Scientific Buffoonery Update
Fired Researcher Who Killed Self Was Evaluating Drug Backed by Clark
Anti-smoking treatment pushed by premier generated safety warnings.
3 Oct 2014
By Andrew MacLeod
The researcher who committed suicide after being fired from the British Columbia health ministry in 2012 was designing a way to evaluate a project that was one of Premier Christy Clark’s pet initiatives and that included a drug that continues to generate serious safety warnings.
New Democratic Party leader John Horgan raised the direct connection to Clark during a press conference at the legislature this week where Linda Kayfish, the sister of the late Roderick MacIsaac, said all she wants from the government is an apology for how her brother was treated.
“It seems there’ll be no day in court, just closed door settlements,” said Kayfish. “I would ask [Clark] how she would feel if she was in my position, with no answers … I cry a lot. I’m pretty sure nobody in this room, including our premier, would want to go through this.”
MacIsaac was among seven staff fired from the ministry as part of an investigation that then health minister Margaret MacDiarmid said involved inappropriate data sharing, contracts and undeclared potential conflicts of interest. Horgan said the government has been back-tracking ever since, with two of the employees settling wrongful dismissal and defamation suits out of court and returning to work at the ministry over the summer and a third recently receiving an out of court settlement that included a grudging apology.
The deputy health minister at the time of the firings, Graham Whitmarsh, signed the dismissal letters but could not have made the decision to fire so many people in isolation, said Horgan. “He could not have undertaken a disciplinary action such as this, on the first day that Margaret MacDiarmid was minister of health, without approval from the highest level,” he said.
That would mean the deputy minister responsible for the public service, John Dyble, who is directly responsible to Clark, would have to have been involved, said Horgan. “Speaking to motivation is something we can only suggest to you. The answers to those questions I would argue lie with Mr. Dyble and Premier Clark.”
Premier needs to explain: Horgan
Horgan did, however, note that MacIsaac was working on a way to assess the smoking cessation program that Clark had promised in her leadership run and that she launched in 2011.
That program included funding for nicotine replacement therapies in gum and patch form, but also for the prescription drugs varenicline, which is sold as Champix, and buproprion, which is available in generic form or under the brand name Zyban.
“There has been speculation about Champix, the smoking cessation drug,” said Horgan when asked about motivations. “The premier made a bold announcement about Champix and smoking cessation being a cornerstone, a direction was given to get some data, there had been a preliminary review of income assistance recipients in 2007 … There is some speculation that might have been the connection.”
He noted, however, that other researchers who were fired were studying the over prescription of anti-psychotic drugs to children and seniors, as well as drugs used to treat Alzheimer’s disease.
“I would hope [Dyble] and premier Clark would have something to say about what was the motivation of the government at that time,” Horgan said. “If the premier can’t answer today for what she’s done to Linda and [her husband] Doug and their family, and other familes in this case, then we’re certainly going to be talking about it next week when the house resumes.”
A spokesperson for the premier said, “What happened to Mr. MacIsaac is sad beyond words and what his family must be enduring is terrible,” but that otherwise he couldn’t comment on an ongoing personnel matter.
A few days after the press conference, the government announced health minister Terry Lake has asked deputy minister Stephen Brown to send a letter to MacIsaac’s family “conveying the government’s apology … for terminating his employment, given his status as a co-op student and under the supervision of ministry staff.” The letter would also express “sympathy and condolences for the stress and sadness that they have endured” as a result of MacIsaac’s death.
The government also announced that Lynda Tarras, the head of the Public Service Agency, would head a review of the steps taken during the investigation and how decisions were made. The PSA has engaged Marcia McNeil, who has a background in labour relations law, for the review. The announcement said the report would be completed by Oct. 31 and made public shortly after that.
Lots of warnings
At the time that Champix was being considered for funding in B.C. it was already the subject of warnings elsewhere. The Tyee reported that France stopped paying for the drug publicly and both Health Canada and the Food and Drug Administration in the United States issued warnings about the drug.
The warnings included that Champix doubled the risk for patients with cardiovascular disease of having a heart attack or other related trouble to two percent, and that “there have been reports in some patients of unusual feelings of agitation, depressed mood, hostility, changes in behaviour, or impulsive or disturbing thoughts such as thoughts of self-harm or harm to others.”
The September, 2014, newsletter from the Institute for Safe Medication Practices took another look at Champix, or varenicline, and found the concerns continue. Looking at reports of adverse reactions from 2007 to 2013, the authors said, “varenicline accounted for more reported cases of suicidal and homicidal thoughts than any other drug, and by a large margin.”
Varenicline was also associated with acts of attempted and completed suicide, they found. “Since 2007 varenicline was the primary suspect drug in 293 cases of completed suicide and 490 cases of attempted suicide.” The report advocated adding stronger warning labels on the drug.
The authors noted that safety concerns had taken “a major toll” on the sales and prescriptions of varenicline, which according to health information provider IMS Health had declined by 73 percent since 2008 from 1.9 million prescriptions to 520,000.
They also said more than 3,000 patients had sued Pfizer Inc., the maker of varenicline, “over psychiatric side effects that included suicide, psychosis and violence. On the eve of the first potential trial in open court with batteries of experts on both sides prepared to testify, Pfizer opted to pay most claimants rather than try even a small group of bellwether cases.”
“Quitting smoking, with or without treatment, may be associated with nicotine withdrawal symptoms (including depression or agitation) or exacerbation of pre-existing psychiatric disorder,” said a statement from a Pfizer spokesperson responding to a request for comment on the ISMP report. “Pfizer stands behind the benefit/risk profile of Champix.”
The report is based on adverse events reported after the drug was approved and put on the market, she said. “These reports do not always establish a cause and effect relationship between a medicine and a reported adverse event. Because adverse events reported in post-marketing experience are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure.”
The spokesperson noted that tobacco is a major public health issue and that the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse estimates smoking contributes to over 37,000 deaths in Canada each year. Champix is approved as a smoking cessation treatment in 101 countries and has been prescribed to over 20 million people worldwide, she said.
It is unclear how Clark’s promotion of Champix in B.C. has affected sales in the province. The Tyee requested that information, along with figures for other smoking cessation products, from the health ministry last week. A spokesperson said Wednesday that they are double checking the numbers before releasing them.
The Tyee reported last year that in June, 2012, the government decided not to allow the independent drug research body at UBC, the Therapeutics Initiative, to review the smoking cessation program since it had become “political.”
MacIsaac, who Kayfish said cared for their mother when she was dying from lung cancer, was designing a way to conduct that review within the ministry when he and the other researchers were fired.
Controversy around province’s choice of stop-smoking drug
Pill provided through B.C. program is subject of a class-action lawsuit
By Cindy E. Harnett, Times Colonist
Smoking-cessation drug ads raise concerns
2/9/12
Ads that subtly promote the smoking cessation drug Champix are popping up in downtown Montreal, but the campaign is raising concerns after a recent study linked the drug to heart problems.
The drug, manufactured by Pfizer, is the subject of three Health Canada safety advisories.
The warnings involve reports of possible adverse reactions including depression, hostility, and increased risk of suicide.
Champix, the brand name for varenicline, was developed by Pfizer and approved for use in Canada in January 2007.
The drug is designed to reduce the pleasure of smoking and the withdrawal symptoms that often make people resume the habit.
A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in July found people taking the drug had a 72 per cent higher risk of developing serious heart problems.
Health Canada launched a safety review in June after an American study raised concerns about risks for patients with cardiovascular disease.
The ads in question feature the words “I did it!” on a green background with the drug’s website tagged underneath.
In Canada, as long as an ad doesn’t specify the disease or condition a drug is supposed to treat, it’s legal, even if the drug has been flagged for review by Health Canada.
In the U.S., stricter advertising standards prohibit Pfizer from using the same marketing for the drug.
In an emailed statement, Pfizer said the ads comply with all federal regulations.
“The campaign was also reviewed and approved by Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) as part of their pre-clearance service,” the statement reads.
“The goal of the CHAMPIX direct-to-consumer campaign is to encourage an open dialogue between consumers and health-care professionals.
“During the course of this dialogue, issues surrounding the appropriateness of a given medication or treatment will be discussed between the health-care professional and the patient.”
Barbara Mintzes, a professor of epidemiology at the University of British Columbia, said the ads are “outrageous,” given the side-effect concerns that have been identified.
She is calling on Health Canada to shut down the company’s direct-to-consumer marketing.
“I was very upset to see the ads,” she said.
“When there are serious safety signals about a drug, those drugs should not be advertised to the public.”
In a statement released last month, Health Canada said it has now completed its review, which found a “slightly increased number of patients” experienced serious heart-related problems compared to the placebo group.
It concluded that Champix is an effective aid for quitting smoking and its benefits outweigh the risk.
Health Canada noted that “smoking by itself is a major known risk factor for cardiovascular disease and that patients with cardiovascular disease can benefit greatly from quitting smoking.”
May 3, 2010
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — It is well-known that maternal smoking during pregnancy can have long-term effects on the physical health of the child, including increased risk for respiratory disease, ear infections and asthma. New research shows that prenatal smoking also can lead to psychiatric problems and increase the need for psychotropic medications in childhood and young adulthood.
Finnish researchers found that adolescents who had been exposed to prenatal smoking were at increased risk for use of all psychiatric drugs especially those uses to treat depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and addiction compared to non-exposed youths. The study will be presented Tuesday, May 4 at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) annual meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
“Recent studies show that maternal smoking during pregnancy may interfere with brain development of the growing fetus,” said Mikael Ekblad, lead author of the study and a pediatric researcher at Turku University Hospital in Finland. “By avoiding smoking during pregnancy, all the later psychiatric problems caused by smoking exposure could be prevented.”
Ekblad and his colleagues collected information from the Finnish Medical Birth Register on maternal smoking, gestational age, birthweight and 5-minute Apgar scores for all children born in Finland from 1987 through 1989. They also analyzed records on mothers’ psychiatric inpatient care from 1969-1989 and children’s use of psychiatric drugs.
Results showed that 12.3 percent of the young adults had used psychiatric drugs, and of these, 19.2 percent had been exposed to prenatal smoking.
The rate of psychotropic medication use was highest in young adults whose mothers smoked more than 10 cigarettes a day while pregnant (16.9 percent), followed by youths whose mothers smoked fewer than 10 cigarettes a day (14.7 percent) and unexposed youths (11.7 percent).
The risk for medication use was similar in males and females, and remained after adjusting for risk factors at birth, such as Apgar scores and birthweight, and the mother’s previous inpatient care for mental disorders.
Smoking exposure increased the risk for use of all psychotropic drugs, especially stimulants used to treat ADHD (unexposed: 0.2 percent; less than 10 cigarettes/day: 0.4 percent; and more than 10 cigarettes/day: 0.6 percent) and drugs for addiction. An increased risk for use of drugs to treat depression also was seen (unexposed: 6 percent; less than 10 cigarettes/day: 8.6 percent; and more than 10 cigarettes/day: 10.3 percent).
“Smoking during pregnancy is still quite common even though the knowledge of its harmful effects has risen in recent years,” Ekblad concluded. “Recent studies have shown that smoking during pregnancy has negative long-term effects on the health of the child. Therefore, women should avoid smoking during their pregnancy.”
To see the abstract, go to http://www.abstracts2view.com/pas/view.php?nu=PAS10L1_513&terms;
The Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) are four individual pediatric organizations who co-sponsor the PAS Annual Meeting — the American Pediatric Society, the Society for Pediatric Research, the Academic Pediatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Members of these organizations are pediatricians and other health care providers who are practicing in the research, academic and clinical arenas. The four sponsoring organizations are leaders in the advancement of pediatric research and child advocacy within pediatrics, and all share a common mission of fostering the health and well being of children worldwide. For more information, visit www.pas-meeting.org. Follow news of the PAS meeting on Twitter at? http://twitter.com/PedAcadSoc
———–
Findings from the surgeon general report
As I suspected,these so called researchers went back and chose 2 years to create a propagandized study to further tobacco controls claims…….So your trying to tell everyone that in a short 4 years you can prove babys of smoking mothers make social mental rejects out of the offspring…….ABSURD!
Champix side effects prompt 818 complaints
January 9, 2009
CARLY WEEKS? From Friday’s Globe and Mail
Health Canada has received more than 800 reports of side effects – including more than 500 reports of psychiatric problems – linked to the controversial smoking-cessation drug Champix in less than two years on the market.
But although evidence is growing that the medication is linked to aggression, depression and suicidal tendencies, some tobacco-control experts and non-profit groups in Canada still encourage its use, often without mention of the possibility of psychiatric problems.
In its online guide to quitting smoking, forexample, the Canadian Lung Association includes a section that lists Champix first as an effective option to “reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms.”
The association says the “pros” of Champix include the fact it is in pill form and is easy to use, as well as the fact it is not addictive because it doesn’t contain nicotine. The guide lists only minor side effects, such as nausea, strange dreams and constipation, as “cons” to taking Champix, even though Health Canada has issued two warnings in recent months about links between the drug and serious psychiatric side effects.
The smoking and tobacco section of the website indicates that Pfizer Canada, which sells Champix, provided funding to the association in the form of a restricted educational grant, which means that Pfizer isn’t involved in how the money is spent.
Lung Association spokesman Cameron Bishop said the organization is aware that Health Canada is in the process of strengthening its warning on Champix.
The association “is [in] the process of updating tobacco-cessation content on our website to reflect the new information,” Mr. Bishop wrote in an e-mail. “We remain committed to ensuring that Canadians who want to quit smoking have the best possible information on all available smoking-cessation options approved by Health Canada.”
The Canadian Cancer Society’s quit-smoking guide also alludes to the effectiveness of Champix, one of two approved smoking-cessation pills on the market in Canada, but doesn’t mention it by name.
Some doctors and tobacco-control experts who receive research or other funding from Pfizer sometimes promote the benefits of Champix without mentioning safety concerns.
Controversy over the safety of Champix has been brewing in Canada and internationally since shortly after the drug was introduced to the market.
Last June, Health Canada issued its first warning on the drug, advising the public and health-care professionals that it had received more than 200 reports of psychiatric problems, including hostility and suicidal thoughts, linked to Champix. The warning followed an earlier one issued by U.S. health authorities.
The safety warning issued on Champix in the U.S. (where the drug is sold under the name Chantix) had a dramatic impact on sales. The company said third-quarter Chantix revenues in the U.S. plummeted 49 per cent last year compared with the same period the year before. The drop was attributed to the safety warning issued in February, 2007. However, the drug’s international third-quarter revenues jumped 60 per cent compared with the same period in 2007.
Earlier this week, Health Canada issued its second warning about the product to ensure the risks were being communicated to the public. It also announced it is in the process of creating a stronger warning label to better reflect potential health risks.
Champix was put on the Canadian market in April, 2007. From its introduction until Oct. 31, 2008, Health Canada received 818 reports of adverse reactions associated with the medication, spokesman Paul Duchesne wrote in an e-mail.
Of those, 520 reports were linked to psychiatric problems.
Pfizer Canada said it considers the drug safe and efficacious for people who are looking to quit smoking.
Although the drug may pose some health risks to some, Health Canada said the link between Champix and psychiatric problems hasn’t been proven. The overall benefits of the medication outweigh the potential risks, but Canadians considering taking it should be aware of the safety issues, Health Canada said in its public advisory this week.
ANDR? PICARD From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail Comments(89)
August 26, 2008
For every dollar the federal government spends on research, a nickel goes to cancer research, according to a new study.
Ottawa invested $3.764-billion in science and technology research in 2006, of which $212.3-million went to cancer research, a new analysis by the Canadian Cancer Research Alliance has found.
>
TORONTO, Aug. 26 /CNW/ – The Canadian Cancer Research Alliance (CCRA), in its second and expanded survey of cancer research investment in Canada, estimates that 5 cents of every $1 spent by the federal government on all extramural science and technology R&D; went to cancer research in 2006. The survey represents the most comprehensive examination of federal government investment in cancer research undertaken to date, and also provides investment figures from many of the major provincial government organizations and voluntary sector organizations that fund cancer research.
Excluding partner contributions, the federal investment in cancer research was $212.3M out of an estimated $3,764M of overall extramural federal R&D; spending in 2006/07(1). Research investment by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada’s lead federal funding agency for health research, accounted for the largest proportion of the cancer research investment at $121.8M. Other federal investments exceeding $10M were made by the Canada Foundation for Innovation ($32.2M), the Indirect Costs program ($22.7M) and the Canada Research Chairs program ($17.0M).
Dr. Alain Beaudet, new President of CIHR, applauds CCRA’s work in quantifying Canadian investment in cancer research. “Cancer research is a critical part of Canada’s strength in health research and related sciences,” says Dr. Beaudet. “The CCRA report shows the commitment of the federal government in the area of cancer research and illustrates the vital role played by CIHR as the leading funder of cancer researchers who continue to make headway in our understanding of this formidable disease.”
“By not only quantifying but qualifying Canada’s cancer research investment in terms of the types of research being conducted and the cancer sites being studied, our survey helps to inform cancer research funders as well as key groups like The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer on how future investments may need to be targeted in order to facilitate key discoveries in cancer prevention, detection, treatment and ongoing care,” adds Dr. Elizabeth Eisenhauer, Chair of the CCRA and President of the National Cancer Institute of Canada.
Formalized in December 2003, CCRA is an alliance of cancer research funding organizations and affiliated partners working together to enhance the overall state of cancer research funding in Canada through improved communication, cooperation and coordination. Members include federal and provincial government organizations, non-government organizations and other key stakeholders within the cancer research arena. The Alliance also advises The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer on its research agenda. “The survey is important to The Partnership because it provides valuable information about the research landscape in Canada,” says Ms. Jessica Hill, CEO of The Partnership. “Our organization assumed full funding of the 2007 survey, which is currently underway, and we look forward to facilitating the development of a pan-Canadian cancer research strategy over the next several months.”
(1) Based on federal government expenditures on scientific activities as published by Statistics Canada in the December 2007 edition of Science Statistics (Table 5-1) available at http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/88-001-XIE/88-001-XIE2007008.pdf. >>
Disease Management
February 02, 2008
Written by: FXR
I wrote this in response to a recent promotion of the Canadian Lung Association at the CBC selling this car ban nonsense. I have little confidence anyone at the Liberal centric CBC will ever have the courage to publish it though. I have been studying the larger perspectives in play for quite some time now. Readers, if they take the time and really look, may well find an alternate truth. But only if they can get past the fear and have the courage to look beyond, what they have been taught to believe.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/01/31/smoking-cars.html
It is really unfortunate to watch as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Lung associations are willing to sacrifice, once, fine reputations by promoting targeted hatred in this way. “No brainer” is declared in the latest CBC article, describing the idea to ban smoking in cars with children. To “lower their health risks.” Where coincidentally if you took the time to really look, no evidence can can be found any harm actually exists beyond the emotional, which could be appeased entirely by opening a window, just a crack. No Brainer is entirely an appropriate conclusion in this situation. Certainly not a lot of thought is required when riding high atop a lobbied band wagon. We need to ban smoking because a sign just wouldn’t send a strong enough message, choices are never a guarantee, and there is no safe level of anything. Intention is found in the “no safe level of tobacco smoke” chant, which affords no useful information, the truth is unearthed in it’s true intent of creating fear which it does admirably..
I take exception to the consistent practice of these groups who put forward a heavily lobbied town council in one small municipality in Nova Scotia to represent the views of an entire Province. In other representations elsewhere they added a list of New Jersey, Maine and California in a similarly deceptive way. The original anti smoker advocate was Hitler who was the original promoter of the political ideal, that second hand smoke could harm others irregardless of, if it ever could. Hitler in fact invented the term “second hand smoke”. Would the Lung Association add that name to its list and ask me to follow the same logic stream?
There is actually another third hand kind of smoke, being gratuitously employed here, its the kind people refer to as being gingerly blown up your backside.
It is no small secret the Lung association and the Canadian Cancer Society have long abandoned the search for cures, in spite of their misleading advertising. favoring the approach of “disease management” as a higher theological ideal. This affords no abuse to their largest donations from industrial interests, who might, in lieu of real scientific advances recently, actually be held to account for the damages their products do to communities. While affording all blame for disease to “individual choice” which they claim can be eliminated with fear and targeted hatred.
The realities of what was sold at the Rio Summit, in all the impassioned drama presented there, are finally coming home to roost. People are starting to understand the level of fraud involved by the promoters and the arrogance of domination consensus among unelected decision makers.
It is entirely unfortunate pseudo-government agencies promoting Global rule, have chosen to govern themselves in the national socialist mold. They started out with much more noble intentions [or so we are told].
The practice of managing diseases, can not avoid the reality you have to micro-manage the personal lives of individuals and promote segregation, hatred and bigotry in order to make it effective. Ignorance of human rights and personal freedom can never be overlooked or simply ignored in hopes they will just go away.
State Paternalism only produces abusive parents. Bans can only serve to separate us and disease management can not possibly accept or even seek a cure.
Think about smoking bans and fat pandemics, even SARS or AIDS. How much extremely expensive media pro-[motion/paganda] has been expended [Who is paying for this stuff?]in controlling peoples lives by promoting the high drama of fear and hatred to direct all decisions, as opposed to finding cures and compromises which could eliminate all of the fear mongers largest complaints.
I don’t need to be protected by the illegitimate church of pubic health. In the real world, parents do an excellent job of protecting their own children on their own. I don’t believe industry promotional lobby groups, would make very good parents. But hey, thats just me…[Me and billions of others around me I would hope]
The kind of protections offered by Hitler and his Neo-Nannies we could all do well without.
Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty in Ontario is quoted as stating “smokers need to quit or be punished and as with McCarthyism, that punishment will continue, until the proud day someone stands and says; “Enough”. His hatred is clearly defined in a protection of the children at a website targeting them, he appropriately called stupid.ca[Canada]reflecting his views in respect to a quarter of the electorate. What will he call the website to make fat people feel bad about themselves? Another, No Brainer?
No one stands against the wind with confidence, to earn political power or financial gain.
People will stand and say “enough” in Canada, because to put it quite simply; that is just what real Canadians do.
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/297097/
“In his first Rock Carling Fellowship Lecture in June 1967, Richard Doll stated clearly that prevention of cancer was a better strategy than cure.”
In reference to your Nov. 12th article — New studies confirm cancer is alcohol’s deadly hangover —
Those who applaud the anti-tobacco quasi prohibition tactics and the aggressive anti-obesity campaigns because it doesn’t affect their lives and? those who were afflicted with the ‘‘why me and not him’’ syndrome, instead of fighting the health nannies for the right reasons, will take comfort in knowing that misery loves company.
If the neo prohibitionists follow the precedent set by anti-tobacco as they seem to be openly admitting, tax increases, advertisement controls and brief interventions will sooner than anyone will have time to realize, lead to alcohol-free bars.?
In a society where indulging in pleasure is being aggressively controlled and legislated, the only ones who benefit from such measures are the underground economy and the pharmaceutical empire. The former will make a fortune selling alcohol? at affordable prices just as we are presently witnessing with the rampant tobacco contraband and the illegal drug market, and the latter will openly market anti-depressants and miracle pills to control your cravings for some pleasure.
Iro Cyr Vice-President C.A.G.E.
(Citizens Against Government Encroachment)
http://www.cagecanada.ca
________________________________________
LEGISLATING PLEASURE
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Those who thought that because they don’t smoke and are not obese or overweight, all is well in the wonderful world of the health nanny society, had better think again because alcohol is insistently being attacked by public health as we can read from the following article published yesterday in the Star. Those who were afflicted with the ‘’why me and not him’’ syndrome, instead of fighting the health nannies for the right reasons, will take comfort in knowing that misery loves company.
Openly admitting to follow the tobacco quasi prohibition tactics, tax increases, advertisement controls, ‘’brief interventions’’, are some of the measures that the health nannies are scheming for the sake of saving the ‘’youth’’ of course.
In a society where legal pleasure is being aggressively controlled and legislated, the only ones who will benefit from such measures are the underground economy and the pharmaceutical empire. The former who will make a fortune selling ‘’pleasure’’ at affordable prices just like we are presently witnessing with the rampant tobacco contraband and the latter who will openly market anti-depressants and miracle pills to control your cravings…for pleasure.
SOBERING REALITY
TheStar.com :New studies confirm cancer is alcohol’s deadly hangover
Just when many people were getting comfortable with the idea that our most popular drug – alcohol – is largely harmless to most, even beneficial to some, there is troubling news.
Alcoholic beverages – increasingly popular and widely promoted as a social lubricant, mealtime complement, relaxant, business facilitator and party favourite – have been identified as a major risk factor for cancer.
While this news recently received media attention, medical and epidemiological researchers have known or suspected this for years. Noteworthy recent developments have provided a strong rationale for our governments to review our harm reduction policies, and for those of us who drink alcohol – that’s 78 per cent of Ontarians – to rethink our personal practices.
The first development was the recent review by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). In February 2007, a group of 26 scientists from 15 countries met in Lyon, France, to reassess the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages by reviewing several thousand underlying studies in humans and animals.
As reported in the medical journal Lancet Oncology in April of this year, the group identified alcohol as a contributing cause of mouth and oropharynx cancer, esophageal cancer, liver cancer, laryngeal cancer, and now, colon, rectal and breast cancer.
But doesn’t this risk apply only to people who consume large quantities of alcohol?
Certainly there is a “dose response relationship,” where larger amounts of consumption lead to higher relative risks for breast cancer and all other cancers caused by alcohol. But surprisingly, the relative risk for breast cancer is significantly increased with regular consumption of even about 18 grams of alcohol per day – slightly more than a standard bottle of beer, shot of spirits or glass of wine. This finding is based on a pooled analysis of 53 studies of more than 58,000 women.
The second development occurred on Oct. 31, 2007, when the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund released its major report on lifestyle and dietary characteristics for several types of cancer. The authors concluded that there is convincing evidence linking consumption of alcohol to elevated cancer risk, and indicated that if people do drink, they should consume no more than one drink per day for women and two for men.
That same day, academic experts and senior representatives of cancer and public health agencies were holding a seminar on alcohol and cancer in Toronto. Discussions included how the role of alcohol as a carcinogen is not well known to the general public, where media-based messages about the benefits of alcohol (often including inaccurate or exaggerated details) tend to dominate.
Is drinking really a health problem here? In recent years both overall consumption and high-risk drinking have increased in Ontario and Canada. These two indicators have both been linked with alcohol-related chronic disease, including cancers; overall, alcohol has been linked with more than 70 chronic conditions and types of trauma. In Canada, alcohol-related health, law enforcement, and workplace impact costs were estimated at almost $15 billion for 2002.
So what do we do about it? Thankfully, we already know what to do – tackle alcohol-related harm, including chronic disease, with the same level of social commitment as we have given to drinking and driving, and tobacco use. We do not need to wait years to develop and evaluate new approaches – there are policies and prevention strategies currently available that can reduce the risk at both the population and personal levels. These include:
Introduce pricing/taxation policies that ensure that the cost of alcohol at least keeps pace with the cost of living.
Ensure that there is no further expansion on the hours and days of sale of alcohol, and no increase in the number of alcohol outlets on a per capita basis (density control).
Have more effective and evidence-based server intervention programs and training of bar and other staff serving alcohol.
Expand services to those who wish to reduce their alcohol consumption by providing “brief interventions” through medical and other health-care facilities.
Modify the mandate of our liquor control agencies to ensure that control once again becomes central to their objectives and operating procedures.
Reduce the volume, scope and range of alcohol marketing and advertising – particularly those promotions that are most attractive to youth and young adults, who are most vulnerable and include many high-risk drinkers.
Comparable approaches have helped reduce the smoking rate in Ontario to an all-time low, especially among young people. It’s time to acknowledge the harms of alcohol, and respond with the same commitment to protecting our health.
________________________________________
New studies confirm cancer is alcohol’s deadly hangover
Nov 12, 2007 04:30 AM
J?rgen Rhem Norman Giesbrecht TheStar.com | comment |
SOBERING REALITY
Just when many people were getting comfortable with the idea that our most popular drug – alcohol – is largely harmless to most, even beneficial to some, there is troubling news.
Dr. J?rgen Rhem and Dr. Norman Giesbrecht are senior scientists in the social, prevention and health policy research department at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
October 28, 2007
David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen
According to three doctors at the KS Hegde Medical Academy in Mangalore, India, writing in the journal Medical Hypotheses, giving up smoking can kill you. Arunachalam Kumar, Kasaragod Mallya, and Jairaj Kumar were “struck by the more than casual relationship between the appearance of lung cancer and an abrupt and recent cessation of the smoking habit in many, if not most, cases.”
In 182 of the 312 cases they had treated, an habitual smoker of at least a pack a day, for at least a quarter-century, had developed lung cancer shortly after he gave up smoking.
They surmised a biological mechanism protects smokers against cancer, which is strengthened by years of determined smoking. When the smoker quits, “a surge and spurt in re-activation of bodily healing and repair mechanisms of chronic smoke-damaged respiratory epithelia is induced and spurred by an abrupt discontinuation of habit,” and “goes awry, triggering uncontrolled cell division and tumour genesis.”
An evolutionary argument could support this hypothesis. Man is the only animal who cooks his food, and thousands of generations of our ancestors, pent up in smoke-filled caves, could easily account for this biological mechanism.
Since the findings of Kumar, Mallya, and Kumar coincide with my own medical hypothesis, based on my own anecdotal evidence, I hasten to embrace them. Several deceased friends and family, starting with my paternal grandfather, perished shortly after they quit smoking — not only from lung cancer, but from other causes ranging from previously undiagnosed heart disease to industrial accident.
The same general principle would apply: that a body long accustomed to a (frankly addictive) substance, goes haywire when the substance is removed. In the good old days, people instinctively understood things like that, without the need for medical research. And it was inconceivable that, for instance, hospitals would prevent patients from smoking, who were already medically challenged on other fronts.
Other medical literature has documented other risks of non-smoking, that include neurotic depression, violent irritability, and obscene weight gain. But these tend to be discounted because they lead to death only indirectly.
Likewise, indirect evidence for the dangers of not smoking comes from the 150th anniversary number of Atlantic magazine. P.J. O’Rourke points to (actual, serious) U.S. historical statistics showing that, in the period 1973-94, annual per capita consumption of cigarettes fell from 4,148 to 2,493. In the same period, the incidence of lung and bronchial cancer rose from 42.5 to 57.1 cases per 100,000 population.
In the past I have flagged UN statistics showing that life expectancy was nicely proportional to tobacco consumption, internationally — so that, for example, Japan and South Korea were respectively first and second in both life expectancy and tobacco consumption. The lowest tobacco consumption was in Third World countries, where we also found some of the shortest life expectancies.
I think we could also find historical statistics showing there is a reliable, worldwide relationship between rising tobacco consumption, and rising life expectancy, nation by nation, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
As Al Gore likes to say, “the science is irrefutable.”
The weakness in that last statement being, that there is no such thing as irrefutable science. There is nothing in the whole history of science that is not tentative. And while, in astronomy, I remain convinced that the Earth revolves around the sun, I would not put all my money even on that proposition, but, given attractively long odds, reserve a penny bet on the sun going round the Earth.
If my reader is planning to give up smoking in the face of what I report, then courage to him, and I will avoid saying, “Go ahead, make my day.” I am not in the pay of the tobacco lobby — on the contrary, I seem to be paying them — and am in principle indifferent to what substances others decide to use or abuse. My dander rises only when they try to interfere with my own freedom, through the childish, petty, and essentially totalitarian public campaigns against harmless smokers — buttressed by scientific claims weaker than the above.
There is one more hypothesis with which I would like to leave my reader. It is that the kind of quack “science” that was used to ban smoking has now mutated into the kind that is used to flog global warming. It should have been resisted then; it should certainly be resisted now.
David Warren writes Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday
Feds butt out aboriginal smoking program
Read More: Canada Scientific buffoonery Page 1
