Smuggling Acomplia, Hawking Alli All In The Desperate Name Of Weight Loss

In the same week when the media is going absolutely crazy with their feeding frenzy giving free publicity to the new over-the-counter GlaxoSmithKline weight loss drug called Alli, along comes a story like this one which just goes to show you the desperate attempts that some people are willing to make in the pursuit of getting thin--even if it's ILLEGAL!

I've blogged about the next great "magic pill" for weight loss from pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis before--it's called Acomplia. Like most diet pills, the dirty secret is you must eat a low-calorie diet along with them. Shhhh, don't tell anyone! ;)

But Acomplia is still very popular among Americans right now despite the fact that the FDA has not granted approval of it yet because of fears that it increases the risk of suicide. With close public scrutiny on them right now over the diabetes drug Avandia, which allegedly raises heart disease risk, the FDA is being cautious with Acomplia.

Nevertheless, European countries have already put their stamp of approval on Acomplia and hopeless Americans are smuggling the drug into the United States by bringing it back with them after visiting foreign lands and/or making the purchases over the Internet.

It was disheartening to read about a 60-something year old woman in the story who thinks Acomplia is all she can do to lose weight. NO! As much as people like this want to believe a drug is their best option, clearly it is not. There are too many questions about side effects with weight loss pills, so why not try a natural and effective weight loss method instead?

Like LIVIN' LA VIDA LOW-CARB!!! :D

If approved by the FDA in the U.S. sometime in July as expected, Acomplia could rake in over $3 BILLION dollars annually in profits for Sanofi. Now there's your REAL motive for pushing this drug and other such medications on the American people, not the promise of meaningful and lasting weight loss!

As for that new OTC pill Alli, I received an awesome e-mail from a reader in Fort Worth, Texas who was contemplating taking this to help her with her obesity. But in her research online, she found my blog post about it and changed her mind.

Here's what she wrote:

Hello! I have just discovered your blog while Googling to find some information on Alli/orlistat and how it could affect someone following the Atkins program. Your blog post was informative, helpful and inspiring! I just had to take a moment to write to you!

Hearing the ultra-hyped promotion for this new miracle pill, of course I was interested and had to do some research, but what I've found--well, lets say that instead of spending $60 on Alli tomorrow, I ordered some new low-carb cookbooks from Amazon instead!

I weigh close to 400 pounds, have 2 beautiful children and a loving husband that need me. I have got to get this weight off and doing it without surgery and medications is definitely the way I want to go.

I first tried Atkins two years ago and had lost nearly 60 pounds in three months. I felt awesome! But, unfortunately I went on a honeymoon and got into the "vacation" mentality and couldn't manage to get back into the right mindset.

Now, however, I've been on Induction for 2 weeks and I'm feeling fantastic already!

I had a moment today, wondering if I should change my diet to incorporate this new wonderful pill, seriously considering stopping the Atkins plan in favor of GlaxoSmithKline's slick advertising. But reading various web articles, especially your blog, has convinced me to keep on doing what I'm doing. Atkins is healthier, easier and faster than any diet I've ever tried. And if I feel good doing it, why change?

A low-fat diet filled with carbs would ruin any positive changes I've gained in the last few weeks, sugar is the enemy! One bagel for breakfast and I'd be craving sugar all over again. Don't want to go through that withdrawal ever again. Heh!

So, this was simply a long-winded way to say THANK YOU for your blog and I will now be a devoted reader and might even start a blog of my own weight loss via low-carb adventure--as well as get an order in for your book!

You are truly fantastic!

If only we could educate more people like this very intelligent woman before they fall prey to the allure of a pill like Alli or Acomplia, then these risky gimmicks would be used only as a very LAST resort rather than the primary tool for weight loss. My hope and prayer is that many more will learn the truth now rather than suffer the heartache and physical effects of these drugs later.

6-15-07 UPDATE: It turns out the author of that e-mail to me is a 35-year old Texas woman named Morgan MacLeoid and she has a blog called "Good Carbma" (now that's pretty creative!).


Morgan is wholeheartedly committed to livin' la vida low-carb now

Yes, ask shocking as it sounds, she seriously considered taking Alli and switching to a low-fat diet to do it. But now Morgan has thought better of that idea and is sticking with her all-natural low-carb plan.

Although she currently weighs more than 400 pounds, Morgan is committed to doing this for the sake of living a long and healthy life for those two precious kids of hers. You're gonna make it, Morgan, and I'm so proud of you for making this wise choice for yourself and your loved one. Let me know if I can help you along in this journey!

GSK, FDA Knew Avandia Raised Heart Disease Risk In 2005, But Did Nothing About It

Millions of diabetics take Avandia, but is it harming them?

We live in a society that says as long as you take your pills, you can live your life however you want to. Forget about making natural changes in your diet and lifestyle to manage your health, just go hog wild living it up and let the prescription drugs take care of the consequences of those foolish actions (like the American Diabetes Association's recommendation to go ahead and eat your carbs as long as you take your diabetes medicines--UGH!).

But doing that sometimes opens you up to certain health risks as we discovered in this USA Today column about the widely-used and prescribed diabetes drug Avandia. Have you heard this shocking story yet?

It seems the manufacturer of this diabetes medicine--#2 bestselling prescription drug at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)--informed the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) as early as 2005 of a 30-percent increase in heart disease risk for patients taking this drug. So did the FDA do their own investigation into this to confirm the safety of Avandia? Was an effort made to inform patients of this known risk?

In a word--NOPE!

Instead, it took a study published in this week's New England Journal Of Medicine to shine the light of truth on this horrific discovery that may have already quite literally negatively impacted the health of millions of Americans. You know what that means, don't you? Lawsuits out the ying yang and rightfully so. More about that in a moment.

First, let's take a look at that study for a few moments.

Lead researcher Dr. Steven Nissen (who conducted this study on statin drugs I previously highlighted at my blog) from the Cleveland Clinic wrote in his report that both GlaxoSmithKline and the FDA should have (but didn't!) take the necessary steps to adequately warn people taking Avandia of the risks to their health. Uh-oh!

Dr. Nissen concluded from his examination of 42 different studies that have been conducted on the drug posted right there on the GlaxoSmithKline web site that there was an even higher risk of heart attack--an astounding 43 percent INCREASE--as well as a spike in the risk of death from heart disease--a stunning 64 percent INCREASE!

Yikes!

These study results were eye-opening for Nissen and should be a real wake-up call for everyone who mindlessly believes you can live your life as a diabetic so long as you pop your prescription diabetes pills.

"This is important because cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in diabetes and is responsible for between 65% and 80% of all deaths in diabetics," he said. "The reasons we give drugs to lower blood sugar is to prevent the complications of diabetes, the most important of which is heart disease. When a drug increases that risk, it can have profound public health consequences."

Well, this study got the attention of the FDA who has NOW issued a Safety Alert this week stating there is a "potentially significant" heart health risk. Ya think?! That's mighty bold of you, FDA! It's about freakin' time!

The lapse in judgment by the FDA has compelled Congress to set up an emergency hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on June 6th to look at this issue surrounding Avandia. Some lawmakers are already calling this "another Vioxx," referring to the now-infamous arthritis drug that had its FDA-approval yanked because of similar heart health risks.

In 2006, there were 13 million prescriptions written by doctors for their diabetic patients raking in over $2 billion (yes, that's billion with a "b")! This is big time big bucks for GlaxoSmithKline that they really hate to see go up in flames over Nissen's silly little study. So it's not surprising that they sent out the big guns to try to debunk it.

"We are confident of the safety profile of Avandia and believe in its benefit for type 2 diabetic patients," exlaimed Ronald Krall, medical director for GlaxoSmithKline, who added that there are serious flaws in how the study was conducted.

But this is something Nissen does not deny. However, he said he could only base his conclusions on the information available to him directly from the GlaxoSmithKline web site.

"It was based on an analysis of publicly available material, not patient-level data for these trials," Nissen noted. "Nevertheless, we think the results will stand up over time."

In the meantime, financial analysts are already estimating GlaxoSmithKline is gonna have to pay through the nose for the negligence despite their insistence they did nothing wrong by not revealing the heart health risks to the diabetic patients taking Avandia. How much will it cost them? Early estimates are saying the costs could end up being as much as $5 billion--that's TWO AND A HALF TIMES the sales generated by the drug in 2006 alone.

OUCH, that's gonna hurt! Wah, wah, wah! Cry me a river.

Legal experts state that there could be up to 16,000 legal claims made against GlaxoSmithKline in response to the study. At a nominal $300,000 for each case, that would add up to $4.8 billion. Additionally, Avandia sales would plummet significantly--as much as 30-40 percent.

This is exactly what you get when you rely too heavily on medicines from the big pharmaceutical companies to be your permanent lifestyle change. What do you do when that magic pill you rely on to keep you healthy actually puts you at greater risk for disease and even death? Don't you think it's time to look at all-natural changes in your diet and lifestyle to manage conditions like diabetes? If this story doesn't convince you of that truth, then I don't know what will!

Dr. Mary C. Vernon has it right about how to treat diabetes after all!

PBS Obesity Series Tainted By Diet Drug Sponsor

What's GlaxoSmithKline doing sponsoring a new obesity series on PBS?

Something fishy is going on with an upcoming program about obesity on your friendly public television station and this Broadcasting & Cable story provides all the sordid details about what is going on.

It seems there is a new set of programs coming out on PBS in April called "Fat: What No One Is Telling You" as part of the "Take One Step" series of shows. Learn more about this documentary and even meet the producers as well as an interview with them.

From what I can see, the filmmakers are mainly going to highlight the problem rather than seek out solutions to the obesity epidemic. That's not really my concern, but it is an interesting sidebar. (Why examine a problem in a series of shows on public television if you aren't going to offer suggestions about how to address that problem? But I digress.)

While the subject matter is indeed an important one that needs to have a platform and is absolutely relevant programming for public television, it's the inclusion of one particular major sponsor--a pharmaceutical company--who just so happens to have a brand new over-the-counter weight loss pill to offer overweight and obese people that has many concerned.

The culprit in all of this is GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) who provided what is described on the PBS web site as "major funding" for this show set to be aired beginning on April 11, 2007. While their sponsorship deal with PBS may seem like it's just a generous act of care and compassion by a company concerned about the delicate subject matter of the series, it's difficult to ignore the fact that GSK recently got FDA approval to sell the first over-the-counter version of the diet drug orlistat called "Alli" which they have already invested a lot of time and money into bringing to the market.

Don't you know they'd love to get as many people as they can taking this drug as soon as possible. Sponsoring a show like this is one way to get their proverbial fingers in the wallets and purses of Mr. and Mrs. Fat America!

While the rules of public television prevent GSK from mentioning their new weight loss drug as part of their sponsorship, that hasn't stopped them from talking about obesity in suspiciously generic terms on their web site. With an image of a measuring tape beneath an article called "Obesity: Why Weight Matters," the link to "Find out more about obesity" takes you to a page full of a bunch of statistics about obesity without providing any real solutions (just like the documentary itself they are sponsoring!).

It's basically setting up a straw man argument that SOMETHING really needs to be done about obesity or else it'll keep getting worse and worse in the years to come. Hmmm, I wonder what we can do about all of this?! Does this sponsor GSK have an answer for us? Ding ding ding, oh that's right! Maybe I'll try "Alli" the next time I'm shopping at the pharmacy.

Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky is all I have to say about this. I take that back--it's SICKO! Unscrupulous for a company like that pushing their name out there in the hopes of selling a few of these diet pills! And what the heck is PBS doing taking money from a company like GSK?! Are they completely out of their minds? Talk about your conflict of interest!

Of course, PBS is denying any wrongdoing here stating that GSK as an underwriter has no control over any of the programming itself. While that may be true, the indelible connection between the content of this series (obesity) and the drug being peddled to address that subject matter ("Alli") is very conspicuous to say the least. Why else would GSK be a "major sponsor," hmmmm?

If this were ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox or any other television network that looks for paid advertisers to sponsor shows that meet their demographics, then it wouldn't be such a big deal. But we are talking about public television and there is a clear line of distinction that has no business being crossed.

The company producing this series, Twin Cities Public Television, has remained silent about this controversy surrounding GSK's sponsorship, but PBS has not. They issued the following statement regarding their position in this matter:

"PBS and The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provided the initial production funding for 'FAT: What No One is Telling You' through its 'Program Challenge Fund,' which also included a grant for an educational community outreach initiative. Production on 'FAT: What No One is Telling You' began in October 2005 and was nearing the end of production when the corporate sponsor, GlaxoSmithKline, came on board in January 2006 and provided additional funding for the broadcast, community outreach and Spanish language translation. As is always the case with corporate funders of PBS programs, at no time did the corporate sponsor have any editorial input into the show, nor have they seen it, and this strict separation was maintained throughout production. Lastly, the sponsor credit for GlaxoSmithKline is a corporate image spot and does not mention any drug product, including those used to treat obesity. 'FAT: What No One is Telling You' premieres April 11, 2007 on PBS."

Oh enough with the corporate speak here! You don't need a product to be mentioned in order to know why GSK is sponsoring this show?! It's just like what happened with this Super Bowl ad by King Pharmaceuticals that didn't mention a specific drug either, but they certainly benefitted from the exposure they received from their commercial.

Let's just call a spade a spade and be done with it. GSK is trying to sell their drug "Alli" and thought they could get away with this soft sponsorship of an obesity series. But I don't think they should be able to get away with it. We need to let PBS know how we feel about this and tell them they are wrong to accept money from GlaxoSmithKline.

Use this feedback form and let them know how you feel about a major pharmaceutical company with a weight loss drug to peddle sponsoring the program "FAT: What No One is Telling You." Be respectful, but firm in your conviction about this and share how unethical it is for public television to take money for this purpose.

Of course, I'd love to know what you think about this issue. Is PBS right to take the money and is GSK just doing a good-natured act of corporate responsibility? Or do you agree with me that this stinks to high heaven? Make your voice heard!

2-17-07 UPDATE: Now here's a unique perspective sent by one of my readers who is a long-time public television industry veteran.

Jimmy: I appreciate the idealism of your concern about who is allowed to sponsor which programs on PBS or NPR. The appearance of a "tainted relationship" is a very real concern of public broadcasters.

As a 40+-year veteran of public broadcasting, I can empathize but not concur with you. I know full well the hazards of inappropriate sponsorships but more than that, I know how difficult it is to get funding for any programming, no matter its hoped for popularity. I thought your quote taken from Twin Cities Public TV explained the situation very well.

What is not explained in criticisms of underwriting on public media is the context for funding and how precarious and difficult it is to obtain funding and how many different sources a producer has to tap and how many years it takes before having the funds to do a quality job.

Most people do not know that the majority of what public broadcasting does is not what is seen on its broadcast channel (redistributed on cable and satellite). There is a host of other distribution channels for education, training and outreach to target communities far in excess of that one channel.

So a producer must not only develop funding for the production of a program but also have the resources to market the program to all potential audiences, create publications and web sites to further provide the large amount of information necessary to truly inform people on the subject matter and provide funding for local outreach to target audiences which allows local people and organizations to contact target community organizations and groups that can make the best use of the information contained in the program itself and available in other forms, mostly free for the asking.

At best, ten (10%) percent of the American public voluntarily donate to public broadcasting. There is a large variety of other sources from whom a producer must aggregate funding to make production possible. Federal funding accounts for about 13% of funding for operations including production and most of that goes directly to local stations. The rest comes from states, underwriters (sponsors), non-profit partners, auctions and miscellaneous contributors.

There are and have been efforts over the years to create a Trust Fund that would throw off enough annual interest to fund productions free from any funder's potential for influence. That has remained a dream as a result, in part, of the pressures created by commentaries from the worlds of political and special interests.

You are cautious to question the potential influence of funders but there has been no shortage of "wanna be influentials" who would like to control content on public broadcasting. Bottom line, in my now 40+ years experience with public broadcasting at every level, I have yet to see it happen, and more to the point, have been witness to and directly involved in fierce resistance to those who would try to leverage editorial influence over program content.

THANK YOU for taking the time to share your actual experiences working in public television for four decades. We can only hope the past will continue to be an accurate predictor of the present and future. THANKS again!

2-17-07 UPDATE: The blog truefilm picked up on this story and quoted my post about this subject. They point to another example of this happening with Johnson & Johnson sponsoring a documentary releasing February 21st about inflammatory diseases called Innerstate. Guess what Johnson & Johnson makes that could help with inflammatory diseases? If these people were even TRYING to hide what they are doing, it would be one thing. But it doesn't look like they are concealing their motives at all!

2-18-07 UPDATE: PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler has now responded to the concerns about GlaxoSmithKline sponsoring this documentary about fat. Here's an excerpt of what he wrote:

"I sympathize with PBS’s constant search for funding, the difficulty of finding sponsorships to bolster more traditional funding, and that fact that some funders simply have an interest in seeing subjects aired and are willing to take their chances on how the program will come out. But in this case, there is little doubt how a program about obesity is going to turn out. Even though GlaxoSmithKline came in late and, under PBS policy, has no say in any of the content, this kind of possible conflict can undermine credibility and, without knowing the financial details, doesn’t seem worth it."

Nevertheless, the primary producer of "Fat: What No One Is Telling You" named Richard Dechert reacted to Getler's statement with the following:

Michael, thank you for your comprehensive critique of this ongoing "hot button" funding issue. As a longtime staffer at Twin Cities Public Television, the primary producer of "FAT: What No One Is Telling You," and as a longtime media-reform activist with national and local organizations, I have perspectives on the issue that few others have been able to develop. A key perspective is this:

Individuals and organizations who rightfully decry the increasing commercialization of PBS, NPR or any other federally funded programming must take even more vigorous and sustained action to prevent further cuts in Presidential, Congressional, and state support for public TV and radio, and to champion alternatives ways of supporting and improving their vital services--including an independent, self-sustaining national trust fund.

Public broadcasters have long-supported such alternatives, but all of them have been "DOA" in the Congress--with a lack of effective support from anti-commercialization activists being a major lethal factor. Sadly, from what I've been able to observe so far, the furor over "FAT" is on its way to being another dead-end case in point.

Dechert also contacted me about my blog post on this issue.

Jimmy,

As a progressive media activist, one of my roles has been to tell my activist colleagues when they haven't done their "homework" in slamming public TV or radio. In your following critique you say:

--"From what I can see, the filmmakers are mainly going to highlight the problem rather than seek out solutions to the obesity epidemic. That's not really my concern, but it is an interesting sidebar. (Why examine a problem in a series of shows on public television if you aren't going to offer suggestions about how to address that problem?. . . ."

Clearly, you failed to do your "homework" in carefully reviewing the Web links on the "Take One More Step" Web site. If you had you would know that the multi-media package of on-air, online, and community-based services for both "Heart" and "Fat" is modeled after Twin Cities Public Television's (tpt's) 2004 Primetime Emmy Award winning package for "The Forgetting: A Portrait of Alzheimer's." PBS lauded it for having the most powerful impact of all the shows it aired in its 2003-2004 national schedule. And tpt's senior producer for "Alzheimer's," Naomi Boak, is "FAT"'s senior producer. You can easily review that and many other National Production awards by clicking here.

--Among your several charges you also say: "Is PBS right to take the money and is GSK just doing a good-natured act of corporate responsibility? Or do you agree with me that this stinks to high heaven?. . ."

"Alzheimer's" also had a single corporate-financed funder, the MetLife Foundation, whose parent company is a major commercial provider of health care, disability and other related insurance and financial-planning services. Its underwriting of this production complied with the same PBS rules that governed "FAT's" production.

So, Jimmy, tell me how that underwriting "stinks"--or more appropriately how it adversely influenced "Alzheimer's." And when you've finally completed your pre-broadcast "homework," actually watched the show, then determined its national impact, competently answer the same question for "FAT." Conspiratorial fantasy is an unacceptable "homework" substitute for social reality.

I responded to these questions and concerns with the following.

THANKS for sharing your concern, Richard, and I certain sympathize with you about the funding. It is a MAJOR issue indeed which makes these corporate sponsorships all the more disconcerting. I know you have to do what you can to raise the dollars necessary and I certainly don't blame Twin Cities for finding a way to get their program on the air.

Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to seeing what you have come up with and will probably find the documentary to be quite compelling. But it does make me wonder what all those viewers who see GSK's sponsorship will think when the series is finished. As someone who advocates a natural approach to weight loss, this is very disturbing to me.

THANK YOU again for sharing your thoughts with me.

Anyone else have a comment to share about this?

FDA No Weight Loss 'Alli' Approving OTC Drug

An OTC version of the weight loss drug orlistat gets FDA-approval

It wasn't a matter of if, but when.

This Washington Post story details the disappointing news that the United States government regulatory agency over approving medicines that can be sold without a prescription in this country has given its final blessing to an over-the-counter version of a prescription weight loss drug made by pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline, who calls this "the only FDA-approved weight loss product available to consumers without a prescription." Yippee freakin' skippy!

You may recall last January when I blogged about the weight loss drug orlistat following an 11-2 recommendation by a group of medical "experts" who deliberated for all of one whole day about whether the risky prescription medicine Xenical should be made available in an OTC formula.

Today, the Food & Drug Adminstration (FDA) made it official and gave the rubber stamp to sell orlistat using the name "Alli." No, it's not pronounced like Muhammed Ali (AH-LEE), but rather like the word "ally" (AL-EYE) as in someone who is on your side.

The irony in that name is that the FDA is certainly no "Alli" to anyone desiring weight loss with their outlandish and irresponsible approval of this drug. They really ought to be ashamed of themselves for putting a drug like this one out there because obesity pills are just pie in the sky promises that don't deliver without a little effort on the part of the dieter. And the FDA even acknowledges that fact.

While they don't encourage children under the age of 18 take this drug (but who are we kidding? Parents will be buying this drug for their fat kids left and right!), it is absolutely open game for adults willing to combine it with a low-fat, low-calorie, portion control diet and exercise program. That's right, just in case you missed the fine print from the FDA about this latest cure-all for obesity, the dirty little secret is you STILL have to diet!

Don't even think about livin' la vida low-carb while taking the 60 mg capsules of "Alli" right before each of your three daily meals either because it only works well in people who eat little to no fat in their diet. Yep, not only do you get the unique pleasure of having most of the fat you put inside of your body sucked completely dry like a shallow river basin in 110 degree heat, but you also are FORCED to eat a low-fat diet in the process to make it work. Aren't you just so very happy about that?!

But wait, there's more!

In addition to not absorbing dietary fat (which can be dangerous on a number of levels that you don't even want me to get into!), this drug may very well prevent you from absorbing some of the most essential nutrients in the foods you eat. Therefore, they recommend you take a multivitamin before you go nighty-night sucking your thumb while holding a fuzzy wuzzy teddy bear.

Isn't this hilarious? While opponents of livin' la vida low-carb always chastise us for promoting vitamin supplementation on our very natural and healthy way of eating, here's the FDA telling people they need to eat a low-fat diet and take supplements if they decide to start using the "Alli" OTC weight loss pill. And this is the WEAK version of the drug Xenical--can you imagine what the full-strength one is like?

Like most drugs, "Alli" is not without some really nasty side effects. Try this on for size: loose stools, excess gas, fatty stools, possible uncontrollable bowel movements, flatulence with discharge, abdominal pain, and a general sense of poop-poopy-doop 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, non-stop fun between you and the porcelain goddess! Aren't you so glad you chose to lose weight this way? NOT! Sounds about as bad as the weight loss drug for dogs I blogged about last month!

Seriously, though, orlistat is NOT for everyone (I don't think it's for ANYONE, but that's just my take on it!). People who have had an organ transplant shouldn't take it because of drug interactions and neither should people on blood thinners, who are diabetic, have a thyroid problem, binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, or malabsorption syndromes. The FDA says people with these conditions should consult with their before using this over-the-counter drug.

Um, maybe I'm thinking too hard about this, but why make a drug OTC if there are very real dangers to a large segment of the population with all those ailments listed above? Has the FDA completely gone out of its mind here (don't answer that question because we already know the answer)?!

I'm telling you, this is a class action lawsuit just waiting to happen. The FDA has no idea what it has gotten itself into approving a drug like orlistat and making it available to anyone and everyone walking through the grocery store, Wal-mart, or drugstore. The end result will be more obesity and a lot more tummy aches.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again and again if I have to. People need to stop looking for the next great diet pill to come prancing in like Prince Charming to swoop them off their feet with promises of weight loss nirvana. Sorry to burst your fantasy everyone but it ain't gonna happen...nor should it!

Weight loss can be achieved safely and naturally without the use of ANY drugs whatsoever. Not once during my nearly 200-pound low-carb weight loss experience over these past few years have I felt compelled to add a drug, prescription or otherwise, to my diet for the purposes of aiding in my weight loss. NEVER! If I didn't trust my low-carb lifestyle to do everything I needed it to to shed the pounds and restore my health, then I'd start looking for another way to eat.

It should be quite disturbing to anyone who is eating a low-fat, low-calorie diet right now that their diet all by itself just isn't good enough to bring about weight loss and improved health. Nope, they have to have something like orlistat to be added to them in order for them to work better (although the jury is still waaaaay out on that claim!). Why put yourself through all of that?!

Come on over to livin' la vida low-carb and enjoy what REAL healthy living is like. No drugs, no forced diet plans, no disgusting foods to put up with--just delicious foods that help produce amazing positive results in your weight and health.

Why would you choose any other way?