Life Extension Magazine August 2006
As We See It
Inventor of Safer Automobile
By William Faloon
By William Faloon
Millions of Crippling Injuries
Most car accidents do not kill people. There are, however, millions of serious injuries suffered each year in automobile accidents. Some people suffer pain, disfigurement, and crippling disabilities for the rest of their lives as a result of car crashes.
Preston Tucker recognized the dangers of being in an automobile and designed a car that would have spared millions of Americans bodily injuries and death. The federal government did everything in its power to deny Americans access to Tucker’s automobiles, and the total number of Americans who have needlessly suffered as a result is incalculable.
Who Defrauded Investors? The Government!
The Securities and Exchange Commission claimed it was “protecting” investors from securities “fraud” perpetrated by Preston Tucker. Yet the Tucker Automobile Corporation was on the verge of mass producing the Tucker Torpedo, and had nationwide dealerships and 100,000 eager customers waiting to buy Tucker’s cars. There is not a car company in the world today with this many Americans desperately wanting to purchase its first models.
Preston Tucker was ready to take on the entire automotive industry with a better, safer, and less expensive car when the federal government indicted him and forced the closure of the assembly factory into which investors had poured over $15 million.
Prosecutors had the nerve to tell jurors that Preston Tucker had defrauded these investors, when it was corrupt federal officials who obtained a perjured indictment that guaranteed a 100% loss to all those who provided funding to the Tucker Corporation. The federal government was clearly protecting the economic interests of the large auto companies against Preston Tucker and not the hard-earned money American citizens invested in the Tucker Automobile Corporation.
In the United States today, various governmental agencies claim to be “protecting” Americans against all kinds of so-called “unapproved” medical therapies. Based on the sordid history of regulatory agencies that are beholden to the pharmaceutical industry, a clear analogy can be drawn between the governmental atrocities committed against Preston Tucker in the 1940s and the numerous “criminal” charges that continue to be brought against alternative medical practitioners today.
The media seems to focus on any kind of unfavorable report about foods and supplements, while ignoring virtually every single positive published study. Interestingly, pharmaceutical companies spend tens of millions of dollars a year to influence the media. Preston Tucker was often viciously attacked in the media by journalists who were thought to be in the pocket of the big auto companies.
Bureaucracy Prevents Cancer Center from Opening!
In 1999, I announced in this column that Life Extension was setting up a medical center that would provide every single scientifically documented cancer therapy. We built and furnished a 4,400-square-foot medical center, but it could not even get off the ground.
One reason was that no matter how hard we tried to comply with the law, practicing comprehensive oncology was virtually impossible in the regulated environment imposed on physicians today.
The government has succeeded in suffocating medical innovation by erecting enormous bureaucratic barriers. Physicians with novel ideas who try to bypass today’s labyrinth of Byzantine rules risk not only their license to practice medicine, but also their personal liberty.
The chilling effects of government restrictions on medical advancement are nothing short of paralyzing. Why should any doctor today risk everything he has to provide patients with improved care?
Medical oncologists make big money setting up chemotherapy centers that provide only FDA-approved drugs. While the failure rate of these drugs is frighteningly high, chemo drugs are approved by the FDA and fully reimbursed by Medicare and most private insurance plans. Oncologists have no incentive to make heroic attempts to utilize novel cancer treatments, which insurance will not pay for and which the government and media condemn.
When Life Extension tried to hire medical oncologists to work at our medical center, they all were impressed with our innovative approaches to cancer treatment. None of them, however, was willing to risk his license or sacrifice his lucrative “chemotherapy bonuses” by prescribing the kinds of multimodal therapies we recommended. These oncologists did say that if we ever set up our facility, they would send their family members to us rather than expose them to the mainstream oncology they practice for a living.
Never Forget the Past . . . or You May Die as a Result!
There is nothing we can do today to reverse the heinous criminal acts perpetrated against Preston Tucker by our own government. We can, however, recognize that big business continues to improperly use federal agencies to suppress innovation in a way that causes tremendous consumer injury.
This month, we report on how a multibillion-dollar drug company—Wyeth—is trying to use the FDA to stop compounding pharmacies from selling bioidentical estrogen drugs. Wyeth makes the drugs Premarin® and Prempro®, which have been shown to increase risks of breast cancer,13-26 heart attack,27-34 stroke,35,36 and dementia.37-39 Premarin® consists of conjugated estrogens extracted from the urine of pregnant horses. Compounding pharmacies offer natural estrogen compounds (for far less money) that have not been shown to cause these lethal side effects.
Instead of coming up with a safer estrogen drug, Wyeth would prefer that the FDA vanquish the competition, leaving the estrogen drug market wide open for Premarin®. Educated women often refuse to take Premarin® because of its lethal side effects, yet if Wyeth has its way, conventional doctors will prescribe lots more of this proven carcinogen.
What Wyeth is doing is not unusual. Big drug companies have historically used the FDA to suppress lower-cost competition. This fact is most easily demonstrated by the FDA’s recent mass seizure of lower-cost prescription drugs Americans had ordered from Canada. The FDA contends it is “protecting” consumers from potential counterfeit medications. The reality is that the FDA is protecting drug company profits, just like the SEC protected the auto giants in the late 1940s by destroying Preston Tucker.
For longer life,
1. Egan, Philip S. Design and Destiny: The Making of the Tucker Automobile. Orange, CA: On the Mark; 1989.
2. Pearson, Charles T. The Indomitable Tin Goose: The True Story of Preston Tucker and His Car. Minneapolis, MN: Motorbooks International Publishers & Wholesalers; 1974.
3. Available at: http://www.lemurzone.com/airbag/belts.htm. Accessed May 17, 2006.
4. Available at: http://www.supercars.net/cars/2141.html. Accessed May 17, 2006.
5. Available at: http://www.tecsoc.org/pubs/history/2003/jan22.htm. Accessed May 17, 2006.
6. The indomitable Tucker. Car Classics. October, 1972.
7. Phil S. Hanna, automotive writer for the Chicago Daily News; 1948.
8. Tom McCahill, automotive writer for Mechanix Illustrated. August, 1948.
9. Newsweek magazine. October, 1948.
10. True magazine. January, 1949.
11. Available at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809833.html. Accessed May 2, 2006.
12. Preston Tucker’s secret new car. Car Life. December, 1955.
13. Lee S, Kolonel L, Wilkens L et, al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk: the Multiethnic Cohort. Int J Cancer. 2006 Mar 1;118(5):1285-91.
14. Merz WE. Hormone replacement therapy and the risk of developing breast cancer. MMW Fortschr Med. 2004 Feb 26;146(9):26-8, 30.
15. Holmberg L and Anderson H. HABITS (hormonal replacement therapy after breast cancer—is it safe?), a randomised comparison: trial stopped. Lancet. 2004 Feb 7;363(9407):453-5.
16. Mueck AO, Seeger H, Wallwiener D. Comparison of the proliferative effects of estradiol and conjugated equine estrogens on human breast cancer cells and impact of continuous combined progestogen addition. Climacteric. 2003 Sep;6(3):221-7.
17. Chlebowski RT, Hendrix SL, Langer RD, et al. Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2003 Jun 25;289(24):3243-53.
18. Porch JV, Lee IM, Cook NR, Rexrode KM, Burin JE. Estrogen-progestin replacement therapy and breast cancer risk: the Women’s Health Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2002 Nov;13(9):847-54.
19. Chen CL, Weiss NS, Newcomb P, Barlow W, White E. Hormone replacement therapy in relation to breast cancer. JAMA. 2002 Feb 13;287(6):734-41.
20. Lundstrom E, Wilczek B, von PZ, Soderqvist G, von SB. Mammographic breast density during hormone replacement therapy: effects of continuous combination, unopposed transdermal and low-potency estrogen regimens. Climacteric. 2001 Mar;4(1):42-8.
21. Chen Y, Liu X, Pisha E, et al. A metabolite of equine estrogens, 4-hydroxyequilenin, induces DNA damage and apoptosis in breast cancer cell lines. Chem Res Toxicol. 2000 May;13(5):342-50.
22. Schairer C, Lubin J, Troisi R, et al. Menopausal estrogen and estrogen-progestin replacement therapy and breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2000 Jan 26;283(4):485-91.
23. Magnusson C, Baron JA, Correia N, et al. Breast-cancer risk following long-term oestrogen- and oestrogen-progestin-replacement therapy. Int J Cancer. 1999 May 5;81(3):339-44.
24. Persson I, Weiderpass E, Bergkvist L, Bergstrom R, Schairer C. Risks of breast and endometrial cancer after estrogen and estrogen-progestin replacement. Cancer Causes Control. 1999 Aug;10(4):253-60.
25. Beral V, Banks E, Reeves G, Appleby P. Use of HRT and the subsequent risk of cancer. J Epidemiol Biostat. 1999;4(3):191-210.
26. Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, et al. Prospective study of estrogen replacement therapy and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. JAMA. 1990 Nov 28;264(20):2648-53.
27. Manson JE, Hsia J, Johnson KC, et al. Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 7;349(6):523-34.
28. Vongpatanasin W, Tuncel M, Wang Z, et al. Differential effects of oral versus transdermal estrogen replacement therapy on C-reactive protein in postmenopausal women. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Apr 16;41(8):1358-63.
29. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002 Jul 17;288(3):321-33.
30. Decensi A, Omodei U, Robertson C, et al. Effect of transdermal estradiol and oral conjugated estrogen on C-reactive protein in retinoid-placebo trial in healthy women. Circulation. 2002 Sep 3;106(10):1224-8.
31. van Baal WM, Kenemans P, van der Mooren MJ, et al. Increased C-reactive protein levels during short-term hormone replacement therapy in healthy postmenopausal women. Thromb Haemost. 1999 Jun;81(6):925-8.
32. Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T, et al. Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group. JAMA. 1998 Aug 19;280(7):605-13.
33. Wilson PW, Garrison RJ, Castelli WP. Postmenopausal estrogen use, cigarette smoking, and cardiovascular morbidity in women over 50. The Framingham Study. N Engl J Med. 1985 Oct 24;313(17):1038-43.
34. Available at: http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/rxdrugprofiles/drugs/pre1347.shtml. Accessed May 8, 2006.
35. Anderson GL, Limacher M, Assaf AR, et al. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004 Apr 14;291(14):1701-12.
36. Wassertheil-Smoller S, Hendrix SL, Limacher M, et al. Effect of estrogen plus progestin on stroke in postmenopausal women: the Women’s Health Initiative: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2003 May 28;289(20):2673-84.
37. Shumaker SA, Legault C, Kuller L, et al. Conjugated equine estrogens and incidence of probable dementia and mild cognitive impairment in postmenopausal women: Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study. JAMA. 2004 Jun 23;291(24):2947-58.
38. Espeland MA, Rapp SR, Shumaker SA, et al. Conjugated equine estrogens and global cognitive function in postmenopausal women: Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study. JAMA. 2004 Jun 23;291(24):2959-68.
39. Shumaker SA, Legault C, Rapp SR et al. Estrogen plus progestin and the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in postmenopausal women: the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003 May 28;289(20):2651-62.