Overdosing on homeopathic drugs?

I recently ran across this 2009 article about a young woman who apparently tried to overdose on a homeopathic drug called "Traumeel." I'm not trying to make light of a sad situation, but only to use this example to illustrate the widespread ignorance regarding homeopathy. A good description of homeopathy was given by James Randi in his 2001 talk at Princeton: Note the math lesson beginning at the five minute mark. Homeopaths argue that the more dilute a solution is, the more powerful it is. At the 7:30 mark, Randi explains that a "30X" solution is so dilute that it reaches the "number of no return." "30X" is so dilute that it is the equivalent of placing 15 drops of water in a container more than 50 times the size of the Earth. Other homeopathic solutions are available in 1,500x solutions. How dilute is that? It's the equivalent of (12:00) smashing one grain of rice into a sphere of water the diameter of the solar system, shaking it up, and then further diluting that same solution 2 billion more times in an equivalent sized sphere. To bring the matter full circle, at the ten-minute Randi explains how he ate two entire packages of a popular homeopathic sleeping pill (sold at nationwide pharmacies) without overdosing. Believe it or not, the active ingredient was caffeine. At 13:30, Randi characterizes the people who sell these "medicines" "swindlers, liars, cheats, frauds, fakes, criminals." For more on homeopathy, now used by five million people world-wide, consider the many statistics in my earlier post and consider viewing this video by Richard Dawkins. At the 3-minute mark, Dawkins wryly notes that if water really had "memory" of the ingredients it formerly contained (as fans of homeopathy contend), what should we make of the fact that "in each glass of water we drink, at least one molecule has passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell." At the 5-minute mark, when discussing whether homeopathy theory is plausible, the Director of a brand new English hospital (who actually was trained as a rheumatologist) unleashes this whopper of a quote: "The fact is that I couldn't stop what I do even if I wanted to. My patients wouldn't let me. They say it helps." BTW, check out the not-so-impressive medical research by the manufacturer of Traumeel. The manufacturer's recipe of a British narrator uttering big scientific words is featured in this video, and it is doubtless irresistible to many potential purchasers. Here's a bit of much needed skepticism regarding Traumeel. Whatever you do, don't utter the word "placebo" to anyone who pays big money for these "medicines."

Continue ReadingOverdosing on homeopathic drugs?

A succinct history of the birth control pill

Time Magazine has published a fascinating 8-page history of the birth control pill. I learned many things that surprised me, including the fact that in 1957, 30 states still had laws against promoting birth control. The 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut struck down a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception," including providing contraception for married couples. In Griswold, Planned Parenthood's Executive Director, a licensed physician and a professor at the Yale Medical School ran a medical clinic that "gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception. They examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use. Fees were usually charged, although some couples were serviced free." It's incredible to think how much the world has changed since 1965 (the birth control pill first came to market in 1959). Here's one of the opening paragraphs from the Time article, which is well worth reading in its entirety:

Its main inventor was a conservative Catholic who was looking for a treatment for infertility and instead found a guarantee of it. It was blamed for unleashing the sexual revolution among suddenly swinging singles, despite the fact that throughout the 1960s, women usually had to be married to get it. Its supporters hoped it would strengthen marriage by easing the strain of unwanted children; its critics still charge that the Pill gave rise to promiscuity, adultery and the breakdown of the family. In 1999 the Economist named it the most important scientific advance of the 20th century, but Gloria Steinem, one of the era's most influential feminists, calls its impact "overrated." One of the world's largest studies of the Pill — 46,000 women followed for nearly 40 years — was released this March. It found that women who take the Pill are less likely to die prematurely from any cause, including cancer and heart disease, yet many women still question whether the health risks outweigh the benefits.

Continue ReadingA succinct history of the birth control pill

Mixing up my own non-toxic shampoo and conditioner

The perky woman on this Grist video ("Umbra") has convinced me to make my own shampoo and conditioner. Not only will this save me money, but it will put end my practice of covering my scalp with numerous chemicals that contain known-harmful ingredients--many shampoos and conditions are laden with harmful and potentially harmful ingredients (I found this video at Huffpo). I should also mention that I have become extra-motivated to try this experiment based on this recent post by Brynn Jacobs. First, the fast-paced video featuring "Umbra": Now a short detour to the Environmental Working Group website, where you can determine all of the nasty chemicals in your shampoos, conditioners and other products. The EWG "Cosmetics" database is here. I went to straight to my bathroom and dug out various bottles each of shampoo and conditioner. My Pantene "Full and Thick" shampoo contains all of the following (among other chemicals): METHYLCHLOROISOTHIAZOLINONE, ETHYLENE OXIDE, 1,4-DIOXANE, ETHYLENE OXIDE, 1,4-DIOXANE) NITROSAMINES) COCAMIDE MEA, METHYLISOTHIAZOLINONE, SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE. Various of these chemicals are associated with the following things: Neurotoxicity, Allergies/immunotoxicity, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive) Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs). I checked out a bottle of Suave Professionals Sleek Shampoo and it contained a comparably ominous list. The Revlon Aqua Marine Moisturizing Shampoo was even worse in that it contained four chemicals associated with cancer. Then I looked up two bottles of hair conditioner. The Garnier Fructis Fortifying Conditioner - Sleek & Shine has a comparably nasty list of chemicals --Umbra urges that these chemicals are totally unnecessary for washing one's hair. I couldn't find the Citre Shine Daily Revitalize Conditioner with Shine-Infusing Citrus Extracts on the EWG website, but I carefully read the fine print on the back label and plugged four of those chemicals into the EWG site; they all came up as bad, despite the front label's suggestion that this product contains "healthy" ingredients. I suppose the theory is to balance out each industrial chemical with a whiff of something healthy-sounding like "citrus extract." BTW, isn't it ironic to read all of those the benign-sounding names of these products and then compare those names to the long lists of chemicals within? What is Umbra's solution to this apparently unhealthy situation? She is encouraging us to make our own shampoo and conditioner (this is the same advice offered by Colin Beavan). For shampoo, she recommends that we mix a tablespoon of baking soda with each cup of water. Shake it each time before using it. For conditioner, mix 1 tablespoon of apple cider vinegar with each cup of water. She says that the vinegar smell goes away after you rinse. As soon as I publish this post, I'm going to the kitchen to mix up a batch of each. I'm appearing in court tomorrow, and my hair and scalp, for the first time ever, will not be drenched in potentially harmful chemicals. I promise to report on the experience after I use these home-made hair products for a few days.

Continue ReadingMixing up my own non-toxic shampoo and conditioner

(Marginally) tougher food safety rules mean (marginally) safer food

"There is no more important mission at USDA than ensuring the safety of our food, and we are working every day as part of the President's Food Safety Working Group to lower the danger of foodborne illness. The new standards announced today mark an important step in our efforts to protect consumers by further reducing the incidence of Salmonella and opening a new front in the fight against Campylobacter," announced Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on Monday. Under these new proposed regulations, 7.5% of the chicken at a processing plant may test positive for salmonella. In 2009, average salmonella levels were at 7.1%, so I guess these giant food conglomerates won't have to stretch too hard to meet the proposed rule. I suppose it's better than the 20% salmonella contamination that's allowed under current regulations. But perhaps current regulations are not the best standard with which to judge the new rules, given that they don't regulate campylobacter at all. Campylobacter causes diarrhea, cramping, fever, and there are no federal standards governing how much of it can be in your food. Under the proposed regulations, companies may not have more than 10% of their carcasses "highly-contaminated" by campylobacter, and no more than 46% may be contaminated at a "low-level." I feel better, don't you?

Continue Reading(Marginally) tougher food safety rules mean (marginally) safer food

Peabody Coal Company argues that coal is “green coal” and “clean coal”

A few months ago one of my neighbors, a proudly conservative man, saw me carrying a package of high-efficiency light bulbs into my house. He gave me a disappointed look loudly said: “Buy some real light bulbs, Erich.” This neighbor has repeatedly made it known that that liberal concerns and proposals regarding energy are unnecessary because there is plenty of oil and coal, and we should make it our national priority to keep digging and burning these resources. I know that my Republican neighbor is not the only “conservative” in the U.S. willing to scoff at conservation. I previously argued that this anti-energy-efficiency climate–science-denial attitude like my neighbor’s outlook has become a badge of group membership among conservatives. It has become a salient display that one believes, above all, in the alleged power and wisdom of the “Free Market,” an unsubstantiated leap of faith so incredibly bold that I once termed it the Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity (and see here and here). These free-market fundamentalists are contemptuous at well-informed suggestions for using energy resources more efficiently and for reducing our reliance on dirty and dangerous fossil fuels. Many of them consider national policy aimed at energy conservation to be totally unnecessary and ridiculously expensive. Proposals that we should be smarter consumers of energy annoy and anger them and they offer no evidence-based alternatives for peak oil (and see here and here and here ). They refuse to consider the damage being done to our environment, our health and our budget (especially our military budget) as a result of our reliance on fossil fuels . My neighbor displays a startling lack of curiosity regarding the ramifications for continuing to attempt to drill and dig our way to energy independence. This same attitude is found in many conservative politicians, the most prominent being Sarah Palin. Based on an extraordinary video of a recent debate at Washington University in Saint Louis, this same attitude is also embraced by of the executives at the largest private coal company in the United States, Peabody Coal Company.

Continue ReadingPeabody Coal Company argues that coal is “green coal” and “clean coal”