Archive for the ‘misinformation’ Category

If it ain’t broke, should I fix it??

October 8, 2012

A while ago I purchased a Groupon for a microdermabrasion facial from a local laser skin care and rejuvenation center. Included in the bargain basement price was a consultation with a skin care specialist. Aware that the business offered several expensive cosmetic procedure I wasn’t entirely surprised that although I had listed dry skin and occasional breakouts as my only skin concerns, the “skin specialist” I spoke to suggested I “really consider Botox” for the “lines around my eyes and on my forehead.” In a bid to reassure me that Botox is safe and effective, she let me know that she herself had regular injections. True, she had nary a line on her face. She also appeared to be about 25 years old. Granted, she could be 50 and her apparent youth the result of the wonders of Botox. Yet a glance at the stud through her cheek, Lulu Lemon tights and Sketchers sneakers suggested this to be highly unlikely. (So as not to undermine her credibility, I will also point that she was wearing a white lab coat, the epitome of professionalism). Even still, I declined the Botox. At 31, if I choose to look closely, I can certainly see where my face folds when I smile, frown, squint, laugh, or furrow my brow. I just feel that as long as I can still get away with referring to these as “expression lines” I will continue to age gracefully. (With the exception of my Vitamin A face wash, 2 eye creams, retinol serum and day and night anti-aging moisturizers). We’ll see how I feel in 10 years.

Botox is only one tool in the anti-aging arsenal. The technology available to essentially “turn back the clock” seems to grow every day. Procedures are also becoming less invasive, more convenient, and involve less downtime, meaning people can literally walk into their doctor’s office and walk out a newer, younger person almost instantly.  It seems every other week I’m reading about a new technique to treat some cosmetic condition that I have never even heard of or never would have thought about as a physical defect. A few posts ago I wrote about cosmetic surgery for feet. I have often cursed my wide feet while shoe shopping, but never would have thought about this feature of mine as a treatable deficiency. I have just accepted that I would have to live with this trait. Alas, not anymore! With advances in cosmetic surgery, wide footism is treatable! It makes me think: Are these advancement in cosmetic surgery serving to address existing weaknesses that impede people’s lives either physically or psychologically or are these new procedures actually generating anxiety and perceived imperfections out of the normal variations among us?

Let me illustrate this quandary using the prescription lash enhancement drug Latisse. You have likely seen the advertisements for this product featuring gorgeous spokesmodel Brooke Shields. The preparation itself was originally (and still is) used as an eye drop to treat glaucoma when it was noted that patients using the solution developed thicker, longer eyelashes. Result: Latisse. The cosmetically marketed product is brushed on the lashline, and about 12 weeks later you have longer, darker, thicker lashes. Of course any substance seeking FDA approval to be sold by prescription requires a valid medical indication. And this is the kicker. Allergan, the company marketing this “medication” has identified a medical condition called hypotrichosis, defined as “inadequate or not enough lashes”. That’s right, if you are a person born with thin, lightly colored or short eyelashes, you now suffer from a treatable medical condition. The bad news is that hypotrichosis is a chronic, debilitating medical condition that will plague you for the rest of your life. There is no known cure. The good news is that the good people at Allergan have come up with an effective treatment. As long as you keep using Latisse you will have longer and thicker lashes. But you can’t stop using the solution or your eyelashes will shrink back to their original form. Hypotrichosis requires lifelong treatment.

Beyond the now routine procedures such as Botox, Restylane, lasers, implants, tummy tucks and liposuction, the cosmetic surgery industry has progressed to produce processes to “treat” the natural variations that make us unique and distinguishable from one another. Enemy number one is any natural sign of aging. Newer additions: surgery to fix a cleft chin, liposuction to treat “cankles”, turning an outie bellybutton into an innie, iris implants to turn brown eyes blue, abdominal etching (selective abdominal liposuction to give the appearance of a “6-pack”), butt implants, bicep implants, calf implants, and even pubic hair implants. What next??

Cosmetic surgery can be a touchy subject with people feeling strongly in one direction or another. There are those who feel that any attempt to be physically altered is wrong. Others are more accepting of such a metamorphosis. I find most people are in the middle. The majority of us see some of our traits as requiring reinvention, while other deviations from the middle ground are the result of simple human uniqueness. Whether demand is influencing supply or vice versa, it seems that as people continue to seek physical perfection, advancements in the cosmetic surgery field will continue. Perhaps we need not attack the industry itself, but rather take a hard look at the way men and women are represented in the media and society as idealized specimens. Finally, we have to remember that we have the autonomy to refuse to buy into the message that we are being sold. We still have free will until it goes out of style.

This just in! Lesbians prettier on TV than in real life!

September 6, 2012

Source: instablogs.com

The minimal increase in TV programs showcasing lesbian characters over the last few years has actually caused debate within the lesbian community according to the August 13,2012 issue of Maclean’s magazine. Though I doubt most women in this underrepresented minority would, in theory, oppose the entertainment industry’s portrayal of their lifestyle for the masses, likely expecting understanding and acceptance as a result, it is ultimately the validity of the depiction that falls into question. As Emma Teitel, author of the Maclean’s article puts it “The lesbian media has a history of being elated with news its community will be represented on the small screen, then grossly disappointed with how its represented.”

 

Pretty Little Liars
Source:flickriver.com

Lesbian characters on television shows are not exactly novel territory. Ellen Degeneres came out as a lesbian on her hit sitcom “Ellen” in 1997. Sandra Bernhardt played a lesbian character on Roseanne for years. More recent examples are Callie and Arizona on Grey’s Anatomy, Angela Darmody on Boardwalk Empire, Santana Lopez on Glee and Emily Fields on Pretty Little Liars. Breaking new ground is programming showcasing lesbian characters almost exclusively such as BBC’s Lip Service and the now defunct The L-Word, and reality shows scrutinizing the lives of lesbian women such as Showtime’s The Real L-Word.

The Real L-Word
Source:wikipedia.org

If the mainstream media is finally embracing the lesbian community, what’s all the fuss about? Well here’s a shocker. Turns out some of these women feel they are being misrepresented. According to Teitel in her Maclean’s article: “Common criticisms of these shows from lesbian pundits and TV writers often have less to do with acting and character development than with how the characters look”. She quotes Julie Blindel from The Guardian as saying about Lip Service as saying that “every single lesbian is skinny, achingly trendy and lashed with lipstick.” She goes on to say that in ‘real life’ lesbians “tend not to dress for male approval, often rejecting makeup, high heels and other trappings of femininity.” So it appears that some in the community feel that TV lesbians are being characterized as ‘prettier’ or ‘sexier’ than what is realistic.

 

Lip Service
Source: bbc.co.uk

Wow, what a surprise. Sorry, I have been trying very hard to suppress my innate cynicism in an attempt to be a more optimistic and happier person, but I feel incapable of holding my tongue here. I find it almost shocking and quite frankly insulting that lesbians would think they would be accorded an honest portrayal in the media when no other member of the female population is granted the same. I can’t say for certain, but I would hazard a guess that television networks, like the rest of the western world general, are run by rich white men. And rich white men tend to cater to rich white men. They are also business savvy, wanting to make as much money as possible by bringing in the most viewers. However, they don’t give people much credit, assuming that most purveyors of fine television aren’t seeking much more than visual titillation. So what do they do? Put pretty women on TV. It doesn’t matter what the program content or character development is. Men will be drawn to watch and women won’t question this because it is what they are used to seeing, no matter how misogynistic and self-hatred provoking. Just because the main character is a lesbian and thus by definition (according to some) shouldn’t be beautiful doesn’t exempt her from being glamourized for TV. Most straight women aren’t a size 0 with flowing locks and designer clothing, but the majority of the ones you see on TV are. Oh, and they’re rich too. So sorry for the homosexual women out there but it seems that the television networks don’t think society is ready to see ‘butch’ lesbians or women without makeup on TV, especially in HD. The masses want to see Katy Perry kissing a girl wearing Cherry Chapstick. She likes it, and so do we, it seems.

 

I mentioned a debate before. Well, while some lesbians are upset about their attractiveness in today’s television shows, many applaud this depiction, citing it as relevant. There are some lesbians who accentuate their femininity, going out of their way to appear “girly”. Maclean’s cites to Megan Evans who calls herself a “femme” lesbian and says “television shows featuring highly feminine lesbians have made her feel more comfortable with her sexuality.” She says that often “If you’re girly and into beauty, then you definitely are viewed as not legitimately gay”.

 

It seems to me that the problem here is that there is a disassociation between groups of women where there should be a unification of forces. Straight women and gay women are essentially angry over the same issue, but arguing separately. Even lesbians who believe that there is no issue with lesbians being represented as feminine should be concerned with the idealistic images of women presented on television. Lesbians should not be adversaries against each other, nor towards straight women, we should all support each other to encourage a realistic and healthy portrayal of women of all sexual orientations in the media.

What does it mean to walk the walk? Were you there for SlutWalk 2012?

July 26, 2012

Over the last few months various “SlutWalks” have taken place across Canada, with some still on the agenda for the immediate future. These events have gained popularity since last year when they began over a flippant sexist comment made by an ignorant police officer, and organizers hope to make the marches annual events. The disgusting and offensive comment was made in Toronto by Constable Jackass Michael Sanguinetti who stated the following:
“women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”

Shockingly, this did not go over well with the public the good Constable was assigned to serve and protect. Many were outraged at the blatant attitude of victim blaming within police services this statement represented. Two Toronto women, Sonya Barnett and Heather Jarvis organized an event that brought thousands of women and men to protest in the streets of Toronto and in front of police headquarters to demand accountability for their attitudes towards women and victims of sexual assault. They called it SlutWalk. Since then, SlutWalks have been organized in many other cities in Canada, the US and around the world. Some cities, such as the one I live in (Vancouver), have already had the pleasure experiencing round 2, SlutWalk 2012. These events are carefully planned, with organizers regularly updating websites, twitter feeds, facebook sites etc. Some websites even allow supporters to donate money through the site to cover organizational costs. Many of the websites outline their own mission statements, values and goals which are generally congruent with each other and adapted from the “original” SlutWalk Toronto website.

The SlutWalk Toronto website, (www.slutwalktoronto.com), lists among their main goals advocacy against “victim-blaming” and “slut-shaming”. From the website: “Historically, the term ‘slut’ has carried a predominantly negative connotation……so we’re taking it back. “Slut” is being re-appropriated…….We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result. Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work. No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault…..We want to feel that we will be respected and protected should we ever need them, but more importantly be certain that those charged with our safety have a true understanding of what it is to be a survivor of sexual assault — slut or otherwise…….Whether a fellow slut or simply an ally, you don’t have to wear your sexual proclivities on your sleeve, we just ask that you come……Join us in our mission to spread the word that those who experience sexual assault are not the ones at fault, without exception.”

On May 25 in Toronto about 1000 people took to the streets for SlutWalk 2012. The theme was “My Body is not an Insult”, however without any background information, a casual observer would be hard pressed to decipher a clear message from the diverse group of protesters who participated in the event/spectacle. Both women and men attended and were dressed in attire that ranged from the conservative (think business attire and even nuns habits) to lingerie. Some left most of their clothing at home choosing instead to go topless. Protesters displayed slogans everywhere from man made signs to t-shirts to bare flesh. Some phrases were clever and original while remaining moderate, relevantly bringing attention to the need for all of society to realize that the sexually victimized are never to blame under any circumstances.
“A dress is not a yes!”

“My dress doesn’t have a mouth but I do and I said  NO!”

“There is no Y-E-S in NO!”

Other statements were just crude with some making one wonder which side of the debate these people were really on.

“Sluts say yes” (Yes, this is for real. No, I don’t know what it’s supposed to mean.)

“There’s no shaming this slut!”

“We’re taking slut back!” (Did we ever have it?)

“I’ll f**k just about anything, but only with consent.”

Image

ImageImage

Listen, I get the spirit of these protests. I was angry too when I heard Constable Sanguinetti’s statements. I agree that society has a way to go in the way that we view the victims of sexual assault. Sadly, opinions such as Sanguinetti’s are all too common. Women are often thought to have “asked for it” based on their style of dress, current or prior sexual escapades, line of work or attitude. Women get the message they should watch what they wear for fear of inciting rape when we should really be sending the message to men instead that raping a woman is never OK. It is especially unfortunate that those perfectly positioned to enable them to provide protection to those who have been victimized or who are most vulnerable would hold such misogynistic ideas. And it’s not just the police. In 2011 Manitoba Queen’s Bench Justice Robert Dewar gave Kenneth Rhodes a conditional sentence instead of any jail time for a 2006 rape because he felt the victim sent signals that “sex was in the air” since she wore a tube top with no bra, high heels and lots of makeup, and flirted with Mr. Dewar before he forced himself on her on a dark highway. Justice Dewar said “This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behavior.” From his ridiculous sentencing it is unclear whether he meant he felt Mr. Rhodes (whom he referred to as a “clumsy Don Juan”) was inconsiderate for raping the victim or the victim was inconsiderate for being such a cock tease. But don’t worry, the judge redeemed himself by adding “I’m sure whatever signals were sent that sex was in the air were unintentional,” Well at least he realizes the woman   didn’t MEAN to ask to get raped. The mentality behind this type of injustice is infuriating. But I still can’t bring myself to back the SlutWalk movement.

I support the SlutWalk mission to bring attention to the mentality of victim blaming wholeheartedly and to try to change this. But ending slut shaming? Taking the word slut back? Calling myself a slut? You see, this is where the whole movement loses momentum with me. I don’t want to be called a slut, or any other derogatory term used to degrade and belittle women. The participants in SlutWalk seem to believe that by reclaiming the word ‘slut’ for themselves they are embracing and owning their sexual independence. I call bullshit. Regardless of whether you call yourself a slut or a prude or any other term used to sexually oppress women, you are really just giving more power and validity to these misogynistic words which have been used for decades or centuries in some cases to attack, shame, and demoralize women. It is not feminism to conform exactly to the chauvinist idea of “sluttish” and to do it of your own accord in an effort to show the world that you are in control of your body and your sexuality.  Why would a woman want to proudly march in her skivvies with the word SLUT emblazened across her chest and be proud to bear this title which for so long has been used as a weapon thrown at women to punish them for their sexuality? Is this not the exact opposite of what the SlutWalk is trying to accomplish?

I’m going to be staying at home for SlutWalk 2013 in Vancouver. This will be my own silent protest. You should think about joining me.

Breasts: If you’ve got em’….why not use them? My take on the great breastfeeding debate.

June 17, 2012

Source:wellness.inside.tru.ca

I have always associated my above average intelligence with the fact that I was breastfed as an infant. The general consensus while I was growing up was that breastfeeding resulted in babies with higher IQs than those who were formula fed. A recent article by Elisabeth Badinter in Harper’s Magazine informed me that this theory has since been debunked, along with some other research on the benefits of breastfeeding. Her article, titled “The Tyranny of Breast-Feeding;New mothers vs. La Leche League” is a scathing criticism of the organization La Leche League (LLL) which she basically accuses of using unfounded facts, scare tactics, maternal guilt and other forms of bullying to manipulate women into feeling compelled to breastfeed. The article has stirred up a storm of controversy and discussion, with many women siding firmly with Badinter, feeling like the message pushed by LLL is at odds with the modern version of motherhood, and others horrified that she would dare call the superiority of breastfeeding into question.

Source:harpers.org

Not familiar with La Leche League, I perused their website. I didn’t find it quite as offensive as Badinter seems to. Of course, I’m barren at this point in my life so perhaps I am not as sensitive to the coercion tactics buried among the site’s pages. I did, however, find it a little over-the-top in it’s proclamations regarding the merits of breastfeeding, and quite frankly, a bit cheesy. I could also agree with Badinter’s criticism that the LLL seems to promote and support a stance that women who breastfeed are superior and hold a superior role in society to those that choose not to or cannot, and that women are the primary and most important child rearers in the family unit. “The loving help and support of the father enables the mother to focus on mothering so that together the parents develop close relationships which strengthen the family and thus the whole fabric of society. LLL further believes that mothering through breastfeeding deepens a mother’s understanding and acceptance of the responsibilities and rewards of her special role in the family. As a woman grows in mothering she grows as a human being, and every other role she may fill in her lifetime is enriched by the insights and humanity she brings to it from her experiences as a mother.” This seems to imply that the father’s role in parenting is simply to financially support mother and child so that mother is able to adequately nurture her child. This is reminiscent of the Don Draper type of father of the 1960s and 1970s who is successful and a good financial provider but is basically absent from his children’s lives. Many women and men have fought hard to change these gender stereotypes and create a new family ideal, one where the responsibility for the child’s development falls on both parent’s shoulders if possible. Furthermore, what does this statement by LLL say about single mothers? Widows? Low income families? God forbid the mother must work and she can’t focus solely on mothering as her single role in life. She will surely contribute to the downfall of society. Give me a break.

Badinter certainly makes some good points in her article. Many women simply can’t breastfeed. There are latching difficulties, they can’t produce milk, they develop infections in their mammary glands, etc. Many women breastfeed for as long as they can, but have to stop to go back to work, either out of personal choice or out of economic necessity. Women who adopt babies obviously can’t product milk to breastfeed their babies. LLL would like to make women think that by not breastfeeding, mothers will lose the chance to form important bonds with their children, thus making women who are not able to form this physical attachment to their child feel like failures as mothers. This is not fair, and it is also not true. Maternal bonding can and will occur whether or not a child breastfeeds or not as long as the mother is meeting her childs emotional, physical, nutritional and cognitive needs. I don’t have a statistic for you, but many formula fed infants have bonded with their mothers.

This is essentially where I stop agreeing with Badinter. Now, generally I roll my eyes when someone makes the argument that something is better for you because it is “natural”. This is true for most herbal products, organic pesticides, natural sweeteners like Steevia, natural soaps and deodorants (P.S.-they don’t work-you smell bad), and magic mushrooms. However, when it comes to breastfeeding vs. formula feeding, I am of the staunch opinion that breast is best. Our bodies were made to do many things. This is not to say we have to do them. As females we are designed to bear children often as early as 11 years old. This is because at one point the average life expectancy was under 40 and many women died in childbirth. We women had to get an early start to keep the human race alive. There was no such thing as formula, and women breastfed or their babies died. Obviously times have changed. We don’t need to birth children when we are still children ourselves (though unfortunately this still occurs), and as a matter of fact many women are waiting later and later to have children. And we have alternatives to breastmilk to nourish our children. The problem is that no matter how much you want to argue about it, study after study has proven the advantage of breastfeeding. It decreases the incidence of infections in the infant due to transferred immunity, it may decrease incidence of a variety of diseases, may improve speech development and prevent cavities. It also benefits the mother by reducing the risk of postpartum depression, anemia, ovarian cancer and osteoporosis due to lack of estrogen. Badinter notes that the research showing that babies of breastfed mothers have higher IQs and a lower risk of asthma have has proven unfounded. But these are only two of the purported benefits. It is not as if the vast number of other benefits are inconsequential. In her article, Badinter quotes sociologist Linda Blum who says that “formula is constantly being improved to reproduce the advantages of breast milk.” This is true. It seems that scientists are continuously finding new components of breast milk that are imperative for childhood development. It wasn’t until between 2003 and 2008 that scientists discovered that the addition of DHA to infant formula was important for eyesight and cognitive development. So how can we be sure that there are no other undiscovered molecules in human breastmilk vital for infant development that aren’t present in artificial formula?

Badinter also seems quite resentful towards the LLL about the fact that they have support from numerous medical organizations. As if there is some type of conspiracy against women everywhere, an evil puppeteer in the sky just itching for control of every mother’s breasts. She doesn’t seem to consider the idea that perhaps all of these organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Academy of Pediatrics are making their recommendations based on available research and in the best interest of children. She notes that currently the WHO recommends infants be breastfed exclusively for 6 months, and supplemented with breastmilk until 2 years. The American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends breastfeeding for the first 12 months of the infant’s life. The LLL on the other hand recommmends tha women breastfeed until the child decides he or she should be weaned, and furthermore, the ideal is on-feeding, meaning the mother must be available anytime, anywhere. I agree with Badinter that for working mothers this is not feasible. A recent Time Magazine article titled “Are You Mom Enough” discusses this further. According to the article, the natural age of weaning is between 2 and 7, with the average worldwide weaning age being 4. Of course in North America this is not the norm. It would be extremely shocking to see a woman breastfeeding a 4 year-old as evidenced by the controversial cover of said Time issue featuring 26 year-old Jamie Grumet breastfeeding her 3 year-old. Many called the cover sexualized and inflammatory. In our modern society where many women have careers, and children are often in daycare prior to 2 years of age, breastfeeding often ceases much earlier than these recommendations. Even still, many health benefits of breastfeeding can be seen as early as 6 months or even earlier.

Source:Time magazine

What is most disconcerting about Badinter’s argument is not that she feels somewhat hostile towards the LLL for their superior attitude. This is entirely understandable given the organizations old-fashioned and unforgiving philosophy. It is also not that she discounts years of research, although this is just plain ignorant. What rubs me the wrong way is that she does not seem to have any valid argument in defense of choosing not to breastfeed. In fact, her statements almost ruin her case. She says “As far as LLL is concerned, all mothers should be able to breast-feed. There are no naturally insurmountable difficulties, physical or psychological. It would seem there is no such thing as maternal ambivalence and that women who balk at submitting are simply reckless or bad.” Maternal ambivalence? What is that to be taken to mean? Why would a woman be unsure of? Whether she wants to breastfeed? Whether she should? If it is the right thing to do? The evidence is clear. The medical associations have given their opinions. There seems to be no clear reason not to breastfeed your child if physically able. If a woman hesitates in the face of the decision between whether to take the responsibility for the nourishment of their child or not then perhaps she should rethink her decision to have that child in the first place. We live in a society that gives women many personal freedoms. No woman is forced to have a child she doesn’t want. When making the decision to take on the huge responsibility of bearing and raising a child you should be aware of all that encompasses and part of that is sometimes putting your child before yourself order to ensure that he or she is having their physical, emotional, social and intellectual needs met. That is being a parent. Badinter doesn’t think this is reasonable. Badinter says about recommendations that women returning to work expell their own milk with a pump for their child to consume in her abscence versus using formula that “many women find pumping repulsive”. I’m sure that breast pumping is not comfortable, but I would hope that most mothers wouldn’t think that providing the best food possible for their child to be a ‘repulsive’ activity. The author’s statement that breastfeeding is associated with “loss of freedom and the despotism of an insatiable child” is probably most concerning. What does she expect? Whether breastfed or not, a child will hugely impact a woman’s lifestyle. All babies need to be fed, burped, be coddled when they cry, etc. Unfortunately babies demand a lot more than milk, and will continue to do so for years after they cease relying on a liquid diet. Get used to it or get a plant instead.

I believe in women’s rights. I am firmly pro choice. But if you make the decision to bring a child into this earth, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t do everything in your power to ensure he or she has the best start possible. While I can understand resistance to conservative and seemingly old-fashioned notions about motherhood roles, especially in these times when the family unit is often less than traditional, I also believe that the role of mother as  provider of nutrition to her infant has been long-studied and is the subject of much hard research data. Organizations like LLL can provide  information and support but women need to stay true to themselves and keep their own values and lifestyles in mind when reviewing the recommendations and data quoted on such websites. Above all, use common sense and critical thinking to decide what is best for you and your family. The decision to become a mother is not an easy one, and consequently being a mother will be the hardest job you will have. There will be many sacrifices but many gains. I have not yet been on this journey, but I hope to one day. I can’t say with any certainty what decisions I will make, but I can only hope that I will have my children’s best interests at heart.

The Wonderfully Spun Wizardry of Dr. Oz

June 6, 2012
Image

Source:getthebigpicture.com

As a pharmacist, I die a little bit inside every time I hear the question “Do you have (insert Product X here)? I saw it on Dr. Oz…” As I work and have a social life, and also a fair amount of love and respect for myself, I don’t watch Dr. Oz, and therefore have usually not heard of said wonder product. The herbal, nutraceutical, aruvedic and homeopathic market is growing quickly and it is virtually impossible to keep up with every product being marketed. Not to mention that most of these alternative health care products are not well studied, and have unknown actions, side effects and drug interactions. Products that claim to have “science” and “clinical studies” proving their effectiveness may have small scale experiments or very small, often biased studies paid for by the marketing company in their favor. That being said, if a product is considered a “nutraceutical” it does not need to go through the rigorous clinical trial process that drugs do in order to be marketed. A lot of people don’t consider the possible harm these products can cause, assuming that because a product is “natural” it must be “safe”. Has nobody told you not to eat wild berries in the woods because they are poisonous and can kill you? Some wild mushrooms can also be fatal if ingested, while some are used as illicit drugs for their hallucinogenic properties. The list goes on. In fact, many of the western medicines we have today are derived from “natural” or plant medicines. Asprin or ASA is derived from Willow Bark, and in large amounts can cause gastric ulceration, metabolic acidosis and death. A commonly used class of chemotherapy agents, the taxanes, are also derived from plant structures. These agents are extremely toxic. Digoxin, a powerful medication for heart failure, from the digitalis leaf. This is not to say that it is never appropriate to recommend herbal products to patients. Many are well studied and useful in certain situations. However it is important to consider each individual’s medical conditions, medications, and what they are treating, weighing the benefits and risks for each person based on their particular situation. Health care professionals have an ethical responsibility to put patients first above all else. This is why it angers me that the good Dr. Oz is touting the benefits of these “safe” natural products to millions of impressionable and trusting people watching his show every day. And it really pisses me off that I have to clean up his mess.

First of all, who the hell is Dr. Oz? Even the name sounds fake. In fact, he is a real doctor. The problem is, he is a cardiothoracic surgeon. Meaning, his expertise lies in the operating room. He is not an expert in nutrition, herbal remedies, exercise, microbiology, dermatology, homeopathy, diabetes, obesity etc. However, if you watch his show you would believe he knows everything there is to know about health. He gives tips on everything from vaccinations to weight loss and nutrition to diabetes.Of course, he always has a panel of experts on board to back him up. These “experts” often have something to gain from advocating the point of the day. For example, a recent show discussing the fad HCG diet featured the doctor responsible for the recent resurgence of the diet’s popularity and who has published numerous recent studies supporting the diet. Advocating this diet which consists of starving by eating a mere 600 calories a day (the average is about 2000) and receiving expensive daily shots of the hormone HCG (the pregnancy hormone) will of course gain her patients, notoriety, and money. This does not change the fact that the data supporting the diet is very weak and the diet is dangerous.

For the good of the public and the clarity of my conscience I would like to draw attention to a few of the good doctor’s most recent and most dangerous claims:

1) Raspberry Ketone:
Claim: Raspberry Ketone is great for weight loss and has no side effects

Fact: Raspberry ketone is structurally related to synephrine (a stimulant) and capsaicin. As a stimulant, it has been associated with heart palpitations and shakiness. Syneophrine and norepinephrine, as well as ephedrine, similar stimulants, have been associated with increased blood pressure, heart rate, heart palpitations, chest pain, and cardiac arrest. Ephedrine has been restricted in Canada to use as a nasal decongestant.
There is some evidence that it helps rats lose weight. There is not enough evidence in humans yet.
This medication can significantly decrease INR and require a larger dose of warfarin and require much more frequent monitoring of levels. However there is an unpredictable effect.

2)African Mango
Claim: It’s a wonder pill that will make you lose tons of weight without changing a thing in your life.
Fact:Yes, the African Mango group loss some weigh over the placebo group in a small study. However, they also consumed fewer calories Quite a lot fewer calories. Hmm. I wonder why they lost weight. Apparently the African Mango acts like a fiber making you feel full. Eat more fiber. This has been in every nutritional guideline for years. Take heed people!!

3)7-Keto
Claim:A natural byproduct of the DHEA hormone we naturally produce that helps keep us young and regulates our metabolic rate. After the age of 30 this drops, slowing metabolism and causing weight gain. 7-Keto stimulates the thyroid to increase your resting metabolic rate causing weight loss, less fat, more muscle and a smaller belly, especially with diet and exercise.
Fact: Some preliminary evidence of a decrease in body weight and fat in obese females but more evidence is needed. Decreased hemoglobin in some patients. Also has been associated with an increase in T3 hormone in some patients. Could be a concern for people with overactive thyroid, heart disease or uncontrolled blood pressure.

4)Forskolin
Claim: Helps promote breakdown of stored fats in fat cells. May also release fatty acids from fat tissue. Results in loss of body fat and theoretically increased lean body mass.
Fact: This is a potentially dangerous herb for many people. There is some evidence for its use in asthma and congestive cardiomyopathy, but no statistically significant clinical evidence of efficacy for weight loss. It can cause decreased blood pressure and flushing. There are many significant drug interactions. It can also interact with many other herbs such as anise, arnica, capsicum, chamomile, clove, fenugreek, garlic, ginger, ginkgo, ginseng, horseradish, licorice, red clover, tumeric, causing risk of bleeding or serious decrease in blood pressure. Any patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs, calcium channel blockers or nitrates should not take this herb. For patients on warfarin, INR may be increased if forskolin is used. Anyone with a bleeding disorder should not take this herb. Anyone with a heart condition should not use this herb. It should be stopped 2 weeks before any surgery to prevent serious bleeding.
This sounds really scary? Is it really worth it to lose a couple of pounds?

Image

Source:www.bcrt.ca

We live in a society that has been taught that everything can be cured with a pill. This is the combined fault of doctors, drug companies through marketing and advertising, retailers, and probably even pharmacist. But it is also the fault of patients. It is each person’s own responsibility to take ownership of their own health. There has been a big push towards an empowerment model of health care, that is one where the patient is a partner in their own health, and is an active voice in the decision making process with respect to how they are going to prevent and treat their medical conditions. In order to make informed decisions, people need to have knowledge. Shows like Dr. Oz give the facade that people are making healthy lifestyle choices for themselves, but really they are being manipulated by someone who is often spewing misinformation under the guise of health promotion. What needs to happen is that people need to look into what is right for them, consult other sources, and not assume that everything they hear on TV is gospel. If something sounds too miraculous to be true, it likely is. Weight loss is still only possible with diet and/or exercise. You won’t get abs without sit-ups. This is why I will never have any. And Dr. Oz will only go away if everyone stops watching him.