WORLI
THE BATTALIO'
[ical
iging
ology
evelopers of magnetic
ich allows doctors to
without surgery.
atient in a
ing hydrogen
up.
s radio signals which
itoms out of alignment
ng the signal released
ovement. This signal
used to determine
ifics about the tissue.
iree smaller magnets
ry the strength of the
d in the precise location
measurement. MRI
es the reading from
oh location to build a
image of the body.
Opinion
The: Battalion
Page 11 • Tuesday, October 7, 2003
ie field from left to riglil
Inflaming the pain
Anti-inflammatory medications cause more harm than good after injuries
et
Dan DelorenzrMP
ace Prize, but
mdied about in
n Paul II, i
Luiz Inacio
I Afghan
zai.
)rd 165 nominate
ived by the
ugh the committee
names secret, those
l a candidate often
heir preference,
nown or likely non
ode Karzai; Cuban
hts activist Oswald'
inas; Chinese
Jingsheng; former
iv. George Ryan I
lis state’s death n
nates; fonner Czecli
Vaclav Havel; l?
no; and Morded
nuclear scientist W
Israel for treason-
•ges.
F or many athletes and exercising stu
dents, pain-relief medicine becomes
an essential part of the routine after a
long workout. Over-the-counter drugs avail
able for treating aching muscles and stiff
joints fall into two categories: those contain-
; acetaminophen such as Tylenol, or non
steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, known as
Nsaids. Some well-known examples of these
are Advil, Aleve, Orudis and aspirin.
Currently, Nsaids are the most widely used
drugs in the United States, with almost $2 billion spent on them
annually. Sports medicine experts agree that Nsaids are by far
the first choice among doctors and athletes for treatment of
sports injuries. However, recent research has shown that Nsaids
are not very effective at healing certain injuries, and that chron
ic use leads to serious side effects.
Student athletes and exercising Aggies should not automati
cally rely on Nsaids whenever they are in pain.
Declan Connolly, an associate professor of exercise physiol-
>yat the University of Vermont, said there are two different
types of soreness: acute pain due to bumps and bruises and the
pain one feels the day after a workout. “If somebody plays a
contact sport — rugby, lacrosse, hockey — and they get a few
whacks, yes, ibuprofen (an Nsaid) is effective,” he said.
However, he believes these drugs do little for the casual athlete
who plays a few hours of tennis, then awakens the following
day feeling sore. Connolly has also questioned the use of
Nsaids in treating athletic injuries.
Most athletes and exercising students suffer from muscle
injuries, ligament sprains, tendon injuries or low-back pain at
some point, and Nsaids are commonly recommended to treat
such ailments. Yet, when Connolly and his colleagues reviewed
the scientific evidence, they found that little research has been
done regarding the healing properties of Nsaids.
The “beneficial” effects of Nsaids are unproven, but, the percep
tion holds that since inflammation is at the root of exercise-related
pain, stopping it will bring relief and help a tissue heal faster.
Inflammation is a necessary part of the healing process. When a
tissue is injured, the body responds by increasing blood flow and
inflammatory cells in the region. These cells remove debris and
recruit factors to the injury site. The same molecules that are
blockd by Nsaids are responsible, in part, for producing this
inflammatory phase after an injury. While inflammation may be able
looccur without healing, healing cannot take place very successfully
without inflammation.
Nsaids may be potent pain-relievers, but
they don’t shorten healing time.
Theoretically, then, Nsaids delay the healing
of common sports injuries, so athletes relying on
these medications to relieve their injuries are
actually doing themselves more harm than good.
Researchers at Stanford have already
shown that some Nsaids prevent bone growth
in animals, which shows they can do damage.
And, interestingly, researchers at the Yale
School of Medicine have found that anabolic
steroids — drugs that actually increase
inflammation — hasten the healing of muscle
injuries in mice.
One may argue that since Nsaids are excellent
at reducing pain, they encourage activity of an
injured joint. It is well-known that controlled
movement of sprains tends to shorten healing
times. Thus, Nsaids may provide some therapeu
tic benefit. However, it is unknown whether a
similar effect could be obtained with other sub
stances that have fewer side effects and cost less,
such as ice.
Furthermore, prolonged use of Nsaids has
serious side effects, which may include gas
trointestinal ulcers and bleeding, dehydration,
high-blood pressure and kidney failure.
Gastrointestinal bleeding after Nsaid use is the
15th leading cause of death in the United States.
Plus, individuals who have such bleeding while
taking Nsaids have a significantly higher mortali
ty than those who are not taking these drugs. This
is because Nsaids increase the time it takes for
clotting to occur.
There is evidence that many competitive
athletes abuse these drugs to reduce the pain
of their strenuous training. A survey of ath
letes at the 2000 Sydney Olympics found that nearly
one-third of them used these drugs in inappropriate doses or for
a prolonged time to reduce pain and inflammation.
Steven D. Stovitz, director of sports-medicine education at
the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, says even sporadic
use of Nsaids should be a red flag. “Perhaps the pain from a
once-a-week basketball game should indicate that someone is
Ivan Flores • THE BATTALION
not in shape,” he said.
The best way to be pain-free is to open the medicine bottle
less and the gym door more.
Mirlhat Farooqi is a senior
genetics majdr.
Medical journals finally requiring accountability
M edical researchers
have failed the
public and
■become advertisers rather
than scientists by giving
money-blinded, biased opin
ions on new products. Until
recently, journals have
;allowed this by requiring only
; writers of research reports —
■and not the more influential
■review articles — to disclose financial interests
in the products and treatments reviewed,
according to The New York Times.
While this may sound like a small techni
cality, the loophole has allowed unethical con
flicts of interest that should outrage an
■informed public.
For instance, The Times reported that a
2002 Nature Neuroscience article advocated
three therapies for depression — a “promis
ing” lithium patch patented by the author, an
“effective” drug produced by a company in
which the author owned 60,000 shares of stock
land another product manufactured by a compa
ny in which the author was a board member
and received stock options and consulting fees.
I In essence, the public has been trusting
information on health care that comes from
researcher’s wallets.
At the urging of 32 concerned scientists,
Nature Publishing Group made public its new
policy of complete financial disclosure for
reviews, as well as primary research reports in
the October issue of Nature Neuroscience,
according to The Associated Press.
While Nature executive editor Charles
Jennings agreed to new disclosure policies, he
also stressed in The Boston Globe that
“nobody should be embarrassed about com
mercializing their work. It’s a tremendous
engine for economic growth.”
Expensive medical research certainly bene
fits from the monetary backing of companies
interested in seeing their products reviewed
favorably, but by not disclosing sources of
financial support, the public is severely misled
into thinking results are purely objective.
Already a step ahead of its London-based
counterpart, America’s leading journal, Science,
currently requires disclosure of financial inter
ests for primary research reports, reviews and
even opinion essays. However, the 32 scientists
included Science in their appeal for higher ethi
cal standards, so one can infer that stricter poli
cies are required there as well to ensure fact-
driven rather than money-driven endorsements
and evaluations.
Furthermore, conflicts of financial interest are
not restricted to journals, pointing to a broader
problem tainting the entire medical field.
Earlier this year, the world’s leading associ
ation of cancer doctors, The American Society
of Clinical Oncology, issued a similar impera
tive to curb unethical practices. As of April,
cancer researchers must now disclose financial
support from trial sponsors, and efforts are
being made to limit the finan
cial stakes for clinical trial
leaders, according to The
Houston Chronicle.
Dr. Lowell Schnipper, who
chaired the task force respon
sible for the new policy, told
The Chronicle that “the
rationale behind the new pol
icy is the national abuses that
came to light in recent years.
While we remain confident in
the integrity of clinical inves
tigators, the goal of this poli
cy is to increase the trans
parency of clinical cancer
research overall.”
The problem is not that
researchers are publishing
incorrect or altered findings; it is that they are not
providing the public with the entire story. Because
the majority of people do not have the ability or
resources to perform research firsthand, they have
to trust researchers to provide them with accurate
evaluations. Furthermore, evaluations published in
medical journals may influence doctors’ or clinics’
choices in treatment.
A vulnerable public deserves treatment
based on effectiveness, not on which company
pumps the most money into research that will
yield positive findings.
Unfortunately, national attention and reform
efforts were brought about
only after irreparable dam
age. An 18-year-old died in a
University of Pennsylvania
gene therapy experiment, and
Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson
Cancer Research Center neg
lected to tell patients of risks,
according to The Chronicle.
While these new initiatives
for reform will increase uni
formity, accountability and
objectivity in medical
research, greater patient safety
comes with a human cost even
trial sponsors and companies
seeking to advance their prod
ucts cannot reimburse.
The public deserves to
know whether researchers’ medical findings are
truly in the public’s best interests or simply
what is best for the researchers’ wallets.
Lindsay Orman is a senior
English major.
LINDSAY
ORMAN
a
A vulnerable public
deserves treatment based
on effectiveness, not on
which company pumps the
most money into research
that will yield positive
findings. ?
I, you
jIus
onald.
'X
r and
ucks
nd
Skyrocket does not
deserve ridicule
; In response to Collins Ezeanyim’s
pet. 1 column:
i
; If I have to listen to one more per
son whine about how much they
(late Skyrocket, I think I’m going to
scream. I’m pretty sure
■Chigaroogarem” isn’t intimidating,
and I’m just about positive that
■Riffity Riffity Riff Raff” makes us the
Mt of a lot of jokes, but do we care?
No, because it’s tradition, and so is
Skyrocket — an old tradition that has
ust been rekindled, but a tradition
Nonetheless. What makes people think
tiat they alone have the authority to
feide what yells are good enough for
this school? Isn’t that why we elect Yell
leaders, to make those decisions and
finite us as a student body?
With all due respect to Mr. Ezeanyim,
the logic used was ridiculous.
Skyrocket isn’t intimidating like the rest
of our yells? i wasn’t aware that “Rah
Rah Rah Rah TAMC” struck fear into
the hearts of our enemies. The
“Whistle-eeee” sounds silly? Whoops,
I must have missed the past about
“Hullabaloo Caneck Caneck” being
sophisticated vocabulary. People don’t
know the words? Hardly anyone knows
the words to the “Twelfth Man,” but we
still keep it around.
Stacy Reeves
Class of2006
Kennedy should not
be receiving award
Ted Kennedy is getting the Bush
Public Service Award? Is Texas A&M
saying that of all the people in this
MAIL CALL
country that do good public service,
they could not find anyone better than
Sen. Kennedy?
Putting it politely, Sen. Kennedy
has questionable morals as well as
other faults which most Aggies find
offensive and in some cases revolt
ing. Not to mention that Sen.
Kennedy just outrageously accused
President George W. Bush of fraud
and bribery related to the Iraq war.
The people at A&M who made this
selection should be removed from
that duty at once.
Was this just a publicity stunt? If so,
shame on A&M for stooping so low.
I am under no delusion that A&M will
change its mind. But I would still like to
know how A&M justifies overlooking all
of Kennedy’s faults to give him this
award when there are hundreds of
other people who would have been
perfect recipients for this award.
If Texas A&M goes through with
this, they will sully the meaning of the
award and shame the institution. I
already have Aggie friends that are
vowing to discontinue their financial
support for the library and the
University because of this.
James Wilson
Class of 1995
A&M about more
than just academics
I am amazed at the recent bicker
ing in regards to uncovering when
we do yells at the football games
and leaving early. When I first heard
of Texas A&M and the unity among
its student body, I was thoroughly
impressed and knew I had to come
here. As Aggies, we must evaluate
why we are here.
Yes, academics are a top priority.
After all, we attend one of the best
universities for academics. We must
also remember that A&M is unique
because it has managed to keep its
traditions and student unity over the
past 127 years.
At no other university can a student
meet so many people and befriend
them for life simply because they go
to the same school. Texas A&M also
has amazing network opportunities
because of its high percentage of stu
dent involvement and a friendly cam
pus environment.
We have something special at A&M
and it is called the Aggie Spirit. It is up
to us to maintain that spirit so that
future generations can experience it
and learn what it means to be a
Fightin’Texas Aggie.
Derek Brown
Class of 2005