The Politics of Saturated Fats, A Mothers' Day Feature Story, the Overpricing of Cancer Drugs and a Vargas Girl from 1944

So Saturated Fats May Not Be Bad For You, After All?

Teicholz 







Charen

An article about fats in our diet by Nina Teicholz appeared in the Wall Street Journal last week.  She is also publishing a book entitled  "The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet," which obviously challenges the generally accepted belief that saturated fats can lead to heart disease. 

Last Friday, nationally syndicated conservative columnist Mona Charen wrote a column in which she used Teicholz’ article to justify her belief that experts have been wrong all along in instructing us that “animal fat was the chief culprit in causing obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.”  I doubt if there is enough material in the Teicholz book to negate half a century of medical and scientific research, but the well-regarded (in some circles) Ms. Charen apparently believes so.

 
Taken from American Heart Association Web Site

Without reproducing either the Teicholz or the Charen articles, which you can easily find on the internet by doing a bit of “googling,” suffice it to say that Charen believes that we should approach all scientific findings, however solidly documented they may appear, with a degree of skepticism.  Apparently fully believing Teicholz’ theory, she concluded her column by saying, 

 “Our experience with nutritional science over the past half-century should arm us with doubt about climate science, too.  The point is not to ignore scientific data but to treat all studies, models and predictions with a degree of skepticism.  Don’t accept the argument from authority: That the entire medical establishment endorsed the war on saturated fat did not make it true.” (underlining is mine.) 

Bear with me for one more article.  Monday’s New York Times carried a front page piece which started out thusly:

The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable, with global warming accelerating the pace of the disintegration, two groups of scientists reported Monday.

The finding, which had been feared by some scientists for decades, means that a rise in global sea level of at least 10 feet may now be inevitable. The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so, the scientists said, but sometime after that it will probably speed up so sharply as to become a crisis.

“This is really happening,” said Thomas P. Wagner, who runs NASA’s programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.”

Ice in Antarctica

You can access the full article on the New York Times web site if you wish.

What is this all about, then, and why am I writing about it? 

I believe Ms. Charen’s plea for skepticism in dealing with the scientific evidence pointing out the dangers resulting from both saturated fat and climate change stem from her concern in both of these areas which I suspect focuses on two factors common to both of them. 

(1.) Both problems are so enormous that dealing with them demands involvement of the Federal government in regulating the environment and in regulating food manufacturing. To do this job, funding will be necessary which means more government spending and increased taxes, somewhere along the line. 

(2.)  To comply with such anticipated regulations, businesses will have to spend more money to do things which will reduce greenhouse gases and use costlier ingredients in food manufacturing.  Hence, profits for these businesses will be reduced.

What else can we expect from a conservative columnist whose mission, like that of many of her fellow right wingers, is to avoid increasing taxes on the wealthy, impeding their supposed but never-proven ability to be “job creators” as well as enabling businesses to operate as profitably as possible.  Her "skepticism" regarding scientific research, while sincere, dovetails comfortably with the traditional conservative agenda.

Would her professed skepticism logically extend to doubting the medical evidence that smoking can cause lung cancer?  (After all, in the classic Woody Allen movie "Sleeper," which takes place in the future, doctors light cigarettes for their patients, wondering how folks "years ago" actually thought they were bad for one's health.)

When I read a column written by someone like Mona Charen, I know where she is coming from.  Sadly, others might not, and are encouraged to continue gorging themselves on fatty foods and building houses in areas “scientists” advise will eventually be under water. Too much skepticism when the evidence is clear is foolhardy.  And fools, when faced with truths, deny them.
Jack Lippman

                                                        


Last Sunday was Mothers' Day, and in commemoration thereof, here's a short story from Harvey Sage.


CUBBYKINS 

Harvey Sage

(In honour of my granddaughters)

High in the Wallawalla wood lands -  overlooking three western states
John Stein pulled up in his four wheel drive - anxious with nature to relate
The smell of the flora was intoxicating - his head was giddy in delight
Trees, flowers,, highland bloom   - this promised to be a deliciously blissful night.
         

Stein set up his tent and bed - he lit a fire to boil water from a stream
He began cooking his meal of hash and beans -  made some tea and began to eat
“Thank You God” he said -   this is delightful and fills me with joy
Then he suddenly stopped eating   -   what was that, did he hear a noise?

What was that? A deer, a ‘coon , or a cat? - It sounded melodic, like a long lost child,
There it was, that sound again -  John reacted by taking a look into the forest wild
He saw something scurrying in the brush - it was small, round and had brown hair
It scooted past him and made for his food - It was a baby bear!



You’re not supposed to feed wildlife  -     that’s what the game warden says
But John took a look at this hungry baby - his heart just melted away
The bear cub went to the hot pot of food   - she stuck her paw in for meat
She gave a cry as she pulled her paw out -   these eats had too much heat!

John took the bear to the water and cooled its paw -   this calmed her down a lot
The paw stopped hurting as much -   it was no longer hot
Then he hand fed it -   making it easy for her to eat
Soon she was satisfied -   and before he knew it she was in his arms asleep
  




 
Morning broke with puffy pink clouds - flowing gently like balloons across the clear blue sky
John woke.   Where was the bear ? -   then he heard its cry
“Poor little cubbykins. I’m sure you miss your mom.   - looks like you’re alone
Sorry about that cubbykins. You’re wildlife.   - The law says you’re on your own.”

Breakfast was ham and eggs - along with slices of toast
Cubbykins snuggled in -   sniffing food she’d eat the most
What could John do - she was loveable and cute
So he fed her a bit more - she gobbled it down in a hoot

Both of them were satiated   -   the meal was pleasant indeed

Then there was a crashing sound -   and a roar that brought John to his feet
Cubbykins gave a cry   -   she looked up toward the noise and saw
A big brown bear making the noise   -   she recognized it as her maw          

 Mama bear gave a grunt of joy   -   she was glad to see her lost child
Her surprise on seeing her with a man   -  soothed her to being mild
John stood transfixed, not showing any fear   -     as the cub ran to greet her mom
The mother gave her daughter a kiss   -   glad that she hadn’t come to harm

Mom looked at John, and prepared to go   -   she waited for Cubbykins to follow
The cub looked at John who waved a goodbye -   but the cub must have felt some sorrow
She ran over to her man friend to say her goodbye   -   rubbing her back against his side
He leaned over, gave her a hug and a kiss   -   and watched as she ran with her mom.  Goodbye.



Why I wonder, in God’s vast world -   with all the animal types
Can’t we all learn to live   -   in peace and love
Mankind with animal and animal with man   -   just as it says it will be in God’s Law
When the lion will lie down with the lamb   - and we will study war no more.
HAPPY  MOTHER'S  DAY

                                                

Are Cancer Drugs Overpriced?

Estimate of the cost to get a new drug to market: $1.3 billion ... but removing inflated costs brings the estimate down to $125 million

Here's an "opinion" article fully reproduced from the May 2014 AARP Bulletin showing how this tremendous reduction can be accomplished.  The authors are cited at the end.
JL

Every patient with cancer wants the most effective treatment, but drug prices have become staggering. Eleven of the 12 new cancer drugs approved in 2012 were priced above $100,000 annually, and a 20 to 30 percent copayment can make them unaffordable even for well-insured patients.

Why are companies charging so much? In one breath they say high prices reflect high research costs, and in the next they say prices reflect the precious added benefits of curing or controlling cancer. We find neither explanation plausible.

The argument that companies are offering improved drugs for these higher prices is not true. Oncologists find that most new cancer drugs provide few clinical advantages over existing ones. Only one of the 12 new cancer drugs approved in 2012 helps patients survive more than two months longer.

The industry argument that high prices reflect huge research and development costs also does not hold up, at least given the few facts that companies make public to back it up. Indeed, the actual dollars that companies have put into research from 1995 to 2010 have generated six times more revenue—a sign that they are charging too much for little patient benefit.

Inflated costs. The most famous industry-sponsored estimate claims that it costs on average $1.3 billion to develop a new drug and get it approved. This includes the cost of failures. Half that estimate, however, is not research cost at all, but rather a high figure for profits that companies would have made if they had invested their research money in stocks and bonds instead. Profits forgone is a common way of estimating whether it’s worthwhile to undertake a new project. But it is not a real cost that must be recouped from customers. Eliminating it brings the actual research costs down from $1.3 billion to $650 million. 

In addition, taxpayers subsidize about half of company research costs through credits and deductions granted to drug companies. This brings companies’ real research costs down to $325 million. 

Moreover, the industry’s $1.3 billion is based on a sample of the most costly fifth of new drugs, not the average for all drugs. Correcting this distortion brings company research costs down by 30 percent, to $230 million. Also, a few expensive projects always inflate the overall average, so it’s more accurate to use the median cost—the point at which half of the research projects cost more and half less. This brings company research costs down to $170 million. Further, clinical trials in cancer are smaller and shorter than trials for other diseases, so trial costs should be smaller too.

A final way in which research costs are inflated is by backing in a large estimate for the cost of basic research to discover new drugs. In fact, no accurate estimate exists because the costs of discovery vary so much, from an inexpensive lucky break to a costly 30-year search before a new drug is discovered. Removing that inflated estimate for basic research costs brings the net, median corporate research costs down to just $125 million for developing drugs.

The price push. Overall, investment in basic research by pharmaceutical companies to discover new drugs is quite small—about one-sixth of overall company research costs and about 1.3 percent of revenues after deducting for taxpayer subsidies. The rest of company research costs goes to developing all these drugs with few advantages over existing ones so they can charge high prices for them.

In the case of cancer drugs, company research costs are even lower, because most of the basic research and thousands of clinical trials are paid for by the National Cancer Institute and foundations.

In sum, we find no credible evidence that the real research costs to major companies themselves for cancer research are higher than for developing other drugs. So why are cancer drug prices higher? We think pharmaceutical companies are price-gouging. Even worse, companies raise the prices on some of their older drugs by 20 to 25 percent a year. In the past decade, they have almost doubled their prices for cancer drugs.

We call this the “market spiral pricing strategy”—continually raising prices across the whole market, regardless of value or cost. No other advanced country allows companies to raise prices on older drugs. No other industry raises prices on last year’s cars or cellphones.

Congress should hold hearings on the spiraling prices for specialty drugs. And it should eliminate the rule that prohibits Medicare from negotiating discount drug prices. Then physicians could treat patients with drugs they can afford. These changes could substantially cut the nation’s health care costs and provide incentives for companies to focus on developing clinically better drugs rather than slightly better drugs at sky-high prices.

(The authors of this article are Donald W. Light, a network fellow at Harvard University’s E.J. Safra Center for Ethics and a professor at Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine and  Hagop Kantarjian,  professor and chair of the Department of Leukemia at MD Anderson Cancer Center.)

                                         
                                                        
 

Vargas Girl for May 1944

Alberto Vargas drew his idealized pin-up pictures for Esquire Magazine for years.  Pages from his calendars hung in Army barracks everywhere as World War Two raged across Europe and the Pacific.  It's hard to believe, but this is his May "Vargas Girl" from his calendar of precisely seventy years ago.  His model, if she is still around today, is probably a great-grandmother by now. Happy Mothers' Day!
JL


                                                         

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman