The skeptical cardiologist has mentioned homeopathy previously in a post entitled Functional Medicine Is Fake Medicine. but I hadn”t heretofore commented on how pervasive and useless it is.
Science-Based medicine’s Jann Bellamy has recently written about a lawsuit by the Center for Inquiry (CFI) which claims the pharmacy giant CVS is fraudulently deceiving consumers by selling worthless homeopathic redemies.
There is a unanimous scientific consensus that homeopathy is total hogwash. You can read excellent articles at science-based medicine detailing the crazy pseudo-scientific ideas underlying homeopathy here.
The CFI press release summarizes homeopathy as follows:
Homeopathy is an 18th-century pseudoscience premised on the absurd, unscientific notion that a substance that causes a particular symptom is what should be ingested to alleviate it. Dangerous substances are diluted to the point that no trace of the active ingredient remains, but its alleged effectiveness rests on the nonsensical claim that water molecules have “memories” of the original substance. Homeopathic treatments have no effect whatsoever beyond that of a placebo.
Yet, CVS and other large pharmacy chains continue to sell homeopathic rubbish.
I agree with CFI’s Nicholas Little:
If the people in charge of the country’s largest pharmacy don’t know that homeopathy is bunk, they should be kept as far away from the American healthcare system as possible
The lawsuit claims pharmacy chain giant CVS fraudulently deceives consumers in the sale of worthless homeopathic remedies and was filed in late June by the Center for Inquiry (CFI), acting on behalf of the general public. The suit seeks both damages and an injunction against CVS’s deceptive marketing practices in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the District’s consumer protection act.
Come on CVS! Get this type of useless pseudo-scientific snake oil out of your stores and start helping your consumers make good choices.
Last week the FDA recalled several versions of the generic blood pressure medication valsartan which were made in China and contained a carcinogen (see here.)
Since then I have switched many patients from the bad valsartan to losartan or valsartan from presumably safe manufacturers.
It didn’t really occur to me that this could be just the tip of the iceberg until I received a reader comment which I will copy below.
As I thought about it, I realized that I have no idea where the generic ramipril I am taking is manufactured. It very well could be in China or India.
This recent article from The Epoch Times confirms that Americans are becoming more and more reliant on medications manufactured in China and that many researchers feel this poses a significant security threat.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is inspecting only a small number of the Chinese companies that manufacture U.S. drugs, and those it does inspect are often found to have serious health violations. Meanwhile, the drugs that are making their way into the United States from China, either as finished products or as ingredients, are often falling far below U.S. safety standards. And some of these drugs are not being inspected at all.
It is very hard to find out how many US drugs come from China since drug companies don’t make their sources apparent. In addition, even if the drugs themselves aren’t manufactured in China, Gibson and Singh write
“China is the largest global supplier of the active ingredients and chemical building blocks needed to make many prescription drugs, over the counter products and vitamins.”
Below are the comments of my reader:
This is horrible. We have a problem in the U.S. It is the infiltration of Chinese generics. I had no idea that this generic was being supplied by a Chinese maker. In fact, the bottles I got said “SOLCO” which is based in New Jersey. Now I’m painfully aware that SOLCO Healthcare US which is based in New Jersey, is owned by Zhejiang Huahai Paarmaceutical based in China’s Zhejiang Province. So this is the Chinese company’s subsidiary distributing this drug in the U.S. China has a long history of selling tainted products in the U.S. Chinese drywall, lead-based paint on toys, tainted pet food, etc. Now it is important to understand that 85% of prescriptions filled in the U.S. are generic. And insurance companies will not pay for brand when generic is available. My valsartan was about $30 for 90 days. Diovan is $750. I get it. But when these companies cut corners and people are endangered, something is wrong. I will never ever take another generic drug without first finding out where the product comes from. I know this is not perfect, but it is something. I think the U.S. lawmakers need to do something to make this information more transparent. It baffles me as to how this drug could have been tainted with a highly toxic chemical for so many years (they now say 4 years). This chemical is known to cause liver damage and cancer. Apparently the manufacturer changed the way it made the active ingredient which created this poison by-product. And now who do we hold accountable? How do we get to the bottom of what went wrong, and how to prevent this going forward. We have no way to compel anything in China. All that said, thanks for your information here it is helpful. I worry that the losartan is made by the same company – I will surely investigate.
China is also flooding the American market with useless OTC medications. I realized this when I looked closely at this “motion sickness patch” which is highly rated on Amazon.
It has no active ingredient which could be realistically thought to treat motion sickness yet is featured on Amazon’s motion sickness treatment section and is favorably reviewed by over a thousand users.
Unfortunately, in the US now users of medications must be very aware of the source and quality of the products they put in their body. Generic prescription medications and OTC products are highly likely to be manufactured out of the US and with minimal oversight.
Addendum: I have a more recent post which includes additional recalls here.
The skeptical cardiologist first encountered the blather of Dr. Steven Gundry while researching and writing a post entitled The #1 Red Flag of Quackery.
Gundry came across my quack radar screen due to the popularity of his useless supplements and his pseudoscientific justifications. He is also widely described as a cardiologist but he is not, He is (or was) a cardiac surgeon (like, strangely enough, the celebrity prince of quackery, Dr. Oz)
I’ve been meaning to write specifically about his most popular useless supplement, Vital Reds.
In the meantime, Gundry has come out with a best-selling. book entitled “The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in Healthy Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain”.
This book claims to reveal to its readers the great dietary “secret” that is causing almost all chronic diseases. Of course, Gundry is the only person with the brilliance and insight to have recognized this. Only those who are willing to plunk down the money to buy his book will learn this secret and the (mostly gobbledook) science behind it.
This technique of convincing the naive that only you are aware of the “hidden” factor which is the cause of their various maladies can probably be considered the #2 Red Flag of Quackery.
The Plant Paradox would have you believe that lectins are the major danger in our diet.
I’ve come across two well-researched pieces which destroy any validity to the concepts put forth by Gundry in The Plant Paradox.
Campbell: Is It Possible Gundry Is Out To Make A Quick Buck?
The first is from T. Colin Campbell of China Study fame. While I don’t agree with his overall dietary philosophy (see here) in his article he has taken the time to read Gundry’s book in detail and address in great detail the multiple bogus claims and the lack of scientific support. Campbell begins:
The claims come fast and furious in this book, stated with a degree of certainty, without nuance, that undoubtedly appeals to many readers. But the referencing is so lacking and sloppy that Dr. Gundry should be embarrassed. The references that are cited in this book do a poor job of trying to justify its claims. And the bulk of the author’s wild claims lack references at all, with several examples of easily verifiable falsehoods. Because his claims are quite profound and novel, referencing of the findings of others and his own results are especially important. This is especially troubling for an author who touts his own research experience.
After debunking Gundry’s lectin claims , Campbell suggests that Gundry’s major goal is selling more useless supplements, including one that will protect readers from the dreaded lectin:
In conclusion, there are many people who desire good health and deserve good information and we resent that they must suffer such poor quality and confusing information under the assumption that it is good science. Is it possible that Dr. Gundry is just out to make a quick buck? He admits that his patients give up to a dozen vials of blood for testing every couple of months at his clinic. Overtesting is common practice in supplement-driven clinics. This extensive testing, (which are another topic), is almost always used to demonstrate some type of nutritional pathology, which of course can only be corrected by taking the suggested supplements. And of course, Dr. Gundry sells supplements, including “Lectin Shield” for about $80 a month. According to his website, “This groundbreaking new formula was created to offset the discomforting effects of lectins (proteins commonly found in plants that make them harder to digest). Lectin Shield works to protect your body from a pile-up of lectins and to promote full-body comfort.”
Are Lectins The Next Gluten?
The second article I highly recommend was written for The Atlantic last year by one of my favorite medical writers, James Hamblin, MD.
Entitled, “Lectins Could Become the Next Gluten“, the article combines a tongue–in-cheek commentary with interviews with scientists who debunk Gundry’s claims. Hamblin also interviews Gundry which is particularly revelatory as to Gundry’s lack of credibility.
Although Gundry claims his writing is not motivated by money, Hambling notes:
Yes, he also sells supplements he recommends. The last 20 or so minutes of his infomercial is a string of claims about how supplies are running low, and it’s important that you act immediately, and that if you do manage to get through to a customer representative you should order as much as you have room to store—the shelf life is great, etc. And the necessity of supplements is the crucial argument of the book. He writes, “Getting all of the nutrients you need simply cannot be done without supplements.”
The GundryMD line of products includes something he invented called vitamin G6. Another is a “lectin shield” that’s “designed to neutralize the effects of lectins.” These are available on his website for $79.99. There you can also get six jars of Vital Reds for $254.70.
Hambling closes his piece by noting that book publishers have no accountability for publishing dietary/health misinformation as they are incentivized to publish and profit from the most outrageous claims.
This is a problem much bigger than any plant protein. Cycles of fad dieting and insidious misinformation undermine both public health and understanding of how science works, giving way to a sense of chaos. It seems that every doctor has their own opinion about how to protect your body from calamity, and all are equally valid, because nothing is ever truly known.
N.B. Gwyneth Paltrow (GOOP) deserves a prominent place in the Quackery Hall of Shame.
Gwyneth Paltrow has made a career out of selling pseudoscience on her lifestyle website, Goop. Over the years, the actress has proclaimed women should steam their vaginas, that water has feelings, and that your body holds secret organs. Mixed into these absurd assertions is her bogus detox diet and cleansing advice, all of it in service of promoting Goop’s beauty and wellness products
Antioxidant-rich foods, vitamins and supplements are incessantly promoted to Americans as effective and safe means to stave off the chronic diseases of aging and even aging itself.
The simple concept that sells billions of dollars of these products seems logical and seems to be supported by science: damaging and disease-causing free radicals are neutralized by super hero antioxidants. All you have to do to benefit from these disease-fighting agents is identify foods with the highest level of antioxidants or take supplements with super antioxidant vitamins or chemicals.
To remain young and free of heart disease, cancer and dementia, the glowing marketing material for antioxidant products proclaims, eat this magical Italian fruit or drink this fruit juice or take this concentrated substance that we have carefully extracted from a super fruit.
Unfortunately, the early hopes that antioxidant therapy would reduce heart disease,in particular, and other chronic diseases of aging in general have been dashed by excellent scientific studies performed in the 1990s.
For antioxidant vitamins, in particular, which continue to be heavily promoted for heart disease and cancer prevention, over the last 20 years a wealth of studies have accumulated which clearly demonstrate a lack of efficacy.
Despite data clearly showing no benefit in well done randomized trials (and in some cases evidence for harm) sales of antioxidant vitamins C, E and beta-carotene continue to thrive.
Why did scientists strongly believe in the idea that antioxidants in pure and concentrated form would prevent heart disease?
Antioxidants: Free Radical Scavengers
Laboratory and animal studies beginning in the 1950s suggested that excess free radicals generated by oxidative processes could be responsible for the chronic degenerative diseases of aging.
Oxygen, which is essential to animal life, undergoes processing in cells which creates unstable free radicals. Free radicals are short an electron and seek other molecules which can donate an electron and make them more stable. This process is termed oxidation.
The molecules produced by oxidation play an important role in a a number of biological processes such as the killing of bacteria and in cell signaling. These same unstable molecules, however, have been implicated in a number of deleterious processes as they can participate in unwanted side reactions and create cell damage.
Thus, too many free radicals have been implicated as potentially causal in diseases ranging from cancer to cardiovascular disease to dementia.
Antioxidants can reduce damage from free radical reactions because they can donate electrons to neutralize free radicals or their offspring without forming another free radical.
This observation logically lead to the theory that large amounts of antioxidants taken as an oral supplement or within (either naturally or added artificially) food and beverages can prevent the free radical damage presumably causing chronic disease and aging.
Investigators early on identified three vitamins as the most important cellular antioxidants:
Vitamin E or d-alpha tocopherol is a fat soluble vitamin.
Vitamin C or ascorbic acid. is a water soluble vitamin, deficiency of which leads to scurvy
Beta-carotene is a precursor to vitamin A (retinol)
Early Observational Studies Suggest Taking An Antioxidant Prevents Heart Disease
Based on laboratory, animal and human clinical trials many investigators by the early 1990s were convinced that oxidation of LDL cholesterol was the major cause of atherosclerosis and that antioxidant supplementation , in particular Vitamin E, could prevent the heart attacks and strokes caused by atherosclerosis.
The introduction to the landmark Nurses Health Study summarizes the seemingly compelling evidence leading to these conclusions:
Rapidly growing evidence suggests that oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) plays an important part in atherosclerosis. As Steinberg et al. have found,1-3 oxidized LDL is taken up more readily than native LDL by macrophages to create foam cells. Also, oxidized LDL is chemotactic for circulating monocytes,4 and it inhibits the motility of tissue macrophages5. It may also be cytotoxic to endothelial cells6 and may increase vasoconstriction in arteries7. Oxidized LDL has been identified in atherosclerotic lesions,8-10 and elevated titers of circulating autoantibodies to epitopes of oxidized LDL are found in patients with atherosclerosis11. Lipid peroxide concentrations have been found to be higher in patients with atherosclerosis12. In addition, the susceptibility of LDL to oxidation was correlated with the severity of atherosclerosis13.
Vitamin E is a potent lipid-soluble antioxidant carried in LDL14,15. It inhibits the proliferation of smooth-muscle cells in vitro,16 and when added to plasma, it increases the resistance of LDL to oxidation17. LDL from volunteers given alpha-tocopherol supplements showed increased resistance to oxidation18
Starting in 1980 the Nurses Healthy Study began gathering information on diet and supplement use in 87,245 female nurses 34 to 59 years of age who were free of diagnosed cardiovascular disease and cancer. Information on diet was assessed every two years and the participants were monitored for cardiovascular outcomes for 8 years.
High consumers of Vitamin E compared to lower consumers had a 34% lower risk of major coronary disease. Those who took Vitamin E for more than 2 years had a 41% reduction in risk which was significant after adjustment for age, smoking status, risk factors for coronary disease, and use of other antioxidant nutrients (including multivitamins).
After reading this study I and many of my colleagues began recommending that our patients take Vitamin E. These observational trials, however, could only show an association between antioxidants and disease, they didn’t prove causality.
Good Quality Randomized Trials Fail To Show Any Benefit of Antioxidants and Raise Concerns of Possible Danger
Given the strong evidence for antioxidants in reducing heart disease from the observational and laboratory studies the theory that antioxidant supplementation would reduce heart disease needed to be tested in randomized trials.
Fortunately, multiple well done randomized studies have tested whether supplementation with the major proposed antioxidants will reduce heart disease, cancer or mortality.
Sadly, the consensus assessment is that they are useless and in some cases antioxidant vitamin supplementation may increase risks.
Published in 2008, This study randomly assigned 14,641 physicians without heart disease to treatment with vitamin E 400 international units every other daily, vitamin C 500 mg daily, both, or neither; After eight years, treatment with vitamin E and Vitamin C either alone or in combination had no effect on major cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality.
Those participants taking Vitamin E had a significant 70% increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke compared to those taking placebo.
After this trial was published I took all my patients off Vitamin E.
Multiple good quality randomized controlled studies of Vitamin E, Vitamin C and beta-carotene in various combinations have also been done on patients who have established coronary heart disease and have shown no benefit in reducing cardiovascular events or mortality. This 2003 Lancet meta-analysis nicely summarizes the data.
These studies strongly called into question the theory that supplementation with antioxidants reduce chronic disease and by 2003 there was a broad consensus among serious scientists, cardiologists and nutritionists that Vitamin E and Vitamin C in various doses and in diverse populations had no benefit in reducing mortality, cardiovascular disease or cancer.
In fact, Vitamin E may increase hemorrhagic stroke and high-dose vitamin E supplementation (≥400 international units/day) may be associated with an increase in all-cause mortality
Studies with beta-carotene overall suggested an increase in overall mortality and one study has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in male smokers who received supplementation.
More recently, a 2012 BMJ meta-analysis concluded that there was no benefit for any vitamin or antioxidant supplement in reducing cardiovascular risk or mortality.
Despite Scientific Studies Showing No Benefit, Antioxidant Sales Continue To Grow
You might conclude that based on high quality studies showing no benefits and potential harm that sales of antioxidants would taper off. Unfortunately, the opposite has occurred.
Nutraceuticals World reported that sales of antioxidant supplements are growing steadily, reaching all time highs.
Combining top antioxidant ingredient sales such as green tea, dark chocolate, superfruit juice and dietary supplements, Euromonitor estimated the combined global sales in these categories totaled $34 billion in 2010. According to Euromonitor, the top antioxidant markets are Japan, the U.S. and China, with sales growing steadily in all five ranked product areas in the past five years. Growth from 2005 to 2010 was 43% in current terms. As a point of comparison, the global organic packaged food and beverage market was only $27 billion.
The Sneakiness of the Nutraceutical Snake Oil Salesmen
The quacks and charlatans that make their living selling useless vitamins, minerals, supplement and nutraceuticals are masters at creating the appearance of a scientific basis for buying their snake oil.
Their promotional material always features references to scientific studies. Almost invariably, these references do not prove any health benefit for the product being sold.
In cases like antioxidants where initial studies suggest a benefit and subsequent higher quality studies have shown no benefit, only the earlier studies will be quoted.
If relevant negatives studies for an antioxidant are referenced, the talented snake oil salesman will explain to his gullible audience that the lack of efficacy was because the wrong form of the antioxidant was utilized.
Fortunately, for you, the snake oil salesman has developed his own special formulation which is superior. Such formulations are typically described as containing additional ingredients that enhance efficacy. Often, the special formulation is described as somehow better at getting into the body or being absorbed.
None of these special formulations has any scientific support for treating or preventing any disease.
Dr. Mercola, A Master of Pseudoscientific Support For Selling Useless Vitamins
The most successful marketers of useless antioxidant supplements and vitamins convince their audience that they alone have the insight and wisdom to provide the consumer with the knowledge and products they need to be healthy. To accomplish this, they must create mistrust of standard medical advice and prescription medications, often portraying doctors as ignorant of proper nutrition and hostile to allegedly superior “natural” or alternative cures.
Doctors, in this portrayal, are the enemy, pushing dangerous prescription medications along with unneeded procedures like coronary stents and bypass surgery because we are in the pay of the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.
Joseph Mercola, an osteopath, has created an alternative medicine internet empire by convincing millions to follow his advice and buy his useless supplements. He is arguably the master of alternative medicine misinformation. (See this article to fully understand how dangerous Mercola’s ideas are.)
Hoovers reports that Mercola makes 9.8 million dollars per year selling useless stuff and Alexa describes his website as the top “alternative medicine” website. Mercola sells so much snake oil it is mind-numbing.
Mercola (or more likely his marketing department) has an astonishingly long and detailed list of reasons why you should buy only his own special formulation of Vitamin E. None of them are supported by scientific references.
-His form is natural versus synthetic.
-Other natural forms of vitamin E come from soy which you should avoid because it is genetically engineered.
-You need all 8 forms of natural vitamin E and they must be balanced in the way that he deems most healthy. His form comes from sunflower seeds.
-Science has ignored the tocotrienol form of Vitamin E but has “started to wake up to the potential benefits.”
-Tocotrienols potentially “help support normal cholesterol levels., protect again free radical damage and the normal effects of aging” and promote brain health.”
The average consumer reading this long and complicated discussion is likely to be impressed with the pseudoscientific language, the complicated chemical names, and the appeal to a more natural approach and has no way of knowing that it is all unsubstantiated marketing hype.
The average consumer is not likely to see buried in small print at the bottom of the page the truth:
*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
Don’t Buy Antioxidant Supplements and Vitamins
What have we learned?
Although early research suggested a role for antioxidant vitamins in preventing heart disease when high quality randomized controlled rials were performed they showed no benefit and in some cases increased risk.
Despite this, antioxidant sales are booming.
Supplement marketers are brilliant at confusing consumers with pseudoscience and sell billions of dollars of useless product.
There is minimal regulation of the nutraceutical/supplement industry. The snake oil purveyors get away with their lies and escape (for the most party) FDA scrutiny by admitting that their products don’t “treat, cure or prevent any disease.”
Rather than hiding this information, at a minimum, they should be forced to put it in large, bold letters at the beginning of every page on their website.
THESE PRODUCTS ARE NOT INTENDED TO TREAT, CURE OR PREVENT ANY DISEASE!
As the skeptical cardiologist surveys the heart health information available to his patients and the lay public, he sees two broad categories of misinformation.
First we have the quacks and snake oil salesman. These are primarily characterized by a goal of selling more of their useless stuff online.
I’ve described this as the #1 red flag of quackery. Usually I’m inspired to investigate these charlatans because a patient asks me about one of their useless supplements.
The second category is more insidious: the magazine or internet news site seems to have as its legitimate goal, promoting the health of its readers. There is no clear connection to a product.
Web MD, which I wrote about here, is an example of this second type. Hard copy versions of these types of media frequently make it into doctor’s waiting rooms: not because doctor’s have read and approved what is in them. These companies send their useless and misleading magazines for free to doctor’s offices, and the staff believe it to be legitimate.
How does glaringly inaccurate and often dangerous information get into media that ostensibly has as its goal promoting its readers health? Most likely, it is a result of media’s need to constantly produce new and interesting ways for readers to improve their health.
Clearly, readers will not continue subscribing, clicking and reading such sources of information if there isn’t something new and exciting that might prolong their lives: gimmicks, miracles cures, and “natural” remedies are more alluring than the well-known advice to exercise more, watch your weight, stop smoking and get a good night’s sleep.
Reader’s Digest was a staple of my childhood. My parents subscribed to it consistently and I would read parts of it. It was small and enticing. Allegedly its articles were crafted so that they could be read in their entirety during a session in the bathroom.
To this day it has a wide circulation. Per Wikipedia”
Global editions of Reader’s Digest reach an additional 40 million people in more than 70 countries, via 49 editions in 21 languages. The periodical has a global circulation of 10.5 million, making it the largest paid circulation magazine in the world.
Reader’s Digest used to run a recurring educational feature on the various body parts and organs of Joe and Jane which intrigued me.
I am certainly no beauty. I weigh 340 grams, am red-brown in color and have an unimpressive shape. I am the dedicated slave of Joe. I am Joe’s heart.
The health information in this series was generally accurate but the presentation lacks the kind of sizzle that apparently attracts today’s readers.
The article my patient brought to my attention is typical of the mix of good and bad information and fluff that mainstream media can produce to attract followers:
Not So Bad But Not Clearly True Medical Advice
#1. I keep a gratitude journal. An internist “at NYU” is quoted as saying: “Studies have recently shown that expressing gratitude may have a significant positive impact on heart health.”
Fact Check: following the links provided provides no evidence to support this claim.
#2 I get 8 hours of sleep a night, every night. This cardiologist seems to have been misquoted, because her comment is actually “getting a good night sleep is essential. I make a point of getting seven to eight hours of sleep every night…Poor sleep is linked to higher blood pressure.”
Too little or too much sleep are associated with adverse health outcomes, including total mortality, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and respiratory disorders, obesity in both children and adults, and poor self-rated health.
Another broke down mortality according to number of hours of sleep.
A J-shaped association between sleep duration and all-cause mortality was present: compared with 7 h of sleep (reference for 24-h sleep duration), both shortened and prolonged sleep durations were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (4 h: relative risk [RR] = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02–1.07; 5 h: RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.03–1.09; 6 h: RR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03–1.06; 8 h: RR = 1.03; 95% CI = 1.02–1.05; 9 h: RR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.10–1.16; 10 h: RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.22–1.28; 11 h: RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.33–1.44; n = 29; P < 0.01 for non-linear test)
Thus, in comparison to those who sleep 7 hours, those who sleep 5 hours have a 5% increase in mortality and those who sleep 11 hours have a 38% increase in mortality.
These data are based entirely on observational studies so it is impossible to know if the shortened sleep is responsible for the increased mortality or if some other (confounding) factor is causing both.
My advice: Some people do fine with 6 hours and 45 minutes of sleep. Some require 8 hours 15 minutes for optimal function. Rather than obsessing about getting a specific amount of sleep time, it makes more sense to find our through your own careful observations what sleep time works best for you and adjust your schedule and night time patterns accordingly.
#3. I do CrossFit.
Fact Check. There is nothing to support CrossFit as more heart healthy than regular aerobic exercise (which the vast majority of cardiologists recommend and perform).
#4. I meditate. “Negative thoughts and feelings of sadness can be detrimental to the heart. Stress can cause catecholamine release that can lead to heart failure and heart attacks.”
Fact Check. There is a general consensus that stress has adverse consequences for the cardiovascular system. Evidence of meditation improving cardiovascular outcomes is very weak.
Participation in meditation practices has been shown to reduce depression, anxiety, and negative mood and thus may have an indirect positive effect on CV health and well-being. This possibility has led the American Heart Association to classify TM as a class IIb, level of evidence B alternative approach to lowering BP.32
Non randomized, non blinded studies with small numbers of participants have suggested a reduction in CV death in those performing regular TM.
However, we need better and larger studies before concluding there is a definite benefit compared to optimal medical therapy.
Thus far, the recommendations have been pretty mundane: exercise, stress reduction and a good night’s sleep is good advice for all, thus boring.
Seriously Bad Advice From Quacks Mixed In With Reasonable Advice
In order to keep reader’s interest (and reach 45 things) Reader’s Digest is going to need to add seriously bad advice.
My patient had circled #34. “I mix magnesium powder into my water. If sufficient magnesium is present in the body, cholesterol will not be produced in excess.”
This bizarre and totally unsubstantiated practice was recommended by Carolyn Dean MD, ND.
What do we know about Dr. Dean?
-She was declared unfit to practice medicine and her registration revoked by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 1995. From quackwatch.org :
After being notified in 1993 that a disciplinary hearing would be held, Dean relocated to New York and did not contest the charges against her.
Dean had used unscientific methods of testing such as hair analysis, Vega and Interro testing, iridology and reflexology as well as treatment not medically indicated and of unproven value, such as homeopathy, colonic irrigations, coffee enemas, and rotation diets.
-The initials after her name (ND, doctor of naturopathy) should be considered the second red flag of quackery. See quackwatch.org (here) and rational wiki (here) and the confessions of a former naturopath (here ) for discussions of naturopathy. As noted at science-based medicine:
“Go ahead, try them at home: Experts swear by these nondrug cures for back pain, nausea, hot flashes, and other common ailments.”
Who are these “experts”? Let the reader beware because the first quote comes from “Amy Rothenberg, past president of the Massachusetts Society of Naturopathic Doctors.”
Finding The Truth
It’s getting harder and harder for the lay public to sort out real from fake health stories and advice.
When seemingly legitimate news media and widely followed sources like Reader’s Digest and Prevention Magazine either consciously or inadvertently promote quackery, the truth becomes even more illusive.
Readers should avoid any source of information which
Profits from selling vitamins and supplements.
Utilizes or promotes naturopaths or other obvious quacks as experts in health advice.
Originally known as quackery, the modalities now being “integrated” with medicine then became “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM), a term that is still often used. But that wasn’t enough. The word “complementary” implies a subordinate position, in which the CAM is not the “real” medicine, the necessary medicine, but is just there as “icing on the cake.” The term “integrative medicine” eliminates that problem and facilitates a narrative in which integrative medicine is the “best of both worlds” (from the perspective of CAM practitioners and advocates). Integrative medicine has become a brand, a marketing term, disguised as a bogus specialty.
Much of this quackery being integrated is easy to recognize:
A lot of it is based on prescientific ideas of how the human body and disease work (e.g., traditional Chinese medicine, especially acupuncture, for instance, which is based on a belief system that very much resembles the four humors in ancient “Western” or European medicine); on nonexistent body structures or functions (e.g., chiropractic and subluxations, reflexology and a link between areas on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet that “map” to organs; craniosacral therapy and “craniosacral rhythms”); or vitalism (e.g., homeopathy, “energy medicine,” such as reiki, therapeutic touch, and the like). Often there are completely pseudoscientific ideas whose quackiness is easy to explain to an educated layperson, like homeopathy.
Functional Medicine addresses the underlying causes of disease, using a systems-oriented approach and engaging both patient and practitioner in a therapeutic partnership. It is an evolution in the practice of medicine that better addresses the healthcare needs of the 21st century. By shifting the traditional disease-centered focus of medical practice to a more patient-centered approach, Functional Medicine addresses the whole person, not just an isolated set of symptoms.
Dr. Gorski notes that functional medicine has been integrated into well-respected academic programs:
“there are modalities being “integrated” into medicine whose quackiness is not so easy to explain. Perhaps the most popular and famous of these is a specialty known as “functional medicine” (FM) whose foremost practitioner and advocate (in the US, at least) is Mark Hyman, MD, a man whose fame has led him to become a trusted medical advisor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps Hyman’s greatest coup came in 2014, when the Cleveland Clinic Foundation hired him to create an institute dedicated to FM, an effort that has apparently been wildly successful in terms of patient growth. Never mind that around the same time Dr. Hyman teamed up with rabid antivaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to write a book blaming mercury in the thimerosal preservative that used to be in vaccines for causing autism, an idea that was shown long ago to have no scientific merit.
To fully understand the bogusness of functional medicine I highly recommend you take time to read Dr. Gorski’s excellent and detailed article at science-based medicine . It’s entitled
Functional medicine: The ultimate misnomer in the world of integrative medicine
As part of the Health Nuts Project, the skeptical cardiologist has been evaluating walnuts, hazelnuts and almonds which he plans to put in packets and distribute to patients and readers.
Previously, we discovered that most raw almonds from the US have been fumigated with a chemical called propylene oxide and that roasting almonds creates potentially carcinogenic chemicals.
Consequently, after considerable searching, I purchased raw organic almonds from a company called NutsinBulk. These turn out to be from Spain (where pasteurization of almonds is not required) and are quite tasty.
As I was munching on one of these almonds I suddenly noticed an incredibly bitter taste causing me to spit the chewed almond out. My first thought was that this almond had gone “bad” in some way. Perhaps a mold had crept into it. Looking at the pieces I had spit out, however, I could see no discoloration or other visible difference from the “normal” almonds.
Subsequent experimentation has revealed that about one in ten of these almonds is incredibly bitter and there is no way to predict this from the external appearance of the almond.
The Source of Bitter Almonds
The sweet almond that we are used to eating in the US is produced from one type of almond tree (Prunus amygdalus var. dulcis) and does not contain poisonous chemicals. However, the bitter almond that I encountered comes from a different type of almond tree (Prunus amygdalus var. amara).
Prunus amara trees were likely the original almond trees but over time the sweet almond trees have been selected for and now dominate. According to the LA Times and Paul Schrade, who provides bitter almonds to restaurants:
Until recent decades, most Mediterranean almond orchards were grown from seed, and the shuffling of genes resulted in a mix of bitter almond trees among the sweet. Growers liked to keep a few bitter trees around because they helped to pollinize the sweet varieties. The inclusion of bitter nuts gave snackers occasional unpleasant surprises, but they deepened the flavor of marzipan, almond milk and glazes for cakes. In Italy, bitter almond paste was traditionally used to make crisp amaretti cookies, and bitter almond extract flavored amaretto liqueur. In Greece, bitter almonds are used in soumada, a sweet syrup. (apparently cooking or adding alcohol eliminates the toxic cyanide)
There’s little large-scale cultivation of bitter almonds left in Spain and Italy, mostly just scattered trees remain, but it is still possible to buy raw bitter almonds at European specialty markets. Morocco and Iran now lead in commercial production of bitter almonds.
A recessive gene causes bitter almond trees to produce in their shoots, leaves and kernels a toxic compound called amygdalin, which serves as a chemical defense against being eaten. When amygdalin is moistened, it splits into edible benzaldehyde, which provides an intense almond aroma and flavor, and deadly hydrocyanic acid, a fast-acting inhibitor of the respiratory system.
The lethal dose of raw bitter almonds depends on the size of the nuts, their concentration of amygdalin and the consumer’s sensitivity. But scientists estimate that a 150-pound adult might die from eating between 10 and 70 raw nuts, and a child from ingesting just a few.
YIKES!!!When I read this I was shocked. Could it be that consuming 10 of these raw biter almonds would kill me.? How could I distribute these potentially lethal edibles to my patients?
Amygdalin (Laetrile) , Alternative Cancer Therapy and Quackery
In addition to bitter almonds, significant amounts of amygdalin are found in the stone fruit kernels of apricots, peaches and plums. A synthetic form of amygdalin called Laetrile achieved great notoriety in the 1980s as a cancer treatment. Although research had shown the chemical to be ineffective, it was embraced by “alternative” healers who claimed it was a “natural” cure for cancer which was being suppressed by a conspiracy between the US FDA, big pharma, and the the medical community.
Steve McQueen, suffering from pleural mesothelioma sought the care of a delisted American holistic orthodontist practicing in Mexico, William Kelley. The NY Times reported:
In July 1980, McQueen secretly traveled to Rosarita Beach, Mexico, to be treated by Mexican and American doctors using Dr. Kelley’s regimen. He received not only pancreatic enzymes but 50 daily vitamins and minerals, massages, prayer sessions, psychotherapy, coffee enemas and injections of a cell preparation made from sheep and cattle fetuses. McQueen was also given laetrile, a controversial alternative treatment made from apricot pits.
Although we hear little about Laetrile these days, like most snake oil it is still promoted by alternative medicine. For example, The notorious quack Dr. Mercola still promotes the idea that laetrile is a safe and effective treatment of cancer on his web site with a post that has been viewed over 700,000 times.
You Can Die From Eating Bitter Almonds
Certainly, there is considerable evidence that Laetrile can be toxic or lethal but bitter almonds can also cause lethal cyanide poisoning. A case report describes a woman with colon cancer who turned down potentially curative surgery/chemotherapy and turned to alternative treatments including Laetrile. A helpful friend gave her a bag of bitter almonds for their “medicinal properties”, whereupon the woman consumed a slurry composed of 12 ground up almonds with water. Within 30 minutes she developed severe cyanide poisoning with vomiting, abdominal pain, pulmonary edema, severe lactic acidosis and loss of consciousness.
Analysis of the bitter almonds showed they contained on average 6.2 mg of cyanide per almond. It is estimated that a lethal dosage of cyanide is 50 mg or 0.5 mg per kg body weight, thus the calculation that 10 almonds could kill someone weighing 60 kg or 132 pounds.
My Search For Healthy Almonds Continues
The small amount of cyanide one gets from consuming a single bitter almond seems to have little effect. (Although the Mediterranean diet nutritionist Conner Middelman-Whitney , who spent time in Europe and encountered bitter almonds occasionally says that she does remember a weird, numb sensation in the mouth when they were consumed.) It’s extremely unlikely that one of my patients would consume 10 of the bitter almonds (without reflexively spitting them out as I did) in a short period of time.
When I have consumed them I noticed no adverse effects but after such an encounter I stopped eating the almonds for the day.
However, I’m not interested in testing that theory. (Ability to taste amygdalin or smell cyanide varies between individuals, thus I can’t be certain that the bitter taste would serve as a reliable warning.)
Therefore, I’ve concluded that I’m not going to distribute these potentially lethal almonds to my patients and will be removing them from the Dr. Pearson Health Nuts Packages.
My search for non-fumigated, non-cyanide-laced , non-carcinogenic almonds continues!
N.B. Famous deaths from cyanide poisoning include Hitler and Alan Turing.
I found on Dr. Gundry’s website an immediate and aggressive attempt to sell lots of supplements with features similar to what I describe above.
Dr. Gundry’s bio states “I left my former position at California’s Loma Linda University Medical Center, and founded The Center for Restorative Medicine. I have spent the last 14 years studying the human microbiome – and developing the principles of Holobiotics that have since changed the lives of countless men and women.”
Need I mention that “holobiotics” is (?are) not real.
After writing this, I googled “red flag of quackery” images in the foolish hope that I might find a useable image. Lo and behold the image I featured in this post turned up courtesy of sci-ence.org. Here it is in all its glory, courtesy of Maki
No, you are not “sabotaging” your heart with statin drugs. Neither are you “wrecking” your heart.
But that title probably got your attention if you are taking a statin drug and thought that it was helping your heart.
This question is prominently displayed on the Health portion of a news website called Newsmax, that somehow interrupted my web surfing today. If you click on the banner, you will get to listen to the words of Dr. David Brownstein, “America’s most popular family physician.”
Dr. Brownstein, in my opinion, should more properly be termed “one of America’s most popular quacks, charlatans and purveyors of misinformation in order to market useless junk.”
What Brownstein says can be found on multiple similar sites across the internet which are promoting “alternative” or “natural” approaches to high cholesterol.
His claims can be summarized as follows:
statin drugs do nothing to protect you from heart attacks
statin drugs “weaken your heart,” muscles, cause fatigue and lower your sex drive, damage your kidneys and liver
statin drugs prevent the formation of cholesterol which is essential for brain, sex hormone and vitamin D production
1/2 of people with heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels
CHF is increasing in frequency and it is related to an increase in statins and consumption of sugar and refined carbohydrates
Big pharma has perpetrated the biggest fraud in medical history on the American public by brainwashing doctors, beginning in medical school, to prescribe statin drugs
These claims resonate with patients who are reluctant to take medications and who feel that “natural” approaches to prevention and treatment are superior.
Brownstein uses a combination of alarmist rhetoric and pseudoscientific jargon that appeals to those seeking alternatives.
Let’s look at his claims.
Do Statins Prevent heart Attacks?
Statins unequivocally prevent heart attacks in patients who have had heart attacks or have evidence of advanced vascular disease due to atherosclerosis. This is called secondary prevention and there are almost no cardiologists/scientists with any credibility who dispute the value of statins in secondary prevention.
The only specific study that Brownstein cites is the ASCOT-LLA study, published in 2003 which looked at ten thousand patients with hypertension, no heart disease and low or normal cholesterol levels, half of whom got 10 mg of atorvastatin and half a placebo.
This was a primary prevention study and showed such a benefit of the atorvastatin on reducing heart attack and coronary deaths that the study was stopped early, at 3.3 years at which time 154 patients receiving placebo versus 100 receiving atorvastatin had had heart attacks or died from coronary disease.
This was a highly significant reduction in events. There are several ways to look at this data and present it to patients; Brownstein implies that “Big pharma” presented the most favorable way, which is that there was a 36% reduction in relative risk.
The absolute risk of an event in the atorvastatin group was 1.7% (2.7% in the placebo group), so the absolute risk reduction was from 2.7% down to 1.7% or 1%.
To help better understand the data, we can also look at the number needed to treat (NNT). The NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction. So for the ASCOT trial, the absolute risk reduction was 1%. 1 divided by 1% is 100 — 100 people would need to be treated with atorvastatin (the generic of Lipitor) over the study period to prevent one heart attack. (For more discussion on the NNT check out this blog post and this paper on its limitations)
Understandably, Pfizer, the makers of atorvastatin, prominently displayed the 36% relative risk reduction in their direct to consumer marketing campaigns (featuring Dr.Robert Jarvik (proclaiming himself a doctor in direct to consumer videos), although he was never a licensed physician (see here for interesting discussion on the controversy that ensued)).
Until, the FDA compels them to do otherwise, big pharma will project their products in the most favorable light possible.
However, it is debatable whether presenting data to patients using absolute risk reductions or NNT info plus relative risk reductions results in better choices. As Mcalister has pointed out:
“For example, many British patients with atrial fibrillation who were likely to benefit from anticoagulant therapy because of their risk profiles and their similarity to the participants in randomized trials supporting the efficacy of warfarin declined warfarin therapy when presented with the data about their absolute risks and benefits.”
ASCOT really makes a strong case for taking a statin drug to prevent heart attacks, even in those with normal or low cholesterol levels, not the opposite, as Brownstein has implied.
Do Statin Drugs “Weaken” The Heart Muscle Or Cause Heart Failure?
After criticizing the now infamous “Seven Nations Study” of Ancel Keys, which found high fat consumption in countries with high rates of heart attacks, Brownstein trots out the weakest imaginable argument for statins causing heart failure: heart failure has increased in the last decades, statin use has increased, therefore statins are causing heart failure.
Correlation does not equal causation!
There is no compelling evidence that statins cause heart failure or weaken heart muscle.
In fact, a recent review of heart failure and statins concluded that statins, while not reducing mortality in heart failure, do have favorable effects on reducing the rate of hospitalization for heart failure and increasing the strength of the heart muscle.
Statins may not be as beneficial in patients with heart failure, but they definitely don’t cause heart failure.
Much of the misinformation about heart failure and statins arises from sites like Life Extension, which promotes sales of its own preferred brand of vitamin CoQ10, ubiquinol. (According to their website, though, this is for altruistic reasons: “We at the Life Extension Foundation take a different view. Keeping our members in a youthful state of longevity is the most efficient way of maintaining the revenue stream we need to fund our scientific research projects. We had no problem reducing our margins to provide members with the clearly superior ubiquinol form of CoQ10.”)
As is typical for this slick organization (see my previous post here), the writing has the veneer of science but is all pseudoscience with references that are outdated, irrelevant or meaningless.
Statin Side Effects
I’ve written about statin side effects and the decision to take them based on analysis of risks and benefits here and here.
By far, the most common thing we see is myalgia, aching of the muscles, and this is reversible.
The bottom line is that the benefits of statins far outweigh the risks if you are at very high risk for heart attack and stroke. The risks outweigh the benefits if you are at very low risk.
Brownstone is not the only purveyor of dangerous misinformation on Newsmax’s Health website. There seems to be a concerted effort to promote quacks and charlatans and any information on this website is suspect.
A good rule of thumb if you are searching for credible health information on the web:
Avoid sites that use scare tactics and inflammatory rhetoric to induce you to stop your prescription medication and buy a health newsletter or nutraceutical.
By the way, Big Pharma has not brainwashed me.
I have no ties to industry.
I stopped taking any pharma food or money years ago.