As a starry eyed newlywed in San Francisco some thirty-three
years ago, I bypassed the butter at the supermarket and brought home a tub of
semi soft margarine. It was low-cholesterol, made with non-hydrogenated oils,
and I felt like a health-conscious, savvy shopper.
My husband Robin was less impressed: "What on earth did
you buy that for? I'm not eating that toxic … “(he used a brief, emphatic word
unfit for publication). “You’d be better off with butter.”
Now, the annoying thing about Robin is that, at least in
matters medical, he’s always right. Watching TV medical dramas, he beats the
doc to a diagnosis every time. This shouldn't really surprise me given the impressive
list of his medical credentials, but it’s still annoying.
In The Case Of The Soft Margarine, I rose to the defense of my
purchase: I knew—I had read in a magazine—that hydrogenated fats were bad for
you, oils were good. Therefore soft margarine was infinitely preferable to its
hard cousin, stick margarine, or worse yet, butter. Research had proven it—scientific
research.
The very mention of "research" brought on a whole
stream of brief emphatic words; apparently this was something of a sore point
with my husband. I soon found out why.
Robin had spent two years at one of the nation’s top medical
schools, researching the causes of high cholesterol. He found that
the liver manufactures approximately 80% of the cholesterol found in the blood;
only the remaining 20% is dietary. So, assuming an impossibly rigorous diet with
zero cholesterol, the greatest possible reduction would
be a measly twenty percent. Moreover, it seemed that the liver would simply
crank up its production to make up the dietary shortfall. He asked the obvious question,
one nobody else seemed to be asking: what causes the liver to over-produce
cholesterol, and how can it be regulated?
Following their doctors’ advice, millions of Americans take
statins to lower their cholesterol. They endure unpleasant side effects in the
hope of avoiding heart attacks, strokes, and premature death. Robin’s research held out the promise of a non-toxic,
low-cost way to help the liver regulate itself. The impact would be felt
globally—statins are the most widely prescribed drug in the world. He typed up
his proposal, got the approval of the head of department, sent it to the
National Institutes of Health, and waited.
The verdict came back: “Approved but
not funded.” He tweaked the proposal a little to make it even more elegant
and resubmitted it. Same result.
His head of department told him why it would never be funded:
the good folk at the National Institutes of Health were not about to sanction
any research that would hurt their friends in the drug industry. And if Robin’s
hunch was correct, and a few dollars worth of thyroid hormone each month would regulate
cholesterol production and make statins irrelevant, it would bankrupt the drug
companies who are making billions of dollars per year from the sale of statins.
That’s right, billions. From statins
alone. Now, if there’s one thing the
drug companies know how to do, it’s make a profit: in 2005, the thirty-three
major drug companies made more money than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined.
With stakes like these, small wonder the NIH only funds “research” that
safeguards Big Pharma’s bottom line.
It’s amazing how many congressmen a few billion dollars can
buy.
Hmm, I thought, if money is more important than saving
patients from heart attacks and strokes, what
about vaccines? Might the same principle apply? I set about some research
of my own, No Funding Required.
What I discovered will be the subject of another blog.