If heart surgery is ever recommended to you, there is a very good chance that you do not really need it. In fact, according to the article below, the popularity of such procedures is, in most cases, driven by sheer greed. So it is always a good idea to get a second opinion. It is also refreshing to hear someone from the mainstream media admit such scandalous practices in conventional medicine. However, admitting something and actually doing something about it are two different things.
Of course, not all heart operations are unnecessary, and there are many honest cardiologists who would never perform surgery that is not needed. However, it is unfortunate that expensive procedures such as these are often the profit machines that keep hospitals in business and line the pockets of unscrupulous physicians. This phenomenon is one of the many indicators that point to the sad condition of healthcare in this country. It is also an excellent reminder that our health should not be based on drugs, surgeries, and other dangerous and sometimes ineffective remedies that merely seek to treat symptoms rather than getting to the root of the issue. Instead of depending on a medical system that is fueled by greed, it is imperative that we learn to take control of our own health by practicing a lifestyle that prevents disease and proactively pursues wellness.
Conveyor-belt Cardiology Puts Profits First
In the battle of stents vs. bypass surgery, the best care may be neither
COMMENTARY
By Robert Bazell Chief science and health correspondent NBC News
Tues., Jan. 29, 2008
Its a battle that has been raging throughout the modern history of cardiology. Which is the best way to clear clogged arteries to the heart: bypass surgery or angioplasty with stents? Last week the latest study found that surgery still holds a slight advantage.
But wait! There is another option we hear little about: simply taking medication, changing lifestyle and not having either invasive procedure.
Some very smart doctors believe that the vast majority of the 1.6 million Americans who get these procedures in any year may never need the expensive and potentially dangerous interventions, or at the very least, they do not need them yet.
But we do not hear much about option No. 3 because it is drowned in the tsunami of profits made with the procedures, especially angioplasty with stents.
Let me be clear, the vast majority of interventional cardiologists - the doctors who perform angioplasties - are honest and caring physicians. But I remember standing in scrubs outside a procedure room in Miami when the other doctors (who mistook me for a colleague) were bragging about how many normals they had done angioplasties on. Thats right, people came in complaining of shortness of breath or chest pain, so the doctors put them into the cauterization lab and examined their vessels, then told these patients they needed an angioplasty and did it knowing full well it was unnecessary.
For many doctors and hospitals, angioplasty has been the mother lode. I have had young interventional cardiologists brag to me of their multi-million dollar signing bonuses to change hospitals.
This specialty faces a mine field of potential conflicts because so much of it is based on self-referral. An interventional cardiologist diagnoses the blockage by injecting dye into the coronary arteries with tubes inserted from vessels near the groin. All too often the doctor will tell the lightly sedated patient he or she has one or more blockages, which can be taken care of right away with an angioplasty. That sure sounds great but it does not always work. And there is no opportunity for the patient to weigh other options; no chance for a second opinion.
Angioplasty was first tried on humans in 1977, by inflating a tiny balloon on the wire that inserts the dye. But often the opened artery closes up again - a process called restenosis. Over the years doctors have tried to circumvent the problem by using the wire mesh devices called stents, either as bare metal or more recently infused with drugs that try to prevent the re-closing. Suffice it to say the efforts have not been entirely successful.
When a surgeon performs a bypass operation, the patient is almost always referred by a regular cardiologist. So the dangers from self-referral do not affect this type of surgery.
But lets go back to the radical notion that oftentimes neither procedure is necessary. For those with unstable angina, where the heart disease is rapidly getting worse, immediate treatment with one of these procedures is needed to restore blood flow to the heart. But most patients who have blockages in their arteries have what is called stable angina. They may be in discomfort but they are not in immediate danger.
One of the doctors who argued first and loudest that many angioplasties and surgeries were unnecessary was Dr. Thomas Graboys of Harvard Medical School. About decade ago, after years of struggle, he finally got the American Heart Association to allow him to present a seminar on the subject at its annual scientific sessions. Almost no one showed up. Few have an interest in the less profitable path. (Sadly, Graboys is now fighting a particularly aggressive form of Parkinsons disease.)
Then last March, Dr. William Boden of Buffalo General Hospital in New York announced the results of a trial called by the appropriate acronym COURAGE. He randomized more than 2,200 patients with significant blockages. All were treated with heart medicines to control their cholesterol and blood pressure and minimize blood clots and were counseled to diet, exercise and quit smoking. Half of the participants also were assigned to get angioplasty.
After four and a half years there were slightly more deaths and heart attacks in the group that got angioplasty. Interestingly, the U.S. Veterans Administration and the Canadian Health Service - organizations interested in providing the best, but not necessarily the most costly care - funded the research. So far the impact of this powerful evidence on medical care has been minimal.
In fact the United States has twice the rate of bypass and angioplasties as other wealthy countries with no evidence of improved survival or less distress from heart disease. Any patient who is told he or she needs a stent or bypass surgery would be well advised to ask - from another doctor if possible - what happens if I wait?
Copyright 2008 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22882555/
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Cough and Cold Medications Ineffective and Dangerous
The FDA has recently issued warnings regarding the dangers of giving over-the-counter cough and cold remedies to young children, but in addition to the perils associated with putting these drugs into the body, many studies have shown that they simply do not work effectively either. As I referenced yesterday on this blog, pharmaceutical companies, with the help of medical literature publishers, have a nasty habit of burying studies that reflect poorly on their products. It appears that the manufacturers of cough and cold meds have done just this.
Sales of drugs to treat the common cold are huge, and they in fact compromise the largest portion of the OTC market. The sad thing is that the chemicals manufacturers put in these formulas can be very toxic to the bodies of both children and adults, especially for individuals that are allergic or supersensitive to ingredients. In addition, as the article below points out, the majority of clinical studies, except those funded by the pharmaceutical industry, show highly questionable results when it comes to how well these drugs work at relieving symptoms. So here we have dangerous substances that do not do what they claim being sold for immense profits. Does the term snake oil seem appropriate here?
Your best bet for combating colds and virtually all other forms of illness is to keep your immune system strong and vibrant. Eating a healthy diet, keeping the body hydrated with filtered water, eliminating sugar, getting plenty of sleep, and keeping your intestinal tract, where 70-80% of immune system activity occurs, clean will prevent or lessen the side effects of most colds and flu. Of course prevention is always the best tactic, but should illness occur, be sure to do your research regarding natural herbs, juices, and supplements to ease the symptoms and duration.
DRUG NEWS
Cough medicines don't work for adults either
By Sue Mueller
Jan 27, 2008 - 1:41:19 PM
SUNDAY JAN 27 2008 (Foodconsumer.org) -- The FDA has officially warned patients not to give over-the-counter cough and cold medicines to children under age 2 saying that the remedies are not only ineffective, but impose serious adverse effects including death as well.
Now scientists at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Medical School have reviewed published studies and have also found that these cough medicines that make hundreds of millions each year for the drug industry do not work in adults either.
In the review, Fahey and colleagues looked at data from both children and adult-focused studies. They found some studies reported OTC cough medicines helped patients while others said other wise.
The studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry tend to show positive results in terms of efficacy and safety of these cough medicine compared to those studies that claim no conflict of interest.
The researchers found six out of the nine studies supported by the industry showed positive results compared to three out of the 16 trials that did not report any conflict of interest. Studies sponsored by the industry are likely to say the OTC cough medicines are safe and lead to only minor adverse effects if any.
The review of 25 studies involving 2,876 adults and 616 children appears in the latest issue of the Cochrance Library, an international organization that evaluates medical research.
Some studies found the OTC cough medicines beneficial while others found that these medicines were no better than placebo.
The bottom-line, as the researchers suggest, is that most infections do not need any treatment. The humans have their natural built-in defense-mechanism against these infections that cause cough or colds.
Source:Smith SM, Schroeder K, Fahey T. Over-the-counter medications for acute cough in children and adults in ambulatory settings (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/D_rug_N_ews_50/012701422008_Cough_medicine_don_t_work_for_adults_either_printer.shtml
Sales of drugs to treat the common cold are huge, and they in fact compromise the largest portion of the OTC market. The sad thing is that the chemicals manufacturers put in these formulas can be very toxic to the bodies of both children and adults, especially for individuals that are allergic or supersensitive to ingredients. In addition, as the article below points out, the majority of clinical studies, except those funded by the pharmaceutical industry, show highly questionable results when it comes to how well these drugs work at relieving symptoms. So here we have dangerous substances that do not do what they claim being sold for immense profits. Does the term snake oil seem appropriate here?
Your best bet for combating colds and virtually all other forms of illness is to keep your immune system strong and vibrant. Eating a healthy diet, keeping the body hydrated with filtered water, eliminating sugar, getting plenty of sleep, and keeping your intestinal tract, where 70-80% of immune system activity occurs, clean will prevent or lessen the side effects of most colds and flu. Of course prevention is always the best tactic, but should illness occur, be sure to do your research regarding natural herbs, juices, and supplements to ease the symptoms and duration.
DRUG NEWS
Cough medicines don't work for adults either
By Sue Mueller
Jan 27, 2008 - 1:41:19 PM
SUNDAY JAN 27 2008 (Foodconsumer.org) -- The FDA has officially warned patients not to give over-the-counter cough and cold medicines to children under age 2 saying that the remedies are not only ineffective, but impose serious adverse effects including death as well.
Now scientists at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Medical School have reviewed published studies and have also found that these cough medicines that make hundreds of millions each year for the drug industry do not work in adults either.
In the review, Fahey and colleagues looked at data from both children and adult-focused studies. They found some studies reported OTC cough medicines helped patients while others said other wise.
The studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry tend to show positive results in terms of efficacy and safety of these cough medicine compared to those studies that claim no conflict of interest.
The researchers found six out of the nine studies supported by the industry showed positive results compared to three out of the 16 trials that did not report any conflict of interest. Studies sponsored by the industry are likely to say the OTC cough medicines are safe and lead to only minor adverse effects if any.
The review of 25 studies involving 2,876 adults and 616 children appears in the latest issue of the Cochrance Library, an international organization that evaluates medical research.
Some studies found the OTC cough medicines beneficial while others found that these medicines were no better than placebo.
The bottom-line, as the researchers suggest, is that most infections do not need any treatment. The humans have their natural built-in defense-mechanism against these infections that cause cough or colds.
Source:Smith SM, Schroeder K, Fahey T. Over-the-counter medications for acute cough in children and adults in ambulatory settings (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/D_rug_N_ews_50/012701422008_Cough_medicine_don_t_work_for_adults_either_printer.shtml
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Unfavorable Results of Drug Studies Get Buried
The next time someone tries to tell you that natural and alternative wellness treatments are poorly regulated, remind them that pharmaceutical companies have long used junk science and downright deception to justify the safety and effectiveness of their products. Another smoking gun has been found in the hand of Big Pharma, according to a report released last week in the New England Journal of Medicine. Apparently their trickery is enabled by the publishers of medical literature, who have a habit of failing to publish studies that put medications in a poor light.
It is so difficult for the public to ascertain what is really going on regarding the truth of claims made by drug manufacturers. Antidepressants are one of the big profit machines for these companies, and it is criminal the way these drugs are dispensed like candy by physicians who are gambling with the lives of their patients. It is much safer and effective for most people who are suffering from depression to use natural means to combat it , such as exercise, a wholesome diet, and plenty of sunshine and fresh air. Think twice before you submit to these drugs. Your brain chemistry may never be the same…
Many unfavorable drug studies are not published
Some of those that are printed have been recast, researchers say
Reuters
updated 6:09 p.m. CT, Wed., Jan. 16, 2008
BOSTON - Nearly a third of antidepressant drug studies are never published in the medical literature and nearly all happen to show that the drug being tested did not work, researchers reported on Wednesday.
And in some of the studies that are published, unfavorable results have been recast to make the medicine appear more effective than it really is, said the research team led by Erick Turner of the Oregon Health & Science University.
Even if not deliberate, this can be bad news for patients, they wrote in their report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"Selective publication can lead doctors to make inappropriate prescribing decisions that may not be in the best interest of their patients and, thus, the public health," they wrote.
The idea that unfavorable test results get quietly tucked away so nobody will see them - sometimes call the "file drawer effect" - has been around for years.
The Turner team was able to study the question because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has a registry in which companies are supposed to log details of their drug tests before the experiments are begun.
They could see which experiments approved by the FDA between 1987 and 2004 were ultimately publicized in the medical literature and the main criteria the researchers planned to measure success.
"It tells you where they placed their bets before they saw the data," Turner said in a telephone interview.
Of the 74 studies that started for the 12 antidepressants, 38 produced positive results for the drug. All but one of those studies were published.
However, when it came to the 36 studies with negative or questionable results, as assessed by the FDA, only three were published and another 11 were turned around and written as if the drug had worked.
"Not only were positive results more likely to be published, but studies that were not positive, in our opinion, were often published in a way that conveyed a positive outcome," said the team.
For example, of the seven negative studies done on GlaxoSmithKline's Paxil, five were never published. The researchers found three studies for GSK's Wellbutrin SR, but the two negative ones never reached print.
There were five studies for Pfizer's Zoloft, but the three showing the drug to be ineffective were not published and a fourth study, ruled as questionable by the FDA, was written and published to make it appear that the drug worked.
A Glaxo spokeswoman said the company posts the data from all of its trials, positive or negative, on the Internet.
"GlaxoSmithKline agrees that public disclosure of clinical trial results for marketed medicines is essential and fully supports registration of all trials in progress," she said.
Pfizer was not immediately available to comment.
Turner and his colleagues did not find out who was to blame for not publishing the studies.
Although the authors and drug company sponsors may not have submitted the unfavorable results for publication, medical journals and their editors may have played a role by deciding they would rather publish favorable results.
"There's an expectation that if you get a positive result, that's what you're supposed to do, and if you get a negative result you have failed," said Turner. "The first impulse is to say, 'I was wrong. Maybe I should move on to something more interesting"' so the results may never get written up.
Copyright 2008 Reuters.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22690043/
It is so difficult for the public to ascertain what is really going on regarding the truth of claims made by drug manufacturers. Antidepressants are one of the big profit machines for these companies, and it is criminal the way these drugs are dispensed like candy by physicians who are gambling with the lives of their patients. It is much safer and effective for most people who are suffering from depression to use natural means to combat it , such as exercise, a wholesome diet, and plenty of sunshine and fresh air. Think twice before you submit to these drugs. Your brain chemistry may never be the same…
Many unfavorable drug studies are not published
Some of those that are printed have been recast, researchers say
Reuters
updated 6:09 p.m. CT, Wed., Jan. 16, 2008
BOSTON - Nearly a third of antidepressant drug studies are never published in the medical literature and nearly all happen to show that the drug being tested did not work, researchers reported on Wednesday.
And in some of the studies that are published, unfavorable results have been recast to make the medicine appear more effective than it really is, said the research team led by Erick Turner of the Oregon Health & Science University.
Even if not deliberate, this can be bad news for patients, they wrote in their report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"Selective publication can lead doctors to make inappropriate prescribing decisions that may not be in the best interest of their patients and, thus, the public health," they wrote.
The idea that unfavorable test results get quietly tucked away so nobody will see them - sometimes call the "file drawer effect" - has been around for years.
The Turner team was able to study the question because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has a registry in which companies are supposed to log details of their drug tests before the experiments are begun.
They could see which experiments approved by the FDA between 1987 and 2004 were ultimately publicized in the medical literature and the main criteria the researchers planned to measure success.
"It tells you where they placed their bets before they saw the data," Turner said in a telephone interview.
Of the 74 studies that started for the 12 antidepressants, 38 produced positive results for the drug. All but one of those studies were published.
However, when it came to the 36 studies with negative or questionable results, as assessed by the FDA, only three were published and another 11 were turned around and written as if the drug had worked.
"Not only were positive results more likely to be published, but studies that were not positive, in our opinion, were often published in a way that conveyed a positive outcome," said the team.
For example, of the seven negative studies done on GlaxoSmithKline's Paxil, five were never published. The researchers found three studies for GSK's Wellbutrin SR, but the two negative ones never reached print.
There were five studies for Pfizer's Zoloft, but the three showing the drug to be ineffective were not published and a fourth study, ruled as questionable by the FDA, was written and published to make it appear that the drug worked.
A Glaxo spokeswoman said the company posts the data from all of its trials, positive or negative, on the Internet.
"GlaxoSmithKline agrees that public disclosure of clinical trial results for marketed medicines is essential and fully supports registration of all trials in progress," she said.
Pfizer was not immediately available to comment.
Turner and his colleagues did not find out who was to blame for not publishing the studies.
Although the authors and drug company sponsors may not have submitted the unfavorable results for publication, medical journals and their editors may have played a role by deciding they would rather publish favorable results.
"There's an expectation that if you get a positive result, that's what you're supposed to do, and if you get a negative result you have failed," said Turner. "The first impulse is to say, 'I was wrong. Maybe I should move on to something more interesting"' so the results may never get written up.
Copyright 2008 Reuters.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22690043/
Monday, January 28, 2008
Probiotic Benefits of Yogurt Challenged in Court
A private lawsuit has been filed against the yogurt maker Dannon, alleging that claims regarding some of its products and their positive effects on the intestinal tract are false and misleading. This is a complex issue to analyze because while we know that there are many health benefits that can be gained from the foods we eat, we also know that corporate interests can be deceptive by jumping on the natural health bandwagon but yet providing supposed benefits that are not in a form the body can use and absorb, or that may be formulated using ingredients that can be harmful. Dannon is an excellent example of this. Organic yogurt with live active cultures and no added sugars is an excellent natural source of probiotics. However, Dannon products are neither organic or without added sugar.
Another issue that must be considered is the efforts of such groups as Big Pharma and the FDA to squelch any legitimate claims regarding the health benefits of foods. The mentality is that only drugs that are man made and regulated should be allowed to make such claims. This opens the door for the rationalization of genetically modified and cloned foods. The FDA has gone so far as to threaten and sensor vegetable and fruit growers, such as cherry producers, because they had the audacity to proclaim the natural disease-fighting effects of their crops. Once again the profits of corporate America are put ahead of the health and well being of consumers. The pretzel logic employed by factions that seek to control and regulate our food sources is exemplified by the statement referred to in the final paragraph of the article below that the health of the intestinal tract is a wellness issue, while things like coronary disease are death and disease issues. What they fail to realize or admit is that the foods we eat and the lifestyle choices we make are all related to keeping us well and preventing disease rather than merely treating it after the fact.
Dannon heads to courts over 'fraud' probiotic claims
By Neil Merrett
1/24/2008-
The US arm of Danone could be forced to make a multi-million dollar refund to its customers over allegations that it has used fraudulent health claims to sell some of its Activia and DanActive branded yoghurts.
In a class action filed yesterday against the Dannon company in a California court, a legal team have accused the company of spending $100m promoting clinical benefits of products which the company's own testing disproves.
Should the suit go against Dannon, which represents the interest of Danone in the US, the case could have considerable ramifications for the use of health claims on products, proving a major setback for burgeoning nutritional aids like probiotics.
Both Dannon and parent company Danone were unwilling to comment on the allegations at the time of press, though added that they would be commenting on the civil action soon.
Danon's website claims that the company has for over 10 years worked in with international research laboratories in developing its products.
The case, which has been bought to court by the law firms Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins and Mager & Goldstein, hopes to receive address for Dannon's customers, which it claims have been misled by the company's marketing.
Attorney Timothy Blood, who will represent Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins in the action, said the dairy group had purposely deceived consumers about the products.
"Deceptive advertising has enabled Dannon to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ordinary yogurt at inflated prices to responsible, health conscious consumers," he stated.
The class action alleges therefore that claims on advertisements and labelling for Activia pronouncing that the product is "proven" to improve one's "intestinal rhythm" and "regulate your digestive system" are all unsubstantiated.
On the back of these claims, the class action accuses Dannon of charging a premium of about 30 per cent on the Activia yoghurt.
"In fact, Dannon's marketing for yogurts containing 'probiotics' led to one of the most successful product launches in recent food-industry history," the group stated.
The case action refers in particular to a $100m dollar promotional campaign by Dannon, which it alleges falsely promoted probiotic yoghurts that have earned it an estimated $428m in revenues since 2006.
Despite these health claims, the civil action accuses Dannon of being aware that numerous scientific studies failed to support their claims on the advertised nutritional benefits.
"A study conducted by leading microbiologists and funded by Dannon determined in 2006 that there was no conclusive evidence' of probiotics providing health benefits," the action states.
The report entitled Probiotic Microbes: The Scientific Basis was prepared by the American Academy of Microbiology.
The allegations regarding Dannon's labelling on its yoghurts could be a major blow for other health claims regarding probiotics.
Products aimed at improving digestion at set to drive the health and nutrition market for products over the coming year, according to Julian Mellentin, author of 10 Key Trends in Food, Nutrition & Health 2008.
Mellentin claimes that probiotics will continue to be a force to be reckoned with as they focus on digestive health - which, Mellentin says, is the biggest segment of the functional foods market.
The report says that in Europe probiotic dairy products account for the lion's share of functional food sales. The reason for this is digestive health is a "wellness" issue, not like cholesterol-lowering or heart health which is a "death and disease" issue.
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=82785
Another issue that must be considered is the efforts of such groups as Big Pharma and the FDA to squelch any legitimate claims regarding the health benefits of foods. The mentality is that only drugs that are man made and regulated should be allowed to make such claims. This opens the door for the rationalization of genetically modified and cloned foods. The FDA has gone so far as to threaten and sensor vegetable and fruit growers, such as cherry producers, because they had the audacity to proclaim the natural disease-fighting effects of their crops. Once again the profits of corporate America are put ahead of the health and well being of consumers. The pretzel logic employed by factions that seek to control and regulate our food sources is exemplified by the statement referred to in the final paragraph of the article below that the health of the intestinal tract is a wellness issue, while things like coronary disease are death and disease issues. What they fail to realize or admit is that the foods we eat and the lifestyle choices we make are all related to keeping us well and preventing disease rather than merely treating it after the fact.
Dannon heads to courts over 'fraud' probiotic claims
By Neil Merrett
1/24/2008-
The US arm of Danone could be forced to make a multi-million dollar refund to its customers over allegations that it has used fraudulent health claims to sell some of its Activia and DanActive branded yoghurts.
In a class action filed yesterday against the Dannon company in a California court, a legal team have accused the company of spending $100m promoting clinical benefits of products which the company's own testing disproves.
Should the suit go against Dannon, which represents the interest of Danone in the US, the case could have considerable ramifications for the use of health claims on products, proving a major setback for burgeoning nutritional aids like probiotics.
Both Dannon and parent company Danone were unwilling to comment on the allegations at the time of press, though added that they would be commenting on the civil action soon.
Danon's website claims that the company has for over 10 years worked in with international research laboratories in developing its products.
The case, which has been bought to court by the law firms Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins and Mager & Goldstein, hopes to receive address for Dannon's customers, which it claims have been misled by the company's marketing.
Attorney Timothy Blood, who will represent Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins in the action, said the dairy group had purposely deceived consumers about the products.
"Deceptive advertising has enabled Dannon to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ordinary yogurt at inflated prices to responsible, health conscious consumers," he stated.
The class action alleges therefore that claims on advertisements and labelling for Activia pronouncing that the product is "proven" to improve one's "intestinal rhythm" and "regulate your digestive system" are all unsubstantiated.
On the back of these claims, the class action accuses Dannon of charging a premium of about 30 per cent on the Activia yoghurt.
"In fact, Dannon's marketing for yogurts containing 'probiotics' led to one of the most successful product launches in recent food-industry history," the group stated.
The case action refers in particular to a $100m dollar promotional campaign by Dannon, which it alleges falsely promoted probiotic yoghurts that have earned it an estimated $428m in revenues since 2006.
Despite these health claims, the civil action accuses Dannon of being aware that numerous scientific studies failed to support their claims on the advertised nutritional benefits.
"A study conducted by leading microbiologists and funded by Dannon determined in 2006 that there was no conclusive evidence' of probiotics providing health benefits," the action states.
The report entitled Probiotic Microbes: The Scientific Basis was prepared by the American Academy of Microbiology.
The allegations regarding Dannon's labelling on its yoghurts could be a major blow for other health claims regarding probiotics.
Products aimed at improving digestion at set to drive the health and nutrition market for products over the coming year, according to Julian Mellentin, author of 10 Key Trends in Food, Nutrition & Health 2008.
Mellentin claimes that probiotics will continue to be a force to be reckoned with as they focus on digestive health - which, Mellentin says, is the biggest segment of the functional foods market.
The report says that in Europe probiotic dairy products account for the lion's share of functional food sales. The reason for this is digestive health is a "wellness" issue, not like cholesterol-lowering or heart health which is a "death and disease" issue.
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=82785
Friday, January 25, 2008
Cancer Continues to Expand Worldwide
It is not surprising that the number of cancer cases and deaths is growing worldwide, considering the increasingly toxic world we live in and our choice of convenience over healthy living. The real story behind the study highlighted in the following article is that corporate interests, such as the tobacco industry, are so shameless in their efforts to market their deadly products that they have looked at undeveloped nations and targeted them to replace lost profits as the number of smokers drops in developed nations.
Unfortunately, Big Pharma and the Cancer Industry have not proven themselves to be any more trustworthy than Big Tobacco. Could it be that worldwide expansion into markets for cancer treatments, mammograms, and vaccinations are on their minds? As influential as these establishments have been here in the United States, they may be able to operate even more freely in countries such as China and others that do not have the freedoms we do to speak out against and expose practices that are manipulative and dangerous to consumers. This report laments the exportation of Western lifestyles that lead to increased cancer rates, and well it should. But what about the exportation of dangerous medical practices that will no doubt increase as the incidence of cancer continues to skyrocket around the world? Do we here in the United States not have a responsibility towards truth and integrity regarding the healthcare options we offer to the world?
Cancer Killed Almost 8 Million Worldwide in 2007
12 million new cases -- many preventable -- were diagnosed this year, American Cancer Society reports
By Steven Reinberg
Posted 12/17/07
MONDAY, Dec. 17 (HealthDay News) -- Cancer continues to cut a deadly swath across the globe, with the American Cancer Society reporting 12 million new cases of malignancy diagnosed worldwide in 2007, with 7.6 million people dying from the disease.
The report, Global Cancer Facts & Figures, finds that 5.4 million of those cancers and 2.9 million deaths are in more affluent, developed nations, while 6.7 million new cancer cases and 4.7 million deaths hit people in developing countries.
"The point of the report is to promote cancer control worldwide, and increase awareness worldwide," said report co-author Dr. Ahmedin Jemal, director of the society's Cancer Occurrence Office.
The number of cancers and cancer deaths around the world is on the rise, Jemal said, mostly due to an aging population. "There is increasing life expectancy, and cancer occurs more frequently in older age groups," he noted.
Lifestyle may be another reason for the rise in malignancies in developing countries, Jemal said, as people adopt Western behaviors such as smoking, high-fat diets and less physical activity.
The best way to stem the increasing number of cancer cases and deaths is prevention, especially in poorer countries, the expert said. In many developing nations, the health-care infrastructure simply isn't there to offer cancer screening and treatment for most people, Jemal added.
In developed countries, the most common cancers among men are prostate, lung and colorectal cancer. Among women, the most common cancers are breast, colorectal and lung cancer, according to the report.
However, in developing countries the three most common cancers among men are lung, stomach and liver, and among women, breast, cervix uteri and stomach.
Worldwide, some 15 percent of all cancers are thought to be related to infections, including hepatitis (liver cancer) and human papilloma virus (cervical cancer). But the incidence of infection-related cancers remains three times higher in developing countries compared with developed countries (26 percent vs. 8 percent), according to the report.
In addition, cancer survival rates in many developing countries are far below those in developed countries. This is mostly due to the lack of early detection and treatment services. For example, in North America five-year childhood cancer survival rates are about 75 percent compared with three-year survival rates of 48 percent to 62 percent in Central America, the report notes. The report estimates that 60 percent of the world's children who develop cancer have little or no access to treatment.
The report also includes a section on the toll tobacco use takes around the world. In 2000, some 5 million people worldwide died from tobacco use. Of these, about 30 percent (1.42 million) died from cancer -- 850,000 from lung cancer alone.
Jemal believes smoking is a key culprit.
"Smoking prevalence is decreasing in developed countries. So, as tobacco companies are losing market in developed countries they are trying to expand their market in developing countries," he said.
In China alone, more than 350 million people smoke. "That's more than the entire population of the United States," Jemal said. "If these current patterns continue, there will be 2 billion smokers worldwide by the year 2030, half of whom will die of smoking-related diseases if they do not quit," he added.
In the 20th century, tobacco use caused about 100 million deaths around the world. In this century, that figure is expected to rise to over 1 billion people. Most of these will occur in developing countries.
One expert agreed that many cancer deaths can be avoided through lifestyle changes.
"What is most provocative here is not the total global burden of suffering and death cancer causes, dramatic though that may be, but the variations in cancer occurrence around the world, and the insights provided about how much of the cancer burden need not occur at all," said Dr. David Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine.
In developing countries, cancer of the uterine cervix is a leading cause of death in women, Katz noted.
"Yet this infection-related cancer is now preventable by vaccine, and long treatable when detected early using the Pap smear. As a result, death from cervical cancer in developed countries is dramatically lower. Its toll in the developing world is testimony to missed opportunities to apply our resources effectively, and equitably," he said.
Cancer of the liver, often related to hepatitis infection, is a leading cause of death in developing countries, but not so in developed countries. "Again, an infection preventable with vaccine is causing death because of inequities in the distribution and use of existing resources," Katz said.
Prostate and colon cancers are more common in wealthier countries, where they are likely related to poor diet and obesity, Katz said. "Unnecessary suffering and death are occurring in affluent countries due to dietary excesses," he said.
Katz also noted that tobacco-related cancer is largely preventable. "The toll of tobacco-related disease, including lung cancer, is an appalling example of a global willingness to tolerate preventable suffering and death for the sake of profit," he said.
These data show both developed and developing countries how to move toward the lower rates of specific cancers, Katz said.
"It will be a tragic failure for public health if instead of applying these lessons developed countries continue to export tobacco and dietary transgressions so that the developing world adds to its current cancer burden ours as well," he said.
More information
For more information on cancer, visit the American Cancer Society.
Copyright 2007 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071217/cancer-killed-almost-8-million-worldwide-in-2007.htm
Unfortunately, Big Pharma and the Cancer Industry have not proven themselves to be any more trustworthy than Big Tobacco. Could it be that worldwide expansion into markets for cancer treatments, mammograms, and vaccinations are on their minds? As influential as these establishments have been here in the United States, they may be able to operate even more freely in countries such as China and others that do not have the freedoms we do to speak out against and expose practices that are manipulative and dangerous to consumers. This report laments the exportation of Western lifestyles that lead to increased cancer rates, and well it should. But what about the exportation of dangerous medical practices that will no doubt increase as the incidence of cancer continues to skyrocket around the world? Do we here in the United States not have a responsibility towards truth and integrity regarding the healthcare options we offer to the world?
Cancer Killed Almost 8 Million Worldwide in 2007
12 million new cases -- many preventable -- were diagnosed this year, American Cancer Society reports
By Steven Reinberg
Posted 12/17/07
MONDAY, Dec. 17 (HealthDay News) -- Cancer continues to cut a deadly swath across the globe, with the American Cancer Society reporting 12 million new cases of malignancy diagnosed worldwide in 2007, with 7.6 million people dying from the disease.
The report, Global Cancer Facts & Figures, finds that 5.4 million of those cancers and 2.9 million deaths are in more affluent, developed nations, while 6.7 million new cancer cases and 4.7 million deaths hit people in developing countries.
"The point of the report is to promote cancer control worldwide, and increase awareness worldwide," said report co-author Dr. Ahmedin Jemal, director of the society's Cancer Occurrence Office.
The number of cancers and cancer deaths around the world is on the rise, Jemal said, mostly due to an aging population. "There is increasing life expectancy, and cancer occurs more frequently in older age groups," he noted.
Lifestyle may be another reason for the rise in malignancies in developing countries, Jemal said, as people adopt Western behaviors such as smoking, high-fat diets and less physical activity.
The best way to stem the increasing number of cancer cases and deaths is prevention, especially in poorer countries, the expert said. In many developing nations, the health-care infrastructure simply isn't there to offer cancer screening and treatment for most people, Jemal added.
In developed countries, the most common cancers among men are prostate, lung and colorectal cancer. Among women, the most common cancers are breast, colorectal and lung cancer, according to the report.
However, in developing countries the three most common cancers among men are lung, stomach and liver, and among women, breast, cervix uteri and stomach.
Worldwide, some 15 percent of all cancers are thought to be related to infections, including hepatitis (liver cancer) and human papilloma virus (cervical cancer). But the incidence of infection-related cancers remains three times higher in developing countries compared with developed countries (26 percent vs. 8 percent), according to the report.
In addition, cancer survival rates in many developing countries are far below those in developed countries. This is mostly due to the lack of early detection and treatment services. For example, in North America five-year childhood cancer survival rates are about 75 percent compared with three-year survival rates of 48 percent to 62 percent in Central America, the report notes. The report estimates that 60 percent of the world's children who develop cancer have little or no access to treatment.
The report also includes a section on the toll tobacco use takes around the world. In 2000, some 5 million people worldwide died from tobacco use. Of these, about 30 percent (1.42 million) died from cancer -- 850,000 from lung cancer alone.
Jemal believes smoking is a key culprit.
"Smoking prevalence is decreasing in developed countries. So, as tobacco companies are losing market in developed countries they are trying to expand their market in developing countries," he said.
In China alone, more than 350 million people smoke. "That's more than the entire population of the United States," Jemal said. "If these current patterns continue, there will be 2 billion smokers worldwide by the year 2030, half of whom will die of smoking-related diseases if they do not quit," he added.
In the 20th century, tobacco use caused about 100 million deaths around the world. In this century, that figure is expected to rise to over 1 billion people. Most of these will occur in developing countries.
One expert agreed that many cancer deaths can be avoided through lifestyle changes.
"What is most provocative here is not the total global burden of suffering and death cancer causes, dramatic though that may be, but the variations in cancer occurrence around the world, and the insights provided about how much of the cancer burden need not occur at all," said Dr. David Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine.
In developing countries, cancer of the uterine cervix is a leading cause of death in women, Katz noted.
"Yet this infection-related cancer is now preventable by vaccine, and long treatable when detected early using the Pap smear. As a result, death from cervical cancer in developed countries is dramatically lower. Its toll in the developing world is testimony to missed opportunities to apply our resources effectively, and equitably," he said.
Cancer of the liver, often related to hepatitis infection, is a leading cause of death in developing countries, but not so in developed countries. "Again, an infection preventable with vaccine is causing death because of inequities in the distribution and use of existing resources," Katz said.
Prostate and colon cancers are more common in wealthier countries, where they are likely related to poor diet and obesity, Katz said. "Unnecessary suffering and death are occurring in affluent countries due to dietary excesses," he said.
Katz also noted that tobacco-related cancer is largely preventable. "The toll of tobacco-related disease, including lung cancer, is an appalling example of a global willingness to tolerate preventable suffering and death for the sake of profit," he said.
These data show both developed and developing countries how to move toward the lower rates of specific cancers, Katz said.
"It will be a tragic failure for public health if instead of applying these lessons developed countries continue to export tobacco and dietary transgressions so that the developing world adds to its current cancer burden ours as well," he said.
More information
For more information on cancer, visit the American Cancer Society.
Copyright 2007 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071217/cancer-killed-almost-8-million-worldwide-in-2007.htm
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Fighting Prostate Cancer A Different Way
We have discussed such issues as mammograms for breast cancer detection, and how they can be misleading and dangerous. What about one of the biggest health issues for men - prostate cancer? It appears that many men are starting to take another look at the common practice of screening for the illness in all males over the age of 50. The screenings themselves, typically a PSA blood test and /or a digital rectal exam, are not dangerous in and of themselves, but there is much doubt about the accuracy of the tests and the kinds of procedures that supposedly positive results could spawn. One of the recommendations typically made after a positive blood test is a biopsy, which may result in greater complications if cancer should be present.
The truth is that extreme and toxic measures such as chemotherapy and radiation treatments are often unnecessary due to botched diagnoses, and they are definitely harmful and often do more harm than good. This issue brings to the forefront the classic battle between conventional medicine, which seeks to treat disease symptoms, and natural medicine practitioners who focus on getting to the root or cause of the disease and targeting prevention through a proactively healthy diet and lifestyle. Most men can prevent prostate cancer, or turn it around if it should occur, through anti-cancer lifestyle changes that include exercise, daily sun, healthy diet, detoxification and cleansing, removal of toxins and chemicals, hi-tech supplementation, dealing with negative emotions and stressors, and other natural health modalities. Resorting to chemotherapy and other noxious procedures as a first line of attack will only destroy the immune system and its natural abilities to fight disease. As the saying goes, the cure is worse than the cause.
Prostate screening? Some men say 'no'
Imprecise results aren't worth the risks for number of doctors, patients
By JoNel Aleccia
Health writer
updated 8:01 a.m. CT, Thurs., Jan. 17, 2008
Ron Viarengo is pretty clear about screening for prostate cancer. He does not want it.
Not the prostate-specific antigen test and definitely not the digital rectal exam. Both are routine procedures performed in about three-quarters of U.S. men older than 50.
So, news Wednesday that scientists have moved a step closer to creating a genetic test to detect the disease did nothing to sway Viarengo, a 64-year-old Vermont manufacturing sales representative.
He is among a minority of American men who have weighed the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening tests - and decided that it is better not to know.
I think my basic philosophy is that there were way too many unknowns about it, said Viarengo, who first considered prostate testing last summer. I just decided that I am not going to worry about something that is quite nebulous.
It may be promising that American and Swedish researchers have identified genetic markers that appear to raise the risk of prostate cancer nearly 10 times in men with a family history of the disease, as reported in a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
But Viarengo said he buys the arguments of some medical experts who warn that current prostate cancer screenings are imprecise at best - and that diagnosis can prompt drastic treatments that can result in impotence or incontinence, all for an often slow-growing cancer that may never cause symptoms or death.
If they could definitively tell me, then maybe I would take it, Viarengo said.
It is an unusual stance in a country where PSA testing has become nearly universal since its introduction more than two decades ago. Advocates of early screening abound, noted Stephanie Chisolm, patient education director for the American Urological Association Foundation.
There are doctors who believe you should screen everyone who has a prostate, Chisolm said.
Passions run high on the subject, especially among survivors who believe screening saved their lives - and doctors glad to have tried every intervention.
Other doctors, however, argue that there is no evidence that current screening tools reduce prostate cancer deaths and that the treatment can be worse than the disease. Treatment options can range from surgery to radiation therapy to watchful waiting, a strategy of keeping an eye out for rising PSA levels.
Potential side effects of treatment must be considered as an outcome of screening, said Dr. Barry Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health. He is one of the most vocal critics of routine prostate screening.
We are identifying huge numbers of men with prostate cancer with no good or reliable way to tell which ones really benefit from diagnosis or treatment, Kramer said.
Although results of a 15-year longitudinal study of prostate screening efficacy are still out, smaller projects have cast doubt on the procedures.
For instance, a 2006 study of nearly 72,000 men older than 50 at 10 Veterans Affairs hospitals in New England found that those who had been screened for prostate cancer were no more likely to survive the disease than those who were not.
Kramer called Wednesdays genetic marker study a piece of the puzzle, a view echoed by Dr. Edward P. Gelmann, director of the Prostate, Lung, Colon and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. In an essay accompanying the study Wednesday, Gelmann acknowledged the new work is only a small step toward reliable detection for prostate cancer. The disease is diagnosed in more than 218,000 U.S. men a year and kills more than 27,000, according to the National Cancer Institute.
What we cannot yet derive from these studies is an easily applicable test that will assist in identification of men who are at high risk for prostate cancer, wrote Gelmann.
Still missing in the research, Gelmann noted, are crucial markers that would distinguish between aggressive cancers likely to be lethal and the more common kind: slow-growing cancers that can linger for years. Although one in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in his lifetime, only one in 33 men will die from the disease, according to the Mayo Clinic.
No magical PSA
The value of prostate screening has long been a subject of debate among medical experts. The problem is that the most common screening tests offer imprecise results. Digital rectal exams can easily miss cancerous growths. Blood levels of PSA, a protein made by the prostate gland, can be high even when there is no prostate cancer, and they can be low even when cancer is present.
The problem is there is no threshold of PSA that has good sensitivity and good specificity at the same time, Kramer said. There is not a magical PSA.
That leaves ordinary men like Viarengo confused about whether to be screened. It does not help that they receive conflicting information from groups like the American Cancer Society and the American Urological Association, which recommend that doctors offer screenings for all men after age 50, and groups like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which says there is not enough evidence to advise routine screenings.
Many men agree to prostate screening without thinking much about it, said Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School and author of the book, Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Heres Why.
Advanced cancer is such a horrible disease and the benefit of early detection makes such intuitive sense, it takes a while for people to realize there are some downsides, Welch said.
On the other hand, some men decline screening without much thought, noted Chisolm, of the American Urological Association Foundation.
There are a lot of people who are nervous and afraid of what happens if they find it, Chisolm said. When I am out and about I talk to people who basically say, Hear no evil, see no evil. They say, I do not want to know. We are all going to die of something.
But men who have a chance to talk in detail with their doctors about the pros and cons of screening benefit most, said Dr. Robert Reid, a primary care doctor with Group Health Permanente in Seattle, and a fellow of the American College of Preventive Medicine, which recommends that men carefully consider the question with their doctors.
Burden of knowledge
The question is, Do you really want to know and have the burden of knowing whether we will treat it or not? Reid said.
For many men, the answer is unequivocal: Yes.
Larry Forney, 54, a college professor in Moscow, Idaho, said he and most of his male friends regard prostate cancer screenings as a necessary part of personal health care.
PSA measurements are not dinner table talk, but the men I know are certainly aware that PSA should be tested regularly beginning at about age 50, and that they should also subject themselves to the dreaded digital exam, he said, adding: I think most men are under the impression that PSA screening does lower mortality by allowing for early detection.
It turns out it may be difficult for men to avoid prostate cancer screening, even when they want to. For years, Kramer, 59, had advised his own doctor that he did not want a PSA test. When he went for his annual physical last year, however, blood for a cholesterol test was automatically screened for prostate cancer as well.
The result came back as a normal PSA without me knowing I had a PSA, Kramer said. While some men might have felt relief at the results, Kramer said he knew better.
The problem is, I know the evidence and there is no threshold of PSA that reassures people, he said. I know enough to say to myself that if I felt really reassured by that PSA, it was a false reassurance.
Ron Viarengo said he has not given much thought to prostate cancer since he decided against screening a few months ago. If researchers develop a precise test that can tell him whether he has cancer and what to do about it, fine.
Otherwise, you can mess your brain around psychologically for no reason, he said.
Copyright 2008 MSNBC Interactive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689484/
The truth is that extreme and toxic measures such as chemotherapy and radiation treatments are often unnecessary due to botched diagnoses, and they are definitely harmful and often do more harm than good. This issue brings to the forefront the classic battle between conventional medicine, which seeks to treat disease symptoms, and natural medicine practitioners who focus on getting to the root or cause of the disease and targeting prevention through a proactively healthy diet and lifestyle. Most men can prevent prostate cancer, or turn it around if it should occur, through anti-cancer lifestyle changes that include exercise, daily sun, healthy diet, detoxification and cleansing, removal of toxins and chemicals, hi-tech supplementation, dealing with negative emotions and stressors, and other natural health modalities. Resorting to chemotherapy and other noxious procedures as a first line of attack will only destroy the immune system and its natural abilities to fight disease. As the saying goes, the cure is worse than the cause.
Prostate screening? Some men say 'no'
Imprecise results aren't worth the risks for number of doctors, patients
By JoNel Aleccia
Health writer
updated 8:01 a.m. CT, Thurs., Jan. 17, 2008
Ron Viarengo is pretty clear about screening for prostate cancer. He does not want it.
Not the prostate-specific antigen test and definitely not the digital rectal exam. Both are routine procedures performed in about three-quarters of U.S. men older than 50.
So, news Wednesday that scientists have moved a step closer to creating a genetic test to detect the disease did nothing to sway Viarengo, a 64-year-old Vermont manufacturing sales representative.
He is among a minority of American men who have weighed the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening tests - and decided that it is better not to know.
I think my basic philosophy is that there were way too many unknowns about it, said Viarengo, who first considered prostate testing last summer. I just decided that I am not going to worry about something that is quite nebulous.
It may be promising that American and Swedish researchers have identified genetic markers that appear to raise the risk of prostate cancer nearly 10 times in men with a family history of the disease, as reported in a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
But Viarengo said he buys the arguments of some medical experts who warn that current prostate cancer screenings are imprecise at best - and that diagnosis can prompt drastic treatments that can result in impotence or incontinence, all for an often slow-growing cancer that may never cause symptoms or death.
If they could definitively tell me, then maybe I would take it, Viarengo said.
It is an unusual stance in a country where PSA testing has become nearly universal since its introduction more than two decades ago. Advocates of early screening abound, noted Stephanie Chisolm, patient education director for the American Urological Association Foundation.
There are doctors who believe you should screen everyone who has a prostate, Chisolm said.
Passions run high on the subject, especially among survivors who believe screening saved their lives - and doctors glad to have tried every intervention.
Other doctors, however, argue that there is no evidence that current screening tools reduce prostate cancer deaths and that the treatment can be worse than the disease. Treatment options can range from surgery to radiation therapy to watchful waiting, a strategy of keeping an eye out for rising PSA levels.
Potential side effects of treatment must be considered as an outcome of screening, said Dr. Barry Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health. He is one of the most vocal critics of routine prostate screening.
We are identifying huge numbers of men with prostate cancer with no good or reliable way to tell which ones really benefit from diagnosis or treatment, Kramer said.
Although results of a 15-year longitudinal study of prostate screening efficacy are still out, smaller projects have cast doubt on the procedures.
For instance, a 2006 study of nearly 72,000 men older than 50 at 10 Veterans Affairs hospitals in New England found that those who had been screened for prostate cancer were no more likely to survive the disease than those who were not.
Kramer called Wednesdays genetic marker study a piece of the puzzle, a view echoed by Dr. Edward P. Gelmann, director of the Prostate, Lung, Colon and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. In an essay accompanying the study Wednesday, Gelmann acknowledged the new work is only a small step toward reliable detection for prostate cancer. The disease is diagnosed in more than 218,000 U.S. men a year and kills more than 27,000, according to the National Cancer Institute.
What we cannot yet derive from these studies is an easily applicable test that will assist in identification of men who are at high risk for prostate cancer, wrote Gelmann.
Still missing in the research, Gelmann noted, are crucial markers that would distinguish between aggressive cancers likely to be lethal and the more common kind: slow-growing cancers that can linger for years. Although one in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in his lifetime, only one in 33 men will die from the disease, according to the Mayo Clinic.
No magical PSA
The value of prostate screening has long been a subject of debate among medical experts. The problem is that the most common screening tests offer imprecise results. Digital rectal exams can easily miss cancerous growths. Blood levels of PSA, a protein made by the prostate gland, can be high even when there is no prostate cancer, and they can be low even when cancer is present.
The problem is there is no threshold of PSA that has good sensitivity and good specificity at the same time, Kramer said. There is not a magical PSA.
That leaves ordinary men like Viarengo confused about whether to be screened. It does not help that they receive conflicting information from groups like the American Cancer Society and the American Urological Association, which recommend that doctors offer screenings for all men after age 50, and groups like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which says there is not enough evidence to advise routine screenings.
Many men agree to prostate screening without thinking much about it, said Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School and author of the book, Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Heres Why.
Advanced cancer is such a horrible disease and the benefit of early detection makes such intuitive sense, it takes a while for people to realize there are some downsides, Welch said.
On the other hand, some men decline screening without much thought, noted Chisolm, of the American Urological Association Foundation.
There are a lot of people who are nervous and afraid of what happens if they find it, Chisolm said. When I am out and about I talk to people who basically say, Hear no evil, see no evil. They say, I do not want to know. We are all going to die of something.
But men who have a chance to talk in detail with their doctors about the pros and cons of screening benefit most, said Dr. Robert Reid, a primary care doctor with Group Health Permanente in Seattle, and a fellow of the American College of Preventive Medicine, which recommends that men carefully consider the question with their doctors.
Burden of knowledge
The question is, Do you really want to know and have the burden of knowing whether we will treat it or not? Reid said.
For many men, the answer is unequivocal: Yes.
Larry Forney, 54, a college professor in Moscow, Idaho, said he and most of his male friends regard prostate cancer screenings as a necessary part of personal health care.
PSA measurements are not dinner table talk, but the men I know are certainly aware that PSA should be tested regularly beginning at about age 50, and that they should also subject themselves to the dreaded digital exam, he said, adding: I think most men are under the impression that PSA screening does lower mortality by allowing for early detection.
It turns out it may be difficult for men to avoid prostate cancer screening, even when they want to. For years, Kramer, 59, had advised his own doctor that he did not want a PSA test. When he went for his annual physical last year, however, blood for a cholesterol test was automatically screened for prostate cancer as well.
The result came back as a normal PSA without me knowing I had a PSA, Kramer said. While some men might have felt relief at the results, Kramer said he knew better.
The problem is, I know the evidence and there is no threshold of PSA that reassures people, he said. I know enough to say to myself that if I felt really reassured by that PSA, it was a false reassurance.
Ron Viarengo said he has not given much thought to prostate cancer since he decided against screening a few months ago. If researchers develop a precise test that can tell him whether he has cancer and what to do about it, fine.
Otherwise, you can mess your brain around psychologically for no reason, he said.
Copyright 2008 MSNBC Interactive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689484/
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Caffeine Use Can Double Miscarriage Risk
Studies have been done in the past that have associated caffeine usage with an increased incidence of miscarriage, and a report released in the latest issue of a major OB/GYN journal gives more fuel to the fire. While the effects of coffee have been specifically researched in many previous studies, this one is a bit unique in that it focuses on the dangers of caffeine from any source.
As the article below states, caffeine is clearly the most abused drug in the world. The availability of coffee and other highly caffeinated soft drinks, especially those that are marketed as energy drinks, has exploded over the last decade or so. Shameful exploitation of young people is the standard for the caffeine industry, and energy drinks are made to look and even taste like alcohol in order to entice kids to consume them. I have also noticed that these beverages are often displayed in stores alongside alcoholic beverages instead of with the soft drinks.
The study states that women who are pregnant and even those who are in the preconception stage should limit caffeine intake to 200 mg. per day or less. One of the problems with trying to gauge how much caffeine one is taking in is that coffees and other drinks have widely ranging levels of caffeine in them, and it seems the high-octane versions are the most popular. In addition, 7.5 ounces ( a cup ) of coffee is about half the amount in the smallest sizes available at most take-out coffee establishments.
Obviously, due to the caffeine and other toxins present in coffee and soft drinks, it is much better to avoid them altogether, especially while pregnant. Risk for miscarriage may be further reduced by the use of a natural USP Progesterone cream that boosts progesterone levels during pregnancy. If you must have that coffee fix you may want to try a caffeine-free, herbal coffee called Teeccino at teeccino.com. It comes in several flavors and is a blend of herbs, grains, fruits and nuts (contains no coffee beans) and delivers nutritious health benefits and a natural energy boost.
Once Again, Caffeine Linked to Miscarriage
By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter
Mon Jan 21, 11:47 PM ET
MONDAY, Jan. 21 (HealthDay News) -- Caffeine consumption by pregnant women can increase the risk of miscarriage, a new study reports.
And, it doesn't matter if the caffeine comes from coffee, tea, soda or hot chocolate. What does matter is the amount -- the study found that when women drink more than 200 milligrams of caffeine daily, the risk of miscarriage increases twofold.
"What we found was that if women have heavy caffeine intake -- greater than 200 milligrams a day -- they have double the risk of miscarriage than women that don't have any caffeine," said one of the study's authors, Dr. De-Kun Li, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist in the division of research at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif.
Results of the study were published online in the January issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Caffeine, the most frequently consumed drug in the world, crosses the placental barrier and reaches the developing fetus, according to the study. While previous studies have found an association between caffeine intake and miscarriage, it hadn't been clear whether the problem was due to the caffeine or another substance in coffee, or if it had something to do with non-coffee drinkers' lifestyles -- perhaps people who didn't drink coffee ate more fruits and vegetables, for example.
For the new study, the researchers looked at 1,063 women from the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program in San Francisco; they were interviewed at an average of 10 weeks' gestation.
During the study period, 16 percent of the women -- 172 -- had miscarriages.
The researchers found that 25 percent of the women who miscarried reported consuming no caffeine during their pregnancy. Another 60 percent said they had up to 200 milligrams of caffeine daily, and 15 percent regularly consumed more than 200 milligrams of caffeine each day.
In addition to asking about caffeine intake, the researchers also assessed the other known risk factors for miscarriage, such as smoking, a history of previous miscarriage, alcohol use and more. The researchers also compensated for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.
"If you have a low risk of miscarriage, the effect of caffeine tends to show more," said Li.
Li said that even among women who drank less than 200 milligrams of caffeine a day, the study found a 40 percent increased risk of miscarriage, but this finding didn't reach the level of statistical significance.
"Women shouldn't drink more than two regular cups of coffee a day, and hopefully they stop drinking totally for at least the first three months. It's not a permanent stop. If they really have to drink, limit the amount to one or two cups -- a regular cup is about seven and half ounces," Li said.
But, not every doctor is convinced that there's a direct cause-and-effect relationship between caffeine and miscarriage.
"The problem with this study is that when people miscarry, a large percentage of those miscarriages are due to genetic abnormalities, and the researchers didn't say whether these were normal or abnormal fetuses," said Dr. Laura Corio, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City.
"Women are always worrying and wondering, 'What did I do?' Before we say a woman drank too much caffeine and that's why she had a miscarriage, let's see if it was an abnormal or normal pregnancy, said Corio.
"I think about 60 to 80 percent of miscarriages are due to genetic abnormalities," she added.
That said, however, Corio does advise her pregnant patients to limit caffeine consumption.
"Women have a responsibility to the fetus -- no cigarettes, no alcohol and just one cup of coffee a day," she said, noting that many store-bought cups of coffee contain far too much caffeine, so a woman has to be aware of how much caffeine is in her favorite coffee.
"Have less than 200 milligrams a day," no matter what the source -- coffee, tea, cola, chocolate, etcetera, Corio advised. She said caffeine has also been linked to low birth weights and smaller head circumferences.
Li also advised limiting caffeine to less than 200 milligrams a day, especially in the early months of pregnancy and in the preconception period.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20080122/hl_hsn/onceagaincaffeinelinkedtomiscarriage&printer=1;_ylt=Apu8CFblceXOoDykbl._SxW9j7AB
As the article below states, caffeine is clearly the most abused drug in the world. The availability of coffee and other highly caffeinated soft drinks, especially those that are marketed as energy drinks, has exploded over the last decade or so. Shameful exploitation of young people is the standard for the caffeine industry, and energy drinks are made to look and even taste like alcohol in order to entice kids to consume them. I have also noticed that these beverages are often displayed in stores alongside alcoholic beverages instead of with the soft drinks.
The study states that women who are pregnant and even those who are in the preconception stage should limit caffeine intake to 200 mg. per day or less. One of the problems with trying to gauge how much caffeine one is taking in is that coffees and other drinks have widely ranging levels of caffeine in them, and it seems the high-octane versions are the most popular. In addition, 7.5 ounces ( a cup ) of coffee is about half the amount in the smallest sizes available at most take-out coffee establishments.
Obviously, due to the caffeine and other toxins present in coffee and soft drinks, it is much better to avoid them altogether, especially while pregnant. Risk for miscarriage may be further reduced by the use of a natural USP Progesterone cream that boosts progesterone levels during pregnancy. If you must have that coffee fix you may want to try a caffeine-free, herbal coffee called Teeccino at teeccino.com. It comes in several flavors and is a blend of herbs, grains, fruits and nuts (contains no coffee beans) and delivers nutritious health benefits and a natural energy boost.
Once Again, Caffeine Linked to Miscarriage
By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter
Mon Jan 21, 11:47 PM ET
MONDAY, Jan. 21 (HealthDay News) -- Caffeine consumption by pregnant women can increase the risk of miscarriage, a new study reports.
And, it doesn't matter if the caffeine comes from coffee, tea, soda or hot chocolate. What does matter is the amount -- the study found that when women drink more than 200 milligrams of caffeine daily, the risk of miscarriage increases twofold.
"What we found was that if women have heavy caffeine intake -- greater than 200 milligrams a day -- they have double the risk of miscarriage than women that don't have any caffeine," said one of the study's authors, Dr. De-Kun Li, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist in the division of research at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif.
Results of the study were published online in the January issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Caffeine, the most frequently consumed drug in the world, crosses the placental barrier and reaches the developing fetus, according to the study. While previous studies have found an association between caffeine intake and miscarriage, it hadn't been clear whether the problem was due to the caffeine or another substance in coffee, or if it had something to do with non-coffee drinkers' lifestyles -- perhaps people who didn't drink coffee ate more fruits and vegetables, for example.
For the new study, the researchers looked at 1,063 women from the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program in San Francisco; they were interviewed at an average of 10 weeks' gestation.
During the study period, 16 percent of the women -- 172 -- had miscarriages.
The researchers found that 25 percent of the women who miscarried reported consuming no caffeine during their pregnancy. Another 60 percent said they had up to 200 milligrams of caffeine daily, and 15 percent regularly consumed more than 200 milligrams of caffeine each day.
In addition to asking about caffeine intake, the researchers also assessed the other known risk factors for miscarriage, such as smoking, a history of previous miscarriage, alcohol use and more. The researchers also compensated for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.
"If you have a low risk of miscarriage, the effect of caffeine tends to show more," said Li.
Li said that even among women who drank less than 200 milligrams of caffeine a day, the study found a 40 percent increased risk of miscarriage, but this finding didn't reach the level of statistical significance.
"Women shouldn't drink more than two regular cups of coffee a day, and hopefully they stop drinking totally for at least the first three months. It's not a permanent stop. If they really have to drink, limit the amount to one or two cups -- a regular cup is about seven and half ounces," Li said.
But, not every doctor is convinced that there's a direct cause-and-effect relationship between caffeine and miscarriage.
"The problem with this study is that when people miscarry, a large percentage of those miscarriages are due to genetic abnormalities, and the researchers didn't say whether these were normal or abnormal fetuses," said Dr. Laura Corio, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City.
"Women are always worrying and wondering, 'What did I do?' Before we say a woman drank too much caffeine and that's why she had a miscarriage, let's see if it was an abnormal or normal pregnancy, said Corio.
"I think about 60 to 80 percent of miscarriages are due to genetic abnormalities," she added.
That said, however, Corio does advise her pregnant patients to limit caffeine consumption.
"Women have a responsibility to the fetus -- no cigarettes, no alcohol and just one cup of coffee a day," she said, noting that many store-bought cups of coffee contain far too much caffeine, so a woman has to be aware of how much caffeine is in her favorite coffee.
"Have less than 200 milligrams a day," no matter what the source -- coffee, tea, cola, chocolate, etcetera, Corio advised. She said caffeine has also been linked to low birth weights and smaller head circumferences.
Li also advised limiting caffeine to less than 200 milligrams a day, especially in the early months of pregnancy and in the preconception period.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20080122/hl_hsn/onceagaincaffeinelinkedtomiscarriage&printer=1;_ylt=Apu8CFblceXOoDykbl._SxW9j7AB
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Tainted Food Can Result in Chronic Health Concerns
The standard acute symptoms of food poisoning can be quite significant, and they carry health risks of their own. However, researchers are discovering that exposure to bacterial, viral, and parasitic contaminants in foods are often likely to have long term consequences as well.
This fact just reinforces the importance of eating as clean a diet as possible, and knowing your sources when it comes to the foods that you consume. I recommend washing all raw foods (including meat) in a sink of pure clean water with 1 capful of hydrogen peroxide or 2 droppers of Oxy-SC before eating or cooking them. If you do choose to eat meat, go with a grass-fed, organic product.
In addition, the health of your intestinal tract is of utmost importance when it comes to properly digesting food and eliminating toxins that may be present. New research just out from Duke University Medical Center conveys that the appendix could actually be the key to keeping the gut healthy, along with keeping your good bacteria levels in check. The research indicates that the appendix may serve the purpose of quickly repopulating the gut with beneficial bacteria, especially after sickness or an event that might wipe them out - like intestinal flu, antibiotics, food poisoning, diarrhea, etc - before harmful bacteria can step in and cause even more concerns. As usual, they have not indicated much concern about those who have already had their appendix removed, as the report indicates that "the purpose of the appendix is marginalized by advances in modern medicine." I cannot speak for you, but their research seems to indicate to me that the appendix plays a very important role in bowel health - and thus immune system function - even though their verbiage does not.This research also underlines the importance of maintaining the balance of the flora in the gut by the use of a quality probiotic product. I recommend and personally use Latero-Flora, which is a unique strain of Bacillus Laterosporus (B.O.D. STRAIN), a naturally occurring bacteria. It is also essential that you undergo a regular digestive tract cleansing program to keep your system working smoothly and efficiently, and to eliminate harmful parasites, bacteria and viruses as well. 70-80% of your immune system is located in the digestive tract, and the importance of keeping it clean cannot be emphasized enough.
Food poisoning can be long-term problem
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
Mon Jan 21, 12:40 PM ET
It's a dirty little secret of food poisoning: E. coli and certain other foodborne illnesses can sometimes trigger serious health problems months or years after patients survived that initial bout.
Scientists only now are unraveling a legacy that has largely gone unnoticed.
What they've spotted so far is troubling. In interviews with The Associated Press, they described high blood pressure, kidney damage, even full kidney failure striking 10 to 20 years later in people who survived severe E. coli infection as children, arthritis after a bout of salmonella or shigella, and a mysterious paralysis that can attack people who just had mild symptoms of campylobacter.
"Folks often assume once you're over the acute illness, that's it, you're back to normal and that's the end of it," said Dr. Robert Tauxe of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The long-term consequences are "an important but relatively poorly documented, poorly studied area of foodborne illness."
These late effects are believed to make up a very small fraction of the nation's 76 million annual food poisonings, although no one knows just how many people are at risk. A bigger question is what other illnesses have yet to be scientifically linked to food poisoning.
And with a rash of food recalls - including more than 30 million pounds of ground beef pulled off the market last year alone - these are questions are taking on new urgency.
"We're drastically underestimating the burden on society that foodborne illnesses represent," contends Donna Rosenbaum of the consumer advocacy group STOP, Safe Tables Our Priority.
Every week, her group hears from patients with health complaints that they suspect or have been told are related to food poisoning years earlier, like a woman who survived severe E. coli at 8 only to have her colon removed in her 20s. Or people who develop diabetes after food poisoning inflamed the pancreas. Or parents who wonder if a child's learning problems stem from food poisoning-caused dialysis as a toddler.
"There's nobody to refer them to for an answer," says Rosenbaum.
So STOP this month is beginning the first national registry of food-poisoning survivors with long-term health problems - people willing to share their medical histories with scientists in hopes of boosting much-needed research.
Consider Alyssa Chrobuck of Seattle, who at age 5 was hospitalized as part of the Jack-in-the-Box hamburger outbreak that 15 years ago this month made a deadly E. coli strain notorious.
She's now a successful college student but ticks off a list of health problems unusual for a 20-year-old: High blood pressure, recurring hospitalizations for colon inflammation, a hiatal hernia, thyroid removal, endometriosis.
"I can't eat fatty foods. I can't eat things that are fried, never been able to eat ice cream or milkshakes," says Chrobuck. "Would I have this many medical problems if I hadn't had the E. coli? Definitely not. But there's no way to tie it definitely back."
The CDC says foodborne illnesses cause 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths a year. Among survivors, some long-term consequences are obvious from the outset. Some required kidney transplants. They may have scarred intestines that promise lasting digestive difficulty.
But when people appear to recover, it is difficult to prove that later problems really are a food-poisoning legacy and not some unfortunate coincidence. It may be that people prone to certain gastrointestinal conditions, for instance, also are genetically more vulnerable to germs that cause foodborne illness.
For now, some of the best evidence comes from the University of Utah, which has long tracked children with E. coli. About 10 percent of E. coli sufferers develop a life-threatening complication called hemolytic uremic syndrome, or HUS, where their kidneys and other organs fail.
Ten to 20 years after they recover, between 30 percent and half of HUS survivors will have some kidney-caused problem, says Dr. Andrew Pavia, the university's pediatric infectious diseases chief. That includes high blood pressure caused by scarred kidneys, slowly failing kidneys, even end-stage kidney failure that requires dialysis.
"I don't want to leave the message that everyone who had symptoms ... is in trouble," stresses Pavia.
Miserable as E. coli is, it doesn't seem to trigger long-term problems unless it started shutting down the kidneys the first time around, he says. "People with uncomplicated diarrhea, by and large we don't have evidence yet that they have complications."
Other proven long-term consequences:
About 1 in 1,000 sufferers of campylobacter, a diarrhea-causing infection spread by raw poultry, develop far more serious Guillain-Barre syndrome a month or so later. Their body attacks their nerves, causing paralysis that usually requires intensive care and a ventilator to breathe. About a third of the nation's Guillain-Barre cases have been linked to previous campylobacter, even if the diarrhea was very mild, and they typically suffer a more severe case than patients who never had food poisoning.
While they eventually recover, "We don't know a great deal about what happens to those people five years later. What does 'normal' look like?" Tauxe says.
A small number of people develop what's called reactive arthritis six months or longer after a bout of salmonella. It causes joint pain, eye inflammation, sometimes painful urination, and can lead to chronic arthritis. Certain strains of shigella and yersinia bacteria, far more common abroad than in the U.S., trigger this reactive arthritis, too, Tauxe says.
What about other patient complaints?
A variety of other organ problems might be triggered by HUS, that severe E. coli - because it causes blood clots all over the body that could leave a trail of damage, says Utah's Pavia. Among his hottest questions: HUS patients often suffer pancreatitis. Does that increase risk for diabetes later in life?
But proving a connection will require tracking a lot of patients who can provide very good medical records documenting their initial foodborne illness, he cautions.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080121/ap_on_he_me/healthbeat_food_poisoning&printer=1;_ylt=AlbOVgnJRvw5A5iyN_61OM9a24cA
This fact just reinforces the importance of eating as clean a diet as possible, and knowing your sources when it comes to the foods that you consume. I recommend washing all raw foods (including meat) in a sink of pure clean water with 1 capful of hydrogen peroxide or 2 droppers of Oxy-SC before eating or cooking them. If you do choose to eat meat, go with a grass-fed, organic product.
In addition, the health of your intestinal tract is of utmost importance when it comes to properly digesting food and eliminating toxins that may be present. New research just out from Duke University Medical Center conveys that the appendix could actually be the key to keeping the gut healthy, along with keeping your good bacteria levels in check. The research indicates that the appendix may serve the purpose of quickly repopulating the gut with beneficial bacteria, especially after sickness or an event that might wipe them out - like intestinal flu, antibiotics, food poisoning, diarrhea, etc - before harmful bacteria can step in and cause even more concerns. As usual, they have not indicated much concern about those who have already had their appendix removed, as the report indicates that "the purpose of the appendix is marginalized by advances in modern medicine." I cannot speak for you, but their research seems to indicate to me that the appendix plays a very important role in bowel health - and thus immune system function - even though their verbiage does not.This research also underlines the importance of maintaining the balance of the flora in the gut by the use of a quality probiotic product. I recommend and personally use Latero-Flora, which is a unique strain of Bacillus Laterosporus (B.O.D. STRAIN), a naturally occurring bacteria. It is also essential that you undergo a regular digestive tract cleansing program to keep your system working smoothly and efficiently, and to eliminate harmful parasites, bacteria and viruses as well. 70-80% of your immune system is located in the digestive tract, and the importance of keeping it clean cannot be emphasized enough.
Food poisoning can be long-term problem
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
Mon Jan 21, 12:40 PM ET
It's a dirty little secret of food poisoning: E. coli and certain other foodborne illnesses can sometimes trigger serious health problems months or years after patients survived that initial bout.
Scientists only now are unraveling a legacy that has largely gone unnoticed.
What they've spotted so far is troubling. In interviews with The Associated Press, they described high blood pressure, kidney damage, even full kidney failure striking 10 to 20 years later in people who survived severe E. coli infection as children, arthritis after a bout of salmonella or shigella, and a mysterious paralysis that can attack people who just had mild symptoms of campylobacter.
"Folks often assume once you're over the acute illness, that's it, you're back to normal and that's the end of it," said Dr. Robert Tauxe of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The long-term consequences are "an important but relatively poorly documented, poorly studied area of foodborne illness."
These late effects are believed to make up a very small fraction of the nation's 76 million annual food poisonings, although no one knows just how many people are at risk. A bigger question is what other illnesses have yet to be scientifically linked to food poisoning.
And with a rash of food recalls - including more than 30 million pounds of ground beef pulled off the market last year alone - these are questions are taking on new urgency.
"We're drastically underestimating the burden on society that foodborne illnesses represent," contends Donna Rosenbaum of the consumer advocacy group STOP, Safe Tables Our Priority.
Every week, her group hears from patients with health complaints that they suspect or have been told are related to food poisoning years earlier, like a woman who survived severe E. coli at 8 only to have her colon removed in her 20s. Or people who develop diabetes after food poisoning inflamed the pancreas. Or parents who wonder if a child's learning problems stem from food poisoning-caused dialysis as a toddler.
"There's nobody to refer them to for an answer," says Rosenbaum.
So STOP this month is beginning the first national registry of food-poisoning survivors with long-term health problems - people willing to share their medical histories with scientists in hopes of boosting much-needed research.
Consider Alyssa Chrobuck of Seattle, who at age 5 was hospitalized as part of the Jack-in-the-Box hamburger outbreak that 15 years ago this month made a deadly E. coli strain notorious.
She's now a successful college student but ticks off a list of health problems unusual for a 20-year-old: High blood pressure, recurring hospitalizations for colon inflammation, a hiatal hernia, thyroid removal, endometriosis.
"I can't eat fatty foods. I can't eat things that are fried, never been able to eat ice cream or milkshakes," says Chrobuck. "Would I have this many medical problems if I hadn't had the E. coli? Definitely not. But there's no way to tie it definitely back."
The CDC says foodborne illnesses cause 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths a year. Among survivors, some long-term consequences are obvious from the outset. Some required kidney transplants. They may have scarred intestines that promise lasting digestive difficulty.
But when people appear to recover, it is difficult to prove that later problems really are a food-poisoning legacy and not some unfortunate coincidence. It may be that people prone to certain gastrointestinal conditions, for instance, also are genetically more vulnerable to germs that cause foodborne illness.
For now, some of the best evidence comes from the University of Utah, which has long tracked children with E. coli. About 10 percent of E. coli sufferers develop a life-threatening complication called hemolytic uremic syndrome, or HUS, where their kidneys and other organs fail.
Ten to 20 years after they recover, between 30 percent and half of HUS survivors will have some kidney-caused problem, says Dr. Andrew Pavia, the university's pediatric infectious diseases chief. That includes high blood pressure caused by scarred kidneys, slowly failing kidneys, even end-stage kidney failure that requires dialysis.
"I don't want to leave the message that everyone who had symptoms ... is in trouble," stresses Pavia.
Miserable as E. coli is, it doesn't seem to trigger long-term problems unless it started shutting down the kidneys the first time around, he says. "People with uncomplicated diarrhea, by and large we don't have evidence yet that they have complications."
Other proven long-term consequences:
About 1 in 1,000 sufferers of campylobacter, a diarrhea-causing infection spread by raw poultry, develop far more serious Guillain-Barre syndrome a month or so later. Their body attacks their nerves, causing paralysis that usually requires intensive care and a ventilator to breathe. About a third of the nation's Guillain-Barre cases have been linked to previous campylobacter, even if the diarrhea was very mild, and they typically suffer a more severe case than patients who never had food poisoning.
While they eventually recover, "We don't know a great deal about what happens to those people five years later. What does 'normal' look like?" Tauxe says.
A small number of people develop what's called reactive arthritis six months or longer after a bout of salmonella. It causes joint pain, eye inflammation, sometimes painful urination, and can lead to chronic arthritis. Certain strains of shigella and yersinia bacteria, far more common abroad than in the U.S., trigger this reactive arthritis, too, Tauxe says.
What about other patient complaints?
A variety of other organ problems might be triggered by HUS, that severe E. coli - because it causes blood clots all over the body that could leave a trail of damage, says Utah's Pavia. Among his hottest questions: HUS patients often suffer pancreatitis. Does that increase risk for diabetes later in life?
But proving a connection will require tracking a lot of patients who can provide very good medical records documenting their initial foodborne illness, he cautions.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080121/ap_on_he_me/healthbeat_food_poisoning&printer=1;_ylt=AlbOVgnJRvw5A5iyN_61OM9a24cA
Monday, January 21, 2008
More Pork-Processing Workers Sickened by Mysterious Disease
In a post dated December 6, 2007, we discussed the repercussions of a suspected autoimmune illness that was afflicting employees of a hog-processing plant in Minnesota with neurological symptoms. In an update to that story, it was reported recently that two workers at a pork facility in Indiana - which authorities refuse to identify - have developed similar signs that the CDC suspects may be linked to the cases in Minnesota.
Officials are downplaying the incident, and announcing that they are certain the condition is not life-threatening. I am a little confused as to how they can determine that if they do not even know what the diagnosis is. They also stated that the workers are being treated by their own personal physicians, as if that should bring comfort to the general public. Who else would treat them, their personal plumbers?
What is most disturbing, though, is that they insist on keeping the specific plant involved a secret. It seems to me that anyone who works in the industry, in addition to the public as a whole, should be fully informed about all the pertinent facts regarding the investigation. The media once again falls into line as a pawn in the governments agenda to protect corporate interests by mentioning in the article the economic considerations of the pork industry. Yes, the livelihoods of people are important, but the message between the lines is that financial issues outweigh concerns about health risks to workers or consumers of pork products. This story bears watching not only to see if any other workers become ill, but also to evaluate the methods that are used to manipulate and control information regarding the situation.
State probes illness of 2 meat plant workers
By Tom Spalding
tom.spalding@indystar.com
January 17, 2008
Two employees of an unidentified pig slaughterhouse in Indiana are being treated medically for symptoms similar to a suspected neurological illness that sickened 12 workers at a Minnesota pork plant.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notified the Indiana Department of Health in mid-December of a potential link, and state officials said today they are still trying to determine if there are any other workers at the plant who used a specific processing technique and might have exposed.
There are 30 hog plants in Indiana, and citing privacy concerns, the state will not reveal the name or location of the Indiana plant.
The illnesses here are not life-threatening, said Elizabeth Hart, a spokeswoman for the Indiana State Department of Health. The employees are seeking medical attention with their personal physicians.
She said it was unclear when those employees got sick, and that health officials in Indianapolis only became aware of the two illnesses during the first week in January. The Indiana workers symptoms included changes in sensation and weakness in their limbs.
"This is very, very new to us," Hart said.
After the Minnesota slaughterhouse illness was reported in December, the CDC looked into slaughtering practices in 25 large pork processing plants in 13 states, and found only two other plants - one in Indiana, the other in Nebraska - that used compressed air to remove pigs brains. Minnesota health officials said the pork plants in all three states, including Indiana, have voluntarily stopped the practice.
The Indiana pork industry employs more than 13,000 people, and generates an estimated $44 million of personal income and $3 billion to the Indiana economy each year, according to a Purdue University report. That same report supports the idea that Indiana is a prime state for pork production and expansion because it has an abundant feed supply, pork processing facilities within the state, available labor force, a large cropland base for manure utilization as fertilizer, and quick access to large consumer markets in Chicago and the East coast.
Gary Jacobson, president of Indiana Packers Corp. in Delphi, said today his company is not the plant involved, but has been in contact with CDC and is trying to stay informed on the issue to update employees.
Any facility that processes meat is going to encounter hazards, which is why safety gear is a must.
"People look like they are suit of armor when they go to work here," Jacobson said. The company has discontinued the practice of harvesting brains until "somebody has some kind of idea" what happened, he said. Harvesting brains are a small part of the practice.
In the Minnesota case, health officials initially suspect the workers were exposed to something in the brain tissue that triggered the illness. Officials are continuing to investigate, but so far they have not identified any viruses or bacteria that could be causing the disease. They have also ruled out chemical toxins.
Five of the 12 workers afflicted were initially diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, or CIDP, a rare immune disorder that attacks the nerves and produces tingling, numbness and weakness in the arms and legs, sometimes causing lasting damage. But Minnesota officials later backed away from that diagnosis, saying additional tests showed none of the workers fit the precise diagnosis.
Minnesota state epidemiologist Ruth Lynfield said the discovery of the Indiana illness could help her investigation. That may help us figure out why these workers are getting sick, she said.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/LOCAL/801170512/0/NLETTER08
Officials are downplaying the incident, and announcing that they are certain the condition is not life-threatening. I am a little confused as to how they can determine that if they do not even know what the diagnosis is. They also stated that the workers are being treated by their own personal physicians, as if that should bring comfort to the general public. Who else would treat them, their personal plumbers?
What is most disturbing, though, is that they insist on keeping the specific plant involved a secret. It seems to me that anyone who works in the industry, in addition to the public as a whole, should be fully informed about all the pertinent facts regarding the investigation. The media once again falls into line as a pawn in the governments agenda to protect corporate interests by mentioning in the article the economic considerations of the pork industry. Yes, the livelihoods of people are important, but the message between the lines is that financial issues outweigh concerns about health risks to workers or consumers of pork products. This story bears watching not only to see if any other workers become ill, but also to evaluate the methods that are used to manipulate and control information regarding the situation.
State probes illness of 2 meat plant workers
By Tom Spalding
tom.spalding@indystar.com
January 17, 2008
Two employees of an unidentified pig slaughterhouse in Indiana are being treated medically for symptoms similar to a suspected neurological illness that sickened 12 workers at a Minnesota pork plant.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notified the Indiana Department of Health in mid-December of a potential link, and state officials said today they are still trying to determine if there are any other workers at the plant who used a specific processing technique and might have exposed.
There are 30 hog plants in Indiana, and citing privacy concerns, the state will not reveal the name or location of the Indiana plant.
The illnesses here are not life-threatening, said Elizabeth Hart, a spokeswoman for the Indiana State Department of Health. The employees are seeking medical attention with their personal physicians.
She said it was unclear when those employees got sick, and that health officials in Indianapolis only became aware of the two illnesses during the first week in January. The Indiana workers symptoms included changes in sensation and weakness in their limbs.
"This is very, very new to us," Hart said.
After the Minnesota slaughterhouse illness was reported in December, the CDC looked into slaughtering practices in 25 large pork processing plants in 13 states, and found only two other plants - one in Indiana, the other in Nebraska - that used compressed air to remove pigs brains. Minnesota health officials said the pork plants in all three states, including Indiana, have voluntarily stopped the practice.
The Indiana pork industry employs more than 13,000 people, and generates an estimated $44 million of personal income and $3 billion to the Indiana economy each year, according to a Purdue University report. That same report supports the idea that Indiana is a prime state for pork production and expansion because it has an abundant feed supply, pork processing facilities within the state, available labor force, a large cropland base for manure utilization as fertilizer, and quick access to large consumer markets in Chicago and the East coast.
Gary Jacobson, president of Indiana Packers Corp. in Delphi, said today his company is not the plant involved, but has been in contact with CDC and is trying to stay informed on the issue to update employees.
Any facility that processes meat is going to encounter hazards, which is why safety gear is a must.
"People look like they are suit of armor when they go to work here," Jacobson said. The company has discontinued the practice of harvesting brains until "somebody has some kind of idea" what happened, he said. Harvesting brains are a small part of the practice.
In the Minnesota case, health officials initially suspect the workers were exposed to something in the brain tissue that triggered the illness. Officials are continuing to investigate, but so far they have not identified any viruses or bacteria that could be causing the disease. They have also ruled out chemical toxins.
Five of the 12 workers afflicted were initially diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, or CIDP, a rare immune disorder that attacks the nerves and produces tingling, numbness and weakness in the arms and legs, sometimes causing lasting damage. But Minnesota officials later backed away from that diagnosis, saying additional tests showed none of the workers fit the precise diagnosis.
Minnesota state epidemiologist Ruth Lynfield said the discovery of the Indiana illness could help her investigation. That may help us figure out why these workers are getting sick, she said.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/LOCAL/801170512/0/NLETTER08
Friday, January 18, 2008
FDA Gives Green Light to Cloned Food Despite Public Concern
The FDA has given their blessing to the sale and consumption of cloned food products in the United States. Those in the cloning and food processing industry have been on the edge of their seats regarding this ruling, as it is projected to open up a multi-billion dollar market. Despite all the positive public relations regarding the safety of cloned foods, polls show that more than 60% of Americans are not thrilled with the idea and fortunately are not buying into the media blast. Hopefully, Americans will not buy the goods either.
The bottom line for consumers is that the long term effects of eating cloned foods is simply not known, but any honest scientist will tell you that tinkering with nature in this way can potentially lead to dangerous and unpredictable consequences. It is a verified fact that cloned animals have more health problems than those that are naturally bred. So in essence, the FDA is putting their stamp of approval on the consumption of foods made from diseased livestock. This leaves them an open door to justify further use of toxic chemicals, drugs and additives so that the health and safety of cloned foods can be controlled.
Considering their track record of half-truths and pandering to special interest groups, you can be sure that this was not a scientifically objective decision on the FDAs part, especially when you factor in the amount of money at stake. As I always say, just follow the money. As we move closer to a nation and a world where health freedoms are a thing of the past, the control of resources such as the food supply and other natural substances will become increasingly common.
We are to the point where backyard gardens, container gardening, farmers markets and a relationship with a good dairy farmer are becoming essential if you value unadulterated food. Even though most of the country is in the midst of winter, spring is right around the corner. Do your gardening research now and begin to make plans for your organic garden - whether you are a seasoned gardener or a timid beginner - you will be doing one of the best things for your familys health and well-being.And one more thing. Every child should have the opportunity to experience Gardening 101! Be sure to include your children in your gardening adventures and your trips to the farmers markets and dairies. We must realize the importance of teaching our children how to eat and live healthy. Most children have no idea about how vegetables actually make it to the grocery store because they have never seen a garden! Knowing the ins and outs of gardening is a huge step in giving them valuable lessons concerning living naturally and toxin-free in a VERY toxic world.
FDA says clones are safe for food
A long-awaited final report from the Food and Drug Administration concludes that foods from healthy cloned animals and their offspring are as safe as those from ordinary animals, effectively removing the last U.S. regulatory barrier to the marketing of meat and milk from cloned cattle, pigs and goats.
The 968-page "final risk assessment," not yet released but obtained by The Washington Post, finds no evidence to support opponents' concerns that food from clones may harbor hidden risks.
But, recognizing that a majority of consumers are wary of food from clones -- and that cloning could undermine the wholesome image of American milk and meat -- the agency report includes hundreds of pages of raw data so that others can see how it came to its conclusions.
The report also acknowledges that human health concerns are not the only issues raised by the emergence of cloned farm animals.
"Moral, religious and ethical concerns . . . have been raised," the agency notes in a document accompanying the report. But the risk assessment is "strictly a science-based evaluation," it reports, because the agency is not authorized by law to consider those issues.
In practice, it will be years before foods from clones make their way to store shelves in appreciable quantities, in part because the clones themselves are too valuable to slaughter or milk. Instead, the pricey animals -- replicas of some of the finest farm animals ever born -- will be used primarily as breeding stock to create what proponents say will be a new generation of superior farm animals.
When food from those animals hits the market, the public may yet have its say. FDA officials have said they do not expect to require food from clones to be labeled as such, but they may allow foods from ordinary animals to be labeled as not from clones.
Opponents express dismay
Opponents of the approval, including some concerned about the welfare of the clones themselves, expressed dismay upon learning about the FDA's intentions.
Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group that petitioned FDA to restrict the sale of food from clones, said his group is considering legal action.
"One of the amazing things about this," Mendelson said, "is that at a time when we have a readily acknowledged crisis in our food safety system, the FDA is spending its resources and energy and political capital on releasing a safety assessment for something that no one but a handful of companies wants."
Others countered that public opinion and politics should play no bigger role in the decision on clones than it should in the approval of a drug or a contraceptive.
"In fact, cloned animals have been studied much more than naturally produced animals," said Cindy Tian, who has analyzed milk and meat from clones at the University of Connecticut. "We have more data on them than for any other animal that we eat."
Release of the analysis was slowed for years by several forces, including the dairy industry, concerned about the potential impact on exports of U.S. whey solids, foreign sales of which are growing for use as a protein supplement.
In the past month, as an announcement neared, members of Congress, led by Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), sought to delay approval through legislation.
Trade-related agencies including the Foreign Agricultural Service and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which for years have struggled to get countries to accept U.S. gene-altered crops, also raised red flags.
A final blitz of meetings with FDA officials last week brought grudging acquiescence, insiders said. And it is possible, sources said, that even after the risk analysis is released, there will be calls for farmers to voluntarily refrain from selling products from clones until the trade issues can be resolved.
Challenges to assessing risk
To create its final risk assessment, the FDA gathered data on nearly all of the more than 600 U.S. farm-animal clones produced and hundreds of their offspring, as well as many from overseas. But it faced challenges in the process.
Those animals were made by scientists scattered among various universities and companies using different methods that in many cases were difficult to compare.
Moreover, many of those animals were not just clones but also had genes added to them for projects unrelated to food production.
In those cases, it was difficult for FDA reviewers to decide whether any problems were caused by those animals being clones or by their particular genetic alterations. (The FDA has said it will not approve gene-altered animals as food without additional tests for safety.)
Finally, there was the overarching problem of deciding which measures would best predict whether the food was safe. Most puzzling was whether to take into account the subtle alterations in gene activity, called epigenetic changes, that are common in clones as a result of having just one parent.
In the end, facing the reality that epigenetics have never been a factor in assessing the wholesomeness of food, agency scientists decided to use the same simple but effective standard used by farmers since the dawn of agriculture: If a farm animal appears in all respects to be healthy, then presume that food from that animal is safe to eat.
Scientists inside and outside the agency studied thousands of pages of veterinary reports describing weight, size, organ function, blood characteristics and other measures of clones and offspring. For cattle -- the animals for which the most data exist -- full health assessments were conducted for each of five different stages of the animals' life: fetal, newborn, juvenile, sexually mature, and old.
Newborn cattle often unhealthy
They concluded that newborn cattle are often unhealthy, probably because of epigenetic changes. They are usually extremely overweight and have respiratory, gastrointestinal and immune system problems. (Cloned pigs and goats are mostly healthy from the start.)
But those problems typically disappear within the first weeks or months of life as the animals somehow compensate. And since sick clones would not pass muster with food inspectors any more than sick conventional animals would, they pose no concern, the report says.
Studies of cloned farm animal behavior, including mating behavior, also showed them to be the same as ordinary animals. (One exception: On one farm, clones showed a peculiar preference not for the surrogate mother that gave birth to them but to the animal from which they were cloned.)
Scientists also looked at nutrient levels in meat and milk from a few dozen cattle and pig clones and hundreds of their progeny, and compared them with values from conventional animals. They measured vitamins A, C, B1, B2, B6 and B12 as well as niacin, pantothenic acid, calcium, iron, phosphorous, zinc, 12 kinds of fatty acids, cholesterol, fat, protein, amino acids and carbohydrates including lactose.
For almost every measure, the values were virtually the same. The few that differed were still within the range considered normal.
Separately, the agency looked at studies in which milk and meat from clones were fed to animals for up to 3 1/2 months. There was no evidence of health effects, allergic reactions or behavioral changes.
In the end, the agency concluded that it did not have enough information to rule on the safety of food from cloned sheep. It also decided that edible products from newborn cattle clones, which often are metabolically unstable, "may pose some very limited human food consumption risk."
But it found no safety hazards for meat from healthy cattle clones more than a few weeks old, milk from cloned cows, or meat from cloned pigs or goats of any age.
"Food from cattle, swine, and goat clones is as safe to eat as that from their more conventionally-bred counterparts," the FDA risk assessment concludes.
Looking ahead, the report says FDA is collaborating with veterinary and scientific organizations, notably the International Embryo Transfer Society, to create a database on the health of new clones, which will help the agency track the field as the industry grows.
Working with the FDA, the International Embryo Transfer Society is also creating the first manual of animal care standards for clones, to be made available to farmers and the public later this year.
Copyright 2008 The Washington Post Company
http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=22663416
The bottom line for consumers is that the long term effects of eating cloned foods is simply not known, but any honest scientist will tell you that tinkering with nature in this way can potentially lead to dangerous and unpredictable consequences. It is a verified fact that cloned animals have more health problems than those that are naturally bred. So in essence, the FDA is putting their stamp of approval on the consumption of foods made from diseased livestock. This leaves them an open door to justify further use of toxic chemicals, drugs and additives so that the health and safety of cloned foods can be controlled.
Considering their track record of half-truths and pandering to special interest groups, you can be sure that this was not a scientifically objective decision on the FDAs part, especially when you factor in the amount of money at stake. As I always say, just follow the money. As we move closer to a nation and a world where health freedoms are a thing of the past, the control of resources such as the food supply and other natural substances will become increasingly common.
We are to the point where backyard gardens, container gardening, farmers markets and a relationship with a good dairy farmer are becoming essential if you value unadulterated food. Even though most of the country is in the midst of winter, spring is right around the corner. Do your gardening research now and begin to make plans for your organic garden - whether you are a seasoned gardener or a timid beginner - you will be doing one of the best things for your familys health and well-being.And one more thing. Every child should have the opportunity to experience Gardening 101! Be sure to include your children in your gardening adventures and your trips to the farmers markets and dairies. We must realize the importance of teaching our children how to eat and live healthy. Most children have no idea about how vegetables actually make it to the grocery store because they have never seen a garden! Knowing the ins and outs of gardening is a huge step in giving them valuable lessons concerning living naturally and toxin-free in a VERY toxic world.
FDA says clones are safe for food
A long-awaited final report from the Food and Drug Administration concludes that foods from healthy cloned animals and their offspring are as safe as those from ordinary animals, effectively removing the last U.S. regulatory barrier to the marketing of meat and milk from cloned cattle, pigs and goats.
The 968-page "final risk assessment," not yet released but obtained by The Washington Post, finds no evidence to support opponents' concerns that food from clones may harbor hidden risks.
But, recognizing that a majority of consumers are wary of food from clones -- and that cloning could undermine the wholesome image of American milk and meat -- the agency report includes hundreds of pages of raw data so that others can see how it came to its conclusions.
The report also acknowledges that human health concerns are not the only issues raised by the emergence of cloned farm animals.
"Moral, religious and ethical concerns . . . have been raised," the agency notes in a document accompanying the report. But the risk assessment is "strictly a science-based evaluation," it reports, because the agency is not authorized by law to consider those issues.
In practice, it will be years before foods from clones make their way to store shelves in appreciable quantities, in part because the clones themselves are too valuable to slaughter or milk. Instead, the pricey animals -- replicas of some of the finest farm animals ever born -- will be used primarily as breeding stock to create what proponents say will be a new generation of superior farm animals.
When food from those animals hits the market, the public may yet have its say. FDA officials have said they do not expect to require food from clones to be labeled as such, but they may allow foods from ordinary animals to be labeled as not from clones.
Opponents express dismay
Opponents of the approval, including some concerned about the welfare of the clones themselves, expressed dismay upon learning about the FDA's intentions.
Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group that petitioned FDA to restrict the sale of food from clones, said his group is considering legal action.
"One of the amazing things about this," Mendelson said, "is that at a time when we have a readily acknowledged crisis in our food safety system, the FDA is spending its resources and energy and political capital on releasing a safety assessment for something that no one but a handful of companies wants."
Others countered that public opinion and politics should play no bigger role in the decision on clones than it should in the approval of a drug or a contraceptive.
"In fact, cloned animals have been studied much more than naturally produced animals," said Cindy Tian, who has analyzed milk and meat from clones at the University of Connecticut. "We have more data on them than for any other animal that we eat."
Release of the analysis was slowed for years by several forces, including the dairy industry, concerned about the potential impact on exports of U.S. whey solids, foreign sales of which are growing for use as a protein supplement.
In the past month, as an announcement neared, members of Congress, led by Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), sought to delay approval through legislation.
Trade-related agencies including the Foreign Agricultural Service and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which for years have struggled to get countries to accept U.S. gene-altered crops, also raised red flags.
A final blitz of meetings with FDA officials last week brought grudging acquiescence, insiders said. And it is possible, sources said, that even after the risk analysis is released, there will be calls for farmers to voluntarily refrain from selling products from clones until the trade issues can be resolved.
Challenges to assessing risk
To create its final risk assessment, the FDA gathered data on nearly all of the more than 600 U.S. farm-animal clones produced and hundreds of their offspring, as well as many from overseas. But it faced challenges in the process.
Those animals were made by scientists scattered among various universities and companies using different methods that in many cases were difficult to compare.
Moreover, many of those animals were not just clones but also had genes added to them for projects unrelated to food production.
In those cases, it was difficult for FDA reviewers to decide whether any problems were caused by those animals being clones or by their particular genetic alterations. (The FDA has said it will not approve gene-altered animals as food without additional tests for safety.)
Finally, there was the overarching problem of deciding which measures would best predict whether the food was safe. Most puzzling was whether to take into account the subtle alterations in gene activity, called epigenetic changes, that are common in clones as a result of having just one parent.
In the end, facing the reality that epigenetics have never been a factor in assessing the wholesomeness of food, agency scientists decided to use the same simple but effective standard used by farmers since the dawn of agriculture: If a farm animal appears in all respects to be healthy, then presume that food from that animal is safe to eat.
Scientists inside and outside the agency studied thousands of pages of veterinary reports describing weight, size, organ function, blood characteristics and other measures of clones and offspring. For cattle -- the animals for which the most data exist -- full health assessments were conducted for each of five different stages of the animals' life: fetal, newborn, juvenile, sexually mature, and old.
Newborn cattle often unhealthy
They concluded that newborn cattle are often unhealthy, probably because of epigenetic changes. They are usually extremely overweight and have respiratory, gastrointestinal and immune system problems. (Cloned pigs and goats are mostly healthy from the start.)
But those problems typically disappear within the first weeks or months of life as the animals somehow compensate. And since sick clones would not pass muster with food inspectors any more than sick conventional animals would, they pose no concern, the report says.
Studies of cloned farm animal behavior, including mating behavior, also showed them to be the same as ordinary animals. (One exception: On one farm, clones showed a peculiar preference not for the surrogate mother that gave birth to them but to the animal from which they were cloned.)
Scientists also looked at nutrient levels in meat and milk from a few dozen cattle and pig clones and hundreds of their progeny, and compared them with values from conventional animals. They measured vitamins A, C, B1, B2, B6 and B12 as well as niacin, pantothenic acid, calcium, iron, phosphorous, zinc, 12 kinds of fatty acids, cholesterol, fat, protein, amino acids and carbohydrates including lactose.
For almost every measure, the values were virtually the same. The few that differed were still within the range considered normal.
Separately, the agency looked at studies in which milk and meat from clones were fed to animals for up to 3 1/2 months. There was no evidence of health effects, allergic reactions or behavioral changes.
In the end, the agency concluded that it did not have enough information to rule on the safety of food from cloned sheep. It also decided that edible products from newborn cattle clones, which often are metabolically unstable, "may pose some very limited human food consumption risk."
But it found no safety hazards for meat from healthy cattle clones more than a few weeks old, milk from cloned cows, or meat from cloned pigs or goats of any age.
"Food from cattle, swine, and goat clones is as safe to eat as that from their more conventionally-bred counterparts," the FDA risk assessment concludes.
Looking ahead, the report says FDA is collaborating with veterinary and scientific organizations, notably the International Embryo Transfer Society, to create a database on the health of new clones, which will help the agency track the field as the industry grows.
Working with the FDA, the International Embryo Transfer Society is also creating the first manual of animal care standards for clones, to be made available to farmers and the public later this year.
Copyright 2008 The Washington Post Company
http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=22663416
Thursday, January 17, 2008
New Philosophy in Gym Class Teaches a Lifestyle of Activity
Physical Education class in school is generally something that kids either love or hate. The athletic ones thrive on competition and excel as the stars of the team sports. On the other hand, children who are overweight or uncoordinated are often exposed to ridicule and humiliation because of their inability to keep up or perform well.
However, it appears a new type of gym teacher is on the horizon in many schools today, one who encourages individual effort and the development of exercise habits over the virtues of athletic prowess. Not only does this lower the stress for students who have a hard time with sports, but it may just encourage them to embrace physical activity rather than be repulsed by it. Researchers who have instituted this attitude shift in the way PE is taught are hoping it will lead young people to adopt an active lifestyle that will stay with them all throughout their lives.
There is nothing inherently wrong with competition. However, the importance of combating the trend amongst our children to be sedentary and obese far outweighs the benefits of team sports. Perhaps this new way of looking at physical education will play a role in turning the tide of unhealthy lifestyles by establishing new patterns of wellness in upcoming generations.
By the way, if the elementary school that your children or grandchildren attend does not have an organized PE class in addition to recess every day, please rally up support and go to the school board. Not only do children need the physical activity, but they also need to be able to run off energy and gain the benefits from sunshine that their bodies need. It is healing and healthy!
PE: Focus on Exercise, Not Team Sports
Last Updated: 1/14/2008 4:37:56 PM
RICHARDSON, Texas (AP) - With music pumping in the background, the kids in Terry Wade's physical education class are in constant motion, going from sit-ups to jumping jacks to curls with light weights.
After their 45-minute session, the sixth-graders who are sweating the most, or as Wade calls it, "burning butter," get stickers.
"My main goal and emphasis is getting these kids up and moving," said Wade, who teaches at Northrich Elementary in the Richardson school district in suburban Dallas. "It's 'Can this kid do this for a lifetime?' I don't care how good they are. I care if they're having fun."
Instead of team sports, Wade and other physical education teachers across the country are focusing more on individual activities that students can incorporate into their lives long after their school days are over.
Experts say the shift also helps gym teachers include children who are struggling with their weight. With individual activities, overweight students can work at their own pace, and not be left on the sidelines. And they can take part in lower impact activities like weightlifting, yoga or martial arts.
"Now we organize our classes in such a way where no kids are sitting," said Susan Henderson, coordinator for physical education and health for the Dallas-area Mesquite school district.
She said that even if the lesson is about a team sport like football, they focus on skills like passing the ball.
"Nobody is waiting their turn," Henderson said.
Steve Jefferies, head of the department of health, human performance and nutrition at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Wash., is a fan of treasure hunts and other activities that students can do without realizing they are getting exercise. That shifts the focus to finding things, not the half-mile walk to get there, he said.
Jefferies suggests teachers wear a weight belt to get an idea of what an overweight student experiences.
"You've got to find something that each individual person enjoys," said Jefferies, who also runs a Web site to help physical education teachers keep up with the latest developments.
Gym teachers also are placing a greater emphasis on general health and nutrition, said Craig Buschner, president of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
"This field had to make changes. It's not about dodge ball and it's not about duck-duck-goose," said Buschner. He added that the obesity epidemic has helped educators make a case that students need more physical education time.
How to deal with overweight children in class is something that's on the minds of future gym teachers, too.
"My undergraduates are asking 'What do I do?'" said Josh Trout, of California State University, Chico, who has written a book set to be released in February called "Supersized PE: A Comprehensive Guidebook for Teaching Overweight Students."
Wade said she walks a fine line when instructing her students: "I don't want to push anyone past what they're capable of doing, but I don't want them to take it too easy."
As the morning light poured in from the windows in her gym, she asked her sixth-graders: "How are you graded in this class?"
A chorus of replies comes quickly: "Effort."
However, it appears a new type of gym teacher is on the horizon in many schools today, one who encourages individual effort and the development of exercise habits over the virtues of athletic prowess. Not only does this lower the stress for students who have a hard time with sports, but it may just encourage them to embrace physical activity rather than be repulsed by it. Researchers who have instituted this attitude shift in the way PE is taught are hoping it will lead young people to adopt an active lifestyle that will stay with them all throughout their lives.
There is nothing inherently wrong with competition. However, the importance of combating the trend amongst our children to be sedentary and obese far outweighs the benefits of team sports. Perhaps this new way of looking at physical education will play a role in turning the tide of unhealthy lifestyles by establishing new patterns of wellness in upcoming generations.
By the way, if the elementary school that your children or grandchildren attend does not have an organized PE class in addition to recess every day, please rally up support and go to the school board. Not only do children need the physical activity, but they also need to be able to run off energy and gain the benefits from sunshine that their bodies need. It is healing and healthy!
PE: Focus on Exercise, Not Team Sports
Last Updated: 1/14/2008 4:37:56 PM
RICHARDSON, Texas (AP) - With music pumping in the background, the kids in Terry Wade's physical education class are in constant motion, going from sit-ups to jumping jacks to curls with light weights.
After their 45-minute session, the sixth-graders who are sweating the most, or as Wade calls it, "burning butter," get stickers.
"My main goal and emphasis is getting these kids up and moving," said Wade, who teaches at Northrich Elementary in the Richardson school district in suburban Dallas. "It's 'Can this kid do this for a lifetime?' I don't care how good they are. I care if they're having fun."
Instead of team sports, Wade and other physical education teachers across the country are focusing more on individual activities that students can incorporate into their lives long after their school days are over.
Experts say the shift also helps gym teachers include children who are struggling with their weight. With individual activities, overweight students can work at their own pace, and not be left on the sidelines. And they can take part in lower impact activities like weightlifting, yoga or martial arts.
"Now we organize our classes in such a way where no kids are sitting," said Susan Henderson, coordinator for physical education and health for the Dallas-area Mesquite school district.
She said that even if the lesson is about a team sport like football, they focus on skills like passing the ball.
"Nobody is waiting their turn," Henderson said.
Steve Jefferies, head of the department of health, human performance and nutrition at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Wash., is a fan of treasure hunts and other activities that students can do without realizing they are getting exercise. That shifts the focus to finding things, not the half-mile walk to get there, he said.
Jefferies suggests teachers wear a weight belt to get an idea of what an overweight student experiences.
"You've got to find something that each individual person enjoys," said Jefferies, who also runs a Web site to help physical education teachers keep up with the latest developments.
Gym teachers also are placing a greater emphasis on general health and nutrition, said Craig Buschner, president of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
"This field had to make changes. It's not about dodge ball and it's not about duck-duck-goose," said Buschner. He added that the obesity epidemic has helped educators make a case that students need more physical education time.
How to deal with overweight children in class is something that's on the minds of future gym teachers, too.
"My undergraduates are asking 'What do I do?'" said Josh Trout, of California State University, Chico, who has written a book set to be released in February called "Supersized PE: A Comprehensive Guidebook for Teaching Overweight Students."
Wade said she walks a fine line when instructing her students: "I don't want to push anyone past what they're capable of doing, but I don't want them to take it too easy."
As the morning light poured in from the windows in her gym, she asked her sixth-graders: "How are you graded in this class?"
A chorus of replies comes quickly: "Effort."
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Food Recalls: Why All the Secrecy?
With 2007 setting a record for the number of food product recalls in the US, one would think the agencies responsible for protecting us from contaminated foods would pick up the pace a bit and become even more vigilant regarding the welfare of consumers when it comes to food safety. However, this does not appear to be the case. Not only is our food becoming more and more adulterated through GMO, pesticides, herbicides, hormones, and antibiotics, but now we must deal with not being told when food has been compromised to the extent to where it could produce illness. The first major recall of 2008 was announced last week, involving over 90 tons of ground beef, and yet the health officials involved are refusing to name restaurants or other establishments that are suspected of purchasing and potentially serving the contaminated meat. To make matters worse, the company that processed the meat has been involved in two additional recalls in the last twelve years.
It seems it would be a no-brainer to alert the public as to where they may possibly be exposed to these tainted products. But for no logical reason, federal and state agencies are dragging their feet about disclosing any information they may have. Apparently officials are more worried about protecting the rights of businesses that may or may not have served food laced with E. coli bacteria, than they are about you or I being exposed to this potentially life threatening toxin. This is just another example of the cat and mouse games that authorities often play when it comes to our rights to know all the facts regarding the safety of food, drugs, and other consumer products. It is also another huge reason to be sure you know the source of your meat, purchase organic meat and other foods, and eat as close to natural as possible.
Federal and State Regulators Play a High-Risk Game with US Consumers
By E. coli Lawyer
Jan 14, 2008 - 10:37:30 AM
Another E. coli Outbreak: Federal and State Regulators Play a High-Risk Game with US Consumers
SEATTLE, Wa ----- Public health officials in Washington DC, California and Wisconsin are playing a dangerous game with American consumers by refusing to reveal the specific stores or restaurants that may have served meat contaminated by toxic E. coli, says the Seattle lawyer who represents victims of food-borne illness.
'The public needs to know who may have poisoned their kids,' said Bill Marler, managing partner of the Marler Clark law firm in Seattle.
Marler spoke up Sunday after health officials revealed that 188,000 pounds of ground beef was being recalled by the Rochester Meat Company, a Minnesota firm, because it has been contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. This appears to be the first major recall of 2008. 2007 set a recent record for recalls - topping twenty recalls of over 33 million pounds of meat.
While announcing the nationwide recall, officials have refused to reveal the name of the restaurant or other outlets believed to have served the meat to consumers. That, Marler says, means that consumers who may be at risk of contracting potentially fatal food-poisoning have no way of knowing - until they get sick.
He called on Dr. Richard A. Raymond, head of Federal Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS), Kevin R. Hayden, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, and Dr. Mark Horton, director of the California Department of Public Health, to immediately disclose the names and locations of retail outlets that have been associated with the contaminated meat.
The Federal Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) persuaded Rochester Meat Company to issue the recall after investigations revealed that at least six people have been sickened in Wisconsin and California.
'We are hearing from the environmental health community that a national chain restaurant, or restaurants are connected with this recall,' Marler said. 'If so, these public officials are playing a very dangerous game. They are betting that nobody else gets sick because they had no way of knowing they were at risk.'
Marler said there are indications that state officials know of one or more restaurants where contaminated meat has been served and where consumers already have been sickened. 'The public has a right to know the name of that establishment and its involved locations, ' said Marler. ' If more than one is involved, the public has a right to know that too.'
E. coli O157:H7 is a toxic bacteria that shows up in the intestines of cows, where it can infect ground beef or many other food products. In recent years, outbreaks of E. coli have sickened thousands of people in virtually every state, and killed dozens. Young children and elderly with compromised immune systems are particularly at risk.
The recalled ground beef was produced on October 30, 2007 and November 6, 2007 for sale to restaurants and food service institutions. The restaurants have been serving ground beef supplied by a company with a history of E. coli problems, Marler said. This is the third recall of ground beef by the Minnesota firm since 1996. Its previous recalls were for 152,000 pounds and 30,000 pounds, according to FSIS records. Only a fraction of the contaminated beef was recovered in those recalls.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/L_aws_amp_P_olitics_42/011410372008_Federal_and_State_Regulators_Play_a_High-Risk_Game_with_US_Consumers.shtml
It seems it would be a no-brainer to alert the public as to where they may possibly be exposed to these tainted products. But for no logical reason, federal and state agencies are dragging their feet about disclosing any information they may have. Apparently officials are more worried about protecting the rights of businesses that may or may not have served food laced with E. coli bacteria, than they are about you or I being exposed to this potentially life threatening toxin. This is just another example of the cat and mouse games that authorities often play when it comes to our rights to know all the facts regarding the safety of food, drugs, and other consumer products. It is also another huge reason to be sure you know the source of your meat, purchase organic meat and other foods, and eat as close to natural as possible.
Federal and State Regulators Play a High-Risk Game with US Consumers
By E. coli Lawyer
Jan 14, 2008 - 10:37:30 AM
Another E. coli Outbreak: Federal and State Regulators Play a High-Risk Game with US Consumers
SEATTLE, Wa ----- Public health officials in Washington DC, California and Wisconsin are playing a dangerous game with American consumers by refusing to reveal the specific stores or restaurants that may have served meat contaminated by toxic E. coli, says the Seattle lawyer who represents victims of food-borne illness.
'The public needs to know who may have poisoned their kids,' said Bill Marler, managing partner of the Marler Clark law firm in Seattle.
Marler spoke up Sunday after health officials revealed that 188,000 pounds of ground beef was being recalled by the Rochester Meat Company, a Minnesota firm, because it has been contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. This appears to be the first major recall of 2008. 2007 set a recent record for recalls - topping twenty recalls of over 33 million pounds of meat.
While announcing the nationwide recall, officials have refused to reveal the name of the restaurant or other outlets believed to have served the meat to consumers. That, Marler says, means that consumers who may be at risk of contracting potentially fatal food-poisoning have no way of knowing - until they get sick.
He called on Dr. Richard A. Raymond, head of Federal Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS), Kevin R. Hayden, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, and Dr. Mark Horton, director of the California Department of Public Health, to immediately disclose the names and locations of retail outlets that have been associated with the contaminated meat.
The Federal Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) persuaded Rochester Meat Company to issue the recall after investigations revealed that at least six people have been sickened in Wisconsin and California.
'We are hearing from the environmental health community that a national chain restaurant, or restaurants are connected with this recall,' Marler said. 'If so, these public officials are playing a very dangerous game. They are betting that nobody else gets sick because they had no way of knowing they were at risk.'
Marler said there are indications that state officials know of one or more restaurants where contaminated meat has been served and where consumers already have been sickened. 'The public has a right to know the name of that establishment and its involved locations, ' said Marler. ' If more than one is involved, the public has a right to know that too.'
E. coli O157:H7 is a toxic bacteria that shows up in the intestines of cows, where it can infect ground beef or many other food products. In recent years, outbreaks of E. coli have sickened thousands of people in virtually every state, and killed dozens. Young children and elderly with compromised immune systems are particularly at risk.
The recalled ground beef was produced on October 30, 2007 and November 6, 2007 for sale to restaurants and food service institutions. The restaurants have been serving ground beef supplied by a company with a history of E. coli problems, Marler said. This is the third recall of ground beef by the Minnesota firm since 1996. Its previous recalls were for 152,000 pounds and 30,000 pounds, according to FSIS records. Only a fraction of the contaminated beef was recovered in those recalls.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/L_aws_amp_P_olitics_42/011410372008_Federal_and_State_Regulators_Play_a_High-Risk_Game_with_US_Consumers.shtml
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Health Benefits of Family Meals
A study released recently links the practice of eating together as a family with a lowered incidence of eating disorders amongst teenage girls, and with better nutritional choices that discourage the poor habits often associated with such disorders.
Despite the evidence that pointed to an increase in such behaviors for boys who participated in family meal time, the overall lesson to be learned remains the same, providing that the family culture and environment are ones that encourage a dietary lifestyle that leads toward good health. Parents and other family members are probably the most influential sources over children when it comes to learning how to eat wholesomely and make positive choices that will help to establish lifelong patterns of wellness.
The practice of family meal time is also an excellent example of natural, non-invasive procedures that are much more beneficial for fighting disease, including eating disorders, than the harmful drugs that are likely to be prescribed by conventional health care providers.
Family meals curb girls' eating disorder risk
But study has strange twist: The opposite effect is seen in boys
Reuters
updated 4:18 p.m. CT, Wed., Jan. 9, 2008
Sitting down for regular family meals may protect teen girls from developing eating disorders, according to a new study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer and colleagues from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that adolescent girls who ate five or more meals each week with their families were approximately one third less likely to engage in extreme weight control behaviors, such as making themselves vomit, taking diet pills and abusing diuretics or laxatives than girls who ate less frequently with their families.
Some studies have suggested that family meals may help shield girls from developing unhealthy or extreme weight control behaviors, Neumark-Sztainer and her colleagues note, but this research has only looked at a single time point or has relied on past recall of eating habits.
To better understand the relationship, the researchers analyzed results of the Project EAT (Eating Among Teens) Study, in which 2,516 adolescent boys and girls completed a questionnaire in 1999 and 2004. The researchers hypothesized that study participants who reported eating more frequent family meals at the first assessment would be less likely to report disordered eating behavior five years later.
For girls, this was indeed the case; family meals reduced the likelihood of extreme weight control behaviors. But the link with binge eating, chronic dieting or unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as smoking, skipping meals, or fasting, wasn't statistically significant after the researchers adjusted for other factors that could account for the relationship.
However, the researchers found that boys who ate with their families more often were actually at increased risk of unhealthy weight control behaviors. They speculate that boys who eat regularly with their families may have certain characteristics that predispose them to unhealthy eating habits, or that eating with family somehow benefits girls more than it does boys.
Past research has identified a number of benefits of family meals, the researchers note; however, the way that some families interact at mealtimes can actually promote unhealthy eating habits, they add.
"Health care professionals have an important role to play in reinforcing the benefits of family meals, helping families set realistic goals for increasing family meal frequency given schedules of adolescents and their parents, exploring ways to enhance the atmosphere at family meals with adolescents, and discussing strategies for creating healthful and easy-to-prepare family meals," Neumark-Sztainer and her colleagues conclude.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22575582/
Despite the evidence that pointed to an increase in such behaviors for boys who participated in family meal time, the overall lesson to be learned remains the same, providing that the family culture and environment are ones that encourage a dietary lifestyle that leads toward good health. Parents and other family members are probably the most influential sources over children when it comes to learning how to eat wholesomely and make positive choices that will help to establish lifelong patterns of wellness.
The practice of family meal time is also an excellent example of natural, non-invasive procedures that are much more beneficial for fighting disease, including eating disorders, than the harmful drugs that are likely to be prescribed by conventional health care providers.
Family meals curb girls' eating disorder risk
But study has strange twist: The opposite effect is seen in boys
Reuters
updated 4:18 p.m. CT, Wed., Jan. 9, 2008
Sitting down for regular family meals may protect teen girls from developing eating disorders, according to a new study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer and colleagues from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that adolescent girls who ate five or more meals each week with their families were approximately one third less likely to engage in extreme weight control behaviors, such as making themselves vomit, taking diet pills and abusing diuretics or laxatives than girls who ate less frequently with their families.
Some studies have suggested that family meals may help shield girls from developing unhealthy or extreme weight control behaviors, Neumark-Sztainer and her colleagues note, but this research has only looked at a single time point or has relied on past recall of eating habits.
To better understand the relationship, the researchers analyzed results of the Project EAT (Eating Among Teens) Study, in which 2,516 adolescent boys and girls completed a questionnaire in 1999 and 2004. The researchers hypothesized that study participants who reported eating more frequent family meals at the first assessment would be less likely to report disordered eating behavior five years later.
For girls, this was indeed the case; family meals reduced the likelihood of extreme weight control behaviors. But the link with binge eating, chronic dieting or unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as smoking, skipping meals, or fasting, wasn't statistically significant after the researchers adjusted for other factors that could account for the relationship.
However, the researchers found that boys who ate with their families more often were actually at increased risk of unhealthy weight control behaviors. They speculate that boys who eat regularly with their families may have certain characteristics that predispose them to unhealthy eating habits, or that eating with family somehow benefits girls more than it does boys.
Past research has identified a number of benefits of family meals, the researchers note; however, the way that some families interact at mealtimes can actually promote unhealthy eating habits, they add.
"Health care professionals have an important role to play in reinforcing the benefits of family meals, helping families set realistic goals for increasing family meal frequency given schedules of adolescents and their parents, exploring ways to enhance the atmosphere at family meals with adolescents, and discussing strategies for creating healthful and easy-to-prepare family meals," Neumark-Sztainer and her colleagues conclude.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22575582/
Monday, January 14, 2008
Another Attack on Natural Health Freedoms
Last week the FDA began yet another effort to eliminate the availability of natural alternatives to synthetic hormone replacement drugs. As you might expect, it appears that this response is fueled, at least in part, by complaints from Big Pharma. Once again we see the FDA favoring the interests of the corporate pharmaceutical community over the health and welfare of Americans, even thought there has been no proof that bio-identical hormone replacement therapy, when used correctly, is unsafe or harmful. In fact, if we listen to the testimonies of women about symptom relief, just the opposite seems to be true.
This is just the latest episode in our governments attempts to limit the choices we have at our disposal when seeking out natural products, including vitamins, minerals, and non-toxic alternatives to the dangerous drugs the FDA is so fond of. In the article posted below, one telling statement sums up the overall attitude of government officials and many in conventional medicine as well: The FDA encourages patients to use FDA-approved drugs whenever possible. It is clear they would prefer that we not think for ourselves or be proactive in any way about our own wellness, and conveniently forget that their track record in approving safe drugs is less than desirable. The question though is why should we trust their stamp of approval, especially when the trail of evidence is littered with greed, self-serving conflicts of interest, and people who have died from that misplaced trust?
FDA Cracks Down on Custom-Made Hormones
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 9, 2008; 9:17 PM
WASHINGTON -- Government health officials on Wednesday began cracking down on Internet sales of custom-mixed hormones for menopausal women, a market born when doctors deemed prescription estrogen therapy too risky for many.
But the Food and Drug Administration says these alternative hormone mixes are no safer, and told seven makers to stop selling them.
The FDA said it sent warning letters to the companies saying their claims about the "bio-identical hormone replacement therapy" or BHRT products are not supported by medical evidence and are considered false and misleading.
"We want to assure that Americans receive accurate information about the risks and benefits of drug therapies," Dr. Janet Woodcock, FDA's chief medical officer, said in a statement.
The agency said it is concerned that the claims for safety and effectiveness mislead patients, as well as doctors and other health care professionals.
Compounded drugs are not reviewed by the FDA for safety and effectiveness, and FDA encourages patients to use FDA-approved drugs whenever possible, the agency said.
The warning letters say the pharmacy operations violate federal law by making false and misleading claims about their hormone therapy drugs.
Following a 2002 study that found replacement hormones made by drug companies raised the risk of heart attacks, breast cancer and strokes, many women turned to the estrogen, progesterone and testosterone products sold by compounding pharmacies.
Medical researchers concluded in 2003 that hormone replacement pills should be taken only as a brief treatment to help women weather the worst symptoms of menopause.
The drug company Wyeth later complained to the FDA about the Internet sales of compounded products.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902098_pf.html
This is just the latest episode in our governments attempts to limit the choices we have at our disposal when seeking out natural products, including vitamins, minerals, and non-toxic alternatives to the dangerous drugs the FDA is so fond of. In the article posted below, one telling statement sums up the overall attitude of government officials and many in conventional medicine as well: The FDA encourages patients to use FDA-approved drugs whenever possible. It is clear they would prefer that we not think for ourselves or be proactive in any way about our own wellness, and conveniently forget that their track record in approving safe drugs is less than desirable. The question though is why should we trust their stamp of approval, especially when the trail of evidence is littered with greed, self-serving conflicts of interest, and people who have died from that misplaced trust?
FDA Cracks Down on Custom-Made Hormones
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 9, 2008; 9:17 PM
WASHINGTON -- Government health officials on Wednesday began cracking down on Internet sales of custom-mixed hormones for menopausal women, a market born when doctors deemed prescription estrogen therapy too risky for many.
But the Food and Drug Administration says these alternative hormone mixes are no safer, and told seven makers to stop selling them.
The FDA said it sent warning letters to the companies saying their claims about the "bio-identical hormone replacement therapy" or BHRT products are not supported by medical evidence and are considered false and misleading.
"We want to assure that Americans receive accurate information about the risks and benefits of drug therapies," Dr. Janet Woodcock, FDA's chief medical officer, said in a statement.
The agency said it is concerned that the claims for safety and effectiveness mislead patients, as well as doctors and other health care professionals.
Compounded drugs are not reviewed by the FDA for safety and effectiveness, and FDA encourages patients to use FDA-approved drugs whenever possible, the agency said.
The warning letters say the pharmacy operations violate federal law by making false and misleading claims about their hormone therapy drugs.
Following a 2002 study that found replacement hormones made by drug companies raised the risk of heart attacks, breast cancer and strokes, many women turned to the estrogen, progesterone and testosterone products sold by compounding pharmacies.
Medical researchers concluded in 2003 that hormone replacement pills should be taken only as a brief treatment to help women weather the worst symptoms of menopause.
The drug company Wyeth later complained to the FDA about the Internet sales of compounded products.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902098_pf.html
Friday, January 11, 2008
Big Pharma Competes for Weight-Loss Sweepstakes
What do pharmaceutical makers have in their bag of tricks for us this year? It appears the big money drug for 2008 is a weight-loss pill that promises people effortless diets that will allow them to lose weight quickly and eat anything they want along the way. All the big guns in the industry are jumping on this bandwagon, as the financial stakes are astronomically high and the competition is formidable.
Let me see if I have this straight. The FDA is working with the drug companies to produce medications that work completely contrary to the natural operations of the body, and helping to convince the American public that these new weight-loss products are safe and beneficial. These are the same bureaucrats that have criminalized the use of cherries and other natural substances by throwing the book at anyone who would dare to claim that such things as vitamins, minerals, fruits, and vegetables may help to prevent and reverse disease.
I encourage any and all of you to slim down using natural, sensible means such as increasing exercise, reducing calories, and eating a whole foods based diet. However, if people buy into the claims of the pharmaceutical companies and their public relations branch the FDA, they will expose themselves to unproven hazards and only worsen their health. I shudder to think of what putting such synthetic substances in the body will do. The sad thing is that fortunes are able to be made from such travesties as these types of drugs simply because most Americans are too lazy to sacrifice and make the necessary lifestyle changes required to lose weight and pursue wellness.
Drugmakers vie for magic weight-loss pill
Consumers willing to pay to shed pounds without dieting and exercise
The Associated Press
updated 1:53 p.m. CT, Thurs., Jan. 3, 2008
NEW YORK - The race for a magic weight-loss pill will heat up in 2008, with several major pharmaceutical companies expected to release key clinical trial data on drugs that appear to generate more weight loss than anything now on the market.
The diet industry is a multibillion-dollar enterprise, with companies such as WeightWatchers, Nutrisystem and Medifast kicking off the year by marketing diet and behavioral changes to consumers who have made losing weight their top New Year's resolution.
But the quest hasn't abated for a long-term weight-loss solution in the form of a pill capable of solving the nation's growing obesity epidemic.
In the U.S., Europe and Japan, the market for weight-loss drugs totaled about $600 million in 2005, and is expected to surge globally to roughly $2 billion in 2010, according to a recent report from drug industry market information provider Espicom Healthcare Intelligence.
Billions of dollars at stakeClearly people will pay whatever it takes to lose weight without restrictive diets and exercise, and the company that can make that happen could bring in billions.
"Doctors and patients tell us there is tremendous interest in a medicine that can provide safe, double-digit weight loss," said Daniel M. Bradbury, president and chief executive of San Diego-based Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc., which is heavily pursuing drugs for obesity.
About half a dozen drugs are currently available by prescription for weight loss and obesity including Roche Laboratories Inc.'s Xenical and Abbott Laboratories' Meridia. But weight loss with current drugs is rarely more than 10 percent, and these products can cause unpleasant side effects.
British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline had some success in 2007 with its over-the-counter weight-loss drug Alli, which like Xenical eliminates a portion of ingested fat before it can be stored in the body. Glaxo reported third-quarter sales of its over-the-counter drugs grew 24 percent to $827.5 million, boosted in part by the launch of Alli in the U.S.
But competition is rising, with at least 30 companies now targeting the market, particularly with combinations of drugs currently for sale. Pfizer Inc. and Bristol-Squibb recently teamed up to develop DGAT-1 inhibitors, or compounds that target the DGAT enzyme critical to the creation of triglycerides and fat storage. Other vying for a piece of the obesity drug market include Orexigen Therapeutics Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Merck & Co., Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc., Vivus Inc. and Athersys Inc.
Double-digit weight loss"Overall what we're starting to see is the use of combination products that could approach the levels of efficacy of some surgeries, and that's unprecedented," said Lazard Capital Markets analyst Matthew Osborne in an interview. "If you're seeing greater than 15 to 20 percent weight loss, that is a significant benefit over the existing class of drugs, which show around 5 percent weight loss and short-lived results."
San Diego-based Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc. has an obesity product, Lorcaserin, already in late-stage trials. In March, the company is expected to report critical safety results. The drug, which hasn't shown safety issues so far, has been under intense scrutiny by analysts who are concerned about its marketing viability, since Lorcaserin is said to work similarly to now discontinued Fen-Phen, which caused heart problems.
Meanwhile, Amylin has seen success with its diabetes drug Byetta, after patients reported weight loss as a welcomed side effect, prompting doctors to prescribe it off-label to overweight patients. Amylin now is pursuing another diabetes drug, Symlin (pramlintide), for obesity, in combination with other hormones and already available obesity drugs.
The company expects to complete a midstage study of pramlintide plus leptin in 2008.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22490513/
Let me see if I have this straight. The FDA is working with the drug companies to produce medications that work completely contrary to the natural operations of the body, and helping to convince the American public that these new weight-loss products are safe and beneficial. These are the same bureaucrats that have criminalized the use of cherries and other natural substances by throwing the book at anyone who would dare to claim that such things as vitamins, minerals, fruits, and vegetables may help to prevent and reverse disease.
I encourage any and all of you to slim down using natural, sensible means such as increasing exercise, reducing calories, and eating a whole foods based diet. However, if people buy into the claims of the pharmaceutical companies and their public relations branch the FDA, they will expose themselves to unproven hazards and only worsen their health. I shudder to think of what putting such synthetic substances in the body will do. The sad thing is that fortunes are able to be made from such travesties as these types of drugs simply because most Americans are too lazy to sacrifice and make the necessary lifestyle changes required to lose weight and pursue wellness.
Drugmakers vie for magic weight-loss pill
Consumers willing to pay to shed pounds without dieting and exercise
The Associated Press
updated 1:53 p.m. CT, Thurs., Jan. 3, 2008
NEW YORK - The race for a magic weight-loss pill will heat up in 2008, with several major pharmaceutical companies expected to release key clinical trial data on drugs that appear to generate more weight loss than anything now on the market.
The diet industry is a multibillion-dollar enterprise, with companies such as WeightWatchers, Nutrisystem and Medifast kicking off the year by marketing diet and behavioral changes to consumers who have made losing weight their top New Year's resolution.
But the quest hasn't abated for a long-term weight-loss solution in the form of a pill capable of solving the nation's growing obesity epidemic.
In the U.S., Europe and Japan, the market for weight-loss drugs totaled about $600 million in 2005, and is expected to surge globally to roughly $2 billion in 2010, according to a recent report from drug industry market information provider Espicom Healthcare Intelligence.
Billions of dollars at stakeClearly people will pay whatever it takes to lose weight without restrictive diets and exercise, and the company that can make that happen could bring in billions.
"Doctors and patients tell us there is tremendous interest in a medicine that can provide safe, double-digit weight loss," said Daniel M. Bradbury, president and chief executive of San Diego-based Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc., which is heavily pursuing drugs for obesity.
About half a dozen drugs are currently available by prescription for weight loss and obesity including Roche Laboratories Inc.'s Xenical and Abbott Laboratories' Meridia. But weight loss with current drugs is rarely more than 10 percent, and these products can cause unpleasant side effects.
British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline had some success in 2007 with its over-the-counter weight-loss drug Alli, which like Xenical eliminates a portion of ingested fat before it can be stored in the body. Glaxo reported third-quarter sales of its over-the-counter drugs grew 24 percent to $827.5 million, boosted in part by the launch of Alli in the U.S.
But competition is rising, with at least 30 companies now targeting the market, particularly with combinations of drugs currently for sale. Pfizer Inc. and Bristol-Squibb recently teamed up to develop DGAT-1 inhibitors, or compounds that target the DGAT enzyme critical to the creation of triglycerides and fat storage. Other vying for a piece of the obesity drug market include Orexigen Therapeutics Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Merck & Co., Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc., Vivus Inc. and Athersys Inc.
Double-digit weight loss"Overall what we're starting to see is the use of combination products that could approach the levels of efficacy of some surgeries, and that's unprecedented," said Lazard Capital Markets analyst Matthew Osborne in an interview. "If you're seeing greater than 15 to 20 percent weight loss, that is a significant benefit over the existing class of drugs, which show around 5 percent weight loss and short-lived results."
San Diego-based Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc. has an obesity product, Lorcaserin, already in late-stage trials. In March, the company is expected to report critical safety results. The drug, which hasn't shown safety issues so far, has been under intense scrutiny by analysts who are concerned about its marketing viability, since Lorcaserin is said to work similarly to now discontinued Fen-Phen, which caused heart problems.
Meanwhile, Amylin has seen success with its diabetes drug Byetta, after patients reported weight loss as a welcomed side effect, prompting doctors to prescribe it off-label to overweight patients. Amylin now is pursuing another diabetes drug, Symlin (pramlintide), for obesity, in combination with other hormones and already available obesity drugs.
The company expects to complete a midstage study of pramlintide plus leptin in 2008.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22490513/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
