Re: The decade in health: New bugs, scary food, bad drugs

[Guest guest]

This is a 1/2/10 column from local paper in Rockland County, New York. I have added my own commentary to expand on my "bold-faced highlighted" sentences.

As IMUS is fond of saying......."You can't make this stuff up"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100102/LIFESTYLE01/1020304/1030/LIFESTYLE/The-decade-in-health-New-bugs-scary-food-bad-drugs

The decade in health: New bugs, scary food, bad drugs

By Rita Rubin • USA Today • January 2, 2010

As a new decade begins, here is a look at some of the more newsworthy medical stories of the past 10 years. Most of them will continue to play out in the new decade, such as the first flu pandemic in 40 years, while the full effect of others, like the sequencing of the human genome in 2003, won't be felt for years or even decades.

A far-from-comprehensive list:

A new kind of pandemic

Seven years ago, a virus called H5N1 avian influenza began its march through Asia, killing millions of birds and 200 of the 400 people worldwide who have gotten it, most of them from poultry.

No one predicted that the next pandemic would be launched by an entirely different flu virus in Mexico. Unlike avian flu, the new virus, H1N1, came from pigs. H1N1 also had an "extraordinary capability to spread explosively from person to person," says Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fortunately, it is far less lethal to humans.

Morens, a historian at the infectious-diseases institute, says: "Right now, we're rewriting all the rules we ever had for flu," including the definition of a pandemic.

"We always thought pandemics were severe," Morens says. "Now we have a pandemic that has proven no more severe than other pandemics and, in fact, many epidemics of seasonal influenza."

So....in one decade....we have altered the definition of a "pandemic" by diminishing the threat to public health to such a degree that ordinary seasonal influenza qualifies. Golly, we can have a pandemic every year in the new decade...isn't that a wonderful achievement?

SARS spurs global action

Severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, hit Southeast Asia and Canada in 2003. Worldwide, the atypical pneumonia killed more than 750 people and led to the quarantine of tens of thousands. The outbreak ended in 2004 and led to the adoption in 2005 of international health regulations designed to speed communication about outbreaks of serious, unusual diseases.

Proving that old adage once again....every "crisis" .. such as .. the SARS outbreak in 2003 .. provided the "opportunity" for someone in 2009 to profit from the BILLIONS spent on H1N1. Golly, somebody sure took advantage of that SARS crisis didn't they?

Hormone therapy trial ends

For years, doctors had prescribed postmenopausal hormone therapy in the belief it would protect women against diseases of aging. In July 2002, though, the government-sponsored Women's Health Initiative halted a trial comparing estrogen plus progestin to a placebo. Women on the hormones had a higher risk of breast cancer, heart attacks, stroke and blood clots. In 2004, the initiative stopped comparing estrogen alone with a placebo because the hormone group had a higher stroke risk. Women were advised to take the hormones only for hot flashes.

Apparently, at one time during the past decade..."science" thought the benefits of the hormone treatment far outweighed the risks..only to learn it may have caused higher risks of breast cancer, heart attacks, stroke and blood clots. Damn those deniers who bothered to do the placebo tests.

Vioxx exposes risks

The blockbuster arthritis drug Vioxx became the poster child for drug safety concerns when maker Merck ended five years of sales Sept. 30, 2004. A company study had found that patients on Vioxx were more likely to have heart attacks or strokes than those on a placebo. Six weeks later, Food and Drug Administration scientist Graham told Senate panel members the agency was "virtually defenseless" against another Vioxx. Graham named five medications he thought might deserve Vioxx's fate. In 2005, Pfizer agreed to halt sales of one, arthritis drug Bextra, because risks outweighed benefits.

Did the FDA learn ANYTHING from the Vioxx debacle? Nah...as FDA "scientist" Graham says "The FDA is virtually defenseless against another Vioxx and named five medications that he thought might deserve Vioxx's fate". Imagine that..."might deserve" Vioxx's fate yet still available to the public without warning.

Foodborne illnesses

Over the decade, thousands became sick and some died from eating contaminated food, shaking consumers' faith in the FDA's ability to keep the food supply safe. In 2006, E. coli-tainted spinach sickened 205; five died. In 2008, more than 1,400 were sickened by salmonella-tainted tomatoes and jalapeno and serrano peppers. Last January, the FDA launched a recall of products from a Georgia peanut plant because of salmonella. Hundreds got sick after eating the products; several died.

During this same decade.....these very same regulatory agencies cannot tell us if autism is "really" increasing or just better diagnosis and broader definition.

1st cancer vaccine

Merck's Gardasil, the first vaccine designed to protect against cancer, earned FDA approval in June 2006 for girls and women 9 to 26. It targets the types of human papillomavirus, or HPV, accountable for 70 percent of cervical cancers and 90 percent of genital warts. Some states considered mandating Gardasil for girls entering middle school, even though HPV is sexually transmitted. In October, the FDA OK'd GlaxoKline's Cervarix HPV vaccine for girls and young women. Merck got the nod to market Gardasil for boys and young men.

Someone should tell the FDA to re-examine the regulatory failures that led to the approval of Vioxx and Bextra....before they give the "nod" for Merck to market Gardasil for boys and young men. Someone should also alert the FDA to the rumor that Merck did not use a true "placebo" when testing Gardasil prior to approval. After all, if not for testing Hormone treatment for women against a true placebo....women would still be suffering great damage.

Mammogram advice

New guidelines from a government-appointed panel may have little effect on the number of women getting mammograms, judging from public reaction to cancer screening advice from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The group recommended last month that women get fewer mammograms. Most women ages 50 to 74 need them only every other year, not annually, as previously recommended. And most women under 50 don't need routine mammograms at all but should talk to their doctors about the risks and benefits, the group says. Women, politicians and advocacy groups reacted with anger, and the American Cancer Society rejected the panel's advice and still recommended annual mammograms beginning at age 40.

Another example of settled science (mammograms)...being challenged as a potential safety risk. Do we ridicule those recommending "fewer mammograms" by suggesting they are somehow pro-breast cancer?