the medical-device industry and an approval process at the Food and Drug Administration that can discourage safety-related changes.”

How many times have we heard this story of doctor/treatment-induced (iatrogenic) patient death; be it from unnecessary surgery, to hospital-acquired infections, to adverse drug reactions, and medical tubing mix-ups, among others?

However, contrary to salmonella outbreaks where many are sickened and few, if any die, medical mishaps, which are ‘rarely reported,’ are killing people, an estimated 800,000 people per year, and are, by far, the leading cause of death and injury in the U.S. To be fair, ‘to err is human,’ and many presenting patients are seriously ill requiring drastic measures that raise all risks. However, even if 800,000 deaths per year is a gross exaggeration by a factor of four, 200,000 (*2) deaths per year by medical error would still be one of the leading causes of death.

There just is no comparison between illness and death caused by salmonella and those caused by medical error.

However, unlike the reaction to a salmonella scare, the response to chronic widespread, systemic medical mishaps is dismissal, denial and obstructionism by the AMA, the pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers of medical devices, and the FDA.

They have us afraid of the wrong things.

————————

Important Notes:

(*1) “More than 250,000 side effects linked to prescription drugs, including injuries and deaths, are reported each year. And those “adverse-event” reports by doctors and others are only filed voluntarily. Experts, including Strom, believe the reports represent as few as 1% to 10% of all such events. “There’s no incentive at all for a physician to report [an adverse drug reaction],” said Strom, who has documented the phenomenon. “The underreporting is vast.”

(*2) JAMA. 12-21-1994 Error in medicine: “180,00 people die each year partly as a result of iatrogenic injury, the equivalent of three jumbo-jets crashes every 2 days.” This is what was acknowledged in 1994. In light of note (*1) above…”the under-reporting is vast,” 180,000 represents only a fraction of the problem, perhaps as little as 1% to 10%. And, the problem has only gotten worse since then.

First Do No Harm

On August 24^th, 1987 US District Court Judge Susan Getzendanner ruled that the AMA (American Medical Association) and its officials “instituted a boycott of chiropractors. The purpose of the boycott was to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. This conduct constituted a conspiracy among the AMA and its members and an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section I of the Sherman (Anti-Trust) Act.”

Does this represent an isolated case of the AMA’s persecution to ‘contain and eliminate’ a competing profession and/or effective alternative treatment outside of the medical drug paradigm? No way!

Case closed: has the AMA stopped this type of persecution? No way! It is woven into the very core of their history and their ongoing mission; a medical-pharmaceutical monopoly.

The history of the AMA is a compelling read of personal and political power and corruption entwined with corporate interests, profits and greed; the usual suspects.

In 1909, Abraham Flexner, a teacher ( with no other qualifications), backed by the corporate interests of the Carnegie Foundation, with personal family ties to the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Education, issued The Flexner Report. This superficial and prejudiced opinion paper launched a kind of “paradigm coup. It declared and established an orthodoxy of healing dominated by the medical, allopathic, model based in modern chemistry and the prescription of drugs by doctors.

All other modalities were to be shunned (and labeled as quackery), especially the vitalistic approaches that talked about working with the energy or structure of the body, rather than its chemistry. From the manipulations of chiropractors or osteopaths, to the use of energy devices in connection with the body, any healing approaches based on physics were rejected. In the new medical realm, chemistry was king.” (HP of LENS 335)

The goal was to eliminate the competition.

Along the way it inextricably linked medical practice and research, for better and worse, with corporate-sponsored science. Together, they made medicine/health-care an ‘industrial mass-market phenomenon’ and empire.

Along the way they betrayed their Hippocratic Oath: First, Do No Harm by subverting, in so many ways, any other possible effective treatments, or even cures, for anything from back pain to depression to cancer, sacrificing untold numbers of lives.

But the irony of it is laughable. Modern medicine uses the body’s energy and physics in almost all realms of diagnosis, including x-ray, CT, MRI, EKG, EEG, Ultrasound, functional MRI, PET Scans, chromatograpy, lasers, the electron microscope, etc,. At the same time, they continue to condemn, marginalize, and ridicule any treatment or modality that uses the body’s own energy/physics to restore homeostasis and health. All but one that is; the rather medieval EST (electroshock therapy) now known as ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). That one they like. It fits their paradigm that treatment requires ever more potent and powerful interventions; that the body needs to be shocked, drugged or operated on; that more subtle energy techniques could not possibly work.

They deny funding for research into other healing modalities, supporting their claim of the absence of evidence. Yet, of all they do in diagnosis and treatment, it is estimated that only 15% has the standard of scientific evidence that they hold all other alternative treatments to. Not to mention that ‘the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. The fact that there are few rigorous studies of an idea doesn’t mean the idea isn’t powerful; it may mean that science refuses, for whatever prejudices, to study the concept.’ (symp p xii)

This is not meant to condemn all of medicine. Some drugs, emergency and surgical interventions approach the miraculous. It is simply a condemnation of their arrogant quest to maintain a disease-oriented, chemical-based medical monopoly at the expense of other efficacious health-nurturing, physics-based alternative therapies such as chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, bio and neurofeedback, among others.

Science Fiction

In the last 50 years or so a new science emerged that now dominates and influences almost all, if not all, fields of research: corporate science. The name itself exposes the obvious conflict of interests between the corporate profit motive and scientific independence and integrity. This bottom-line driven science leaves little, to nothing, to chance, let alone real science.

Perhaps, the only real and accurate corporate sciences are their self-serving studies on population demographics and human motivation/psychology as they affect profit, i.e.; consumerism.

Corporate profit-driven science, as endorsed by the government, and glorified and broadcast by the media, has created a through the looking glass reality that has us believing incredible non-science, non-sense; selling us spin as science that is literally making us sicker, and killing millions annually as profits soar.

We have come to rely on their science, disguised as television and media news, informative ads and magazine articles, patient advocacy groups, etc., as our prime source for health and nutrition information. More so than any other source. And then, conveniently, they sell us the cure.

Could the atmosphere be any more conducive to manipulation and corruption? Yes.

Our belief in science has been carefully cultivated and nurtured to elicit a knee-jerk, hypnotic-type, unquestioning and accepting response to key words, phrases, visual and auditory cues that drive our buying habits.

We have been indoctrinated to respond to unsubstantiated words such as: studies show,

scientists say, doctors agree, FDA –AMA-American Heart Association or American Cancer Association approved, low-fat, cholesterol-free, high fiber, vitamin-fortified, omega-3, heart healthy, calcium-enriched, anti-oxidant, osteoporosis, acid-reflux, etc.; visual cues such as actors in white coats, a stethoscope, a clogged artery, an acid-filled stomach, a gurney, an ambulance, an ER, an MRI machine, a ‘Healthy Heart’ logo, and now, a ‘Smart Choice’ logo, etc.; and, auditory cues such as a heartbeat or the electronic sound of an EKG, and the never-end drone: “ask your doctor if you need.”

The mere fact that most people even know these scientific words, phrases, visual and auditory cues is testimony to the extent and effectiveness of the indoctrination. Why else, but for marketing reasons, would your average person even know words like cholesterol, anti-oxidant, osteoporosis, trans-fat, etc.?

How else could you possibly explain the labeling of non-food chemical concoctions such as;

vitamin-fortified, high-fiber, low-cholesterol, fat-free Froot Loops and Popsicles with anti-oxidants, as ‘Smart Choice’ healthy foods?

We are willing, if not unwitting, participants in this science of deception. We continue to allow ourselves to be duped and manipulated by corporate science to the extent that we have lost our most basic understanding of our own health and how to nurture it.

Sadly, as we have listened to corporate science over the past 50 years we have gotten only sicker. All of their scientific non-food products have led to skyrocketing rates of the chronic degenerative diseases: diabetes, heart disease, obesity, osteoporosis and cancer. We then seek salvation from corporate run medical science and pharmaceuticals taking us through the looking glass to a place where drugs, tests, and procedures supposedly equal health, but in reality only equate with profits.

Political InAction

Whether or not you are paying attention to, and engage in, the health care reform debate the outcome will be determined by the most vocal and influential voices in Washington.

Take heed, the vested interests of the medical-pharmaceutical-insurance industrial complex are geared up and out in full force.

“The big guns are out and they’re firing. All major lobbying firms in Washington – many of them brimming with ex-members of Congress – are now crawling all over the Hill. Lots of money is on the table. The AMA’s political action committee has contributed $9.8 million to congressional candidates since 2000, and its lobbying arm is one of the most formidable on the Hill. Meanwhile, Big Insurance and Big Pharma are increasing their firepower. The five largest private insurers and their trade group America‘s Health Insurance Plans spent a total of $6.4 million on lobbying in the first quarter of this year, up more than $1 million from the first quarter last year, and are spending even more now. United Health Group spent $1.5 million in the first quarter, up 34 percent from the $1.1 million it spent in the first quarter last year. Aetna spent $809,793 between January and the end of March, up 41 percent from last year. Pfizer, the world’s biggest drugmaker, spent more than $6.1 million on

lobbying between January and March,more than double what it spent last year. It also spent nearly $3.3 million lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2008. Every one of them is upping their spending.”

Theirs’ is a no-holds barred attack to secure their profits. They straight-out buy politicians, former ones like Dole and Daschle, to lobby the current ones, their former colleagues. They buy air-time and endlessly broadcast self-serving public media, news/propaganda, and advertising campaigns based on distortions and outright lies to propagate fear.

They fear-monger with buzzwords like socialized medicine, rationing of care, long waits, and compromised quality of care, as if they cared about any of that, or your health. As if we don’t already have rationing of care, long waits and compromised care. As if the current unfettered corporatocracy/plutocracy is better for the American people than socialized medicine, if it came to that.

President Obama is holding town-hall type meetings on the subject to drum up public support for the public option. He knows that as rich and powerful as the special interests are, in shear numbers, there are more of us than them. And, because we can vote we can speak with a unified voice to force the hands of our corporate-owned politicians. We can have our say, and we can win, but only if we participate en masse.

Everything in life is political, especially politics!

What have you done today to make your voice heard so that your interests are protected, over those of the corporate giants?

This issue is too critical for you to sit by and do nothing. It demands your attention and political action. You must call your Senators, Congressmen and the White House repeatedly to voice your support of a public option. If they are not hearing from YOU, they are most certainly hearing, and feeling the pressure, from special interest lobbyists and major corporate campaign contributors.

Ultimately, the future landscape of health care will be whatever we let happen during this debate.

Political inaction is an action. It is to allow the special interests to prevail.

Get involved.

Act as if your health, and the health of your loved ones, depends on it!

Call your Senators, Congressmen and The White House today, and get everyone you know to call as frequently as possible.

Talk about vigilance. Kudos to Audrae Erikson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, for spotting a single negative reference to high fructose corn syrup in a four page local newspaper (The Transcript: Elf Parlor Pouring Local Brews: ”We want everything to be as fresh and as healthy as possible. We don’t use high-fructose corn syrup.”)

But that is what lobbyists and political action committees are paid to do- protect the financial and political interests, and public perception and image, of their clients, huge Agra-businesses such as Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, etc.

Erickson’s response, in my opinion, is misleading. The AMA stamp of approval has nothing to do with either public health or safety, and high fructose corn syrup is not benign.

Contrary to popular belief, the AMA is not a benevolent group of wise grey-haired doctors looking out for the health of Americans. The AMA is a political action committee dedicated to protecting the financial interests and political influence of its members.

Their history is rather appalling and finds them on the wrong side of many public health issues.

Working with the tobacco industry, they actively endorsed cigarettes and smoking, contributing to untold disease, subsequent medical interventions and deaths related to COPD and lung cancer. In another mega-boon to Agra-business, they advocated the use of margarine and vegetable oil products associated with trans-fats, over butter and other natural animal fats, contributing to untold diseases, medical management and deaths related to cardiovascular disease and cancer. And, most recently, they have frightened the public out of the sun and advocated massive use of sun block  largely contributing to the current pandemic vitamin D deficiency, that according to recent studies is associated with an increased risk ‘in all-cause mortality (deaths of all causes).’

Among other things, the AMA also vehemently opposed Medicare coverage for Americans over the age of 65, and all attempts at health care reform to date. The AMA has been found guilty in the Supreme Court, on at least two occasions, of violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act for restraint of trade, trying to monopolize the field of health care. And more.

I suspect their recent endorsement of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) will be found to be yet another misguided AMA position statement detrimental to public health leading to diseases requiring life-long medical management.

At sweetsurprise.com, ’the site devoted to answering your questions and providing factual information about high fructose corn syrup,’ one can access studies with titles and conclusions such as: “Frequent soft-drink consumption does not lead to higher obesity rate.” (And my 87 year old mother is poised to win the Tour de France)

First of all, in terms of studies, there is a great saying: “Tell me who’s asking the questions, and I’ll tell you what answers they want.’

This study includes such stunning statements as: “In consideration with other factors that potentially influence obesity occurrence as indicated in the risk analysis, the noted frequent SSB (sugar-sweetened beverages) intake in obese adults was not sufficient to be a significant factor for elevating obesity risk.” In other words, if you are obese and frequently drink soda, it does not increase your risk of obesity.

 

This type of non-science, non-sense study only serves the interests of its sponsors (Regulatory, Nutritional and Scientific Affairs Group, James R. Randall Research Center, Archer Daniels Midland Company) at the expense of scientific truth and public health.

Even if we were to accept the notion that high fructose corn syrup is ‘generally regarded as safe,’ the fact that it is ubiquitous in processed foods and soft drinks makes it dangerous. Consumption of high fructose corn syrup has gone from a half pound per person in 1970 to 62 pounds per person by 2003. This is consistent with the skyrocketing rates of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome and cancers in both adults and children. 

While there are other associated factors, such as sedentary lifestyle, smoking, etc., it is purely a self-serving distraction and a lie to suggest that high fructose corn syrup is safe and has not contributed hugely to the increased incidence and deaths associated with all of these diseases.