Safety of Supplements
Katie, Bar the Door!
When you offer a report on national television that puts dietary supplements in a negative light, you better bring your best game and back it up with some very specific facts, because we’re long past the age when the average Joe was an uninformed innocent.
If you happened to catch the much hyped, two-part report about herbal supplements on the CBS Evening News this week, you may have missed the best part: The responses from viewers posted on the CBS web site.
Turns out, CBS has some very savvy and very vocal viewers.
Stacking the deck
After part one of the CBS report aired on Monday, I checked the CBS web site, and the report’s title gives you a hint about what to expect: “Are Herbal Supplements Hurting You? New Book Says It’s A Buyers-Beware Market For Herbal Remedies.”
So is this a genuine exploration of the pros and cons of herbal supplements, or just a book promotion dressed up to look like journalism?
Like the title of the CBS report, the title of the book is revealing: “Natural Causes: Death, Lies and Politics in America’s Vitamin and Herbal Supplement Industry.”
Okay! So it’s pretty obvious where all this is heading. In an interview with CBS reporter Sharyn Alfonsi, Dan Hurley, the author of “Natural Causes,” states that “There’s no good evidence these products are safe and effective.” He’s not talking about specific supplements here – he’s talking about supplements in general. The whole lot of them.
Of course, as an HSI member, you know that there’s a constant stream of published evidence about the effectiveness and safety of supplements. Some studies are small and simply move our knowledge ahead by inches, while other studies are more profound and supply compelling evidence. But to say there’s “no good evidence” is to ignore hundreds of studies that offer excellent evidence.
Beware and be aware
I agree completely with one comment that Mr. Hurley made. He told Ms. Alfonsi that “It’s a buyers beware market.” And it is, of course. But ALL markets are buyers beware markets – so why would it be any different when it comes to swallowing a pill or applying a topical remedy to your skin?
Monday’s report featured an interview with a woman who said she applied bloodroot paste to a spot on her nose that she thought might be skin cancer. But soon after applying the paste, skin tissue began to peel away. Eventually she lost her entire nose cartilage and nostrils.
No doubt, this is a dreadful outcome, and my heart goes out to the woman. But she made a critical error. As Ms. Alfonsi notes, the paste was used “until she could get to a doctor.” In other words, she diagnosed and treated herself without first getting advice from a doctor or an experienced herbalist who could give her insight about the pros and cons of bloodroot, and then monitor her use of it.
Of course, facial disfigurement is an unusual and very dramatic adverse effect. But CBS viewers immediately recognized that this outcome is not at all typical of the wide range of supplement use.
As I mentioned above, many viewers took the time to visit the CBS Evening News web site and submit their comments in response to the report. And although two or three viewers joined Mr. Hurley in dismissing supplements, the vast majority of comments lambasted CBS for “bad journalism,” “sophomoric reporting,” “fiction,” “spin and muckraking,” and on and on. As one viewer put it: “Shame on you, CBS!”
More importantly, many of them backed up their comments with very specific details and citations to medical journals. In other words, they offered genuine in-depth reporting. (You can find all of these comments at cbsnews.com.)
Said it with a straight face
On Tuesday, the second part of the report addressed the fact that dietary supplements are regulated differently than pharmaceuticals. And again, an interview with Mr. Hurly was prominently featured. At issue: The FDA must approve drugs before they’re allowed on the market, but supplements require no such regulation. And the tag line of the report: “So when it comes to protecting people before there’s a problem, the FDA has its hands tied.”
Are you kidding me? I’ve got one word for that absurd statement: Vioxx. (And if you need more than one, the list is pretty long!)
In 1999, the FDA approved Vioxx, a COX-2 inhibitor for arthritis pain. Five years later – FIVE YEARS – the associate science director of the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety charged that FDA officials tried to suppress a report that concluded “27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths” could have been avoided if patients had been using Celebrex instead of Vioxx.
Thanks, Ms. Alfonsi. You gave me one of the biggest laughs I’ve had in a long time. The FDA – protecting people before there’s a problem. That’s a good one! If only CBS realized that was the bigger story – even if it wouldn’t sell as many books.
