$10,000 Health Challenge to Big Pharma
The other day I was forwarded a link by a friend of mine to a personal health newsletter called “NaturalNews.com.” This was actually for a technology consulting position that I had been forwarded, but in doing my due diligence, I investigated the web site to find out more about the company. I found an article posted on June 20th by Mike Adams challenging big Pharma to a fitness test between him and someone using big Pharma’s big drugs on a preventative basis. The winner gets $10,000 and the loser…well…has to write the check.
The premise of the challenge is that Mike Adams wants to prove that taking medications, on a preventative basis, really does not lead to optimal health. In theory, this is a great challenge to Pharmaceuticals, though I don’t think he will get much response from the major players in the industry. One of the innate problems in his campaign is the qualification that his challenger must be taking 10 different types of drugs, and must have been doing so on a preventative basis for a year. The list of the 10 types of drugs is as follows:
- COX-2 inhibitor (anti-inflammatory)
- Blood thinner drug (like Coumadin)
- Blood pressure drug (like Toprol)
- Statin drug (anti-cholesterol)
- SSRI drug (antidepressant)
- Sleep drug (like Ambien)
- Hypertension drug (like Norvasc)
- Antibiotic (like Amoxicillin)
Firstly, I doubt that there are many people under 65 who would be taking such a cocktail of drugs on a preventative basis, and given that Big Pharma is unlikely to know about any of its patients unless there is an actual adverse event reported, I’m not sure that they would even know where to find someone with such a qualification.
Secondly, I think Adams’ list sets up a Big Pharmaceutical company for failure already, because some of the drugs he lists are known to interact in the body in such a way that most doctors probably wouldn’t prescribe the two medicines together. In fact, in the article “Bad Combinations” published by Harvard Medical International in April 2004, we see that some of what Adams lists are known to interact poorly with one another and it would thus be impossible to find someone taking two. For example, Warfarin (AKA Coumadin) thins the blood by binding to albumin in the blood stream. Some antibiotics bind to the same protein, so if the two drugs are combined they could cause the amount of active and unbound Warfarin to soar in the body and with it the risk of uncontrollable bleeding. Another example is that ACE Inhibitors, which treat hypertension, would likely not be prescribed with COX-2 inhibitors like Celebrex or Bextra because the latter essentially negates the efficacy of the former.
What would make Adams’ challenge more interesting to me is if he just picked 1 or 2 drugs — any 2 on his list — and used that as its basis. Given the items he lists, I don’t think anybody taking even one of these drugs would be able to meet a physical fitness challenge. I also think Mike should amend his challenge to state that, given his background in personal health, he would help the person with a plan to eat right, exercise and get him or herself into better shape (enough that he/she no longer needs the drugs) and retake the challenge in 1 year. Make the participant compete against his/her own performance from the previous year. Strengthen the proof that your philosophy works by helping someone out who really needs it.
Let’s be clear: In many respects, I do not disagree with Mike. I think there are far too many doctors who have been given incentive by the pharmaceutical industry to pull out their prescription pad and give drugs to mask symptoms that won’t go away without some serious life changes. But I also believe that life is about balance, and the health that Mike has achieved may not be something that’s possible for all people — genetics, availability of health food choices, expense, they all play a partial role in the decisions that we make, and taking the time out of the day to mix a “superfoods” drink might not be possible for every person.
Take me, for example; I avoid taking drugs whenever possible, I eat lots of fruits and vegetables, I exercise, and my current state of health reflects that. My wife does the same, and we’re trying to pass that philosophy on to our son. But I’m not going to avoid taking an antibiotic if I have a bacterial infection. And sometimes a headache is just a headache and I’m going to take ibuprofen to get some relief. And given that my line of work is not focused on personal health, I cannot realistically spend my day preparing the kinds of foods I’d need to eat to be on the same level of fitness as Mike claims to be.
Not to mention, what do you tell a schizophrenic who depends on his/her medications to maintain a clear head? Or the countless people infected with HIV who have lived years beyond their original prognosis? While I agree that the Big Pharmas, like any business, are out to make money, we can’t minimize the impact they’ve had on people whose very lives depend on the drugs they’re taking.
So yes, let’s target the “preventative” medications, but make the challenge a little more serious. If one participant can see that a healthy lifestyle will give more benefits than any one pill, then the reward would be far greater than just embarrassing a person who has been led to believe his/her current drug cocktail is medically necessary.
What do you think?
