From Arthritis to Zoster

Not surprisingly, another study has demonstrated a connection between inflammation and symptomatic coronary artery disease.

Even less surprisingly, the study supports the use of statins—namely, Crestor—to invoke a 50% reduction in the risk of heart attack for people who exhibit signs of inflammation in their arteries.

I say, “…less surprisingly,” because the study was funded by AstraZeneca (the company that manufactures Crestor) and the principal investigator, Dr. Paul Ridker, has stated financial ties to the company. Dr. Ridker is also co-holder of a patent on the test that measures inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, or CRP). Though he states he has no conflicts of interest, Dr. Ridker stands to profit handsomely from the sweeping recommendations that will likely emanate from his research.

Thankfully, in spite of the excitement surrounding the study’s results, cooler heads are calling for temperance. After all, even though Crestor showed clear benefit in this trial, smart people are pointing out that 120 individuals would have to be treated for two years to prevent a single heart attack. And, with Crestor costing $1200 per year, treating everyone in the US who has a high CRP could cost up to $9 billion.

Furthermore, the study only lasted for two years before it was terminated because of “clear benefit” to those in the test group. Many of those individuals had normal cholesterol levels prior to taking Crestor; the drug will lower their cholesterols even further. The clear implication of this study is that patients will receive therapy for life, but no one has the foggiest notion about the long-term adverse effects of subnormal cholesterol levels. Past research has raised some serious concerns about this.

Additionally, test subjects in this trial showed a slightly higher incidence of diabetes than control subjects did. Would we be trading one problem for another? Would we just add the costs of diabetes management to the life-long costs of a statin drug?

I feel compelled to toss one more pebble into the pond: Does anyone remember the studies of the mid-90’s that revealed bacteria in the inflamed cholesterol plaques in the coronary arteries of heart attack victims?

It seems to me that we are once more using a big gun to shoot at a little tiny target…a big, expensive gun, loaded with silver bullets. I may be wrong, but it would seem prudent—indeed, it would be good science—to chase down the source of the inflammation that jacks up the CRPs in all of these people with normal cholesterol levels who are still having heart attacks.

Once again, as we did ten years ago, someone needs to ask the question: “Is coronary artery disease an infectious disease?”

I think it would be fascinating to conduct another study. Let’s go ahead and measure those CRPs (you’re welcome, Dr. Ridker); for those who exhibit high CRPs, let’s also collect titers or PCRs for, say, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumoniae and maybe a few other ubiquitous bugs. For those with signs of bacterial colonization and high CRPs, let’s consider a course of antibiotics and successive measurement of CRPs.

If nothing useful tumbled out of a study like that, I’d still keep looking for an underlying cause of that inflammation. We might just find a really cheap way—maybe even a lifestyle recommendation (free!)—to prevent all those heart attacks and strokes.

Perish the thought.         

Thomas Skutella, a professor at the Center for Regenerative Biology and Medicine in Tuebingen, Germany, today announced that stem cells derived from testicles are probably as versatile as those harvested from embryos. Skutella’s team postulates that testicular stem cells could be used to propogate a plethora of personalized replacement tissues…

…if you happen to be male.

This discovery circumvents the moral dilemma of using embryonic stem cells (the contention being that a human life is terminated when embryonic cells are harvested), but–if this were the only technology available for the collection of pluripotent cells–half of the human population would be precluded from any benefits that might accrue, due to the presence of that pesky Y chromosome.

Luckily, there are other promising and interesting things happening in the field of stem-cell research, including the reprogramming of somatic cells to assume stem cell characteristics. But these techniques are years from bearing fruit; we could probably attain useful results more quickly by applying our investigational energies to embryonic stem cells.

Ah, well. For the time being, we’ll see what revelations emerge from work being done with embryonic stem cells in other countries, and we’ll see how things go in the somatic-cell and testicular-cell camps.

I’m holding my breath about those testicular stem cells, though. The next shoe to drop will be a debate about how these cells, too, could have one day, maybe, possibly, become a full-fledged human being, so…     

FDA advisors and pediatricians are recommending a recall of over-the-counter cough and cold medications that are currently marketed for children. Earlier this year the FDA warned against the use of these products in children under the age of two, citing a lack of evidence that these products were effective in the face of significant risks of adverse reactions or overdose. 

Now, experts are saying that the use of these products in children up to age six must be avoided, too. Once again, they report that there is no evidence to support the use of cold preparations in this age group, even though an estimated 10% of all children up to age 11 use OTC cold medicines in any given week. The biggest exposure, they say, occurs in the 2-to-5-year-old group.

And there’s the rub.

US families spend nearly $290 million annually on cold medicines for children, and industry proponents say that these preparations are safe, when given appropriately. Manufacturers contend that three decades of use in children shows that these OTC medications–in proper doses–pose no risks (does anyone remember phenylpropanolamine?).

Making children’s cold medications is a good business.

The thing is, colds get better on their own. Fluids, rest, and other supportive care are typically all that is needed. So why administer medications to a child (medications that send 7,000 American youngsters to emergency departments every year) for a condition that is self-limited and for which the medications show no benefit?

Sounds a lot like our tendency to prescribe antibiotics for viral infections: As long as we’re ladling a foreign substance down our kids’ throats, it makes us feel like we’re doing something. 

A strong immune system is still the best defense against seasonal illnesses; good nutrition, regular exercise, and reasonable hygiene go a long way toward disease prevention.

And, when our children do get sick, maybe we should spend a little more time at their bedsides, reading them stories, tipping a bit of chicken soup over their lips, and reassuring them that we’ll help them get better. 

A few weeks ago the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended the use of statins (Lovastatin, et al) for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia in children as young as two years.

I’m still seething about it.

Not since the blatant pandering of the 60’s, when the pharmaceutical industry began its campaign to shower estrogens on unsuspecting women, has there been such a shameless effort to sell a class of drugs to as many Americans as possible. The medical community, enthralled by years of lobbying and schmoozing by Big Pharma, has fallen into lockstep. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

We have an epidemic of congestive heart failure in this country. Statins, which reduce levels of ubiquinone (CoQ10) by as much as 40%, may be at the root of that problem. But the importance of this adverse effect has been blithely ignored.

Each time a study involving statins is published, there seems to be a statement about a “slightly higher than normal incidence” of cancer, death, etc. Appended to those words we usually see the disclaimer: “These results could be attributed to chance alone.”

How odd that researchers– who are too often paid by the companies whose drugs they’re “investigating”– will squeeze every data point and tweak every statistical test to prove the drug company’s hypotheses, yet will write off serious adverse events to “chance alone.”

If my children were still in their formative years, would I have their cholesterol levels checked? No. Why should I? Why would I feed them statins every day to address a lifestyle issue? That would be like giving them an adjustable hammock to suspend above the ever-growing heap of clutter on the floor of their room, just so they wouldn’t have to clean up the mess.

No, I wouldn’t even consider a statin drug for a youngster; there’s not enough unsullied data out there to prove that these medications are safe for adults. For my kids’ sake, I’d rather get them moving. I’d turn off the computer, unplug the TV, and toss the latest version of X-box into the trashcan. 

Then, in 10 or 20 years when the truth about statins is finally revealed (and the pharmaceutical companies have raked in their billions and prepped their attorneys) my children will still be hale and hearty.    

The human immune system is a complicated thing. There are T-cells, B-cells, macrophages, antibodies, cytokines, and so on. There are subclasses of cells and categories of cytokines. It’s all a bit overwhelming when someone who isn’t familiar with immune function tries to wade in and understand it.

Unfortunately, in an age when we’re all trying to boost our immunity in the face of ever-increasing threats, we are inundated by the forces of marketing. Everyone, from the self-proclaimed herbalist down the street to the high-tech pharmaceutical company in a distant city, is trying to convince us that theirs is the ideal product; all we need do is ingest this pill or swallow that capsule or inhale this aroma, and we’ll be protected from everything from pimples to cancer.

For example, I just came across an advertisement for a “natural Japanese formula” that purports to boost the activity of Natural Killer cells (a special subpopulation of T-lymphocytes) over 300%!!:

Japanese mushrooms activate an army of Natural Killer (NK) cells in your body.

The advertiser even crawls out on that forbidden limb, making claims that should have the FDA knocking on their door:

Complete remission in 6 out of 11 cancer patients!

Sounds impressive, until you take the time to look around.

Interleukin-2, a prescription drug used to treat malignant melanoma and other cancers, does a better job, at around 390%

Don’t want to wait until you need a prescription medication to optimize your immune function? Well, if you’re thinking about energizing those Natural Killer cells (an excellent idea, by the way), consider a preparation called Transfer Factor Plus Tri-Factor. It outdoes both the Japanese mushroom formula AND interleukin-2. At a whopping 437%, it’s hands-down the best way I know to ramp up NK cell activity. And it has the research to back its claims– none of which, incidentally, include cures or prevention of any disease or condition (That’s territory that is owned by the pharmaceutical companies, for what it’s worth).

I am convinced that there are many ways to good health that don’t include reliance on Western medicine– or its puppetmaster, Big Pharma– but it really behooves us as thinking individuals to do our homework before we put our welfare in the hands of the advertisers.