Suzanne Somers appeared on Larry King Friday night touting her book and pushing docs who use untested cancer therapies, including drugs called Anti-neoplastins and dietary regimens that include large amounts of enzymes coupled with coffee enemas.
In typical fashion, King set the stage in support of Somers by seating her at a table with three of her alternative medicine cronies, leaving Dr Otis Brawley, CMO of the American Cancer Society and the single voice of sanity, to appear via satellite. Despite this, Brawley clearly took the upper hand in the discussion, balancing Somer’s babbling with calm, reasoned facts that in the end, made her appear as exactly who she is – an uninformed layperson who has no idea what she is talking about.
Here’s how it went down –
In 2008, from what I can piece together from a rambling story that took us over a commercial break, Somers had either an allergic reaction or a pulmonary embolism after having dinner with friends, a meal which included a glass of Merlot. While in the hospital, further tests showed multiple masses throughout her lungs and livers, which Somers states, were initially mis-diagnosed as “full body cancer”. However, “for some reason” (like maybe to make a diagnosis?) the docs did a biopsy that showed a fungal infection (coccidiomycosis). This infection, while common, is rarely disseminated except in immune-compromised persons.
How is it that Suzie, the picture of perfect immunity, got such a severe infection?
KING: And what was the final result?
SOMERS: I had none of those diseases. I was either poisoned or I was a substance.
KING: The merlot?
SOMERS:Salir, the merlot, yes….
KING: Do they think that was the cause?
SOMERS:Nobody — nobody knows, because at the…
KING: Could it have been sour?
SOMERS: At the time — at the time, I kept saying, couldn’t this be a poisoning? Couldn’t this be a severe allergic attack? No, it doesn’t look like that on the C.T. scan. What happened? Something blew out my immune system. My immune system, that had been at 43, like that, in five minutes, my immune system was wiped out. And they think what happened was a dormant fungus that all of us in Southern California could have was dislodged. And the day before I was in perfect health and I had had my immune system tested, because I do that because of the books I wrote. And the doctor had said, “Wow, you’re at 43”. And I said…
KING: ” I don’t have a frame of reference.”
SOMERS: He said, “Well,usually, people’s immune systems at your age is two or three. Really good is 10. You’re at 43.
KING: Oh and it was 43.
SOMERS: Forty-three. So I thought…
KING: And you were 63.
SOMERS: No, no, no, no. My immune system.
KING: Oh, I see.
SOMERS: I’m 63 years old.
KING: OK. I’ve got it.
SOMERS: My immune system is 43.
KING: All right
So what Suzie is saying is that a glass of merlot that others had drunk without any adverse effects blew out her entire immune system in less than 5 minutes so that in less than 24 hours, her entire body was riddled with fungal tumors. I won’t even begin to address this – I believe the idiocy speaks for itself.
Oh, and for the record? There is no valid immune test such as she describes.
11/10/09 ADDENDUM – Turns out Suzie was taking adrenal hormone supplements aka “steroids” (think prednisone…) These most likely suppressed her immune system. I have no words to describe the stupidity.
Suzie’s life-changing experience with medical mis-diagnosis leads her on a nationwide chase to interview every quack who exists out there. Larry and Suzie focus on Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, a doc with a big clinic in Houston who claims to have treated over 8000 cancer patients with drugs he calls “anti-neoplastins”. Suzie is incredibly impressed with anectodal stories of miracle cures in Dr Burzyinski’s patients, and even more impressed that Dr B has drugs are in phase 2 clinical trials. Brawley then proceeds to calmly cut down Burzynski, although he is careful not to completely dismiss alternative medicine.
A look at the FDA website finds that indeed, Dr B has over 60 clinical trials of anti-neoplastins initiated since 1998. And of these, not a single one has had published final results. Several studies have been closed due to prolonged inactivity or failure to recruit. A pub med search finds that Dr B has published only preliminary (I presume cherry-picked) results of his phase 2 trials, all in all less than 100 patients.
Thus, while Dr B appears to have started the FDA approval process, he has clearly stalled. (Perhaps because his treatments don’t work?) In the meantime, his attempts to promote these treatments before they are finished being tested is unethical and should be illegal. And his use of Somers, a well-meaning but ill-informed and gullible patient, to promote him is truly astounding.
Hopefully Oprah will get the message, and will decline to feature Suzie on her show.
Because enough is enough.
- Read the NCI information on Anti-neoplastins
- Newsweek health author Pat Wingert’s take on Suzie’s new book -“Mostly Wrong”
- Otis Brawley, MD (CMO NCI) commentary on Somer’s book
- David Gorski, MD at Science-based Medicine takes on Somers full force. Most comprehensive post on the topic I’ve read.
- Houston Chronicle on Dr Bursynski – He’s treated thousands of people from all over the world, so why can’t he get FDA approval?
Round 1 goes to traditional medicine. Beware, though for the next rounds though. She is like a virus herself – she will mutate and survive this round of treatment to become a new disease to manage. She has a way of lingering on…
By the way, coffee enemas? Not sure about everyone else, but just drinking coffee is enough for me!
I hate when I cannot edit my illiterate rantings. And the literate ones for that matter too!
I meant to write
Beware for the next rounds, though…
Somers was also interviewed on Nancy Sneiderman's show. I was surprised that Dr. Nancy was so complimentary to her books.
Unfortunately I've seen way too many people talking on boards about how convincing Suzanne was. It's about time that we stopped letting washed-up starlets speak on health matters. Between Suzanne and Jenny McCarthy, the stupid just keeps on coming, and it will, as long as people keep buying the magazines and watching the shows that give them forums to spout their nonsense.
Hey Dr. Margaret,
I just had to chime in to your Lovefest with Dr. Brawley. There is one very interesting fact that Dr. Brawley forgot to mention on Larry King. The fact that Oncologists act as wholesale distributors for the Drug companies that sell their poisons. They buy em wholesale,mark em up as much as 86% and sell em to their unfortunate Cancer patients.(Google "Chemotherapy Concession") That is interesting considering that the AMA frowns upon Doctors that sell nutritional supplements from their office because it's a "Conflict of Interest". An even more interesting finding is the Univ. of Michigan study found that Oncologists tend to prescribe the more expensive drugs without regard to their efficacy. This explains EXACTLY why Oncologists keep giving their Chemo treatments to their patients even when there is no chance of a cure(as in most Cancers) I'd love to hear your response ! http://www.cancermonthly.com/blog/2007/12/chemotherapy-kickbacks.html
Hey Tommy D –
You have any RECENT articles? December 2007 is hardly recent…
This article makes no mention of the NUMBER of oncologists that are profiting on resale of drugs ("some" is not good enoug) as opposed to the number of oncologists that are NOT profiting by reselling. I need more statistics to buy into your conspiracy theory.
By the way, chemo therapy is by definition poison, also known as cytotoxins. It's supposed to be that way. The treatments can be brutal no doubt, and the stories of the patients are indeed heart-wrenching, but the success stories are so much better with chemo in the world than without it – I don't know anyone who can deny that.
Cancer disease and treatment are not linear issues. They are immensely complicated and if you are expecting perfection, jump in and solve the cancer problem. Here's a hint though, you can't solve a three multi-dimentional problem with linear thinking.
For four years, I have been researching and publishing regarding the marketing of misinformation over fungal induced illnesses. There has been a tremendous increase in these illnesses in the past 30 years or so in the US. It is due in large part to changing construction standards in effort to promote energy efficiency and the use of manmade materials that easily wick when water damage occurs. In essance, we turned our buildings into giant Petri dishes and provided a food source, making a perfect condition for fungi and bacteria to grow when water is added. This has caused a tremendous increased financial liability for stakeholders of moldy buildings such as insurers, employers, landlords, buiders, etc.
I don't know anything about Ms. Somers' physician and cannot attest to the validity or lack there of, of his work. But I do know statements made within this blog are scientifically incorrect and not current accepted science.
MYTH: One has to be immunocompromised before they acquire a serious fungal condition. WRONG! A quick search of pubmed and will see hundreds of reports of immunocompetent people experiencing serious fungal conditions. Merely one example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19783112?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
There is currently no definition of the word "susceptible" when determining who will become ill or establishing health policy over fungal induced illnesses.
I know. I have sat on committee for ASTM International who has attempted to establish this…with no definition of the word.
I know. I have moderated US Senate Staff briefings over the matter.
In 2006, the late Senator Kennedy requested a Federal Government Accountability Office audit into the issue. The report was issued in October of 2008 and titled, "Indoor Mold: Better Coordination of Research on Health Effects and More Consistent Guidance Would Improve Federal Efforts"
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-980
This is where we are today: It is scientifically understood that it is biologically plausible molds and their toxins may produce chronic inflammation. As one example of the research, the National Institute of Environmental Health National Toxicology Program are attempting to do mechanistic research similating what people are exposed to in water damaged buildings.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/Mold_Project_Update_BSC_FINAL.pdf
The Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality, that comes under the EPA, is overseeing a process of attempting to have all Federal agencies on the same page of what is the current accepted science of the matter. Currently, there are 14 federal agencies represented with 25 members on the committee. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/ciaq/
While Ms. Somers' physician may or may not be a quack and I could not say for certain one way or the other; I can unequivocably say that the words written within this blog are promoting mass quackery.
People with letters behind their names, like this blogger, should not authoratively comment without understanding the entire matter and that extensive research in the area is underway. To do so is just as dangerous to society as the purported quacks these types of uninformed bloggers profess to expose.
Mrs. Sharon Kramer
Ms Kramer –
I never stated that one needs to be immunocompromised to have a fungal infection, Heck, I spend my days treating vaginal yeast infections.
But disseminated coccidiomycocis is rare in healthy individuals. Even Ms Somers acknowledged that her immune system had to have been compromised for her to have such an infection. She of course, blamed it on the Merlot, which is pure fantasy.
Peace, TBTAM
Tommy D –
Schruggling and I agree on this one.
No one ever said we can cure all cancers. But for Somers and you to act like our inability to cure cancer is some sort of marketing deception is completely off base.
We don't claim to be able to cure cancer – the alternative medicine folks do. As for giving patients a chance of a cure, the alternative medicine folks try to spin that both ways. If we tell a patient there is no chance of a cure, they head to the quacks and call us docs idiots. If we tell them that chemo gives them a chance, then you accuse us of selling poison.
If you have a better way to cure cancer, prove it works. Do the clinical trials, show the data, and it will be welcome. Taxol is a good example of a natural remedy that is now mainline cancer treatment.
As for chemo being big bucks, that depends on who you are – the doc or the pharmaceutical company. Our docs lose money if they give chemo because the reimbursement does not cover the cost of giving it unless one is a large hospital or infusion center.
Which is not to say that some folks aren't making bigger bucks that they should be. That is entirely possible. I just don;t know any of them.
Dear Dr. P,
Sorry to hear of your chronic yeast problem in patients. Anecdotally speaking, I know that people frequently report success with a change in diet of avoiding sugars and starches. Topical application of distilled vinegar also is reported to help.
As far as disseminated coccidiomycocis being rare in healthy individuals, define "rare". This is another area where research is underway. Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) has become a real problem in Az and in Ca farm land. There are about 50,000 new cases reported each year.
Physicians get very little education of mycotic diseases. What is it? About 4 hours on the subject to acquire one's medical degree? One of the efforts of the Federal CIAQ is to help change this and encourage more medical school education of mycotic disease.
Physicians do not realize how much misinfo they have had crammed down their throats over the matter as these illnesses can be very expensive for the property causulty and workers comp insurers when location of causation is tied to an illness.
Good article on the subject:
WSJ, Jan 2007, "Amid Suits Over Mold Experts Wear Two Hats"
http://www.moldwarriors.com/SK/WSJOnlineJan92007.pdf
I don't anything about Ms. Somers' situation. But I am well aware of others who have been misdiagnosed with having cancer only to find out that they have a systemic fungal condition. It is a field of science that is rapidly expanding.
The danger is that some DO have cancer and will distrust the mainstream medical establishment because physicians such as yourself naysay what they don't understand while driving the sick into the arms of quacks.
http://www.azhealthinfo.org/showPage.cfm?pageID=125&level=2
Introduction Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) is a disease caused by inhaling spores of two fungi, Coccidioides immitis or Coccidioides posadasii. The disease was originally named “Valley Fever” because of its discovery in California’s San Joaquin Valley, and is prevalent in Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Arizona and the Desert Southwest. Valley Fever is sometimes called Cocci, Imperial Valley Fever, desert fever, or desert rheumatism.1 Researchers estimate that of the 4 million Americans living in regions with Cocci in the soil, 80% of them are in southern Arizona.2 It is the 4th most common disease reported to the Arizona Dept. of Health Services. 3 There are estimated to be at least 50,000 new symptomatic cases / year and two thirds are believed to be in Arizona. Valley Fever has higher regional morbidity & mortality rates than Hanta and West Nile viruses.4
Who Gets Valley Fever? Because the Cocci spores are in the soil, people who live or work in areas with new construction or high winds are more likely to be exposed, as the earth in those places is stirred up. Highly endemic areas include Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties in Arizona. In fact, the growth and simultaneous construction in Arizona may be contributing to the recent rise in infection rates. The most susceptible people are those with compromised immune systems. For example, mortality rates from disseminated Valley Fever infection are higher in individuals with HIV/AIDS.5 For reasons that are not well understood, African Americans, Asians, and Filipinos experience more Valley Fever complications, as do smokers, diabetics. Pregnant women in the second and third trimesters are also more prone than the general population to develop disseminated Valley Fever.6 Valley Fever is not contagious…"
Mrs. Kramer
MS Kramer –
Again, I won't argue that coccidiomycosis is a not uncommon infection in certain parts of the country. I never said that it was not. I will state, once more, that the DISSEMINATED form of the infection is rare in folks with normal immune systems. Pregnant women, unfortunately, fall into the category of those whose immmune systems are compromised – by definition, their immune systems are depressed so they won't attack the growing fetus, that is why the flu, chickenpos and other infections, including coccidiomycosis, can be more serious in pregnancy.
I cna also see how a disseminated fungal infection could look like cancer. That is why we do biopsies before starting any treatment.
Peace,
I kind of had to laugh about how distorted you described Somers' horrifying experience in the hospital. She was misdiagnosed with whole body cancer by five (5) different doctors, then it was recommended that she do whole body chemo, her chest was cut open only to find no cancer, and then she was quarantined for diseases that she did not have. She was told she could not leave the hospital until the tests were done which would take 2-4 weeks. She managed to get released but not before she was forced to buy $5,000.00 worth of prescriptions for diseases she didn't have, and had to agree to be quarantined to her house. If a celebrity who has the ability to get a lot of media attention is treated this way in a hospital, what chance do regular people have? And considering all this, should anyone wonder why medical costs are through the roof?
I doubt that Larry King is backing off his support of Somers, but more that the profit-making cancer industry wants her silenced and since CNN is funded by so many medical commercials they have incredible power over the media and what is reported and what is not reported. It's a shame that Somers' blog was removed from Larry King's website because it opened up a lot of communication on the subject from both sides, but that's not what the medical money-making industry wants.
As for balance, Ms. Somers agreed that there are some cancers that are helped with chemo. Personally, I've known about a half a dozen people who had cancer, who were given chemo and died shortly after. I know of several others who had been diagnosed very early and were given chemo just in the area of the cancer and survived. None of those people were ever steered in the direction of alternatives by M.D.s. They were only offered surgery and chemo.
The medical establishment misdiagnoses patients every day, and often does more harm than good, but that rarely ever gets reported. Anyone who speaks out is quickly silenced. That's really the name of the game here, discredit the person and then silence them. Until the profit is removed from our healthcare system, it will never do what's best for the patient, and that goes for conventional and alternative medicines.
Peace to you too, Dr. P. and thanks for discussing this with me. It is a very important topic.
Biopsies are good things. And there are alot people who would not be with us today if it weren't for Chemo.
But we all know that physicians make life and death decisions everyday and that sometimes they think they are doing the right thing to help their patients by beginning treatments for cancer because of "indications" of the biopsies.
It would help physicians tremendously if they had a better understanding of how fungal conditions can mimic cancer or that some fungi are known to be highly carcenogenic and thus can be the cause of cancer.
As an example, I know of several people who were excessively exposed to the mold aspergillus in water damaged buildings and later developed cancer.
While I cannot provide statistics to prove their excessive exposure to aspergillus was the sole cause of their cancer, I can scientifically say that aflatoxin – produced by some types of aspergillus – is well recognized to be one of the most potent carcenogens known to man. It it really hard on the liver.
That is why we try to regulate it in food supply. It is why we are trying to crackdown on the bio-engineering around the world. We are creating dominent strains of fungi.
http://sustainablog.org/2009/10/02/food-supply-worries-of-an-agricultural-scientist-part-4-aflatoxin/
http://www.aspergillusflavus.org/aflatoxin/
So…without knowing about Ms. Somers' personal situation, I am extremely hesitant to endorse your stance of discounting all of her words.
She could very well be wrong. I don't know about the physician with whom she is treating.
But with all due respect, I definately know that you are not correct to discount the fact that alternative medicine is making advances in areas that Western medicine seems to want to ignore. Particularly with regard to cancer research as it pertains to fungal conditions.
Sorry if this message sounds harsh. Not meant to be. Just trying to open your mind a bit to a matter mainstream physicians (that would be you, lol) have limited knowledge to voice an informed and authoratative opinion one way or the other.
Mrs. Kramer
Marty –
The whole misdiagnosis story is a one sided patient account of what must have been a very difficult experience for Somers. The differential diagnosis when a patient presents, as Somers did, in acute respiratory distress is a large one, and it sounds as if multiple diagnoses were entertained until the biopsy results came back. The fact that Somers was isolated at one point indicates that infectious diagnoses other than cancer were actively being considered, including TB.
There appears to be a misperception out there that we docs can look at a mass on CT and diagnose it just like that. We can't. That's why we do sputum cultures, blood tests and biopsies. And until we have those results back, we may isolate a patient to protect others. If a patient is in critical condition, we may have to initiate multiple therapies without a diagnosis to save their lives while we wait for test results to decide which is the best course of treatment.
To a patient, the whole experience can be harrowing, as it appears it was for Somers. To those who want certainty at all moments, it can also be misconstrued that we don't know what we are doing, when in fact we are actively trying to cover all bases and treat a patient for multiple possible diagnoses until we have definitive results.
Perhaps Somer's docs fell down in their ability to communicate what was going on to her. I don't see that she was midiagnosed, however, because she was correctly diagnosed with a biopsy while she was in the hospital. The time course of 5 days to stabilize a patient in acute respiratory distress , get tests back and biopsy results is just about right.
It is clear that what Somers took away from the conversations she had with her docs during the 5 days she was being evaluated was that she had recurrent cancer and was going to die. And it is clear she endured 5 days of psychological hell until her diagnosis came back. I would not wish that on anyone.
I do think we as a profession need to work on better ways to communicate. I have been repeatedly frustrated in my own practice by what patients take away from a conversation that we have. (See David Gorski's blog post I referenced for how this can happen.)
That said, some of the expectations coming at us from patients will never be met.
What alternative medicine sells to patients is the illusion of medical certainty and a better conversation. What we need is a blend of what they offer in terms of the relationship and what we offer in terms of care. Now wouldn't that be a doc we'd all love to go to?
Peace,
TBTAM
Actually, it didn't sound like multiple diagnoses were entertained, especially initially. Below is part of the transcript describing what Ms. Somers' was told.
And he says, "You've got cancer. It's everywhere. I've never seen so much cancer."
And I just stared at him. And my husband stared at him.
And he said, "What we can do is start you on full body chemotherapy."
And I said, "Just so you know where I'm coming from, that's just not a choice that I would make. I — I'd rather die" — are my exact words.
So he said, "Well, then I think you should think about getting your things in order."
So a few hours later, the lung cancer doctor comes in. And he says, "I just looked at your C.T. scan. You have lung cancer that's metastasized."
And then the next morning the surgeon comes in. And he said, "I looked at your C.T. scan and you have lung cancer that's metastasized throughout your body."
The radiologist in the E.R. confirmed that I had full body cancer. The E.R. doc confirmed and the — the internist.
This all happened before any biopsy was done. She was told to get her things in order, after she refused chemo. Is that a scare tactic some might wonder? I don't hear one word here where any of these doctors told her that cancer was a possibility, but that they needed to do more tests. They all "confirmed" she had cancer. They wanted to start her on chemo, and who knows, if she had agreed to it, would they have even ordered a biopsy? I'm sure you will say that they would have, but who really knows? You may want to discredit what she says by stating that it's a one-sided patient account, but frankly, that's a lot of crap to make up, and it's not the first time I've heard these kind of encounters by patients.
It was only after the biopsy that they scrambled looking for other causes, but then instead of confirming a cause, they just made some more guesses and quarantined her.
The reason there is a misperception out there that a CT scan can diagnose cancer tumors is because M.D.'s tell patients that they have cancer after the CT scan is done, so who is creating the misperception?
A few years back my father was in the hospital and our family was called in by the M.D. and we were told that my father was dying, he was unconscious and his organs were shutting down. When I got there, I called him by name and he woke up and spoke to me coherently telling me that he was in a lot of pain. There was complete look of shock on the doctor's face. After, my father would fall back asleep but wake up every time I spoke to him. The doctor started investigating more and learned that it was a medication he was given that was causing this problem. Once the medication was stopped, he was fully conscious and back to normal. The doctor who was caring for him was a good doctor and a nice man, but do any of you really know what you're doing half the time? Of course, this is just another one-sided account.
No one can know everything, and that's okay, but what is NOT okay is to make statements to patients confirming illnesses when all you're really doing is guessing. It would be far better to admit that you don't know what is really wrong, but will try to find out. Remove the arrogance and we'd all be a lot better off.
Marty,
Don't you think that Somers is profiting from her story and her pushing of the alternatives? Profit exists on both sides with this one.
The docs (people who ebrace western medical philosophy, have gone to medical school and have passed their boards) push the FDA approved meds because there is documented science behind them. Are they perfect? Hell no. Is there complete data for each and every circumstance? Again, hell no. But where is the double blinded data on the alternatives? Absolutely not.
Show the data and you will grasp the attention of western science in a heartbeat. However, anectdotal evidence is simply not enough. This all has to be discussed in relative terms, not in the extremes.
The drama you express about Somers having her chest cut open is where your argument got lost on me. She had a biopsy, not open heart surgery. Please put it in perspective. Scary, I am sure it was, but minor in the end. By the way, when it got scary, she went to a hospital, not to her herbalist…
With respect to the quarantine, I am sure you would be arguing that the docs messed it up if they didn't quarantine her and she had a significantly impaired immune system (which they believed she did). It seems to me you just don't like docs and western philosphy, so just call it that. No one is perfect – especially when it comes to cancer diagnosis and treatment. If you think you found the cure in an alternative way, then good for you – great for everyone! To sell it to the masses without proof (proof meaning data that can be reproduced for a significant population of patients) is just a weak argument. That's why it gets shut down. Find the funding, spend the money on a proper study and proove your claim. Until then, it's snake oil.
Marty – We could bat this one around forever, and never know what really happened. Because this book is a one-sided account.
But you know what? I can grant her everything that happened. I can grant her that they jumped to the wrong conclusion and ended up scrambling when the biopsy showed that their intial diagnosis was wrong. That they put her through a hell that she did not need.
What I can't grant is her using this story to sell untested treatments to cancer patients and using it as a pulpit to give medical advice to others. Using it as yet another medium to make a buck. And I can't grant a publisher publishing this without getting the whole story, and the media giving her credibiility in the medical field, credibility that I am sorry, I do not feel she has earned.
I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Peace,
TBTAM
"Find the funding, spend the money on a proper study and prove your claim. Until then, it's snake oil."
Logic must be proved by a government study concerning the medical industry. Logic within the U.S medical industry suggests a study is necessary to conclude that boosting the immune system and treating a fungus that mimics cancer is necessary. Medically stating the obvious, or just not addressing it, would not benefit the medical industry. A medical industry that does not want to find the cure for cancer, it would not be profitable.
Even the uneducated are listening now.
The medical industry will go out of business as usual in the years to come. Everything is going green, even the medical industry, and not by their own doing, boo hoo! The internet is changing the world. Wrongdoings by the medical industry in collusion with the insurance companies are being shown to the masses. The medical industry along with insurance companies are the biggest scams going in the U.S. People won't stand for this anymore. Americans are talking, from the servers at my club to the warehouse employees, they are talking about Suzanne Somers appearing on CNN. Regular people are warning each other of the dangers of a mega medical industry (insurance companies included) gone insane with greed and disillusionment.
Schruggling, there was never a statement made that the M.D.'s performed open heart surgery on Somers. Maybe it's you that needs to put it into perspective. Are you exaggerating to minimize the fact that they cut her chest open to perform a biopsy for misdiagnosed cancer? They did, in fact, take a knife and cut her chest open and cut out tissue samples. There is no disputing that. You may think it's minor to have your chest cut open, but most people wouldn't.
The argument about the FDA approving meds because there is documented science behind them is in many cases a fraud, but don't take my word for it. In a recent article in "Daily Finance" it shows that Big Pharma does much worse than sell snake oil. As you said, "to sell masses without proof is a weak argument." I wonder what you think about Pfizer/Wyeth purposely selling drugs that they know cause cancer? So much for the FDA (who is bought and sold) and for the scientific studies. See the link at http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/27/pfizer-in-court-again-this-time-for-wyeths-menopause-treatment
"They knew back in the 1970s that these drugs had the potential to cause breast cancer, so they didn't have the studies done." Wyeth, the lawyer added, consistently downplayed bad results.
Marty,
There is no doubt that there have been major drug sale scandels over time. No doubt. Huge, disgraceful circumstances.
There have also been vast successes from drugs as well. Too many to count. Do you not give that any credibility? I just don't buy into a vast pharma conspiracy that you imply.
With respect to the biopsy, yes, they cut into her to get tisue to evaluate. They had to to find out what they were dealing with. Any surgery is risky, but in the scheme of things, this is a low risk effort. And if you read my post, I point out that I feel you are exaggerating the extent of the surgery. No conspiracy, just RELATIVE to more serious procedures.
Some day you will face health issues that are complicated. We all will. You will have options. Choose your own and what makes you feel best, but when it comes down to complicated scenarios, your alternatives may be scarier to you than the big-bad-pharmaceutical products.
Your reference to Wyeth's HRT is certainly applicable, but why don't you find it outrageous that Somers tauts bio-identical estrogen for herself and others, when this therapy can in and of itself feed certain estrogen tumors that grow in the presence of estrogen?
Same snake oil.
Last point, the FDA and the process of approving drugs certainly intends to provide safety and efficacy of medicinal products to consumers. What rigor do alternative treatments get? I am SURE that all the web site testimonials are completely true…yeah right.
I believe that there is room for both perspectives. Neither in its absolute works. But you have to fall back on some well established science to know where things stand.
Marty-
Once again, Schruggling and I are in argreement – which, if you read this blog, you know is a rare event – so you should be honored to be the one who brought us together. (Give me a hug Schruggling!…)
Seriously, though, he is right. You cannot point the fingers at Big Pharma and then let Suzie and her friends off the hook in terms of proving that their methods are safe.
See my previous blog posts on bioidentical hormones here –
http://theblogthatatemanhattan.blogspot.com/2006/10/hormone-replacement-part-4.html
http://theblogthatatemanhattan.blogspot.com/2008/01/suzanne-somers-back-on-larry-king-live.html
http://theblogthatatemanhattan.blogspot.com/2009/01/oprahs-talking-hormones.html
Thanks for Reading.
TBTAM
I am 100% in agreement with Dr. Margaret on this issue. Unless these alternative treatments have been proven to treat some cancers AND have been approved by the FDA, I do not know that I would be confident/brave enough, if I had cancer, to use these treatments, even though the idea of chemotherapy and the horrible side effects would scare me to death.
I do have one question, though, about chemotherapy. Has anyone ever actually died not from the disease from the chemo and/or radiation? The late actor Michael Landon, who died of pancreatic cancer in 1991, once said that "Chemotherapy will kill you before the disease ever will" and I was just wondering if this is true or not. Thank you!
Jennifer –
The short answer to your question is "yes".
The risks of chemotherapy are very, very real, as any oncologist or cancer patient will tell you. Find AND PROVE a better way, and trust me, everyone of them will jump on it.
The risks of chemo vary considerably depending on the type of chemo and the age and underlying health of the patient. The difficulty is finding treatments for cancer that target tumor cells but spare the body in which the tumor is growing. Researchers are trying all sorts of new tricks – tagging antibodies to the chemo to allow it to go directly to the tumor is one such approach. Making a vaccine to the tumor cell is another.
The so called alternative medicine folks are cashing in on patients fears about chemo, selling them treatments that have not been tested in the same rigorous way that chemotherapy is tested, then telling them it is safer and more effective than chemo. SHow us the data. If it works, trust me, docs and their patients will line up, But subject it to the same rigorous testing you demand from standard chemo. Until then, it's snake oil.
I sit on an IRB, and see the rigorous studies that are conducted with new chemotherapeutic agents. It is an onerous but very necessary process. And, despite what Somers says, there is progress being made, though no where near what all of us want. For her to act as though chemotherapy is some scam being perpetrated on the public shows the incredibly ignorance that she and so many others have about how we got here, what we are trying to do, and just how damned near impossible the task is.
Somers could do more for all of us if she just picked up a biology textbook and get herself informed, instead of wasting all of our time, and potentially risking others' health, by writing this pseudoscientific drivel.
Thanks for your comment (See? You got me started again…..)
TBTAM
Gloating and character assassination against truth and people who speak it are never going to save the medical industry from the embarrassment they are feeling now.
Medical doctors (old fashioned ones) riding the high & mighty medical doctor's horse are not facing reality. The old high & mighty medical doctor's horse is at the slaughter house now.
Doctors who are practicing Complimentary Medicine will ride for awhile. In the end Chemo and Radiation will be rarer and rarer as the more useful and non-poisonous cures and remedies for cancer become more mainstream.
Margaret
I watched my mother die from breast cancer while taking chemo and several other supposedly life saving drugs. There is no reason for you to be so negative in regards to Suzanne Somers. She is well-informed about a lot of things and I can assure you that what Suzanne speaks of is indeed what we need to embrace instead of ignore.
I have been treated for the past year and a half by a doctor that is mentioned in one of Suzanne's other books. I can assure you he is for real and so is his practice. I was very sick and had been to several other medical doctors that told me I was fine. He is the only one that figured out what was wrong with me.
I think there is place in the world for both medicines.
I personally know of 2 people who reached out to Suzanne and her team for advice on fighting the cancer they were told they had and followed the "non-tradditional" route and are living cancer free today.
I appreciate that many people may not agree with her position but you could have spent your time writting about the importance of talking about and debating this point for the better of everyone… why just go after her for speaking her mind… I think the important point is to ask questions, seek advice and options and don't take any Dr. at their word.
Just yesterday I went to see my Dr. who cares for my Diebeties and he wanted to give me a new medication. I asked him if it would interact in a negitive way with any of my current meds and he had to look it up in a book and found that I could bleed from my lungs if I take both meds together… I cought that!!! just by asking a simple silly question…
I don't think it's so true that the docs would line up if alternative methods were proven to work, maybe some would, but they are under pressure to keep money rolling in. I've heard several doctors say that although they would not recommend chemo to their family members, that they are under pressure to sell it to patients. I've personally witnessed doctors push chemo on patients when they know it will not help, with brain cancer, lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. The man who had brain cancer was so damaged from it that there burns and scabs all over his head and died a miserable death shortly after. If a cure for cancer appeared that could not be patented, and would not create much profit, it would take billions of dollars away from the medical industry. All the cancer wings would be shut down and a lot of doctors would be out of work. As outrageous as it sounds, there is validity to the fact that the medical industry is enjoying great profits from the status quo.
Schruggling, it's more than a disgrace or scandal when a pharmaceutical company pushes a drug that they know can harm and kill people. Just because there have been some successes, it doesn't erase fraud and criminal behavior. One has to wonder why they are never convicted of a crime? If we viewed our whole criminal justice system the same way, anyone who committed a crime would be evaluated by good things that they've done, and if they had successes in their life, then the murder they committed would just be erased. It's outrageous to defend a corporation that knowingly and purposely sets out to make profits by harming people. Regular citizens are not granted that same immunity so why should doctors or pharmaceutical companies get away with it?
One of the big problems in the health industry is that it seeks to make a profit. We've seen how much criminal behavior occurs in Wall Street, the mortgage industry and by CEO's when profit is the motivator. The difference with the medical industry is that there are no checks and balances. We have the fox tending the hen house. Suzanne Somers has been criticized and attacked endlessly for speaking out and we know why. If a doctor speaks out against his/her own industry, they will be blackballed which is why we see doctors only attacking her and defending all the wrong doing in the medical industry. I know of a doctor who testified against other doctors for wrong doing at his own hospital, and even though he had only one lame complaint against him (by a nurse) over his 30 year career, he was stripped of his hospital privileges. Many doctors have written books about the code of silence that goes on between doctors and how they protect each other. A doctor told me once in private that hospitals were bad places, but that's all we have. I'm sure he wouldn't say that publicly. (continued below)
The medical industry has the ability to do amazing things for people, and while that happens sometimes, there is also the dark side where patients are viewed as nothing more than a means to make a profit. Until the internet, very little was heard about the crimes that go on in our healthcare system, but now people are talking, but even so, there are very few convictions. I remember reading a story where cardiologists were convicted of performing unnecessary heart surgeries on hundreds of healthy patients, but it never makes the mainstream news. All those unnecessary surgeries boosted their profits so high that it caught the attention of law enforcement authorities. Most of the time patients only have the option for a civil suit, but even that right has been widdled away by malpractice caps and tort reform.
I'm sure Somers will make some money off her book, but she will never make billions of dollars if cancer is cured or not cured. I have no idea whether the doctors or cancer cures she is promoting work, but it gives people an option, another place to look. Let's face it, there is very little informed consent in the medical industry, so it's important for patients to do their own homework either way whether they go conventional or alternative.
There's also an interesting article on NaturalNews.com which discusses vaccines and clinical trials. This is why so many dangerous drugs are put on the market, but only removed when people start dying. This is part of it:
"Clinical trials are a joke
That's because in modern medicine today, clinical trials are a joke. When a researcher sets out to create a study or clinical trial with a pre-ordained conclusion rather than an open mind, he can accomplish that in a variety of ways: By excluding study participants that don't fit his conclusion, by eliminating data sets from meta-analysis studies, by controlling the timeline of the study to end it before side effects start to appear, and so on.
That's why "proving" that a flu shot can improve erections, or function as a pharmaceutical face lift, or eliminate snoring is also a simple matter. Anything can be made to look statistically significant by a clever enough researcher.
Interestingly, a new study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine sought to review whether published papers describing pharmaceutical clinical trials even bothered to mention the negative side effects observed during the trials. They found:
• 11% of the published studies mentioned no negative side effects whatsoever.
• 56% of the published studies distorted the reporting of negative side effects to minimize their impact.
• 47% of the studies gave zero data on the withdrawal of subjects from the study (this is how study participants get "kicked out" of the clinical trials when they threaten the desired outcome of the study).
What this analysis reveals is that clinical trials are often just mathematical window dressing for medical quackery. The way such trials are conducted today is merely a kind of numerical theater that's staged to invoke the illusion of science where none exists.
And keep in mind: The entire pharmaceutical industry is based on this! Clinical trials are the so-called "scientific evidence" the FDA looks at to approve drugs. Remember: The FDA conducts no clinical trials itself. It merely accepts the clinical trials conducted (and paid for) by the drug companies, and then it accepts that research to be honest and trustworthy!
This is how Vioxx got approved by the FDA. It's how Rezulin got approved. It's the reason Alli was approved as an over-the-counter weight loss drug even though it may be linked to liver damage. Big Pharma has used quack clinical trials to win FDA approval for some really dangerous drugs, and the practice continues today.
That's why it's so hilarious when pharma pushers question natural remedies, claiming "Natural remedies have no clinical trials to back them up!"
Why bother? Clinical trials, it turns out, prove absolutely nothing. They are simply the vehicle of quackery through which chemical pushers grasp for an illusionary foothold in the realm of fuzzy statistics. Having a clinical trial that "proves" a drug works doesn't mean the drug works at all; it merely means your company has a big enough budget to hire a sufficiently creative research team that can wrangle together the conclusions you wish to support.
To call any of this "science" is entirely laughable.
And oh, by the way, did you know that taking a flu shot improves your eyesight and gives you a tight bum, too? It's been proven in a clinical trial…"
Marty –
You are right that not all clinical trials are perfect, that some pharmaceutical companies are working the system, and that there are many issues with the FDA, a lot of them created under an administration that let the fox guard the henhouse. Hopefully things will change on this front as more and more attention is brought to bear on this issue. But how this serves as an argument to accept so called "alternative" medications, many of which are pharmaceuticals themselves, escapes me. Those who are selling these medications without data to back up their claims are no better than the makers of vioxx manipulating the data to sell their drug. We need to work together on all fronts to advocate for truly evidence-based treatments, fda oversight of alternative medicine and reforms of how pharmaceuticals are brought to market.
Peace,
TBTAM
Marty –
You are right that not all clinical trials are perfect, that some pharmaceutical companies are working the system, and that there are many issues with the FDA, a lot of them created under an administration that let the fox guard the henhouse. Hopefully things will change on this front as more and more attention is brought to bear on this issue. But how this serves as an argument to accept so called "alternative" medications, many of which are pharmaceuticals themselves, escapes me. Those who are selling these medications without data to back up their claims are no better than the makers of vioxx manipulating the data to sell their drug. We need to work together on all fronts to advocate for truly evidence-based treatments, fda oversight of alternative medicine and reforms of how pharmaceuticals are brought to market.
Peace,
TBTAM
TBTAM, you said: "But how this serves as an argument to accept so called "alternative" medications, many of which are pharmaceuticals themselves, escapes me." It's not so much that it serves as a defense, but it would seem that not only is it the pot calling the kettle black, it's even worse. Pharmaceutical drugs are prescribed by M.D.'s who tout the FDA process and clinical trials as the holy grail. It's far worse than all clinical trials not being perfect, many are just downright criminal. They don't tell the public the truth (that some are complete scams), but yet they are seen as an authority on the subject. If it really wasn't so harmful to the general public, it would be funny just how ludicrous the whole system is. And the fact that we are not talking about an automobile or an accounting company, but our healthcare system is outrageous. What part of care is it when companies are profiting by making people sick or causing their death? It's really disturbing. The medical industry has far too much power as a profit-making corporation. Instead of resembling an industry that cares about the health of human beings, it more resembles Nazi experiments where people were given harmful drugs and used as lab rats for unnecessary surgeries. What was done to Somers in the hospital happened because the doctors have too much unchecked power. If it can go as far as it did with someone who is as famous as her, the regular patients have no chance.
If Dr. Brawley was the single voice of sanity, he would have informed the public about the truth, not focused on discrediting Suzanne Somers and promoting the status quo. However, he can't be totally honest because he's under the same pressure as all other doctors are to protect each other and hide what won't profit the industry. We all really need honest, kind and caring people in the medical industry and the mafia mentality removed.
You must join BACA (Bloggers Against Celebrity Authors), spearheaded by motherreader.com: http://tinyurl.com/yakwd7y