Scientists studied more than 3,500 civil servants to investigate how levels of HDL or "good" cholesterol were associated with memory. HDL cholesterol can influence the formation of the beta-amyloid "plaques" that are a distinctive feature in the brains of Alzheimer's patients.

Higher levels of HDL are also believed to protect against damage to blood supply caused by the narrowing of the arteries.

After the five-year study period, the researchers found that people with low levels of HDL were 53 percent more likely to suffer memory loss than people with the highest levels of HDL.

Those with impaired memory are at an increased risk of developing dementia later in life.

If you go to www.makingtheconnection.ca you find that it is a Pfizer funded site. Pfizer spent many $millions on these terrorist ads. Pfizer makes Lipitor, a statin cholesterol-lowering drug and the biggest selling drug in the world. In 2005 about $US 12 billion was sold.

These advertisements appeared in many Canadian publications over the last few years. The implication is clear: either measure your cholesterol (and take a pill to lower it if you have "dyslipidemia" ) or you will die. This is a propaganda technique known as "the big lie". Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, "...the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one..." Pfizer has learned well. There is NO evidence that in an otherwise healthy person measuring blood cholesterol and taking a statin to lower blood cholesterol will live any longer than not doing so. Even the Canadian Government in allowing the publication of these ads swallowed the big lie.

All primary prevention trials to date of cholesterol lowering with drugs (LRC-CPPT, WOSCOPS, ASCOT-LLA) have shown NO total mortality benefit.

Many people know that there is a lot of press out there as well as advertising on the everyone's cholesterol levels and where they should be and if it is high, take Lipitor, Crestor, or some other form of a statin drug because if you have high cholesterol, you are going to have a heart attack!  This is not true!

First off, lets start with a biochemistry lesson on what cholesterol is and what it does NATURALLY in the body.  Cholesterol is produced in the liver and is the basis for various hormones including testosterone in men and progesterone in women.  Your body will produce less cholesterol when it is ingested through natural forms such as red meats.  Your body needs cholesterol to preform functions normally in the body.  Common sense tells you, when you don't have enough of a certain thing whether it is a hormone, glucose, nutrient in the body, it will not function correctly.

I had the privilege of working for a more experienced Doctor when I first got out of Graduate School.  This very topic came up and he mentioned to me that when he first started practicing 30 years ago, Cholesterol wasn't even on the radar and Heart Disease was a small problem compared to what it is today.  Numbers he said, were anywhere from 300-400, which compared to today's number as some sources say it should be around 100 to be normal.

Now, what is interesting, when you are lacking cholesterol, you actually start to tax the liver because since this is a vital part of everyone's biochemistry, you need it and your body will replace what it is not getting from your diet.  When you drop your levels so dangerously low in particular LDL's, your body, from a lack of hormones creates new problems, such as Erectile Dysfunction in men and a decreased libido in women.

From a business perspective, think about drug companies and look at how they can profit from the ever plummeting Cholesterol level number.  Every time it drops 10 points, think about the millions of new customers that can be prescribed these drugs.  Also, by pushing this lower number standard, they are creating new customers for ED, and women needing hormone replacement therapy.  A pretty vicious cycle if you ask me.

I am sure you want to ask, "well Cholesterol causes heart attacks and I don't want to risk that!" This is not necessarily true.  There was a study by the name The Framingham study that was a 40 year, 5000+ participants where they had two groups, one eating a high fat diet, and the other low fat diet.  They found the high fat group had little or no cardiovascular disease and normal cholesterol levels, whereas the low fat group increased levels of cardiovascular disease and death as well as higher cholesterol levels. What is a real precursor to Cardiovascular disease and Heart Attacks is an amino acid Homocysteine.  Elevated levels of Homocysteine have been shown to be a more direct relationship to CV disease than cholesterol.

So, cholesterol is not bad for you like everyone thinks.  It is good for you where it won't tax your liver, make you go impotent, or decrease your sex drive.  Cholesterol is only bad for you when it is in excess, but isn't that the truth about anything we put in our bodies?

Those were the days. A March 2008 report by IMS Health predicts no relief from the slow growth. For one thing, Lipid regulators (such as Pfizer’s blockbuster cholesterol fighter, Lipitor), is the largest therapy class in the U.S., but sales are declining. Even more grim, the report says that last year new product launches in the pharma industry were at their lowest level in three decades. - Jessica Shambora

Next: Where the pharma industry is healthy

Your favorite online pill store with low prices, fast approvals & shipping. No prescription needed, no waiting for Doctors. 24/7 toll free support. US licensed pharmacies & physicians. Home based business opportunity available, own a website like this &  succeed to financial freedom.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) also known as Lou Gehrig's disease in the US, Maladie de Charcot in France and Motor Neuron Disease (MND) in the UK is a progressive neuromuscular disease characterised by the progressive degeneration of motor nerve cell in the brain (upper motor neurons) and spinal cord (lower motor). To date there is no cure for ALS. Present day medical management of the disease through the combinatorial use of medications and advancements in state-of-art technological devices for nutrition and breathing, have markedly increased the survival rate of ALS sufferers.

An article in SpokesmanReview states their may be a link between statins and ALS, with suggestions that Lipitor has triggered it in certain cases. The article sites the WHO as pointing out that high numbers have developed Lou Gehrig disease while on statins and advises doctors to discontinue therapy if patients develop ‘serious neuromuscular disease such as ALS like symptoms’. Could Lipitor (still the biggest selling drug) actually cause ALS while the company itself thinks it will aid in the treatment of MS?

The report examines key ALS/ Lou Gehrig markets such as:

• US

• Japan

• Germany

• France

• Italy

• Spain

• UK

Sanofi-Aventis' Rilutek (riluzole) is the only prescription drug currently approved for the treatment of ALS. Rilutek generated global revenue of over $153 million in 2006. Visiongain reveals that, Rilutek’s market value will continue to expand with, global revenues anticipated to exceed, $129 million 2007 in the seven major markets across the globe. What will it be in 2012? This report tells you.

Visiongain’s ALS Market Analysis & Forecasts, delves into Rilutek’s monopoly over the market in recent years, it present market share and trends envisaged in the medium future. This current report presents a three hundred and sixty degree examination of how present changes in Governmental Pharmaceutical Policies will impact on Rilutek as the main treatment for ALS in the seven major markets. Plus we examine how current and new drug treatments can take hold of the market, plus which companies will succeed in each market.

The report provides in-depth market analysis upon these areas, and extensively identifies the challenges faced by new market entrants, and what exciting market opportunities exist in this therapeutic area.

Why You Must Buy This Report?
This report features tables, graphs and charts, news, insights, the past and present developments in ALS research. This report, will provide you with the complete understanding of the market indications for ALS, the institutions heralding ALS research, companies on the outlook to join in decoding, such matters as- directions to meeting primary unmet needs in ALS. When you buy this report, you have also bought, why big players in the biopharmaceutical business are filling their portfolios niche medical devices and diagnostics technologies products through major M&A.

With unmet medical needs this is this market set to grow with an ageing population and by how much? This report will tell you. Brought together in one easy to read, easily digested format, this report will keep you fully informed and up-to-date on the global ALS pharmaceutical market.

Why You Must Buy This Report:
This report features tables, graphs and charts, news, insights, the past and present developments in ALS research. This report, will provide you with the complete understanding of the market indications for ALS, the institutions heralding ALS research, companies on the outlook to join in decoding, such matters as- directions to meeting primary unmet needs in ALS. When you buy this report, you have also bought, why big players in the biopharmaceutical business are filling their portfolios niche medical devices and diagnostics technologies products through major M&A.

Key questions that this report answers are:

• What research over the past 20 years has failed? And why

• What R&D opportunities exist for ‘new comers’?

• Which current or future therapies will drive the ALS market?

• The key companies involved in the market and their analysis?

• What companies are joining in ALS research?

• What treatment besides Rilutek, can improve ALS survival rate?

• Which of the major markets has the highest prevalence?

• What is the present state of the disease awareness?

• Who are market leaders in medical devices M&A activities?

• Which emerging markets are forcing big pharma into M&A deals?

Unique benefits to you when you order this report:

• You can access your report whichever country you are in without using harddrive space

• Primary research throughout. You will not find this information anywhere else

• Report stored in your reading room for ever

• Full searchable report when you buy the company or corporate editions

• Copies can be printed off for offline reading
• Packed with charts, analysis, figures, graphs and tables

For more information kindly visit:  http://www.bharatbook.com/detail.asp?id=76649

In today’s article we’ll discuss how to prevent heart disease without drugs. If you haven’t already read Part 1 of this series, which examined the problems with statin drugs, and Part 2, which debunks the myth that cholesterol causes heart disease, you might want to do that before reading this article.

Last week I mentioned the INTERHEART study, which looked at the relationship between heart disease and lifestyle in 52 countries around the world. What this study revealed is that approximately 90% of heart disease could be prevented by simple changes to diet and lifestyle.

Let’s just make this crystal clear: 9 out of 10 cases of heart disease are completely preventable without drugs. With sales of statin drugs reaching close to $30 billion this year with Lipitor alone bringing in close to $14 billion, this might come as some surprise. But the pharmaceutical companies are, quite literally, invested in people taking their cholesterol-lowering drugs in spite of the complete lack of evidence that lowering cholesterol prevents heart disease.

In order to understand the changes we need to make to prevent heart disease, we have to briefly examine what causes it. By now you know that the answer is not “cholesterol”. In fact, as I mentioned briefly in last week’s article, the two primary contributing mechanisms to heart disease are inflammation and oxidative damage.

Inflammation is the body’s response to noxious substances. Those substances can be foreign, like bacteria, or found within our body, as in autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis. In the case of heart disease, inflammatory reactions within atherosclerotic plaques can induce clot formation.

When the lining of the artery is damaged, white blood cells flock to the site, resulting in inflammation. Inflammation not only further damages the artery walls, leaving them stiffer and more prone to plaque buildup, but it also makes any plaque that’s already there more fragile and more likely to burst.

Oxidative damage is a natural process of energy production and storage in the body. Oxidation produces free radicals, which are molecules missing an electron in their outer shell. Highly unstable and reactive, these molecules “attack” other molecules attempting to “steal” electrons from their outer shells in order to gain stability. Free radicals damage other cells and DNA, creating more free radicals in the process and a chain reaction of oxidative damage.

Normally oxidation is kept in check, but when oxidative stress is high or the body’s level of antioxidants is low, oxidative damage occurs. Oxidative damage is strongly correlated to heart disease. Studies have shown that oxidated LDL cholesterol is 8x greater stronger a risk factor for heart disease than normal LDL.

Since there may be some confusion on this point, I want to make it clear: normal LDL cholesterol is not a risk factor for heart disease in most populations, but oxidated LDL cholesterol is. This points to oxidation as the primary risk factor, not cholesterol. Why? Because when an LDL particle oxidizes, it is the polyunsaturated fat that oxidizes first. The saturated fat and the cholesterol, hidden deep within the core of the lipoprotein, are the least likely to oxidize.

It follows, then, that if we want to prevent heart disease we need to do everything we can to minimize inflammation and oxidative damage.

By focusing on reducing or completely eliminating, when possible, the factors in our life that contribute to oxidative stress and inflammation, we can drastically lower our risk for heart disease. Let’s take a brief look at each risk factor.

Stress

In the INTERHEART study, stress tripled the risk of heart disease. This was true across all countries and cultured that were studies. The primary mechanism by which stress causes heart disease is by dysregulating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. The HPA axis is directly intertwined with the autonomic nervous system, and it governs the “fight-or-flight” response we experience in reaction to a stressor.

Continued activation of this “fight-or-flight” response leads to hyper-arousal of the sympathetic nervous system, which in turn leads to chronically elevated levels of cortisol. And elevated levels of cortisol can cause both inflammation and oxidative damage.

Stress management, then, should be a vital part of any heart disease prevention program. In fact, some researchers today believe that stress may be the single most significant factor in the cause and prevention of heart disease. There are several proven methods of stress reduction, including mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), acupuncture and biofeedback. It doesn’t matter which method you choose. It just matters that you do it, and do it regularly.

Smoking

I assume that you are already well aware of the dangers of smoking, so I won’t spend much time on this one. For the purposes of this discussion, I will point out that smoking as few as 1-4 cigarettes a day has been shown to increase the risk of heart disease by 40%. But smoking 40 cigarettes a day increases that risk by 900%.

So if you smoke and you’re concerned about heart disease - quit.

Nutrition

Over the past century we’ve seen a consistent decline in the consumption of traditional, nutrient-dense foods in favor of highly processed, nutrient-depleted products. The flawed hypothesis that cholesterol causes heart disease has wrongly identified health-promoting foods like meat, organ meats, eggs and dairy products as harmful, and replaced them with toxic, processed alternatives such as chips, white breads, pastries, crackers, cookies, frozen foods, candy and soda.

There are two ways that nutrition contributes to heart disease: too much of the wrong foods, and not enough of the right ones.

The average American gets 57% of his/her calories from highly refined cereal grains and polyunsaturated (PUFA) oils. The #3 source of calories, behind grains and PUFA, is sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. Refined grains, polyunsaturated oils and sugar are all major contributors to both inflammation and oxidative damage.

Not only do refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils and sugar contribute to inflammation and oxidative damage, they are also completely devoid of micronutrients that would protect us from these processes. Meats, fruits and vegetables are all high in antioxidants that prevent oxidative damage, and rich in other micronutrients that play important roles in preventing heart disease.

More than 85% of Americans are not getting the federally recommended five servings of fresh fruit and vegetables each day. The intake of dark leafy green or yellow/orange veggies for the average American is equivalent to 18g - one-half of one small carrot. Iceberg lettuce, tomatoes, french fries, orange juice and bananas constitute 30% of fruit and vegetable intake for most Americans.

Many people know that the “Standard American Diet” is extremely unhealthy. But what most do not know is that the so-called “heart-healthy” diet that has been vigorously promoted for decades actually contributes to heart disease! The “heart-healthy” diet is high in refined carbohydrates and polyunsaturated oils, which, as we have seen, cause inflammation and oxidative damage.

On the other hand, saturated fats (which have been demonized by the medical mainstream) such as butter, coconut oil, lard, tallow and ghee are protected against oxidation and possess many other important health benefits. These fats are the ones we need to be eating to protect ourselves from heart disease.

It is extremely important to buy organic meat, eggs and dairy products that come from animals that have been raised on fresh pasture rather than in commercial, factory feedlots. See this article and this one for more information on why this is so essential.

Finally, it must be pointed out that not all “organic” products are healthy. Most packaged food (including organic cereals, crackers, chips and so-called “nutrition bars”) are full of highly refined carbohydrates, sugar, and vegetable oils. And by now, I don’t need to tell you what that means!

So what would a truly heart healthy diet look like, then? Download my Guidelines for Natural Prevention of Heart Disease to find out.

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is likely a major causative factor in the explosive rise of coronary heart disease in the 20th century. During the vast majority of evolutionary history, humans have had to exert themselves to obtain food and water. Even at the turn of the 20th century in the U.S., a majority of people had jobs that required physical activity (farmers, laborers, etc.) Now the majority of the workforce has sedentary occupations with little to no physical activity at all.

Currently more than 60% of American adults are not regularly active, and 25% of the adult population is completely sedentary. People that are physically inactive have between 1.5x and 2.4x the risk of developing heart disease.

On the other hand, regular exercise reduces both inflammation and oxidative damage. Even relatively low levels of activity are protective - as long as they are consistent. A public review at Harvard University showed that 30-minutes of moderate physical activity on most days of the week decreases deaths from heart disease by 20-30%.

The best strategy for people struggling to find time to exercise is to make it part of their daily life (i.e. riding a bike or walking to work, choosing the stairs over the escalator or elevator, etc.)

When combined, the four strategies listed above will significantly reduce your chances of getting heart disease - without taking a single pill of any kind.

If you already have heart disease, or you are at high risk for heart disease (overweight, high blood pressure, diabetic, etc.), then you may need additional support. See my

Recommended articles

• Natural Prevention of Heart Disease Guidelines
• The Truth About Cholesterol Brochure
• Resources for further learning
• Recommended tests for heart disease
• Recent New York Times article questioning efficacy of cholesterol-lowering drugs

Now the biggest and most interesting question which arises is WHY? Why a company of the stature of Pfizer would want so desperately to buy a company which have no major patented drugs to its name? What is the profit these companies are looking for in buying a company which only make generic /low cost versions of branded drugs?

The answers to the above questions are as interesting! Pfizer has maintained its lead in the pharmaceutical ground on the success of some of its patented drugs like Norvasc, Lipitor e.t.c. The patent rule allowed it to exercise monopoly on some life saving drugs for HIV and blood pressure. But, now Pfizer finds itself in an awkward position as its major patents are going to last till 2011 only like that of Lipitor and no major drugs are present in its pipeline which can maintain its position. Pfizer wants to increase the patent of lipitor by combining it with  Norvasc. But, Ranbaxy seems to be determined in not allowing Pfizer get what it wants. Presently Ranbaxy is contesting legal battle with Pfizer in 17 countries over generic versions of patented drugs. Moreover, Ranbaxy is one of the major players in the Generic drugs market and can run away with all the booty because of its low cost and good quality. For an instance , HIV drug for one patient for one year costs  approximately $10,000 for branded drugs as compared to the $ 100 for generic version from Ranbaxy.

Thus from the above facts, we can easily deduce the actual motive behind the rumoured hostile bid by Pfizer for Ranbaxy. The obvious reasons seems to be that Pfizer wants to kill the competition and hostility from Ranbaxy by buying it. The other reason can be that it wants to enter the generic market by utilising the Ranbaxy's low cost model. This is very much a possibility as other branded drug manufacturer like Nvartis have already entered the generic drug market, and Ranbaxy can help Pfizer establish a  solid base for building a larger generic drug business.

So, now it will be very much interesting to see in which direction the ball will roll. One one hand the deal would mark a giant leap for the Japanese Sankyo to 12th position in pharmaceuticalfield with presence in over 56 countries, on the other It will mark the entry of a Branded major into Generic drug business. Whatever be the case, lets all hope that the generic drug business is not affected as this serves as a lifeline for many poor countries which can not afford the costly drugs made by companies like Pfizer.

Mercola.com posted a very informative article on this recently.  In it they cite a Business Week study done on Lipitor specifically attempting to decipher what an NNT of 250 means for that drug.  Referring to an ad by Lipitor's manufacturer, Pfizer, the article said:

Upon first glance, the ad boasts that Lipitor reduces heart attacks by 36 percent. But there is an asterisk. And when you follow the asterisk, you find the following in much smaller type:

"That means in a large clinical study, 3% of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2% of patients taking Lipitor."

What this means is that for every 100 people who took the drug over 3.3 years, three people on placebos, and two people on Lipitor, had heart attacks. That means that taking Lipitor resulted in just one fewer heart attack per 100 people.
 

So, just to be clear, Pfizer is saying that if you give 100 people at risk of heart attack a sugar pill for more than 3 years, 3 of them would have a heart attack.  Give 100 others at risk of heart attack Lipitor for the same time period and 2 of them would have a heart attack.  So 99 of 100 have spent a lot of money and risked a lot of unpleasant side effects - for nothing!  That's not just a dirty secret; that's a dirty rotten shame.

This is one more reason why I strive to find solutions that avoid the use of drugs and are more effective.

I welcome your comments!

If your Doctor has prescribed any type of 'Statins' for controlling your high cholesterol, please research in detail the side effects associated with taking these drugs, as you might discover that the cure is far worse than the 'problem'.

Below is a comprehensive list of the 'side effects' I personally 'used to' put up with, but no more. Some side effects continue to linger, but improvement and return to better health is now a very real possibility.

* Dizziness * Brain Fade * Confused Vision * Headaches (Daily) * Blood from nose (often) * Altered Metabolism (weight gain) * Heartburn/Indigestion (Daily) * Muscle Pain in Upper legs (while stationary, including whilst sleeping).

The muscle pain in my legs, became so unbearable that I could only be 'standing' for a few minutes at a time, and sleep was constantly interrupted because I needed to change position to 'defuse' the pain.

Please check out the following links for some great 'authoritive' advice, and please give your 'statin' medication the flick.

http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html

http://www.statinalert.org/mainpage.html

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/TakingLipitorAndHateIt/

Dus dacht ik van: dan bestelt ge dat toch gewoon via internet? Niet zo simpel, een aantal websites bieden wel Lipitor (stofnaam: atorvastatine, producent: Pfizer) aan maar willen niet leveren naar België. In mijn zoektocht kwam er ook achter dat Lipitor eigenlijk beduidend duurder is dan een andere cholesterolverlager Zocor (stofnaam: simvastatine, producent: MSD). Het patent op Lipitor vervalt in 2010 terwijl dit van Zocor al vervallen is. 84 tabletten van 20 mg Lipitor kosten 116,34 euro terwijl het zelfde aantal Zocor tabletten slechts 17,26 euro kost (Simvastatine EG van Eurogenerics). Daarenboven zou simvastatine even effeciënt de cholesterol verlagen volgens een aantal wetenschappelijke studies.

Interessante lectuur: De cholesteroloorlog: Waarom geneesmiddelen zo duur zijn (Dirk van Duppen)

Prijzen geneesmiddelen kan je raadplegen op de site van het Belgisch centrum voor Farmacotherapeutische informatie

The older class of drugs -- statins -- block LDL absorption through a liver-mechanism. Vytorin lowers LDL by blocking absorption of it in the gut. It may -- emphasis MAY -- well be that there is a third, unseen effect underway here, one that only occurs when the LDL is lowered via a liver mechanism (statins), and not via a gut mechanism (Vytorin). That, it seems, is the central, if unfortunate, object lesson of the ENHANCE study outcome.

[In passing, here is the statement of Rep. Dingell, from this very morning.]

Too much about too little, I know -- so, here is Rep. Stupak's:

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BART STUPAK

[At Least One Effect of DTC Advertising?]

The older class of drugs -- statins -- block LDL absorption through a liver-mechanism. Vytorin lowers LDL by blocking absorption of it in the gut. It may -- emphasis MAY -- well be that there is a third, unseen effect underway here, one that only occurs when the LDL is lowered via a liver mechanism (statins), and not via a gut mechanism (Vytorin). That, it seems, is the central, if unfortunate, object lesson of the ENHANCE study outcome.

[In passing, here is the statement of Rep. Dingell, from this very morning.]

Too much about too little, I know -- so, here is Rep. Stupak's:

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BART STUPAK

[At Least One Effect of DTC Advertising?]

The older class of drugs -- statins -- block LDL absorption through a liver-mechanism. Vytorin lowers LDL by blocking absorption of it in the gut. It may -- emphasis MAY -- well be that there is a third, unseen effect underway here, one that only occurs when the LDL is lowered via a liver mechanism (statins), and not via a gut mechanism (Vytorin). That, it seems, is the central, if unfortunate, object lesson of the ENHANCE study outcome.

[In passing, here is the statement of Rep. Dingell, from this very morning.]

Too much about too little, I know -- so, here is Rep. Stupak's:

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BART STUPAK

[At Least One Effect of DTC Advertising?]

The older class of drugs -- statins -- block LDL absorption through a liver-mechanism. Vytorin lowers LDL by blocking absorption of it in the gut. It may -- emphasis MAY -- well be that there is a third, unseen effect underway here, one that only occurs when the LDL is lowered via a liver mechanism (statins), and not via a gut mechanism (Vytorin). That, it seems, is the central, if unfortunate, object lesson of the ENHANCE study outcome.

[In passing, here is the statement of Rep. Dingell, from this very morning.]

Too much about too little, I know -- so, here is Rep. Stupak's:

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BART STUPAK

[At Least One Effect of DTC Advertising?]

Author Charles Barber discusses Americans' unrealistic notions about happiness. We've medicalized a lot of life issues that aren't mental illnesses

While we've now become accustomed to the barrage of prescription drug commercials on prime-time TV, it's jarring to learn that this advertising is legal only in the United States and New Zealand. The pharmaceutical industry doesn't just target Americans directly, but also spends roughly $25,000 per physician per year. With the aid of information from data mining companies, a pharmaceutical representative knows exactly how many prescriptions for what medication a doctor has written, allowing the industry to individually target them.

How Americans came to this fraught relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and its drugs -- particularly antidepressants -- is the subject of Charles Barber's new book, Comfortably Numb. A veteran of mental health programs in homeless shelters and a lecturer in psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine, Barber trains his eye to the confluence of science and culture that have led to the widespread prescribing of medications once reserved for the most serious cases.

While the field of neuroscience continues to churn out new data about the way our brains work, Barber is quick to remind us how much more is yet to be understood. Barber recently spoke with AlterNet about how less sexy treatments like social interventions and therapies can be just as effective in changing the brain.

Onnesha Roychoudhuri: What led you to write the book?

Charles Barber: When I started in the mental health field in the late '80s there wasn't really a name for what I did. If I talked to professional, educated people, they didn't understand psychiatric diagnoses or medications. Then, 10 years later, people were very up on diagnoses, they were sympathetic to what I was doing, and there was now a name for the field: mental health. Many of them were taking the same medications that my clients were. There was a series of events over the late '80s and early '90s that set all that up. The main thing being Prozac and its cousins Paxil and Zoloft, which became totally mainstream; the TV advertising of drugs in the mid-'90s, well-known figures going public with their clinical depression, and a lot of subsequent pop culture stuff: The Sopranos and A Beautiful Mind, for example. All of this brought psychiatry, particularly medications, into the fore.

OR: Can you talk about your involvement in the mental health field and what it has enabled you to observe?

CB: I fell into the field for a lot of different reasons. I worked in psychiatric homeless shelter programs for about 10 years in New York -- Bellevue being the most well-known. So I was working with the really seriously mentally ill, many of whom had been in and out of prisons and state psychiatric facilities and homeless shelters. What I found was that psychiatry, at least for certain diagnoses, has confused the really serious forms of the illness with the far lesser forms. The best example is depression. Many of the folks that I worked with suffered from severe depression. I make the distinction in the book between big "D" depression and small "d" depression. In its severe forms, it's an absolutely brutal, horrific and malevolent illness where people are at dire risk of hurting themselves.

It's jarring to go to a cocktail party and hear people talking about being bummed out or hear that they're going through a divorce, and their family doctor put them on an antidepressant. There has been a confusion and conflation of this diagnosis that confuses serious disorders with far lesser conditions or, in many cases, life problems. We've medicalized a lot of life issues that are not mental illnesses.

OR: Just to be clear, this book is not about medication as a "bad" thing.

CB: Absolutely not. I think I make clear in the book that for serious disorders, I've seen the medications work really, really well. However, there are often side effects that the field has overlooked and is becoming more aware of these days. And these medications still don't work a good percentage of the time for people with serious disorders. My critique is that the further you get away from serious or moderate disorders, where you're treating nondisorders or marginal disorders with medication, the risk/reward calculus of the medications becomes more iffy -- particularly antidepressants.

When the SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressants like Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil first came out, they were considered pretty much side-effect-free, largely because the previous generation of antidepressants had a lot of side effects. But in the past few years, people have become more aware that they have more side effects. These effects are seen most when people are getting on and off the drugs.

OR: You write that, in 2002, more than 11 percent of American women and five percent of American men were taking antidepressants. I was struck by the high percentages, but also the fact that more than 1 in 10 women are on these medications.

CB: Depression does affect women more than men, and the marketing has capitalized on that. So women's magazines are a place where you see a lot of ads for antidepressants and sleep aids. The U.S. accounts for two-thirds of the market for antidepressants. I don't think anybody knows the exact utilization figures, but the finances are largely driven by the U.S. It's a very American phenomenon in that most of the drugs were developed here. Also an American thing is the television advertising of drugs, which is illegal everywhere in the world except for New Zealand and the U.S.

OR: Throughout the book, you connect what's going on culturally with what's going on scientifically. You write, for instance, that SUVs and SSRIs have similar stories.

CB: That was referencing a point that Malcolm Gladwell made in an article in the New Yorker on SUVs and how many American products have been guilty of what he calls "over-performance." In other words, what they're maximally capable of doing is much more than we really need on a day-to-day basis. SUVs can drive you up the Himalayas, but really we just need them to go to the grocery store. The same can be said of the antidepressants. They can be wonderful for people that really need them, but they've been indiscriminately given out to people and the utility is arguable. It's this very American thing of focusing on the technology and sexy high-tech solutions, and not really looking at what is really needed.

OR: You say that the drugs came along at a culturally ripe moment, at a time when we had socially and politically moved away from collectively approaching problems.

CB: The arrival of Prozac in 1988 was a perfect storm, culturally and just in terms of the drug itself. In the '70s Valium paved the way for Prozac. It was the first psychiatric drug for anxiety that became mainstream. The earlier generation of antidepressants had a lot of side effects and could be fatal in overdose, and Prozac seemed very clean by contrast. It was the first drug that you didn't have to be crazy to take. You could be a judge or a journalist and take Valium and obviously millions of people did. It entered the culture, from the Rolling Stones' "Mother's Little Helper," Valley of the Dolls to celebrities talking about their Valium use.

Culturally, the '80s were the time when we gave up on collective enterprises of doing things. The country had experienced multiple recessions, and there was a sense that a college education really didn't get you a good job anymore. With the Reagan revolution, it was time to straighten up and "pull up your bootstraps" and do things as individuals. I think that transferred into how we took our drugs. There's not such a huge difference between illicit and licit drugs. In the early part of the '60s, when there was a spiritual aspect to the drug taking, people took drugs together. One of the hallmarks of the Prozac revolution is that people take them individually, and even the treatment is individualized. It used to be that if you were taking a psychiatric drug, you were probably working with a therapist, and now the large majority of people taking psychiatric drugs are in no ongoing dialogue with a caregiver.

OR: As a contrast to the American cultural relationship to antidepressants, you talk about the sale of SSRIs in Japan.

CB: There wasn't really a term for depression in Japan. The drug companies invented one [kokoro no kaze, or "one's soul catching cold"]. There weren't any sales of antidepressants in Japan until the late 1990s, because they didn't really think that depression was that much of a problem. I'm sure people were depressed in Japan, and part of it was probably underreported, but in any case, there was a different attitude. A cultural minister in Japan said they didn't really think of depression, in its milder forms, as anything bad. Rather, they saw it as a sign of awareness and artistic sensitivity.

The drug companies put on a brilliant advertising campaign and, sure enough, the sales of antidepressants went up five-fold in a very short time. But our American sensibility is to be uncomfortable with unhappy feelings and root them out as quickly as possible. I want to be very clear not to romanticize suffering, but there can be a utility to some difficult emotions.

The American notion of happiness is a very recent phenomenon in human history. You could argue that only since WWII and really since the '60s and '70s has happiness been the goal. Ironically, I think if you set happiness to be your primary goal, it tends not to work out very well. The late Canadian novelist Robertson Davies said that happiness is a byproduct, and that you become happy when you're engaged in productive activity or when you're in a relationship with someone you love. So this idea that we have to be happy is a highly American thing and highly problematic concept.

OR: The British health [service] recommendations reveal a pretty different relationship to depression.

CB: The clinical guidelines to the National Health Service for mild depression recommend watchful waiting, diet and exercise, self-help and counseling, cognitive behavioral therapy, and then if all those things don't work, to try antidepressants. Our de facto practice in the United States is pretty much the opposite. I think a critical development that coincides with the Prozac entry into the culture is that family doctors now prescribe most antidepressants. It used to be that psychiatric drugs were primarily prescribed by psychiatrists. Family doctors just realistically aren't going to know cognitive behavioral therapists to refer people to. Or they don't know the research on diet and exercise on even severe depression. So, managed care is yet another factor in the move towards the quick and expedient approach, which is hastily writing antidepressant prescriptions rather than plumbing the larger issues.

OR: And you say that only 20 percent of those prescribed a medication then have a follow up.

CB: The reality is that in most cases a family doctor is writing the prescription, and maybe you'll see them six months or a year later. In most cases, no one is really following the treatment. There are people who have difficulties going on and off the medication, and it seems to me irresponsible that there's no regular monitoring. I would argue that psychiatrists should really be the people prescribing and monitoring, as well as therapists who will be talking to a patient about how the drugs are going and then can relay that to a doctor.

OR: In the analysis of the FDA under the Bush administration, you quote a scientist who says, "There is a remarkable amount of pressure placed on reviewers to find creative ways to approve problematic drugs." This was an eerie echo of the drive to find intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Also disconcerting was the information on the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). Can you explain its impact?

CB: This dates to the early '90s. Before then, the money for drug evaluation was public money. Now, about 50 percent of the money to evaluate drugs is paid for by the drug companies. In the latest iteration of PDUFA, it even called for some of the drug company money to pay for the rent at a new FDA facility in Silver Spring. The fact that the drug companies are paying the bills can affect one's judgment. I would call for two reforms: One would be getting the drug ads off television and fully public financing of FDA drug evaluation.

OR: How successful are those TV ads in increasing demand?

CB: I think they've been extraordinarily effective. The evidence shows that they influence patient habits and prescribing habits. They also focus on the top 20 or so blockbuster drugs -- a billion or more in sales. We all know the names of these: Nexium, Prozac, Zoloft, Lipitor. They have become household names and at times household staples. The fact that they're advertised next to toothpaste and Chevrolet makes them seem like they're toothpaste and Chevrolet. But drugs are powerful agents.

While illicit drug use has declined among younger people in the last 10 to 15 years, the abuse of prescription drugs has soared. Part of that is their omnipresence, and part of it is the perception of kids who grow up on these ads that make the drugs seem like toothpaste.

At a more technical level, there are studies showing that when doctors are asked for antidepressants, they're more likely to prescribe them even if the patient isn't genuinely depressed. The patient request makes a huge difference. The advertising of drugs is unpopular among many doctors, because they feel like patients have really incomplete and naive information about the drugs and yet put pressure on them to prescribe it.

OR: You also talk about how there is so much money going into these drugs that there is a pressure to come up with as many uses for the drug as possible. You cite the irony of Zoloft's slogan "No. 1 for millions of reasons."

CB: Drug companies can't advertise for diagnoses that aren't FDA prescribed, but there has been a huge expansion of diagnosis. The first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) came out in the 1950s, and it had 50 or 60 diagnoses; the latest one has over 300. There is also off-label prescribing, which means prescribing by an individual doctor for use that's not FDA approved. That has also gone up a lot.

OR: You also write that it seems as though diagnoses follow the pills available to treat them.

CB: Over the course of the '90s, SSRIs were allowed to be prescribed for a number of conditions. I think at a cultural level, when Valium was king in the '60s and '70s, if people talked about a kind of societal disorder, it was anxiety. It was the "age of anxiety." Then, when Prozac was king in the 1990s, if people talked about a broad issue, it was depression. And so our perception of what bothers us follows the drugs that are most in currency at that time.

OR: You mention the dramatic increase of diagnoses in the DSM. Can you give some examples of what diagnoses are now included?

CB: For example, adjustment disorder is a diagnostic category in the DSM, and essentially it's having a difficult time dealing with a major life change. There are categories such as "phase of life problem" and "sibling relational problem." These might be very painful issues, but are they mental illnesses? A hundred years ago psychiatry included a lot of treatments that were brutal, but it concentrated on serious disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression. Psychiatry has been sufficiently diluted by the expansion of diagnosis and the way that it has entered the culture, that we've created people with far lesser conditions and arguably no conditions whatsoever.

The great irony is that there hasn't been much traction in people with severe mental illness -- the kind of people that I've worked with. The rates of their retention and treatment haven't really improved much in the last 20 years. You could argue that your chances of being in treatment go up as the severity of your condition goes down. I think there should be an emphasis, in any branch of medicine, on the most ill people first. In psychiatry, it has sort of been the opposite of that.

OR: In addition to the $22 billion that the pharmaceutical industry spends a year to market directly to doctors, I was shocked to read about the role that data mining plays in targeting doctors with marketing.

CB: The level of access struck me as remarkable. Data mining companies track individual doctors and what they're prescribing, and then sell this information to pharmaceutical companies. They can then target doctors. Nobody knows about this, least of all the patient.

OR: We all know about the massive scope of the pharmaceutical industry and yet, despite all this money, you talk about how there haven't been many new drugs. Rather, we're seeing a lot of what you call "me-too" drugs that are slight variants of the same old thing. It echoes the publishing industry in terms of larger companies not wanting to take chances on anything new when they have a formula for what makes a lot of money.

CB: They call it the "pipeline problem." There haven't been many breakthrough drugs in psychiatry. The breakthrough drug happened in the 1950s with Thorazine, and most of the anti-psychotics have been variations one way or the other on that original. It's so expensive to develop a drug that it's much easier and economically reasonable to just play with existing paradigms. The creativity of new drugs has come from small biotech firms and universities. The big industry has been stuck in these existing paradigms for the most part.

I think the other part of it is moving away from really severe conditions that only affect a very small portion of people. It's more profitable to hit a larger market base with people with lesser conditions or lifestyle issues. So, some of the big drugs of recent years arguably are not really about serious disorders, they're about lifestyle issues: Viagra, Cialis, Lipitor, and antidepressants. You're going to hit 10 percent of the population as opposed to the 2 percent that have serious depression.

OR: Throughout the book, you talk about the irony that, in the neuro-science age, psychotherapy can now be viewed as a biological treatment along with pharmaceuticals.

CB: There are a lot of very simple, straightforward approaches to depression and anxiety that can be very effective either alongside of or apart from medications, but they're not marketed like the medications, and they don't sell.

In a study done in 1993 at UCLA, antidepressants were given to people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Half of the patients they gave the antidepressants to and the other half they gave cognitive therapy, which is also a proven treatment for OCD. Then they did brain scans, and they found that, in the part of the brain that is associated with OCD, the activity levels had been reduced in very similar ways. There have now been many studies using the brain technology showing that psychosocial interventions and psychotherapy are capable of changing the brain in similar and different ways as the drugs. In other words, to dismiss psychotherapy as unscientific and having no durable or easily assessable impact is no longer the case. That's not really understood by the public and even in the field there's still this notion of "hard science" and then the rest of the people who do this mushy headed stuff that isn't consequential.

OR: You write extensively on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Can you give a quick explanation of what it entails?

CB: It's usually 12 to 15 highly focused, goal-oriented sessions, in which the patient collaborates with the therapist to look at the thoughts, beliefs and attitudes behind their anxiety or depression. It has also been proven to be effective for a range of conditions like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), insomnia and OCD. It allows the patient to analyze what the core beliefs are behind their issues and to look at ways of replacing them or examining them in a more accurate way. The founder of cognitive therapy found that there were a great deal of cognitive distortions or thinking errors associated with his depressed patients. They particularly had a very negative view of themselves, the future, and the world, but a lot of it based on erroneous perceptions: thinking that if something bad happened, it was always related to them. When it's successful, cognitive therapy allows the patient to clear up some of those thinking errors, and that can have a direct effect on mood. It has since been generalized to many conditions and is the most empirically validated form of psychotherapy in the world.

OR: I think these notions of a "cure" are in part propagated by oversimplified science journalism. In the book, you write that "in just one edition of the Times, four articles appeared, each of which offered genetic and neurological explanations for behavior that a decade or two ago likely would have been analyzed in social or cultural terms. What's the risk in couching these behaviors in genetic and neurological terms?

CB: In the '90s, these terms and concepts started showing up like "hard-wired" for some behavior. Mental illnesses were thought of as the product of chemical imbalances, or that you're genetically programmed a certain way. Those concepts have completely entered the culture, and you can't pick up a publication without some latest genetic explanation of, for instance, schizophrenia. Writing about the science and talking to scientists, you learn that it's more complicated that that. Genetic transmission can be heavily influenced by the environment itself, and so these cartoonish versions of what directs our behavior are facile. The best scientists are not prone to making these sweeping and simplistic judgments.

Eric Kandel, probably the most eminent psychiatrist in this country, writes a lot about the social influence on genes. This can be very dangerous to think of in such simple terms. In psychiatry in particular, it sets up this division of a house divided against itself: genes versus environment, psychotherapy versus drugs, or nature versus nurture. The sophisticated thinkers understand that these things work together in an infinite dance.

The pendulum is always swinging, and in the last 20 years or so it has been genetic focused. The leading genetic researcher on depression talks about depression being 50 percent genetic; that means it's 50 percent environmental. But the way the studies are reported, it's all hard wired and chemical imbalance-related. These things are just cartoons of the science. There is no clear chemical imbalance for any mental illness. There is no one to one relationship between any neurotransmitter.

OR: The research you cite in the book points to the fact that the brain has an incredible capacity to create new neural connections. At the same time, I recall that one study showed that the placebo effect has increased 7 percent each decade. This seems like a fascinating example of the power of faith in medicine.

CB: And also just the perception of psychiatric drugs having more and more entered the consciousness. Prozac is portrayed as a wonder drug, so people taking it think, wow, it has got to be doing something. It absolutely speaks to the cultural ways in which we regard science. These are incredibly influenced by the social dialogue. In the mid-'90s, the term "chemical imbalance" became en vogue. I was running facilities for people with severe mental illness, and a client would say to me, "I can't go to my treatment program today, because I've got a chemical imbalance." There's a social context to all of this that is not written about much.

...no one had called it in.

The pharmacist tried to call The Heart Center.

THE ANSWERING MACHINE WAS ON.

This bothers me in millions of ways.

I do realise that the medication in question was not something that, if I didn’t have it right now, I would kick the bucket in 24 hours. That makes no difference. It is very important that I have it, however, and thus important that when they say they will call in the script, they do it.

A little background: The Heart Center told me last Friday that I needed to up my dosage of Lipitor. We’re not talking about a small increase. We’re talking about going from 20 mg a day to 80. I was advised to take all that I had left of the 20 mg, divide it up into the 80 mg dosages for the weekend, and call them on Monday - we would get a new script.

Done. I did my part. I took every bit of Lipitor I had...enough to cover Friday night, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday morning. It is now Tuesday afternoon, and I am scrambling like a madwoman to find substitutes.

I’ve upped my niacinamide to 1,000 mg.
I’m eating an extra bowl of oatmeal.
I took an extra pre-natal vitamin, because it upped the B complex.

Diana is going to shoot me for overreacting, probably, but when someone says "you MUST do this", and I do, and then they fall on their face on the concrete....what am I supposed to do?

We will try again tomorrow.

Remember, I am Pioneer Woman who can only go into town to the store so often.

In the meantime, I have now had two ocular migraines with a headache on the backside of each of them.  This is different from before.  I’ve never had more than an ocular migrane maybe every two or three days, nor have any of them ever spawned a headache of any kind.  There’s nothing like being blind for half an hour during one of these, followed by a blinding headache.  I might as well give my eyes to science, now.  They do me no good at times like this.

I know it's 3 in the afternoon, but I need to go to bed. I am worn out completely, not to mention medically unhappy.

Fast Track results: The stock failed 3 categories. Pfizer is a classic contrarian idea, and is worth a closer look.

Key Points:

1. Pfizer has a fortress balance sheet. The company is cash rich with $25.5 billion of cash and short-term investments on the balance sheet at year-end 2007. Long-term debt as a percentage of total capital is a low 10.1%.
2. Pfizer generated operating cash flow of $13.4 billion in 2007 and, after capital expenditures, free cash flow of $11.5 billion. Management is forecasting operating cash flow to rise to $17-$18 billion this year.
3. The Street on balance is not interested in the stock, with 13 hold and 2 underperform ratings out of a total of 23 analysts.
4. The stock offers a hefty 6% yield. As an expression of confidence in the future of the business, management raised the dividend 10% in this year’s first quarter.

The Company Stock Risk Profile Fast Track is a research tool for quickly and easily screening stocks for potential ideas. Fast Track is comprised of 10 key categories incorporating fundamentals, valuation and how management and the Street feel about the stock. I like to see a stock fail no more than 3 categories before putting the stock through the complete 50-category Company Stock Risk Profile research process. Most important, whatever screening tool you choose to use, always thoroughly research the stocks that pass your screen before buying.

Xenical is used in addition to a mildly reduced-calorie diet for obesity management including weight loss and weight maintenance. It works by preventing fat from being absorbed from food.

Xenical (Orlistat Capsules) is a gastrointestinal lipase inhibitor used in the management of obesity in adult and adolescent patients age 12 and older. Xenical Orlistat Capsules) may be used during the weight loss phase or following weight loss to assist in weight management. Xenical (Orlistat Capsules) works by inhibiting the digestion of fats from the diet and should be used with a reduced-calorie diet. Buy Xenical (Orlistat Capsules) from Canada for the lowest prices guaranteed. Do not take your medicine more often than directed

You should use Xenical (Orlistat Capsules) with a reduced-calorie diet that contains no more than about 30% of the calories from fat. Divide your daily intake of fat, carbohydrates, and protein evenly over your 3 main meals. You should try to follow a healthy eating plan as prescribed by your doctor such as the one developed by the American Heart Association. Following this eating plan can help reduce the possible GI side effects from Xenical (Orlistat Capsules).

Buy Flomax

Flomax BPH is a medication that is prescribed to treat enlarged prostate in men. It is important to note that having an enlarged prostate does not necessarily mean you have cancer. Buy Flomax is not a cancer treatment, flomax is a treatment for enlarged prostate. A man can have an enlarged prostate AND cancer of the prostate at the same time, which is why it is so important to see your doctor for regular checkups. Flomax Side effects when taking Flomax were rare, and rarely resulted in discontinuation of Flomax.

Extremely rarely, Buy Flomax Capsules have caused prolonged, painful erection of the penis, which is unrelieved by sexual intercourse or masturbation. This condition, if untreated, can lead to permanent inability to have an erection.

Many people misspell Flomax as Flowmax from Canada. Please note that the correct spelling for Flowmax is Flomax in Canada. You can get Flomax cheap from Canada instead of buying Flomax medicine from the US. Please remember that Flomax 0.4mg capsules should not be used by woman.

Tell your doctor if you get allergic to Flomax.

Buy Lamisil

Lamisil is an antifungal that is used for the treatment of certain types of fungal infections of the skin and nails. A nail fungus infection often won't go away on its own. Left untreated, it can spread to other nails. The good news is your primary care physician, podiatrist, dermatologist or healthcare professional can help you find an effective treatment.

Buy Lipitor

"Lipitor is FDA approved to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients with several risk factors for heart disease." - Dr. Robert Jarvik

Lipitor (atorvastatin calcium) is a drug for lowering cholesterol. For people with high cholesterol, Lipitor tablets (atorvastatin calcium), along with diet and exercise, can reduce LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels significantly.
Buy Lipitor tablets can be ordered with or without a prescription for Lipitor.

Buy NuvaRing

NuvaRing does not protect against HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases. The use of combination oral contraceptives is associated with increased risks of several serious side effects, including thromboembolic diseases. Some studies suggest that this risk is slightly increased by combination oral contraceptives containing desogestrel; additional studies do not support this finding. It is unknown whether NuvaRing has a different risk of VTE than second generation oral contraceptives. Cigarette smoking increases the risk of serious cardiovascular side effects; women who use combination hormonal contraceptives are strongly advised not to smoke.

For More Information: http://www.rxhealthsuperstore.com