GROWTH HORMONE/ HGH/ANTIAGING AND SPORTS

 

Thomas Perls MD, MPH, FACP

 
 
 

Home

What is the law?

FDA Alerts Warnings

Clinics

Doctors in Trouble

Pharmacies in Trouble

Docs dying young

Entertainers

FDA Letters and Alerts

Police, Firemen, Military

Bodybuilders, Athletes

Anti-Aging Industry

Major Medical Articles

Shortens Life Span!

Cancer

Side Effects

Pharma $$$

International Cases

GH In The News

Bioidenticals Supplements

Anti-aging & Quack Signs

Testosterone and Steroids

Sports and Athletes Dying

Helpful Links

Contact Dr. Perls

 
 
BEST ARTICLES ON THE ANTI-AGING INDUSTRY!
Newsweek
 

Live Your Best Life Ever! Is Oprah Dangerous?

Wish Away Cancer! Get A Lunchtime Face-Lift! Eradicate Autism! Turn Back The Clock! Thin Your Thighs! Cure Menopause! Harness Positive Energy! Erase Wrinkles! Banish Obesity! Live Your Best Life Ever!

 
PHOTOS
Best Life or Risky Advice?

Things you should know about Oprah's health tips

By Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert | NEWSWEEK
Published May 30, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jun 8, 200

 

In January, Oprah Winfrey invited Suzanne Somers on her show to share her unusual secrets to staying young. Each morning, the 62-year-old actress and self-help author rubs a potent estrogen cream into the skin on her arm. She smears progesterone on her other arm two weeks a month. And once a day, she uses a syringe to inject estrogen directly into her vagina. The idea is to use these unregulated "bio-identical" hormones to restore her levels back to what they were when she was in her 30s, thus fooling her body into thinking she's a younger woman. According to Somers, the hormones, which are synthesized from plants instead of the usual mare's urine (disgusting but true), are all natural and, unlike conventional hormones, virtually risk-free (not even close to true, but we'll get to that in a minute).

Next come the pills. She swallows 60 vitamins and other preparations every day. "I take about 40 supplements in the morning," she told Oprah, "and then, before I go to bed, I try to remember … to start taking the last 20." She didn't go into it on the show, but in her books she says that she also starts each day by giving herself injections of human growth hormone, vitamin B12 and vitamin B complex. In addition, she wears "nanotechnology patches" to help her sleep, lose weight and promote "overall detoxification." If she drinks wine, she goes to her doctor to rejuvenate her liver with an intravenous drip of vitamin C. If she's exposed to cigarette smoke, she has her blood chemically cleaned with chelation therapy. In the time that's left over, she eats right and exercises, and relieves stress by standing on her head. Somers makes astounding claims about the ability of hormones to treat almost anything that ails the female body. She believes they block disease and will double her life span. "I know I look like some kind of freak and fanatic," she said. "But I want to be there until I'm 110, and I'm going to do what I have to do to get there."

That was apparently good enough for Oprah. "Many people write Suzanne off as a quackadoo," she said. "But she just might be a pioneer." Oprah acknowledged that Somers's claims "have been met with relentless criticism" from doctors. Several times during the show she gave physicians an opportunity to dispute what Somers was saying. But it wasn't quite a fair fight. The doctors who raised these concerns were seated down in the audience and had to wait to be called on. Somers sat onstage next to Oprah, who defended her from attack. "Suzanne swears by bioidenticals and refuses to keep quiet. She'll take on anyone, including any doctor who questions her."

That would be a lot of doctors. Outside Oprah's world, there isn't a raging debate about replacing hormones. Somers "is simply repackaging the old, discredited idea that menopause is some kind of hormone-deficiency disease, and that restoring them will bring back youth," says Dr. Nanette Santoro, director of reproductive endocrinology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and head of the Reproductive Medicine Clinic at Montefiore Medical Center. They just don't need as much once they get past their childbearing years. Unless a woman has significant discomfort from hot flashes—and most women don't—there is little reason to prescribe them. Most women never use them. Hormone therapy can increase a woman's risk of heart attacks, strokes, blood clots and cancer. And despite Somers's claim that her specially made, non-FDA-approved bioidenticals are "natural" and safer, they are actually synthetic, just like conventional hormones and FDA-approved bioidenticals from pharmacies—and there are no conclusive clinical studies showing they are less risky. That's why endocrinologists advise that women take the smallest dose that alleviates symptoms, and use them only as long as they're needed.

"It completely blew me away that Oprah would go to her for advice on this topic," says Cynthia Pearson, the executive director of the nonprofit National Women's Health Network and an authority on hormone therapy. "I have to say, it diminished my respect."

Somers says it's mainstream doctors who need to get their facts straight. "The problem is that our medical schools do not teach this," she said in a February interview with NEWSWEEK. She believes doctors, scientists and the media are all in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry. "Billions are spent on marketing drugs, and these companies also support academic research." Free from these entanglements, Somers can see things clearly. "I have spent thousands of hours on this. I've written 18 books on health. I know my stuff."

On Oprah's show, there is one opinion more equal than others; and by the end of the program there was no doubt where Oprah herself stood on the issue. She told her audience that she found Somers's bestselling books on bioidentical hormones "fascinating" and said "every woman should read" what she has to say. She didn't stop there. Oprah said that although she has never had a hot flash, after reading Somers she decided to go on bioidenticals herself. "After one day on bioidentical estrogen, I felt the veil lift," she wrote in O, The Oprah Magazine. "After three days, the sky was bluer, my brain was no longer fuzzy, my memory was sharper. I was literally singing and had a skip in my step." On the show, Oprah had her own word of warning for the medical establishment: "We have the right to demand a better quality of life for ourselves," she said. "And that's what doctors have got to learn to start respecting."

All in all, it was a perfect hour of tabloid television. Who could look away from Suzanne Somers's sad but captivating efforts to turn back time? And if there was a stab of guilt in the pleasure we took in the spectacle, Oprah was close by to ease our minds, to reassure us, with the straightest face, that it was all in the name of science and self-improvement. Oprah routinely grabs viewers with the sort of tales of the strange and absurd that might be found a few clicks over on Maury Povichor Jerry Springer: women who leave their husbands for other women (another recent Oprah episode); a 900-pound mom (ditto). But there is a difference. Oprah makes her audience feel virtuous for gaping at the misfortunes of others. What would be sniffed at as seamy on Maury is somehow praised as anthropology on Oprah. This is Oprah's special brilliance. She is a gifted entertainer, but she makes it seem as though that is beside the point. Oprah is not here to amuse you, she is here to help you. To help you understand your feelings; drop those unwanted pounds; look and feel younger; get your thyroid under control; to smooth your thighs, nip and tuck your wrinkles, awaken your senses and achieve spiritual tranquillity so that you can at last be free to "Live Your Best Life."

Oprah takes these things very seriously. They are, after all, the answers she hopes to find for herself. If Oprah has an exquisite ear for the cravings and anxieties of her audience, it is because she shares them. Her own lifelong quest for love, meaning and fulfillment plays out on her stage each day. In an age of information overload, she offers herself as a guide through the confusion.

Her audience cannot get enough. After more than two decades on the air, the Oprah franchise continues to expand. Forty million people tune in to watch her television show each week. O magazine, which features her picture on every cover, sells more than 2 million copies each month. She has her own satellite radio channel and a very popular Web site. Forbes puts Oprah's personal fortune at $2.7 billion. Her empire is about to get bigger. Oprah has made a deal to launch her own cable television channel that will reach 70 million homes. It will be called, of course, the Oprah Winfrey Network and will include Oprah-approved programming on health and living well. In announcing the deal, Oprah said, "I will now have the opportunity to do this 24 hours a day on a platform that goes on forever."

Oprah says things like this without irony. But really, how could it not go to her head, even a little? Her most ardent fans regard her as an oracle. If she mentions the title of a book, it goes to No. 1. If she says she uses a particular wrinkle cream, it sells out. At Oprah's retail store in Chicago, women can purchase used shoes and outfits that she wore on the show. Her viewers follow her guidance because they like and admire her, sure. But also because they believe that Oprah, with her billions and her Rolodex of experts, doesn't have to settle for second best. If she says something is good, it must be.

This is where things get tricky. Because the truth is, some of what Oprah promotes isn't good, and a lot of the advice her guests dispense on the show is just bad. The Suzanne Somers episode wasn't an oddball occurrence. This kind of thing happens again and again on Oprah. Some of the many experts who cross her stage offer interesting and useful information (props to you, Dr. Oz). Others gush nonsense. Oprah, who holds up her guests as prophets, can't seem to tell the difference. She has the power to summon the most learned authorities on any subject; who would refuse her? Instead, all too often Oprah winds up putting herself and her trusting audience in the hands of celebrity authors and pop-science artists pitching wonder cures and miracle treatments that are questionable or flat-out wrong, and sometimes dangerous.

Oprah would probably not agree with this assessment. She declined to be interviewed for this article, but in a statement she said, "The guests we feature often share their first-person stories in an effort to inform the audience and put a human face on topics relevant to them. I've been saying for years that people are responsible for their actions and their own well-being. I believe my viewers understand the medical information presented on the show is just that—information—not an endorsement or prescription. Rather, my intention is for our viewers to take the information and engage in a dialogue with their medical practitioners about what may be right for them."
The first-person story that, as Oprah says, puts "a human face on topics" is an important part of the show's success. Perhaps Oprah's most attractive quality, and one that sets her apart from other daytime hosts, is that she abhors the celebration of victimhood. She succeeded despite a childhood of abuse, and her own experience left her with very little tolerance for people who indulge in self-pity or blame cruel fate for their troubles. She often features regular people or, even better, celebrities, who have met challenges in their lives.

In 2007, Oprah invited Jenny McCarthy, the Playboymodel and actress, to describe her struggle to find help for her young son. When he was 2½, Evan suffered a series of seizures. A neurologist told McCarthy he was autistic. "So what do you think triggered the autism?" Oprah asked McCarthy. "I know you have a theory."

McCarthy is certain that her son contracted autism from the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination he received as a baby. She told Oprah that the morning he went in for his checkup, her instincts told her not to allow the doctor to give him the vaccine. "I said to the doctor, I have a very bad feeling about this shot. This is the autism shot, isn't it? And he said no, that is ridiculous; it is a mother's desperate attempt to blame something on autism. And he swore at me." The nurse gave Evan the shot. "And not soon thereafter," McCarthy said, "boom, soul gone from his eyes."

McCarthy is now the most prominent voice in a small but vocal movement of parents with autistic children who are demanding action from the government. They believe that chemicals once used to preserve vaccines, combined with the increase in the number of shots kids get today, have created an epidemic of autism; and that doctors, the government, the media and drug companies are hiding or ignoring the truth. McCarthy declined an interview, but in a statement she said, "I understand that vaccines are an important part of keeping us alive today. My problem is with the ingredients in some vaccines that can become toxic when introduced to children with vulnerable immune systems. I want those children to be able to delay vaccines that could cause them harm."

It is easy to see why parents like McCarthy have latched onto vaccines as the culprit. They want answers, and sadly there are few. Studies have found some genetic and environmental links that may increase the risk of autism, but its causes are still unknown. The baffling rise in the number of autism cases has loosely coincided with an increase in the number of childhood immunizations. Yet researchers have not found a link between the vaccines and autism. Here is what we do know: before vaccinations, thousands of children died or got sick each year from measles, mumps and rubella.

But back on the Oprah show, McCarthy's charges went virtually unchallenged. Oprah praised McCarthy's bravery and plugged her book, but did not invite a physician or scientist to explain to her audience the many studies that contradict the vaccines-autism link. Instead, Oprah read a brief statement from the Centers for Disease Control saying there was no science to prove a connection and that the government was continuing to study the problem. But McCarthy got the last word. "My science is named Evan, and he's at home. That's my science." Oprah might say that McCarthy was just sharing her first-person story and that Oprah wasn't endorsing her point of view. But by the end of the show, the take-away message for any mother with young kids was pretty clear: be afraid.

Oprah told viewers that McCarthy would be available to answer questions and give guidance later that day on Oprah.com. One viewer went online to ask McCarthy what she would do if she could do it all over again. "If I had another child," McCarthy answered, "I would not vaccinate." A mother wrote in to say that she had decided not to give her child the MMR vaccine because of fears of autism. McCarthy was delighted. "I'm so proud you followed your mommy instinct," she wrote. A year later, McCarthy was back on the show for an episode about "Warrior Moms," which gave her another opportunity to expand on her claims about vaccines and autism. Oprah must have liked what she heard. McCarthy became a semiregular guest on the show, and in May, Oprah announced that her production company had signed McCarthy for a talk show of her own.

McCarthy is not the only guest who has warned Oprah's viewers off vaccines. Last summer Dr. Christiane Northrup, a physician and one of Oprah's regular experts, took questions from the audience. One woman asked about the HPV vaccine, which protects women against a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer. Northrup advised against getting the shot. "I'm a little against my own profession," she said. "My own profession feels that everyone should be vaccinated." But Northrup cautioned, "There have been some deaths from the vaccine." She suggested a different approach. "Where I'd put my money is getting everybody on a dietary program that would enhance their immunity, and then they would be able to resist that sort of thing. All right?"

It is true that of the millions of women who have received the vaccine, 32 have died in the days or weeks afterward. But in each case, the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration investigated the deaths and found that they were coincidental and were not related to the shot. "This is a very safe vaccine," says Susan Wood, a research professor in the School of Public Health at George Washington University and the former head of the FDA's Office of Women's Health. "Because of the power and influence that Oprah's show has, she should make an extra effort to be clear." Neither did Oprah question Northrup's assertion that women can stop the spread of a cancer-causing sexually transmitted disease by eating healthy foods. There is, Wood says dryly, "no evidence that money spent on general health promotion" will do that. Reached by phone, Northrup herself now concedes she isn't certain that anyone has died from the vaccine. And she didn't mean to leave the impression that women should avoid it. "I would say that there is a chance that they could be injured from it, but I wouldn't say not to take it."

Northrup holds a special place in Oprah's constellation of regular guests. A Dartmouth-educated ob-gyn, she stresses alternative therapies and unseen connections between the soul and the body that she believes conventional doctors overlook, but that she can see. She has written about how she has used Tarot cards to help diagnose her own illnesses. (On her Web site, she sells her own "Women's Wisdom Healing Cards.") In other words, she gets right to the center of Oprah's search for hidden mystical meanings. Oprah says she reads Northrup's menopause book "just like it's the Bible. It's the book next to my bed. I read the Bible. I read that book." (Disclosure: NEWSWEEK correspondent Pat Wingert, who worked on this article, and contributor Barbara Kantrowitz are coauthors of a book on menopause.)

Oprah turned to Northrup for advice in 2007, when, as she put it, she "blew out" her thyroid after a stressful season of work and travel. She felt sick and drained and she gained weight. She asked the doctor to come on the show to explain what was going on. "When I called her to talk about this whole thyroid issue," Oprah told the audience, "she always connects the mind, the body and the spirit."

Thyroid dysfunction, which affects millions of Americans (mostly women), occurs when the thyroid gland located in the neck produces too much or too little thyroid hormone. Too much (hyperthyroidism) and the metabolism races, sometimes causing anxiety and weight loss. Too little (hypothyroidism) and it slows, which, if severe, can lead to depression and weight gain. Many things can trigger the disease, especially autoimmune disorders.

But Northrup believes thyroid problems can also be the result of something else. As she explains in her book, "in many women, thyroid dysfunction develops because of an energy blockage in the throat region, the result of a lifetime of 'swallowing' words one is aching to say."
On the show, she told Oprah that "your body gives you signals: 'Hey, you've been putting too much stuff under the carpet ...' "

Oprah : So your body ... is only manifesting what's really going on with your spirit?

Northrup: But your intellect doesn't know it. This is the important part. It's not—you're not causing this deliberately ... It's your soul bringing it to your attention.

Oprah: Right. It's your soul trying to speak to you.

An interesting theory—but is there anyone who believes that what Oprah suffers from is an inability to express herself? She didn't make it clear on the show what form of the disease she had, or what her doctors believed brought it on. She shared with her audience that she took thyroid medication and spent a month relaxing in Hawaii, where she ate fresh foods and drank soy milk. Northrup advises that in addition to conventional thyroid medication, women should consider taking iodine supplements.

That is just what they shouldn't do, says Dr. David Cooper, a professor of endocrinology at Johns Hopkins medical school who specializes in thyroid disease. "She is mixing truth with fantasy here," he says. First, "thyroid disease has nothing to do with women being downtrodden. She makes it sound like these women brought it on themselves." Cooper agrees that thyroid patients should seek thyroid hormone treatment to bring the symptoms under control. But, he says, Oprah should have stayed clear of soy milk. "If you're hypothyroid and you're taking thyroid medication, you do not want to be taking soy. It will block your body's ability to absorb the medication."

Iodine, he says, can be even riskier. "[Northrup] says iodine deficiency is more common in women, when in reality it's not very common in women at all. This is a myth." The thyroid gland, he says, is extremely sensitive to iodine. "If you have mild hypothyroidism, taking iodine will make it worse."
"The problem is that this all has the aura of being scientific when a lot of it is wrong, or not proven or just utter hogwash," Cooper says. "No wonder it sounds very credible to the patients, and in my opinion, that's even worse. If it was all complete rubbish, people would be more likely to see it for what it really is."

All this dreary talk of measles and cancer and thyroids. Wouldn't you rather "Stop the Clock on Aging!" Hear about "The Latest Age-Defying Breakthroughs!" Get the skinny on the miracle "Lunchtime Face-Lift Which Means No Cutting and No Down Time!" These are all teaser lines Oprah has recited on her show. Oprah hasn't had plastic surgery herself, and she has aired the cautionary tales of desperate, youth-obsessed women who ruined their faces with too many procedures. Yet she seems fascinated with the subject and has been among the first to promote the newest treatments. In 2004, Oprah debuted a new "groundbreaking" procedure on the show called a thread lift. Her guest, dermatologist Karyn Grossman, called it "pretty much as close as you can get to a face-lift without actually cutting."

Oprah liked the sound of that. "Well, let's see what this is, y'all!" she told the audience. She played a video of Grossman performing the procedure on a 61-year-old woman named Sandy. Grossman poked multiple holes on each side of Sandy's face near her ears, eyes and cheekbones, then pulled through thin threads under the skin. The threads caught in her flesh, hoisting her tissue up and back. "Threads are tied off," Oprah enthused, "and a one-hour lunch-break lift."

Sandy was in the audience to show off the results. Oprah flashed the "before" picture, what appeared to be a no-makeup shot under harsh lighting. She looked like a 61-year-old woman with no makeup. Then, the big reveal. Sandy emerged under the warm studio bulbs, her face heavily pancaked with makeup. She looked like a 61-year-old woman heavily pancaked with makeup. It was difficult to tell if there was any difference. But Sandy pronounced herself pleased with the results, and the audience burst into applause.

Oprah said almost nothing about possible risks. "It is a relatively painless procedure, I'm told," she said. "Scarring is minimal, and recovery time is measured in days instead of weeks." Yet according to Plastic Surgery Practice, an industry magazine, some doctors reported that "over time, the suture tends to act like a 'cheese wire'," cutting through delicate facial tissue. Some patients who underwent another version of the procedure, which used barbed threads, experienced bunching of the skin, dimples and scars. Others complained the left and right sides of their faces no longer matched up due to "migration of the sutures." One of the most common complaints, though, was that they couldn't see any improvement at all.

The thread-lift craze, such as it was, did not last long. "You never hear anything about them now," says Dr. Alan Gold of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. "That procedure turned out to have major downsides and rapidly fell into disrepute."

You would not know this from watching Oprah. The New York Timesnoted problems with the treatment in a 2006 article specifically about the Oprah show's tendency to hype plastic surgery without mentioning the risks. But Oprah never circled back to warn her viewers that they just might want to cross it off their to-do list. Grossman says Oprah never gave her an opening to talk about the downsides, and in the moment it didn't occur to her to raise them herself. If she went on the show again, she says, she'd do things differently. "We should have said, 'This is a new procedure. It looks interesting and exciting, but we don't know everything about it yet and there may be risks that haven't come up yet'."

Oprah was also one of the first to feature a procedure called Thermage. It smooths wrinkles by using radio waves to tighten skin. The Times article noted that Oprah was one of the first to call attention to the $30,000 Thermage machines after they were released in 2003. "The show drove so much interest that our sales reps were selling machines over the phone," the president of the company told the paper. In the years since, Oprah has featured the product numerous times on her TV show and Web site and in her magazine.

In February 2004, dermatologist Brandith Irwin appeared on an episode called "Look Younger! Live Longer!" The show aired again twice over the next two years. Irwin came on the program to promote a book and to talk about cosmetic procedures. She had nothing but praise for Thermage, which was then still a relatively new treatment. "I tell my patients they'll lose about half a day, and then you go back to your normal activities the next day." Neither Oprah nor Irwin said anything about a significant downside to the procedure: it hurt, a lot. And it didn't always work. On her own Web site, Irwin acknowledges that in those early days of Thermage, "the treatments were painful without sedation (we sedated everyone in our office), and the results were inconsistent." O magazine recently ranked Thermage as a four on a pain scale of one to five. Five was "agony." There was also no mention on the show about the potential risks, which included burns and scars.

The makers of Thermage say the latest generation of machines are more effective and far less painful. And the risk of complications is very low. Stephen Fanning, the company's CEO, says Oprah certainly helped drive sales and interest. But he is uncomfortable when his product is promoted without giving people the whole picture. "I think any time you're dealing with a cosmetic device, you always have to present a balanced approach. Oprah didn't." Fanning believes Oprah should have made it clear that Thermage isn't for everyone. "Who isn't a good candidate? Someone who smokes a lot, someone who consumes a lot of alcohol, is not going to get the kind of results they want. The same can be said for someone who has spent a lot of time in the sun."
Yet Irwin says there was no time on the Oprah show to go into these kinds of details. "It was meant to stimulate interest, and then people could go find out about it from their doctor and decide what's appropriate for them. That's what the Web site and the book and office visits are for," Irwin says. "I am in sympathy with the idea of doing better medical segments," she says. "We can't do that in 15 seconds."

Right about now is when you might be asking, is there anything Oprah gets right? In fact, there is. For one, she gives excellent diet and fitness tips. Two of her longest-serving resident experts, Dr. Mehmet Oz and trainer Bob Greene, routinely offer sound, high-quality advice to Oprah and her audience on how to lose weight and improve overall health. For the most part, it is free of the usual diet-industry hype, perhaps because so many of her viewers are on to those scams by now. Oz's and Greene's philosophy amounts to: eat nutritious foods, and exercise.

Oz, fit and handsome, is particularly good at connecting with Oprah's audience. He is a cardiac surgeon at Columbia University and generally sticks to the facts. He is also a natural showman who comes onstage in surgical scrubs, as if he might be asked to perform an emergency heart transplant at any moment. He sometimes arrives carrying preserved body parts as visual aids. On one show, "Everybody Poops," Oz conducted a genuinely fascinating seminar on what comes out the other end. (It should be shaped like an S and "hit the water like a diver from Acapulco." Who knew?)

Oz isn't without his faults. He sometimes keeps quiet on the show when Oprah's out-there experts are spouting their questionable theories. There seems to be an unwritten rule that one Oprah expert may not criticize or correct another, and Oz has an interest in keeping Oprah happy. She has turned his books into mega-bestsellers, and features him on her Web site and in her magazine. Her production company is also bankrolling his own syndicated TV show, Dr. Oz, which debuts in the fall. "My role on The Oprah Winfrey Show was never to assume editorial control or in any way to debate the position that other guests might take," Oz said in a statement. "My participation on the program, much like that of any physician on television, was never intended to replace the discussion necessary between patients and their personal health-care provider."

Oprah, of course, is notoriously bad at sticking with the advice Oz and Greene dispense, especially when it comes to her weight. She laments her inability to keep off the pounds. In January she embarked on yet another attempt to trim down, which means all of Oprah's viewers are now—actually or vicariously—on a diet too. She will lose the weight, and there will be much remarking upon it. But then, in a year, or two, or three, experience teaches us that the fat will likely come back. And she will lament. And then she will do it all over again, with a whole new set of experts armed with the latest breakthrough theories on how to live our next best life and all-new, must-have books and gadgets and ointments to ease the way.
At some point, it would seem, people will stop looking to Oprah for this kind of guidance. This will never happen. Oprah's audience admires her as much for her failings as her successes. In real life, she has almost nothing in common with most of her viewers. She is an unapproachable billionaire with a private jet and homes around the country who hangs out with movie stars. She is not married and has no children. But television Oprah is a different person. She somehow manages to make herself believable as a down-to-earth everywoman. She is your girlfriend who struggles to control her weight and balance her work and personal life, just like you. When she recently related the story of how humiliated she felt when she arrived for a photo shoot to find that she couldn't fit into the clothes she was supposed to wear, she knew she had every member of the audience in her hand. Oprah's show is all about second and third and fourth chances to fix your life, and the promise that the next new thing to come along will be the one that finally works.

This perpetual search for The Answer reached its apex a couple of years ago, when Oprah led the frenzy over The Secret. The video and accompanying book were a rehash of one of the oldest of self-help truisms—"think positive"—refreshed with a dusting of "science." The secret of The Secret was something called the Law of Attraction. As Oprah put it on the show, "It says that the energy, that the thoughts and feelings that you put out into the world, both good and bad, are exactly what is always coming back to you, so you have the life that you have created." Oprah and the teachers of The Secret, as they call themselves, did not mean this metaphorically. They explained that the universe and everything in it are made of vibrating energy, and by thinking positively we can actually "attract" the positive vibrations of the universe and bend them to our will. "You're a field of energy in a larger field of energy," one of The Secret's teachers said. "And like attracts like, and that's very, very scientific."

By harnessing this powerful science, they said, we can have anything we want—happiness, love, fabulous wealth. This was so inspiring to Oprah that she devoted three shows to the product and appeared on Larry Kingto talk it up more. She said it encapsulated everything she believes. "I've been talking about this for years on my show," she said. "I just never called it The Secret."

On one of the Secret shows, Oprah gave an example of the scientific power of the concept. She said that once, while she was hosting an episode about a man who could blow really big soap bubbles, she was thinking to herself, "Gee, that looks fun. I would like to blow some bubbles." When she returned to her office after the show, there, on her desk, was a silver Tiffany bubble blower. "So I call my assistant," Oprah told the audience. "I say, 'Did you just run out and get me some bubbles? 'Cause I got bubbles by my desk.' And she says, 'No, the bubbles were always there. I bought you bubbles for your birthday and you didn't notice them until today'."

There are many lessons that might be drawn from this anecdote. One is that if you give Oprah a thoughtful gift, she may not bother to notice it or thank you for it. This is not the lesson Oprah took away from her story. Because the way she sees it, her assistant hadn't really given her the gift at all. She gave it to herself. Using the power of The Secret, she said, "I had called in some bubbles."
According to The Secret, however, the Law of Attraction can use the vibrations of the universe to deliver more than just bubbles. The book that Oprah urges everyone to live by teaches that all diseases can be cured with the power of thought alone: "The question frequently asked is, 'When a person has manifested a disease in the body temple … can it be turned around through the power of "right thinking"?' And the answer is absolutely, yes." The book then offers the testimonial of a woman identified as Cathy Goodman. "I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I truly believed in my heart, with my strong faith, that I was already healed. Each day I would say, 'Thank you for my healing'." Goodman watched "very funny movies" to make herself laugh. "From the time I was diagnosed to the time I healed was approximately three months. And that's without any radiation or chemotherapy."

The message got through. In March 2007, the month after the first two shows on The Secret, Oprah invited a woman named Kim Tinkham on the program. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer, and her doctors were urging surgery and chemotherapy. But Tinkham wrote Oprah to say that she had decided to forgo this treatment and instead use The Secret to cure herself. On the show, Oprah seemed genuinely alarmed that Tinkham had taken her endorsement of The Secret so seriously. "When my staff brought this letter to me, I wanted to talk to her," Oprah told the audience. "I said, get her in here, OK?" On air, Oprah urged the woman to listen to her doctors. "I don't think that you should ignore all of the advantages of medical science and try to, through your own mind now because you saw a Secret tape, heal yourself," she said. A few weeks earlier, Oprah could not say enough in praise of The Secret as the guiding philosophy of her life. Now she said that people had somehow gotten the wrong idea. "I think that part of the mistake in translation of The Secret is that it's used to now answer every question in the world. It is not the answer to all questions," she instructed. "I just wanted to say it's a tool. It is not the answer to everything." The Law of Attraction was just one law of many that guide the universe. "Although I live my life that way," Oprah said, "I think it has its flaws."

There were limits to The Secret's healing powers even for Oprah. For there she was, in the months that followed, worrying over her thyroid, ingesting bioidentical hormones and putting on pounds. The Secret warns that all illness and misfortune is caused by attracting the negative power of the universe. "You cannot 'catch' anything unless you think you can," it says. "You are also inviting illness if you are listening to people talking about their illness."

It is possible that this is what happened to Oprah. Listening to so many guests talk about their troubles dampened her energy fields. Yet it may be for the best that things didn't quite work out. What if Oprah had managed to solve all of her problems, to end her search for meaning and fulfillment and spiritual calm and a flatter, firmer stomach by summoning the very power of the universe itself? It might have been hard for her to take Suzanne Somers seriously after that.


 

Mainstream docs join anti-aging bandwagon

But with M.D. endorsements, is the field more credible — or risky?

Video
Anti-aging conference
  Promising eternal youth
Exhibitors ply their wares at an American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine conference in Las Vegas.

msnbc.com

  msnbc.com special report
Buying Time?
Mainstream docs join anti-aging bandwagon
Selling longer life — or snake oil?
Longevity quest moves slowly from lab to life
Couch-potato culture may cut our lives short
Pursuit of youth isn't always pretty
It's not immoral to want to be immortal
Bigger aging worries than wrinkles, readers say
Full coverage
Share your thoughts on aging
How concerned are you about growing older? Are you doing anything to try to stop – or slow – the clock? What does “aging gracefully” mean to you? Which seniors inspire you? Selected e-mails may be published.

By Brian Alexander
msnbc.com contributor
updated 9:56 a.m. ET, Mon., April 21, 2008

Brian Alexander

• E-mail

For thousands of years, magicians, alchemists, even a few fringe medical practitioners have fueled an unbounded optimism that we can blunt the ravages of time, stay younger for longer, maybe even defeat death itself. Their pitches have usually hinged on some drug, food or device — everything from electricity to yogurt to surgically installing the gonads of animals into our own bodies — that will slow or reverse the aging process. Every decade or so, “anti-aging” promoters grasp onto news coming out of research labs and trumpet those developments as the answer we have all been awaiting.

Lately, the buzzwords are “nano,” which refers to the science of the ultra small (a nanometer is one millionth of a millimeter), and stem cells. One “nano” face cream, for example, promises to stave off wrinkles with "nano-encapsulated technology" into which the makers have "packed microscopic bundles of Prodew, a nourishing skin humectant." A dietary supplement advertised as "The World's FIRST Stem Cell Enhancer," promises to "Rebuild, Renew, Rejuvenate" — giving you more stem cells and keeping your organs healthy — if you take the blue-green algae capsules. The claims are based on wispy science and hype.


But while the cycle remains the same, something new is happening in the world of anti-aging. Mainstream doctors who once wanted nothing to do with the naturopaths, osteopaths and others who first populated modern anti-aging, and whom they often considered glorified carnival barkers, are buying in, signing up for “certification” as anti-aging practitioners and offering patients the promise of youth and rejuvenation through such treatments as human growth hormone, testosterone, special diet and exercise regimens, antioxidants and hundreds of other supplements.

“It is mushrooming,” says Dr. Elliot Snyder, an emergency room physician based in Northern California who follows the movement closely by frequently attending anti-aging meetings and talking to friends in the field. He also uses some of its techniques himself. Besides exercising five days a week and following a strict low-fat diet that includes lots of fruits, vegetables and wild salmon but no white flour or red meat, he takes supplements ranging from thiamin and biotin to DHEA, DMAE, colostrum, arginine, carnitine and omega-3 fatty acids — about 50 pills per day. He is 64 but looks a decade younger.  

Back in 1994, the annual Las Vegas meeting of the fledgling American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M) was held in a small hotel off the Las Vegas strip. Everyone could fit into a temporary tent-like structure on the pool patio. Last December, at the 15th A4M confab, roughly 2,000 attendees, including business owners, anti-aging promoters and hundreds of doctors — among them obstetricians, ER docs, psychiatrists and internists — filled a cavernous meeting space inside the Venetian Hotel and Resort.


Today, claims Dr. Bob Goldman, A4M’s co-founder, there are about 20,000 A4M-certified doctors around the world. A4M’s tax returns confirm the boom. The income from fees charged to those seeking board certification from A4M more than doubled from $544,845 in 2005 to $1.2 million in 2006.


A rival organization, Age Management Medicine Group, is growing rapidly, too, says co-founder Rick Merner. He claims the group had more than 400 doctors at its last meeting, sponsored by the nation’s single largest “age-management” clinic, Cenegenics. The Cenegenics Foundation also certifies practitioners in age-management medicine (it shuns the term “anti-aging”) and claims to have experienced a 100 percent increase in the number of its physician “affiliates” to more than 800.

Mainstream business has recognized the potential. GE Healthcare, for example, sent a team to the recent A4M meeting to market body scanners that cost about $100,000 each and are often used by anti-aging doctors to look at fat deposits inside the body and convince patients of the need to do something about them. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal, which is a GE company.)


'A life-changing experience'
Patients all over the country are buying in. Rebecca Gooden, a 57-year-old Charleston, S.C., real estate agent, first saw an anti-aging doctor in December when she sought help for joint pain, insomnia and lack of energy. “I had felt something was going on but standard testing did not show any of it," she says. "I had been having symptoms but doctors kept telling me there was nothing wrong and I knew there was."

Frustrated, when she saw an article about Cenegenics in a magazine, she called for an appointment in hopes of solving her problems. Now, she spends about $1,000 a month on hormones and supplements to treat various hormonal deficiencies and has become an anti-aging convert. “I feel like a new person … it has been a life-changing experience for me.”

All this despite the fact that as far as the American Medical Association or the American Board of Medical Specialties is concerned, there is no such thing as an anti-aging specialty.

Video
Anti-aging conference
  Man on a mission
Hear more from Dr. Ronald Klatz, co-founder of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine.

msnbc.com

Therein lies the often bitter tension between the medical establishment and those physicians and organizations who say they can help us slow or even stop the aging process and the debilitation that comes with it. Goldman and his A4M co-founder, Dr. Ronald Klatz, have been accused by respected academics of being snake-oil salesmen. Cenegenics and A4M have both been labeled glorified hormone-pushers.

Anti-aging advocates, on the other hand, argue that they are a persecuted minority of enlightened medical professionals who have the patients’ best interests at heart and that the AMA, the mainstream media and the government, especially the Food and Drug Administration, have conspired to keep the truth from the public.

“Certain vested interests would not like to have anti-aging,” Klatz argues.


To the ears of Northwestern University bioethics professor Laurie Zoloth, this sounds like an old story. “Whenever one hears these things, that there is a conspiracy against patients, if you come to us we will tell you truth, then one has to ask, ‘Why are your statements credible?’”


Has anti-aging 'arrived'?
That is precisely the question many consumers are now being asked to answer for themselves. If their M.D. is signing onto anti-aging, does that mean the message is now credible? Does the certificate on his or her wall mean that real anti-aging has, at last, arrived? Or does it simply mean that every patient now has one more reason to live by the Latin phrase caveat emptor — buyer beware?


Dr. Thomas Perls, a Boston University researcher who studies centenarians (people who live at least 100 years), and a vociferous critic of the anti-aging industry, argues that while some anti-aging practitioners “may have their hearts in the right place … in my mind the whole anti-aging practice has so many problems of ethical and professional misconduct. These practices are selling medicines and substances at great profit with very little in the way of clinical studies to support what they are doing.”


The answers to the science questions can be complicated, but the motivations of some doctors to enter the anti-aging world are not. Dr. Arnold Relman, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine who is now a professor emeritus of medicine and social medicine at Harvard Medical School, believes “the interest in anti-aging practice is mainly based on economic considerations” by physicians who are looking to boost income.


“Get your piece of the $50 billion anti-aging marketplace!” trumpets a flyer distributed to doctors at A4M’s Las Vegas meeting. An article by Klatz and Goldman in "Medical Spas," a magazine that’s a member of A4M, encourages doctors to open their own medical spas and to have them certified under the World Council for Clinical Accreditation, another A4M organization, because “a single anti-aging patient is estimated to bring $4,000 to $20,000 in annual gross revenue.”

The business can be very good, indeed. Doctors can count on regular hours because the patients are not sick. Better yet, patients pay cash because visits and procedures are not generally covered by insurance, which also means there is no upper limit to fees. And since there is no need to deal with insurance companies or HMOs, practices do not require extra staff to handle all that paperwork.


Interactive
How the body ages
Why do we get wrinkles, gray hair and stiff joints as we grow older? Click to learn about the aging process.
Additionally, anti-aging doctors often sell lines of creams and supplements, such as vitamins, antioxidants and plant extracts, which claim to do everything from strengthening the immune system to boosting libido, directly out of their offices, sometimes with an enormous mark-up. They can also use their own in-office technology, like those GE body scanners, to charge for in-house testing.

Patients generally see anti-aging doctors much more often than regular physicians. That's because in addition to checking on measures like weight and body fat and how patients are feeling overall, the docs are constantly monitoring a large range of sometimes esoteric health indicators with a battery of medical tests, including urinalysis and blood work. They look for levels of everything from testosterone and estrogen to follicle stimulating hormone and dehydroepiandrosterone (a natural steroid known as DHEA). Based on all these results, the doctors may then recommend drugs, hormones, supplements and special diets and fitness regimens — and then set an appointment to see the patient again in several weeks or months for another cash-only check-up.


One doctor, two hats
Dr. Andrew Jurow, an ob-gyn in Burlingame, Calif., says he started an anti-aging practice alongside his ongoing traditional practice after becoming a devotee himself. “I am as mainstream as you can get. I am 59 years old, board certified in ob-gyn, as was my father. If you had come to me five, six years ago and talked about anti-aging, I would have said, ‘Hogwash!’”

But then Jurow, long an avid exerciser, attended an A4M meeting and came away impressed with what he heard. Five years ago he began visiting an anti-aging doctor himself. Now he sees his regular ob-gyn HMO patients through one door of his building and anti-aging patients through another.

Click for related content
Reader poll: Are you fighting aging every step of the way? Tell us your priorities, fears and other thoughts on growing older
Selling longer life — or snake oil?
More from msnbc.com's special report: Buying time?

Jurow says he is not getting rich off his anti-aging patients. Rather, his motivation is his own belief that it works. Still, he says, if he sees an anti-aging patient for an hour, he can charge $350, whereas HMOs might reimburse him as little as $50 for a traditional office visit.

Dr. Mickey Barber, a Charleston, S.C., Cenegenics affiliate and Gooden's physician, was an anesthesiologist before turning to “age management” medicine five years ago. She believes that mainstream medicine “at one point in time was lucrative, but it is less so now with health insurance, litigation, and many doctors became discouraged. I think doctors are looking for another way to provide medical care for patients, and if part of that pays the bills, sure.”


A typical evaluation of a new patient in Barber's clinic, she says, takes about seven hours and she may order up to 90 laboratory tests. The day costs $3,000.

Johnny Adams, a 58-year-old software consultant in Newport Beach, Calif., has experienced the way some anti-aging doctors bump fees by prescribing and testing. He has spent between $1,400 and $2,000 per year for the last four years on anti-aging, but that represents a big drop in his costs.



When he first began, he says, he tried a number of doctors. “One had me on a very overly aggressive and rather naïve program. He had me on everything under the sun. Pretty soon I was taking something like 178 different nutritional supplements, hormones, some prescription drugs I was getting from overseas.” Now he focuses on nutrition, exercise and some supplements such as omega-3s, antioxidants and vitamins.

The anti-aging field's emphasis on supplements comes even though there is little evidence that most do anything for people who already eat a healthy diet. "I know it's possible that I'm just giving myself expensive pee," says Snyder, the ER doc, laughing.


Unlike manufacturers of prescription and over-the-counter medications, dietary supplement makers do not have to prove their products are safe or effective before selling them. Some supplements have been shown to be contaminated with lead or other harmful substances. And research has even found that large doses of antioxidants, like beta-carotene, actually increase cancer risks.


Hormones are hot
But hormones are the most popular tools in anti-aging’s armory. Scientists recognized their potential over 100 years ago, but their use in modern anti-aging traces back to July 1990 when a researcher named Daniel Rudman published a study about the effects of human growth hormone (HGH) on men over 60 in The New England Journal of Medicine.


Though the anti-aging industry existed long before then, Texas entrepreneur Howard Turney, who now calls himself Lazarus Long after an immortal character in a Robert Heinlein novel, created a new version. He was so enthused about Rudman’s positive results that he started a resort called El Dorado in Cancun, Mexico, to administer HGH to those seeking rejuvenation. Klatz, then an osteopath and a consultant at El Dorado, held the A4M’s organizing meeting there.


Rudman issued many caveats and cautions about using HGH and never recommended its use to delay aging. In fact, he was horrified his study was being used to support the industry especially since heavy use of growth hormone can have unwanted side effects. Endocrinologists worry that unnecessarily taking HGH could trigger cancers, diabetes and other hormone-related conditions. There are still many unknowns.


Still, HGH, the body's "master hormone," became the hottest thing to hit anti-aging since vitamin C because it was a real drug that appeared to restore youthful vigor.

Click for related content
Interactive: Anti-aging remedy claims vs. science

Klatz wrote a 1996 book, "Grow Young with HGH," summing up the life-extension world’s hope that there was finally a fountain of youth in a bottle. He dedicated it to Rudman saying, “His vision and pioneering human research with growth hormone for anti-aging marked the beginning of the end of aging.”

  More news from MSN Health
MSN guide to healthy aging
Ageless beauty from MSN
Now that sports doping scandals have made HGH, as well as testosterone and other hormones, front-page news, and some anti-aging clinics and compounding pharmacies have been raided by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency for being overly liberal with hormone prescriptions, the anti-aging community has toned down its endorsement of hormones, at least in public.

“Less than 10 percent of patients involved in anti-aging are receiving growth hormone,” Klatz insists.


That seems a dubious assertion. In fact, hormones remain a key ingredient of anti-aging practice. “Most of my anti-aging patients get hormones,” typically growth hormone as well as sex hormones appropriate to each gender, Jurow says.

In his own article in "Medical Spas," Klatz argues that one of the main reasons for an M.D. to partner with a med spa is to “offer patients … Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy, which aims to arrest age-related declines in hormone levels such that the natural peaks achieved in youth are maintained throughout life.”

  Hope in a bottle

Americans are increasingly turning to herbs, vitamins and other dietary supplements in hopes of living healthier and longer lives, according to the Freedonia Group, a market research firm based in Cleveland, Ohio. Here's a look at some of hottest supplements cited by the group:

Nutrients: omega-3 fatty acids, amino acids, probiotics, soy proteins, pomegranate, cranberry, psyllium

Vitamins: vitamins C, E, A, B12, K, folic acid and biotin

Minerals: chromium, copper, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, zinc, potassium

Herbal extracts: ginseng, ginkgo biloba, garlic, saw palmetto, chamomile, kava kava, spirulina

Others: coenzyme Q10, melatonin, glucosamine, chondroitin

Yet there is no evidence that people live longer if they take HGH — lab animals with less growth hormone actually live longer than their normal brethren — or any other hormone. Nor is there any conclusive proof hormones make healthy older people any healthier. Research results are mixed, the picture murky.

The recent death of Cenegenics founder Dr. Alan Mintz, a prime HGH promoter, demonstrates that growth hormone is no panacea. He died last June, at age 69, reportedly during a brain biopsy. 

As some enthusiasts admit, anti-aging patients are essentially running a giant uncontrolled experiment on themselves — increasingly at the hands of doctors.

Critics point out that the biggest concern about doctors getting involved is that many patients incorrectly assume that if their trusted physician is recommending hormones and supplements, these treatments must be safe and effective.

The fact is, no drug, treatment or supplement has ever been shown to extend human lifespan.

But Gooden, the Charleston real estate agent, calls her own transformation at the hands of Barber “a miracle.”

"For as long as I can remember I have had insomnia," she says. "And increasing pain that doctors said was arthritis." Barber’s daylong testing, however, “showed what needed to be dealt with," mainly deficiencies in DHEA, estrogen and testosterone. “My hormonal levels were way out of whack, my cardiac function was not what it should be,” Gooden says.

Barber arranged for Gooden to meet with a personal trainer and a nutritionist and prescribed a host of prescription drugs such as testosterone, estrogen and thyroid medication, and the usual array of anti-aging supplements like DHEA and vitamins, most of which she obtains from Barber.

These days, many anti-aging promoters, seeking to shed the flim-flam image, are ratcheting down the rhetoric. They have begun using terms like “age management” and “healthy aging” that imply realistic goals and give important, if commonsense, advice.

Most anti-aging doctors tell patients what we already know: Exercise. Lose weight. Lower our blood pressure. Don’t smoke. “I do not see this as the basis for a new practice specialty,” argues Relman, the professor emeritus at Harvard.

But a good anti-aging doctor, says Snyder, is more like a devoted personal mountain guide. Rather than cramming sick patients into quickie appointments, he or she will “push you into exercise, get you to join a club, get a personal trainer, a nutritionist to create a full diet to follow and not just for weight loss. They’ll direct you to certain supplements, antioxidants, watch the glucose curve to see if you are borderline diabetic. If you go to a regular doctor he will not be as proactive. He’ll wait for an event to happen, then treat it. That is what I do in ER medicine.”

That kind of preventive care is what Orange County, Calif., entrepreneur and long-time anti-aging advocate David Kekich, 65, says he gets from his anti-aging doctor. Though he did try testosterone therapy for a short time, he was unable to continue because it aggravated pain from a spinal cord injury. Instead, Kekich and his physician have built a program of rigorous exercise; a low-fat diet with abundant fresh fruits and vegetables, little red meat and no sugar or processed flour; regular blood testing; and aggressive supplementation — up to 60 tablets per day.


“I see my doctor about once a year,” Kekich reports. “He fine-tunes things. Regular doctors could not even come close. When I have gone to them they tell me I am crazy and should not even look at these things and that I should wait until I have a problem. But to me that is closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Most doctors are mechanics. They fix things. To me, prevention is the name of the game.”


Filling a gap
Mainstream medicine may look askance at anti-aging practices, but it has adopted its elements. Sterling centers such as Princeton, Stanford, the Cleveland Clinic, Northwestern University, Duke University and others have established “executive health” programs where the wealthy undergo similar day-long evaluations, and testing costing thousands of dollars.

  More news from MSN Health
MSN guide to healthy aging
Ageless beauty from MSN

The fact that the wealthy are willing to pay so much, and that doctors are catering to them, is more a comment on the health care system we have built, says Northwestern's Zoloth, than on the validity of anti-aging medicine.


Relman agrees that anti-aging medicine is stepping into the growing gap between the public and faith in the health care system. “It is unfortunate but understandable given the sad facts about the current state of medical care in this country,” he says. “Without a strong base of primary care, you cannot have an effective health care system. It breaks down into specialized and unconnected procedures and tests and gets more and more disorganized and unsatisfactory, and that is what is happening in America today.”

Click for related content
Reader poll: Are you fighting aging every step of the way? Tell us your priorities, fears and other thoughts on growing older
Selling longer life — or snake oil?
More from msnbc.com's special report: Buying time?

Though it may fill the gap, much of the anti-aging agenda is still based more on hope than evidence. “We do worry that there could be bad effects 20 or 30 years from now,” admits Jurow, referring mainly to hormones.

In the world of anti-aging, though, which sees us all moving closer to death with every passing minute, hope outweighs proof. “We don’t have time to wait half a century to find out if something is really going to work!” Goldman says.

Brian Alexander, a frequent contributor to msnbc.com, is the author of "Rapture: A Raucous Tour of Cloning, Transhumanism, and the New Era of Immortality" and “America Unzipped: In Search of Sex and Satisfaction."

© 2009 msnbc.com.  Reprints

 

All content on this website is opinion. No reference is made to, nor is there any intent to make any reference to any specific entity or individual as a quack or participating in quackery. Any such inference is incidental and not the objective or intent. Any newspaper articles or other media published here is the opinion of the author of the piece being reproduced here, not the producer of this website.

This website may contain copyrighted (©) material. The fair use of a copyrighted work, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C., § 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed for nonprofit educational purposes.

Do not rely on this website for your only medical advice. Before making decisions that impact upon your health, you should consult your health care provider.