October 22, 2007: FDA Man Likes Special Cigarettes, Hospital Workers Dislike Flu Shots
-- Quote to Note: “We know that vaccinating nursing home staff reduces influenza-related death rates among frail patients." --Jane Zucker, infectious disease epidemiologist.
-- Unbelievable. Not only does this word describe the weather in New York (high of 78 degrees in late October?), but it also describes several health-related stories published this weekend.
It started on Sunday, when the New York Times published an article about the "asterisk" in the recent report that cancer death rates are down. It seemed the author of the article was doing everything in his power to weave in some bad news with this undeniably good news. As ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan said, leave it to the Times to try to find some negative spin. Not surprisingly, this is in contrast to our approach.
-- Then, today, the New York Times published an op-ed by David Adams, a lawyer and former director of the policy staff at the Food and Drug Administration. Adams has the audacity to argue for a "two-cigarette society," one where not only "regular" cigarettes are sold but where people under the age of twenty-one can also buy cigarettes, so long as they are nicotine-free. What a way to enhance the black market for teens, ACSH staffers agreed. It's a crazy idea, said Dr. Whelan. All this would do is normalize the idea of smoking. And what about small shop owners across the country -- who's to say they won't "accidentally" sell the teens the "wrong," nicotine-containing cigarettes?
Dr. Whelan related the concept to having training wheels on bikes -- it will encourage more than dissuade young people in the development of smoking habits. Another unbelievable argument in Adams' article: he suggests diminishing the amount of nicotine in a real cigarette. Unfortunately, since nicotine doesn't cause any diseases, that would only lead to people inhaling deeper and smoking more, thus exposing the lungs to even more of the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke.
-- While the percent of hospital workers Jane Zucker cited as getting their flu vaccine every year -- only a third -- may seem unbelievably small to many, ACSH staffers were not too surprised. As we have written before, it is essential for health care workers to follow CDC recommendations and be immunized against influenza. After all, they have contact on a regular basis with the elderly, a particularly vulnerable segment of the population. Zucker, an infectious disease epidemiologist and also the assistant commissioner for the New York City Health Department's Bureau of Immunization, suggested that elderly people going to the hospital must ask their physicians and nurses if they have been immunized.
While we find this approach impractical -- it will be difficult to ascertain whether or not everyone a patient contacts really has been immunized -- ACSH staffers agree wholeheartedly that health care professionals should better heed CDC recommendations, not to mention the best interests of their patients.
October 23, 2007: Smoke, Blood Chemicals, Obesity, and an Award for Bloomberg
-- Quote to Note: "My concern about this trend about measuring chemicals in the blood is it's leading people to believe that the mere ability to detect chemicals is the same as proving a hazard, that if you have this chemical, you are at risk of a disease, and that is false." --Dr. Elizabeth Whelan
-- Yesterday's top story on CNN featured none other than ACSH's own Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, quoted giving perspective on the notion that "chemicals" in our bodies are causing cancer, asthma, and other diseases in children.
Dr. Whelan stood her ground, saying that trace levels of industrial chemicals in our bodies do not necessarily pose health risks .
A fact-supported, sound-science statement, but the backlash was incredible. Dr. Whelan was inundated with comments and calls, labeling her a "paid liar." It's very typical, ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross said, for these opponents to make personal attacks -- they're afraid of using science, which is on our side. This gut reaction attack against people who are "industry-funded" is a frightening trend. Look at Dr. Jim Enstrom. Or look at yesterday's article in the _New York Times_. Yes, we do disagree with David Adams, who argued for a "two-cigarette society" (one without nicotine, for youth), but we also disagree with people who do not attack him based on facts (like this two-cigarette society's potential to create a black market for teen smoking) but rather maliciously label him part of the "tobacco cartel."
On a side note to the CNN story, ACSH staffers had a little laugh when they watched the video, which showed Anderson Cooper (who appeared on the alarmist CNN broadcast Planet in Peril) getting a pint (a whole pint!) of his blood analyzed for chemical content. He'd have saved more lives by donating the blood, said ACSH's Jeff Stier.
-- ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava said she was astounded when looking through the Wall Street Journal today. She said she found it interesting that the Journal printed a blurb on obesity as a risk factor for breast cancer, but no mention was made of other lifestyle risk factors found in a study also published in the latest issue of Archives of Internal Medicine. The study Dr. Kava thought should have been featured is a Swedish one that found women with "healthy" lifestyles (that include regular exercise, no smoking, drinking one alcoholic beverage per day, and regular vegetable consumption) had a 78% lower risk of heart attacks than all other groups studied.
-- ACSH rounded up its breakfast by gagging a bit when discussing the news that New York's Mayor Bloomberg is receiving the Harvard School of Public Health's annual Julius B. Richmond Award for "his extraordinary leadership in working to protect and promote the health of his city's population." For the second time in this award's history, we do not believe the recipient merits this prestigious award. How many lives has he saved, we ask? With the trans fats ban, we know with some confidence that the answer is zero. As far as the second-hand smoke ban is concerned, while Mayor Bloomberg may have proclaimed 1,000 lives of non-smokers are saved, we highly doubt this number (although we do acknowledge this ban may have acted as a catalyst to encourage smokers to quit, which is always a great side effect).
Still, wouldn't a better choice for the Richmond Award be someone like Dr. Norman Borlaug, who's saved millions by feeding the world with new technology? Or if they're looking for a grass-roots activist, why not award someone who is working in the trenches on AIDs research and prevention, or those who just published good results for a new malaria vaccine? We hope to be more pleased with next year's choice.
-- Finally, ACSH's Jeff Stier is featured on today's New York Post op-ed page, encouraging public health officials not to let the ends justify the means. While overstating the case against second-hand smoke may help advocates win a political battle, it will cost public health officials their most valuable resource: their credibility.
October 24, 2007: Fires, Funding, and Fat
-- Quote to Note: "Mother Nature can be a bitch." --Unknown.
-- The forest fires in Southern California are tragic examples of truly natural phenomena. As referred to in the quote of the day above, it's interesting that some people (none of you, of course) like to believe everything that is "natural" is good -- and everything synthetic should be avoided -- but there is no obvious good coming from these "natural" and devastating fires. Perhaps those on the bandwagon to make all foods organic will make note of that. In a month, we're re-releasing our annual ACSH Holiday Dinner Menu, which exposes the natural carcinogens in a typical holiday meal -- and notes that neither the natural nor manmade ones are dangerous in such tiny amounts (if you e-mail me today, as a special thank-you for reading the Morning Dispatch, ACSH will send you a complementary copy of the Menu).
-- Yesterday's reactions to Dr. Elizabeth Whelan's quote on CNN about chemicals in the bloodstream continue to barrage ACSH offices. One in particular summed up the gist of how peoples' minds work: The critic said to Dr. Whelan, "You may be right, but that's not important. What's important is who funds you." This logic makes no sense to ACSH staffers, who like to think they always put what's "right" above any other confounding issue. No matter if scientists receive some funding from the chemical industry -- if their findings and/or beliefs are scientifically correct, funding should not be an issue. As ACSH's Todd Seavey suggested, donate a large sum of money to us and watch it have no effect on our scientific opinions. In response to criticism, and also to how her interview was handled by CNN, Dr. Whelan shared her experiences of the events leading up to this story's publication on Huffington Post last night. The response was incredible. There were some who echoed the idea that if you receive funding, you are automatically non-credible, no matter how scientifically accurate your views are. But the comments overwhelmingly agreed with Dr. Whelan -- scientists are afraid to speak out, and it's hurting the information streaming to viewers and readers of the news.
-- Finally, an article in today's Wall Street Journal reported that IBM is starting a new program that will pay employees to sign up overweight children to participate in weight-loss training. The employees will receive $150, and their children will complete a twelve-week online program on diet and exercise training. ACSH staffers noted they hope IBM will be tracking the results to see whether the program is effective, and while we're unsure if this will work, anything that helps with the obesity problem in this country is a step in the right direction. IBM may want to share this idea with parents -- a walk station.
October 25, 2007: Counting Calories, Dispensing Statins
-- Quote to Note: "It goes beyond the scope of good government. It is micromanaging small business." --New York State Restaurant Association Executive Vice President E. Charles Hunt.
-- Yesterday New York City health officials announced that they are reviving a program to require fast-food chains to add calorie counts to the big menu boards above their counters. While a judge struck down the city's first attempt at this, the city health department is trying again, mandating the calorie display only for chains with fifteen or more stores, and only restaurants serving standardized portion sizes that can easily be measured for their caloric content.
ACSH staffers expressed disappointment in this recent announcement. While we do fully believe the obesity epidemic that's plaguing the United States is a health hazard, forcing restaurants to post calorie contents is simply not going to help with this problem. For starters, many of these restaurants already have the calories in foods listed -- in the case of McDonald's, calories per menu item is posted on wrappers, on signs throughout the store, and online. How exactly is having calories placed on the overhead menu going to help? Furthermore, even if more people read the number of calories, how will this help them if they don't know how many calories they need to eat per day, ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava asked? In a past survey in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, when participants were asked to estimate how many calories they thought they should consume in a day, a third were unable to give reasonable estimates.
In addition to people not knowing their daily caloric needs, this program falsely implies fast-food restaurants are the sole source of the obesity problem. Yes, as Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden pointed out, it is very easy to order a 1,000-calorie lunch at many of these restaurants, but the subset of people who do know how many calories they need might also be the ones most likely to just budget that into their daily calorie intake. And while we're skeptical that calorie postings are going to help, if they are effective at helping to prevent obesity, why not make all restaurants do it? Why just stop at chains?
-- ACSH staffers also learned this morning that Merck is looking to get its cholesterol-lowering statin drug Mevacor -- the first statin drug introduced, in 1987 -- approved for over-the-counter sales. The FDA will weigh the data in December before making any decisions.
Around the table, we here at ACSH discussed what we would do if we were making the decision. The risk of statins is very low -- lower than the risk of Advil, ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross said. In England, statins were given over-the-counter status back in 2004. Still, Dr. Ross pointed out that there are a couple of issues to consider. True, more people who can benefit from statins will be able to get them more easily. However, these people may simply seek a quick fix at the drugstore without ever seeking medical treatment -- perhaps medicating incorrectly. The same issues arise in regards to the drug Prilosec, a now over-the-counter medication that treats acid reflux. Some people take Prilosec for a month thinking they're suffering from heartburn, only to realize when they finally go to a doctor that in reality they have an ulcer. When considering whether drugs should be sold over the counter, we must weigh how much responsibility individuals will have. Also, there's always the issue of medical insurance -- in general, over-the-counter drugs are not covered, although they tend to be much cheaper than the prescription variety.
October 26, 2007: Staph in Brooklyn, Smoke at Work and in China, Borlaug on Africa
-- Quote to Note: "China has become so polluted that it's better to breathe through a cigarette filter than just take in the air on its own." --Hugo Restall, in an article about Chinese cigarettes.
-- The front page of the New York Post today reported the tragic news that a twelve-year-old from Brooklyn died from the "superbug" MRSA staph infection. Now, ACSH is never an organization to encourage fear, but staffers said how troubling it was to see the city Health Department tell the principal of the boy's school that he had not participated "in any activities that put other students at risk."
However, this strain of staph infection is a threat -- it's an infectious disease and can spread easily through open wounds -- and the article mentions that it's suspected the twelve-year-old got the infection while playing basketball. The family members and other children who go to the school must be aware of the seriousness of this disease.
-- On the front page of today's New York Times, ACSH staffers welcomed the headline saying that more companies are helping finance programs to encourage their workers to quit smoking. But one quote threw off ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross -- one saying that with counseling there's a proven "great" success rate of between 15 and 35%. That's probably true -- it's consistent with what our report Kicking Butts in the 21st Century found. Still, that's a pathetic rate, Dr. Ross said. If they want to improve cessation numbers, companies should be supporting other methods of quitting smoking -- including the use of smokeless tobacco as a means of harm reduction.
-- What did brighten our morning, though, was seeing Dr. Norman Borlaug's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Once again, Borlaug, a Nobel Prize winner and one of our founders and trustees, wrote about the importance of using genetically engineered crops to help feed the starving populations of the world. Borlaug is particularly concerned about the poor status of agriculture in many African countries -- his op-ed explains how they can benefit from technology.
-- Finally, if you're looking for some humor, take a look at this article in the Wall Street Journal Taste section. The author's justification for smoking was that the pollution in China does the same harm -- something ACSH staffers don't agree with, since contrary to many claims about pollution, it does not cause anywhere near the same level of harm as does smoking cigarettes. But we still found the anecdotes amusing -- even when he refers to people like us (who warn of the hazards of smoking) as "spoilsports." We hope no one will take the author's comments seriously, though.
October 29, 2007: Fighting Tierney; Jenny McCarthyism; a Tale of Two Cigarettes
-- Quote to Note: "What does an award from the Harvard School of Public Health mean these days?" --John Tierney in his blog, TierneyLab.
-- The big news over the weekend for ACSH began Friday afternoon, when New York Times science columnist John Tierney posted a short piece on his blog about trans fats and Mayor Bloomberg. He quoted ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan saying that concern over trans fats is mostly hype and that the ban will not save any lives. Furthermore, Dr. Whelan said, overstating the health effects of consuming trans fats is harmful to public health because it makes many believe that foods that have "no trans fats" are reduced in calories or are in some way healthier.
Almost immediately after posting, the comments started rolling in. We never knew how "notorious" ACSH is, staffers said this morning. Most of the posted responses were vitriolic, attacking not the science behind Tierney's and our claims, but the funding ACSH receives, asking how "trustworthy" we are. Even Tierney responded to some of the responses, challenging the critics to find proof that Dr. Whelan's statements were false (no one could).
Dr. Whelan said she spoke with Tierney this weekend, and asked him if this always happens after every blog post -- do readers always write in so much? He wrote back that they do. [UPDATE 11/5/07: Read Tierney and Whelan's subsequent reactions to the controversy here.]
-- Proclaiming a new "McCarthyism," Dr. Ari Brown wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about how important vaccinations are -- and how dangerous it is to avoid them for fear they "cause" autism. Dr. Brown wrote the piece as a reaction to Jenny McCarthy's interview circuit about her new book. In several interviews -- including one with Oprah -- McCarthy implied her son got his autism because of a vaccination. He was a normal toddler, she told Oprah, until he received his measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.
Dr. Brown shares his own story about losing one of his patients -- a little girl -- to chicken pox before the vaccine came out, making the vow to never let a child on his watch suffer from a disease that was preventable by vaccination. ACSH staffers were proud of Dr. Brown for writing the article -- we, too, find the thought that parents would choose to withhold a vaccine from their children appalling. Unproven myths, like the one McCarthy is promoting along with her book, are dangerous, and we applaud doctors like Dr. Brown who speak out.
-- Finally, more than a week later, the NY Times printed letters regarding its ridiculous op-ed encouraging a "two-cigarette America." ACSH staffers couldn't agree more with the first letter's opening sentence -- that the op-ed fosters "one of the worst ideas [the writer has] heard in a long time." Another letter brought up an interesting point -- that the nicotine-free cigarette proposal tempts him to go back to smoking.
ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross, who quit smoking in 1990, said he understands the temptation former smokers face. Every morning after a cup of coffee, Dr. Ross says he still feels the urge. But because of the health risks, nothing -- definitely not nicotine-free cigarettes -- would ever convince him to light up again. Anyone who thinks that having nicotine-free cigarettes available for youngsters is a good idea must be smoking something other than tobacco.
October 30, 2007: Secret War on Cancer, Secret Lives of Bacteria
-- Quote to Note: Devra Davis "has gone completely overboard about traces of chemicals versus what is out there -- bad diets and smoking.'' --Bruce Ames, a former University of Berkeley biochemist and National Medal of Science winner, in a review of Devra Davis' book Secret History of the War on Cancer.
-- As you read here first, ACSH staffers were not impressed by Devra Davis' book Secret History of the War on Cancer.
Now, the reviews are coming in, and while not as critical as we are, they are still skeptical of her claims (among them, that aspartame and cell phones cause cancer, and that 10 million cancer deaths could have been avoided if it were not for industry opposition and regulatory inaction by the U.S. government over the past thirty years). A Bloomberg News story even quoted ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, who called the book a "fringe" argument. As Dr. Whelan said, let's encourage people to pay attention to real health risks -- like smoking cigarettes, overexposure to sunlight, and obesity -- rather than scaring them.
-- "It's about time," ACSH staffers said when they saw Tara Parker-Pope's proposal in the New York Times. Her column suggested that germ fighters, like antibacterial soap, may lead to hardier germs. By regularly using low levels of antibacterial agents, you kill off all the ones that are less resistant. Thus, we end up with a population of more resistant bacteria (which are therefore more difficult to eradicate).
ACSH'S Dr. Ruth Kava said she's been hearing about this for a long time now, and she agrees with the theory. "Nowadays, it's impossible to find hand wash that is not antibacterial. Regular soap and water is good enough," Dr. Kava said.
"It reminds me of the hygiene hypothesis," Dr. Gil Ross said. This hypothesis suggests that kids who are less exposed to germs are more likely to develop asthma and allergies. If you eliminate too many harmless germs -- which live in and on our bodies without adverse effects -- you run the risk of becoming infected with more dangerous, pathogenic bugs. So don't obsess about using antibacterial soap when garden-variety hand washing will do just as good a job and may be safer as well.
-- Also in today's news, the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends screening children for autism twice before the age of two. While ACSH staffers said they are not familiar with the evidence on whether early diagnosis can help with treatment of the disease, it is fascinating that by observing the children when they are so young doctors can already detect autism.
October 31, 2007: High Blood Pressure and Other Scary Things
-- This morning at 7am, ACSH staffers learned that trick or treating isn't just for little kids. Even when we're grown up, sometimes "tricks" are attempted. Today the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) issued a report concluding that consumption of red meat is causally linked with both breast and colon cancer, recommending we eat fewer burgers, chops, and steaks.
Well, ACSH's Dr. Kava explains, there is a line in the report that acknowledges that they're unsure whether the link between red meat consumption and cancer is caused by the red meat or something else red meat eaters are not consuming. We couldn't agree more. There were other conclusions drawn in the report we can't argue with -- for instance, the link between obesity and cancer is one that all here at ACSH believe to be true. But the problem is that these true statements, the ones that aren't hyperbole, did not get into all the news stories this morning -- the news networks presented the report as black and white: Red meat causes colon and rectal cancer.
The Today show this morning was particularly problematic. The message it promoted: Don't eat meat, vegetarianism is better, and every alcoholic drink is a potential poison. We can only imagine a mother waking up and hearing this message at 7:30 in the morning, thinking how this advice is contrary to her lifestyle and how the food she's planning for her family for lunch and dinner is now being called the "root" of cancer. And the comments about alcohol (a "link" we've been hearing about all month), ACSH staffers couldn't help but think of the many couples who go out to dinner every night and share a bottle of wine -- resulting in two and a half glasses per person. If we are telling people you are going to die if you go out to dinner and split a bottle of wine, the President should hold a press conference. That is just not true.
Also, ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan pointed out, Dr. Snyderman on the Today show repeated a line in the report that said cancer is a "mostly preventable disease." What a way to blame the victim. While there are some risk factors we can control (such as smoking -- the commonest cause of preventable disease and death -- and weight gain to the point of obesity), most are outside of our control (such as age and genetics). Statements like this only serve to make people feel guilty when diagnosed with cancer, as though they "brought this upon themselves."
All in all, ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross said, the report just seems to use some fuzzy math. If you have something that's statistically significant, that still doesn't mean that it's significant for an individual, he explained. If the numbers don't even rise to the level of confirming there's a real association, then the whole study is really junk.
-- Speaking of junk (not junk food), this "study" on dioxin made us wonder if we got the holiday wrong and it's April Fool's Day. The study found that the pollutant dioxin causes an increase in female births and decrease in male births. A side note: eradication of boys from the population? Is this really a negative consequence? (I kid, I kid.) This so-called study is replete with scientific errors of the most basic type and should be discarded.
-- Last night -- Mischief Night -- a major news network played a little trick on ACSH's Jeff Stier. The network mistakenly thought that scaremonger Dr. Samuel Epstein is a "client" of ours. Jeff explained that we do not have clients, and if we did, Epstein would never be one of them. An MSNBC producer had seen Jeff's New York Post op-ed that was critical of Dr. Epstein and made the wrong association. Then, after realizing that Jeff, and ACSH, will take an opposing position to Dr. Epstein on cancer scares, the network booker quickly got off the phone, even after Jeff offered to go on and offer a contrasting point of view. If you happen to be watching MSNBC this afternoon and see the segment on cancer, watch carefully whether it's balanced or not (based upon Jeff's conversation, we guess it will not be).
-- Finally, ACSH staffers found one piece of news to be our "treat" for the day -- that more young people are taking cholesterol-lowering medicine and medicine for high blood pressure. There are about 50 million people in this country with high blood pressure, Dr. Ross explained, and only about a quarter have been diagnosed and have it under control. Since high blood pressure is the greatest cause of cardiac disease in the country, it is essential to pay more attention. Dr. Ross (and the rest of ACSH) thinks it's good news that there's a bigger movement to get younger people to get their lipid levels under control. The NIH has noted that cholesterol-lowering drugs are vastly under-utilized, and increasing treatment of lipid abnormalities would further reduce the already-declining rate of heart disease.
November 1, 2007: Threat Rhetoric, Meatier Matters, and Organic Beauty
-- Quote to note: "The biggest impetus for buying natural or organic body care is the perceived health benefit." --Jeremiah McElwee, senior coordinator in charge of personal care at Whole Foods.
-- The big topic in the news today is still the report on diet and cancer. Yesterday, ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan was interviewed by ABC's World News Tonight for a segment on the issue [Editor's note: appearance canceled]. The interview focused on the portion of the report that linked meat with cancer -- something Dr. Whelan said over and over again is wrong to hone in on. It's not meat, Dr. Whelan insisted, it's obesity.
When ACSH staffers tuned into the report on ABC, two things surprised us: For one, Dr. Whelan's interview did not air. Secondly, the issue of meat was no longer the focus -- instead, the role obesity plays in cancer was the focus. Here at ACSH, we hope that Dr. Whelan's interview played a role in this readjustment of focus -- perhaps they heard the voice of reason.
Besides the new focal point of the segment, we also were impressed with ABC's medical correspondent, Dr. Tim Johnson, who brought clear, scientifically sound statements of fact to the broadcast. For instance, when Dr. Walter Willet suggested that cancer mortality from obesity is now approaching that attributed to cigarettes, Dr. Johnson explained that such an assertion is an overstatement.
Still, this was only one news broadcast. All over the nightly news, segments proclaiming the dangers of eating meat persisted. (No one we heard mentioned, though, that the "problem" traditionally pointed to in processed meats like hotdogs is the nitrites -- nor that they are also found in spinach and saliva, neither of which anyone wants to ban.) The issue of obesity is being left out of the message. As ACSH's Krystal Wilson recounted, last night she went to the grocery store and overheard an overweight couple discussing how they were not going to buy any red meat -- but the next item they placed in their cart was doughnuts!
Finally, Dr. Whelan said even with some coverage of obesity, there may still be a downside -- the psychologically depressing effect this news may have on overweight people. ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross suggested a different view -- perhaps some will use this information as a good reason to lose weight. ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava agreed: "Fear can be a strong motivator."
-- The New York Times style section is not where we usually get our health news -- but today's front-section story on organic beauty products caught our eye. Specifically, the subhead "There is no evidence to conclude that these cosmetics produce extra healthy skin." Conversely, ACSH's Jeff Stier noted, there is no evidence to prove non-organic cosmetics have any unhealthy side effects on skin or body.
-- This morning, Dr. Ross was heard on NPR on The Diane Rehm Show discussing drug importation -- along with Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley and Public Citizen's Dr. Sidney Wolfe. Look forward to seeing Dr. Whelan soon on CNN discussing biomonitoring [Editor's note: appearance canceled again!].
-- Finally, ACSH was proud to welcome a guest at our morning meeting today -- Dr. Glenn Swogger, a trustee. Dr. Swogger is a psychiatrist, formerly a director of the famed Menninger Clinic in Kansas. He brought with him a paper he published in the journal Technology almost a decade ago -- a paper dealing with exaggerated threats and fears. Dr. Swogger said he wrote about "threat rhetoric" and how to deal with the ways advocates scare the public with over-inflated and misrepresented health claims.
Check out the paper "The Psychodynamics of Threat in the Environmental Rhetoric" here.
November 2, 2007: Nine-Point Plan for Ignorance, One Extra Topping for Disease
-- Quote to Note: "Thousands of other scientists use laboratory animals in other research, giving hope to those afflicted with a wide variety of ailments. We must not allow these extremists to stop important research that advances the human condition." --Dr. Edythe London on how animal-rights domestic terrorists are intimidating scientists.
-- We wondered this morning if people will ever learn. Once again, there is a major recall of E. coli-contaminated food. This time it's frozen pepperoni pizza. Once again, it could have been avoided if companies would use irradiation. (As ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan said jokingly, they tell us we're not supposed to be eating processed meats anyway.)
-- Also slow to learn are newspapers that place sensationalized headlines about likely-incorrect studies on their front pages. For example, today's Wall Street Journal published on its front page a scary snippet with no attached article, about a study that implied that air pollution causes premature births.
Here at ACSH, when we read a blurb like this we micro-dissect it. But, as Dr. Whelan noted, when most consumers read it, they don't understand. No wonder people are hysterical and going in droves to doctors seeking to biomonitor their blood -- they hear scary news like this, without context, every day.
-- At the risk of sounding overly critical of media today, we also were appalled at an article in U.S. News and World Report. The headline promised us a nine-point action plan to avoid cancer. What we got was a list of suggestions like "stay slim" and "eat non-starchy vegetables" -- no mention whatsoever of "don't smoke"!
We realize the journalist probably had very little to do with the headline and most likely would argue that he was only referring to dietary steps for avoiding cancer -- but that doesn't excuse it. Journalism is meant to inform, and this article misinforms the public.
-- When ACSH staffers read this article in the Kansas City Star about snus, the first comment out of our mouths was from ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava -- it mentions her high school! The second comment was that the article's statement that "there's no safe form of tobacco use" is unduly dogmatic and alarmist. The article frustrated ACSH staffers. It never mentioned (or showed understanding of) the concept of harm reduction. "Snus," smokeless tobacco from Sweden, is seen by ACSH as a viable method to help smokers quit, as it is far less dangerous than cigarettes.
The article saddened us a bit on another level, too. We usually talk about snus and other forms of smokeless tobacco as an aid to help smokers end their addiction to cigarettes. No one wants teenagers to use it, as some do. Still, it's far safer than them smoking a couple packs a day.
-- Finally, we read something that pleased us: In this column about global warming, the author brings up a Lysenko analogy. While we have no position on global warming -- it is outside the scope of public health, in our opinion -- reading about Lysenko, one of Stalin's "scientists" who tried to manipulate science for political ends, reminded us of similar "politically correct" scientific activities we've seen lately. "Politically incorrect" scientific opinions are being suppressed, primarily with ad hominim attacks on those scientists who dare to dissent. We find dialogue being closed down when it comes to science -- it's fascinating how one person's opinion, like Lysenko's, can cascade into a widely held, undisputed belief. Trans fat is an example of this: While trans fats are certainly not healthy, they're not the killers that Dr. Walter Willet and Mayor Michael Bloomberg would like us to believe, but their opinions carry the day politically. Human nature hasn't changed that much since Stalin's era.
-- But perhaps the most important thing we read today was a column in the Los Angeles Times by Dr. Edythe London, a professor and research scientist at UCLA. Dr. London courageously shared her story about how she is under attack by animal rights domestic terrorists because of the research she does in her lab.
The animal liberation group broke a window on her house, stuck a hose inside, and flooded it, causing between $20,000 and $30,000 in damage. Besides the violence, we also found it very scary that top research scientists, like one of Dr. London's colleagues, can be intimidated away from doing research because of these people. We applaud Dr. London for speaking out -- by doing so, she's risking more harm to her and her family but advancing science.
Corrie Driebusch is an ACSH research intern. Receive these dispatches each workday in your e-mail by becoming an ACSH donor -- donate here, send a tax-deductible donation to the Broadway address at the bottom of this site, or call (212-362-7044 x225) or e-mail DriebuschC[at]acsh.org.
