Jonathan Wright MD
Accuses the AMA of Scientific Fraud

by Jeffrey Dach MD

In June 2009, the AMA (American Medical Association) announced a new bio-identical hormone policy which states:

"There is no credible evidence that bio-identical hormones are safer than traditional estrogen and progesterone products (Premarin and Provera)".  

Left image: Photo Courtesy of Jonathon Wright MD.


This AMA Bio-Identical Hormone Policy Statement is Blatantly False

Jonathon Wright's September 2009 Newsletter accuses the AMA of scientific fraud, claiming that this AMA policy statement is blatantly false.  To back up his claim, Dr. Wright cites a review article, The Bioidentical Hormone Debate by Kent Holtorf MD in the January 2009 issue of Postgraduate Medicine, a respected peer-reviewed medical journal. 

Bioidentical Hormones are Safer and More Efficacious then Synthetic Counterparts

Dr. Holtorf's review article, The Bioidentical Hormone Debate,  cites 196 research studies comparing bio-identical hormones to synthetic patented hormones (like Provera).  Dr Holtorf's article concludes ,"Bio-identical Hormones are associated with lower risk, and are more efficacious than synthetic counterparts.  Until evidence is found to the contrary, bio-identical hormones remain the preferred method of HRT." 

Left image: Photo courtesy of Kent Holtorf MD.

AMA Has A Long History of Corruption by Corporate Interests

How is it possible for the AMA to adopt wrong policy, and in fact, commit scientific fraud?  Simple, both the AMA and the Endocrine Society serve the large corporations that control  medicine.  The AMA is a mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical industry.  Rather than serve the American Public or their doctor membership, the AMA serves its corporate masters.  This is the way it is, and always has been.

Trust the AMA and Have Another Cigarette:




You may not remember the old days when the AMA served the cigarette industry by running cigarette ads in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).  It is all documented in this article  by Martha N. Gardner, PhD and Allan M. Brandt, PhD published in the 2006 American Journal of Public Health.   Above image: ad from 1930 courtesy of A J Pub Health.

Here is a doctor hawking cigarettes to the public in a television advertisement from the 1950's : 

I am a member of the AMA for the past 30 years, and sadly, the AMA has demonstrated over and over again that it cannot be trusted.  This new bio-identical hormone policy is simply more of the same scientific fraud we have seen in the past.

Links to Related Content:

The Evidence for Bio-Identical Hormones

ACOG Wrong on BioIdentical Hormones by Jeffrey Dach MD

The Importance of BioIdentical Hormones by Jeffrey Dach MD

The Safety Of Bio-Identical Hormones by Jeffrey Dach MD

The Battle for BioIdentical Hormones by Jeffrey Dach MD

BioIdentical Hormones, Cook Book or Tailor Made? by Jeffrey Dach MD

Breast Cancer Prevention and Iodine Supplementation by Jeffrey Dach MD


Jeffrey Dach MD
4700 Sheridan Suite T
Hollywood Fl 33021
954-983-1443
http://www.jeffreydach.com/  
http://www.drdach.com/  
http://www.naturalmedicine101.com/  
http://www.truemedmd.com/  

Links and References

http://www.wrightnewsletter.com/healthy/subscribe.html
Jonathan  Wright Nutrition and Healing newsletter subscribe page

http://www.postgradmed.com/index.php?article=1949 
Postgraduate Medicine: Volume 121: No.1
The Bioidentical Hormone Debate:Are Bioidentical Hormones (Estradiol, Estriol, and Progesterone) Safer or More Efficacious than Commonly Used Synthetic Versions in Hormone Replacement Therapy? Kent Holtorf, MD

Conclusion: Physiological data and clinical outcomes demonstrate that bioidentical hormones are associated with lower risks, including the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, and are more efficacious than their synthetic and animalderived counterparts. Until evidence is found to the contrary, bioidentical hormones remain the preferred method of HRT. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to delineate these differences more clearly. 

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/ama-adopts-new-policies.shtml
AMA Adopts New Policies at Annual Meeting June 15, 2009

Use of hormones for anti-aging procedures: Despite the widespread promotion of hormones for anti-aging, the scientific evidence to support these claims is lacking. In some cases, evidence suggests that long-term use of a particular hormone has more risks than benefits. Hormones reviewed by AMA include human growth hormone, testosterone, and estrogens with and without progestins.

Today, the AMA passed policy to inform physicians, policy makers and the public of the current scientific evidence on the use of hormones for anti-aging. Proponents of any hormone or other substance for anti-aging have the responsibility to prove that claims are scientifically valid.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=7849614
AMA adopts policy against anti-aging hormones, saying no proof they work and some have risks CHICAGO June 16, 2009 (AP). And the AMA says there's no credible evidence that other hormones, so-called bio-identicals, are safer than traditional estrogen and progesterone products.

http://www.cleveland.com/medical/index.ssf/2009/06/american_medical_association_a.html
American Medical Association adopts new cautionary policy on anti-aging hormones
by Associated Press  Tuesday June 16, 2009, 11:20 AM

CHICAGO — The American Medical Association says there's no scientific proof to back up claims of anti-aging hormones. At their annual meeting in Chicago on Monday, AMA delegates adopted a new policy on products such as HGH, DHEA and testosterone used as aging remedies.  And the AMA says there's no credible evidence that other hormones, so-called bio-identicals, are safer than traditional estrogen and progesterone products.

http://www.bioidenticalhormoneinitiative.org/?q=node/44
AMA Adopts New Policy Against Anti-Aging Hormones
Submitted by shenderson on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 11:03

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-15-ama-agingdrugs_N.htm
AMA adopts new policy against anti-aging hormones  6/15/2009 7:33 PM 

CHICAGO (AP) — The American Medical Association says there's no scientific proof to back up the claims of anti-aging hormones. At their annual meeting in Chicago on Monday, AMA delegates adopted a new policy on products such as HGH, DHEA and testosterone used as aging remedies.

Dr Randolf

http://www.prweb.com/releases/DrRandolph_AMA/bioidentical_hormone/prweb2566474.htm

The American Medical Association (AMA) Needs a Vocabulary Lesson on Hormone Replacement, Says BHRT Expert. Dr. Randolph Says That By Lumping Bioidentical and Synthetic Hormones Together, The AMA Is Generating More Confusion and Potentially Putting Women's Lives Needlessly at Risk

Jacksonville, FL (Vocus/PRWEB ) June 24, 2009 -- The American Medical Association's recent statement that scant medical evidence exists to support bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is dead wrong, says C.W. Randolph, Jr., M.D. R.Ph., board certified gynecologist and Medical Director of the Natural Hormone Institute. "The AMA's position on hormones is disturbing and disappointing but not necessarily surprising," says Randolph. "Unfortunately, most physicians across the country were not educated in medical school regarding the safety and efficacy of bioidentical hormone replacement and, as a result, they remain unaware of the medical studies from such respected medical research centers as Vanderbilt Medical University and Harvard Medical School - and across the globe - validating the safety and efficacy of this approach to hormone replacement."

Neal Rouzier MD

http://healthy-aging.advanceweb.com/Article/Do-Anti-Aging-Hormones-Lack-Scientific-Evidence.aspx

Do-Anti-Aging-Hormones-Lack-Scientific-Evidence ? By Neal Rouzier, MD Posted on: August 19, 2009

The American Medical Association reported in June that "anti-aging hormones" are not safe and effective for treating hormone deficiencies.1 To support this position, the AMA passed a policy stating proponents of hormone therapy must inform physicians and the public of current evidence that proves anti-aging hormones are scientifically valid.

The AMA council reviewed clinical trials on hormone therapy, human growth hormone (HGH), testosterone, estrogens with or without progestins, and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). It determined most studies did not support the safety and efficacy of these hormones as anti-aging treatments. The council concluded these therapies should not be recommended for age management.2

However, an in-depth review of AMA's report demonstrates several inconsistencies that do not fully support their claims....The AMA's weak research review only leads to greater confusion in the medical community. With the persistent fight against hormone therapies, it is imperative to base hormone administration on proven medical research, and refuse to rely on medical organizations that create weighted reports based on their own personal biases.

The AMA may claim anti-aging hormones lack scientific evidence, but studies continue to support the efficacy of BHRT. The proof is in the scientific literature.

Neal Rouzier, MD, is the director of the Preventive Medicine Clinics of the Desert, specializing in medical age management and preventive care. As a renowned expert in the field of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, Dr. Rouzier has over 15 years experience as an educator and practicing physician in the field of age-management. He is the author of How to Achieve Healthy Aging (Wordlink Medical Publishing, 2007), which examines the need for natural hormone replacement based upon the medical research.

---------------------
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

Trust Me I'm Your doctor, and Why Not Have a Cigarette ?

The above Camel television ad from 1949 was part of an extensive advertising campaign using the medical profession to convince the American Public that smoking is actually good for you. The above image is an ad in the Wallstreet Journal 1930 showing a doctor offering a pack of Lucky Strikes. For more on this see: “The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice”  The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930–1953.  The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) started published cigarette ads in 1933 until 1953

Chesterfield Ads:

In 1933, Chesterfield began ads in the New York State Journal of Medicine stating their cigarettes were "Just as pure as the water you drink... and practically untouched by human hands."

Camel Ads:

The campaign began in 1946 and ran for eight years in magazines and on the radio. The ads included this message:

This ad appeared in medical journals and mass media: " More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." 

Another ad said: "Family physicians, surgeons, diagnosticians, nose and throat specialists, doctors in every branch of medicine... a total of 113,597 doctors... were asked the question: 'What cigarette do you smoke?' And more of them named Camel as their smoke than any other cigarette! Three independent research groups found this to be a fact. You see, doctors too smoke for pleasure. That full Camel flavor is just as appealing to a doctor's taste as to yours... that marvelous Camel mildness means just as much to his throat as to yours."

Trust Me I'm Your Doctor, Have Another Cigarette.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16434689

Am J Public Health. 2006 February; 96(2): 222–232.
“The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice”  The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930–1953 by Martha N. Gardner, PhD and Allan M. Brandt, PhD

Advertisement: “20,679* physicians say ‘LUCKIES are less irritating.’ ”Source. Magazine of Wall Street . July 26, 1930.

FIGURE 2—
Advertisement: “A report on the findings of a group of doctors.*”Source. Saturday Evening Post. October 16, 1937.

FIGURE 4—
Advertisement from the Camels “More Doctors” series: “I’m going to grow a hundred years old!”Source. Good Housekeeping. July 1946.

Advertisement: “How mild can a cigarette be?”
Source. Ohio State Journal of Medicine. July 1949;45:670.

FIGURE 6—
Actor Fredric March in an advertisement for L&M Filters: “This Is It.”Source. Life Magazine . February 22, 1954.

1949 TV commercial from Camel cigarettes.
What cigarette do you smoke Doctor?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI
Television Ad Doctors advocating Cigarettes

http://www.naturalnews.com/021949.html

Doctors, American Medical Association hawked cigarettes as healthy for consumers.  

At the same time that JAMA ran cigarette ads, it published in 1950 the first major study to causally link smoking to lung cancer. Morton Levin, then director of Cancer Control for the New York State Department of Health, surveyed patients in Buffalo, N.Y., from 1938 to 1950 and found that smokers were twice as likely to develop lung cancer as non-smokers.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published its first cigarette advertisement in 1933, stating that it had done so only "after careful consideration of the extent to which cigarettes were used by physicians in practice." These advertisements continued for 20 years. The same year, Chesterfield began running ads in the New York State Journal of Medicine, with the claim that its cigarettes were "Just as pure as the water you drink... and practically untouched by human hands."

In medical journals and in the popular media, one of the most infamous cigarette advertising slogans was associated with the Camel brand: "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." The campaign began in 1946 and ran for eight years in magazines and on the radio. The ads included this message:

"Family physicians, surgeons, diagnosticians, nose and throat specialists, doctors in every branch of medicine... a total of 113,597 doctors... were asked the question: 'What cigarette do you smoke?' And more of them named Camel as their smoke than any other cigarette! Three independent research groups found this to be a fact. You see, doctors too smoke for pleasure. That full Camel flavor is just as appealing to a doctor's taste as to yours... that marvelous Camel mildness means just as much to his throat as to yours."


Jeffrey Dach MD
4700 Sheridan Suite T
Hollywood Fl 33021
954-983-1443
http://www.jeffreydach.com/  
http://www.drdach.com/  
http://www.naturalmedicine101.com/  
http://www.truemedmd.com/  

Disclaimer click here: http://www.drdach.com/wst_page20.html 

The reader is advised to discuss the comments on these pages with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Also note that concerning an answer which appears as an electronically posted question, I am NOT creating a physician -- patient relationship. Although identities will remain confidential as much as possible, as I can not control the media,
I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur.

Link to this article:
http://jeffreydach.com/2009/09/01/jonathan-wright-md-accuses-ama-of-scientific-fraud-by-jeffrey-dach-md.aspx

Copyright (c) 2009 Jeffrey Dach MD All Rights Reserved. This article may be reproduced on the internet without permission, provided there is a link to this page and proper credit is given.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of significance. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.