|
Dispatch: Big Anti-Soda, Trade Center $, Angiography, Nicotine, Graphic Images
A Likely Answer A week ago, we posed the question to Dispatch readers: who provides the millions of dollars used to promote a soda tax with commercials during the Olympics? Crain’s New York has the answer (article requires a subscription): “The message is paid for in large part by the state’s powerful hospital trade group and biggest health care union, and for good reason. Hospitals and health care workers want to take the $450 million they expect the tax to generate and use it to mitigate proposed healthcare cuts.”
“Now we know where it came from, and why,” says ACSH’s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. “These people couldn’t care less about obesity. All they care about is these hundreds of millions of dollars to replace funding that they feel will be displaced by state budget cuts to healthcare. This is the clearest evidence possible that this tax on soda has nothing to do with fighting obesity.”
The Lesser of Two Evils In 2003, Congress directed that FEMA provide up to $1 billion to establish a captive insurance company or other appropriate insurance mechanism for claims arising from World Trade Center debris removal. The mechanism created in 2004 by New York State for the purpose of administering those claims is the WTC Captive Insurance Company. According to CNN, “The WTC Captive Insurance Co. announced settlements Thursday with more than 10,000 plaintiffs who claimed sickness or injuries after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The settlements could total up to $657 million.”
“Right now we have a lot of questions, but we find it hard to believe that there are over $650 million in injuries from so-called ‘toxic dust,’” says ACSH’s Jeff Stier, who has written about 9/11 health claims for the New York Post (twice) and, most recently, for the Daily Caller, with a new Post piece likely on the way. “Can we blame the Captive Insurance Company for settling? Who knows; perhaps a jury verdict would have been worse -- they are sympathetic cases, and denying claims would require putting science above emotion. So perhaps the settlement is the lesser of two evils.”
ACSH’s Todd Seavey adds, “Tragically, it seems easier to dispense over half a billion dollars to people, many of whom probably don’t have 9/11-caused illnesses, than to make any real progress in the reconstruction at Ground Zero.”
To Catheterize or Not to Catheterize? A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine argues that coronary angiography used to detect obstructions in the heart’s blood vessels is an inefficient strategy to define a patient’s risk of heart attack because of its low diagnostic yield.
“Patients would have this procedure if they had chest pain of unknown origin or other symptoms that might possibly be construed as a warning sign of heart attack,” explains ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross. “The authors of this study seem to believe that coronary angiography is overused because 39% of the patients studied were determined not to have coronary artery disease, but they have a very high bar for defining positive versus negative results. Just because you don’t have to rush a patient to bypass surgery doesn’t mean it’s a negative result.
“This is a very highly predictive, minimally invasive, and very valuable test, and what they fail to mention is that if you find moderate blockages you can save these peoples’ lives by administering preventive therapy, like lipid lowering medication and lifestyle alteration. To say that this test is overused is a gross distortion of the numbers. I hate to argue with these erudite cardiologists, but this is just wrong.”
Letter to the Editor Yesterday, when ACSH staffers were discussing a study confirming previous links between smoking and a reduced risk of Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Whelan noted that, while this benefit is certainly not worth the many known health problems associated with smoking, this knowledge could help scientists learn more about the etiology and treatment of Parkinson’s.
ACSH’s friend and colleague Bill Godshall, Executive Director of Smokefree Pennsylvania, wrote in response, “I suspect that it's the nicotine, not necessarily the smoking, that may help prevent Parkinson’s, and that also appears to help Parkinson’s sufferers better cope. It also appears that nicotine/smoking helps many sufferers of schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder better cope with their disease/disability.”
“This is an important point,” says Dr. Ross. “If it is the nicotine that is responsible for these effects, we know that we can deliver nicotine in far safer ways than with cigarettes.”
Some Horror Stories Are True ACSH staffers laud the recent efforts of the New York City Department of Health to illustrate the health consequences of smoking, as seen in graphic ads on television and around the city.
“When you say cigarettes are dangerous, everyone knows that,” says Dr. Whelan. “You have to get specific, like our book Cigarettes: What the Warning Label Doesn't Tell You.”
Dr. Ross agrees: “We must give credit where credit is due for helping call attention to dangers of smoking. However, we should do so with the caveat that the NYC DOH’s similar strategy to demonize sugary drinks using ads that depict them as gobs of human fat tend to desensitize people to real health threats. Talking about cigarettes is one thing, but they should not be conflated with sodas.”
Curtis Porter is a research intern at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org).
|
