Harvard Medical Students Rebel Against Pharma-Ties

Two hundred Harvard Medical School students are confronting the school’s administration, demanding an end to pharmaceutical industry influence in the classroom.

The students worry that pharmaceutical industry scandals in recent years, including criminal convictions, billions of dollars in fines, proof of bias in research and publishing and false marketing claims, have cast a bad light on the medical profession. The students have criticized Harvard as being less vigilant than other leading medical schools in monitoring potential financial conflicts by faculty members.

Harvard received the lowest possible grade, an “F,” from the American Medical Student Association, a national group that rates how well medical schools monitor and control drug industry money.
The students were joined by Dr. Marcia Angell, a faculty member and former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, who has vigorously advocated for an end to liaisons between academia and Big Pharma. [Read more]


And from The New York Times, an article, "Harvard Medical School in Ethics Quandary" --

BOSTON — In a first-year pharmacology class at Harvard Medical School, Matt Zerden grew wary as the professor promoted the benefits of cholesterol drugs and seemed to belittle a student who asked about side effects.

Mr. Zerden later discovered something by searching online that he began sharing with his classmates. The professor was not only a full-time member of the Harvard Medical faculty, but a paid consultant to 10 drug companies, including five makers of cholesterol treatments.

“I felt really violated,” Mr. Zerden, now a fourth-year student, recently recalled. “Here we have 160 open minds trying to learn the basics in a protected space, and the information he was giving wasn’t as pure as I think it should be.”

Mr. Zerden’s minor stir four years ago has lately grown into a full-blown movement by more than 200 Harvard Medical School students and sympathetic faculty, intent on exposing and curtailing the industry influence in their classrooms and laboratories, as well as in Harvard’s 17 affiliated teaching hospitals and institutes. [Read More]

Research Article from the journal, ALLERGY, 2009

Topic: Prebiotics May Reduce Risk of Allergies in Infants
Keywords:
ALLERGIES, ALLERGY, ATOPY, ATOPIC DERMATITIS, IMMUNITY - Prebiotics, Short-chain Galacto-Oligosaccharides, Long-chain Fructo-Oligosaccharides, Breast Milk

Reference: "A specific mixture of short-chain galacto-oligosaccharides and long-chain fructo-oligosaccharides induces a beneficial immunoglobulin profile in infants at high risk for allergy," van Hoffen E, Ruiter B, et al, Allergy, 2009; 64(3): 484-7. (Address: Dr J. Garssen, Numico Research, Bosrandweg 20, 6704 PH Wageningen, the Netherlands).

Summary:
In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving infants at high risk for allergy, supplementation with a hypoallergenic whey formula containing 8 g/l GOS/FOS in a 9:1 ratio for a period of 6 months was found to significantly reduce plasma levels of total IgE, IgG1, IgG2, and IgG3, suggesting a beneficial effect on the antibody profile and the immune response. Moreover, supplementation with GOS/FOS did not interfere with the response to vaccination (infants were vaccinated with Hexavac against a.o. diphtheria, tetanus, and polio at 3 months of age). The authors conclude supplementation with GOS/FOS is "a safe method to restrain the atopic march."

NICK's Comments-- This is a great example of the benefit of probiotics. The introduction of 'good' bacteria to the gastro-intestinal tract helps to establish a healthy balance of gut flora. This is important because upward of 60% of immune system function is affected here. This is also why for a baby under 1 year old, they have a 3-times greater chance of getting ASTHMA/ALLERGIES after only ONE DOSE OF ANTIBIOTICS. Also, as the article mentioned at the header about Atopic Dermatitis, most people don't realize that ECXEMA is not a skin problem. The symptom presents itself on the skin, but the problem is, for the lack of better words, on the inside. Nutrition should be the first area to be considered. Putting topical creams and such on the skin may help deal with the itch, etc., but it's not addressing the actual problem.

Waterbirth Lecture Tonight

I just wanted to jot down a few notes from tonights lecture with Barbara Harper, RN,CD,CCE and founder of Waterbirth International. She is in town leading a workshop/certification on waterbirth, and led a free public lecture tonight at the Mercy and Truth Medical Center in KCK. Her talk was entitled, "Do Our Birth Choices Matter?" Here are some random points that I wanted to remember...

- Article from ACOG (American College of Obstetrics/Gynecology) with regard to 'Evidence-Based practice' guidelines - - stated from an OBGYN that much of what is done in obstetrics and childbirth is not 'Evidenced-Based medicine,' meaning that there is no evidence in research that the methods being employed are helpful or even safe. (As I've noted numerous times, much of the protocol in our hospital obstetrics has nothing to do with what's best for mother or baby, but what is best for the doctor/hospital, i.e. eating/drinking while in labor, mother position, repeated vaginal exams during labor, induction, immediate umbilical cord cutting, just to name a few...) and I would add, it seriously questions the overall safety of a hospital birth due to that fact.

- With regard to mother positioning, a Mother delivering in the upright position, such as squatting, is better at opening the pelvis than on her back, as is customary in the hospital setting... (it opens the pelvis 28% more when standing than lying supine)

- The importance of a vaginal delivery due to the introduction of bacteria, etc. to the baby while on his/her way out! It's an important part of the development and foundation of the child's immune system.

- The need to get that baby immediately to the mom's chest, or 'Habitat,' as Barbara called it :-) Regardless of the outcome of the delivery, the next step (immediate breastfeeding and skin-to-skin contact with mom) can significantly affect the baby's new arrival to the outside world. She told us about how her 2nd child didn't leave her 'habitat' for about 2 days (he pooped, pee'd, and it didn't matter!)... that's the importance of skin-to-skin contact.

That's all for now, it's late. For more info, see Barbara's book "Gentle Birth Choices."