"Take this, it's good for you!" Or maybe it isn't.

“Take this, it’s good for you!”

 You probably heard this growing up from your parents, or grandparents, or others, about lots of things. Medicines, foods, supplements, and even activities (“Do this, it’s good for you!”). You probably have continued to hear this from other people even if you are now grown: friends, family, people you have just met, and that most reliable of all sources, random posts (I was going to say “random people” until I realized that many or most of them could be bots) on the internet! So, should you take it? I mean, is it good for you?

I know my answer is going to be shocking: “It depends.”

On what? On a whole lot of things.

The whole idea that there is a general concept of things that are “good for you”, whoever you are and what you are hoping to achieve, is nonsense. What is good for one person – say an infant or a toddler – may well not be good for a middle-aged or older adult, and vice versa. And, of course, the most important question is “good for what?” What do you seek to have happen to you that this nostrum is “good for?” Do you even share the interest in achieving the end goal that the recommender presumably does? Lower cholesterol, lower weight, more muscle mass, stronger bones, having better balance or more stamina, improved sexual function, looking younger, better bowel movements, avoiding a deficiency disease like rickets, scurvy, or pellagra? Sometimes even cheap and easily available things from which big corporations or influencers do not make a lot of money, and that in fact do work well, are also unnecessary. Parents and grandparents may push things that their parents and grandparents told them were good for them, and they might have been, back once, but are not now. Back then, when our diets were often lacking in essential vitamins, scurvy, pellagra, and rickets were real issues in the US (and may still be in some parts of the world), but are not, generally, here now. In the not-too-distant past parents gave their kids castor oil, either as a treatment for a condition that the child might or might not have, like constipation or worms, but there are much better, safer, less unpleasant, and more effective treatments for both now. (That is not considering those who gave it as punishment!)

After you have answered the question of “good for what?” and decided that that “what“ is something you want to achieve or more toward, the next set of questions are “will it do that, does it actually work?”, “does it work for everyone the same or are there some groups of people (based on age, gender, health status, etc.) for whom it works better or not as well, and “what are the untoward effects that may, or even are likely to, happen, which may be far worse than the benefit?” Anabolic steroids, for example, do work to increase muscle mass, endurance, and power (see: sports stars) but also cause serious bad things (liver disease, testicular shrinkage, and a host of others). If it is legal and you are not competing in a sport where it is banned, it is up to you to decide whether the risk:benefit ratio is one you are willing to take (provided you are an adult, since in this area as many others, teens are poor judges of risk:benefit and do not have a good long view). Psyllium seed powders can be good for your bowels, lowering cholesterol, and helping to control your appetite, but some people have problems with the side effects. Testosterone, now being pushed by the Secretary of War who is competing with the Secretary of HHS and the President for being the administrations most macho ignoramus, can be good for some people who are deficient who should not be, but is far from a panacea that turns regular people into mindless Orcs (many medical professionals disagree, Doctors question evidence behind Pentagon testosterone plan). By the way, this is a good time to note the intrinsic contradictions in the “men’s health” movement. Its two big issues are prostate disease (especially cancer) and “low T”. Testosterone will not only make prostate cancer (or even benign prostatic hypertrophy) worse, blocking endogenous testosterone is the mainstay of treatment for prostate cancer. Oh, well, let’s see what it does for Pete Hegseth.

Some things generally are good for you. For example, age-appropriate vaccines are good for almost everyone (except those with known allergies to its components or previous severe reactions, by which I mean things like Guillain-Barre Syndrome, not a sore arm or short-term fever). Virtually all vaccines for children and adults (MMR, DTP, meningococcus, chicken pox, H. flu, influenza, Covid, shingles, polio, etc.) are really wonderful miracles that save thousands (sometimes millions, see: “Covid” and influenza) of lives, even more thousands or millions saved from serious morbidity, and with a very low rate of any significant negative effect. This is true. If you hear different information from your favorite TikTok star or Facebook friend, or Secretary of HHS, they are wrong.

Some things are generally bad for almost everyone, like taking dangerous drugs for unapproved indications (e.g., ivermectin for Covid), not to mention drinking or injecting bleach! The internet is full of recommendations for magic bullets that will cure whatever ails you or doesn’t even ail you but tells you it will or might if you don’t buy their solution. These claims are no more reliable than the clothes, makeup, hardware, and amazing items that will solve all your household worries. That is, some may be of value, for some people, in some circumstances, but often are not and even are dangerous, but all make money for those selling them (or in the modern world, selling their ability to influence others to the companies that make the products).

A big issue, it seems, is whether to take drugs, especially prescription drugs, manufactured by big, evil, pharmaceutical companies and heavily advertised by them, or to take “natural” over-the-counter drugs made by any-old-person or company and pushed by – any-old-person (or bot). Pharmaceutical companies are evil, as are most huge for-profit corporations (and they are usually the most for-profitable!) because their profits, not your health, is their main function. This does not mean that their products (or at least all of them) are not effective or safe when “used as directed”. They have two important characteristics non-prescription, even “natural” remedies, do not. First, they are tested, and approved after an extensive process, by the FDA (or were, before the FDA was decimated by the administration), which other remedies are not. Second, the doses are standardized, so you know what you’re getting. Even when plants (natural) are the basis for the drugs – say willow bark for aspirin – dosing is an issue. How much willow bark? From how old a tree? Growing in what setting? An aspirin tablet is standardized. Taking unregulated medication is akin to taking street opiates – you cannot be sure what, and how much you are getting. Plus, remember “natural” is not intrinsically good, safe, or protective. There are at least as many natural poisons as beneficial substances. If something you ingest, “natural” or manufactured, has a biologic effect that you desire, it also can (and likely does) have biologic effects that you do not desire (“side effects”, a term meaning biologic effects you don’t want). Testing and standardization are keys. Not that this in any way excuses the rapacious profit-taking of Pharma, but neither does it of those selling unregulated nostrums.

Finally, and I have said this before and will say it again, when thinking about whether something is “good for you” and whether you should take it, anything that sounds too good to be true probably is.

Aging, suffering, and the inevitability of death: Let's keep it real, and ignore the quacks

My friend Paul Taylor, longtime journalist and former executive at the Pew Trusts, has just published a new book called “This Is Getting Old: Two Boomers and Their Generation at Dusk”. It has two main topics. The first is an often-disturbing analysis of the impact of the “Boomer generation” as a whole, focused on their (our) massive accumulation of money, fighting for society’s resources to be directed to us, and shockingly, away from those who need it most, children. There are clearly many different indviduals in this generation, as well as subgroups (since boomers were born 1946 to 1965, the usual characterizations of us in our youth, activism in the late 1960s, obviously are only about the older part of that cohort). He makes the point that not only did this generation, as many before, get more conservative as they aged, but that only a portion of them were ever progressive. And the contrast between their generosity to their own children and grandchildren, and their parsimony toward most of society’s children is, at least coincidentally (as he states it), or definitely (as I think) about the color, race, and ethnicity of the majority of today’s children. Did I say this was shameful? If not, I do!

The other focus of the book is the aging of his, their, and our generation, focusing particularly on one couple (a terrific, impressive, warm and active couple), but also full of data on what is happening to all of us. Which is the same thing that happened to everyone before us, getting old and eventually dying. We may be dying older, and dying of different things, and (many of us) having more healthy and productive years before we die, but we all die. And for many of us, perhaps most of us, as all through history, that dying will be preceded by a period – which can be short or be many years – of suffering, of being sick, in pain, losing our mental faculties, or all of these. Guaranteed. While billionaires are being quite successful in avoiding (at least for themselves) the other of that famous pair, taxes, avoiding death is, even for them, only a science fiction cryogenic dream for them that has not yet happened. Thank goodness. If there are any people that the future does NOT need preserved for them to deal with, it is the billionaires most assiduously working on it!

So, we need to remember not only the inevitability of death, but the suffering that so often precedes it. We boomers have been watched it in our parents, our older relatives, and, sadly, many of our peers. It is well to remember the myth of Tithonus, who was granted eternal life by Zeus, but not eternal youth. He continued to age, alive and living sicker and more decrepit. A more modern self-deception: a few decades ago, I was the only physician in a health policy class. Each week one student had to make a presentation to the class on a particular topic. The student who addressed the issue of “long term care” did present data, but then added that in their opinion the need for long-term care would decrease because people were taking better care of themselves, exercising and eating better and not smoking. I pointed out that this would obviously increase the need for long-term care, as people would less often die young from heart attacks and more often live older and older (if not eternally, like Tithonus) with more and more care needs. I suspect I even said something like “if you want to decrease the need for long term care, have people smoke, drink, eat poorly, not exercise and drop dead in the 40s and 50s”.

But that student, and others, were young. Somehow, they conflated living a more healthful lifestyle, and having better health in the near and medium term, with not ever confronting getting old, sick, and dying. That is purely wishful thinking. While living more healthfully is a good idea, it cannot prevent the inevitable. And yet, many people, even today, believe this that somehow they can and (more venally and evilly) are selling it to others. Some of these ideas are commonly associated with folks like Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (how painful to associate that name and that title!) and the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement. Like the MAGA (Make America Great Again) of Donald Trump, the key point is the “again”. In the case of MAGA, it depends on what your definition of “great” is – probably America was if it means slavery, racism, subjugation of women, and constant wars, with military budgets making up the biggest part of public spending, the funding of which comes disproportionately from those with lower incomes.

In terms of MAHA, while there may be a bit less subjective flexibility about defining “healthy” than “great”, there is definite disagreement about the road to health. For example, a recent study by the Edelman Trust Barometer produced the table below. About a quarter to a third
of Americans believe each of these falsehoods, and 70% believe at least one, with a whole bunch of folks who “don’t know”. Edelman calls these claims “false or unproven”, which is generous. To a greater or lesser degree, they are all false. The most dangerous are the claims about vaccines, which are good, and to a large degree the reason that boomers and others are likely to live as long as they are. As a t-shirt I have seen correctly asserts “Vaccines cause adults”!

 

 

Unpasteurized (ie, raw) milk has in fact caused lots of deaths because of bacterial contamination. Testimonials from dairy farmers who drink it all the time are not valid for urbanites who are consuming it days after milking, when the bacteria in it that would have been killed by pasteurization has had time to multiply, The other false claims may not cause death, but sure can cause suffering; I suffered a lot of dental cavities as a kid before our water was fluoridated. Fluoride is definitely helpful to dental health (excessive amounts can cause unsightly, but NOT dangerous, mottling of teeth). Avoiding acetaminophen in pregnancy can cause pain. And on animal protein: it is not more healthful than plant protein, it is in fact, generally less healthful. As is animal fat (e.g, tallow, lard). 

These false claims are relatively easy to refute, although it is not easy to convince people who believe them that they are wrong; these are two different things. But what of the amazing plethora of other magical health claims, today’s equivalents of snake oil (in promises for great health, not to mention quackery). Early in his book, Taylor writes 

Don’t pick up this book expecting to find the magic formula for staying forever young. I ain’t got one. You’re better off cruising TikTok, where a bustling industry of anti-aging influencers serves up a bottomless banquet of science and quackery. They treat aging as a curable condition, death an avoidable fate. 

Sigh. It would be wonderful if these nostrums could keep you healthy and keep you from dying. But they don’t. That doesn’t keep them from being a “bustling” (and profitable!) industry.

Three points:

1) Natural is not necessarily better or safer. That is a fallacy. Anything that actually has biologic effects can have the ones you want, and the ones you don’t (side effects). If it doesn’t have any biologic effect, it’s not helping either.

2) Don’t be a sucker. Yes, Big Pharma is evil, but there is much better data on whether and how its products work than those of the MAHA-hood.

3) If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.

Pay primary care more: Kennedy may be getting this one right!

I have recently written strong criticisms of Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his positions on a number of issues, including most importantly vaccines (see RFK, Jr.: The Secretary of Health and Human Services is Dangerous to Your Health!). Not only is he wrong about vaccines being dangerous, he is in fact creating major danger by discouraging their use. The polio vaccine essentially eliminated a disease that was a major scourge in the US as well as the rest of the world, as did the measles vaccine. Many other vaccines protect our children – and adults – from other serious viral diseases like influenza, COVID, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, shingles, and human papillomavirus (HPV) which causes cervical cancer, as well as bacterial diseases including diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and Hemophilus influenza b. The last is something most people have not heard of, but early in my career was a major cause of morbidity and death in infants and young children from meningitis, pneumonia, and epiglottitis, which caused their throats to swell rapidly and choke off their breathing. Many others have articulately expressed this concern, including the pediatrician Perri Klass in the New York Times. While these diseases affected people of all social classes, they were more prevalent among the poor and minority groups such as the people I cared for at Chicago’s Cook County Hospital. Indeed, research has demonstrated tremendous benefits from vaccines on the health of children and other populations that go far beyond just the decrease in the specific diseases that they target to decreasing all-cause mortality!

Kennedy is wrong about many other things, if not all of as of such immediate potential danger as urging people to not get vaccinated. These include nonsense like suggesting that people who eat right and exercise won’t get disease, that raw (unpasteurized) milk is better for you, and that “natural” is always better (which, even if we could agree on a definition of “natural”, it isn’t). One recent example is his arguing for Coke to use “natural” cane sugar rather that high-fructose corn syrup, both of which are sugar and have calories and in large amounts are bad for you.

But there turns out to be one area where Kennedy and I seem to agree, which is the need to take concrete action to increase the number of primary care physicians. Lots of people, including politicians, healthcare providers, and health policy experts, express concern about the shortage of primary care, but have done nothing to address the real cause of this problem – that primary care physicians (and the nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants working with them) get paid a lot less than do physicians in other specialties. Kennedy appears to be doing something other than wringing his hands. On several occasions I have written about the RUC, the AMA committee that decides how to divide up the pie of Medicare dollars among specialists by deciding how much each thing doctors do is worth relative to other things that they do. (Changes in the RUC: None.. How come we let a bunch of self-interested doctors decide what they get paid? July 21, 2013, Doctors' incomes and patient coverage: both need to be more equal July 26, 2014, and most recently, Not enough primary physicians OR Nurse Practitioners: It's the money, stupid!, June 27, 2024).

Not to get too technical, there is a set amount of Medicare dollars and the RUC decides (or recommends to CMS, which almost always accepts those recommendations) how many physical exams, say, are equivalent to one gall bladder surgery, considering (theoretically) both difficulty and time. This makes a tremendous difference in physician income and, I would argue, specialty choice by medical students. And, over the years, the amount of time it takes for doctors to do some things, particularly procedures, changes. Colonoscopies used to be estimated to take an hour and a quarter, but now are routinely done in 30 minutes. Cataract surgeries take a fraction of the time that they once did. This can result in physicians billing for more procedures than the model assesses as possible in a day. In contrast, the time it takes for a physical exam, or to listen to an interpret a person’s story, hasn’t changed significantly. The composition of the RUC, according to the AMA, represents all specialties, but its membership has a low proportion of primary care doctors – five of the 32 seats. Unsurprisingly, then, specialist-performed procedures are valued more highly than cognitive work. And, very important, these rates (relative value units) do not affect only Medicare payments – virtually all insurers pay based upon Medicare rates, so it is the whole health system! Prior to this new regulation, alternative models for allocating payment have been developed, such as this 2025 publication from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

So, now, maybe, a change. The NY Times reports that, buried in an 1800-page HHS regulation, are proposed changes in the RUC methodology that would benefit primary care. This would be real action! In addition to reassessing these relative values, the action would also look at the current practice of reimbursing more for the same procedures done in a hospital than in a doctor’s office, a major way that hospitals make money. And, for those who think “of course it costs more to do something in a hospital”, this is a technicality; it simply means that the hospital owns the practice or clinic. So two, say, skin biopsies performed in similar doctor’s offices across the street from each other are now reimbursed at very different rates if one is owned by a hospital. This is absurd and inequitable, and getting rid of it makes terrific sense!

The diffusion of medical services to people and communities is primarily driven not by the health needs of the populations in different areas but by the potential to make the most money for health care providers. These are largely, and increasingly, hospitals and health systems, as well as enormous insurance-company and private-equity owned practices rather than individual or small group physician-owned practices. So, we get enormous hospital campuses and medical facilities in major cities and wealthy suburbs and little or nothing in poor neighborhoods and rural areas. This should change. The only reason for decisions about what healthcare services to provide and where to provide them should be the health needs of people, and not on how much profit can be made.

The new HHS regulation will be a big step in this direction if it redirects Medicare (and thus all insurer) funds to primary care, and does not preferentially favor hospital-owned practices. To the extent that he is responsible for it, Kennedy should be congratulated. However, while it is a big step, it is not a solution. The next, necessary, step is a universal health insurance program where every single person is covered and covered by the same system, and where establishment (and closure) of health facilities, and the services that they provide or do not, is entirely based on the health needs of the people. Of course, there will be a lot of resistance – highly paid specialists will resist the proposed HHS reimbursement changes, and the institutionalized powerful insurance companies and other big players who are making lots of money from “healthcare” will oppose more comprehensive changes. Indeed, they already are, with highly funded social media campaigns against universal health care.

We are glad for this first step, but we need to keep fighting to get a comprehensive health program – like those of every other wealthy country!

Tallow and unsaturated fats: What is "natural" and what is good -- not the same!

The NY Times “Eat” section recently had an article titled ‘How Beef Tallow Made a Comeback’, asking in the subhead ‘When McDonald’s stopped frying with beef tallow in the 1990s, most people saw it as a win for America’s health. What changed?’. The short answer, in terms of the science of the relative benefits of saturated animal fats like tallow and lard versus the unsaturated (olive oil) and poly-unsaturated (several types of vegetable oil) fats, nothing. What has changed, at least to some degree including among the restauranteurs cited, is people’s opinions and beliefs. One of them ‘said he felt a “moral and ethical obligation” to change his menu earlier this year…after reading that seed oils, like the canola oil he used to cook his fries and tortilla chips, carried potential harms. Tallow, he said, made for a healthier, more “natural” frying oil.’

There is a lot to unpack here. First is whether “seed oils” carry potential harms. Where did he read it? A reliable source? A wackjob? An earlier “Eat” piece, in January (link in the previous paragraph) was called ‘Are Seed Oils Actually Bad for You?’. It concluded that, new (not yet confirmed when the article appeared) Secretary of Health and Human Services ‘Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and others, claim they’re harming our health but the evidence suggests otherwise.’ In both articles, accomplished and respected nutrition scientists dispute this claim, and emphasize the increased risk of heart disease (and cancer) from animal fats like tallow and lard. There are physicians in the US, certainly here in Tucson, who dispute the idea that saturated fats are bad for you in terms of causing a higher risk of heart disease, but they are a distinct minority. There are at least a couple of research studies indicating they are not, but hundreds indicating that they are.

‘In 2002, a review study raised the question of whether consuming foods with high levels of omega-6 fatty acids relative to omega-3 fatty acids (a ratio typical of many seed oils) might increase inflammation in the body. “But I’ve gone through these papers and there’s not a single shred of evidence that this is actually true,” Dr. [Walter] Willett [Harvard School of Public Health] said. “This is all theoretical.”’

It should go without saying (but apparently doesn’t) that it is illegitimate to pick and choose the research you cite based not on its quality or methods but on whether it gets the results you already agree with. The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends diets with lower levels of saturated and higher levels of unsaturated fats, but critics say that this recommendation is tainted because AHA got money from Procter and Gamble, which manufactures Crisco, which contains both saturated and unsaturated fats and is not actually a particular favorite choice in the polyunsaturated sphere. While the appearance of bias/corruption always can exist when money is involved (see my piece from August 20, 2010 The AAFP, Coca-Cola, and Ethics: Serving the public interest?), it does not necessarily, or usually, mean the research supporting recommendations is flawed. P&G denies any association, but much more important is the breadth and consistency of the research supporting the use of unsaturated fats.

The other big issue is ”natural”. This one is huge. People of all political stripes love “natural”. It sounds so – well, natural! If it’s natural, it must be good – or at least better – right? Well, first of all, for this discussion, seed oils are also natural. They are, indeed, usually processed, but there is nothing in that processing that would make them less healthful, or natural. Tallow and lard when sold commercially are purified as well. A lot of stuff that is natural can be good for you, but a lot of stuff can also be bad for you. Many people advocate for the use of herbal remedies (natural, right?) and in fact many plants do have physiologic effects that can treat symptoms and diseases. Some have been the basis of commercially-produced medicines, e.g., aspirin from willow bark, digitalis from foxglove, colchicine from autumn crocus (Drug prices and corporate greed: there may be limits to our gullibility, December 27, 2015). Even in these cases the standardization of dose is much better in commercially produced drugs (and I am no fan of pharmaceutical companies or their practices, especially advertising and pricing). How many leaves of foxglove is good for your heart and how much is going to kill you (digitalis has a very narrow therapeutic:toxic ratio)? And there are many other natural things that are not good for you…I do not recommend rubbing poison ivy on your skin! Tobacco is a natural product, and Native people used it to treat wounds, as well as smoked it. Respecting those traditions and putting it on wounds, or especially smoking it, may not be the best thing for your health.

One thing that is sometimes cited as an indication of what natural things are good is the behavior of other animals. This is worth observing, but it is also worth noting that people are not the same as other animals, and the fact that they like something doesn’t mean it is god for people (or even for them!):

‘Mathaus Myga, 37, who owns a German takeout restaurant in Wisconsin, started frying his pork and chicken schnitzel in locally sourced beef tallow a year and a half ago….When Mr. Myga returns home after a day of frying with tallow, his two dogs lick his fingers. “They would never do that with rapeseed oil,” Mr. Myga said, referring to a common vegetable oil. “These are animals that have natural instincts.”’

I don’t know about Mr. Myga’s dogs, but the things my dogs’ natural instincts lead them to eat are not always things I’d recommend to people. Horse droppings are one of their favorites!

You can believe whatever you want. You can act on those beliefs in living your life (as long as they don’t hurt others). You can prepare your food based on those beliefs. But this does not necessarily make what you believe true. Finding “an article” by a reputable researcher that supports your belief is not a legitimate scientific approach, it is cherry-picking. To know what the science actually says, you have to form your belief based upon the overwhelming consensus of the research.

Of course, that is not a problem if you don’t believe in science.

Vitamin D, false nostrums, and conspiracy theories: The world has enough real problems

Near the end of December, Tiffany Hsu, writing in the NY Times, discussed “Dubious COVID Cures”. She compared them to the similar nostrums popularly recommended for the 1918 influenza epidemic, when ‘a spate of ads promised dubious remedies in the form of lozenges, tonics, unguents, blood-builders and an antiseptic shield to be used while kissing.’ She quotes the head of research at MyHeritage, Roi Mandel as saying “So many things are exactly the same, even 102 years later, even after science has made such huge progress.”

Even after all this scientific progress and all the advances in health care, people are still fascinated by over the counter magic drugs, things that seem easy, and are often cheap (although usually very profitable), and somehow better than the treatments being offered by the medical community. This is, of course, even more so when that medical community does not have a whole lot to offer in terms of treatment, a particular issue for virus infection, and mostly talks about prevention, about such things as isolation and physical distancing. Wouldn’t it be better if you could just take something that would cure it or make it better or at least decrease the seriousness of an infection? And, you know, there are ‘studies’ that show it works (although of course I haven’t actually read them and would have no idea how to understand if the research was legit) and, you know, there are doctors who recommend it!  Like ‘Dr. Pierce’s Pleasant Pellets promised that the pills — made from “May-apple, leaves of aloe, jalap” — offered protection “against the deadly attack of the Spanish Influenza.”’ Oh, wait, that was from 1918 – but we have Dr. Oz!

This is not to say that some popular treatments do not have benefit, and this is especially good if they do not harm you, and if they are cheap. One such could be Vitamin D, which has been advocated (most recently for COVID-19, but for a lot of things) by many people, some of whom are actually experts. As with many “natural” remedies, most of the basis for this is in syllogism. You extrapolate from something that is known about a substance (commonly, as in the case of Vitamin D, that it “promotes immunity” – a pretty general, non-specific claim), but such claims are uncommonly backed up by rigorous testing to see if it actually does work. (Freeman’s Second Law: Something that makes sense is properly called a “research question”. You wouldn’t want to study something that didn’t make sense. However, to know whether it is actually true, you have to actually do the studies!)

Recently, The Guardian had an article titled “Does Vitamin D Combat COVID?”. It is very positive about the vitamin, citing many important people (unsurprisingly, being The Guardian, many from England), but does stop short of claiming that it will definitely work. The claims for benefit vary: it makes it less likely that you will get infected, that if you get infected you will get less sick, that if you get sick you are less likely to die. Not really quantified though. The reason is that there are studies that show both benefit and not, and none of them are definitive. There is also concern that people with more melanin in their skin, presumably a genetic adaptation to being from areas with more sunshine (and thus more vitamin D) can become vitamin D deficient when they live in areas in northern latitudes with less sun. Obviously, this is confounded by the existence of a variety of other social and medical health risks accruing to dark-skinned people in northern latitudes. Maybe it is an additional one, but it is unlikely that just taking Vitamin D will solve the problem of inequity.

The actual evidence is summarized in a recent piece in JAMA, “Sorting out whether vitamin D deficiency raises COVID-19 risk”. The first thing that you note here is that it is answering quite a different question – whether people who have low vitamin D levels have greater risk (and, thus, presumably, should take vitamin D supplementation), not whether everyone should be taking vitamin D. ‘Research findings about vitamin D and COVID-19 have been mixed and sparse,’ is the key finding, and the ‘Upshot’ of the pieceis a quote from Dr. Catherine Ross, a nutritionist at Penn State: ‘“Avoiding vitamin D deficiency is always a goal.”’

So you should take vitamin D supplements if you are deficient (Dr. Fauci says this also), although knowing if you are deficient would require both your having your level measured, something which is not recommended by the most reliable source, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for asymptomatic adults (although it is by many who are consultants to vitamin D advocating groups), as well as to know what the level below which you are deficient is: 20? 30? 50? You can find all of these in the “literature”. And it is concerning when advocates have industry ties. Nonetheless, vitamin D is available cheaply and generically, is safe if you don’t take too much (as a fat-soluble vitamin you CAN overdose on it), and Dr. Fauci takes it (same article). I took one this morning.

But the really big question is not vitamin D, even if the evidence is not absolutely clear. Overall, it is pretty safe and pretty cheap and has a conceptual justification and at least some studies show some benefit. The really big issue, as put forth early in this piece, is why do people continue to search for magic treatments that are not mainstream? Why do they often trust their friends and neighbors and strangers on the Internet more than doctors? I don’t know for sure, but in Hsu’s article comparing today to 1918 he quotes Jason P. Chambers, associate professor of advertising at the University of Illinois: “Human beings haven’t changed all that much. We’d like to believe we’re smarter, that we’d be able to spot the lies, but the ability of advertising to maintain its veneer of believability has only become more sophisticated over time.” Unfortunately, we’re probably not. That is why advertising is so successful.

This fear is related to not only mistrust of science (it is hard to understand) but to conspiracy theories in general; recently the “political” belief in a “deep state”, that “they” are lying to us and trying to keep important information and benefits from us. Of course, “they” may be; I certainly do not trust the leadership of our country (or any country) to necessarily work in the best interests of the people, except of the richest, most powerful and well-connected people. I absolutely believe that Big Pharma is only interested in making as much money as possible and selling us drugs which may not be any better than cheaper ones, or none at all. But the suspicion that science and medicine are working to harm us often segues into pretty odd stuff (I was recently sent this nonsense about the COVID vaccine being a plan to engender female sterilization!) (On the subject of conspiracy theories, Andy Borowitz’ recent satire – QAnon merging with the Elvis-is-Alive groups -- is, as usual, not far off the mark.)

I am sure that some of this is the fault of the arrogance of scientists and doctors. A good friend was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and was told by her doctors to “not go on the Internet, to not talk to anyone who has had it, because everyone’s cancer is different”. This is ridiculous, although I understand that they probably get frustrated by people coming up with silly or, worse, dangerous treatment ideas that they have heard from someone, or stories from their sister-in-law’s neighbor. This can of course be much better addressed, with something like “You’ll hear a lot from people who have had breast cancer; it is a common disease. You will certainly look things up on the Internet. Listen to them, but remember you are you, and your experience is not likely to be exactly the same as theirs. Please don’t take any treatments without discussing it with us, so we can make sure there is no danger. Welcome the support.” And, I would be wrong to omit, the big reason that doctors feel so pressured and don’t have enough time to talk to and discuss things with folks is in large part because the big corporations they work for (for-profit or “non-profit”) are about maximizing income, not health.

Still, people seem to find themselves drawn to “alternatives”. They like “natural”. OK, keep your mind open, but remember than “natural” is not necessarily better. Any substance that has any effect, positive, negative, or neutral is because of chemicals in it. That they occur naturally does not make them safer than those that are manufactured.

And watch the conspiracy theories and think about what is important. Life on earth could be extinguished by climate change. That is real. War which leads to nuclear war could do it first. People all over the world are starving, are without housing, without basic health care, subjected to natural disasters and man-made ones. They are being killed, often in genocides. In all countries, including ours, there is structural oppression of people based on race, religion, gender. Wealth is being transferred from regular and even poor folks to the richest at an astounding rate. Authoritarian leaders, and even fascists, are proliferating.

These are real problems, that need real concerted efforts to combat. Work on these. Don’t be distracted by non-issues.

Some medical care may not help. Alternatives may not either.

‘Why Doctors Still Offer Treatments That May Not Help’, by Austin Frakt in the New York Times, August 27, 2019, is a well-done article that, despite its title, is fairly optimistic. He reports that while about 50% of current medical treatments no not have good evidence supporting them, only 3% have evidence showing them to be harmful, and another 6% unlikely to be helpful. This means about 41% (or only 41%, if you prefer) have good evidence that they are helpful.

Frakt cites some of the research on health interventions that do not work, or may even harm, quoting leading researchers Vinay Prasad and Adam Cifu (although he does not mention John Ionannidis, arguably the father of the field). He discusses the important “Choosing Wisely” campaign, initiated by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, that asks each medical specialty society to identify at least 5 things often done in their specialty which usually should not be done. There is not, however, always consensus. For example, among its 20 recommendations (a high number that continues to grow, perhaps because of its discipline’s broad scope), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommends against imaging (including MRI and CT) for uncomplicated back pain, as does the American College of Physicians (Internal Medicine) (see ‘Medicine should not be primarily a business: choosing appropriate care for all, not excess testing for some, August 19, 2018).  Yet, neither the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, or the various groups of radiologists who perform these procedures, make this recommendation. Of course, both stand to benefit financially from doing these procedures.

It is concerning to think that, at least in some cases, financial benefit may influence the selection of some medical societies’ “Choosing Wisely” recommendations. Sadly, it is not a surprise, and financial benefit is, I believe, the reason for the use of many unproven treatments. Another important reason is an understandable reluctance for providers to abandon therapies that they have used for many years and believe to be successful. After all, if 50% of treatments do not have good evidence that they help or harm, many probably often do help, even if most of the evidence is anecdotal. Much more malicious, however, is the intensive marketing of new drugs and therapies to physicians by drug and device makers with a strong financial profit motive.

Frakt provides a litany of therapies-since-found-not-to-work-or-even-do-harm, including hormone replacement for post-menopausal women. The only drug he specifically names is Vioxx®, the “miracle” anti-inflammatory pulled from the market when it was found to cause heart disease (at least publicly found; the manufacturer actually knew it before it was released!). He also mentions “tight blood sugar control in critically ill patients” (and actually, probably most patients). This certainly relates to drug. The plethora of new, expensive, and marginally advantageous diabetes drugs is a testimony to their profitability. Ironically, it is often the same physicians who are unwilling to give up on treatments that are unproven or even proven to be of no benefit or of harm who are the first to begin using new (and, redundantly) more expensive drugs heavily promoted by the manufacturers.

Of course, it is not just diabetes drugs that are expensive. Compared to some of the newer drugs for rare diseases they seem like a bargain. In “The $6 million drug claim”, Times writers Katie Thomas and Reed Abelson discuss a woman who has $1 million in drugs to treat her condition in her refrigerator! While in her case they were paid for by her husband’s union, the cost can still be backbreaking: “At one point in 2018, for every hour that one of the union’s 16,000 members worked, 35 cents of his or her pay went to Alexion to cover the Pattersons’ prescriptions.” And what about those who have poor insurance, or no insurance? Or a union that goes bankrupt paying for them? Alexion, of course, does well, though.

A new law allows “gravely ill” patients the “right to try” drugs that the FDA has not approved. It sounds good; as a friend told me “I figure if I’m going out and they want to try something that might kill me I haven’t got much to lose. At best I’m cured. At worse, I go out but knowledge is gained.” Except for maybe dying sooner or more painfully, or possibly going bankrupt. It is not uncommon for doctors to suggest something new, unproven, or even a treatment that has already failed, one more time. Not everyone in this country has good insurance, and if your insurance company appropriately refuses to pay because there is no evidence of efficacy (yes, they are sometimes right!), you are on the hook for the bill. You may be dying, but your family may need the money you were saving for retirement. Thus, there may be a great deal to lose.

A certain percentage of people will take all this to mean that mainstream medicine is not to be trusted. This is definitely an overreaction, although a healthy skepticism is warranted, especially when the treatment is incredibly expensive and it is obvious that somebody (or some corporation) is making a killing on it. Some people will decide to pursue only what used to be called “alternative” medicine. These practices, often with hundreds or thousands of years of experience, are often called “complementary” and are now frequently offered along with mainstream medical therapies in “integrative” practices. But the same cautions must apply; because something is different, or traditional, does not make it necessarily either effective or safe.

For example, while people sometimes believe it is safer to choose only “natural” medicine, because a therapy grows in nature does not mean it is necessarily safe. Earlier in my career, medicine virtually abandoned the use of digitalis, made from the natural plant foxglove, to treat heart disease, after it had been used for decades. The key point is that if a substance works biologically and has “good” (i.e., desired) effects it can also have “bad” (i.e., undesired, or “side”, effects). This is true if it is straight from the plant, modified and standardized, or completely created in the laboratory.

Another real danger is what Frakt calls “wishful thinking”. Being optimistic and hoping that things will turn out well is good, and often useful when confronting serious illness. But when this transitions into the realm of “magical thinking”, being convinced that something good will happen to you because you want it to (or vice versa, that something bad will not happen because you don’t want it to), or believing a treatment will work because it is “natural”, or because your doctor recommended it in the absence of evidence, it is a real risk. “Magical thinking” is normal in three year olds, but dangerous in adults.

So what to do? Be open to new treatments, but do not reject the old, whether “traditional” or medical. Ask for evidence for treatment, such as when just changing a drug from an inexpensive standard (say, metformin for diabetes) to a new, costly one. Learn to understand probability, and ask for numbers. Do not reject anything out of hand, but do not believe that something will work just because you want it to.

Stay skeptical but not intransigent. Look for the evidence. And look also, when something is expensive, for the profit motive. Cui bono? It may not always be you.