TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Obskuranten  (Read 687 times)

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1058
Obskuranten
« on: April 04, 2007, 04:01:28 PM »

Obskuranten
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 12:12:15 AM by FRAUENPOWER »
Logged

Natalie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: They are murderers!
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2016, 10:55:57 PM »

Death by Medicine.

The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US.

By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD

Something is wrong when regulatory agencies pretend that vitamins are dangerous, yet ignore published statistics showing that government-sanctioned medicine is the real hazard.

Until now, Life Extension could cite only isolated statistics to make its case about the dangers of conventional medicine. No one had ever analyzed and combined ALL of the published literature dealing with injuries and deaths caused by government-protected medicine. That has now changed.

A group of researchers meticulously reviewed the statistical evidence and their findings are absolutely shocking. These researchers have authored a paper titled “Death by Medicine” that presents compelling evidence that today’s system frequently causes more harm than good.

This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be 2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year.

The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year.

It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US.

http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf
Logged

Astro_van_Galax

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Obskuranten
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2016, 12:46:24 AM »


[*quote*]
Death by Medicine
By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD
Something is wrong when regulatory agencies pretend that vitamins are dangerous, yet ignore published statistics
showing that government-sanctioned medicine is the real hazard.
Until now, Life Extension could cite only isolated statistics to make its case about the dangers of conventional medicine.
No one had ever analyzed and combined ALL of the published literature dealing with injuries and deaths caused by
government-protected medicine. That has now changed.
A group of researchers meticulously reviewed the statistical evidence and their findings are absolutely shocking.4 These
researchers have authored a paper titled “Death by Medicine” that presents compelling evidence that today’s system
frequently causes more harm than good.
This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be
2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year.
The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of
people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year.
The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an
astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and
injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number
of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.5)
We had intended to publish the entire text of “Death By Medicine” in this month’s issue. The article uncovered so many
problems with conventional medicine however, that it became too long to fit within these pages. We have instead put it
on our website (www.lef.org).
We placed this article on our website to memorialize the failure of the American medical system. By exposing these
gruesome statistics in painstaking detail, we provide a basis for competent and compassionate medical professionals to
recognize the inadequacies of today’s system and at least attempt to institute meaningful reforms.
Natural medicine is under siege, as pharmaceutical company lobbyists urge lawmakers to deprive Americans of the
benefits of dietary supplements. Drug-company front groups have launched slanderous media campaigns to discredit
the value of healthy lifestyles. The FDA continues to interfere with those who offer natural products that compete with
prescription drugs.
These attacks against natural medicine obscure a lethal problem that until now was buried in thousands of pages of
scientific text. In response to these baseless challenges to natural medicine, the Nutrition Institute of America
commissioned an independent review of the quality of “government-approved” medicine. The startling findings from this
meticulous study indicate that conventional medicine is “the leading cause of death” in the United States .
The Nutrition Institute of America is a nonprofit organization that has sponsored independent research for the past 30
years. To support its bold claim that conventional medicine is America 's number-one killer, the Nutritional Institute of
America mandated that every “count” in this “indictment” of US medicine be validated by published, peer-reviewed
scientific studies.
What you are about to read is a stunning compilation of facts that documents that those who seek to abolish consumer
access to natural therapies are misleading the public. Over 700,000 Americans die each year at the hands of
government-sanctioned medicine, while the FDA and other government agencies pretend to protect the public by
harassing those who offer safe alternatives.
A definitive review of medical peer-reviewed journals and government health statistics shows that American medicine
frequently causes more harm than good.
Each year approximately 2.2 million US hospital patients experience adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to prescribed
medications.(1) In 1995, Dr. Richard Besser of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated
the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections to be 20 million; in 2003, Dr. Besser spoke
in terms of tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually.(2, 2a) Approximately 7.5 million unnecessary
medical and surgical procedures are performed annually in the US,(3) while approximately 8.9 million Americans are
hospitalized unnecessarily.(4)
As shown in the following table, the estimated total number of iatrogenic deaths—that is, deaths induced inadvertently
by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures— in the US annually is 783,936. It is
evident that the American medical system is itself the leading cause of death and injury in the US . By comparison,
approximately 699,697 Americans died of heart in 2001, while 553,251 died of cancer.(5)
Table 1: Estimated Annual Mortality and Economic Cost of Medical Intervention
Condition Deaths Cost Author
Adverse Drug Reactions 106,000 $12 billion Lazarou(1), Suh (49)
Medical error 98,000 $2 billion IOM(6)
Bedsores 115,000 $55 billion Xakellis(7), Barczak (8)
Infection 88,000 $5 billion Weinstein(9), MMWR (10)
Malnutrition 108,800 ----------- Nurses Coalition(11)
Outpatients 199,000 $77 billion Starfield(12), Weingart(112)
Unnecessary Procedures 37,136 $122 billion HCUP(3,13)
Surgery-Related 32,000 $9 billion AHRQ(85)
Total 783,936 $282 billion
Using Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million(14) multiplied by the 14% fatality rate he used in 1994(16)
produces an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. Using this number instead of
Lazorou's 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine 's (IOM) estimated 98,000 annual medical errors would add
another 216,000 deaths, for a total of 999,936 deaths annually.
Table 2: Estimated Annual Mortality and Economic Cost of Medical Intervention
Condition Deaths Cost Author
ADR/med error 420,000 $200 billion Leape(14)
Bedsores 115,000 $55 billion Xakellis(7), Barczak (8)
Infection 88,000 $5 billion Weinstein(9), MMWR (10)
Malnutrition 108,800 ----------- Nurses Coalition(11)
Outpatients 199,000 $77 billion Starfield(12), Weingart(112)
Unnecessary Procedures 37,136 $122 billion HCUP(3,13)
Surgery-Related 32,000 $9 billion AHRQ(85)
Total 999,936 $468 billion
The enumerating of unnecessary medical events is very important in our analysis. Any invasive, unnecessary medical
procedure must be considered as part of the larger iatrogenic picture. Unfortunately, cause and effect go unmonitored.
The figures on unnecessary events represent people who are thrust into a dangerous health care system. Each of these
16.4 million lives is being affected in ways that could have fatal consequences. Simply entering a hospital could result in
the following:
ƒ In 16.4 million people, a 2.1% chance (affecting 186,000) of a serious adverse drug reaction(1)
ƒ In 16.4 million people, a 5-6% chance (affecting 489,500) of acquiring a nosocomial infection(9)
ƒ In16.4 million people, a 4-36% chance (affecting 1.78 million) of having an iatrogenic injury (medical error and
adverse drug reactions).(16)
ƒ In 16.4 million people, a 17% chance (affecting 1.3 million) of a procedure error.(40)
These statistics represent a one-year time span. Working with the most conservative figures from our statistics, we
project the following 10-year death rates.
Table 3: Estimated 10-Year Death Rates from Medical Intervention
Condition 10-Year
Deaths Author
Adverse Drug Reaction 1.06 million (1)
Medical error 0.98 million (6)
Bedsores 1.15 million (7,8)
Nosocomial Infection 0.88 million (9,10)
Malnutrition 1.09 million (11)
Outpatients 1.99 million (12, 112)
Unnecessary Procedures 371,360 (3,13)
Surgery-related 320,000 (85)
Total 7,841,360
Our estimated 10-year total of 7.8 million iatrogenic deaths is more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the
US throughout its entire history.
Our projected figures for unnecessary medical events occurring over a 10-year period also are dramatic.
Table 4: Estimated 10-Year Unnecessary Medical Events
Unnecessary Events 10-year Number Iatrogenic Events
Hospitalization 89 million(4) 17 million
Procedures 75 million(3) 15 million
Total 164 million
These figures show that an estimated 164 million people—more than half of the total US population—receive unneeded
medical treatment over the course of a decade.
INTRODUCTION
Never before have the complete statistics on the multiple causes of iatrogenesis been combined in one article. Medical
science amasses tens of thousands of papers annually, each representing a tiny fragment of the whole picture. To look
at only one piece and try to understand the benefits and risks is like standing an inch away from an elephant and trying
to describe everything about it. You have to step back to see the big picture, as we have done here. Each specialty,
each division of medicine keeps its own records and data on morbidity and mortality. We have now completed the
painstaking work of reviewing thousands of studies and putting pieces of the puzzle together.
Is American Medicine Working?
US health care spending reached $1.6 trillion in 2003, representing 14% of the nation's gross national product.(15)
Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. We should be preventing and
reversing disease, and doing minimal harm. Careful and objective review, however, shows we are doing the opposite.
Because of the extraordinarily narrow, technologically driven context in which contemporary medicine examines the
human condition, we are completely missing the larger picture.
Medicine is not taking into consideration the following critically important aspects of a healthy human organism: (a)
stress and how it adversely affects the immune system and life processes; (b) insufficient exercise; (c) excessive caloric
intake; (d) highly processed and denatured foods grown in denatured and chemically damaged soil; and (e) exposure to
tens of thousands of environmental toxins. Instead of minimizing these disease-causing factors, we cause more illness
through medical technology, diagnostic testing, overuse of medical and surgical procedures, and overuse of
pharmaceutical drugs. The huge disservice of this therapeutic strategy is the result of little effort or money being spent
on preventing disease.
Underreporting of Iatrogenic Events
As few as 5% and no more than 20% of iatrogenic acts are ever reported.(16,24,25,33,34) This implies that if medical errors
were completely and accurately reported, we would have an annual iatrogenic death toll much higher than 783,936. In
1994, Leape said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes resulting in death annually was equivalent to three jumbo-jet
crashes every two days.(16) Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each
day.
What we must deduce from this report is that medicine is in need of complete and total reform—from the curriculum in
medical schools to protecting patients from excessive medical intervention. It is obvious that we cannot change anything
if we are not honest about what needs to be changed. This report simply shows the degree to which change is required.
We are fully aware of what stands in the way of change: powerful pharmaceutical and medical technology companies,
along with other powerful groups with enormous vested interests in the business of medicine. They fund medical
research, support medical schools and hospitals, and advertise in medical journals. With deep pockets, they entice
scientists and academics to support their efforts. Such funding can sway the balance of opinion from professional
caution to uncritical acceptance of new therapies and drugs. You have only to look at the people who make up the
hospital, medical, and government health advisory boards to see conflicts of interest. The public is mostly unaware of
these interlocking interests.
For example, a 2003 study found that nearly half of medical school faculty who serve on institutional review boards (IRB)
to advise on clinical trial research also serve as consultants to the pharmaceutical industry.(17) The study authors were
concerned that such representation could cause potential conflicts of interest. A news release by Dr. Erik Campbell, the
lead author, said, "Our previous research with faculty has shown us that ties to industry can affect scientific behavior,
leading to such things as trade secrecy and delays in publishing research. It's possible that similar relationships with
companies could affect IRB members' activities and attitudes.”(18)
Medical Ethics and Conflict of Interest in Scientific Medicine
Jonathan Quick, director of essential drugs and medicines policy for the World Health Organization (WHO), wrote in a
recent WHO bulletin: "If clinical trials become a commercial venture in which self-interest overrules public interest and
desire overrules science, then the social contract which allows research on human subjects in return for medical
advances is broken."(19)
As former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine , Dr. Marcia Angell struggled to bring greater attention to the
problem of commercializing scientific research. In her outgoing editorial entitled “ Is Academic Medicine for Sale?”
Angell said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science and called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical
stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers:(20) “When the boundaries between industry and
academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical
schools in multiple ways.” She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed
between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry.
Angell left the New England Journal in June 2000. In June 2002, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that
it would accept journalists who accept money from drug companies because it was too difficult to find ones who have no
ties. Another former editor of the journal, Dr. Jerome Kassirer, said that was not the case and that plenty of researchers
are available who do not work for drug companies.(21) According to an ABC news report, pharmaceutical companies
spend over $2 billion a year on over 314,000 events attended by doctors.
The ABC news report also noted that a survey of clinical trials revealed that when a drug company funds a study, there
is a 90% chance that the drug will be perceived as effective whereas a non-drug-company-funded study will show
favorable results only 50% of the time. It appears that money can't buy you love but it can buy any "scientific" result
desired.
Cynthia Crossen, a staffer for the Wall Street Journal, i n 1996 published Tainted Truth : The Manipulation of Fact in
America , a book about the widespread practice of lying with statistics.(22) Commenting on the state of scientific
research, she wrote: “The road to hell was paved with the flood of corporate research dollars that eagerly filled gaps left
by slashed government research funding.” Her data on financial involvement showed that in l981 the drug industry
“gave” $292 million to colleges and universities for research. By l991, this figure had risen to $2.1 billion.
THE FIRST IATROGENIC STUDY
Dr. Lucian L. Leape opened medicine's Pandora's box in his 1994 paper, “Error in Medicine,” which appeared in the
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).(16) He found that Schimmel reported in 1964 that 20% of hospital
patients suffered iatrogenic injury, with a 20% fatality rate. In 1981 Steel reported that 36% of hospitalized patients
experienced iatrogenesis with a 25% fatality rate, and adverse drug reactions were involved in 50% of the injuries. In
1991, Bedell reported that 64% of acute heart attacks in one hospital were preventable and were mostly due to adverse
drug reactions.
Leape focused on the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” published in 1991, (16a) which found a 4% iatrogenic injury rate
for patients, with a 14% fatality rate, in 1984 in New York State. From the 98,609 patients injured and the 14% fatality
rate, he estimated that in the entire U.S. 180,000 people die each year partly as a result of iatrogenic injury.
Why Leape chose to use the much lower figure of 4% injury for his analysis remains in question. Using instead the
average of the rates found in the three studies he cites (36%, 20%, and 4%) would have produced a 20% medical error rate.
The number of iatrogenic deaths using an average rate of injury and his 14% fatality rate would be 1,189,576.
Leape acknowledged that the literature on medical errors is sparse and represents only the tip of the iceberg, noting
that when errors are specifically sought out, reported rates are “distressingly high.” He cited several autopsy studies
with rates as high as 35-40% of missed diagnoses causing death. He also noted that an intensive care unit reported an
average of 1.7 errors per day per patient, and 29% of those errors were potentially serious or fatal.
Leape calculated the error rate in the intensive care unit study. First, he found that each patient had an average of 178
“activities” (staff/procedure/medical interactions) a day, of which 1.7 were errors, which means a 1% failure rate. This
may not seem like much, but Leape cited industry standards showing that in aviation, a 0.1% failure rate would mean
two unsafe plane landings per day at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport; in the US Postal Service, a 0.1% failure
rate would mean 16,000 pieces of lost mail every hour; and in the banking industry, a 0.1% failure rate would mean
32,000 bank checks deducted from the wrong bank account.
In trying to determine why there are so many medical errors, Leape acknowledged the lack of reporting of medical
errors. Medical errors occur in thousands of different locations and are perceived as isolated and unusual events. But
the most important reason that the problem of medical errors is unrecognized and growing, according to Leape, is that
doctors and nurses are unequipped to deal with human error because of the culture of medical training and practice.
Doctors are taught that mistakes are unacceptable. Medical mistakes are therefore viewed as a failure of character and
any error equals negligence. No one is taught what to do when medical errors do occur. Leape cites McIntyre and
Popper, who said the “infallibility model” of medicine leads to intellectual dishonesty with a need to cover up mistakes
rather than admit them. There are no Grand Rounds on medical errors, no sharing of failures among doctors, and no
one to support them emotionally when their error harms a patient.
Leape hoped his paper would encourage medical practitioners “to fundamentally change the way they think about errors
and why they occur.” It has been almost a decade since this groundbreaking work, but the mistakes continue to soar.
In 1995, a JAMA report noted, "Over a million patients are injured in US hospitals each year, and approximately
280,000 die annually as a result of these injuries. Therefore, the iatrogenic death rate dwarfs the annual automobile
accident mortality rate of 45,000 and accounts for more deaths than all other accidents combined."(23)
At a 1997 press conference, Leape released a nationwide poll on patient iatrogenesis conducted by the National Patient
Safety Foundation (NPSF), which is sponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA). Leape is a founding member
of NPSF. The survey found that more than 100 million Americans have been affected directly or indirectly by a medical
mistake. Forty-two percent were affected directly and 84% personally knew of someone who had experienced a medical
mistake.(14)
At this press conference, Leape updated his 1994 statistics, noting that as of 1997, medical errors in inpatient hospital
settings nationwide could be as high as 3 million and could cost as much as $200 billion . Leape used a 14% fatality
rate to determine a medical error death rate of 180,000 in 1994.(16) In 1997, using Leape's base number of 3 million
errors, the annual death rate could be as high as 420,000 for hospital inpatients alone.
ONLY A FRACTION OF MEDICAL ERRORS ARE REPORTED
In 1994, Leape said he was well aware that medical errors were not being reported.(16) A study conducted in two
obstetrical units in the UK found that only about one-quarter of adverse incidents were ever reported, to protect staff,
preserve reputations, or for fear of reprisals, including lawsuits.(24). An analysis by Wald and Shojania found that only
1.5% of all adverse events result in an incident report, and only 6% of adverse drug events are identified properly. The
authors learned that the American College of Surgeons estimates that surgical incident reports routinely capture only 5-
30% of adverse events. In one study, only 20% of surgical complications resulted in discussion at morbidity and
mortality rounds.(25) From these studies, it appears that all the statistics gathered on medical errors may substantially
underestimate the number of adverse drug and medical therapy incidents. They also suggest that our statistics
concerning mortality resulting from medical errors may be in fact be conservative figures.
An article in Psychiatric Times (April 2000) outlines the stakes involved in reporting medical errors.(26) The authors
found that the public is fearful of suffering a fatal medical error, and doctors are afraid they will be sued if they report an
error. This brings up the obvious question: who is reporting medical errors? Usually it is the patient or the patient's
surviving family. If no one notices the error, it is never reported. Janet Heinrich, an associate director at the U.S.
General Accounting Office responsible for health financing and public health issues, testified before a House
subcommittee hearing on medical errors that "the full magnitude of their threat to the American public is unknown” and
"gathering valid and useful information about adverse events is extremely difficult." She acknowledged that the fear of
being blamed, and the potential for legal liability, played key roles in the underreporting of errors. The Psychiatric Times
noted that the AMA strongly opposes mandatory reporting of medical errors.(26) If doctors are not reporting, what about
nurses? A survey of nurses found that they also fail to report medical mistakes for fear of retaliation.(27)
Standard medical pharmacology texts admit that relatively few doctors ever report adverse drug reactions to the
FDA.(28) The reasons range from not knowing such a reporting system exists to fear of being sued.(29) Yet the public
depends on this tremendously flawed system of voluntary reporting by doctors to know whether a drug or a medical
intervention is harmful.
Pharmacology texts also will tell doctors how hard it is to separate drug side effects from disease symptoms. Treatment
failure is most often attributed to the disease and not the drug or doctor. Doctors are warned, “Probably nowhere else in
professional life are mistakes so easily hidden, even from ourselves.”(30) It may be hard to accept, but it is not difficult to
understand why only 1 in 20 side effects is reported to either hospital administrators or the FDA.(31, 31a)
If hospitals admitted to the actual number of errors for which they are responsible, which is about 20 times what is
reported, they would come under intense scrutiny.(32) Jerry Phillips, associate director of the FDA's Office of Post
Marketing Drug Risk Assessment, confirms this number. “In the broader area of adverse drug reaction data, the
250,000 reports received annually probably represent only 5% of the actual reactions that occur.”(33) Dr. Jay Cohen,
who has extensively researched adverse drug reactions, notes that because only 5% of adverse drug reactions are
reported, there are in fact 5 million medication reactions each year.(34)
A 2003 survey is all the more distressing because there seems to be no improvement in error reporting, even with all
the attention given to this topic. Dr. Dorothea Wild surveyed medical residents at a community hospital in Connecticut
and found that only half were aware that the hospital had a medical error-reporting system, and that the vast majority
did not use it at all. Dr. Wild says this does not bode well for the future. If doctors don't learn error reporting in their
training, they will never use it. Wild adds that error reporting is the first step in locating the gaps in the medical system
and fixing them. Not even that first step has been taken to date.(35)
PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS ON IATROGENESIS
In a telephone survey, 1,207 adults ranked the effectiveness of the following measures in reducing preventable medical
errors that result in serious harm.(36) (Following each measure is the percentage of respondents who ranked the
measure as “very effective.”)
ƒ giving doctors more time to spend with patients (78%)
ƒ requiring hospitals to develop systems to avoid medical errors (74%)
ƒ better training of health professionals (73%)
ƒ using only doctors specially trained in intensive care medicine on intensive care units (73%)
ƒ requiring hospitals to report all serious medical errors to a state agency (71%)
ƒ increasing the number of hospital nurses (69%)
ƒ reducing the work hours of doctors in training to avoid fatigue (66%)
ƒ encouraging hospitals to voluntarily report serious medical errors to a state agency (62%).
DRUG IATROGENESIS
Prescription drugs constitute the major treatment modality of scientific medicine. With the discovery of the “germ
theory,” medical scientists convinced the public that infectious organisms were the cause of illness. Finding the “cure”
for these infections proved much harder than anyone imagined. From the beginning, chemical drugs promised much
more than they delivered. But far beyond not working, the drugs also caused incalculable side effects. The drugs
themselves, even when properly prescribed, have side effects that can be fatal, as Lazarou's study(1) showed. But
human error can make the situation even worse.
Medication Errors
A survey of a 1992 national pharmacy database found a total of 429,827 medication errors from 1,081 hospitals.
Medication errors occurred in 5.22% of patients admitted to these hospitals each year. The authors concluded that at
least 90,895 patients annually were harmed by medication errors in the US as a whole.(37)
A 2002 study shows that 20% of hospital medications for patients had dosage errors. Nearly 40% of these errors were
considered potentially harmful to the patient. In a typical 300-patient hospital, the number of errors per day was 40.(38)
Problems involving patients' medications were even higher the following year. The error rate intercepted by pharmacists
in this study was 24%, making the potential minimum number of patients harmed by prescription drugs 417,908.(39)
Recent Adverse Drug Reactions
More-recent studies on adverse drug reactions show that the figures from 1994 published in Lazarou's 1998 JAMA
article may be increasing. A 2003 study followed 400 patients after discharge from a tertiary care hospital setting
(requiring highly specialized skills, technology, or support services). Seventy-six patients (19%) had adverse events.
Adverse drug events were the most common, at 66% of all events. The next most common event was procedure-related
injuries, at 17%.(40)
In a New England Journal of Medicine study, an alarming one in four patients suffered observable side effects from the
more than 3.34 billion prescription drugs filled in 2002.(41) One of the doctors who produced the study was interviewed
by Reuters and commented, "With these 10-minute appointments, it's hard for the doctor to get into whether the
symptoms are bothering the patients."(42) William Tierney, who editorialized on the New England Journal study, said “…
given the increasing number of powerful drugs available to care for the aging population, the problem will only get
worse.” The drugs with the worst record of side effects were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRIs),
nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and calcium-channel blockers. Reuters also reported that prior research
has suggested that nearly 5% of hospital admissions (over 1 million per year) are the result of drug side effects. But
most of the cases are not documented as such. The study found that one of the reasons for this failure is that in nearly
two-thirds of the cases, doctors could not diagnose drug side effects or the side effects persisted because the doctor
failed to heed the warning signs.
Medicating Our Feelings
Patients seeking a more joyful existence and relief from worry, stress, and anxiety often fall victim to the messages
endlessly displayed on TV and billboards. Often, instead of gaining relief, they fall victim to the myriad iatrogenic side
effects of antidepressant medication.
Moreover, a whole generation of antidepressant users has been created from young people growing up on Ritalin.
Medicating youth and modifying their emotions must have some impact on how they learn to deal with their feelings.
They learn to equate coping with drugs rather than with their inner resources. As adults, these medicated youth reach
for alcohol, drugs, or even street drugs to cope. According to JAMA , “Ritalin acts much like cocaine.”(43) Today's
marketing of mood-modifying drugs such as Prozac and Zoloft ® makes them not only socially acceptable but almost a
necessity in today's stressful world.
Television Diagnosis
To reach the widest audience possible, drug companies are no longer just targeting medical doctors with their marketing
of antidepressants. By 1995, drug companies had tripled the amount of money allotted to direct advertising of
prescription drugs to consumers. The majority of this money is spent on seductive television ads. From 1996 to 2000,
spending rose from $791 million to nearly $2.5 billion.(44) This $2.5 billion represents only 15% of the total
pharmaceutical advertising budget. While the drug companies maintain that direct-to-consumer advertising is
educational, Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe of the Public Citizen Health Research Group in Washington, DC, argues that the
public often is misinformed about these ads.(45) People want what they see on television and are told to go to their
doctors for a prescription. Doctors in private practice either acquiesce to their patients' demands for these drugs or
spend valuable time trying to talk patients out of unnecessary drugs. Dr. Wolfe remarks that one important study found
that people mistakenly believe that the “FDA reviews all ads before they are released and allows only the safest and
most effective drugs to be promoted directly to the public.”(46)
How Do We Know Drugs Are Safe?
Another aspect of scientific medicine that the public takes for granted is the testing of new drugs. Drugs generally are
tested on individuals who are fairly healthy and not on other medications that could interfere with findings. But when
these new drugs are declared “safe” and enter the drug prescription books, they are naturally going to be used by
people who are on a variety of other medications and have a lot of other health problems. Then a new phase of drug
testing called “post-approval” comes into play, which is the documentation of side effects once drugs hit the market. In
one very telling report, the federal government's General Accounting Office "found that of the 198 drugs approved by
the FDA between 1976 and 1985... 102 (or 51.5%) had serious post-approval risks... the serious post-approval risks
(included) heart failure, myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, respiratory depression and arrest, seizures, kidney and liver
failure, severe blood disorders, birth defects and fetal toxicity, and blindness."(47)
NBC Television's investigative show “Dateline” wondered if your doctor is moonlighting as a drug company
representative. After a yearlong investigation, NBC reported that because doctors can legally prescribe any drug to any
patient for any condition, drug companies heavily promote "off label" and frequently inappropriate and untested uses of
these medications, even though these drugs are approved only for the specific indications for which they have been
tested.(48)
The leading causes of adverse drug reactions are antibiotics (17%), cardiovascular drugs (17%), chemotherapy (15%), and
analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents (15%).(49)
Specific Drug Iatrogenesis: Antibiotics
According to William Agger, MD, director of microbiology and chief of infectious disease at Gundersen Lutheran Medical
Center in La Crosse, WI, 30 million pounds of antibiotics are used in America each year.(50) Of this amount, 25 million
pounds are used in animal husbandry, and 23 million pounds are used to try to prevent disease and the stress of
shipping, as well as to promote growth. Only 2 million pounds are given for specific animal infections. Dr. Agger reminds
us that low concentrations of antibiotics are measurable in many of our foods and in various waterways around the
world, much of it seeping in from animal farms.
Agger contends that overuse of antibiotics results in food-borne infections resistant to antibiotics. Salmonella is found in
20% of ground meat, but the constant exposure of cattle to antibiotics has made 84% of salmonella resistant to at least
one anti-salmonella antibiotic. Diseased animal food accounts for 80% of salmonellosis in humans, or 1.4 million cases
per year. The conventional approach to countering this epidemic is to radiate food to try to kill all organisms while
continuing to use the antibiotics that created the problem in the first place. Approximately 20% of chickens are
contaminated with Campylobacter jejuni, an organism that causes 2.4 million cases of illness annually. Fifty-four percent
of these organisms are resistant to at least one anti-campylobacter antimicrobial agent.
Denmark banned growth-promoting antibiotics beginning in 1999, which cut their use by more than half within a year,
from 453,200 to 195,800 pounds. A report from Scandinavia found that removing antibiotic growth promoters had no or
minimal effect on food production costs. Agger warns that the current crowded, unsanitary methods of animal farming in
the US support constant stress and infection, and are geared toward high antibiotic use.
In the US, over 3 million pounds of antibiotics are used every year on humans. With a population of 284 million
Americans, this amount is enough to give every man, woman, and child 10 teaspoons of pure antibiotics per year.
Agger says that exposure to a steady stream of antibiotics has altered pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae,
Staplococcus aureus, and entercocci, to name a few.
Almost half of patients with upper respiratory tract infections in the U.S. still receive antibiotics from their doctor.(51)
According to the CDC, 90% of upper respiratory infections are viral and should not be treated with antibiotics. In
Germany, the prevalence of systemic antibiotic use in children aged 0-6 years was 42.9%.(52)
Data obtained from nine US health insurers on antibiotic use in 25,000 children from 1996 to 2000 found that rates of
antibiotic use decreased. Antibiotic use in children aged three months to under 3 years decreased 24%, from 2.46 to
1.89 antibiotic prescriptions per patient per year. For children aged 3 to under 6 years, there was a 25% reduction from
1.47 to 1.09 antibiotic prescriptions per patient per year. And for children aged 6 to under 18 years, there was a 16%
reduction from 0.85 to 0.69 antibiotic prescriptions per patient per year.(53) Despite these reductions, the data indicate
that on average every child in America receives 1.22 antibiotic prescriptions annually.
Group A beta-hemolytic streptococci is the only common cause of sore throat that requires antibiotics, with penicillin and
erythromycin the only recommended treatment. Ninety percent of sore-throat cases, however, are viral. Antibiotics were
used in 73% of the estimated 6.7 million adult annual visits for sore throat in the US between 1989 and 1999.
Furthermore, patients treated with antibiotics were prescribed non-recommended broad-spectrum antibiotics in 68% of
visits. This period saw a significant increase in the use of newer, more expensive broad-spectrum antibiotics and a
decrease in use of the recommended antibiotics penicillin and erythromycin.(54) A ntibiotics being prescribed in 73% of
sore-throat cases instead of the recommended 10% resulted in a total of 4.2 million unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions
from 1989 to 1999.
The Problem with Antibiotics
In September 2003, the CDC re-launched a program started in 1995 called “Get Smart: Know When Antibiotics
Work.”(55) This $1.6 million campaign is designed to educate patients about the overuse and inappropriate use of
antibiotics. Most people involved with alternative medicine have known about the dangers of antibiotic overuse for
decades. Finally the government is focusing on the problem, yet it is spending only a miniscule amount of money on an
iatrogenic epidemic that is costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives. The CDC warns that 90% of upper
respiratory infections, including children's ear infections, are viral and that antibiotics do not treat viral infection. More
than 40% of about 50 million prescriptions for antibiotics written each year in physicians' offices are inappropriate.(2) U
sing antibiotics when not needed can lead to the development of deadly strains of bacteria that are resistant to drugs
and cause more than 88,000 deaths due to hospital-acquired infections.(9) The CDC, however, seems to be blaming
patients for misusing antibiotics even though they are available only by prescription from physicians. According to Dr.
Richard Besser, head of “Get Smart”: "Programs that have just targeted physicians have not worked. Direct-toconsumer
advertising of drugs is to blame in some cases.” Besser says the program “teaches patients and the general
public that antibiotics are precious resources that must be used correctly if we want to have them around when we need
them. Hopefully, as a result of this campaign, patients will feel more comfortable asking their doctors for the best care
for their illnesses, rather than asking for antibiotics."(56)
What constitutes the “best care”? The CDC does not elaborate and ignores the latest research on the dozens of
nutraceuticals that have been scientifically proven to treat viral infections and boost immune-system function. Will
doctors recommend vitamin C, echinacea, elderberry, vitamin A, zinc, or homeopathic oscillococcinum? Probably not.
The CDC's common-sense recommendations that most people follow anyway include getting proper rest, drinking
plenty of fluids, and using a humidifier.
The pharmaceutical industry claims it supports limiting the use of antibiotics. The drug company Bayer sponsors a
program called “Operation Clean Hands” through an organization called LIBRA.(57) The CDC also is involved in trying to
minimize antibiotic resistance, but nowhere in its publications is there any reference to the role of nutraceuticals in
boosting the immune system, nor to the thousands of journal articles that support this approach. This tunnel vision and
refusal to recommend the available non-drug alternatives is unfortunate when the CDC is desperately trying to curb the
overuse of antibiotics.
Drugs Pollute Our Water Supply
We have reached the point of saturation with prescription drugs. Every body of water tested contains measurable drug
residues. The tons of antibiotics used in animal farming, which run off into the water table and surrounding bodies of
water, are conferring antibiotic resistance to germs in sewage, and these germs also are found in our water supply.
Flushed down our toilets are tons of drugs and drug metabolites that also find their way into our water supply. We have
no way to know the long-term health consequences of ingesting a mixture of drugs and drug-breakdown products.
These drugs represent another level of iatrogenic disease that we are unable to completely measure.(58-67)
Specific Drug Iatrogenesis: NSAIDs
It's not just the US that is plagued by iatrogenesis. A survey of more than 1,000 French general practitioners (GPs)
tested their basic pharmacological knowledge and practice in prescribing NSAIDs, which rank first among commonly
prescribed drugs for serious adverse reactions. The study results suggest that GPs do not have adequate knowledge of
these drugs and are unable to effectively manage adverse reactions.(68)
A cross-sectional survey of 125 patients attending specialty pain clinics in South London found that possible iatrogenic
factors such as “over-investigation, inappropriate information, and advice given to patients as well as misdiagnosis,
over-treatment, and inappropriate prescription of medication were common.”(69)
Specific Drug Iatrogenesis: Cancer Chemotherapy
In 1989, German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, PhD, wrote a monograph entitled “Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial
Cancer.” It was later published in shorter form in a peer-reviewed medical journal.(70) Abel presented a comprehensive
analysis of clinical trials and publications representing over 3,000 articles examining the value of cytotoxic
chemotherapy on advanced epithelial cancer. Epithelial cancer is the type of cancer with which we are most familiar,
arising from epithelium found in the lining of body organs such as the breast, prostate, lung, stomach, and bowel. From
these sites, cancer usually infiltrates adjacent tissue and spreads to the bone, liver, lung, or brain. With his exhaustive
review, Abel concluded there is no direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival in patients with advanced
carcinoma; in small-cell lung cancer and perhaps ovarian cancer, the therapeutic benefit is only slight. According to
Abel, “Many oncologists take it for granted that response to therapy prolongs survival, an opinion which is based on a
fallacy and which is not supported by clinical studies.”
Over a decade after Abel's exhaustive review of chemotherapy, there seems no decrease in its use for advanced
carcinoma. For example, when conventional chemotherapy and radiation have not worked to prevent metastases in
breast cancer, high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) along with stem-cell transplant (SCT) is the treatment of choice. In
March 2000, however, results from the largest multi-center randomized controlled trial conducted thus far showed that,
compared to a prolonged course of monthly conventional-dose chemotherapy, HDC and SCT were of no benefit, (71)
with even a slightly lower survival rate for the HDC/SCT group. Serious adverse effects occurred more often in the HDC
group than the standard-dose group. One treatment-related death (within 100 days of therapy) was recorded in the HDC
group, but none was recorded in the conventional chemotherapy group. The women in this trial were highly selected as
having the best chance to respond.
Unfortunately, no all-encompassing follow-up study such as Dr. Abel's exists to indicate whether there has been any
improvement in cancer-survival statistics since 1989. In fact, research should be conducted to determine whether
chemotherapy itself is responsible for secondary cancers instead of progression of the original disease. We continue to
question why well-researched alternative cancer treatments are not used.
Drug Companies Fined
Periodically, the FDA fines a drug manufacturer when its abuses are too glaring and impossible to cover up. In May
2002, The Washington Post reported that Schering-Plough Corp., the maker of Claritin, was to pay a $500 million dollar
fine to the FDA for quality-control problems at four of its factories.(72) The indictment came after the Public Citizen
Health Research Group, led by Dr. Sidney Wolfe, called for a criminal investigation of Schering-Plough, charging that
the company distributed albuterol asthma inhalers even though it knew the units were missing the active ingredient.
The FDA tabulated infractions involving 125 products, or 90% of the drugs made by Schering-Plough since 1998.
Besides paying the fine, the company was forced to halt the manufacture of 73 drugs or suffer another $175 million fine.
Schering-Plough's news releases told another story, assuring consumers that they should still feel confident in the
company's products.
This large settlement served as a warning to the drug industry about maintaining strict manufacturing practices and has
given the FDA more clout in dealing with drug company compliance. According to The Washington Post article, a
federal appeals court ruled in 1999 that the FDA could seize the profits of companies that violate "good manufacturing
practices." Since that time, Abbott Laboratories has paid a $100 million fine for failing to meet quality standards in the
production of medical test kits, while Wyeth Laboratories paid $30 million in 2000 to settle accusations of poor
manufacturing practices.
UNNECESSARY SURGICAL PROCEDURES
In 1974, 2.4 million unnecessary surgeries were performed, resulting in 11,900 deaths at a cost of $3.9 billion.(73,74) In
2001, 7.5 million unnecessary surgical procedures were performed, resulting in 37,136 deaths at a cost of $122 billion
(using 1974 dollars).(3)
It is very difficult to obtain accurate statistics when studying unnecessary surgery. In 1989, Leape wrote that perhaps
30% of controversial surgeries—which include cesarean section, tonsillectomy, appendectomy, hysterectomy,
gastrectomy for obesity, breast implants, and elective breast implants(74)— are unnecessary. In 1974, the Congressional
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce held hearings on unnecessary surgery. It found that 17.6% of
recommendations for surgery were not confirmed by a second opinion. The House Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations extrapolated these figures and estimated that, on a nationwide basis, there were 2.4 million unnecessary
surgeries performed annually, resulting in 11,900 deaths at an annual cost of $3.9 billion.(73)
According to the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(13), in
2001 the 50 most common medical and surgical procedures were performed approximately 41.8 million times in the US.
Using the 1974 House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations' figure of 17.6% as the percentage of
unnecessary surgical procedures, and extrapolating from the death rate in 1974, produces nearly 7.5 million (7,489,718)
unnecessary procedures and a death rate of 37,136, at a cost of $122 billion (using 1974 dollars).
In 1995, researchers conducted a similar analysis of back surgery procedures, using the 1974 “unnecessary surgery
percentage” of 17.6. Testifying before the Department of Veterans Affairs, they estimated that of the 250,000 back
surgeries performed annually in the US at a hospital cost of $11,000 per patient, the total number of unnecessary back
surgeries approaches 44,000, costing as much as $484 million.(75)
Like prescription drug use driven by television advertising, unnecessary surgeries are escalating. Media-driven surgery
such as gastric bypass for obesity “modeled” by Hollywood celebrities seduces obese people to think this route is safe
and sexy. Unnecessary surgeries have even been marketed on the Internet.(76) A study in Spain declares that 20-25%
of total surgical practice represents unnecessary operations.(77)
According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics for 1979 to 1984, the total number of surgical
procedures increased 9% while the number of surgeons grew 20%. The study notes that the large increase in the
number of surgeons was not accompanied by a parallel increase in the number of surgeries performed, and expressed
concern about an excess of surgeons to handle the surgical caseload.(78)
From 1983 to 1994, however, the incidence of the 10 most commonly performed surgical procedures jumped 38%, to
7,929,000 from 5,731,000 cases. By 1994, cataract surgery was the most common procedure with more than 2 million
operations, followed by cesarean section (858,000 procedures) and inguinal hernia operations (689,000 procedures).
Knee arthroscopy procedures increased 153% while prostate surgery declined 29%.(79)
The list of iatrogenic complications from surgery is as long as the list of procedures themselves. One study examined
catheters that were inserted to deliver anesthetic into the epidural space around the spinal nerves for lower cesarean
section, abdominal surgery, or prostate surgery. In some cases, non-sterile technique during catheter insertion resulted
in serious infections, even leading to limb paralysis.(80)
In one review of the literature, the authors found “a significant rate of overutilization of coronary angiography, coronary
artery surgery, cardiac pacemaker insertion, upper gastrointestinal endoscopies, carotid endarterectomies, back
surgery, and pain-relieving procedures.”(81)
A 1987 JAMA study found the following significant levels of inappropriate surgery: 17% of coronary angiography
procedures, 32% of carotid endarterectomy procedures, and 17% of upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy
procedures.(82) Based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) statistics provided by the government for
2001, 697,675 upper gastrointestinal endoscopies (usually entailing biopsy) were performed, as were 142,401
endarterectomies and 719,949 coronary angiographies.(13) Extrapolating the JAMA study's inappropriate surgery rates
to 2001 produces 118,604 unnecessary endoscopy procedures, 45,568 unnecessary endarterectomies, and 122,391
unnecessary coronary angiographies. These are all forms of medical iatrogenesis.
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL PROCEDURES

[...]

[*/quote*]


AND MORE BLAH



[Corrected markers, ET]
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 01:41:00 PM by el_Typo »
Logged

Astro_van_Galax

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Obskuranten
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2016, 01:05:40 AM »

The snake-oil dealer wrote:

[*quote*]
Something is wrong when regulatory agencies pretend that vitamins are dangerous, yet ignore published statistics showing that government-sanctioned medicine is the real hazard.
Until now, Life Extension could cite only isolated statistics to make its case about the dangers of conventional medicine.
No one had ever analyzed and combined ALL of the published literature dealing with injuries and deaths caused by government-protected medicine.

[*/quote*]

You got it? They sell vitamins pills and other junk. That junk is dangerous. It shortens your life. It kills your kidneys. So these snake-oil dealers whine about

"regulatory agencies pretend that vitamins are dangerous

But the regulatory agencies do not "pretend" that vitamins are dangerous. The agencies quote valid studies, which showed that vitamins damage your organ tissues and destroy your kidneys.

Shall we have a look at these con-men? It is a pity that the old tradition of tarring and feathering is uncommon now. We should keep up the tradition.



[Corrected markers, ET]
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 01:42:01 PM by el_Typo »
Logged

Astro_van_Galax

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Gary Null is a fraud
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2016, 01:11:05 AM »

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html


   
   HomeSearch
Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions
Send This Page to a Friend     
A Critical Look at Gary Null's
Activities and Credentials

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Gary Michael Null (1945– ) is one of the nation's leading promoters of dubious treatment for serious disease. He hosts radio and television talk shows; writes books and magazine articles; delivers lectures; operates retreats; and markets products through his Web site. He became certified as a nutritionist in New York State in 1996, but I don't know whether he sees clients.

According to an article in East West magazine, Null became interested in nutrition during his twenties while working as a short order cook in New York City, where he now resides. He researched the subject and wrote The Complete Guide to Health and Nutrition, which was published in 1972 and sold briskly after Null appeared on a succession of prominent talk shows. He began hosting radio shows around that time and eventually got his own show on WABC, the flagship radio station of the ABC network. Later he moved to WMCA, which broadcast Null's show on Sunday nights to many stations across the United States. For many years, he also hosted a daily show on WBAI and a Sunday evening program on WEVD in New York City. I have been tracking his activities since the mid-1970s.

Dubious Conclusions

Null is prone to see conspiracies behind many of the things he is concerned about. One of his targets has been the pharmaceutical industry, which, he says, "cannot afford to have an alternative therapy accepted." He promotes hundreds of ideas that are inaccurate, unscientific, and/or unproven. He calls fluoridation "deadly" and has spoken out against immunization, food irradiation, amalgam fillings, and many forms of proven medical treatment. His series on "The Politics of Cancer," which was published in Penthouse magazine in 1979 and 1980, promoted unproven methods that he said were being "suppressed" by the medical establishment. His lengthy series, "Medical Genocide," began appearing in Penthouse in 1985 with an article calling our medical care system a "prescription for disaster" and claiming that modern medicine has had virtually no effect on heart disease, cancer, and arthritis [1]. Other articles in the series promoted chiropractic and homeopathy, claimed that effective nutritional methods for treating AIDS were being suppressed, claimed that chelation therapy was safe and effective for treating heart disease, and endorsed several treatments for cancer that the American Cancer Society recommends against. His Web site contains a huge amount of misinformation and bad advice.

Questionable Offerings

Over the years, Null has marketed a variety of supplement products. In the mid-1980s, his catalog included: Guard-Ion (an antioxidant formula claimed to help protect athletes from free radicals the body can't control), Gary Null's AM-PM Vitamin-Mineral Formula (a "revolutionary breakthrough in vitamin preparation" that provides the nutrients needed at the best times for the body's anabolic and catabolic activities), Candida Complex (to bolster the body's defenses against yeast infection), Endurance Factor (containing "all the nutrients and enzymes that have made Bee Pollen famous"), Energy Plus (a royal jelly tablet), Rebalancer (a "cleansing formulation" for adults exposed to air pollutants, pesticides, or preservatives, or who have "internal metabolic imbalances"), CoEnzyme Q10 ("may reverse deficiencies and improve organ function, especially in the heart), Sport DMG (an N,N Dimethylglycine product to "improve cardiovascular function and to enhance the body's natural immune response system), and Gary Null's Immune Nutrients ("to nourish and stimulate immune function, not merely at a marginal level of preventing disease and degeneration, but a positive level of striving for wellness and excellence, for optimal health").

A 1991 flyer distributed at Null's booth at a health expo described Null's annual "Spring Cleansing, Rebuilding, Stress Reduction Program" at a ranch near Dallas, Texas. The week-long program included aerobic exercise, various sports activities, a fitness assessment, beauty and skin-care treatments, cooking classes, acupressure, applied kinesiology, herbal body wraps, massage, brain-wave stimulation, facials, aromatherapy, reflexology, and loofah apricot scrubs. Null sold the ranch in 1994 [2].

In 1992, Null appeared in a bee pollen infomercial whose producers subsequently were prosecuted by the Federal Trade Commission. During the program, Null falsely claimed the human body ages because it doesn't produce enough enzymes, and that "you can't get any better food than bee pollen" because it is "loaded" with enzymes," but the FTC did not charge him with wrongdoing. According to the infomercial company's president, the interview was taped for another purpose, was dubbed into the infomercial without Null's knowledge or consent, and was deleted from the infomercial after Null demanded its removal [3].

Null's recent offerings include the following—each followed by a bracketed comment from me:

Brainy II—"Power packed with Phosphatidyl Serine, herbs, amino acids, anti-oxidants and B-vitamins to help you achieve optimal brain function." [How has he determined that the product can help people improve brain function?]
Anti-Aging Program—"Every flavorful sip of the "Aromatic Shake" contains seven of my most successful formulas for promoting age-reducing properties directed at maintaining nutritional and total wellness. [What is an age-reducing property? What is total wellness? Can any product maintain total wellness?]
Detox Formula—"A gentle, highly comprehensive balance of botanicals used in traditional Western and Asian herbal systems to aid the body in its internal cleansing" [What is "internal cleansing"?]
Eternal Herbal Supplement—"A potent rebalancer and herbal tonic for both men and women." [What gets "rebalanced"? How can people tell whether they are "out of balance"?]
Gary's Green Stuff—the product of the low temperature dehydration of green chlorophyll-rich foods that are also sources of phytonutrients, essential fatty acids, amino acids, anti-oxidants and trace minerals. Available in powder or capsule form. Awarded a Seal of Approval from the Diabetes Resource Center. [People can and should get the phytonutrients they need from foods. Chlorophyll has no health-related value for humans [4]. The Diabetes Resource Center [5], which was operated by a woman who had no health-related credentials, ceased operations in 1998.]
Null-Trim—a powdered mix containing protein from both soy and rice sources, carbohydrates and other nutrients such as guar, chromium, gamma oryzanol and lipoic acid which make this formulation ideal for weight loss or exercise programs. [I see nothing among the ingredients that I believe is useful for weight-loss or exercise programs.]
Curious Credentials

Null says he holds an associate degree in business administration from Mountain State College in West Virginia, a bachelor's degree from Thomas A. Edison State College in New Jersey, and a PhD in human nutrition and public health sciences from The Union Institute in Cincinnati, Ohio. Two papers he co-authored during the early 1980s identified him as Gary Null, M.S," but I have seen no information about the source of that credential.

Edison State (renamed Thomas Edison State University in 2015) is a nontraditional school that now operates primarily through the Internet. It is accredited, but at the time Null "attended," it awarded bachelor's degrees based on career experience, equivalency exams, and courses taken at other schools. In the late 1980s, a prominent college guidebook described it this way:

Thomas A. Edison State College, established in 1972, administers an external degree program that enables qualified students to earn or work toward a college degree without attending college in the usual way. There is no resident faculty, no campus, no classrooms, and no library. Administrative officers in Trenton evaluate college-level learning achieved through work or life experiences, self-study, college courses taken previously, industry-sponsored education programs, military instruction, etc. The college administers its own examinations in the liberal arts and sciences, business, and radiologic technology under the Thomas Edison College Examination Program [6].

The Union Institute is also accredited, but its degree requirements and standards for health-related doctoral degrees differ greatly from those of most traditional universities. Students design their own program, form and chair their own doctoral committee, and are required to attend only an introductory colloquium and a few interdisciplinary seminars. Null's thesis, entitled "A Study of Psychological and Physiological Effects of Caffeine on Human Health," was approved in in August 1989. The approval document states that his PhD committee was composed of a "core faculty member," three "adjunct professors," two "peers," and a "second core reader." The "core faculty member," Peter Fenner, was a well-credentialed academician whose expertise (in geologic sciences) was not related to Null's topic. One of the three "adjunct professors" was Martin Feldman, MD, a "complementary" physician (and "clinical ecologist") who has pinch-hit for Null as a radio host, and helped develop some of Null's books and supplement formulations. The other two were Philip J. Hodes and Elayne Kahn. When I asked a school official about their background or location, he replied that information was in storage and was too difficult to obtain. In 2005, I located mention of "Dr. Philip Jay Hodes, Ph.D, Ed.D., Practitioner Holistic, Health Detoxification & Orthomolecular Nutritionist, Consultant" on a Web site that sells "natural tropical herbal medicines." [7] I also discovered that Elayne Kahn is a psychologist in New York City who coauthored a book with Null that was published in 1976 [8].

Traditional universities require that research for a doctoral degree in a scientific discipline make a genuine contribution to the scientific literature. Null's thesis made no such contribution. The stated purpose of his project was to evaluate (a) caffeine's effects on "adrenal function determined by a medical examination," (b) "its perceived psychological effects as recorded in a questionnaire and daily diary, and (c) "the anabolic effect of caffeine according to a theory proposed by Dr. E. Revici." (Emanuel Revici, MD, was a physician in New York City whose methods were disparaged by the American Cancer Society. State licensing authorities placed Revici on probation in 1988 and revoked his license in 1993 after concluding that he had violated the terms of his probation.)

The first part of Null's thesis summarized information about caffeine published mainly in scientific journals. The data for the report of his study were obtained by observing two groups of volunteers. One group contained eleven chronic caffeine users who stopped their caffeine intake for a week and then took caffeinated tea for a week. The other group contained six nonusers who drank caffeinated tea for one week and then drank decaffeinated tea. The total number of participants is unclear. Null's thesis states that six others who began in the first group and five others who began in the second group dropped out of the study because they were uncomfortable. It also states that "at least thirteen" other users were disqualified for noncompliance.

The "medical evaluation" included two tests. One compared each volunteer's blood pressure when lying down and when standing up. The other was a chemical test for the amount of sodium and chloride in the urine. Null claims that these tests can detect "diminished adrenal function." Unfortunately for his thesis, they have no practical value for this purpose. The method Null used to determine "the anabolic effect of caffeine" involved measurement of the specific gravity, pH (acidity), and surface tension of single samples of the urine—a test used by Revici. Null noted that the theory behind the test "is still the subject of debate and has not yet gained wide scientific support"—which is a rather strange way to describe a test that is utterly worthless for any medical purpose and could never gain widespread scientific acceptance. The specific gravity of urine reflects the concentration of dissolved substances and depends largely on the amount of fluid a person consumes. The acidity depends mainly on diet, but varies considerably throughout the day. Thus, even when these values are useful for a metabolic determination, information from a single urine sample would be meaningless. The surface tension of urine has no medically recognized diagnostic value.

Following 41 pages of findings, calculations, tables, and graphs, Null concluded that "chronic caffeine users tend to have diminished adrenal function, which he blamed on "exhaustion" of the glands. "Fortunately," he added, "there are non-drug nutritional programs which have the ability to repair or rebalance weakening adrenal glands toward normal." The program consisted of "diminishing stressors," implementing strategies to diminish anxiety, and taking doses of five vitamins and three other products.

In January 2005, I received a threatening letter from attorney David Slater, General Counsel for Gary Null & Associates, Inc., who demanded that I remove a previous version of this article from Quackwatch. One part of the letter complained:

You also attack Mr. Null's Ph.D. thesis, written over 25 years ago, on the negative effects of caffeine on human health. You say that it “contributes nothing.” Despite your assertion that the thesis was meritless, two updated versions of the paper were accepted for publication in the Journal of Applied Nutrition (Volume 33, No.1, 1981) and the Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry (Vol. 13 1st Quarter 1984). We understand that only a small percentage of Ph.D. theses are actually accepted for publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and Mr. Null's thesis was published in two different ones. Moreover, Mr. Null's original clinical and laboratory work demonstrating the deleterious effects of caffeine on the human body became a catalyst for subsequent research on the topic by other scientists. Based on his original findings about caffeine, Null's advocacy against caffeine has now become a major public health position. Accordingly, it is inaccurate for you to state that Mr. Null's Ph.D. thesis about caffeine contributed "nothing." [2]

After comparing the articles to Null's PhD thesis, I made the following observations:

Since Null's thesis was published in 1989, I don't see how "updated versions" of it could have been published in 1981 and 1984.
The 1981 and 1984 articles have multiple authors [9,10]. Null is not listed as lead author of either one. The papers give no indication of who contributed what to the paper.
The 1981 article was a summary of published information about caffeine that was similar to the summary in Null's thesis.
The 1984 article reported a study of 11 volunteers which is similar to the one reported in Null's thesis. It is not clear whether the thesis was based on the same data or whether Null did a second study.
Neither journal has much of a reputation. As far as I can tell, neither one is indexed by MEDLINE.
My MEDLINE search for "Null G" found only one article that was coauthored by Null and appeared in a pharmacy magazine [11].
When I asked Slater to clarify the time frames and to tell me where Null got the "M.S." degree listed after his name in the articles, he replied: "My client has instructed me to cease all further communications with you. He repeats his demand that you remove the offensive and libelous material from your website or face legal action." [12]

Additional questions remain. Has Null completed any science-based courses related to nutrition and public health? If so, (a) what did he take, (b) when did he take them, (c) did any of them involve classroom attendance, and (d) were any of them related to his degrees? I also wonder when he enrolled in The Union Institute. In response to these questions, Slater replied that Null will not provide further information about his transcripts, coursework, or other details related to his degrees and that he regarded my request as intrusive and an invasion of his privacy [13]. Why do you suppose he said that?

Recent Lawsuits

In October 2009, Null and several others filed suit against the FDA in an effort to stop distribution of the 2009 monovalent H1N1-A ("swine flu") vaccines [14]. The complaint was based on the assertion that New York State had mandated the vaccine for healthcare workers who see patients in hospitals. One month later, after the FDA had filed a motion to dismiss [15], the court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and dismissed the case [16].

In April 2010, Null sued the manufacturer of Gary Null's Ultimate Power Meal. The complaint alleged:

The product was produced with 1,000 times as much vitamin D as it should have. By consuming two servings a day, Null consumed 60 million IU during the month he used the product.
Null began having severe symptoms in December 2009 and believes he nearly died from kidney toxicity.
It took three months to "get his blood seemingly back to where he was able to function, but he continued to occasionally urinate blood."
While he was ill, Null "had dozens of his customers calling him, as well as threatening and condemning him," and six users of the product were hospitalized with severe kidney damage [17].
During the next few days, Null's Web sites posted at least three reactions to publicity about the suit. One said that he was "completely and totally healthy and everything is fine." Another said that "none of the retail product reached the market" and he had "returned to complete health." But after a Los Angeles Times blog noted that these statements contradicted what the lawsuit said, Null replaced them with one that said he was "feeling substantially better." Two weeks later, he filed an amended complaint that omitted all of the allegations related to his own alleged illness and claimed only that his company had suffered damage to its reputation [18]. Since then, three lawsuits have been filed against Null, his company, and the suppliers. Two were filed by product users who became ill [19, 20], and the third was filed by the estate of a woman whose illness led to death [21]. The first two suits were settled with undisclosed terms. I don't know the outcome of the third suit.

Information Welcome

A number of people have asked me whether I know anything about Null's retreats and whether he counsels individual clients. I am interested in receiving information from anyone with first-hand knowledge..

References

Null G. Prescription for disaster. Penthouse Magazine, Sept. 1985.
Slater DM. Letter to Dr. Stephen Barrett, Jan 25, 2005.
Barrett S. Gary Null and the bee pollen infomercial. Quackwatch, March 1, 2005.
Lowell JA. Amazing claims for chlorophyll. Nutrition Forum, May 1987.
Barrett S. The Diabetes Resource Center: What does its "seal of approval" mean? Quackwatch, Feb 4, 2005.
Peterson's Four-Year Colleges, circa 1988.
Yodel Inc. Home Page, accessed March 3, 2005.
Null G, Kahn E. Wholebody Health and Sex Book. New York: Kensington Publishing Corp., 1976.
Bolton S, Null G, Pressman AH. Caffeine: Its effects, uses and abuses. The Journal of Applied Nutrition 33(1):35–53, 1981.
Bolton S, Feldman M, Null G, Revici E, and Stumper L. A pilot study of some physiological effects of caffeine. Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry 13(1):34–41, 1984.
Bolton S, Null G, Troetel WM. The medical uses of garlic: fact and fiction. American Pharmacist Aug 1982, pp 40–43.
Slater DM. E-mail message to Dr. Stephen Barrett, March 2, 2005.
Slater DM. Letter to Dr. Stephen Barrett, Feb 18, 2005.
Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Gary Null et al. v U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 09-1924, filed Oct 10, 2009.
Defendants’ memorandum in support of motion to dismiss and in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Gary Null et al. v U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 09-1924, filed Oct 28, 2009.
Order. Gary Null et al. v U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 09-1924, filed Nov 10, 2009.
Complaint. Gary Null and Gary Null & Associates against Triarco Industries, Inc. New York State Supreme Court Case No. 10601070, filed April 26, 2010.
Amended complaint. Gary Null & Associates against Triarco Industries, Inc. New York State Supreme Court Case No. 10601070, filed May 10, 2010.
Verified complaint. William Schmidt and Jennifer Maslowski against Archon Vitamin Corp., Triarco Industries, Gary Null & Associates, Inc., and Gary Null, individually. New York State Supreme Court, filed May 10, 2010.
Verified complaint. Patricia Amato against Archon Vitamin Corp., Triarco Industries, Gary Null & Associates, Inc., and Gary Null, individually. New York State Supreme Court, filed June 8, 2010.
Complaint. Jack A. Shulman individually and as executor of the estate of Helen K. Shulman against Triarco Industries, Archon Vitamin Corp, Gary Null & Associates, Inc., Gary Null's Uptown Whole Foods, Inc., Gary Null Consulting, Inc. and Gary Null, individually. New York State Supreme Court, filed Dec 29, 2011.
Reader Response

From a devoted Null fan:

How dare you call Gary null a quack!! he cares about peoples health! he helped my dying mother she had Parkinson's and fibro mialga, when doctors for years made her worse! all they did was give her pain medication and other things that turned her in to a vegetable... my self - I have suffered a life time of asthma allergies emotial dysfunction and pain.. and he has succeeded where you all have failed.. I can not believe the ignorance here.. its highly clear who the quacks are...I am appalled at this article.

GARY NULL IS GOD !

This report was revised on April 10, 2016..

Make a Donation  |  Search All of Our Affiliated Sites  |  Home
Links to Recommended Vendors

Zenni Optical. High-quality eyeglasses at amazingly low prices.
Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. Trustworthy information on dietary supplements and herbs.
PharmacyChecker.com: Compare drug prices and save money at verified online pharmacies.
ConsumerLab.com: Evaluates the quality of dietary supplement and herbal products.
Amazon.com: Discount prices, huge inventory, and superb customer service
OnlyMyEmail: Award-winning anti-spam services.
10 Types: Website design, development, and hosting with superb technical support.
Logged

Astro_van_Galax

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
The snake-oil dealers are murderers
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2016, 01:17:47 AM »

The snake-oil dealers are murderers.

Let's paint them with tar and feathers!


[And read some books on orthography...  8)  ET]
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 01:57:22 PM by el_Typo »
Logged

Omegafant

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 622
More about Gary Null and other frauds
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2016, 10:49:41 PM »

http://www.quackwatch.org (health fraud and quackery)
http://www.allergywatch.org (guide to questionable theories and practices)
http://www.acuwatch.org (skeptical guide to acupuncture history, theories, and practices)
http://www.autism-watch.org (guide to autism)
http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org (guide to intelligent treatment)
http://www.casewatch.org (legal archive)
http://www.chelationwatch.org (chelation therapy)
http://www.chirobase.org (skeptical guide to chiropractic history, theories, and practices)
http://www.credentialwatch.org (guide to health-related education and training)
http://www.dentalwatch.org (guide to dental care)
http://www.devicewatch.org (guide to questionable medical devices)
http://www.dietscam.org (guide to weight-control schemes and ripoffs)
http://www.fibrowatch.org (guide to the fibromyalgia marketplace)
http://www.homeowatch.org (guide to homeopathy)
http://www.ihealthpilot.org (guide to trustworthy health information)
http://www.insurancereformwatch.org (guide to an equitable health-care system)
http://www.infomercialwatch.org (guide to infomercials)
http://www.mentalhealthwatch.org (guide to the mental help marketplace)
http://www.mlmwatch.org (multi-level marketing)
http://www.naturowatch.org (skeptical guide to naturopathic history, theories, and practices)
http://www.nccamwatch.org (activities of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine)
http://www.nutriwatch.org (nutrition facts and fallacies)
http://www.pharmwatch.org (guide to the drug marketplace and lower prices)
http://www.ncahf.org (National Council Against Health Fraud archive)
http://www.stop-robocalls.org  (guide to telemarketing scams)
http://www.chsourcebook.com  (consumer health sourcebook)


Donations to help support Quackwatch can be made through PayPal or by mail.
See:  http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/donations.html
Logged
Get ready for take-off!
Pages: [1]