Oprah, Newsweek and Vested Interest?
Oprah’s on the cover of 9 June Newsweek. Some would think that’s a nice change from her own mag but I doubt she does. Why? ’Cause they give her an incredibly tough time over her recent shows that make health related recommendations that go against main stream medicine without giving mainstream medicine the right of reply. They bemoan her influence over the masses. And they are probably right. Her influence is enormous and it might not always be a good thing. But does that make it all bad?
Picking an easy target, the opening punch of this article is thrown at Suzanne Somers and in doing so bioidentical hormones are given the bum’s rush. While many might find Somers’ riff on how to live to 110 using 60 supplements a day plus assorted BHRT not to mention many other practices available only to the rich hard to swallow, the attack on bioidenticals is interesting.
They refer to (compounded) bioidenticals as “non FDA approved” failing to note FDA approval is not required. They then quote one doctor who says that Somers’ approach is implying ” menopause is some kind of hormone-deficiency disease”. The article then neatly segues into statements that most women don’t need hormone replacement unless they have significant discomfort with hot flashes. Did the doctor say that? Well it reads like it but there are no actual quote marks around that text. They then quote another doctor who “wonders” why Oprah would get advice from Somers on this “topic”. But what topic is that? Menopause? Bioidentical hormones use? Corruption of the medical industry and FDA by big pharmaceuticals? It’s not clear. And what relevance is her wonder when she is not quoted any further about the “topic”?
The authors claim that “Outside Oprah’s world, there isn’t a raging debate about replacing hormones” which is not completely true. Of course there is debate. Apart from the fact they are themselves debating it in quite an outrageous way, there are new studies, media reports and new books every month. It may not be all the rage. But it is debate. For example, Winnifred Cutler’s new book Hormones for Your Health released in the last few weeks clearly throws down a challenge to the “as little of, for the shortest amount of time” theory with her ”as soon as, as much as, for as long as ” well researched conclusion. She might not rage (she does Tai Chi after all) but her recommendation is certainly open to lively debate.
Oh and speaking of books … You better know that much later in this Newsweek article it discloses “NEWSWEEK correspondent Pat Wingert, who worked on this article, and contributor Barbara Kantrowitz are coauthors of a book on menopause” . Actually they wrote their book back in 2006 and have just updated it and re-badged it as ”The Menopause Book” and according to Amazon.com about to be released “soon” in paperback. Timing, it seems it just as important in publishing as it is in HRT.
Why should Newsweek attack Oprah Winfrey?
Here’s Why:
Oprah’s TV show advocates Natural Medicine and Bioidentical Hormones in direct competition to the interests of the Pharmaceutical Industry which makes synthetic hormones. Newsweek is merely an attack dog for the drug industry. A typical issue of Newsweek magazine contains $2 million in pharma ads.
Oprah is depicted as a voodoo witch on the Newsweek cover in a desparate attempt to please the drug company sponsors of a failing magazine.
To read more: Newsweek Attacks Oprah Winfrey and BioIdentical Hormones
Yes the picture is interesting and we added it here too for people to see.
I read your own post. The point they are making on compounded hormone replacement formulas (and I see this comment popping up more and more) is that the end results – what is compounded for you/that particular prescription – is not FDA approved.
They are implying that the one customized just for you by your very own doctor, who more than likely has your hormone saliva test results right there in front of them when they decide on the specific combination of hormones that is right for you, is not as good as their off-the-shelf one-size-fits-all product. And because that is a laughable premise and they have no evidence to support that view, they are playing the FDA card. Like being FDA approved meant … what? A guaranteed cure? No side effects? No deaths? No law suits?
I am sure we will hear more of this argument.
I just read an interesting “outbreak” on this from Dr. Patricia Allen, director of the New York Menopause Center – Dr. Patricia Allen on Bio-Identical Hormone Viral Outbreaks
She says “We (not the royal “we” – she is apparently speaking for all gynecologists in the world) are just exhausted from the onslaught of every Suzanne Somers media appearance and next book that repeats the same infomercial with just another PR-driven title.”
Not sure what has “exhausted” her the most really. Perhaps writing this article? It clearly reads like the work of someone not in top form.
She knows what bioidenticals are for God’s sake so please, earth to media, stop telling her! She knows synthetic hormones are not good. But don’t you dare mention bloody horse’s urine one more time. She’s had enough. Yeah and she knows, even if you don’t, that if you are doing bio’s then use the big pharmas. They are FDA approved.
Her message is clearly Doctor knows Best and shut up media. But which media? Is the Newsweek article “media”? Apparently not. She says “Gynecologists everywhere are grateful to Newsweek for the outstanding investigative journalism of Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert.” She did a survey on that? She then concludes “It took Newsweek to speak for us, and we are really grateful for this unbiased and clear reporting”.
Unbiased? Clear?
Again let’s not mention the authors have a book on menopause coming out. It might this all look like “the same infomercial with just another PR-driven title”.
From the excellent health newsletter I receive from WomentoWomen.com, here is what Marcelle Pick had to say (the clinic’s lead practitioner): “The thing that is most upsetting to me about the recent attempt to undermine Oprah’s approach,” says Pick, “is that it doesn’t present a balanced perspective on alternative therapies and the role they play in our wellness. There is a substantial body of scientific literature supporting alternative approaches, which is why more and more Americans are choosing to include an alternative perspective when considering their health. Much of what is considered as alternative in our country is part of the conventional standard of care in Europe and Asia, where alternative therapies have been helping people for centuries.”