CAFTA approved, echinacea gets bad press and mandatory e-health records - including implanted biochips - move closer to reality

Reporting © By Peter Barry Chowka

Echinacea, Edgartown, MA July 2004 Photo © By Peter Barry Chowka

 

(August 15, 2005) Cafta - the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement - passed the House of Representatives by a two vote margin at 12:03 am on Thursday, July 28, 2005, just before the Congress recessed for the rest of the summer and after much deal-making and questionable parliamentary tactics.

 

As reported by this author last month, Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D., among others interested in nontoxic, nutritional, and alternative therapies, warned that Cafta might help to accelerate efforts to reregulate and limit access to nutritional supplements in the United States - a freedom that was guaranteed by DSHEA (the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act), a federal law that was passed after massive public pressure was focused on the Congress in 1994.

 

The afternoon after the House vote, I wrote: "The fact that Cafta passed the House by two votes should give one pause. There was little organized opposition to Cafta on the part of the usual suspects: millions of vitamin consumers, the thousands of holistic health and CAM (complementary alternative medicine) organizations with a few notable exceptions, licensed alt med professionals like naturopaths. It's not hard to imagine that if opposition to Cafta had reached even one-tenth of the level seen in 1994 when Americans mobilized to protect their supplements against proposed legislation at the time in the Congress that would have reregulated supplements as drugs, at least two more Congressional representative could have been influenced to vote against the Cafta bill. But that didn't happen, and now Cafta goes to President Bush, a strong supporter, for his signature."

 

Bush signed the Cafta legislation on August 2.

 

July 28, 2005, the day Cafta passed the House, was an ignominious day in the history of alternative medicine for several other reasons. On that day, the influential weekly New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published three articles that should concern and alarm anyone interested in alt med and freedom of choice.

 

The first, and highest profile, one was an extensive study of the herb echinacea that is widely used to treat colds. The headline of the Los Angeles Times article about the study was typical of the thousands of articles and reports broadcast about the study: "Echinacea's efficacy for colds debunked 'No evidence that it actually does anything.'"

 

The lead author of the study, Ronald Turner, M.D., a professor of pediatrics at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, told the media "We find no evidence that it [echinacea] actually does anything to common cold symptoms. If that's the reason you're buying it, then you're wasting your money."

 

After a report on echinacea was broadcast on her prime time CNN news program, anchor Paula Zahn looked into the camera and commented "Well, I don't know what herbal supplement to turn to next. . . But we should make this very clear once again, because herbal supplements aren't regulated, there is no testing process before they hit the shelf. Thanks [to Elizabeth Cohen, CNN health reporter] for the [anti-ecinacea] advice. [I am] Trying to think of how many countless hundreds of dollars I have spent on that stuff over the years. Oh, well."

 

Mark Blumenthal, a major presence in the CAM field, initially commented "This [study] is a good contribution to the clinical literature." Later, his American Botanical Council issued a statement that was more negative, insisting that the dosage used in the echinacea study was "too low."

 

An even more negative, and comprehensive, critique came in a press release from Factors Group of Nutritional Companies. Michael Murray, N.D., a widely published author and the group's director of education, and several others quoted in the release criticized the NEJM study as deficient on a number of grounds.

 

The second alarm in the New England Journal of Medicine issue of July 28 came in an article, "Studying Herbal Remedies," which accompanied the echinacea study. The author of "Studying Herbal Remedies" is Wallace Sampson, M.D. According to the NEJM, Sampson, "formerly a practitioner in the Oncology Division at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., is an emeritus clinical professor of medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif., and editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine."

 

It is an understatement to say that Sampson is widely known as a persistent critic of alternative medicine. Over the years, he has been prominently associated with a group of alternative medicine critics known as the "quackbusters." It is not unfair to say that the journal he edits is hostile to, or at least consistently critical of, alternative medicine.

 

In the NEJM, Sampson writes, "NCCAM, if it is to justify its existence, must consider halting its search for active remedies through clinical trials of treatments of low plausibility. A wealth of information also awaits discovery in the psychology of personal beliefs in irrational proposals, in the study of erroneous thinking, and in the study of the mechanisms behind errant social–medical trends such as the alternative-medicine movement." (NCCAM - the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine - is the agency at the federal National Institutes of Health that funded the echinacea study.)

 

The selection of Sampson by the NEJM's editors, then, to put the echinacea study into some kind of context, instead of turning to a more objective observer or including (for example, in a pro and con format) a voice reflecting another point of view, suggests a considerable anti-herbal medicine bias at the very least.

 

Another assault on reasonableness and individual freedom came in a third article in the July 28 NEJM, "Straight From The Shoulder" by John Halamka, M.D., the chief information officer at the CareGroup Healthcare System and an emergency physician at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. Last December, Halamka writes in his article, he had a biochip containing a patient medical identifier surgically implanted in himself. "A handheld RFID reader scans the chip, which transmits to the reader my medical identifier, a 16-digit number. . .Now, when a scanner is passed within 6 in. (15 cm) of my arm, my medical identifier is displayed on the screen of a radiofrequency-identification (RFID) reader, and any authorized health care worker can turn to a secure Web site hosted by the manufacturer and retrieve information about my identity and the name of my primary care physician, who can then provide details of my medical history."

 

This development comes within the context of the government and the medical Establishment moving inexorably, and quickly, towards requiring that every American's medical records be recorded in electronic databases controlled by the federal government.

 

On August 2, 2005, the Annals of Internal Medicine published an eleven-page article, "The Costs of a National Health Information Network." The authors estimate that achieving a workable national health information infrastructure within the next five years would cost at least $156 billion in capital investment and $48 billion in annual operating costs. They write in favor of such an e-network.

 

On July 20, a company called Accenture released the results of a public opinion poll which claimed that a "Majority of Consumers Believe Electronic Medical Records Can Improve Medical Care, Accenture Survey Finds; 93% Support Emergency Room Doctors Having Access to Electronic Records to Reduce Treatment Errors." According to its news release about the poll results, "Accenture is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company. Committed to delivering innovation, Accenture collaborates with its clients to help them become high-performance businesses and governments. With deep industry and business process expertise, broad global resources and a proven track record, Accenture can mobilize the right people, skills and technologies to help clients improve their performance. With more than 115,000 people in 48 countries, the company generated net revenues of US$13.67 billion for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2004."

 

A bill introduced in the U.S. Senate in July, S1418, "Wired for Health Care Quality Act," would increase funding for e-health records ("health information technology") and also expand funding for the Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology (ONCHIT). ONCHIT was apparently established by an Executive Order of President George W. Bush on April 27, 2004.

 

On July 21, 2005, the New York Times reported that "Medicare, which says the lack of electronic records is one of the biggest impediments to improving health care, has decided to step in. In an unprecedented move, it said it planned to announce that it would give doctors - free of charge - software to computerize their medical practices. An office with five doctors could save more than $100,000 by choosing the Medicare software rather than buying software from a private company, officials say."

 

On July 22, according to Knight Ridder, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), who is expected to run for president in 2008, appeared together at an event in Washington, D.C. sponsored by the drug company Pfizer. The two politicians, at one time supposed political adversaries, expressed substantial agreement on future health care policy. According to the article, Gingrich "and Clinton also agreed on the importance of a unified and fully digital medical-records system and the need to provide incentives to companies and individuals so they'll seek health insurance and healthier lifestyles."

 

At the state level, governments in liberal, so-called blue, states are racing to mandate reporting of more citizens' private health records to government. A California Senate bill (SB 945) with broad support would require physicians and laboratories in the state to report to county health officials the names of all people newly diagnosed with (that is, who test positive for) HIV. An editorial on May 3, 2005 in the liberal Los Angeles Times, shockingly titled "...and Let's Name Names," said that the policy carries some patient privacy risks, but the "higher risk lies in not accurately tracking the disease." On July 25, various news outlets reported that officials in New York City are proposing a "plan [that] would require medical labs to report to the city the results of a certain type of test that indicates how well individual patients are controlling their diabetes" - using the names of the patients for the government's database.

 

Flying in the face of the government's intentions to test and database everyone's medical records is a new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, described in a news release by the American Academy of Family Physicians, "Analyzing data from a 5-year longitudinal study of 122 diabetic adults, researchers found that the use of electronic medical records (EMR) did not lead to improved clinical outcomes."

 

It is reasonable to assume that there are other agendas at play here that are driving the moves on a myriad of fronts towards medically testing everyone, electronically monitoring everyone's health, and creating electronic databases of everyone's most personal health records in permanent files controlled by governments. Such plans are always proposed by public officials and representatives of the medical Establishment supposedly with the best of intentions, as the stakeholders insist that their machinations are intended to improve public health.

 

It is worth recalling that Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in a dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 US 438, 479 (1927), "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficient....The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

 

Addendum

 

Shortly before the deadline for this article, it was reported that President Bush on August 13 signed legislation that creates, or actually expands, government electronic monitoring of prescriptions for medication written by physicians. According to one news account, "The new law creates a grant program for states to create databases and enhance existing ones in hopes of ending the practice of 'doctor shopping' by drug abusers seeking multiple prescriptions." The bill, titled in the House the "National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act of 2005" (H.R. 1132), passed the House by a voice vote and the Senate by unanimous consent in July. It is intended to support, with millions of federal dollars per state, each of the fifty states' efforts to require physicians to electronically report every drug prescription they write for every patient to a government database. There has been surprisingly little discussion about this development. A search of Google on August 14, in fact, yielded very little hard information about the new law.

 

For more information,

 

You Are Being Watched, and There Is No Place to Hide
An interview with Robert O'Harrow
By John W. Whitehead March 31, 2005

 

Out of Control: The Flawed Regulation of Schedule II Drugs and its Impact on Pain and Addiction
Harvard Law School Third Year Paper (April 2004) by Darin M. Sands, Class of 2004