|
 |
|
 |
Dear Friends and Patients,
If you or anyone in your family uses antibacterial soap – you are
going to want to read this news flash right now.
Here is why…
Back in 2005, Environmental Science and Technology published the
results of a study done by researcher Peter Vikesland and colleagues
at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
What was so special about this research?
Well, for starters, it caused a mini-panic because the study showed
in the laboratory, pure triclosan reacts with free chlorine to
produce chloroform. |
|
Huh?
Here’s the translation: Triclosan is a chemical invented by Ciba
Specialty Chemicals 35 years ago. And it is used as an antibacterial
agent in many hand soaps. It is also being used in other things such
as socks and toothpaste. All in an attempt to kill nasty bacteria.
When triclosan comes in contact will chlorine – it produces
chloroform. What’s the big deal? Well, chlorine is found in tap
water and Chloroform is a probable carcinogen. That’s the big deal
that caused the mini-panic. Companies in London started to take
products with triclosan off its shelves. And stores in China were
removing toothpaste that contained the chemical.
Now Vikesland and his colleagues have completed another study that
shows triclosan reacts with chlorinated water to produce Chloroform.
Yes – the possible carcinogen.
An interesting thing is that the level of chloroform produced
depends on your water supply, which is different from state to
state.
Chemical companies say their products are still safe. And Vikesland
does not advocate people stop using antibacterial products and “a
full risk–benefit analysis of these products should be conducted.”
Once again… huh?
|
Well, we are not going to tell you to stop
using those products either. That’s a decision you should make
on your own.
Anyway, while we are on the subject of bacteria and the apparent
need to kill it… you should think about this…
You don’t need to use antibacterial soap to stay healthy!
First of all, washing your hands with regular soap and water
does just as good a job, without any “possible” side effects.
And second… you can take steps to enhance your immune system so
it fights off bacteria and germs naturally. For example, eating
proper foods, getting adequate rest, decreasing stress and
keeping your body functioning properly with regular exercise and
Chiropractic treatments can help your body function at or near
optimal levels. When this occurs… most germs simply don’t stand
a chance. Your immune system is too strong.
That really is the key. Wash your hands with soap and water. Eat
a natural well balanced diet with minimal processed foods. Get
enough sleep. Keep stress levels as low as possible. And keep
your body functioning properly with regular exercise and
Chiropractic care.
Call me crazy – but that sounds much better than antibacterial
soap… doesn’t it?
Sincerely,
Dr. James Hook, D.C.
|
 |
|
|
 |
Your town – Hope you got your seatbelt on…
because you’re in for an amazing… and quite shocking ride in
this month’s newsletter.
Why?
Because on February 16, 2007, Reuters reported a media exhibit
featuring a campaign for a fake drug to treat a
fictitious illness is causing a commotion because some
people think the illness is real.
Here’s what this is all about: Australian artist Justine Cooper
created the marketing campaign for a non-existent drug called
Havidol for Dysphoric Social Attention Consumption Deficit
Anxiety Disorder (DSACDAD), which she also invented. Heck of a
name… don’t you think? |
|
But the multi-media exhibit at the Daneyal
Mahmood Gallery in New York is so convincing people think it is
real. The gallery includes a website, mock television and print
advertisements and billboards.
"People have walked into the gallery and thought it was
real," Mahmood said in an interview. “They didn't get the
fact that this was a parody or satire."
Sham Illness Exploded On The Internet
But Mahmood said it really took off over the Internet. In the
first few days after the Web site (www.havidol.com) went up, it
had 5,000 hits. The last time he checked it had reached a
quarter of a million.
"The thing that amazes me is that it has been folded into real
websites for panic and anxiety disorder. It's been folded into a
website for depression. It's been folded into hundreds of art
blogs," he added.
The intention was to poke fun at the questionable tactics drug
companies use to peddle their treatments to the public.
If you’ve watched any television lately, you know there is no
shortage of prescription drug ads. Consumer advertising for
prescription medications was legalized in the United States in
1997.
Cooper said she intended the exhibit to be subtle. "The drug
ads themselves are sometimes so comedic. I couldn't be
outrageously spoofy so I really wanted it to be a more subtle
kind of parody that draws you in, makes you want this thing, and
then makes you wonder why you want it and maybe where you can
get it," she added.
Identify With A Fake Condition?
Mahmood said that in addition to generating interest among the
artsy crowd, doctors and medical students have been asking about
the exhibit. "I think people identify with the condition,"
he said.
They identify with a fake condition? Really? Or was it something
much more powerful at play…
Like what?
Here’s a very good possibility as to the reason why:
According to a January 29, 2007 article in HealthDay News,
there’s not enough information and too much emotion in drug
company ads.
New research claims that televised ads for prescription drugs
are riddled with emotional appeals and lack helpful information
on the disease itself.
"The ads really use emotion instead of information to promote
drugs," said the study's lead author, Dominick Frosch, an
Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of California,
Los Angeles. "The question we have to ask ourselves is:
(Should buying) prescription drugs be the same as buying soap?"
What’s shocking is: Pharmaceutical companies spent an estimated
$1.9 billion on TV advertising in 2005. Frosch and his team
studied a sample of 38 ads for prescription drugs that were on
television in June and July of 2004. From this they were able to
determine the common strategies.
Using a statistical analysis based on the frequency an ad was
aired, the researchers report that 82 percent of the ads made
"factual claims," but much less provided further information
about illnesses such as causes (26 percent), risk factors (26
percent) or prevalence (25 percent).
And what may be the most important part of all this: 98 percent
of ads made "emotional appeals," and 78 percent implied that use
of the medication would result in social approval. Fifty-eight
percent of the time, products were depicted as medical
breakthroughs.
According to the article, the drugs advertised included Allegra
(allergy), Ambien (insomnia), and Cialis (impotence), among
others.
An Average American Watches 16 Hours Of Drug Ads Per Year!
|
According to the new study, only two developed countries -- the
United States and New Zealand -- allow drug companies as much
open and almost unrestricted access to the TV airwaves.
And chew on this: the average American television viewer now
spends 16 hours a year watching prescription drug ads, "far
exceeding the average time spent with a primary care physician," Frosch's team said.
But drug advertising wasn’t always this “wide-wild-west.” Before
1997, any drug ad -- on the air or in print -- had to include
lengthy details about the drug. Those details are still found
today in magazine ads for prescription drugs.
But, in 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration made it
easier for the companies to advertise on TV. "They could just
make a major statement that captures the primary risks and make
adequate provisions to refer the consumers to other sources for
more detail," Frosch said. "They refer to a concurrent print ad
or a website or toll-free number."
Of course, even if patients are wooed by an ad, they can't get
prescription drugs on their own. But, Frosch said, it's not
enough to rely on doctors to make the right decisions about
drugs that patients should take.
"The ads are effective in moving consumers to ask doctors
for these prescriptions," he said. "And patients
sometimes get the prescriptions, even though it's not the
appropriate drug." |
 |
|
Frosch called on lawmakers to change the rules to force drug
companies to provide more information about the medications
they advertise. He also suggested that customers be
skeptical of drug claims.
In 2006, the American Medical Association called for a
temporary ban on advertising for newly approved drugs.
So what’s the bottom line on all this? What’s amazing is
that tricky marketers can create an exhibit so good that
people actually believe they have a fake disease. What’s
even more amazing is that it seems like, if what the new
research is showing is correct, that drug companies are
BOMBARDING the major television networks with similar
advertising techniques designed to make consumers run to
their doctors and demand what they just saw on the
commercial.
With sophisticated market research, advertising techniques
and almost unlimited funds… you have to wonder… do you
really have a health problem serious enough to require
prescription medication… or… are you just responding to the
emotional appeal of an ad?
It’s something to think about when you realize ALL drugs
have side effects.
And don’t forget, if you ever have any questions or concerns
about your health, talk to us. Contact us with your
questions. We’re here to help, and don’t enjoy anything more
than participating in your life long good health.
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
|
|
| |
|