America Doesn't Need Sanjay Gupta As Surgeon-General

Yesterday, news came out that CNN's chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta was being considered by President-Elect Obama to become the next Surgeon-General of the US. Gupta, who would become probably the first SG to actually be a surgeon (he's a neurosurgeon, mostly spinal, and on the staff at Emory University, so there goes that old joke), strikes me as a dubious choice for a number of reasons, some of them quite substantial, including Gupta's on-air pimping for Gardasil, the so-called HPV vaccine, and his dismissal of concerns about Vioxx.

Gupta is, by the way, not to be confused with the University of Buffalo psychiatrist of the same name, who I cut up in 2007 for lying in a New York Times Q&A wherein he claimed that there was no evidence of suicidal thinking linked to SSRIs and, then, cut up the paper for failing to reveal that Gupta has received monies from Eli Lilly.

Obama is clearly trading on Gupta's celebrity and instant public appeal, which has been carefully shaped by CNN over the last seven years. A few years ago, there was that whole "Isn't Sanjay cute and sexy?" ad campaign, which is an extremely odd way for a news organization to gain recognition for one of its reporters. Sorry, but I'm old-fashioned when it comes to that sort of thing--journalists should gain their credibility through their work not their smile. What bothers me here is that there is a certain tendency in the Obama camp to go for gloss over substance--remember those Obama's face in a sunbeam images the campaign floated last year? Remember Obama's meaningless line, "We are the change we seek"? (If we were all just seeking ourselves, then how does that represent change? Or are we changed simply because we sought ourselves?)

Gupta, who publishes journal articles on neurosurgery, nonetheless has little public health experience, something that reportedly bothers many in the public health service. The office of Surgeon-General isn't exactly one of policy-making, but is in essence nag-in-chief. Stop smoking. No unprotected sex. Watch your diet. And so on. Of some interest to readers of this site is that in 1999, then Surgeon-General David Satcher issued a voluminous report on mental health in America, asserting that a full 20 percent of Americans had a mental disorder of some kind. The report claimed that it relied upon scientific evidence, an evidence base that in recent years has been ripped apart as being wrong and driven by the interests of pharmaceutical companies and certain academic researchers.

I've seen Gupta reporting on various medical matters on CNN, commonly explaining how things like autopsies work and what head trauma is all about. Sadly, I didn't catch his appearance in 2005 when he openly pimped for Gardasil, eight months before the drug was approved by the FDA, according to CounterPunch.org. That's utterly bizarre and completely inappropriate for a journalist.

Then in 2006, according to CounterPunch.org:

"Here's an excerpt from the "Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees" broadcast on June 29, 2006:

"GUPTA: 'Now there is a way to prevent the virus from ever taking hold in the first place. It's a vaccine. Typically, you think of vaccines for the measles or chicken pox. But Gardasil protects you against cancer. Trials showed the vaccine could lower cervical cancer rates by 70 percent.'

"The clinical trials for Gardasil showed no such thing. Even Merck is not making this wild and unsupported claim.

"On May 17, 2007, CNN aired an interview between Dr. Gupta and First Lady Laura Bush. The First Lady endorses mass inoculations of children with Gardasil on the basis that it will protect them later in life against cervical cancer. Gupta does not challenge her on the fact that there is zero evidence that the vaccine provides such long-term protection. The vaccine's own researcher acknowledges this."

It's weird that, as a journalist, Gupta wouldn't at least acknowledge some of the many controversies around Gardasil and attempts at forced inoculation laws, whatever his views of the scientific evidence. You almost have to worry what he'd do if he ever went out in public to discuss depression treatments.

Just as worrisome is that in 2003 he dismissed concerns of heart problems attached to use of Vioxx, which, like Gardasil, is made by Merck.

Again from CounterPunch.org:

"Here's how he responded to Miles O'Brien on CNN's "American Morning" on October 30, 2003:

"Miles O'Brien: 'Let's talk about Vioxx. Some indication it might increase the risk of heart attack?'

"Gupta: 'This stat has been around since August of 2001. They talked about the increase of heart attack with Vioxx. The numbers are very small. Perhaps a small percentage increase in the overall risk of heart attacks with Vioxx. They say 37 percent to 39 percent but that's of a very small number. After 90 days, no increased risk.'"

In September 2004, Merck took the drug off the market. The company wound up the subject of thousands of lawsuits for hiding dangers of the drug and in 2007 agreed to settle class action lawsuits for just under $5 billion, a record settlement for Big Pharma. Some cases continue, however.

You've got to wonder where Gupta was getting his information, because both his medical judgment and reporting skills were clearly lacking. I don't want this guy anywhere near policy-making or advocacy on mental health issues. He simply doesn't have the kind of skepticism you'd want from either a journalist or doctor (not that you often get that from either on mental health matters). But he does an awesome job of upholding establishment views of some drugs, especially marijuana.

In 2006, he opined in Time that:

"It can impair your cognitive ability (why do you think people call it dope?) and lead to long-lasting depression or anxiety. While many people smoke marijuana to relax, it can have the opposite effect on frequent users. And smoking anything, whether it's tobacco or marijuana, can seriously damage your lung tissue."

There's evidence to argue otherwise on marijuana: a 2005 Canadian study showing that pot causes brain cells to grow in rat and may have anti-depressant properties; a 2005 study showing that a cannabanoid compound has anti-depressant effects; a 2006 study showing no connection between marijuana use and lung cancer; claims that upwards of 30 percent of medical marijuana patients in California use cannabis to treat depression and anxiety.

What would he say about evidence that psilocybin helps treat depression or NIMH research showing the anti-depressant properties of ketamine?

My point isn't that he should enthusiastically embrace marijuana, mushrooms and ketamine--each has its problems, but then so do Gardasil, Vioxx and anti-depessants--but that he should have an open mind and not be dismissive of that which doesn't dovetail with his received beliefs.

One wonders where he receives his beliefs from outside of his specialty field, because outside of neuroscience he strikes me as a lightweight and pharma shill.

Gupta and CNN headline News anchor Robin Meade, host a monthly show for AccentHealth, a production of CNN, which is aired in doctors' offices around the country and which features oodles of ads from pharmaceutical companies, reportedly including ones from Merck.

And then there was a huge blow-up between Gupta and Michael Moore in 2007, over an assertion Gupta made on-air that Moore had fudged facts in his documentary "Sicko." I won't even attempt to sort that one out.

All in all, it'll be interesting to see where Gupta's possible appointment ends up and, if appointed, what he ends up doing with the office of Surgeon-General. If Obama wants every girl in America on Gardasil and every grumpy person in the country on Prozac, then it sounds like he's found his guy.

Posted by Philip Dawdy at January 7, 2009 12:03 AM
del.icio.us Digg it reddit