Intercessory Prayer Studies. Who needs them?

Benson H. et al. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Am Heart J 2006; 151: 934-42.

[See the truncated press release pasted below]

------------------Maybe they need to think about a new study to test their theories about why those who were prayed for did worse than those who were not. But, I think any rationalization or speculation about the why's and how-come's of this study is numbskull-ish. For those who are sure science must show intercessory prayer "works," be content and just wait for the next positive study, where results aren't "counterintuitive," and any dissonance will be absolved.

Intercessory prayer study is study into the paranormal, for which there will never be the adequate controls needed for meaningful or useful results. How can you put up controls for "prayer" when you really don't define what "prayer" is. How much do things like feelings of sincerity, hope, faith or compassion go into a definition of intercessory prayer? How much do things like ritual, imagery, divine authority, or personal level of spirituality go into the definition?

I fail to see what these kinds of studies are trying to accomplish when they answer more to the effects of sociology and psychology than to divine intervention. If you are looking for God, I doubt that He will be calculated from a p-factor. If you are looking for the paranormal, what makes this kind of study any more credible than the one Bill Murray's character conducted in Ghost Busters? If you're looking to disprove religion as nothing more than human behavior and social psychology; then, why? And how do you define and control for all the variables?

Until intercessory prayer clinical studies give you your answers, I advocate that everyone pray (in your own way) for world peace. It probably can't hurt. Further, don't begin to believe that you can't impact your dreams by thinking about them. I'd even encourage you to speculate on your own divine nature and calling in this universe once in awhile.

dras---

>http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/AcuteCoronarySyndrome/dh/2963> > BOSTON - The common plea to "pray for me" doesn't seem to matter in the outcomes of patients having coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), according to a multicenter study led by a Harvard group.

> In a six-hospital randomized study of the clinical effects having others pray for them, there was no benefit. "Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG," found Herbert Benson, M.D., of the Mind/Body Institute of Harvard's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here, and colleagues.

> In fact, the complication rate was significantly higher for the 352 of 601 patients (59%) who were confident that others were praying for them, compared with the 315 of 604 (52%) of patients uncertain of such prayers (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28) but who received them, Dr. Benson and colleagues reported in the April 4 issue of the American Heart Journal. The primary outcome was complications in 30 days.

> "We have no clear explanation for the observed excess of complications in patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them," said the authors of the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP). The complications were primarily atrial fibrillation.

> In a press briefing, Rev. Dean Marek, a co-author who is director of chaplain service at the Mayo Clinic, called the results "unexpected and counter-intuitive."

> The patients were randomized into three groups. One group of 604 patients was told it might receive intercessory prayer, and unbeknownst to them, the prayers were offered. A second group of 592 patients was told it might receive intercessory prayer and, also blinded, the prayers were not offered. The third group of 601 patients was certain of intercessory prayer. The prayers all came from persons unknown to the patients.

>The first two groups did about the same (RR 1.02,> 95% CI 0.92-1.15). The complication rate was 52% for the group uncertain of intercessory prayers but received them (315 of 604). The complication rate was 51% (304 of 597) for those who were uncertain of intercessory prayers but did not get them.

> The prayers that were offered were standardized. There was an average of 70 strangers praying for each prayed-for patient.

> In the three groups, equally distributed about 65% of patients said they believed in spiritual healing. The patients were equally distributed in number of CABG vessels affected.

Teens' herbal product use associated with illicit substance use

Public release date: 23-Mar-2006
University of Rochester Medical Center
> Teens' herbal product use associated with illicit substance use
> Adolescents who have ever used herbal products are six times more likely to have tried cocaine and almost 15 times more likely to have used anabolic steroids than teens who have never used herbal products, according to a University of Rochester Medical Center study to be published March 23 in the Journal of Adolescent Health.<


----------There is an important lesson here. The admonition to more deeply consider what we are telling teens about herbal remedies is valid. Teens are smarter than adults (my opinion). They tend to care less whether something is all-natural or not, only that it works. That they are told it is "safe" is the dangerous lure to many an addiction.

The study suggests that teen attitudes about taking anything for any reason influences whether they are more likely to take illicit drugs. Maybe, if I feel like the caffeine in a can a Coke will help me get through Study Hall, I'm more likely to think 6 cans of RockStar will help when I have to study past midnight. That might lead me to think a hit of speed will help me do better during the test the next day. Perhaps you can substitute Coke and RockStar with any number of designer supplements with "rejuvenating" or "peakperformance" claims.

In all, don't tell your (or anyone elses) kids that it's okay to take something, herbal or otherwise, to get them through the day. Sit down and watch the Bugs Bunny - Michael Jordan movie then talk to them about the inferred need to take something to improve yourself. Talk about alternative choices like sleep, diet and exercise (study or practice), or even a humble prayer to God, instead of taking something.

If only we could all learn 2 of life's most important lessons: Every choice has consequences, and you never get something for nothing.

dras

BTW: Typical of health information in news reports, the "news" in this study is presented first and foremost. The correlation that herbal remedy use leads to illicit drug use is inferred but remains purely speculative, even based on this study: "This was a cross-sectional study that examines an association, not a causal link."

Molds and Mycotoxins are Important, Too

Having done some investigations of "sick building syndrome," I didn't recall the mouse/rat studies as being keystones to the body of evidence one way or another. It actually surprises me to see the degree of emphasis the ACOEM placed on these studies in their statement: http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=52

The referenced studies:
Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2mycotoxin in mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1987;8:230-5.
Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2mycotoxin in the rat and guinea pig. Fundam ApplToxicol. 1990;14:54-9.

Whatever the apparent critisism that there has been some creative mathematical extrapolation of data in the ACOEM statement does NOT invalidate the ACOEM conclusions:
"The possibility of a mycotoxicosis as an explanation for specific signs and symptoms in a residential or general office setting should be entertained only after accepted processes that are recognized to occur have been appropriately excluded and when mold exposure is known to be uncommonly high. If a diagnosis of mycotoxicosis is entertained, specific signs and symptoms ascribed to mycotoxins should be consistent with the potential mycotoxins present and their known biological effects at the potential exposure levels involved."

////INTERESTING:
Here is place dedicated to black mold litigation and black mold claims: http://toxlaw.com/chatboards/blackmold/posts.html

The comments in the forum paint a little bigger picture about this topic.

PART II

I'll confess that the research I did on "sick buildings" was on behalf of Insurance. Maybe as such, I didn't put much into the reviews or reports based on epidemiological studies, or on animal studies (not to belittle their importance in scientific discovery). For different reasons, both are high risk for fallibility when applied to clinical practice with real human disease. But, there you go. It seems it becomes more up to litigators to prove the building is making people sick than it is for defendants to prove it's not. I agree with your points made with the referenced studies, but I'm skeptical that discrediting the epidemiological math on animal studies used by the ACOEM paper significantly changes how science can show that someone's symptoms correlates with a building environment.

On the flip side, I think that to advocate inclusion of Mycotoxicosis in a differential diagnosis to prevent a "barage of MRI's, CT's, AID's testing, MS testing, etc." is using no better extrapolation of scientific data than that referenced by the ACOEM paper, to say the least. That is, where's the data showing that treating more people for Mycotoxicosis can save dollars or lives?

Unsubstantiated accusations fly: That employers and their insurers are conspiring to prevent compensation for people who are getting sick because of their buildings. That trial lawyers are rolling over rocks and creating excuses to go after companies with big wallets. Some practitioners accuse health insurance of conspiring to prevent payment of care for sick people. Health insurance sees the care as fringe medicine geared to nurture chronic dependence on expensive and unproven therapies. All are accused of manipulating or skewing the science to support their views.

PART III

Even after having our building tested negative for mold, they just brought me a box in my office with one of them Ionic air cleaners. I can sarcastically, but confidently say that me and my coworkers will be atl east about 30% less likely to complain of symptoms that are due to bad air. (If only because it's currently suggested that placebo accounts for about 30% of a therapeutic effect.) But, without sarcasm I say that's money well spent. Now, if you agree with me on that one... They have also provided floor space for a Tai Chi Class upstairs (at minimal cost to employees). I really think that the stretches and breathing exercises make for a more productive worker. Even though I don't think I am "feeling the Chi" like I'm supposed to. You can't help but expect the therapeutic and/or placebo effects will be additive with the air purifier. I bet we have 30%less "sick" days the rest of the year in my building!

Now, don't think I'm being sarcastic, I think I'm going to come up with some kind of office talisman that will bring happiness to the cubicle/office workplace. An additional (albeit, perhaps placebo) additive effect to support a healthy work environment. You know the kind of talisman I mean. Look around your own work area, you already have them! (Hey, I bet you didn't realize you're practicing what some call complimentary and alternative medicine.)

nawledge

Can a Doctor Bill Insurance for Self-Treatment?

> "I've done physical therapy treatments on myself, and didn't realize I was missing out on a source of income. I wonder if I can bill retroactively?"<<

Most health insurance policies will have a written exclusion for services rendered by a member of the immediate family. That might include yourself, but I'm not sure. There are probably laws about whether MD's can self-prescribe drugs, and Medicare rules about Dr.'s self-referring patients.

Speaking extremely cynically, I say go for it! What's wrong with a doctor diagnosing and treating his own malady, and getting his insurance to pay for it? A doctor is a doctor, after all. How about a mental health practioner billing for a self-diagnosed mental health condition, and all the therapy sessions (s)he self-performed to treat it? I'll bet we're all expert at self-determining to what extent certain activities should qualify for some kind of business expense deduction on our taxes. So, I'm sure health professionals can decide the same for what self-evaluation and self-care should be paid by their insurance.

Am i right?

How Important are Scientists and Studies in Medical Practice?

http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-15/ns_leavitt.html-----------------------

This was published two and a half years ago.

Mr. Leavitt eloquently expresses the valid concerns social scientists have had about society's emphasis on, and use of, scientists and scientific studies for many years. I believe anyone who advocates EBM and the scientific method in medicine must understand the points made in the article. I spent the last several years analyzing medical technologies for potential health insurance coverage.

I learned to apply the analysis techniques used to assess scientific reports, including my own biases relative to my employment and personal values. Still, I became pretty convinced that most published studies involve elaborate tactics to lure investors, sell aproduct, or collect more funding. I think anyone who has followed the popular scientific studies recently could be disheartened at their futility in establishing convincing credibility relative to the comparative safety and efficacy of any medical technology. From COX-2 inhibitor studies to North Korean cloning reports, what can we believe when "researchers have complex motives."

So, what is the harm in attempting to de-emphasize oursociety's apparent worship of scientists and scientific studies? The harm comes when we recognize what fills in the void demanded by a society that wants medical answers. Anarchy is seldom the best solution to the miss-application of laws.

The only other choice we have is to recognize the faults in our current use of scientists and scientific studies as demonstrated, understand the limitations of double-blind RCT's and EBM, and educate those around us and advocate for public policy in the ideal and value that the scientific method promises. Can "intelligent laypeople...make informed judgments about treatments administered to them and people they know"? Absolutely, and they should. But on the condition that "intelligent" people are those that understand the degree of credibility of their own decision, which can only be known if they understand their own biases, values, and limitations of knowledge in the subject matter - and bit of human psychology. I believe this is within the capacity of the common"intelligent" layperson; that self-discovery can be an important part of achieving wellness. "Empowerment" is the new buzz-word of our day.

"Methodological concerns: Single studies"
"Methodological concerns: Publication bias"
"Scientific fraud"
"Generalizability of results"
"The media"

These are the things all of us should keep in mind when we crack open JAMA, the health section of the newspaper, or hear a health advertisement.

nawledge

The Cost of Marginal Medicine Is Too High

The Cost of Marginal Medicine Is Too High http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/518134?src=mp Posted 12/12/2005> > Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD ----snip-------"If an individual wants to pay that much for so little benefit, so be it."

I would bet doctors and insurance companies are hesitant to put monetary value on life. What should be the cut-off dollar amount to keep someone alive one month longer? How about one day? Who is going to decide that? Who is going to enforce it? I've been in health insurance, including benefits design, for almost a decade and such discussion is not even considered in my experience. I've seen $millions$ spent in "prolonging death," but would rather allow it than be seen as judge and executioner. Dr. Emanuel's opinion is a little disturbing, but maybe it's intent is merely to initiate dialogue.

nawledge

Social Morals and Ethics of Childhood Vaccines for STD's

"Hi Suzy, and happy 12-year birthday. Today, we're going down to the health clinic to get a vaccine that all 12-year old girls are getting these days. The vaccine helps prevent woman from getting a disease that they can get through having sex. Oh, and while we're there, maybe we'll have you fitted for a diaghram, because disease isn't the only thing you can get from having sex."

Funny thing about this scenario. There are those that are completely aghast by it. And an equal number that see this as completely appropriate. Which group is imposing their values upon the other? I believe the pendulum swings both ways. We all know, or suspect, that society must do something besides ignore teenage VD. But perhaps there is wisdom in discerning how, and how much we should institutionalize VD discussion in our society, especially our schools. As a young man, I attended a highschool in northern Virginia with one of the highest VD and pregnancy rates in the nation. As a result of classroom education initiatives, I was avirtual expert on VD and conception by the time I graduated. Everyone was. Sex was all we ever talked about, in the classroom and out. Did the initiatives stem the tide? Maybe. On teenage sex, however, how can an adolescent refuse the temptation to partake or participate in something that was around us all day long? All we heard was "here is a toy that everyone is playing with, but it can make disease or babies if you're not careful...oh, and you can choose whether or not you want to play with it." Experts on VD and conception nonetheless, I bet most in my highschool still learned the hard way about adolescent pycho-social maturation, hormones, relationships, emotions, "baggage," commitment, jealousy, intimacy, love, lust, family and all those things (that society tries to ignore) that go hand-in-hand with sex outside the potential for VD and pregnancy. I for one, want my child ready for all the consequences (good and bad) of sex, not just a knowledge of VD and conception. Maybe there are those that are afraid their children (and society) will get the inference that it is perfectly -scientifically- acceptable, and even anticipated that any and every 12-year old should experience all of it. Hopefully, I've argued a rare instance where advocating something that appears to be backed by black-and-white science, is perhaps more gray, and therefore isn't always a good idea.

nawledge

Aren't Nutritional Supplements Classified as Food??

> > Aren't Nutritional Supplements Classified as Food??----------------------------------------------------

Depends on who you ask, and how you classify.

DSHEA created a new regime for the regulation of dietary supplements. These products were previously regulated either as foods or as drugs, depending upon whether they had the attributes of food and upon their intended uses. Before the passage of DSHEA, a dietary supplement was regulated either as a drug, which had to be shown to be safe and effective before marketing, or as a food, for which other manufacturing and labeling rules applied. With DSHEA, an additional classification was created (or defined) that is not regulated by rules applying to either foods or drugs.see: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/dshea.html

nawledge

Worker's Comp in California Cuts Down Chiro Visits

A study examining a robust claims processing system in CA, complemented by mandatory utilization review and caps on chiropractic visits at 24 (perhaps a moving target) seems to be working wonders in cutting down the cost of health care._
http://www.cwci.org/icis/ViewReport.CFM?&ReportIndex=21_
(http://www.cwci.org/icis/ViewReport.CFM?&ReportIndex=21)
"The average number of chiropractic manipulations recorded 9 months after injury declined from 28.5 to 12.6 visits, a 55.8 percent reduction, while the average amount paid per claim for chiropractic manipulation at 9 months fell by 60.9 percent."

-----------------------------------snip------------------

This CA Workers Compensation report also showed correlative reductions in Physical Therapy treatments. Chiropractic manipulation does not seem to be a key focus of the study, or the report. Here's an important note published with the study:
"These results represent a “first-look” at physicaltherapy and chiropractic manipulation utilization andcosts following implementation of the 2003[Utilization Management] reforms. Availability of data only through 2004 limits the ability to observe longer term results. As we know, ultimate medical costs take years to develop and prior reform efforts have shown promising early returns only to be neutralized bycourt decisions, policy reversals or medical marketforces..."

Outside pharm therapy, insurers are skeptical of therapy that appears to go on forever. But it all comes down to what we expect and demand that insurance cover. Do we obligate payors to provide coverage so long as the treatment continues to provide some benefit, even if it's only to prevent regression, increase strength, or to reduce risk of reinjury? Or, do we limit it as soon as functional ability is restored? Are the UM reforms in the study depriving patients of medically necessary care, or are they eliminating health fraud?

Politics will have muchmore to say than science in this, I bet.

nawledge

Is Teaching "Intelligent Design" Right or Wrong?

I think we have to be aware of how we come across when commenting on these very politically charged issuesthat have minions of passionate believers at both ends of the spectrum for who "ID" is either right or wrong.

In fact, I saw some posts here that appeared to resortto seemingly personal attacks against proponents of IDin the schools. We on HF should be above that, evenif the accusations are true.

On ID, Isn't much of science about objective analysisand critical thinking about how nature and thephysical world works? It's too bad that some see this as a threat to their religious beliefs.

We should teach our children to learn how to learn inschool. I'm opposed to ID in science class. Not because I might see it as religious indoctrination passed off as science. But because I want my child tograsp concepts about critical thinking that could lead to new or independent discovery about nature. With ID in science class, it seems two opposing views aboutthe origin of man are presented for which you are tochoose which one to believe based on what bests suitsyour ideals. That is, they are both presented as"gospel" and you're supposed to decide from withinwhich one to believe. You choose based on yourspiritual faith. Where's the science in that? Where's the discovery? Where's the learning process?

Please Veto: Utah's Direct Sales Amendments Act (S.B. 182)

March 3, 2006

Dear Governor Huntsman:

I am a life-long resident of Utah. For the sake of our neighborhoods, our friendships, and our children's livelihood. And for the sake of our State's reputation and ideals. I beg you to veto SB 182.

SB 182 creates a legal loophole to exploit the "downline" tactics of pyramid scheme marketing techniques. Any kind of legislative promotion of corporation-sponsored business that is dependent on the home-based individual marketer is a catalyst for sickness in our communities.
For an industry that constantly requires new market areas just to stay in business, please spare our communities from repeating history. It's been years, and Utah now has a new crop of young people who are beginning families and careers in Utah that do not remember the money we wasted, the garage sales dumping products, the sleazy fliers on windshields and doorknobs, and the marketing calls from people who should be more like neighbors and friends.

Sure, Utah has some huge corporations with nice campuses that contribute nicely to the local economy. But, so does Las Vegas. The similarities are undeniable. Please name all the "independent distributors/consultants" you know who are making a comfortable living for their families by "consulting on products" out of the home. I'll bet you know just as many people getting rich from buying lottery tickets and visiting Vegas.

More likely than not, direct-sales products are "health care" products. I put quotes on health care because many are nothing more than SNAKE OIL, or common products HYPED-UP with health claims. I am a nurse, health educator, and I research health claims as part of my employment. If most of these products were sold as they are, but at legitimate retailers, they would cost half as much, or be in violation of FDA and/or FTC regulations regarding health-benefits claims and truth in advertising. Instead, our Utah friends and neighbors are encouraged to get caught up in a religious-like zeal in promoting magical properties of the products they're selling. And, their corporate sponsors are kept carefully immune from liability. Utah already has an embarrassing reputation for a population that is foolish enough to fall for marketing gimmicks and quick to believe in snake oils.

I understand the economic contribution some big corporations provide for our state, and how our State's financial success may be influenced by theirs. You must also realize how the direct-sales marketing strategies of these companies inherently weaken our communities and damage the individual. I have lost dear friends who have been coerced into confusing a friendship with a business contact. I know many who have been alienated from their church congregations when business goes bad with fellow parishioners who are "upliners" or "downliners."

I love my community and home state, and am not willing to pay the price. Please join me and veto SB 182.

Sincerely, a big fan of yours.

The new noni tea study

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2006/03/02/hscout531309.html
Noni Juice Might Lower Smokers' Cholesterol
03.02.06, 12:00 AM ET
THURSDAY, March 2 (HealthDay News) -- Claims that it can ward off any number of ailments have helped boost annual sales of Tahitian noni juice into the billions, and now a new study suggests the drink may, in fact, help lower cholesterol.But skeptics note that the small study -- like most others looking at the product -- was funded by the maker of the juice, and they are calling for a larger, independent clinical trial...

I'd like to look at more information on the study. I couldn't find it and the Forbes article doesn't say much. There are some things about it that raise an eyebrow.
1. Why 106:26 active to placebo? What were the P factors in this study and how did numbers in the two groups compare?
2. Why just smokers? The ability to extrapolate the data to a wider non-smoking population is limited. What were the other didactics of the study participants?
3. What was in the "harmless placebo mixture"? If it wasn't at the very least the grape and blueberry juice that the Noni drinkers had, a significant control was missed. If noni is known to have diuretic properties (like most teas) perhaps there should have been a reasonable substitute.
4. That the lead researcher (Wang) went forward in the Forbes article to include a marketing-perfect testimonial about noni, in my opinion, puts to question the credibility of the research team.

As much as I can't make conclusions about the study based on the Forbes article, based on the above, I can speculate that this study is all about the science of marketing noni.

BTW: While we're brewing a pot of evidence for noni, here's a bitter bean: It can maybe cause you to be sterile. (Raji Y, Akinsomisoye OS, Salman TM. Antispermatogenic activity of Morinda lucida extract in male rats.Asian J Androl. 2005 Dec;7(4):405-10.) Let's see 'em put that in their brochure. But, it all goes to show that investigating the effects of new pharmaceuticals is probably a good a idea before mass marketing them.

I just just got back from a drive home up Interstate 15, where a nice new Morinda TNI (noni) facility is keenly visible just off the freeway, not too far from the elegant NuSkin and Usana campuses. All are just a few miles north of the DOT freeway sign for the "Young Living Heritage Farm" I wouldn't trade my home state for the world!

nawledge

The Value of Prenatal Cystic Fibrosis Testing

Value is an undeniable perspective in the practice of medicine. And value is relative. It's easy to do the math and conclude that most money spent on alternative medicine is money wasted. It's harder, but maybe just as necessary, to second-guess the "evidence-based" established protocols, like the examples of PSA's and mammograms.

I have another example. ACOG, in all of their scientifically-based wisdom, recommends that CF carrier screening be offered to all couples when at least one member of the couple is Caucasian and pregnant or considering pregnancy. Remember, this test does not cure or prevent any disease and there is no measurable health advantage to this recommendation. Only speculation that the family planning decisions that can occur as a result of a positive test will be valuable to the couple.

The chances (per ACOG) that both partners will be a carrier is 1:841. Each of these couples has a 1:4 chance of conceiving a CF child, so any couple (irrespective of any test result) has a 1 in 3,364 chance of their next conception being a CF child. Let's say each "child-bearing couple" has 3 children. To look at it one way, we should (per ACOG) be doing 2,242 of these tests (one for each partner) for every baby naturally born with CF. Each test currently costs about $400. How far would $896,000 go toward actual care, research, and treatment for each naturally born CF child?

Now, I'm not saying anything, and am only using this as an example of how we are dictating the VALUE of health care. One point I could make is that US health care costs as much as it does compared to other countries because we are willing to pay more related to it. Another point is that we all should not to be too quick to judge something with no apparent scientifically derived value as having none at all.

nawledge

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Medical Genetics. Preconception and Prenatal Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Clinical and Laboratory Guidelines. Washington, DC: ACOG; Oct 2001

Noni Juice Might Lower Smokers' Cholesterol

A press release for the yet-to-be released study is linked here:
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2006/03/02/hscout531309.html



I'd like to look at more information on the study. I couldn't find it and the Forbes article doesn't say much. There are some things about it that raise an eyebrow.
1. Why 106:26 active to placebo? What were the P factors in this study and how did numbers in the two groups compare?
2. Why just smokers? The ability to extrapolate the data to a wider non-smoking population is limited. What were the other didactics of the study participants?
3. What was in the "harmless placebo mixture"? If it wasn't at the very least the grape and blueberry juice that the Noni drinkers had, a significant control was missed. If noni is known to have diuretic properties (like most teas) perhaps there should have been a reasonable substitute.
4. That the lead researcher (Wang) went forward in the Forbes article to include a marketing-perfect testimonial about noni, in my opinion, puts to question the credibility of the research team.

As much as I can't make conclusions about the study based on the Forbes article, based on the above, I can speculate that this study is all about the science of marketing noni.

BTW: While we're brewing a pot of evidence for noni, here's a bitter bean: It can maybe cause you to be sterile. (Raji Y, Akinsomisoye OS, Salman TM. Antispermatogenic activity of Morinda lucida extract in male rats.Asian J Androl. 2005 Dec;7(4):405-10.) Let's see 'em put that in their brochure. But, it all goes to show that investigating the effects of new pharmaceuticals is probably a good a idea before mass marketing them.

dras, who just got back from a ride home up Interstate 15, where a nice new Morinda TNI (noni) facility is keenly visible just off the freeway, not too far from the elegant NuSkin and Usana campuses. All are just a few miles north of the DOT freeway sign for the "Young Living Heritage Farm" I wouldn't trade my home state for the world!

Questioning the value of some accepted standards in medicine

Value is an undeniable perspective in the practice of medicine. And value is relative. It's easy to do the math and conclude that most money spent on alt-med is money wasted. It's harder, but maybe just as necessary, to second-guess our own established protocols, like the examples of PSA's and mammograms.

I have another example. ACOG, in all of their scientifically-based wisdom, recommends that CF carrier screening be offered to all couples when at least one member of the couple is Caucasian and pregnant or considering pregnancy. Remember, this test does not cure or prevent any disease and there is no measurable health advantage to this recommendation. Only speculation that the family planning decisions that can occur as a result of a positive test will be valuable to the couple.

The chances (per ACOG) that both partners will be a carrier is 1:841. Each of these couples has a 1:4 chance of conceiving a CF child, so each couple (irrespective of any test result) has a 1 in 3,364 chance of their next conception being a CF child. Let's say each "child-bearing couple" has 3 children. To look at it one way, we should (per ACOG) be doing 2,242 of these tests (one for each partner) for every baby naturally born with CF. Each test currently costs about $400. How far would $896,000 go toward actual care, research, and treatment for each naturally born CF child?

Now, I'm not saying anything, and am only using this as an example of how we are dictating the VALUE of health care. One point I could make is that US health care costs as much as it does compared to other countries because we are willing to pay more related to it.

Another point is that we all should not to be too quick to judge something with no apparent scientifically derived value as having none at all.


dras

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Medical Genetics. Preconception and Prenatal Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Clinical and Laboratory Guidelines. Washington, DC: ACOG; Oct 2001

Home-based marketing = sick neighborhoods

Dear Governor Huntsman:

I am a life-long resident of Utah. For the sake of our neighborhoods, our friendships, and our children's livelihood. And for the sake of our State's reputation and ideals. I beg you to veto SB 182.

SB 182 creates a legal loophole to exploit the "downline" tactics of pyramid scheme marketing techniques. Any kind of legislative promotion of corporation-sponsored business that is dependent on the home-based individual marketer is a catalyst for sickness in our communities.

For an industry that constantly requires new market areas just to stay in business, please spare our communities from repeating history. It's been years, and Utah now has a new crop of young people who are beginning families and careers in Utah that do not remember the money we wasted, the garage sales dumping products, the sleazy fliers on windshields and doorknobs, and the marketing calls from people who should be more like neighbors and friends.

Sure, Utah has some huge corporations with nice campuses that contribute nicely to the local economy. But, so does Las Vegas. The similarities are undeniable. Please name all the "independent distributors/consultants" you know who are making a comfortable living for their families by "consulting on products" out of the home. I'll bet you know just as many people getting rich from buying lottery tickets and visiting Vegas.

More likely than not, direct-sales products are "health care" products. I put quotes on health care because many are nothing more than SNAKE OIL, or common products HYPED-UP with health claims. I am a nurse, health educator, and I research health claims as part of my employment. If most of these products were sold as they are, but at legitimate retailers, they would cost half as much, or be in violation of FDA and/or FTC regulations regarding health-benefits claims and truth in advertising.

Instead, our Utah friends and neighbors are encouraged to get caught up in a religious-like zeal in promoting magical properties of over-priced products. And, their corporate sponsors are kept carefully immune from liability. Utah already has an embarrassing reputation for a population that is foolish enough to fall for marketing gimmicks and quick to believe in snake oils.

I understand the economic contribution some big corporations provide for our state, and how our State's financial success may be influenced by theirs. You must also realize how the direct-sales marketing strategies of these companies inherently weaken our communities and damage the individual. I have lost dear friends who have been coerced into confusing a friendship with a business contact. I know many who have been alienated from their church congregations when business goes bad with fellow parishioners who are "upliners" or "downliners."

I love my community and home state, and am not willing to pay the price. Please join me and veto SB 182.

Sincerely, a big fan of yours.

dras