The Only Dem "Tax Fake Out" Is From Hillary

Megan McArdle of Bloomberg News claimed in a recent article ('The Democrats' Tax Fake Out', D. Post, Jan. 10),  that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to jump start new programs (worker training, free college, preschool care etc.) but "are probably not going to be able to pay for it with the piddly sums from raising higher taxes on the rich".  She goes on to claim:

"Yet both of them seem wedded to the idea that taxes should not rise significantly for anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year"

Of course, this has since been skewered as Bernie made it clear in a town hall meeting last night (and based on his tax plan released over a week ago) that the middle class WILL have to pay more in taxes, if they expect to reap the enhanced benefits he has proposed.  It is actually Hillary who's vowed middle class taxes won't go up, and even proposed tax cuts. But then she is also the Dem candidate who has indicated we can't afford to expand Social Security or offer free college to deserving kids. After all, you only get what you pay for...or don't!

McCardle cites Bryce Covert of Think Progress "who does a good job of making the case that Democratic priorities can't be funded without broader based taxes.".

McCardle then begs the question - based on Covert's lack of explanation - of why the Democrats are "avoiding this obvious arithmetic". But again, it's Hillary doing so, not Sen. Sanders. And the only reason to dodge higher taxes for the middle class is the same as it was after Obama got elected and the Bush tax cuts finally faced expiration: lower taxes could be used as political opportunism. But Hillary, like Obama, wouldn't inform voters it would mean cuts to their favorite program later. Hence, Obama's 2010-11 advocacy of Social Security cuts (via the chained CPI) and his "Debt Commission". Bait and switch anyone?

But this isn't some new revelation. As early as 2009-10, The Financial Times' Clive Crook warned that continuing the Bush tax cuts would be a serious error, and undermine Democratic -backed social programs.  He showed using carefully documented math - from stats parsed from the Government Accounting Office- that keeping the Bush tax cuts in place (which the Dems did for two years) would have serious repercussions. He was right, and we then saw the chained CPI appear as well as cuts to the SNAP (food stamps) program over two successive years.

I argued in several posts that Americans needed to stop falling for this horse shit and accept higher taxes like Europeans do,especially  if they wished to protect social insurance and other domestic benefits programs.

Last night,  in a Town Hall meeting response to a blunt question from CNN's Chris Cuomo -  on  wanting "big government back" -  Bernie correctly and deftly dodged the acceptance of the loaded language and instead vowed he'd protect the American middle class from further inequality. He also explained how this might translate - in the case of his single payer health program  - into maybe $5,000 a year higher taxes. But before the audience had a collective heart attack he reminded them this would be in place of paying higher private health care insurance premiums of say $10,000 - as many families are doing in exchanges and health coops under the ACA. (Or if they don't have the benefit of a federal subsidy under the ACA and hence have the option of only higher deductible plans).

So pick your damned poison. DO you want $5k higher taxes or $10k yearly premiums (likely to increase each year, as they are doing now - according to the WSJ - by an estimated 9.4%). Sanders also did the math for Cuomo and the audience noting the arithmetic results in a $5k savings.

Another woman asked about the high drug prescription costs and again, Bernie - as he did in Dem debate 2 - vowed to rein in the Big PhRmA price gougers.  His plan, again, is overhauling the entire PhRmA price gouging constellation and forcing them to simplify as well as rationalize drug prices. There is also no reason U.S. seniors have to pay so much more than those in other nations. Why should our seniors and other citizens foot the bill for others around the world? Well, because we allow it to happen!

Thus, the ACA was forged by crafting an $80b deal with PhRmA to disallow any import of cheaper drugs from Canada, as well as prohibiting Medicare from bargaining for lower drug prices like the VA. All of this would change under a Bernie Sanders' administration. The savings to Medicare alone, just to allow drug price bargaining like the VA - would save $200b over ten years.

Sanders' simplified drug plan, such as for Medicare, would also obviate the need for so many seniors to do twenty five hours of research each year to ensure they're not getting screwed over by keeping their current drug plan under Part D. (Which program originated under the Bushies' 'Medicare Modernization Act' - one of the biggest corporate giveaways ever.). In many cases while the senior finds the monthly premiums do go down, the tiers of the drugs he needs are changed so he still ends up paying more. Only careful research, consuming many hours of time, enables him to see another Part D plan may be better so he signs on - but then they may change tiers for their own drugs next time!

Bernie's solution would dispense with this smoke and mirrors BS as well as eliminate the notorious 'donut hole' once and for all.  The $64 question is whether Americans are grown up enough to accept higher taxes to solve these issues, or would they rather keep lower taxes - as well as sniff for tax cuts - but face cuts to their social programs later.

Time will tell, and the first look will be after the Iowa caucuses next week.

Doctors Are Correct to Wage War On Drug Prices

Under the header "It's About damned time",  is the outcry less than a month ago by more than one hundred oncologists from top cancer hospitals that the cost of cancer drugs is way too high. Indeed, the cost of many drugs is too high, and Americans are literally being taken to the cleaners by Big PhRMA.  So no surprise many doctors, not just oncologists (cancer specialists), are calling for new regulations to control the costs.

In fact, the oncologists and other doctors are only the latest to make vocal complaints. Preceding them have been insurers, state Medicaid officials, and most of all patients - many of whom have been forced to forego prescriptions because of the exorbitant costs.  All this in the wake of prescription drug prices rising more than 12 percent last year, and many prescriptions increasing more than 100 percent.

For example, as noted in an NBC News segment last night, one pharmacist complained that "it was the craziest price increase ever seen" in his life. He cited the wholesale price for the diabetes drug Glumetza which went from $1,000 for 90 days supply in January to just over $10,000 in July. He noted he had no choice but to pass the higher costs on.

The plight of patients was highlighted in one Mayo Clinic Proceedings editorial in which the financial burden was emphasized with the out of pocket costs bankrupting many just as they're fighting a deadly disease. As a result 10 to 20 percent of cancer patients don't fulfill their treatments as prescribed - and their cancers metastasize.  And 75% of other prescription drug takers have cut back on their medications, risking complications. No country with any dimension of decency can allow this to go on.

Fortunately some members of congress are on to this and have demanded that the pharmaceutical companies justify the pricing of hepatitis C medication which now runs tens of thousands of dollars per patient.  

Bernie Sanders, for example, has already advised the Department of Veterans Affairs to break the patents on hep C drugs so that generics companies can manufacture more of them for ailing vets. The problem is the Repukes won't hear of it as it constitutes "statist" interference in private business - so let the vets fend for themselves.

But this ought not be amazing or surprising given this is the typical Reptile response to everything concerning regular citizens - i.e. those not born with gilded spoons in their mouths.

Meanwhile, more sobering for many, has been the announcement from Medicare's Board of Trustees that expensive new medications will drive a sharp increase in the program's prescription drug spending over the next decade. In this milieu cancer medication increases have drawn particular ire with the average price of new cancer drugs having increased in the U.S. five fold to ten fold over 15 years to over $100,000 a year in 2015.

This isn't merely criminal, it's an abomination given those who can't afford the drugs are being issued a death  sentence. The newest and most effective drugs are those that harness the patient's own immune system and these can run up to $150,000 per patient per year. And the annual cost per patient could approach $300,000/ year if cancer drugs are prescribed in combination

As one Mayo Clinic hematologist put it:

"What we're fighting is the greed. The greed and the additional maneuvering that is being exercised after you've already recouped what you've invested. There is no control, no regulation."

This raises the plausible thesis that this "additional maneuvering" with no oversight - was actually built into the "Medicare Modernization Act" that Billy Tauzin and his Reepo criminal congress forced through back in 2003 - to the cheers of Big PhRMA.  It was no wonder that soon after it passed, Goldman Sachs estimated the benefit to PhRMA ( in terms of corporate welfare), would be over $13.7 b over ten years. It's probably even more now.

Indeed, another vile aspect of the 2003 law was that it barred Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices like the VA does. The law actually leaves the negotiating to private insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers. The very existence of this refuse denies Medicare the ability to drive down prices - and indeed control prices. But then many of us at the time suspected the maggot Bushies were behind this recklessly expensive, bogus law as a means to rush Medicare toward insolvency - the better to privatize it. They even embedded a Trojan horse in the law called "Medicare Advantage" which is now spending $12b a year more than traditional Medicare.

Of course, the usual excuse trotted out by PhRMA for its current skyrocketing drug prices is that it "costs so much for research" - which is arrant bull pockey. The truth is the drug companies are blowing most of their profits and returns on TV advertising. Just look at a typical prime time news broadcast on any of the networks, you are sure to see at least five drug ads including one for Cialis or Viagra, every damned night.

All hope is not lost but it will still be an uphill battle, especially against the defenders of the PhRMA goons. Already, some Senators - such as John McCain (R-AZ) and Amy Klobuchar (D, MN) have supported legislation that would allow patients to import cheaper drugs from Canada. (Which option had also been foreclosed under the 2003 'Modernization'  Act.)

Others have called for the pharmaceutical industry to justify its rising prices - which I believe is one of the most urgent steps to hold these bastards accountable.  These efforts include one California bill demanding the PhrMA leeches provide a detailed breakdown of costs, including for clinical trials, regulatory expenses, advertising, manufacturing and acquisition costs - and for all drugs that have an annual wholesale price of $10,000 or more.

This is a step long overdue and let's hope it succeeds! For all our sakes!

America the Swindled - How Big PhrMa Games Us All

As is generally well known, Americans pay the highest prescription drug prices in the world. Drugs to treat diabetes cost 3-5 times more than just about anyplace else, including Europe, ditto for statins (such as Lipitor) and cancer drugs. According to one Big PhrMa honcho, we Americans have to pick up the slack in drug costs given how the rest of the world remains firmly subsidized by their own governments. Translation: their governments actually care enough about them to control drug costs and not let the people get scalped and swindled.

But why should this state of affairs exist? The reason, we are told, is that it costs mucho money to bring decent drugs to the marketplace, the costs of research and all. Hence, unless these costs are borne by someone, some group the research won't get done and the drugs won't manifest - so millions will then have to do without, including the ones getting 'freebies' off us Yanks.

Is this really true, or is it mostly horse manure and PR?

Consider just eleven of the 12 new cancer drugs approved in 2012 which were priced above $100,000 annually. Further, a 20-30 percent copayment can make them unaffordable even to well-insured patients (i.e. those with at least 'Cadillac' health care plans).

But why these outrageous costs? On the one hand the companies claim the high prices reflect high research costs, but on the other hand they insist the high prices reflect the precious "added benefits" of controlling and curing cancer. In other words, the costs aren't really based on current expenses for research but rather future projections of effectiveness such that future health costs don't come to pass. In other words, the current costs of these drugs are really predicated on imagined savings once cancer is cured or controlled.

Is it just me or does this not sound an awful lot like the Neoliberal ploy  (in the “Postal Pension Reform Act of 2006”) requiring prepayment of pensions for 75 years by the U.S. Post Office - which effectively incepted its bankruptcy?  Of course, in this instance we have the future projections of Post Office obligations engendering  monstrous debt - suggesting a need for privatization - which Neoliberals get boners about. But when you think about it carefully the future "benefits" toted up to costs by Big PhrMA also translate to debt - either by the gov't or by the people who have no choice except to purchase these drugs (unless they prefer to die).

A recent piece in the AARP Bulletin (May, , p. 22) provides further insight into the PhrMA gaming on this. Or should we call it Neoliberal faux market gamesmanship?:

"The argument that companies are offering improved drugs for these higher prices is not true. Oncologists find that most new cancer drugs provide few clinical advantages over existing ones. Only one of 12 new cancer drugs approved in 2012 helps patients survive more than a few months longer."

In other words, it's all about milking massive extra profits out of "new" drugs that provide little added benefit. The drug companies, we can conclude, are only in it for profits - and could care less about substantive new research that truly advances cancer treatments.

The AARP piece goes on to puncture more BS:

"The industry argument that high prices reflect huge research and development costs also doesn't hold up - at least given the few facts companies make public .  Indeed, the actual dollars that companies have put into research from 1995 to 2010 have generated six times more revenue than the costs of the research - a sign that they are charging too much for little patient benefit."

Again, we're being led by the proverbial nose to believe a pile of codswallop. And now, if these companies are lying through their teeth on the benefits of the cancer drugs, what about statins and other high priced drugs? It makes sense their benefits are oversold as well (especially given the fact that nearly as many people with low cholesterol have myocardial infarctions as those with high cholesterol.) Not told you is that cholesterol isn't the real bugbear here. Its measurement in a blood test - which often indicated statins to the medical druggies - is really a sophisticated dodge. The real culprit is not cholesterol but c-reactive protein.  This substance indicated the degree of inflammation which is the actual agent triggering heart attacks. The test needed is the one for CRP not cholesterol, but then the CRP blood test is much more expensive.

The AARP article goes on to deal with these inflated costs:

"The most famous industry-sponsored estimate claims that it costs nearly $1.3 billion to develop a new drug and get it approved. This includes the cost of failures. Half that estimate, however, is not research costs at but rather a high figure for profits that companies would have made if they had invested their research money in stocks and bonds instead."

In other words, total Neoliberal perversion of the cost basis. Instead of tallying actual costs to do the research these drug company sharks are tallying up the costs of profits foregone in a whizzing stock market. (They seem to forget that stock markets can crash too.) 

In any case, it isn't a real cost to recoup from customers who faithfully pay up their hard earned money, but rather a phony cost to gouge and swindle them.   As the AARP piece points out:

"Eliminating it brings the actual research costs down from $1.3 billion to $650 million. "

Extrapolating from this, the cost of the typical drug ought to be half of what it is.  Probably less since taxpayers subsidize half of company research costs through credits and deductions granted to drug companies. The AARP author estimates these inputs bring the research costs down to $325 million.  The article adds:

"Moreover, the industry's $1.3 billion is based on a sample of the most costly fifth of new drugs, not the average for all drugs. Correcting this distortion brings company research costs down by 30 percent, to $230 million. "

The AARP goes on to point out the effect of a few expensive projects that inflate the value of the whole, hence why the median is best used instead of the average drug cost. In this case the company cost of research projects dives to $170 million.

The article also exposes more cost pricing gimmickry:

"A final way in which research costs are inflated is by backing in a large estimate for the cost of basic research to discover new drugs. In fact, no accurate estimate exists because the costs of discovery very so much, from an inexpensive lucky break to a costly 30-year search before a new drug is discovered. Removing that inflated estimate for basic research costs brings the net, median corporate research costs down to just $125 million for developing drugs."

Then we also learn (ibid.):

"Overall, basic research by pharmaceutical companies is quite small - about one sixth of overall company research costs and about 1.3 percent of revenues after deducting for taxpayer subsidies. The rest of company research costs foes to developing all those drugs with few advantages over existing ones so they can charge higher prices for them."

In another words, Americans are being swindled by sophisticated market projections, cost inflation, minor changes and other trickery. In the parlance of Neoliberals, it's what's called a "market spiral pricing strategy". It is more or less the same tactic used in inflating the costs of student loans, to increase debt there as well, despite the added costs and burdens being of marginal benefit because the benefits are so low in the existing job market. In the end it is all about enriching the Neoliberal market niche - whether drug companies or banks - at the expense of average citizens.

As the AARP article puts it:

"No other advanced country allows companies to raise prices on older drugs. No other industry raises prices on last year's cars or telephones."

It ends by advising that Congress needs to hold hearings on these spiraling drug prices especially for specialty drugs. In addition, Congress needs to eliminate the stupid rule that prohibits Medicare from negotiating discount drug prices- like the VA does. This dumbass rule entered with the Bushie Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and was intended to be one prop (the other being Medicare Advantage) to drive Medicare into insolvency.  It should have been repealed under Obamacare, but wasn't.

With rational changes the health care cost curve can truly be bent but it will require gutting the Neoliberal imperative that encourages companies to swindle citizens to make profits. At its heart it means providing incentives for drug companies to provide truly new and effective drugs and powerful disincentives for them to produce only slightly better drugs at sky high prices.

We shouldn't remain hostage to these perverted market and pricing schemes any longer!

Another Medical Bromide Falls

For years those of us over 60 have been pummeled by the medical know- it -alls to get our blood pressure below 140/90.  ( Systolic blood pressure, the top number, indicates the pressure on blood vessels when the heart contracts. Diastolic, the bottom number, refers to pressure on blood vessels when the heart relaxes between beats. ) The problem is this bromide has been peddled and pushed without regard for the effects of age on blood vessels (making them less resilient, thicker) and also the effects of too many meds to achieve a goal that may not be practical.

Now, at last, deliverance has been achieved with the ruling of a medical guidelines committee that's spent five years reviewing the evidence. The committee, composed of 17 academics, was tasked with updating guidelines last formulated a decade ago. Their report was published online on Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association. The committee concluded that the goal for people over 60 should be a systolic pressure of less than 150. And the diastolic goal should remain less than 90.

This is both reasonable and attainable, without overdosing on too many BP meds, which can often conflict with other meds and cause no end of problems. Also, Dr. Suzanne Oparil-  co-chairwoman of the committee and director of the vascular biology and hypertension program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine-   observed that medications that lower blood pressure can have side effects that counteract some of the benefits.  For that reason, maximum benefits may occur with less intense treatment and higher blood pressure.


Dr. Oparil added:

"The mantra of blood pressure experts in the past has been that lower is better. Recent studies don’t seem to support that.”

For example, two Japanese studies in older people found that those who reduced their systolic pressure to less than 140 fared no better than those who reduced it to between 140 and 160, or between 140 and 149.  Dr. Paul A. James, chairman of the department of family medicine at the University of Iowa and co-chairman of the guidelines committee, added, “If you get patients’ blood pressure below 150, I believe you are doing as well as can be done based on scientific evidence.”

"We have this notion that if we can get blood pressure to normal, we will have the most health benefits,” Dr. James said. “That’s not necessarily true.”

But isn't that a template for the way the medical groups operate? They are always about higher "standards" - whether measuring obesity according to BMI, or using PSA to generate ever more tests, treatments - or cholesterol levels to justify more use of statins. The be -all and end -all is not really patient health but more moola for the medical industrial complex, whether its PhrMa arm or the surgery - treatment arm. No wonder so many Americans are going bankrupt.

For people younger than 60, the goal remains blood pressure under 140/90. But the committee decided to keep that target because it could not find rigorous studies that established systolic blood pressure goals for younger people.  This is both rational and practical.

Naturally, some experts not on the committee claim that the blood pressure guidelines are based on limited science —since  studies did not specifically test the effects of getting blood pressure below 140/90 — but that this does not mean that goal should be abandoned.

True, but think of the much higher medical drug costs that could be saved if it is! Also, if Big PhRma and its medical mavens (often receiving kickbacks, perks)  for pushing meds on assorted "at risk" patients is really invested in healthier people instead of profits, let them offer the same deal with prescription meds that they give the VA – and let Medicare bargain for lowest costs.

Somehow I doubt that will happen, or that the assorted doctors now chomping at the new guidelines will contribute their voices to such a goal. Why should they when they grab bigger perks from the drug companies if they can rope more patients into the med frenzy (epitomized by all the drug commercials saturating the network TV orbit)

Though true, it may be less expensive now to treat the high BP disorder, Dr. James' point remains most salient:  the drugs do have risks, and for some people it may be better to take fewer drugs or lower doses. Many older people have a variety of chronic illnesses and take multiple medications, which can interact and potentially cause harm.

I am now on what is technically described by my PCP as "blood pressure medication" but which is really just a diuretic. Also, my doc prescribed half the normal dose of that. The result: my regular (at rest)  BP has gone down from 140/90 to 120/ 76.   In my case, less (meds) was more, apart from the fact this is costing me only 1 cent for a 90-day supply - thanks to Humana Part D in Medicare.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vitamins Are Useless? If They Are - So are STATINS!

Comparison histogram showing how nutrients in cornmeal have declined from 60 years ago.



Once more the PhrMA -backed establishment research clowns have performed more of their bogus studies and concluded  "Case closed!" (where have we seen that before?) and that "vitamins confer no benefit and are essentially useless".  How many times have we heard this codswallop and how often have they regurgitated it in the lapdog corporate press?  Of course, we are informed - as this morning on CBS Early Show - that "this is the definitive study!"  Yeah, right.

It's no secret there is an entrenched "anti-vitamin" industry in this country, based on phony medical or statistical tests, that has been trying for decades to convince people not to "waste money on vitamins", arguing that the only result is "very expensive urine".   But what they don't tell you - never will - is the extent to which our modern veggies, crops have been diluted in nutrients!

I have a graphic above which compares the selected nutrients in cornmeal to those from 60 years earlier.  Just look at the comparisons for thiamin, riboflavin and niacin and try to tell me that you can obtain the same benefit by eating the foods containing them, instead of taking the supplements. Any such person would have to be a dupe or a moron.

Take the calcium content of broccoli. Widely grown varieties in 1950 had about 13 mg/g of calcium but today's varieties provide only about 4.4 mg/g of calcium. Similar proportionate declines have been documented in meat, eggs, and dairy products.  If you are going to be foolish enough then, to depend on foods for all the calcium you need - you are going to pay when bones are broken -say from a fall on ice.

I have been taking a calcium supplement for over 20 years now, and in that time have experienced 7 falls on ice. Not one of those times met with a broken bone - but I can't claim the same had I not taken a calcium supplement and depended only on foods, milk etc. Some skeptics might argue it's the genes, not the calcium, but my dad experienced a fall in 2005 - hip fracture- which left him frail and vulnerable afterwards.  He was never the same, with the same energy and strength afterward.

Research on nutrient decline by biochemist Bruce Ames shows the following:

- Over the last 50 years, the amounts of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin, and vitamin C in conventionally grown fresh fruits and vegetables has declined by 50% or more.

- Wheat grown 100 years ago had twice as much protein as modern versions.

- Most of our agri-food crops, from lettuce, to broccoli, tomatoes, cauliflower, beans, peas, cabbage, etc. are so diluted that one would have to eat two to three times the amount daily to obtain an equal nutrient value to what one had in the 1960s. Thus, to do totally without vitamins, get set to eat four cauliflowers, three whole broccoli heads, eight oranges, five bananas (for potassium), ten tomatoes and three pounds of peas or beans!

In other words, in order to replace the nutrients, vitamins you're not getting you'd have to consume vastly larger quantities of veggies - and to absurd proportions! Who the hell is going to eat ten tomatoes, or three pounds of peas or beans in a day, or drink two gallons of milk? Give me a break! 

But this is what the anti-vitamin scolds want you to believe!   The most often cited reason for the declines is the increased use of fertilizers and genetically modified crops to boost yields to feed larger world population. The problem is this has come at the expense of the nutrient density of the crops.

Now, in the interests of being unbiased, they did get some things correct, but these are things most who take vitamins already know:

- You leave Vitamin A (e.g. in beta carotenes) alone because it's too easy to overdose on it with negative results.

- taking large surplus amounts of Vitamin E can (possibly) cause prostate cancer

- Don't fuck around with "exotics" like Ginkgo Biloba or Yohimbe root.

On the other hand, people in their elder years (over 65) need more vitamin D (in the form of D3) and they simply can't get this from foods - and they'd have to remain hours in the Sun (risking skin cancer) to get it otherwise. They also need at least 1,000 mg of Vitamin B-12 per day to avoid mental decline caused by deficiencies in this vitamin as they age. In addition, they ought to be taking a good B-complex at least four times a week, and calcium - magnesium (which is important for metabolic activity and which too few Americans get enough of.)

On the other hand, statin drugs are being pushed as some kind of a godsend or pharmaceutical elixir on millions. Why? To earn huge profits for Big PhrmA (and don't anyone hand me that crap peddled by the Neoliberal media that widespread generics will soon bring the costs down. No, the companies won't allow that to happen- even if they have to continually change one molecule to preserve a patent.)

Furthermore, according to the most robust statistical studies done, statins DON'T work! The statistics have been fudged! This  was first reported by FORBES in 2008 wherein outcomes from a control and statin-taking group were compared per capita for heart attacks. In the control (placebo) group there occurred 2 heart attacks per capita, and in the statin-takers there occurred 1 heart attack per 100. The results were then touted as "Statins reduce risk of heart attacks by 33%".

Thus:

(2 - 1)/3 x 100% = 1/3 x 100% = 33%

Which was duly reported by the hobbled corporo-media and which had many people thinking: 'Wow! I need to get statins, because hey -- if there could be 1,000 likely to get 'em and 333 didn't because of taking statins, I wanna be in that number!"

Trouble is, there was no such magnitude of success, and the actual difference per capita for the trials was kept hidden, well, at least until FORBES exposed them.

It is entirely plausible that a similar "result" was obtained for the margins of difference in prostate cancer arising from taking vitamin E, but this time - because portions of the media were on to the ginnied stats, they decided to admit that in actual fact, the results were not significant. But with "health" reporting you can be certain if nothing else that the Neoliberal profiteers are massaging the numbers.

Of course, there are tests that can bear this out! They are contingent on knowing actual sample sizes and then using the text to obtain the confidence level or level of significance.

For example, the well-known 'z-test' compares effects for two designated populations, P1 and P2, which have associated sample sizes N1 and N2. If the distinct outcomes for each population sample are then denoted by x and y, respectively, one can denote the separate populations in terms of the outcomes using:

P1 = x/N1 and P2 = y/N2

The z-statistic is then computed using:

z = (P1 - P2)/ [PQ {1/N1 - 1/N2}]^½

Where,

P = (x + y)/N1 + N2

is a pooled population and Q = (1 - P) (the variance of (P1 - P2) is the quantity in the denominator of the right -hand side in the expression for z)

Clearly, if a null hypothesis is applied such that no difference in outcomes is expected, one could have:

x/N1 = y/N2

or very close to that.

Now, here is a key element, we will know that z possesses a standard normal (e.g. Gaussian) distribution - see graph below:

if N1 and N2 are large. But, if the samples are too small, all bets are off and it is derelict to apply the z-test. For rejection of the null hypothesis (i.e. accepting a significant difference in outcomes) the obtained z-value cannot be less than 1.96 or the upper 5% of the standard normal distribution.

In effect, I'd surmise what the current anti- vitamin research is all about is not attaining this threshold for the tests they employ, which may not be the same as the z-test.

In the case of vitamins- supplements, we know that ever since Durk Pearson's outstanding research on the benefits of vitamins in the 1970s, government and Big Pharma has been out to quash the very notion of supplements as useful. Why express surprise? We are talking of the Corporate State and it protects its interests! The polluted politicians know that if Big Pharma's profits are affected - especially by a bleed off from people spending on vitamins, supplements - they will lose campaign donations from the Big Pharma lobbies for the next election cycle. Duh!

Now, since most government agencies already operate on the basis of "the fox guarding the henhouse" in terms of regulations, it makes sense that at any given time a particular agency that's been taken over by corporate power will inveigh against those interests it deems a threat...say to PhRmA's enormous profits, and hence campaign donation capacity. Thus it is that so many of the politicians seek to stamp out even medical marijuana because they know it will dent PhRma's profits - just as the medical establishment now joins the fray to try to put a lid on vitamin purchases.

We cannot, CANNOT - have the little guys enjoying so much cost-savings with vitamins to stay healthy when they could spend a LOT more on prescription drugs - if they didn't take vitamins and became unhealthy!  I mean, think of it! If they can just get these little hardheads to stop taking a Vitamin C, magnesium,  Vitamin D, or even just an aspirin each day - warning them off it - they will get their cholesterol and other numbers bad enough to warrant the prescription of costly statins! PROFITS! Wa-HOO! (And even better, if the hoi polloi get liver or kidney disease, croak and don't live long enough to get any "entitlements"!)

 Now, if anyone thinks this is "conspiracy thinking" I invite them to read the front page story in the Sunday New York Times on how the drug establishment is hyping 'attention deficit disorder' to spur sales of ADD drugs and boost profits - including for adults! (The next "challenge" according to the piece).   In much the same way, statins have now been approved for use by many more millions. Under the new advice, 33 million Americans — 44 percent of men and 22 percent of women — would meet the threshold for taking a statin. Under the current  (not yet revised) guidelines, statins are recommended for only about 15 percent of adults. You see where this is going?

Having taken over 14 vitamins and supplements for nearly 37 years I am not about to stop now, no matter what new "studies" proclaim. Also, as a person versed in statistics, I will have to see ironclad STRONG (not marginal) statistical evidence that a given outcome from use of a particular supplement is bad. Until that happens, all these specialists in negative vitamin research can go fart in the wind. It will be about that much difference to me in terms of whether they impact my thinking.

Lastly, and in my opinion trumping any inflated and bogus studies,  I was gratified when in 1998, after years of skepticism over my vitamin taking, my then physician finally admitted to me openly during a physical exam that she'd been wrong, and she now concurred with my vitamin and mineral supplement regimen. As she put it:

"Well, I did the research ....all over the place, and I have to admit now that people simply can't get all the nutrients they need from food. It's all been so diluted, that a person would need to eat massive volumes just to get the minimum RDAs of one vitamin, far less what you're taking. So keep on keeping on..."

I wish these other bought and paid for tools would also do the research, as opposed by being paid by Big PhrMA to do their brand of pseudo -research.

"Case closed?" Ha! No more than the JFK assassination case!

New Statin Guidelines: Should People Be Concerned?

Yesterday, according to widely circulated press reports, the nation’s first new guidelines in a decade for statins use were released. This was with the stated objective of preventing heart attacks and strokes. These guidelines call for twice as many Americans — one-third of all adults — to consider taking cholesterol-lowering statin drugs.

The guidelines, issued by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology, disclose a big change. They offer doctors a new formula for estimating a patient’s risk that includes many factors besides a high cholesterol level.   The formula includes age, gender, race and factors such as whether someone smokes. Cholesterol, especially the "bad" LDL still factors in, and the threshold point for the red statin flag is 190.  Interestingly,  the guidelines for the first time take aim at strokes, not just heart attacks. Partly because of that, they set a lower threshold for using medicines to reduce risk.


The definition of high cholesterol hasn't changed, but the treatment goal has. Instead of aiming for a specific number,  say 150, using whatever drugs get a patient there, the advice stresses statins such as Lipitor and Zocor and identifies four groups of people they help the most.  More interesting: Doctors say the new approach will limit how many people with low heart risks are put on statins simply because of a cholesterol number. Yet under the new advice, 33 million Americans — 44 percent of men and 22 percent of women — would meet the threshold to consider taking a statin. Under the current guidelines, statins are recommended for only about 15 percent of adults.


This is important to know, because statins aren't without serious side effects. The (Physician's) Prescription Drug Reference (PDR) and the drug information inserts commonly list the following as major side effects of statin use: muscle pain (myalgia), muscle breakdown (leading to kidney damage since broken down muscle proteins end up being absorbed), joint pain, liver damage and fatigue. On account of this regular monitoring is needed to ensure the patient isn't being adversely affected.

Jay S. Cohen in his book,  'Statin Drugs and Their Natural Alternatives', Square One Publishers, 2005), writes (p. 84):

"Statin -triggered muscle pain can lead to prescriptions for muscle relaxants, which can cause lethargy or weakness. Muscle or joint pain can lead to prescription of anti-inflammatory drugs which can cause stomach pain, depression, ringing in the ears and eventually damage to kidneys or gastric hemorrhage"

In other words, even one or two side effects can soon lead to a "prescription cascade" with more meds needed to deal with the side effects arising from the statin. No wonder so many seniors have found themselves in the "donut hole" and the average over-65 senior takes six meds!

More worrisome is a point Cohen makes (p. 86)as to the PDR and drug info inserts being outdated as to side effects inventory:

"There is no routine, expeditious method for incorporating (side effects) information into package inserts or the PDR unless it is very serious or lethal. Thus, the lists in package inserts and the PDR are usually incomplete and outdated. However, many doctors assume the information has been updated for each yearly edition of the PDR. Most drug write-ups have not."

One of the glaring examples of this (ibid.) is memory loss, dysfunction and cognitive impairment. Cohen again:

"Statin-related memory deficits are a perfect example. For years, evidence has been mounting that statins can impair cognitive and memory functioning, yet many statin package inserts do not list cognitive problems or forgetfulness among their side effects. These reactions may be subtle but they can also be very serious."

He then cites examples of older patients believing they have Alzheimers, or have that they've suffered a stroke. In one case, a woman's language was totally garbled and when she meant to ask: 'Please pass the bread', it came out: 'Please pass that elephant!' As with the neuropathy, merely halting the statins didn't always stop the cognitive problems and decline. Often they continued for months, or years.

Truth be told, given this hidden side effect, it could well be that many who believe they're in the initial stages of Alzheimers are actually suffering from statin side effects unreported in the lists inserted into the packages.

Let's also get clear that the increased (2-3x) factor use of these drugs, especially Lipitor and Zocor, stands to rocket Big PhRma's profits through the roof. This was actually pointed out in a Forbes article several years ago, in reference to reaching a $55m profits per year mark - and the need to rationalize more widespread statin use to achieve it. And WHO are these "experts" that become part of panels that provide these recommendations anyway? As one physician quoted yesterday (Dr. George Mensah) noted:

"It is practically impossible to find a large group of outside experts in the field who have no relationships to industry,”

Well, I mean wouldn't you think they'd have a vested interest in seeing a wider use and distribution of these drugs in order to more completely line their own pockets? I would! But then maybe as a cynic and curmudgeon this is what I'd always be disposed to see. But call me distrustful.

The other thing people need to be aware of, is that the sort of inflammation that leads to heart attacks and strokes is NOT from cholesterol per se, but rather a chemical known as c-reactive prtein, or CRP. It is this chemical that incites the inflammation that causes artery walls to respond by lining themselves. Yes, the presence of excess cholesterol can increase the probability of inflammation, but it's CRP which is the catalyst.


One other thing to be aware of, especially men at risk - say for strokes- is that a good aspirin regimen can achieve results as good as statins, without the risk of side effects. I myself take two 'baby' (81 mg) aspirin, one after lunch, one at night to achieve this. The decrease in stroke potential for such a regimen is estimated to be roughly 35% according to my primary care doc. (But any would-be aspirin user needs to check with his or her doc first before embarking on this alternative.

All of which is reason to be wary of docs pushing statins, since a prescribed 20 mg of Lipitor, based on the drug insert info, may in fact be an overdose for a drug-sensitive 70-year old -  who suddenly develops pulmonary fibrosis or kidney problems because of it. This is why as Cohen notes low doses are always recommended if one does start a statin regimen.

For those who do take this statin path, just be aware of the risks. Also, be aware that we are entering a period when (given budget constraints and the yen to transfer more costs onto patients)   prescription drug expense is likely to dramatically increase. Since we all need to be stewards of health care cost control, this is an additional factor to be reckoned into any decision.

Patrick Kennedy: A 'Useful Idiot' for Big PHARMA?

According to a story on page 4A of today's Denver Post ('Kennedy Plans Crusade Against Legal Pot') the son of Edward Kennedy and former U. S. Representative for Rhode Island, has formed a bunch with the acronymn SAM ('Smart Approaches to Marijuana') to wage an all out crusade against any further legalization of pot. His solution? According to the article, in the case of cancer patients and others in severe pain, he wants them to get their relief via DRUGS containing cannabinoids, which would be regulated by the FDA.  In other words, this "liberal" wants people suffering from cancer and wracked with pain to help fill the monstrous coffers of Big PHrMA even further!  Isn't it enough that the bastards have rejected every call to permit the government from bargaining for the lowest prescription drug prices - for Medicare- thereby adding $100b to our deficits each year? And now Kennedy wants to compound it?

 Jeezus peace, man! I know you've been out of the political spotlight for a while, but this isn't the way to get back in or gain attention! The article does mention Kennedy's prior problems with oxycodone, but that's a different breed of 'fish' from MJ. For one thing, the addictive levels are far higher with any kind of opioids, while MJ - whether in cookie form or smoked, merely produces a mild high. There is no evidence whatever of ongoing addiction as there is for the opioids.

Further, the cannabinoids drug idea isn't even new! A hyper-conservative stooge (Niall Ferguson)  first proposed it in an article in TIME  (‘How Marijuana Got Mainstreamed’ (Nov. 22, 2010) which claimed without any evidence at all that the medical marijuana laws and systems set up for example in Colorado and California were merely a cover to "mainstream pot" and get it accepted and legalized through the back door. It's hard to believe such codswallop could be generated, but then one saw the conservative connection - a la the Weekly Standard of Bill Kristol!

 As I pointed out in a letter to TIME's editors, the point is that many legitimately sick people (including those on chemo) now have an option apart from being in the maw of the profiteers at Big PhrmA. That a “high” is often an accompaniment ought to be applauded, not condemned.  But we have way too many Puritans still lurking around who would deny and prohiibit ANY sensate experience or pleasures at all - which subject I will get to in a future plog on the "jen ratio" and goodness and why the U.S. suffers from a low jen ratio and social pathology..

 What is the difference anyway between someone whose chronic pain is dulled, and who feels a little euphoria from a medicinal joint, and a person taking Vicodin or a cannabinoid prescribed by a PhrmA outfit? Well, in the first case, the person isn’t hostage to a drug maker’s lobby! The fact that someone from the conservative Weekly Standard wrote the piece is also nothing to commend it. The fact that Patrick Kennedy now supports a similar strategy puts him directly in the same camp as the denizens of the Weekly Standard.

The fact is, Colorado's MJ laws are under rigorous regulation by the state's own systems. Hence, standards are assured and patients can be confident of what they are getting...in whatever form. Further, the tax revenue from the sales go directly back into the state's hands and can be used for education, health and other needs. This is as opposed to more profits for Big PhRma so they can ply the TV waves with even more Nexium Viagra, and Cialis ads!

Patrick, you need to pull your head out of your butt and get on the right side of this issue. Don't be like Don Quixote tilting at windmills generated in your febrile mind! Don't be a useful idiot for the Big Pharma corporate pigs!

Will The Will of the Voters Be Respected? Or Will the Feds Snuff It Out?

One of the frequent adverts appearing in Colorado weekly Independent papers for medical MJ. Now that Amendment 64 has passed, for the use of recreational pot by 2014, will the Feds respect the voters' will or spit on local democracy? (Note: this applies also in Washington state, which passed a similar amendment.)

As Amy Chua once observed in her strirring book ('World on Fire') about the West's fetish and yen to spread democracy to the world at large (especially to Muslim nations), you have to be prepared to live with whatever the result of the democratic outcome - irrespective of how much you may despise it. If you don't, then you're a hypocrite, who preaches democracy when it's convenient but rejects it whenever the result doesn't suit your fancy. Hence, when free and fair  elections were actually held in Lebanon some years ago, and Hezbollah prevailed, the West needed to shut the hell up, and not carp about a result that it had to know was at least a finite probability.  Again, if you are pro -Democracy, you are obliged to be consistent, not favor it only when your outcome is likely!

Now, fast forward to the recent U.S. election, and despite the skylarking of late night comedians about "Rocky Mountain Highs", an Amendment (64) has been voted on and passed in Colorado which allows citizens the recreational use of marijuana. This applies to all adults 21 and older, and is due to take effect in 2014, with recreational shops opening in addition to the already existing medical marijuana dispensaries.  Aleady the Feds appear to be getting nervous, though they shouldn't be - the PEOPLE have spoken after all.

As I noted in an earlier blog on this subject: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/09/feds-need-to-back-off-on-colorados.html  the Federal government needs to back off and get a grip. The Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, after all, ensures unenumerated rights exercised by citizens. These are rights not specifically laid out or mentioned in the formal Constitution. In the case of Colorado Amendment 64, the state's citizens - by a 55% -45% determination, approved of a state constitutional amendment allowing for the recreational use of MJ. As I noted in the previous blog, this is not done via "States'  rights" since technically states have no rights, but rather exercised prerogatives. (see e.g. A Necessary Evil-A History Of American Distrust Of Government, Simon & Schuster, 1999, by Prof. Garry Wills ) Hence,  it's been done via the state prerogative of a citizen ballot issue, exercised from the natural rights of the state's citizens.

If then the Federal government were to barge in and stop it, under whatever ruse (say arguing that the law's retail sales section violates the U.S. Constitution because it "frustrates federal drug laws") then the federal government  (which like the states possesses no natural rights) is effectively abrogating the rights of Colorado's citizens. More to the point, it's asserting that its federal prerogative trumps the citizen's natural rights! But as Prof. Wills has noted, under no true constitutional premise can a prerogative - of either state or federal gov't - trump citizens' natural rights. If it does, one no longer has a true democracy or arguably even a republic!

Now, for the record, let me make clear as I have before, that I have no "dog" in this issue or fight. I have never used MJ even to simply pre-puff minus inhaling. My concern is not one out of any objective to get hold of or use pot (which I could've done to abate my cancer treatment symptoms - but never did) but rather the state's adherence to ballot measures, properly administered and voted upon. This is irrespective of whatever federal laws there are, which as I've also noted, are mostly there to protect Big PhRmA and the alcohol industry.  If corporate handouts, lobbyist interests were made more clear and transparent, it'd be seen this isn't an issue of kids getting "hooked" or any morality or legality but rather protecting the nascent corporatocracy.

Thus, pardon me while I howl with laughter on reading (actually in today's issue of The Barbados Advocate, p. 8) that former NIXON Drug Czar Robert Dupont "welcomes a confrontation". He basically says: 'Bring it on!' Are you kidding me?  Like all the other Nixonians (think Haldeman, Ehrlichmann, Chuck Colson et al and recall Nixon was impeached) he favors "confrontation" and opposes any legalization. He also says (ibid.): "I think it's time to resolve it".

Indeed. But HOW? In whose favor? If in favor of the federal gov't then essentially citizens wasted their time and effort in casting ballots for the measure, and democracy is spat upon. The gov't dislikes yet another outcome of democratic choice, boo hoo. And moreover, it does this to a state that desperately needs tax revenues (e.g. for educational funding) and so would plausibly terminate a business that could raise $100 m in annual revenues by 2017, this in addition to the $171 m in revenues already raised yearly by medical MJ dispensaries. So let me get this straight, if Dupont's spiel is to be believed (and btw, why is he even being quoted? He can't be part of Obama's DOJ!) the federal government floating in a sea of red ink is prepared to oust the means for a blue state to dig out of its own red ink - because it doesn't like the means of doing so? Gimme a break already

But the question of implementation remains with the need to assure the citizens' will is respected (as Gov. John Hickenlooper originally declared - after he initially beseeched voters not to 'overload on Cheetos') whle the feds' most ardent drug enforcers (likely still retained Bushies from 43's admin.) don't get their pants in too much of a twist over it.  According to today's Denver Post ('State Must Set Regulations' , p. 4A) Mr. Rob Kampia, the executive Director of the Marijuana Policy Project,  "will try to negotiate with the federal government on implementing the measure" and the emphasis will be on finding a method "least offensive in order to avoid a federal crackdown".

Meanwhile, a savvy reader in today's Post (a Dan Danbom, p. 30A) writes:

"I think we should follow the lead of the states that decided to 'opt out' of the federal health care law...and simply opt out of the federal drug laws that criminalize marijuana."

Maybe, but it would do to remind Mr. Danbom that the feds would likely then try the gambit invoking the Commerce clause, i.e. the law's retail sales section violates the U.S. Constitution because it "frustrates federal drug laws".  What I see then, is maybe the U.S. drug laws are the problem and need to be changed. All they're doing now is massively adding to our national debt by forcing the incarceration of tens of millions for petty drug "crimes" and thereby wasting resources that could be going for education, infrastructural repair or other more pressing needs. Again, it's a matter of national priorities! In the same way, our nation can't be sustainable if it keeps pissing money into the military-industrial complex, it can't be sustainable if it keeps pissing billions into the drug enforcement- prison industrial complex. This isn't exactly rocket science.

In the end, the most pragmatic and insightful take may be that of Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll ( 'Come On, Governor, Defend 64'  , Nov. 8, p. 21A) with whom I normally disagree - except in this case when his (libertarian) and my (liberal) instincts coincide:

"Speaking of retail and cultivation faciities, there are already more than 1,000 in Colorado - handling the same product that would be sold under 64. If the feds can tolerate those operations, they can tolerate what voters approved on Tuesday as well."

Finally, it bears repeating that Obama won a close race in Colorado thanks to a preponderance of youthful voters who also came out to support Amendment 64 (by 60% to 38%). By betraying the exercise of their voting rights, Obama and his DOJ could well lose Colorado in future national elections for the Dems, turning it back into a Red state as the youth stay home. ("Why vote for those bums if I just get betrayed?")   In any future close electoral vote, such a loss would be critical. (For example, had Obama lost OH, VA and FL, then simply picking up Iowa, Wisconsin and COLORADO would still have given him 272 electoral votes.)

Yes, as The Advocate noted, Obama also has to contend with the "law and order" types who want to maintain MJ crackdowns. But a peek at the voter profiles-demographics in CO will show him that those types, who were beaten in the 64 choice, are mainly old white men, walking-talking bleached out fossils. The same demographic that basically lost Tuesday's election! Why then back a loser, or losers?