Just When You Thought You'd Seen the Last of the Great POM Debate

Pom is fighting back:

www.pomtruth.com/ftc



Debate among yourselves...

Here we go again. I just broke open a new bottl of pomaganate extract this morning and with wash it down with some green tea in a few minuts.

Michael Milken had a great quote when he decided to radically change his diet to combat his prostate cancer. He said (something like) he didnt have the time to wait until there was proof that diet would slow/arrest is prostate cancer. He had to act now to save life.

Jazz,

POM should fight back, but not in that way. The government should force them to prove their endless claims about how their product is a cure-all for so many medical matters. I don't consider POM to be a "snake oil", but it is just a fruit juice, and most fruit juices are reasonaly healthy to drink, especially if you like the taste. I for one, can't handle the taste of POM, but then I also don't like orange or grapefruit or grape juice. I don't mind juices made of berries, or fresh apple juice.

But the makers of POM advertise it as if it were a snake oil product, and that's where, in my opinion, I think they are wrong.

david in sc

Why is pomegranate called a “superfruit?”   Well, it may not deserve that title because—as the article provided by davidg so brilliantly points out— it does NOT cure cancer !   It only slows it down!  But on the other hand, it’s instructive to learn why others have written that it is the “closest thing to a miracle in a bottle that we’ve found yet.”   The pomegranate title of “superfruit” comes from the fact that it packs the highest level of antioxidants found anywhere.   Water would be at the lowest end; POM juice at the highest end (significantly higher than red wine).   Water is important to maintaining health, but for men who are fighting recurrent PC or heart disease (the #1 killer of men with PC), you may want to consider the points which were validated in the FTC advertising trial against POM.   Post-trial, the POM company appears to be doing a great job (see their links to POM ads HERE ) of emphasizing the point I made earlier in the green texted reply, above.  They produce a natural, inexpensive product that can help thousands of men with recurrent prostate cancer (we have several here at HW in this category who may be interested in slowing down progression).   POM should fight back and continue to put the facts out to the public...men like us here at HW will only benefit from it!  The FTC deserves a poke in the eye for slowing down the benefit to men with progressing PC.   The point worth remembering from this thread is that you should not expect a randomized controlled trial (RTC) for POM (or red wine, for that matter) to be forthcoming.   It won’t happen if there isn’t a patentable drug involved…   Make your own smart choices.  

This comment completely misses the point.

The company already has "ceased and desisted" and "backed off" on the relatively few number of advertising spots that were questionable in the eyes of the FTC. That was, in case you missed it, the outcome of the recently completed crackdown by the FTC and subsequent costly lawsuit. The whole outcome was that they had to stop those ads...that was the point! The POM ads in the link provided above were absolutely fine with the judge (the questionable ones are all gone). It helps if you actually read the thread before commenting.

What's incredibly hypocritical is that some people have a big problem with red wine or POM juice not being taken to randomized controled trial, or RCT (and it never will; read my helpful explanation in green text above), but absolutely no qualms about signing-up for a radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy which has never undergone the same "gold standard" RCT. I think ya gotta take a step back and say to yourself, which of these should I get all worked-up into a lather about...? That's called missing the forest for the trees.

Montee, your individual case study is spectacular.  As a statistician (ok, I'm not really a statistician, but as an engineer I've used and understood a boatload of stats), I like to understand what happen to large populations of people, and not just anecdotal situations...although, again, yours is a success story we like to hear which represents a real-live result out of the large population! One of those large studies was reported at last year’s American Society of Clinical Oncologists (ASCO) conference.  The findings of the pomegranate/PC benefits under study in a Phase II trail (by Dr Michael Carducci from highly respected Johns Hopkins ) were judged by the ASCO organizers to be so important that they adjusted the conference schedule to allow for oral presentation of interim results.   The Carducci study was independent confirmation of the favorable impact on slowing PSADT as a measurement of PC progression.   (A number of study participants actually had their PSAs decline , and some people were affected less than others; overall PSADT slowed.)   Another telling sign was the pronouncement by Dr Nicholas Vogelzang (I don't know Dr V, but he is the doctor of several others here at HW) that the results of POM were "dramatic."  Accroding to Dr V, he "recommends use of pomegranate juice or extract a lot" in his practice. I guess he doesn't want his patients with recurrent PC to wait around for the random controlled trial (RCT) either.  He does this even though POM has not been "proven" to cure cancer!  Anybody here think that Dr V is doing the wrong thing ??  

my PCa diet this year...

www.flickr.com/photos/28674456@N03/7307521892/in/photostream

And this section was the real heart of this article, in case the link doesn't work:

More Dubious Marketing

POM Wonderful isn’t the only Resnick product whose marketing raises eyebrows. Remember that the Resnicks’ company, Roll International, also owns Fiji Water. In a 2009 investigative report for Mother Jones, journalist Anna Lenzer described her trip to Fiji -- the island nation, and also the water bottling plant. As Lenzer details, Fiji’s deliberate and successful attempt to position itself as more “high-end” and “pure” than other bottled waters is not only disingenuous, it's morally reprehensible, given that many Fijians lack access to potable water.

Nowhere in Fiji Water's glossy marketing materials will you find reference to the typhoid outbreaks that plague Fijians because of the island's faulty water supplies; the corporate entities that Fiji Water has -- despite the owners' talk of financial transparency -- set up in tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg; or the fact that its signature bottle is made from Chinese plastic in a diesel-fueled plant and hauled thousands of miles to its ecoconscious consumers. And, of course, you won't find mention of the military junta for which Fiji Water is a major source of global recognition and legitimacy.

Fiji Water touts its corporate philanthropy in Fiji, and is quick to mention the economic benefits the company brings to the country, but, as Lenzer notes, “though Fiji Water may fill a void in the impoverished nation, it also reaps a priceless benefit: tax-free status, granted when the company was founded in 1995....And when Fiji has tried to wring a bit of extra revenue from the company, the response has been less than cooperative. Last year, when the government attempted to impose a new tax on water bottlers, Fiji Water called it "draconian" (a term it's never used for the regime's human rights violations) and temporarily shut down its plant in protest.”

What Now For Consumers?

The FTC ruling on POM Wonderful’s false health claims has revived a long-standing debate about the legitimacy of corporate-sponsored scientific research. As Marion Nestle wrote recently, “It is not difficult to design research studies to give sponsors the answers they want and to make sure they are conducted well. POM is getting the best research that money can buy.”

Even though the FTC judge ruled that POM Wonderful had made false claims, he did not order the company to get FDA pre-approval of its claims going forward, as originally proposed, nor did he require that the company rely on double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies, as is the standard for pharmaceuticals. It’s a decision that has implications for the health food industry on the whole, to be sure. POM Wonderful claims those implications are positive, but consumers should be wary.

Given the company’s latest ad campaign, it seems unlikely that POM Wonderful will change its ways any time soon. But we can hope that the recent battle with the FTC opened consumers’ eyes to the false health claims that POM Wonderful, and so many food companies, make every day -- and the lengths to which they will go to propagate those falsehoods.

Or, if you want the full details on the FTC ruling, read the entire 345 page ruling (unedited) from the FTC itself, it's any eye opener to say the least:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9344/120521pomdecision.pdf

david

I agree with you, 142. But when I saw these articles, just wanted to post something on the subject that was beyond my personal opinion, that portrayed the other side of the argument. The trouble I have with studies in general (not limited to the great POM debate), is that a study can just about scientifically prove whatever point the author wants it to show, and be quite convincing of it at the same time.

Now if someone came out and said the same thing about drinking pure raspberry or strawberry juice, I would be drinking the fool out of it, but then I love the tastes of those berries, lol. I just can't handle the taste of POM juice, not even when its cut with something else. It leaves a bitter aftertaste in my mouth that makes me cringe.

david

142,

I have spent most of my working life in senior level accounting and financial position, the same can be said to some aspects of financial reporting. i am not talking about fraudulent statements, but the practice of reporting numbers to accent the good, while carefully hiding the bad news. While, as a general rule, a Profit and Loss Statement (if not fraudulenty produced) shows a pretty good indicator of the profitability (or lack therof) of a firm, the same can't always be said of a Balance Sheet, which is intended to show the value or worth of a company. Within the Balance Sheet, depending on whom will be seeing it, certain aspects can be adjusted to make a firm appear to be of more true value than it really is. My point, the same thing can be said of all these alledged scientific medical reports. One has to know who is behind it, do they have a vested interest in the outcome of the study, what is the real motivation - beyond the simplicity of reporting facts. We all know, that there are facts, and then there are "facts". Much of the truth behind a given study, can be masked behind the endless academic debates that take place.

Reminds me of one of the most recent legal depositions I was in a few weeks ago. The opposing attorney was hammering me for nearly an hour on the inclusion of 2 words in a 2 page document. One that I had signed, but not written. The words were accidentley placed together during the preparation. Finally the attorney had to be ordered to stop badgering the witness (me), and I was able to say, you are wasting all this time on these two words, and completely ignoring the point of the document, which in this case, was why the bank being sued couldn't account for over $4 million dollars in customer funds that had been properly deposited. It was a good attempt by the opposing side to hide the real facts of the case, by dwelling on a technical detail that had no substance. The same can be said for many "scientific studies", and when laypersons, such as ourselves here at HW read a study, few if any of us, have the professional training and background to rightfully dispute the findings, whether we agree or disagree. I find that to be a big problem, personally.

david

You shouldn’t feel bad.   A lot of doctors don’t understand statistics either, HERE’s a link to a recently published article titled, “ No, Physicians Don’t Understand Screening Statistics .”   It highlights interesting & troubling examples of bad judgment—in this case based on cancer screening. I was certified to teach stats in a MBA program at a local college.   Although I never taught that class, I remember the discussions in the faculty prep for this course about the range of student backgrounds the instructors should expect to see…from those who fear stats, to those who think they understand but distrust anything having to do with stats (indicating that they really don’t understand it).   For the general stats course, we recognized that our objective was to help develop a reasonable level of knowledge that allowed people to understand, be comfortable with, and use stats at a workable level.   It was a good course because we didn’t aim too high.   So, the science is there (you can read separately about the potent antioxidants and the impact on health in plenty of places, the landmark book “ Anticancer, A New Way of Life ” is a great place…for a basic introductory lesson, go to HERE to this Livestrong.com article about POM). There will (likely) never be the large, well-designed, well-conducted randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled human clinical trial (or “RCT” for short, thank goodness’ that’s a mouthful!) for the reasons I explained in simple terms, above, in the green text .   As discussed there, the RCT is the only way that drugs can claim "proof." If you have recurrent PSA/rising PSA, and you know that the leading docs who treat these advanced cases are recommending POM (Dr Vogelzang example already provided; watch Dr Charles “Snuffy” Myers videos, too), and you still are waiting for the “100% proof of cure”…and all you can think about is “ double yuck ” (I don’t like the flavor of the juice, either) then you might want to seriously consider the POM pills instead.   But do it because of the science, and the PC experts' words…not the word of Dr Casey.  The benefit of POM has already been shown to be a benefit to thousands of similar men... three cheers for PC survivors !!   142, it sounds like your are contemplating an experiment.   For the very reason that I do understand statistics and therefore eschew the tempting influence of individual anecdotes I wouldn't recommend this , but it sounds you are contemplating stopping taking POM for, say, the next 12-months or so, and then comparing the rate of change of your PSA progression with and without POM?   While POM has been shown in studies to slow PC progression in populations of men, it is very important to realize that (as with every drug) not everyone’s body responds the same , and maybe this experiment would demonstrate what it sounds like you suspect—that perhaps POM is not working for you, individually, and that it is simply (for you) a waste of time & energy.  If you go that route, let us know how it turns out.       edit:   fixed link Post Edited (Casey59) : 6/1/2012 9:52:29 AM (GMT-6)