I was intrigued to see this news article on the BBC website this morning: WHO warns against homeopathy use.

Quickly, throw open the door of your medicine cabinet and eject all those little white homeopathic tabs; the World Health Organization after careful consideration reflecting its singular position of authority has clearly at last come down firmly on the side of homeopath sceptics.

Except that is not really what the article says.

Firstly the article is not talking about homeopathy in general but is instead focused on the problem of homeopathic remedies being promoted as primary medication for developing world sufferers of TB, infant diarrhoea, influenza, malaria and HIV. Not even the Royal Homeopathic Hospital in London agrees with reliance on homeopathic remedies for such conditions, according to a comment by Dr Robert Hagan - a St Andrews University researcher quoted in the BBC article.

I am not particularly convinced that homeopathy works, and so I agree with the assertion that people with HIV, TB and the like should not RELY on homeopathy at the expense of readily available conventional medicine.

Even so, I detect more than the passing hand of the pharmaceutical industry behind this article.

The letter to the WHO by the young doctors concerned reliance on homeopathy at the expense of conventional medicine, but the headline suggests that the WHO has come out completely against the use of homeopathic treatments, full stop. The headline is sensationalist and incorrect in the breadth of its assertion.

Secondly, the article ignores the problem of access to conventional medicine even though it is focused on the developing world where the problem of the prohibitive cost of drugs is well documented. Homeopathy may be little more than a placebo for all I know, but better that in desperate situations where the patient has little hope of being able to get something that actually works.

The primary source for the story is Sense About Science which, a small amount of googling reveals, is a pharmaceutical industry-funded astroturfing unit whose main aim would indeed have been to get a headline suggesting incorrectly that the WHO has come down firmly against treatments competing with pharmaceutical drugs.

• 1 Comment

Paranoia strikes deep in the heartland
But I think it's all overdone
Exaggerating this and exaggerating that
They don't have no fun

Paul Simon, "Have a good time"

• 3 Comments

It would appear that the food industry knows precisely how to undermine even the most self-aware person's impulse control, by manufacturing food that contains exactly the right combination of sugar, fat, and salt to hit a preset "bliss point" in our brains.  So says Dr. David A. Kessler, in his new book "The End of Overeating." The former head of the FDA spent years fighting the tobacco industry, accusing it of deliberately manipulating nicotine levels in cigarettes to make them more addictive.  Now Kessler has turned his attention to the food industry:

"In “The End of Overeating,” Dr. Kessler finds some similarities [to tobacco] in the food industry, which has combined and created foods in a way that taps into our brain circuitry and stimulates our desire for more.

When it comes to stimulating our brains, Dr. Kessler noted, individual ingredients aren’t particularly potent. But by combining fats, sugar and salt in innumerable ways, food makers have essentially tapped into the brain’s reward system, creating a feedback loop that stimulates our desire to eat and leaves us wanting more and more even when we’re full."

This explains a number of things for me, for instance, why so many processed foods contain sugar, even where you'd never expect to find it.  It also explains why it's so much easier not to buy the Doritos in the first place than it is to buy them, bring them home, and not pig out on them. 

I don't think there's any way to regulate this aspect of the food industry--how do you tell an industry they're not allowed to make their product as appealing as possible?  Tobacco is a little different; it has been demonstrated to have extreme health risks with zero benefits.  But food, well, even if the food in question is unmitigated crap, it's hard to seriously argue for some sort of food police who will determine which foods are nutritionally acceptable.  So it appears that the only way to counter the chemically-engineered assault of the food industry is through consumer education about salt, fat, sugar, and neurobiology.

• 0 Comments

From kitchen utensils to reclining chairs, a Scripps Howard News Service investigation has identified thousands of contaminated consumer products.

The actual quantity of products affected is unknown due to what the news service terms "haphazard screening, an absence of oversight and substantial disincentives for businesses to report contamination".

• 0 Comments

Arthur Frommer isn't happy with the press his latest book has been getting.  Reviews, though positive, seem to have left out the most important points.  "Ask Arthur Frommer: & Travel Better, Cheaper, Smarter," is, according to the author, a survey of his political and ethical views of what travel should be, as well as a practical guide to travel savvy.  So he's written an essay, an unabashed self-review, outlining what all the book reviewers have missed.

Here are Frommer's top 10, very good arguments:

(1) The urgent need for longer American vacations, guaranteed by law. We are the only prosperous country to lack such humane requirements, and the book pleads with the public to support congressional action to mandate at least - at least - three weeks per year of paid leave for every person.

(2) The right to travel, in peacetime, to wherever we wish. The book argues that travel is a First Amendment right, a learning activity; that the federal government has no more right to prohibit travel to a particular country than it has to stop us from attending a lecture or reading a book.

(3) The right of a travel writer to criticize travel establishments without being sued for libel. Several disquieting court actions in other countries are frightening examples of what could happen here.

(4) The immense expansion of Amtrak. To reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to improve our quality of life, we need a broad network of speedy trains. The recent allotments of economic-stimulus monies to high-speed rail is a start that must be duplicated by still more appropriations in the years to come.

(5) Greatly increased support for our National Parks, which are now suffering from inadequate financing in previous years. Fierce opposition to commercialization of the parks (Coca-Cola signs at the entrance to Yellowstone?).

(6) A limitation on the unnecessary operation of corporate jets, placing burdens on our already-overcrowded skies.

(7) An Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights, preventing airlines from stranding passengers on the tarmac for four hours and more.

(8) A start on assisting travel and tourism for the poor, including low-income-based reductions of the cost of Amtrak tickets and admission to public museums.

(9) An end to the mistreatment of foreign tourists to the United States, eliminating thoughtless and unnecessary barriers to incoming travel and discourteous treatment of such visitors by our customs officials.

(10) Correcting the failure by the Department of Transportation to devote adequate resources to dealing with deceptive advertising of travel (omission of key expenses and fees) by airlines, tour operators and others.

• 0 Comments

Despite the looming recession, large corporate CEOs flew in private jets more in 2008 than in any of the previous five years. This article gives us a list of the top ten offenders. Many of these companies have since declared bankruptcy or accepted TARP fund assistance from the US government.

It is no wonder  average americans are indignant about the sacrifices they have had to make during this economic reversal. More money was spent in one year transporting these CEOs than most folks make in five years. The apparent blindness on the part of these corporations is positively stunning.

• 0 Comments

Here is a disturbing story for pregnant women worldwide and one to which I can personally relate. A new study, conducted by the University of Rochester Medical Center, suggests that dioxin pollution inhibits the natural proliferation of mammary cells during pregnancy thus decreasing a woman's ability to adequately breast-feed her infant.

Dioxins are a byproduct of incineration and are widely distributed throughout the atmosphere and thus the creatures living on the planet.  They are impossible to avoid. However, it is possible to decrease our intake. This article contains links to the FDA's site, Questions and Answers About Dioxins, which includes FDA dietary recommendations. Simply put, since dioxins accumulate in fats, consuming low- or non-fat dairy and lean meat products and increasing intake of vegetables, fruits and grains is recommended.

For a woman committed to breast feeding, being unable to produce enough milk for your newborn can be devastating. Having struggled with this myself, I can attest that the amount of shame and self-blame (what am I doing wrong, etc?) can be profound. While I will never know if dioxin "poisoning" was the culprit in my case, it does provide a reasonable explanantion. And for women who are currently pregnant or considering becoming pregnant, following the FDA dietary recommendations to limit dioxin exposure, after consulting your physician, could make a difference.

• 0 Comments

There are stories once again of contaminated baby formula in China: Scient brand milk powder has apparently been found to have 100 times the acceptable level of melamine in it.  The allegations are under investigation and the company has no comment at the moment.  Executives at Scient have good reason to be anxious about the outcome of the investigation: let's not forget that tainted milk is an offense punishable by death in China.

• 0 Comments

Yesterday's worker's rejection of the Boston Globe offer to cut salaries is just another example of the corporate use of pay cuts rather than layoffs to reduce the cost of staying in business. While keeping one's job despite a reduction in pay may be something of a relief, it has its down sides too.

Not only will workers feel cornered into accepting pay cuts due to the flagging economy and rising unemployment, the unemployment figures themselves may become less relevant than in the past as  barometers of economic health. These same workers may be keeping roofs over their heads but as their salaries decrease so will their spending.

Clearly there are no fabulous solutions as the economy contracts but it seems the model of spending our way into economic recovery has its flaws as does trying to save jobs at any cost.

• 0 Comments

Legislators and environmentalists continue to press their concerns regarding the potential hazards of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (fracing). This article has a brief and clear description of the process of fracing (pronounced fracking) for those of us who have been wondering what this is all about. Federal legislators would like get this practice regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Chris Tucker, a lobbyist for a group of energy producers and royalty owners asks, "Why is 60 years that fracing has been used, why now? Why is everyone pissed off now?" Everyone is 'pissed off now' because of the recent development of the Marcellus Shale for the production of natural gas. The Marcellus Shale lies beneath a large portion of the United States, including such states as Louisiana, New  York, Arkansas Wyoming and Pennsylvania, among others. The drilling activity on the Marcellus Shale has thus increased the use of fracing to access the wealth beneath the surface. Tucker goes on to answer his own question, "...once the Marcellus Shale came out and it was clear that this was huge, it all came to the forefront."

Legislators, environmentalists and others worry that the chemicals used in fracing, already shown to be harmful to humans and other species, could leach into anc contaminate the ground water supply.

• 0 Comments