Yesterday I read a fascinating (to me, anyway) article about the history of the development of drugs to treat hypertension (high blood pressure). The topic is interesting to me because a couple of months ago, my blood pressure inexplicably went from “Too high” to “Be prepared to die”. For just over a month now, I’ve been seeing the doctor often, sometimes as often as twice a week. He added a medication to the one I was already taking, desperately trying to get the BP back down. As of the last visit two weeks ago, it’s back down to “Too high”. We still aren’t finished experimenting–he may add a third drug, or a combination of a different two drugs. The silver lining to this is twofold: first, he’s very positive and says it CAN be done. Second, he’s paying attention, which is an increasingly hard quality to find in a doctor.
So with my own personal troubles, it’s no wonder I was interested in an article in the New York Times that came out on Thanksgiving Day, called The Evidence Gap: A Big Hypertension Study and Its Minimal Impact. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/business/28govtest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp The study in question purportedly showed that the very cheapest (and first discovered) drugs to treat hypertension–namely, diuretics–were as good or better than some of the more recent, more expensive, and seriously hyped-by-the-drug-companies drugs. So in one corner you have a government study whose noble goal is to save people money, and in the other corner you have the greedy drug companies with millions of dollars at their disposal to influence doctors and advertise to the general public. Not so fast. Money and politics influenced the outcome, according to people on both sides. (Surprise!) Everybody had an agenda. And perhaps out of character, I’m on the side of the drug companies on this one. Diuretics alone may do a lot of good for a large number of people, especially in the case of people who don’t have insurance, but they’re going to leave a lot of people in the dust–as the government absolutely has to know. The newer drugs have many additional benefits, but the issue here for the government, in my opinion, was more about allocation of resources, not about saving individual lives. No wonder this article was in the Business section rather than the Health section.
So I decided to do a little more research and found this truly fascinating article (The NYT article does not qualify as “fascinating”). http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/18/3/421e This article talks about the history of the development of drugs to treat hypertension and among the many interesting factoids: There were no treatments for hypertension until the 1950’s. As I mentioned earlier, diuretics were the first. Then came ACE inhibitors. The process of developing ACE inhibitors began when someone discovered that Brazilian pit viper bites were killing workers in the banana groves of South America by causing a drastic drop in blood pressure. Someone said, Hmmm…maybe we can use this to our advantage.
It seems the discovery of new drugs is often like this. It happens by accident, sort of. After the discovery of the effect, researchers then have to figure out the how. Then figure out how to make it into a drug. In its experimental stage, scientists were injecting people with pit viper venom. These days, ACE inhibitors are made synthetically, which, sadly, means that a lot of Brazilian pit vipers will now live long and healthy lives.






When Racism Kills
November 28, 2008 · 2 Comments
It could be argued that racism always kills some people eventually, one way or another.
But it’s taken me until today to be able to comment on an article in Tuesday’s New York Times, which had me so stunned and upset that well…it took me until today.
The article reported on a Harvard study that showed that the South African government’s position on AIDS treatment has cost 330,000 adult South Africans their lives along with another 35,000 babies. All together, 3.8 million years of life. Those numbers are about as easy to wrap your mind around as if you tried to count the number of stars in the sky in a single night.
And why did the South African government deny its own people the treatment they needed? Because the prevailing view was that the drugs, and I quote, were “peddling centuries-old white racist beliefs that depicted Africans as sexually rapacious.
“Yes, we are sex crazy!” the document’s [a document crafted by A.N.C. leaders] authors bitterly exclaimed. “Yes, we are diseased! Yes, we spread the deadly H.I. virus through our uncontrolled heterosexual sex!””
In other words, it was a white racist plot. The Presidency of South Africa changed hands two months ago, and the new President immediately took steps to remove the Health Minister who suggested treating AIDS with garlic, lemon juice, and beetroot.
So under any other circumstances, we would call this genocide, and that’s what I call it. The former President ignored science, because it was white science. Wouldn’t provide drugs, because they were white people’s drugs. It isn’t mentioned in the article, but there is that rumor that white people created AIDS to begin with as a way to wipe out black people. Now white people are providing toxic drugs to those people who managed to survive, just as a way to make sure they go ahead and die.
It’s ignorance, but it’s also racism. The idea that nothing good can come from white people. And that idea kills.
Here’s the full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/africa/26aids.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Categories: Medicine · Politics · Social Commentary
Tagged: AIDS, racism, Soth Africa