The original version of this blog is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Recipes, Gun Watch, Australian Politics, Tongue Tied, Immigration Watch and Socialized Medicine. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. The archives for this site are here or here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing)


A major cause of increasing obesity is certainly the campaign against it -- as dieting usually makes people FATTER. If there were any sincerity to the obesity warriors, they would ban all diet advertising and otherwise shut up about it. Re-authorizing now-banned school playground activities and school outings would help too. But it is so much easier to blame obesity on the evil "multinationals" than it is to blame it on your own restrictions on the natural activities of kids

NOTE: "No trial has ever demonstrated benefits from reducing dietary saturated fat".

****************************************************************************************



31 August, 2007

THE BIG BOWEL CANCER RETHINK

The current guidance is that those wonderful folates also protect against bowel cancer. So other food chemicals with a similar action to folate should be protective too -- right? Wrong! The study of choline below associated it with with INCREASED bowel polyps.

And choline is mainly found in red meat, eggs, dairy products etc. So should we all become vegetarians?

There are heaps of things that could be said about this but the reaction of the medical researchers and commentators is sure amusing. The authors themselves draw the sort of conclusion that should be drawn in EVERY epidemiological study. They conclude that the effect they found "could represent effects of other components in the foods from which choline was derived". Correlation is not causation, in other words.

The editors of the journal also showed unusual humility: "Clearly, one-carbon metabolism and its role in [cancer development] is more complicated than originally anticipated, and our understanding of the underlying mechanisms is probably incomplete. More research, and caution in developing public health policy and guidance, is warranted"

More "caution in developing public health policy" from epidemiological findings? Long overdue. There should be more of it.

Another VERY interesting comment from them: "Other reasonable hypotheses about one-carbon metabolism and colorectal carcinogenesis, based on our current understanding of the biochemistry and underlying mechanisms, have also not been proven correct. In a recently published placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among 1021 men and women with a recent history of colorectal adenoma, supplemental folic acid at 1 mg/d for up to 6 years did not reduce the incidence of subsequent colorectal adenomas and might have increased it.

WHOA! That folate that everybody gets compulsorily added to their bread did no good and seems to have done harm?? And do we see a double blind controlled study contradicting epidemiological inferences?? Who would have believed it!

They go on to admit that two animal studies have shown that folate INCREASES cancer. Aren't you glad that your government is dosing you up with the stuff and giving you no say in the matter?

OK. I will not gloat any further. I am reluctant to let the wiseheads off the hook but I don't actually think that the particular study below tells us anything much at all. Its main value has been to squeeze out from the know-alls the long overdue admissions and cautions about folate noted above. It's certainly a pity that such admissions are so infrequent, however.

What they all seem to be overlooking is that the study is about REPORTED food intake. And we know how fraught that can be. The nurses who were surveyed would all be acutely aware that eating lots of meat, dairy and eggs is NAUGHTY, according to the current wisdom. So many would have understated what they ate in that department. So what the study really shows is that REBELLIOUS or especially honest people get more polyps. It probably had nothing to do with their choline intake at all.

So where do we go from there? Who is it who would disregard official dietary advice and eat what they like? Easy: Working class people. Nurses come from all social backgrounds and there would be plenty who would happily wrap themselves around a Big Mac with no guilt at all. And, as we repeatedly find, the workers have more health problems generally for all sorts of reasons, including not only such things as a riskier lifestyle but genetic differences as well. So all we have at the end of this study is another demonstration of that old truth: The workers have poorer health in all sorts of ways.

But the addition of folate to our bread is more and more looking like an iatrogenic disaster to come. I think I should note that I have previously reported that the addition of folate to bread seems to have caused an upsurge in bowel cancer.

Dietary Choline and Betaine and the Risk of Distal Colorectal Adenoma in Women

By Eunyoung Cho et al.

Abstract

Background: Choline and betaine are involved in methyl-group metabolism as methyl-group donors; thus, like folate, another methyl-group donor, they may be associated with a reduced risk of colorectal adenomas. No epidemiologic study has examined the association of intake of these nutrients and colorectal adenoma risk.

Methods: We investigated the relationship between intakes of choline and betaine and risk of colorectal adenoma in US women enrolled in the Nurses' Health Study. Dietary intake was measured by food-frequency questionnaires, and individual intakes of choline and betaine were calculated by multiplying the frequency of consumption of each food item by its choline and betaine content and summing the nutrient contributions of all foods. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (as approximations for relative risks) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of colorectal adenoma. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results: Among 39246 women who were initially free of cancer or polyps and who had at least one endoscopy from 1984 through 2002, 2408 adenoma cases were documented. Increasing choline intake was associated with an elevated risk of colorectal adenoma; the multivariable relative risks (95% CIs) for increasing quintiles of intake, relative to the lowest quintile, were 1.03 (0.90 to 1.18), 1.01 (0.88 to 1.16), 1.23 (1.07 to 1.41), and 1.45 (1.27 to 1.67; Ptrend less than .001). Betaine intake had a nonlinear inverse association with colorectal adenoma; the multivariable relative risks (95% CIs) for increasing quintiles of intake were 0.94 (0.83 to 1.07), 0.85 (0.75 to 0.97), 0.86 (0.75 to 0.98), and 0.90 (95% CI = 0.78 to 1.04; Ptrend = .09). Among individual sources of choline, choline from phosphatidylcholine and from sphingomyelin were each positively related to adenoma risk.

Conclusions: Our findings do not support an inverse association between choline intake and risk of colorectal adenoma. The positive association between choline intake and colorectal adenoma that we observed could represent effects of other components in the foods from which choline was derived and should be investigated further.

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2007 99(16):1224-1231

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



30 August, 2007

Hanoi Jane was wrong about aerobics too

Remember those Jane Fonda workout videos in the 1980s? Turns out high-impact aerobics was the worst thing people could do to their knees, CBS News reported:

Sheila Wares remembers the high impact aerobics well - and still keeps a library of titles under her television, although they've all been banned from her VCR thanks to a bad knee. "It's amazing when you think about your knee and how much it affects so much of everything when it comes to exercise, even with yoga you know," she told The Early Show medical contributor Dr. Emily Senay. "Try and do a downward dog on a knee that won't cooperate."

According to Wares' doctor, Jennifer Solomon, she isn't alone. Many baby boomers are experiencing this problem. She sees many patients with similar over-use injures at New York's Hospital for Special Surgery. "These are the people who did the aerobics classes five or six days a week, the high impact aerobics, the step aerobics with three tiered steps," said Dr. Solomon, a physiatrist. "These are the people who thought they were doing the right thing and following the trend of the '80s."

Dr. Solomon says the repetitive nature of high impact aerobics has had an adverse affect on many of the once devoted Fonda fans like Wares. "They have knee problems," she said. "They all have early arthritis, or have terrible arthritis where they can't go up and down stairs."

Ah, those workout videos. They were empowering women. They were going to make everyone live longer and healthier. It turns out this was the wrong way to exercise. The scientific consensus of a quarter-century ago turned into the arthritic nightmare of today.

Dr. Solomon said these high impact exercise techniques are basically defunct because we now know how to exercise smarter. "You go into any health club and take a look at their schedule you'll see that step aerobics is no longer there. High impact activity is no longer there," she said. "People are now into core stability and power workouts, which is less stressful on the joints."

Today the only exercise Wares gets are the daily walks with her dog Maxine, which is far from the high level of activity she used to enjoy. "You were under the impression that you were doing the right thing and keeping yourself healthy," she said, "but it turns out to be a cruel irony in the long run, and did the opposite of what you were striving for."

Let's see, wrong on Vietnam. Wrong on Jonestown. Wrong on high-impact aerobics.

Source




Meth abuse may speed brain degeneration

YOUNG people who abuse methamphetamines may put themselves at risk of parkinson-like movement disorders later in life, a new animal study suggests. In experiments with mice, scientists found that animals deficient in a protein called glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) were especially vulnerable to long-term movement problems after being exposed to the neurotoxic effects of a methamphetamine "binge".

GDNF is needed for the proper functioning of dopamine, a brain chemical involved in regulating movement. Both GDNF and dopamine are depleted in the brains of people with Parkinson's disease.

Because methamphetamines can damage dopamine-producing cells in the brain, researchers have speculated that young meth users may be at elevated risk of parkinson-like movement disorders as they age. The new findings, reported in The Journal of Neuroscience, support that theory. "The study in mice tells us that people who make less GDNF protein may be more vulnerable to the motor deficits caused by methamphetamine and that those effects may not be revealed until we get older," explained principal author Dr Jacqueline McGinty, a professor in the department of neurosciences at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.

For their study, Dr McGinty and her colleagues used both normal mice and mice missing one of their genes for GDNF. Two weeks after being exposed to a meth binge, the animals tended to show dopamine depletion and other signs of brain damage, with the GDNF-deficient mice being especially vulnerable. Similarly, these mice were more likely to have movement impairments when they were 12 months old - old age for rodents.

No one knows what percentage of the population has an abnormal GDNF gene, Dr McGinty said, but individuals certainly vary in how much GDNF protein their genes make. It's possible, she and her colleagues said, that young people with naturally lower levels of the protein may be susceptible to long-term brain damage and Parkinson-like symptoms at an older age. "Motor deficits during aging may be accelerated if young adults are exposed to an environmental toxin like methamphetamine," Dr McGinty said.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



29 August, 2007

STATINS FOR ALZHEIMERS?

Whether there were any double-blind procedures is unclear. In any case it appears to be the usual epidemiological nonsense of assuming causation from correlation. Once again that wicked social class is ignored, for instance. Poor people are much less compliant with drug regimes (particularly nasty ones like statins) and may seek medical help less so may be given less statins -- and poor people have worse health generally (and some might have more scrambled brains to begin with) so might have more brain tangles. So is this just documenting another correlate of poverty? See also more cautions here. Journal abstract follows media report below

Taking statins may help to prevent Alzheimer's disease, a study has directly suggested for the first time. Researchers in the US claim to have uncovered clear evidence that the cholesterol-lowering drugs - taken daily by about three million people in Britain - could ward off the illness. The large-scale study, conducted at Boston University from 2002, found that the drugs may cut the risk of getting Alzheimer's by as much as 79 per cent, even in people thought to be genetically susceptible to the disease. The lead author, Gail Li, said the study was the first to compare the brains of people who had received statins with those who had not.

Previous research has indicated that Alzheimer's may be caused by poor blood flow and vascular changes in the brain, which statins may help to prevent. Dr Li, from the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, and her colleagues examined the brains of 110 Americans who had died aged between 65 and 79, and had donated their organs for research.

The two changes in the brain considered the hallmarks of Alzheimer's are known as brain "plaques" and "tangles". These are protein deposits that appear to spread in the brain, although the cause of Alzheimer's is not yet fully understood. The researchers found significantly fewer tangles in the brains of people who had taken statins than those who had not, even allowing for variables such as age, gender and past health.

Eric Larson, a co-author of the study, said: "These results are exciting, novel and have important implications for prevention strategies." He said further studies were needed to confirm the findings but praised the researchers' reliance on automated records and postmortem examinations of people with and without dementia. Dr Li said: "Statins are probably more likely to help prevent the disease in certain kinds of people than others. Some day we may be able to know more precisely which individuals will benefit from which types of statins."

In June, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published draft guidance suggesting millions of people should be assessed to find out how many more would benefit from statins, which are estimated to prevent up to 7,000 deaths a year from heart attacks and strokes. Information collected routinely by GPs should be used to identify those most at risk of developing cardio-vascular disease, it said. Adults who have a 20 per cent or greater risk of developing heart disease over the next decade should be offered statins, it added. Such a move would double the number of people prescribed the drug to about six million. Final guidance from NICE is expected in January.

Other studies suggest a downside to statins. They are known to interact with other drugs and can have side-effects, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea and nausea. In July researchers in Massachusetts found that people who took statins had a slightly increased risk of cancer. Statins reduce levels of low-density lipoprotein, an enzyme involved in the transportation of "bad" cholesterol.

There are currently 700,000 people with dementia in Britain, of whom about two thirds have Alzheimer's.

Source

Statin therapy is associated with reduced neuropathologic changes of Alzheimer disease

By G. Li et al.

Background: Treatment with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme-A reductase inhibitors ("statins") has been associated in some epidemiologic studies with reduced risk of Alzheimer disease (AD). However, direct evidence of statin effects on neuropathologic markers of AD is lacking. We investigated whether antecedent statin exposure is associated with neuritic plaque (NP) or neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) burden in a population-based sample of human subjects.

Methods: Brain autopsies were performed on 110 subjects, ages 65 to 79 years, who were cognitively normal at enrollment into the Adult Changes in Thought Study. Neuropathologic findings were compared between statin users with ~ prescriptions of ~ 15 pills of simvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, or atorvastatin vs nonusers, based on pharmacy dispensing records.

Results: After controlling for age at death, gender, cognitive function at study entry, brain weight, and presence of cerebral microvascular lesions, the odds ratio (OR) for each unit increase in Braak NFT stage in statin users vs nonusers was 0.44 (95% CI: 0.20 to 0.95). The OR for each unit increase in Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) staging of NPs did not deviate significantly from unity (OR 0.69; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.52). However, the risk for typical AD pathology (Braak stage ~ IV and CERAD rating ~moderate) was reduced in statin users (OR 0.20; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.86).

Conclusions: These findings demonstrate an association between antecedent statin use and neurofibrillary tangle burden at autopsy. Additional study is needed to examine whether statin use may be causally related to decreased development of Alzheimer disease-related neuropathologic changes.

NEUROLOGY 2007;69:878-885




Autism progress

Within the next year a new study is expected to identify many of the genes that underlie autism for the first time. At the same time, two new theories are challenging established thinking about autism genetics in ways that could ultimately transform diagnosis and treatment. "The medics tell me we are at a tipping point," said Dame Stephanie Shirley, the millionaire computer entrepreneur and philanthropist, who is the chairman of the research charity Autism Speaks and the mother of an autistic son.

That genetics are the chief cause of autism has been known for three decades. It was in 1977 that Professor Michael Rutter, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, published a twin study that transformed the understanding of its origins. Twin studies are one of the mainstays of genetics. Because identical twins share all of their genes while fraternal twins share only half, and both share broadly similar environments, comparisons can tease out the relative contributions of nature and nurture. Professor Rutter found that if an identical twin was autistic, it was highly likely that the other twin was autistic too. Fraternal twins, however, were no more likely to share the diagnosis than ordinary siblings. This made it certain that genes played a large role and it is now thought that autism is among the most heritable of all psychiatric disorders. Genetics account for most of the variance and, although environmental factors matter too, they are less important.

The condition, however, has remained a genetic paradox. For all the certainty that genes are heavily involved, it has proved impossible to discover which ones are guilty. In the 30 years since Professor Rutter's study, hundreds of genetic mutations that affect health have been found. Most are single-gene disorders, where inheriting a rogue gene invariably means developing a disease such as Huntington's, which affects the central nervous system. Most of the others have involved very high risks: women with abnormal variants of the BRCA1 gene, for example, have an 80 per cent risk of developing breast cancer.

Autism does not work like that: the search for genes with such large effects has failed. It might be influenced by dozens of genes, each of which raises the risk by amounts too small to have been detected. Or it could be the result of spontaneous mutations instead of more easily tracked defects that are passed from generation to generation. Science does not yet know. [Or it could be that there is no such thing -- merly a number of different disorders with one ort two common symptoms]

The scientific success story of 2007 has been the coming of age of a new method of gene-hunting that can find the sort of genes with weak effects that are thought to influence autism. These genome-wide association studies compare the DNA of thousands of people who have a disease with healthy controls, using tools called "gene chips" to screen the entire human genome for hundreds of thousands of tiny genetic variations that differ between the two groups. In recent months, the technique has revealed scores of genes that subtly influence common conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, breast cancer and multiple sclerosis, often raising the risk by as little as 10 per cent.

Autism is the next target. The Autism Genome Project (AGP), an international consortium that studies more than 1,000 families with at least two autistic members, is about to apply the tool to its database. "We have been waiting ten years for the technology to do this," said Anthony Monaco, of the University of Oxford, one of the project's leaders. "We were never likely to understand until we were able to screen very large numbers. The probability has always been that autism is highly genetic, but highly heterogeneous - that lots of different genes are involved. We now have a great chance of picking them up."

The AGP's genome-wide association study is a classic example of win-win science. Even if it draws a blank, it will still shed new light on the genetic origins of the condition. No results would mean one of two things. It could be that the effects of the genes responsible are even tinier than suspected and bigger samples are needed. Or it could be that a radical new theory of autism genetics is correct.

Professor Michael Wigler, of Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory in New York state, believes that autism might be the result of single genes with big effects after all. These mutations, however, are not quite the same as the inherited ones that cause diseases such as Huntington's. According to his model, most cases of autism are caused by random, spontaneous mutations in the sperm or eggs of parents that are passed on to individual children. Most of these then develop the condition but some, particularly girls, do not. They are somehow resistant and, although they carry a potentially harmful mutation, they do not suffer its consequences.

This may explain why autism is an overwhelmingly male disorder, four times more common among boys than girls. It fits with data showing that the children of older parents are at higher risk: sporadic mutations of this sort increase with age. It also points towards an intriguing explanation for the existence of high-risk families with more than one autistic child. Professor Wigler's research suggests that in these families, a mutation first occurred in one of the parents, usually the mother. While she was immune, probably because of her gender, her sons were not so lucky: half of them would be autistic, depending on whether they inherited the rogue gene. "Sporadic autism is the more common form of the disease and even the inherited form might derive from a mutation that occurred in a parent or grandparent," the professor said.

If mutations of this sort are responsible, they would not show up in the AGP: they are new and unique to individuals and families, so will not surface from large comparisons of DNA. "That is one of the exciting things about our work," Professor Monaco said. "If we find genes, it is interesting and if we don't find genes, it is interesting too."

What Professor Wigler's theory does not account for is another aspect of new thinking about autism: that it may not be a single disorder. For autism to be diagnosed, children must meet three criteria: they must show social impairment, communication difficulties and nonsocial problems such as repetitive and restricted behaviour. Yet there is an emerging consensus that these traits do not always go together and that there are people who meet the criteria for one or two characteristics but who do not receive any diagnosis. Autism, in short, may be the confluence of three separate developmental conditions. Only when they occur together is the result devastating.

Research by Angelica Ronald, Francesca Happe and Robert Plomin, of the Institute of Psychiatry, has suggested that each of these three problems is influenced by different sets of genes. The twin studies have shown that while each trait is highly heritable, they do not often overlap. "The label autism is something that was applied to a set of behaviours that were first described in the 1940s," said Dr Ronald, who is funded by Autism Speaks. "It's not necessarily a label for a clear biological entity and in research it may be a misnomer to assume it's one thing."

This has important implications for gene-hunting. It could be that genes have not been found because scientists have been treating autism as a whole. If different genes affect the communication and social elements of the disorder, finding them might involve looking at people who are not autistic, but who have mild versions of one of the problems. "We need to tackle whether we should look at autism as a single phenomenon, or whether it would be better to look, for example, just at autistic social problems," Dr Ronald said. Such an approach would also be valuable by shedding immediate light on what any genes that are found actually do.

Dr Ronald added: "If we split up the symptoms, we can know that these genes are going to be involved in social problems and those ones in nonsocial problems. That is obviously going to be valuable when we look towards diagnosis and treatment." An understanding of which genes are involved in which parts of autism should help doctors to spot the condition earlier. It would also prepare parents for the way their child is likely to develop and it could help with the design of therapies.

Dame Stephanie is excited by the pace of change. "It is quite possible that in five to ten years, we will have a real understanding of this disorder," she said. "That's a timescale that means today's children may be helped."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



28 August, 2007

GETTING SLIMMER? YOU MAY BE DEMENTED

This is such fun that I am going to let it stand without comment:

Incident dementia in women is preceded by weight loss by at least a decade

D. S. Knopman et al.

Background: Although several studies reported weight loss preceding the onset of dementia, other studies suggested that obesity in midlife or even later in life may be a risk factor for dementia.

Methods: The authors used the records-linkage system of the Rochester Epidemiology Project to ascertain incident cases of dementia in Rochester, MN, for the 5-year period 1990 to 1994. The authors defined dementia using the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV). Each case was individually matched by age (~1 year) and sex to a person drawn randomly from the same population, and free from dementia in the index year (year of onset of dementia in the matched case). Weights were abstracted from the medical records in the system.

Results: There were no differences in weight between cases and controls 21 to 30 years prior to the onset of dementia. However, women with dementia had lower weight than controls starting at 11 to 20 years prior to the index year, and the difference increased over time through the index year. We found a trend of increasing risk of dementia with decreasing weight in women both at the index year (test for linear trend; p < 0.001) and 9 to 10 years before the index year (test for linear trend; p = 0.001).

Conclusions: Even accounting for delays in diagnosis, weight loss precedes the diagnosis of dementia in women but not in men by several years. This loss may relate to predementia apathy, loss of initiative, and reduced olfactory function.

NEUROLOGY 2007;69:739-746




Crazy hours for doctors are dangerous

Although most people are aware of their impaired function after going without one or two nights of sleep, the most common form of "sleep loss" is shortening of sleep hours. Everyone encounters some nights of reduced sleep length but when this persists and there is no or little recovery sleep, problems occur. Recent research has highlighted that shortening sleep to four or even six hours per night over a two-week period is associated with increased lapses in attention due to "microsleeps". More worrying is that individuals who have restricted sleep seem to have an inability to monitor their own deterioration in performance, resulting in overconfidence in their ability to undertake tasks. So a sleep-restricted person may behave in the same way as a person who has had too much alcohol to drink, both underestimating their impairment and thinking they are fit to drive a car or some other responsible task, like complicated medical surgery.

Indeed, the hospital workplace is one setting where the risk of sleep loss has increasingly attracted attention from medical researchers. Professor Charles Czeisler and his team from Harvard University have recently published a series of landmark papers in The New England Journal of Medicine and other leading medical journals. These papers have provided direct evidence that working extended shifts in the hospital intensive care unit results in more errors, especially medication orders. Shorter split shifts with time allowed for napping resulted in fewer errors. In a nationwide US survey of 2737 interns, the Harvard group found extended shifts were linked to a greater rate of needlestick injuries and near-miss or actual driving accidents.

How does this relate to the hospital workplace in Australia? Although, in general, work-hour regimes are kinder here than in US hospitals, 15 per cent of all doctors in Australia report working more than 80 hours per week. Problems arise in rural areas or in specialised settings where individuals may be on call all week. We know that even being on call without being called in can impair sleep and often little is done to acutely monitor on-call specialist trainee work hours. These trainees are few in number and in high demand. Even more worrying is who monitors the sleep-wake schedules of their bosses. Watching a senior hospital specialist fall asleep at a lunchtime meeting often provokes a laugh but perhaps ignores the underlying problem. No patient would consent to surgery if they noticed their doctor's breath smelt of alcohol. However, how many patients ask their surgeon how much sleep they've had lately?

Hospitals are often imbued with a cultural mix of altruism, machismo and denial. Many of us who have worked in hospitals have bored our friends and family with tales of stoical never-ending shifts and battling to stay awake in a sleepy fog. The reality is that we can't kid ourselves that this is safe and any hospital administration that tolerates this situation is at fault. The current shortage of doctors in the health system has resulted in "moonlighting", with some doctors working for two or sometimes three employers. At the moment hospitals in Australia are probably more concerned where their doctors left their last SIM card but they should also be asking where else do you work, how many hours do you work and how much sleep do you get?

Health administrators may be held criminally liable for their sleepy doctors in the same way that a transport company may be held criminally liable for fall-asleep accidents caused by its drivers. The first step to prevent this is to recognise the risk, use scientifically proven strategies to deal with the problem and finally to recognise that the best treatment is to sleep like a dog.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



27 August, 2007

Eating healthy fruit, vegetables won't stop cancer

This has been known for years (e.g here). It's just that people do not want to believe it. It gives people a sense of power to think that what they put in their mouth matters. The researchers below are not bold enough to tell the whole truth about "obesity", though -- that it is only the grossly obese who are at slightly higher risk

FRUIT and vegetables provide no protection against cancer, according to latest Australian research that has shocked nutritionists. In a discovery that turns conventional advice on its head, experts have admitted there is "zero evidence'' that eating fruit and vegetables can help people avoid a disease that kills nearly 40,000 Australians every year.

Research presented for the first time at last week's CSIRO Prospects for Cancer Prevention Symposium shows that what people eat is far less important in cancer prevention than previously believed. Instead, the three prime risk factors driving up Australian cancer rates have been identified as obesity, drinking too much alcohol and smoking. Staying within a healthy body weight range was found to be more important than following particular nutritional guidelines. This means a slim person who doesn't eat enough fruit and vegetables would probably have a lower risk of developing cancer than someone who is overweight but eats the recommended daily amount of fruit and vegetables.

The findings emerged from the Cancer Council's Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study, an ongoing research project involving 42,000 Australians who have been monitored since 1990. Revealed exclusively to The Sunday Telegraph, they challenge widespread belief in the power of juices and vegetable-based ``anti-cancer'' diets to avoid or fight various types of the disease.

Dr Peter Clifton, director of the CSIRO's Nutrition Clinic, told The Sunday Telegraph there was ``zero evidence'' that eating fruit and vegetables could protect against cancer. Heart disease is Australia's biggest killer, so fruit and vegetables are still regarded as important in maintaining health. Professor Dallas English, of the Cancer Council of Victoria, told the symposium that despite decades of research, there was no convincing evidence on how Australians could modify their diet to reduce the risk of cancer. ``The most important thing about diet is limiting energy (kilojoule) intake so people don't become overweight or obese, because this has emerged as a risk factor for a number of cancers, including breast, prostate, bowel and endometrial (uterus),'' he said. The link between eating red meat and bowel cancer was ``weak'' and the Cancer Council supported guidelines advising people to eat red meat three or four times a week, Professor English said. His advice comes after Health Minister Tony Abbott last week backed a report, funded by Meat & Livestock Australia, on the dietary role of red meat.

Surprisingly, fibre was deemed to have no significant benefit in avoiding bowel cancer _ although calcium was associated with a 20 per cent reduced risk. Likewise, a high intake of fat, considered a prime culprit since the 1970s, was found to have only a ``modest'' link to breast cancer. Smoking caused one in five cancer deaths, while regularly drinking too much alcohol boosted the risk of several cancers including breast and bowel, Professor English said.

He and Dr Clifton acknowledged that eating fruit and vegetables might help people avoid obesity, as they were lower in kilojoules than other foods. ``The risk of every type of cancer is increased by obesity,'' Dr Clifton added. Both experts predict a surge in cancer as a result of Australia's obesity epidemic, but say exercise can play a vital role in cutting cancer rates, potentially halving the risk of some cancers.

Source




The "Mindfit" claim

Don't line the pockets of the lady below until an independently replicated double-blind evaluation of it emerges in the journals. It's theoretically possible that it is helpful but my guess would be that the effects in adults are marginal and temporary

Baroness Susan Greenfield, the neuroscientist, is to launch an exercise programme for the brain that she claims is proven to reverse the mental decline associated with ageing. Greenfield, who is also director of the Royal Institution, maintains that Britain's baby-boomers are discovering that concentrating on physical fitness is no longer sufficient preparation for old age. "What concerns me is preserving the brain too," she said. "There is now good scientific evidence to show that exercising the brain can slow, delay and protect against age-related decline."

Greenfield will launch MindFit, a PC-based software program, at the House of Lords next month, for the "worried but well" - people in their middle years who are healthy and want to stay that way. Created by researchers in Israel and already on sale in America, it offers users inter-active puzzles and tasks that are claimed to stimulate the brain just as using a gym exercises the body's muscles. "There is evidence that such stimulation prompts brain cells to start branching out and form new connections with other cells," said Greenfield.

The baroness's decision to lend her name to MindFit and to take a significant stake in Mind-Weavers, the company promoting it, could raise eyebrows among fellow scientists. Her high profile in the media has rankled with some and she was twice snubbed by the Royal Society.

The idea that the performance of the brain can be improved by exercises or potions has a long and controversial history. There have also been scientific battles over the claims made for dietary supplements, especially fish oils, and so-called smart drugs. The latter have been shown to cause a short-term increase in IQ but the long-term secondary effects are unknown.

Greenfield's decision to promote MindFit, which will retail for around 70 pounds, follows the release of new scientific research apparently showing clear benefits. In the latest research, conducted at the Sourasky Medical Centre at Tel Aviv University in Israel, 121 volunteers aged over 50 were asked to spend 30 minutes, three times a week, on the computer, over a period of two years. Half were assigned to use MindFit and the other half played sophisticated computer games. The results, released at a recent academic conference and due for formal publication shortly, showed that while all the volunteers benefited from using computer games, the MindFit users "experienced significantly greater improvement in short-term memory, visuo-spatial learning and focused attention".

Greenfield, who also runs an Oxford University laboratory researching the causes of degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's, found out about MindFit through her extensive links with Israel and decided to bring it to Britain. "It is clear that there is no drug on the horizon to treat Alzheimer's or age-related mental decline so I have long been interested in seeing whether stimulating the brain might offer a way of Greenfield is launching a program designed in Israel. Kidman, left, is the new face of Nintendo, which already sells Brain Training games slowing down these changes," she said.

Other researchers are also convinced that people can rejuvenate their brain with exercise. Ryuta Kawashima, professor of neuroscience at Tohoku University in Japan, spent 15 years investigating how mental exertion helps the brain grow. His work became the basis of the Brain Training and More Brain Training computer games, produced by Nintendo, the console manufacturer. Nicole Kidman, the actress, fronts its latest British advertising campaign. Nintendo itself makes no formal scientific claims for the programs but Kawashima said in a recent book: "My brain exercises increase the delivery of oxygen, blood and various amino acids to the prefrontal cortex. The result is more neurons and neural connections, which are characteristics of a healthy brain."

Other researchers accept such ideas in principle but warn that any system claiming to boost mental ability must prove itself in clinical trials.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



26 August, 2007

WHY DO HEART ATTACKS KILL MORE BLACKS?

It's racism! would be the Sharpton/Jackson explanation. Not really, says the study below. It turns out that blacks are only a tiny bit nore likely to have heart attacks than are whites of the same age but that blacks are much less likely to survive after the attack. "Demographic factors" (coming from rough areas where cocaine use is more prevalent?) and "prior functional status" (general poor health due to lifestyle?) were among the reasons why but the main reason is that black heart attacks are different to start with: "lower prevalence of ventricular fibrillation as the initial cardiac rhythm". Sadly for Sharpton/Jackson, inferior medical attention was not a factor

Explaining Racial Disparities in Incidence of and Survival from Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

By: S Galea et al.

Abstract

A prospective observational study of 4,653 consecutive cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) occurring in New York City from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2003, was used to assess racial/ethnic differences in the incidence of OOHCA and 30-day survival after hospital discharge among OOHCA patients. The age-adjusted incidence of OOHCA per 10,000 adults was higher among Blacks than among persons in other racial/ethnic groups, and age-adjusted survival from OOHCA was higher among Whites compared with other groups.

In analyses restricted to 3,891 patients for whom complete data on all variables were available, the age-adjusted relative odds of survival from OOHCA among Blacks were 0.4 (95% confidence interval: 0.2, 0.7) as compared with Whites. A full multivariable model accounting for demographic factors, prior functional status, initial cardiac rhythm, and characteristics of the OOHCA event explained approximately 41 percent of the lower age-adjusted survival among Blacks. The lower prevalence of ventricular fibrillation as the initial cardiac rhythm among Blacks relative to Whites was the primary contributor. A combination of factors probably accounts for racial/ethnic disparities in OOHCA survival. Previously hypothesized factors such as delays in emergency medical service response or differences in the likelihood of receipt of cardiopulmonary resuscitation did not appear to be substantial contributors to these racial/ethnic disparities.

American Journal of Epidemiology 2007 166(5):534-543




Romancing Opiates

Post below lifted from Noodlefood. See the original for links

I just began reading Theodore Dalrymple's recent book Romancing Opiates. So far, it's excellent. Most surprising is the fact that -- contrary to all popular belief, fictional portrayals, and media reports -- the symptoms of physical withdrawal from heroin are extremely mild. The addict is not in any danger of dying whatsoever, as with serious alcohol withdrawal. He's not even in any real physical distress.

The distress that addicts do feel is based solely on their beliefs about the withdrawal of the drug: it's purely psychological. Studies have shown that addicts aren't able to tell whether they've been given morphine or placebo, such that symptoms like nervousness and restlessness came and went based on what they were told about the contents of their injection (28).

However, addicts are extremely adept at faking such distress in the hopes of wheedling a prescription from the often-gullible doctor. Most doctors accept the standard view that withdrawal from opiates is a terrible ordeal, despite substantial evidence to the contrary, such as the addicts displaying no great signs of distress when secretly watched by the doctor. So the doctors routinely prescribe the addict drugs like methadone.

In contrast, when the addict is confronted with a doctor like Dalrymple, who refuses such prescriptions and clearly explains his reasons why, some will not only cease their performance of distress, but even "smile and admit with a laugh that anyone who says that cold turkey is a terrible ordeal is lying and more than likely trying to bluff his way to a prescription" (25). Once that is done, other addicts in the ward don't even bother with the attempted deception.

In recent years, doctors have tried to alleviate the non-existent horror of opiate withdrawal by "ultra-short opiate detoxification." (If I recall correctly, this method was featured on House.) Basically, the addict is administered "an opiate antagonist, naloxone, under general anesthesia, followed by continued administration of naloxone for a further forty-eight hours. This [method] ... turns a trivial medical condition, namely 'natural' withdrawal from opiates, into a potentially fatal one, since quite a number of deaths are known to have occurred as a result of it, some clinics that use it having recorded as many as ten deaths" (29). Yikes!

The failure to consider the obvious implications of perceptual observations can have serious consequences in any area of life. In this case, that failure on the part of those in the business of addiction treatment means that a voluntary psychological dysfunction is treated with ineffective, counterproductive, and even life-threatening methods. Lovely, no?

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



25 August, 2007

CHILDREN NEED THEIR FATHERS

One would think it obvious that children need their fathers but there are Lesbians who deny it so perhaps the study below helps a little. The study concludes that involvement of the father in family life can even make up for a dysfunctional mother. The study has unusually good sampling so the conclusions are more generalizable than most

Maternal Depressive Symptoms, Father's Involvement, and the Trajectories of Child Problem Behaviors in a US National Sample

By Jen Jen Chang et al.

Abstract

Objective: To examine the effect of maternal depressive symptoms on child problem behavior trajectories and how the father's positive involvement may modify this association.

Design: Secondary data analysis using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.

Setting: A nationally representative household sample of men and women from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.

Participants: The study sample includes 6552 mother-child dyads interviewed biennially between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2002; children were 0 to 10 years old at baseline.

Intervention: Past-week maternal depressive symptoms in 1992.

Main Outcome Measures: Maternal self-reports of child internalizing and externalizing behaviors were assessed repeatedly using a modified Child Behavior Checklist.

Results Linear growth curve models indicate that the adverse effects of maternal depressive symptoms on child problem behavior trajectories become negligible after controlling for the father's involvement and other covariates, including the child's age, sex, and race/ethnicity; the mother's educational level; maternal age at child birth; number of children; poverty status; urban residence; and father's residential status. Positive involvement by the father was inversely associated with child problem behavior trajectories. The effects of maternal depressive symptoms on child problem behaviors varied by the level of the father's positive involvement.

Conclusion: When the father actively compensates for limitations in the depressed mother's functioning, the child's risk of problem behaviors may be reduced.

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161:697-703




MORE EVIDENCE THAT SOCIAL CLASS DOES MATTER

The study below is not particularly striking of itself but it is refreshing to see the role of social class recognized. Race is the doubtful factor in the study. It would have been nice to see results presented separately for blacks and whites. Poor blacks, for instance, are less exceptional than poor whites so poor blacks may well have been more robust than poor whites. The effects may have been stronger if whites only had been studied. The conclusion of the study is that poor mothers are more likely to give birth to babies with damaged brains. As poor mothers are more likely to engage in risky behaviours that is not inherently surprising but genetic factors could be involved too

Neonatal Encephalopathy and Socioeconomic Status: Population-Based Case-Control Study

By Heidi K. Blume et al.

Objective: To investigate the association between maternal socioeconomic status and the risk of encephalopathy in full-term newborns.

Design: Population-based case-control study.

Setting: Washington State births from 1994 through 2002 recorded in the linked Washington State Birth Registry and Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System.

Participants Cases (n = 1060) were singleton full-term newborns with Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnoses of seizures, birth asphyxia, central nervous system dysfunction, or cerebral irritability. Control cases (n = 5330) were singleton full-term newborns selected from the same database.

Main Exposures: Socioeconomic status was defined by median income of the census tract of the mother's residence, number of years of maternal educational achievement, or maternal insurance status.

Main Outcome Measures: Odds ratios estimating the risk of encephalopathy associated with disadvantaged socioeconomic status were calculated in 3 separate analyses using multivariate adjusted logistic regression.

Results: Newborns of mothers living in neighborhoods in which residents have a low median income were at increased risk of encephalopathy compared with newborns in neighborhoods in which residents have a median income more than 3 times the poverty level (adjusted odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.3). There was also a trend for increasing risk of encephalopathy associated with decreasing neighborhood income (P<.001). Newborns of mothers with less than 12 years of educational achievement had a higher risk of encephalopathy compared with newborns of mothers with more than 16 years of educational achievement (adjusted odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.3). Newborns of mothers receiving public insurance also had a higher risk of encephalopathy compared with newborns of mothers who have commercial insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.7).

Conclusion: Disadvantaged socioeconomic status was independently associated with an increased risk of encephalopathy in full-term newborns. These findings suggest that a mother's socioeconomic status may influence the risk of encephalopathy for her full-term newborn.

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161:663-668

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



24 August, 2007

THE LATEST CHANT IN THE "DIET GIVES YOU CANCER" FAITH

The abstract is below. What it shows is that nice middle class patients who do what the health gurus tell them live longer. But you would never guess that from what they say below. No hint of control for social class even though we already know that the poor have more health problems, live more dangerously and die younger. It's always these inconclusive epidemiological studies which support the "bad fat" religion. The double blind studies are the real criterion and they are un-co-operative with the men of faith. See the right-hand column of this blog on that

Association of Dietary Patterns With Cancer Recurrence and Survival in Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer

By: Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt et al.

Abstract

Context: Dietary factors have been associated with the risk of developing colon cancer but the influence of diet on patients with established disease is unknown.

Objective: To determine the association of dietary patterns with cancer recurrences and mortality of colon cancer survivors.

Design, Setting, and Patients: Prospective observational study of 1009 patients with stage III colon cancer who were enrolled in a randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial (CALGB 89803) between April 1999 and May 2001. Patients reported on dietary intake using a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire during and 6 months after adjuvant chemotherapy. We identified 2 major dietary patterns, prudent and Western, by factor analysis. The prudent pattern was characterized by high intakes of fruits and vegetables, poultry, and fish; the Western pattern was characterized by high intakes of meat, fat, refined grains, and dessert. Patients were followed up for cancer recurrence or death.

Main Outcome Measures: Disease-free survival, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival by dietary pattern.

Results: During a median follow-up of 5.3 years for the overall cohort, 324 patients had cancer recurrence, 223 patients died with cancer recurrence, and 28 died without documented cancer recurrence. A higher intake of a Western dietary pattern after cancer diagnosis was associated with a significantly worse disease-free survival (colon cancer recurrences or death). Compared with patients in the lowest quintile of Western dietary pattern, those in the highest quintile experienced an adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) for disease-free survival of 3.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.04-5.19; P for trend <.001). The Western dietary pattern was associated with a similar detriment in recurrence-free survival (AHR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.75-4.63) and overall survival (AHR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.36-3.96]), comparing highest to lowest quintiles (both with P for trend <.001). The reduction in disease-free survival with a Western dietary pattern was not significantly modified by sex, age, nodal stage, body mass index, physical activity level, baseline performance status, or treatment group. In contrast, the prudent dietary pattern was not significantly associated with cancer recurrence or mortality.

Conclusions: Higher intake of a Western dietary pattern may be associated with a higher risk of recurrence and mortality among patients with stage III colon cancer treated with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Further studies are needed to delineate which components of such a diet show the strongest association.

JAMA. 2007;298:754-764.




DOES SMOKING SEND YOU BLIND?

The following study shows that smokers have a considerably higher risk of one sort of blindness but whether that is because smoking is strongly class-related we do not know. It's mostly dummies who smoke these days as its contribution to lung cancer is clear. And intelligence IS related to mortality, unfashionable though it is to mention that

Smoking and the Long-term Incidence of Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Jennifer S. L. Tan et al.

Objective: To assess the association between smoking and long-term incident age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Methods: Of 3654 Australians 49 years and older examined at baseline (January 14, 1992, through December 18, 1993), 2454 were examined 5 years later (January 11, 1997, through February 23, 2000), 10 years later (July 10, 2002, through November 4, 2005), or both. Retinal photographs were taken to assess AMD. Smoking status was recorded at each interview.

Results: After controlling for age, sex, and other factors, current smokers had a 4-fold higher risk of late AMD than never smokers (relative risk, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-8.8). Past smokers had a 3-fold higher risk of geographic atrophy (relative risk, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-9.7). Joint exposure to current smoking and (1) the lowest level of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, (2) the highest total to HDL cholesterol ratio, or (3) low fish consumption was associated with a higher risk of late AMD than the effect of any risk factor alone. However, interactions between smoking and HDL cholesterol level, ratio of total to HDL cholesterol, and fish consumption were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: Smoking strongly increased the long-term risk of incident late, but not early, AMD, with a possibly greater effect in persons with a low HDL cholesterol level, a high ratio of total to HDL cholesterol, and low fish consumption.

Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:1089-1095

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



23 August, 2007

A familiar dirge: "Powerline cancer risk"

There is such an obsession about this that all the disconfirmatory evidence just seems to spur fresh "data dredging" -- and if you look at enough data often enough you will find occasional examples of the correlations you seek by chance alone. Note my post of May 15th showing no adverse effects of heavy exposure among Danish electricity workers. In connection with that I am going to make a small logical point that is probably beyond the comprehension of any epidemiologist but which others should grasp:

If X is caused by Y, then ALL instances of Y should cause at least some X. If there is just ONE occasion where Y has not caused any X at all among anybody, then it shows that X is NOT caused by Y. You need only one disproof. So the Danish study junks the "carcinogenic electricity" hypothesis. Even if there are LOTS of other occasions when X and Y occur together it proves nothing.

See also the article excerpted immediately below this one

PEOPLE who live close to high-voltage powerlines during childhood are up to five times more likely to develop cancer, according to Australian research. The Tasmanian study of more than 850 patients adds weight to the link between electromagnetic fields and cancers such as leukaemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma. It is still not known whether there is a cause and effect relationship.

Those who lived within 300 metres of a powerline up to the age of five were five times more likely to develop cancer, while those who lived that close to a powerline at any point during their first 15 years were three times more likely to develop cancer as an adult, according to the study published in the Internal Medicine Journal.

Researchers from the University of Tasmania and Bristol University in Britain compared an existing database of all patients in Tasmania diagnosed with lymphatic and bone marrow cancers between 1972 and 1980, with controls matched for sex and age. Residential histories were then gathered. People who had lived within 50 metres of a high-voltage powerline at any time were at double the risk of developing cancer than those who had never lived within 300 metres of a powerline. For every year lived within 50 metres of a powerline, the risk of cancer increased by 7 per cent, the study found. There was also evidence the risk of cancer increased with higher voltages.

The lead researcher, Professor Ray Lowenthal, from the University of Tasmania, said the debate about possible carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields had been going for more than 20 years. "The evidence of detrimental long-term health effects is far from conclusive and international guidelines for limiting exposure to EMF are based on possible short-term effects rather than longer-term disease risks such as cancer," Professor Lowenthal said.

People who lived near powerlines tended to be from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, although the study had attempted to control for this and the occupational risk of cancer. [A rare element of sophistication -- even if the control was only an "attempt"] "Despite the limitations of this study . our novel finding that the risks of adult leukaemia and lymphoma are most strongly associated with early childhood exposure to powerlines deserves further study at both the population and laboratory levels."

Bruce Armstrong, Professor of Public Health at Sydney University said the study was consistent with previous research. "I think we are in a position where we have to say that there is a possibility that exposure to electromagnetic fields increases the risk of some cancers, but I don't think we know yet whether powerlines actually cause cancer." [Rather a non-statement]

Source




Media reports bias people away from evidence and towards belief in scares

As an example, nothing could be better substantiated than the uselessness of a low-fat diet but almost nobody seems to be aware of that

Recently a friend mentioned that he was concerned about health effects from wifi. I pointed out that this was likely an overblown concern, fed by the media echoes of a scare mongering BBC Panorama program, and pointed him at the coverage at Ben Goldacre's blog Bad Science for a through takedown of the whole issue. To my surprise he came back more worried than ever. He had watched the program on the Bad Science page, but not looked very much at the damning criticism surrounding it. After all, a warning is much more salient than a critique.

My friend is highly intelligent and careful about his biases, yet fell for this one. There exists a feedback loop in cases like this. The public is concerned about a possible health threat (electromagnetic emissions, aspartame, GMOs) and demand that the potential threat is evaluated. Funding appears and researchers evaluate the threat. Their findings are reported back through media to the public, who update their risk estimates.

In an ideal world the end result is that everybody get better estimates. But this process very easily introduces bias: the initial concern will determine where the money goes, so issues the public is concerned about will get more funding regardless of where the real risks are. The media reporting will also introduce bias since the media favour reporting newsworthy news, and risk tends to cause greater interest than reports of no risk (or the arrival of reviews of the state of the knowledge). Hence studies warning of a risk will be overreported compared to risks downplaying it, and this will lead to a biased impression of the total risk.

Finally, the public will have an availability bias that makes them take note of reported risks more than reported non-risks. And this leads to further concerns and demands for investigation. Note that I leave out publication bias and funding bias here. There may also be a feedback from the public to media making media report things they estimate the public would want to hear about. These factors of course muddy things further in real life but mostly seem to support the feedback, not counter it.

FULL COMMENT here

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



22 August, 2007

Researchers start trial of 'world's best' flu jab

RESEARCHERS in Adelaide have developed a vaccine they believe could be the world's best defence against an influenza or bird flu epidemic. The Flinders Medical Centre's influenza vaccine which is in its early trial stage has been boosted by a natural sugar adjuvant. Adjuvants amplify the immune system's response to the virus to increase the effectiveness of vaccines.

Leader of the research team Director of Diabetes and Endocrinology Professor Nikolai Petrovsky says the sugar-based adjuvant is safe. "Our data already shows our adjuvant enhances the immune response against the common flu virus and we expect it to work equally well for an avian (bird) flu vaccine," he said.

Head of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Professor David Gordon said the addition of an adjuvant is critical for providing protection and conserving vaccine supplies in the event of a pandemic. "Traditional vaccines can cause pain for a few days, but another major advantage of our vaccine is that many people have experienced no pain from the injection," he said.

The team is looking to test the vaccine on healthy people aged between 18-70 years who have not received a flu vaccine this year.

Source




Watchdog pulps super-juice claims

PRICEY "superfruit" juices touted as possible cures for cancer, diabetes and other diseases may not be so super after all. Consumer watchdog Choice tested the exotic juices -- which cost up to $85 a litre -- and found people can get the same health benefits from eating an apple. It has asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and state food authorities to take action against juice sellers who make the outrageous claims.

The so-called super juices are made from tropical fruits and berries including acai, goji, noni and mangosteen. They are usually only available in health food stores, gyms or via internet and mail order.

Choice spokesman Christopher Zinn said the juices may offer false hope to sick Australians. He said the juices could also be dangerous if ill people believed the hype and used them as substitutes for conventional medicine. "You get a novelty fruit, call it a super-fruit, throw in a secret Himalayan mountain or Chinese valley with mist on it, or a Pacific island with traditional healers that live to 150, and it's a very potent brew. Then if it costs a lot, people assume it must be rare and very good for you," Mr Zinn said.

Some brochures for juices sold in Australia claim mangosteen juice is better than chemotherapy for cancer and also outperforms drugs routinely prescribed for anxiety, arthritis and heroin addiction. One noni juice seller claims its product can cure cancer and diabetes while improving your golf game. "It's the claims they make that are concerning. They're making therapeutic claims, which are not backed up by science," Mr Zinn said.

He said Choice tests found people could get the same antioxidants from red apples and other cheap fruits available at any supermarket or greengrocer. "If you want to spend $85 on these juices and you like them, that's not bad for anything but your wallet. But it's the misleading claims of curative and preventative powers around the juice of these berries that's a concern and a breach of the Food Standards Code."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



21 August, 2007

DO FATTIES HAVE DEFORMED BABIES?

The extremely naive article below tries to create that impression. Amusing that one of the nastiest defects (organs developing outside the body) was most prevalent in the children of skinny mothers though!

The article is just the usual crap epidemiology, however. The authors obviously recognized that WHY the mothers are fat had some relevance but did little about it. The fatties were probably poor (a preponderance of fatties are) and poor people have more health problems generally.

And it is now widely accepted that BMI is not a good index of obesity anyway! What a laugh the whole thing is!

Prepregnancy Obesity as a Risk Factor for Structural Birth Defects

By D. Kim Waller et al.

Abstract

Objective: To describe the relation between maternal obesity, overweight and underweight status, and 16 categories of structural birth defects.

Design: An ongoing multisite, case-control study. Clinical geneticists reviewed all of the cases, excluding those that had or were strongly suspected to have a single-gene disorder or chromosomal abnormality. Mothers with preexisting diabetes were also excluded. Body mass index was based on maternal report of height and weight prior to pregnancy.

Setting: Eight participating states in the United States.

Participants: Mothers enrolled in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study who had index pregnancies between October 1, 1997, and December 31, 2002.

Main Exposure: Maternal obesity.

Main Outcome Measures: Crude and adjusted odds ratios.

Results: Mothers of offspring with spina bifida, heart defects, anorectal atresia, hypospadias, limb reduction defects, diaphragmatic hernia, and omphalocele were significantly more likely to be obese than mothers of controls, with odds ratios ranging between 1.33 and 2.10. Mothers of offspring with gastroschisis were significantly less likely to be obese than mothers of controls.

Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first population-based study of its scale to examine prepregnancy obesity and a range of structural birth defects. These results suggest a weak to moderate positive association of maternal obesity with 7 of 16 categories of birth defects and a strong inverse association with gastroschisis. The mechanisms underlying these associations are not yet understood but may be related to undiagnosed diabetes.

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161:745-750




Oldster couple live on Maccas



Shriek! How did these people live to be 84! They should have died years ago according to the faddists

AN 84-year-old British couple who have eaten at their local McDonald's every day for the past 17 years have spent nearly $50,000 on hamburgers and fries. Lee and Mary Humphrey have scoffed the same meal - a double hamburger each with a shared large fries - more than 6000 times and have never dined out anywhere else, Metro.co.uk reported. The couple have their own table at the fast-food outlet and moved house two years ago to East Sussex so they could be within walking distance.

They admitted that McDonald's supplied the bulk of their diet. "We don't eat big when we come home. We like to sit down in the afternoon and watch Deal or No Deal with a Magnum chocolate covered ice cream," Mrs Humphrey told Metro.co.uk. "Lee will have a bowl of cereal in the morning and I'll make him a pre-cooked roast beef at the weekends."

Despite the high amounts of fat they consume, the couple said they were fit and walked 6 km every day. "McDonald's is all we need and we're never ill, in fact I'd say we're fighting fit," Mrs Humphrey said. "I think it's the best restaurant in the world".

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



20 August, 2007

Drugs for sadness?

Doctors were too often mistaking common blue moods in their patients for clinical depression and prescribing drugs for normal emotions, a leading Sydney psychiatrist has said. Professor Gordon Parker, the executive director of the Black Dog Institute, wrote in the British medical journal BMJ that the threshold for diagnosing clinical depression had become too low and the definition too broad.

"It's normal for human beings to be depressed," Professor Parker told the Herald yesterday. "Normal depression to my mind means you certainly feel depressed and you feel deflated and you're pessimistic and your self-esteem drops but it's a transient state. After a few minutes, hours, a couple of days, you bounce back."

He said that over the past 20 years diagnostic models had taken "an extreme position" and ran the risk of treating normal emotional states as an illness. "There's been a blurring of clinical depression into normal depression and the consequence of that has been to strain credibility and for many people to have been delivered a bouncing cheque [when drugs do not work]," he said. "There's often an automatic reaching for the prescription pad. People are not looking at the cause." He said the prevalence of depression had increased mostly due to "the incredible broadening of its definition". It was also due to destigmatisation and, to a lesser extent, an actual increase in disorders, he said.

At the opposite end of the debate, published in BMJ yesterday, Professor Ian Hickie, the executive director of the University of Sydney's Brain and Mind Research Institute, said that it was wrong to say depression was being overdiagnosed. Professor Hickie said there was also no evidence of overprescribing. He also said that a study conducted in 27 countries 2003, published in BMJ, showed an increase in the use of antidepressants had led to a decline in suicides. "The answer is do the body count ." he said "In order to save lives you have to treat the mild and moderate cases." He said "the continual demonising of the medicines just plays into the stigma" of mental illness.

"I think it's time the specialists got over it and we got on with the public health issue of identifying those who are likely to benefit and make the wide range of treatments, medication and psychological treatments available," he said. "We're still providing so little treatment to those whose lives are at risk that we hardly need to concern ourselves with overtreatment." Treatment for depression has become more widespread since the early 1990s with the advent of drugs such as Prozac.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says one in five Australians will experience a mental illness. It estimates that there were 10.2 million general practitioner encounters involving mental health-related problems in 2003-04, more than a third of which were about depression.

Source




'Phone-in' heart treatment helps

Getting it implemented beyond the pilot trial will be the difficulty

MOBILE-PHONE technology being used to help treat heart-attack victims and dramatically cut death rates at two Sydney hospitals, is receiving international recognition. The program allows information about a patient's condition to be instantly transmitted from an ambulance on the way to Royal North Shore and Westmead hospitals, giving doctors a head start on treatment.

Research on the program has been published in the European Heart Journal. Greg Nelson, the head of the Interventional Cardiology Group at RNS, said it saved an average of 100minutes, which is critical in reducing the size of the heart attack and the likelihood of death.

Using the method, cardiac mortality rates at RNS dropped from 8per cent to 2per cent. As part of the emergency triage acute myocardial infarction (ETAMI) program, the results of an electro-cardiogram on patients with a suspected heart attack are transmitted by ambulance officers at the scene, using the same technology as making a mobile-phone call, to the emergency department where it is examined by doctors. If it shows the patient is having a heart attack, a surgical team is assembled ready for the patient's arrival.

"It's getting that artery opened sooner that's going to make a big difference," Dr Nelson said. "From symptom onset to opening the artery using the old strategy the average time is 246 minutes. "What we've shown with this method of diagnosis is that time is reduced, on average, to 150 minutes. "We have confirmed that the level of muscle damage is less in people treated this way than people treated in the conventional way."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



19 August, 2007

UNUSUAL BACTERIA FOUND IN CROHN'S DISEASE PATIENTS

The abstract below is very technical but any light on Crohn's disease (a not uncommon but still largely mysterious bowel-rotting disease) is worth examination. It was found that an unusual (mutant?) strain of the common bacterium E.coli was present in a small group of patients but not in controls. Whether the bacteria concerned were a cause or an effect is unresolved but a causative role seems somewhat more likely

Culture independent analysis of ileal mucosa reveals a selective increase in invasive Escherichia coli of novel phylogeny relative to depletion of Clostridiales in Crohn's disease involving the ileum

By Martin Baumgart et al.

Abstract

Intestinal bacteria are implicated increasingly as a pivotal factor in the development of Crohn's disease, but the specific components of the complex polymicrobial enteric environment driving the inflammatory response are unresolved. This study addresses the role of the ileal mucosa-associated microflora in Crohn's disease. A combination of culture-independent analysis of bacterial diversity (16S rDNA library analysis, quantitative PCR and fluorescence in situ hybridization) and molecular characterization of cultured bacteria was used to examine the ileal mucosa-associated flora of patients with Crohn's disease involving the ileum (13), Crohn's disease restricted to the colon (CCD) (8) and healthy individuals (7). Analysis of 16S rDNA libraries constructed from ileal mucosa yielded nine clades that segregated according to their origin (P<0.0001). 16S rDNA libraries of ileitis mucosa were enriched in sequences for Escherichia coli (P<0.001), but relatively depleted in a subset of Clostridiales (P<0.05). PCR of mucosal DNA was negative for Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, Shigella and Listeria. The number of E. coli in situ correlated with the severity of ileal disease (rho = 0.621, P<0.001) and invasive E. coli was restricted to inflamed mucosa. E. coli strains isolated from the ileum were predominantly novel in phylogeny, displayed pathogen-like behavior in vitro and harbored chromosomal and episomal elements similar to those described in extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli and pathogenic Enterobacteriaceae. These data establish that dysbiosis of the ileal mucosa-associated flora correlates with an ileal Crohn's disease (ICD) phenotype, and raise the possibility that a selective increase in a novel group of invasive E. coli is involved in the etiopathogenesis to Crohn's disease involving the ileum.

The ISME Journal, 12 July 2007




WALKING REALLY IS GOOD FOR YOU

There is no doubt that high blood pressure is a warning sign so the slight reduction in blood pressure shown below is encouraging. Somewhat amusing that the wicked cholesterol appears to have been unaffected, though. Popular summary below followed by journal abstract

Thirty minutes of walking three times a week may be enough to help lower blood pressure and start you on the path to better health. A new study shows that even a little bit of weekly exercise is enough to lower blood pressure and improve overall fitness. The results showed that 30 minutes of walking three times a week - even if it was broken into 10-minute walks throughout the day - was enough to have a healthy effect on blood pressure as well as measurements around the waist and hip.

National guidelines recommend that people exercise at least 30 minutes a day on most days of the week to maintain optimum health. But few people achieve that goal, citing lack of time as the biggest obstacle. Researchers say these results may help motivate people to fit in even a little exercise here and there to benefit their health.

In the study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, researchers invited 106 healthy but sedentary civil servants to take part in an exercise program for 12 weeks. About a third were told to briskly walk for 30 minutes, five days a week. Another third were told to briskly walk for 30 minutes a day, three days a week; the remaining third were told not to change their sedentary lifestyle at all.

The participants wore pedometers to monitor their walking, and researchers measured their blood pressure, blood cholesterol, weight, hip and waist size, and overall fitness before and after the study. The results showed systolic (the top number) blood pressure dropped - and waist and hip measurements shrunk significantly - in both the three-day-a-week and five-day-a-week exercise groups.

Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5 points among those who exercised three days a week and by 6 points among those who exercised five days a week. Waist and hip measurements fell by 2.6 centimeters and 2.4 centimeters respectively among the three-day-a-week exercisers and by 2.5 centimeters and 2.2 centimeters among the five-day-a-week exercise group. No changes were found in the sedentary group.

Source

Randomised controlled trial of home-based walking programmes at and below current recommended levels of exercise in sedentary adults

By Mark A Tully et al.

Abstract:

Objectives: To determine, using unsupervised walking programmes, the effects of exercise at a level lower than currently recommended to improve cardiovascular risk factors and functional capacity.

Design: 12 week randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Northern Ireland Civil Service; home-based walking.

Participants: 106 healthy, sedentary 40 to 61 year old adults of both sexes.

Interventions: Participants were randomly allocated to a walking programme (30 minutes brisk walking three days a week (n = 44) or five days a week (n = 42)) or a control group (n = 20). Participants could choose to walk in bouts of at least 10 minutes. They used pedometers to record numbers of steps taken. Intention to treat analysis of changes within groups was done using paired t tests; extent of change (baseline to 12 week measurements) was compared between groups using analysis of variance and Gabriel's post hoc test.

Main outcome measures: Blood pressure, serum lipids, body mass index, waist:hip ratio, and functional capacity (using a 10 m shuttle walk test).

Main results: 89% (93/106) completed the study. Systolic blood pressure and waist and hip circumferences fell significantly both in the three day group (5 mm Hg, 2.6 cm, and 2.4 cm, respectively) and in the five day group (6 mm Hg, 2.5 cm, and 2.2 cm) (p<0.05). Functional capacity increased in both groups (15%; 11%). Diastolic blood pressure fell in the five day group (3.4 mm Hg, p<0.05). No changes occurred in the control group.

Conclusions: This study provides evidence of benefit from exercising at a level below that currently recommended in healthy sedentary adults. Further studies are needed of potential longer term health benefits for a wider community from low levels of exercise.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



18 August, 2007

MOTHERS WHO EAT "JUNK" FOOD DAMAGE THEIR BABIES??

Another excuse for the usual propaganda. But it only applies to rats so no need to worry. Rats don't usually eat McDonalds last I heard so are hardly a good model for human behaviour. A double-blind human trial should not be too hard to arrange. The results would undoubtedly be amusing

Mothers who eat junk food during pregnancy and breastfeeding may put their children at risk of overeating and obesity, a study by the Royal Veterinary College of London has found. Thus, pregnant and breastfeeding women probably shouldn't indulge in fatty, sugary and salty foods under the misguided assumption that they're "eating for two," the researchers said.

Published Aug. 14 in The British Journal of Nutrition, the study found that rats on a diet of processed junk food such as doughnuts, muffins, biscuits, potato chips and sweets during pregnancy and lactation produced offspring that overate and had unusual preferences for fatty, sweet and salty junk foods.

The findings probably have implications for humans, the researchers said. Obesity is a major cause of disease, associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Some 400 million people were obese globally in 2005, according to the World Health Organization. "Eating large quantities of junk food when pregnant and breastfeeding could impair the normal control of appetite and promote an exacerbated taste for junk food in offspring," said lead author Stephanie Bayol.

Appetite control is a complex process, involving hormones that signal to the brain to regulate energy balance, hunger and the feeling of fullness. Feeding can stimulate "reward centres" in the brain, which can sometimes override sensations of fullness. Previous research has found that fatty, sugary junk foods inhibit the fullness signals while stimulating the reward centres.

Exposure to a maternal junk early in life may help explain why some people "might find it harder than others to control their junk food intake even when given access to healthier foods later in life," said Bayol.

Source

Journal abstract:

A maternal `junk food' diet in pregnancy and lactation promotes an exacerbated taste for `junk food' and a greater propensity for obesity in rat offspring

By Stephanie A. Bayol et al.

Abstract

Obesity is generally associated with high intake of junk foods rich in energy, fat, sugar and salt combined with a dysfunctional control of appetite and lack of exercise. There is some evidence to suggest that appetite and body mass can be influenced by maternal food intake during the fetal and suckling life of an individual. However, the influence of a maternal junk food diet during pregnancy and lactation on the feeding behaviour and weight gain of the offspring remains largely uncharacterised.

In this study, six groups of rats were fed either rodent chow alone or with a junk food diet during gestation, lactation and/or post-weaning. The daily food intakes and body mass were measured in forty-two pregnant and lactating mothers as well as in 216 offspring from weaning up to 10 weeks of age.

Results showed that 10 week-old rats born to mothers fed the junk food diet during gestation and lactation developed an exacerbated preference for fatty, sugary and salty foods at the expense of protein-rich foods when compared with offspring fed a balanced chow diet prior to weaning or during lactation alone. Male and female offspring exposed to the junk food diet throughout the study also exhibited increased body weight and BMI compared with all other offspring.

This study shows that a maternal junk food diet during pregnancy and lactation may be an important contributing factor in the development of obesity.

British Journal of Nutrition, 15 August, 2007




Umbilical rethink

Cutting or clamping the umbilical cord immediately after birth could be harmful to the newborn child, doctors say. About half of maternity units are estimated to clamp and then remove the cord between mother and child soon after birth, but this could increase the risk of serious blood disorders, according to research.

Leaving the cord intact for a few minutes can increase blood supply and iron levels in the baby and reduce the risk of anaemia, a common infant condition, the British Medical Journal reports today. Andrew Weeks, a senior lecturer in obstetrics at the University of Liverpool, argues that there are benefits in waiting before clamping or cutting the cord.

A study this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association said that waiting two minutes before cutting the cord reduced the risk of serious blood disorders and benefited the baby in its first few months. The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists said that there were no guidelines on when exactly the cord should be cut.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



17 August, 2007

Smoking and Alzheimers

I have often seen it claimed that smoking has a protective effect against Alzheimers. That is not what the research literature says, however. Quite the reverse. See the meta-analysis below. Smoking is quite clearly bad for your brain.

Smoking as a Risk Factor for Dementia and Cognitive Decline: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies

By Kaarin J. Anstey et al

Abstract

The authors assessed the association of smoking with dementia and cognitive decline in a meta-analysis of 19 prospective studies with at least 12 months of follow-up. Studies included a total of 26,374 participants followed for dementia for 2-30 years and 17,023 participants followed up for 2-7 years to assess cognitive decline. Mean study age was 74 years. Current smokers at baseline, relative to never smokers, had risks of 1.79 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.43, 2.23) for incident Alzheimer's disease, 1.78 (95% CI: 1.28, 2.47) for incident vascular dementia, and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.60) for any dementia. Compared with those who never smoked, current smokers at baseline also showed greater yearly declines in Mini-Mental State Examination scores over the follow-up period (effect size (á) = -0.13, 95% CI: -0.18, -0.08). Compared with former smokers, current smokers at baseline showed an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (relative risk = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.31) and an increased decline in cognitive abilities (effect size (beta) = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.11, -0.03), but the groups were not different regarding risk of vascular dementia or any dementia. The authors concluded that elderly smokers have increased risks of dementia and cognitive decline.

American Journal of Epidemiology 2007 166(4):367-378




Pollution causes four in 10 deaths, survey finds

And you thought that heart disease, cancer, bacteria and viruses were the biggest problems! The "study" reported below is just an exercise in wild assumptions. It would have been more defensible if he had said that politics kills people. Socialist politics certainly keep people poor and the worlds's poor do have less access to things like clean water, good sanitation, adequate nutrition and competent medical services

Some 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution, a study has found. Such environmental degradation, coupled with the growth in world population, are major causes of a recent rapid increase in diseases reported by the World Health Organization, said the researcher.

Both factors contribute to the malnourishment and disease susceptibility of 3.7 billion people, added the investigator, David Pimentel of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. The findings appear in the early online issue of the research journal Human Ecology and are slated for publication in the December print issue.

Pimentel and some graduate students examined data from more than 120 published papers on the effects on human disease of population growth, malnutrition and various kinds of environmental degradation. "We have serious environmental resource problems of water, land and energy, and these are now coming to bear on food production, malnutrition and the incidence of diseases," said Pimentel.

Of the world population of about 6.5 billion, 57 percent is malnourished, compared with 20 percent of a world population of 2.5 billion in 1950, he added. Malnutrition is not only the direct cause of 6 million children's deaths each year but also makes millions of people much more susceptible to such killers as acute respiratory infections, malaria and a host of other lifethreatening diseases, according to the research.

Among the other points:

* Nearly half the world's people are crowded into urban areas, often without adequate sanitation, and are exposed to epidemics of such diseases as measles and flu.

* With 1.2 billion people lacking clean water, waterborne infections account for 80 percent of all infectious diseases. Increased water pollution creates breeding grounds for malaria-carrying mosquitoes, killing 1.2 million to 2.7 million people a year, and air pollution kills about 3 million people a year. Unsanitary living conditions account for more than 5 million deaths each year, of which more than half are children.

* Air pollution from smoke and various chemicals kills 3 million people a year. In the United States alone about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environmentcontributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems.

* Soil is contaminated by many chemicals and pathogens, which are passed on to humans through direct contact or via food and water. Increased soil erosion worldwide not only results in more soil being blown but spreading of disease microbes and various toxins.

At the same time, more microbes are becoming increasingly drugresistant. And global warming, together with changes in biological diversity, influence parasite evolution and the ability of exotic species to invade new areas. As a result, such diseases as tuberculosis and influenza are reemerging as major threats, while new threatsincluding West Nile virus and Lyme diseasehave developed.

"A growing number of people lack basic needs, like pure water and ample food. They become more susceptible to diseases driven by malnourishment, and air, water and soil pollutants," Pimentel concluded. He and his coauthors called for comprehensive and fair population policies and more conservation. "Relying on increasing diseases and malnutrition to limit human numbers in the world diminishes the quality of life for all humans and is a highrisk policy," they wrote.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



16 August, 2007

If you can't show that obesity is bad, invent a new measure of obesity!

Note the rubric I have put in the journal abstract. It is admitted that by the old BMI measure fatties are not worse off and the new measure can be shown to produce an effect only by contrasting the extreme quintiles. It's a crock! It may show some danger for the hugely obese but for the vast majority of people it shows no danger. And extreme quintiles are in any case inherently at risk of being confounded with other factors. The claim that just a slightly enlarged stomach is bad for you is in fact CONTRADICTED by the study!

For many people, middle-aged spread is as much a part of getting older as laughter lines, receding hairlines and worsening hangovers. But research suggests that even the smallest of pot bellies may be a serious health risk. After examining more than 2,700 men and women with an average age of 45, scientists at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Centre in Dallas found that those with even a little fat around their waists were significantly more vulnerable to heart disease, even if their overall weight was normal.

Their findings, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), may come as a shock to many who would not consider themselves fat. But they reinforce a growing belief among medical experts that waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is a more accurate measure of healthy shape than the widely used body mass index (BMI). BMI, which is calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by height in metres squared, gives an overall indication of heaviness compared with height. But according to BMI measurements, well-toned specimens from Brad Pitt to the rugby star Jonah Lomu would be classed as overweight, and increasing numbers of experts are now questioning BMI's usefulness.

The new study by James de Lemos and his team adds credibility to the theory that WHR is a more accurate means of measuring heart-disease risk because it identifies potentially dangerous "central obesity" even in those who are not overweight. The researchers conducted a series of examinations on their participants, ranging from blood sampling to MRI scans. All underwent imaging tests to look for early signs of calcium build-up in the arteries of the heart, which is linked to an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease later in life. These deposits are a reflection of atherosclerosis - commonly referred to as "hardening" of the arteries - and can be detected years before a patient suffers chest pain or has a heart attack.

Researchers examined the relationship between body shape and early signs of disease in the arteries. They found that the likelihood of there being calcium deposits in the arteries grew in direct proportion to the increase in waist-to-hip ratio.

A breakdown of the participants into five groups showed that those with the highest WHR were almost twice as likely to have calcium deposits in their coronary arteries as those with the smallest WHR. Even when factors such as blood pressure, diabetes, age, high cholesterol levels and smoking were taken into account, the link remained strong.

Dr de Lemos said: "In our thirties and forties, we often gain three to four inches in the midsection. It's a day-to-day, meal-to-meal battle, but it's worth fighting. We don't have to clean our plates. It's better to throw food out than add it to our waists. Even a small pot belly puts us at higher risk when compared to a flat tummy."

June Davison, cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: "People who are overweight or obese have an increased risk of developing heart disease. The risks are even higher when fat is mainly concentrated around the abdomen. "What's important is that people consider their body shape as well as their weight."

Source

Journal abstract follows:

The Association of Differing Measures of Overweight and Obesity With Prevalent Atherosclerosis

By Raphael See et al.

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the associations between different measures of obesity and prevalent atherosclerosis in a large population-based cohort.

Background: Although obesity is associated with cardiovascular mortality, it is unclear whether this relationship is mediated by increased atherosclerotic burden.

Methods: Using data from the Dallas Heart Study, we assessed the association between gender-specific obesity measures (i.e., body mass index [BMI]; waist circumference [WC]; waist-to-hip ratio [WHR]) and prevalent atherosclerosis defined as coronary artery calcium (CAC) score >10 Agatston units measured by electron-beam computed tomography and detectable aortic plaque measured by magnetic resonance imaging.

Results: In univariable analyses (n = 2,744), CAC prevalence was significantly greater only in the fifth versus first quintile of BMI, whereas it increased stepwise across quintiles of WC and WHR (p trend <0.001 for each). After multivariable adjustment for standard risk factors, prevalent CAC was more frequent in the fifth versus first quintile of WHR (odds ratio 1.91, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.80), whereas no independent positive association was observed for BMI or WC. Similar results were observed for aortic plaque in both univariable and multivariable-adjusted analyses. The c-statistic for discrimination of prevalent CAC was greater for WHR compared with BMI and WC in women and men (p < 0.001 vs. BMI; p < 0.01 vs. WC).

Conclusions: We discovered that WHR was independently associated with prevalent atherosclerosis and provided better discrimination than either BMI or WC. The associations between obesity measurements and atherosclerosis mirror those observed between obesity and cardiovascular mortality, suggesting that obesity contributes to cardiovascular mortality via increased atherosclerotic burden.

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007; 50:752-759




Can Organic Really Feed the World? Activism Disguised As Science

A new study published in an alternative agriculture journal has gained widespread attention by claiming that organic farming not only could adequately feed the world, it might even yield more food and require less farmland. It is a truly sensational claim.

In science, the more sensational the claim, the more robust the evidence needed to support it. This time, the evidence doesn't stack up. In fact, the evidence fell so far short that the journal that published the paper also published not one, but two scathing and dismissive "editorial responses" in the same issue. This is anything but a ringing endorsement.

A simple comparison of the authors of the paper and critiques is revealing. The "organic can too feed the world" authors are a collection of urban academics without any agricultural experience. The lead author studies fossil squirrel's teeth at the University of Michigan's Museum of Paleontology. The others are with Michigan's School of Natural Resources and Environment. In contrast, the authors of the two critiques are an agronomist at the University of Nebraska, Kenneth Cassman, and Colorado organic farmer Jim Hendrix.

As Cassman put it, "their analyses do not meet the minimum scientific requirements for comparing food production capacity in different crop production systems."

First, many of the studies they relied upon to support their claim simply aren't reliable. One large data set (comprising over half of the "yield ratios" they used to estimate food production in the developing world) are merely guestimates of increased productivity from a questionnaire sent to activists running organic "demonstration" farms. That doesn't even remotely approach "science," especially when the returned questionnaires include implausible organic yield increase claims of more than 500 percent. Another large dataset used by the Michigan researchers is so questionable that a paper critical of it published in the journal Field Crop Research was titled "Fantastic yields in the system of rice intensification: fact or fallacy?"

Central to this entire debate is the shortage of organic nitrogen fertilizer, a.k.a. manure. Currently, there is only enough animal manure to support one fifth of current global crop production. They only way to get more organically is to devote more land to legume crops or animal pastures that fix more nitrogen-which would require billions of acres of additional farmland the world doesn't currently have.

The Michigan researchers dismiss this sobering reality by calculating that, theoretically, enough nitrogen can be fixed by growing cover crops during fall/winter and between crops to make up the shortfall. As Dwight Eisenhower once stated, "Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from a corn field."

The final, sadly amusing testimony to the fantasy world occupied by these researchers comes from the conclusion of their policy forum article, where they point to the shining example of Cuba as "one of the most progressive food systems in the world" where organic farming is successfully feeding a country. Ah, yes, the famed Cuban "agricultural enlightenment" brought about by the ending of Soviet industrial fertilizer and pesticide donations.

How has Cuba fared after "going organic?" According to unofficial statistics, Cuba suffers massive food shortages and rations basic food staples. But don't take my word for it. Listen to these Cuban immigrants interviewed in a December 27, 2006 story on National Public Radio's Morning Edition:

Joel Lopez, a skinny 19-year-old who arrived on Dec. 14, 2006 in Miami through the [immigration lottery], or Bomba as it is called in Cuba. Through a translator: "Everything is so surprising here, the cleanliness of the streets, the food, the shops. Well, there is no comparison. . . . I have been telling [my friends] about a Chinese buffet I went to. I told them about how you can serve yourself again and again!"

Sitting next to him is Louisa Martinez. Her husband was a baker in Cuba. But still for her, it's the food that is the most dazzling. Through a translator: "Oh the food! Here there is a surfeit of food. Over there, there is a LOT of hunger. It's terrible."

So who are you going to believe: The urban pencil pushing elites, or the real farmers and real victims of the so-called "progressive food" movement?

Source. The three papers concerned can be found here

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



15 August, 2007

Banned drug was given in high dose

Now we hear it: Another case of regulatory failure

THE osteoarthritis drug withdrawn from sale on Saturday after the deaths of two patients was approved for use in Australia at double the dose allowed in more than 50 other countries. Australia is the only country in the world where patients have died while taking Prexige. The 200mg dose was approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration in 2004 to treat osteoarthritis, while other countries recommend a 100mg dose.

The TGA received eight reports of liver damage, including two deaths and two patients who required liver transplants. Five of those were taking 200mg daily, one person was taking 200-400mg daily, one person 400mg daily and the TGA is yet to determine the dose for the eighth patient.

Doctors told The Australian yesterday that the recall highlighted the need for continuing trials into the safety of newly approved drugs. Prexige was first sold in Australia in November 2005 but it was not widely used until it was listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in August last year, despite concerns from medical groups about its safety.

Lynn Weekes, president of the National Prescribing Service -- an independent medication advisory agency -- said pharmaceutical companies should conduct "post-marketing" studies on new drugs, even after they won approval, to detect side-effects that become apparent only once a medicine is widely used. "There were studies done initially on Prexige with doses up to 400mg, and there was no evidence of liver damage," she said. "That's why post-marketing studies are really essential, not just in terms of a drug's safety but also usage."

The NPS warned last July that there was insufficient information about Prexige's safety to support its listing on the PBS. "We are warning all GPs that its long-term safety hasn't been proven yet," an NPS spokesman said at the time. Prexige, used by 60,000 Australians, was one of the new generation of painkillers, called Cox-2 inhibitors, thought to cause fewer side-effects, such as gastric bleeding, than other anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen and naproxen. However, the drugs fell out of favour in 2004 when pharmaceutical giant Merck withdrew Vioxx, a Cox-2 used to treat arthritis, after it was found to increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. In April 2005, drug company Pfizer withdrew its painkiller Bextra amid concerns that it also was linked to heart disease.

Dr Weekes said doctors were aware that Prexige belonged to a class of drugs linked to cardiac side-effects, but it was not known that they caused serious liver damage. "We were aware of cardiac risks associated with this class of drugs. But these effects in the liver have really come out of the blue," Dr Weekes said. A spokeswoman for Novartis, which makes Prexige, said liver damage was a rare side-effect of the drug. "Serious liver side-effects have been reported rarely, for all Cox-2s and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories. It is a known but rare side-effect for this class of drugs," she said. "What we found is that in a very short period of time, the adverse events that were reported were higher than we would expect, so we made the decision to withdraw the product."

The TGA approved the 100mg dose of Prexige last June.

Source




Viruses that kill bacteria may help with MRSA

A type of “good” virus that infects and kills many types of harmful bacteria is being investigated by scientists in the fight against antibiotic-resistant superbugs such as MRSA. A cream containing the viruses, known as bacteriophages (phages), has been developed to eliminate hospital-acquired infections and could be available within three years. Similar treatments are also being developed for bacterial ear infections and food poisoning, which are triggered by the most stubbornly resistant bugs.

Despite having been used in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to treat infections since the 1920s, the viruses have been neglected in the West for more than 60 years. Scientists are now re-examining whether phage therapies, previously considered to have been superseded by antibiotics, can curb overuse of the drugs. Clinical trials of the proposed cream for MRSA are planned next year after laboratory tests in which phages wiped out more than 15 strains of the superbug.

MRSA is one of a gathering army of microbes that are becoming immune to antibiotic medicines. Others include resistant strains of tuberculosis, the food bug Escherichia coli, and two more causes of hospital infections, Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas.

Contrary to current guidance to eliminate infections, which emphasises the importance of regular hand-washing and use of alcohol gels, the anti-MRSA cream could be applied to the inside of the nose, where bacteria are known to thrive. The cream is likely to contain a “cocktail” of three or four types of virus so that it is difficult for the bugs to build up resistance to it.

MRSA, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, is carried in the body of one in three people without any ill effects, but it can cause potentially lethal infections in hospitals, where sick people come into contact with those harbouring the bacteria. Latest figures show that there were 3,517 MRSA infections in British hospitals between October 2005 and March last year. Shedding of the bug from the nose is the main mode of transmission, researchers say. Treating the full range of hospital-acquired infections costs the NHS about 1 billion pounds a year.

Nick Housby, chief executive of the Coventry-based biotech company Novolytics, which is carrying out the research, said that the aim was to use the phage cream as a preventative measure that could be given to staff and patients a day or two before they go into hospital. But he added that it could also eliminate infections in affected patients within 24 hours. “We’re extremely optimistic,” he said. We know we can kill, in the laboratory, clinically relevant strains. It’s a question now of putting it into the right cream, in terms of the formulation, to make sure that it works.”

The cream would be applied with a stick inserted into the nose. The viruses could then target MRSA bacteria, injecting them with their own genetic material. The bugs are reprogrammed to produce more viruses, which then break out of their host, destroying it in the process. Since the viruses reproduce themselves, repeat treatments would not be needed as frequently as with antibiotics.

The viruses are now starting to make a comeback in the West, where more than 12 companies are now developing phage products. Geoff Hanlon, an expert in the viruses at the University of Brighton, said: “We’re now finding antibiotics are becoming less useful. The climate is probably right to revisit bacteriophage therapy.”

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



14 August, 2007

Medicare's Obesity Policy Flawed

An article below that has some wisdom in theory but not much in practice. Following the article are some comments sent to its author by a medical specialist

In government-run health systems, bureaucrats make the decisions about what treatments will be available, not patients and doctors. And sometimes, those decisions don't make sense

Case in point: The agency that runs Medicare - the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services - is limiting access to the full range of obesity treatments even though Medicare's costs of covering obese patients are rising dramatically. This flies in the face of reason. Obesity is associated with heart disease, stroke, diabetes, respiratory problems and cancer. Its prevalence in Medicare has doubled in the last 20 years, and the share of spending by Medicare on obese patients has almost tripled, from 9.4 percent to nearly 25 percent.

Obesity is a serious problem in the United States, especially for Medicare patients. But CMS has its head in the sand. It has said that weight-loss drugs will not be covered under the Medicare drug benefit. In so doing, it has seriously limited physicians' options for treatment. The reality is that diet and exercise sometimes don't work, especially among elderly patients. Medicare will, however, pay for expensive bariatric surgery, the last-resort treatment for obesity.

When President Bush promoted the Medicare drug benefit, he argued that it didn't make sense for Medicare to pay for ulcer surgery but not ulcer medications. Now, CMS has repeated the same mistake - ruling that Medicare will pay for obesity surgery but not for medications that will help patients address obesity. Doctors can therefore prescribe medicines for problems caused by obesity, like coronary artery disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. But it will not allow health plans to include obesity medicines in their list of available drugs.

The proposal is bad public health policy. It is inconsistent with Medicare's new focus on care management and disease prevention. After all, this isn't simply about lifestyle choices for people who want to lose a few pounds on the latest diet drugs. We're talking about giving physicians and patients the tools they need so that together they can decide what treatment is best.

There are two widely recognized prescription obesity drugs approved by the FDA - Xenical and Meridia - and dozens of new promising therapies in development. If Medicare - the nation's largest health provider - decides against paying for these drugs, private health plans will likely follow.

One of the hallmarks of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was to, well, modernize the program. That meant emphasizing preventive care and disease management to keep people healthier longer and giving physicians and health plans latitude to adopt modern disease-management models.

Medicare already is going broke, but its bankruptcy will be accelerated if it pays only for care after people get sick instead of allowing the whole arsenal of options for ensuring that people stay well. Prevention saves money and lives. As the obesity problem grows, Medicare needs to make sure that physicians and patients have all available treatment options.

Source

Some comments:

I would respectfully disagree with the authors of your Aug 10 newsletter that Medicare's obesity policy is flawed by not offering a "full range of services". This could include health club memberships, steam baths, personal trainers, surgery, and a whole bunch of "treatments" that are of marginal benefit; for almost all these "treatments", benefits are transient. This exposes many taxpayer to abuse by overutilization.

Obesity is largely behavioral. Most Government programs to alter behavior have been failures, because individuals, family, community are the most effective "treatments". These include:

1 The public schools. "Soft" approach to discipline and low expectations have had the opposite result desired - students are LESS motivated to work hard.

2 Marriage initiative - not very effective.

3 Now plan to "encourage assimilation" for immigrants. What self respecting immigrant doesn't already know this? If anything, Government obstructs assimilation with its multi language and other multicultural requirements. There are many other examples.

Possible solutions - market based, such as graded insurance premiums based on risk - obesity is a CONTROLLABLE risk.

Personal story - born in 1943, in 1993 I lost an institutional job. Applied for private life insurance - turned down for obesity (5'5", 247 pounds. In about 3 months I was down to 186 for insurance physical. Walked for about an hour/day in Texas heat in fall, then rode exercise bike while watching movies with surround sound. Healthiest and happiest I have been in years; trying to re establish exercise habit. My obesity is behavioral - my behavior.

What about doctor's behavior? In NH doctor was sued by patient he told was overweight. Parents cry for prosecution of teachers who call children "fatso". Code of conduct does not allow students to say "you're too fat". Fat children are treated with kid gloves to not hurt their "self esteem".

Some places require a "fatness index" as part of a school report card. Can any sane person tell me this was effective - some parents were actually upset to learn that their child is "fat". How can any sane parent not know this?




Do breast implants triple the long-term risk of suicide?

The media report below says so but the actual journal article (abstract below) is more realistic: Women who seek breast augmentation are more likely to have problems in their lives to start with. There is NO evidence that the implants themselves cause anything. I imagine most readers also realize that the once-prominent health scares associated with implants were debunked long ago. If not, see here

Breast implants triple the long-term risk of suicide, claims a new study in the Annals of Plastic Surgery. The increased suicide risk from cosmetic breast enlargement -- together with a similar increase in the risk of death from alcohol or drug dependence -- suggests that women receiving breast implants should also have follow-up mental health checks, say the authors. They performed an extended follow-up study of 3527 Swedish women who underwent cosmetic breast implant surgery between 1965 and 1993. The average age at implant surgery was 32 years. Death certificates were used to compare causes of death between women with breast implants and the general female population. Over an average follow-up period of nearly 19 years, the suicide rate was three times higher for women with breast implants (based on 24 deaths among implant recipients). The risk was greatest -- nearly seven times higher than in the general female population -- for women who received their implants at age 45 or older.

Source

Excess Mortality From Suicide and Other External Causes of Death Among Women With Cosmetic Breast Implants

By Lipworth, Loren et al.

Abstract:

An increased rate of suicide among women with cosmetic breast implants has been consistently reported in the epidemiologic literature. We extended by 8 years the follow-up of our earlier mortality study of a nationwide cohort of 3527 Swedish women with cosmetic breast implants to examine in greater detail suicide and other causes of death. The number of deaths observed among these women was compared with the number expected among the age- and calendar-period-matched general female population of Sweden. Women with breast implants were followed for over 65,000 person-years, with a mean follow-up of 18.7 years (range, 0.1-37.8 years). Overall, 175 deaths occurred among women with breast implants versus 133.4 expected (standardized mortality ratio (SMR) = 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.5). Among women with implants, we observed statistically significant 3-fold excesses of suicide (SMR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.5) and deaths from alcohol or drug dependence (SMR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.0-7.3), as well as an excess of deaths from accidents and injuries consistent with substance abuse or dependence. The increased risk of suicide was not apparent until 10 years after implantation. Deaths from cancer overall were close to expectation (SMR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4). Women with cosmetic implants had elevated SMRs for lung cancer and chronic respiratory disease. There was no excess of breast cancer mortality. The excess of deaths from suicides, drug and alcohol abuse and dependence, and other related causes suggests significant underlying psychiatric morbidity among these women. Thus, screening for preimplant psychiatric morbidity and postimplant monitoring among women seeking cosmetic breast implants may be warranted.

Annals of Plastic Surgery. 59(2):119-123, August 2007

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



13 August, 2007

An extraordinarily stupid diet

Anyone subjecting kids to it could undoubtedly be charged with child abuse -- and the whole "detox" idea is a crock anyway

A 10-DAY detox diet consisting of only lemon juice, water and tree sap syrup is being sold to children as young as six. The popularity of the Lemon Detox Diet has soared in Australia, with more than 40,000 sales through the internet in the past six months. It has become a hot diet/cleansing treatment for Hollywood celebrities such as Angelina Jolie.

Nutritionist Rosemary Stanton is "horrified" by the cleansing diet. "There really isn't any proof this works," Dr Stanton said. "It is quite hazardous to put children on something that is unproven. "Children are growing and their bodies need protein. A diet like that will force their bodies to break down their own body protein. "It is dangerous and the wrong way to go."

The diet was designed by Hawaiian naturopath Stanley Burroughs 30 years ago. It involves drinking nothing more than a mixture of fresh lemon juice, cayenne, water and Madal Bal Natural Tree Syrup for seven to 10 days. The syrup is being sold through the internet for $79 a bottle. The Australian distributor, Sydney-based Andre Saade, said the product was suitable for children, while the company's website states it is "absolutely" safe for children. The syrup is made from the sap of trees -- one part maple, five parts south-east palm syrup, and tastes sweet and sour.

Dr Stanton said the internet was not the place to go for health advice. "People are simply spending money on something that they are not sure works," she said. "The body has its own detox system and that is the liver and the kidneys."

Source




Australian native food fights disease?

It's all very well if you are of the antioxidant religion. That taking antioxidants can shorten your life must not be mentioned, of course

SPREADING Kakadu plum jam on your toast or seasoning soup with native Tasmanian peppercorns could curb the effects of free radicals and soothe the ravages of time, a study has found. For the first time, Australian native fruits have been shown to contain "exceptional" levels of disease-fighting antioxidants, a result scientists hope will boost Australia's fledgling bush-food industry, worth $14 million annually.

Researchers at Food Science Australia, a joint venture between CSIRO and the Victorian Government, compared 12 fruits, including brush cherries, red and yellow finger limes, riberries and Kakadu plums, with blueberries, renowned as a "super food" for its strong antioxidant properties. Native fruits were found to be a rich source of phytochemicals, with Kakadu plums and Burdekin plums containing about five times the amount of antioxidants found in blueberries.

The harsh Australian landscape may account for the findings, according to study co-author Izabela Konczak. "Australian plants had developed in complete isolation from the fruits from the northern hemisphere, with some plants, such as the Tasmanian pepper, associated with hardy Antarctic flora," Dr Konczak said. "If we expose plant cells to stress they produce compounds which protect the plant, and these work in humans as well and can protect us from nasty free radicals." Dr Konczak said eating antioxidants could prevent the development of chronic diseases and stem the ageing process.

Native fruits have been eaten by indigenous Australians for thousands of years, but with scant scientific data about their nutritional value, most people eat native fruit for their piquant taste, said Brunswick East-based CERES Bushfood and Permaculture Nursery manager Antoinette Celotti. "Mountain pepper, for example, has a spicy taste and there are advantages to growing the native fruit in relation to water usage," Ms Celotti said.

Using bush fruits as a source of phytochemicals could also interest the health food industry. "Finding unique food ingredients and flavours with health-promoting properties is a key market requirement these days," Dr Konczak said. So should we be eating Cedar Bay cherries on our breakfast cereal in a bid to stay youthful? "Yes, definitely," she laughed. "The development of minimally processed native fruits - a kind of convenience food - is the best way to use them for health benefits."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



12 August, 2007

Two deaths apparently caused by pain treatment; drug banned in Australia

Correlation is not causation. The liver damage observed may NOT have been due to the drug. Why, for instance, did the other 59,992 users NOT get liver damage? I have head of renal failure being "caused" by Keflex (cephalexin), a mass-prescribed antibiotic. Should we ban Keflex too? All drugs should be prescribed with caution as there may be individual sensitivities but banning a useful drug when vast numbers use it safely is plain crazy. ALL drugs have some side effects in some people. Even penicillin and its derivatives can kill you if you are sensitive to it. If we banned all drugs that appear to have rare side-effects we would have no drugs. Perhaps I shouldn't laugh but Canada has recently announced EXPANDED use of the same drug. That should produce some amusing gyrations

TWO people are dead and two others have undergone liver transplants from a drug, used by 60,000 people in Australia, which was urgently recalled today by the Federal Government. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) said patients prescribed the drug Prexige, used to treat osteoarthritis, should stop taking the medication immediately and seek medical advice to get an alternative prescription.

Prexige was first approved by the TGA in 2004, but has only gained widespread use since being listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme last year. Novartis Pharmaceuticals produces the drug, which is listed under the technical name Lumiracoxib. Approximately 60,000 people take Lumiracoxib in Australia, which is prescribed for relief of osteoarthritis, post-operative pain, pain related to dental procedures and painful menstruation.

The TGA has received reports of eight people taking the drug who suffered serious liver reactions, including two deaths and two liver transplants. "The TGA has taken this advice to cancel the registration of Lumiracoxib in order to prevent further cases of severe liver damage," TGA medical adviser Rohan Hammett said. "It seems that the longer people are on the medicine, the greater chance of liver injury."

Source




Fruit fanaticism in Australia

Nobody is even interested in proof of benefit. The wonderful powers of fruit seem to be a worldwide article of faith



VICTORIAN school children will get free fruit every Friday under an $11 million plan to help prevent obesity and diabetes. Launching the program today, Premier John Brumby said 35,000 prep to grade two students at 300 schools would take part in Free Fruit Friday under the first stage of the scheme. "It's all about trying to build a healthier population, educating kids, educating families and making sure that their diet is as good as possible,'' Mr Brumby said.

A study of a similar scheme in England found providing free fruit to young school children had limited benefits. The scheme promoted an increase in fruit intake after three months, the effect reduced at seven months and returned to baseline in year two when pupils were no longer part of the scheme, researchers found. There was a small impact on the intake of some nutrients across the children surveyed, researchers found. The study was published last month in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Mr Brumby said the Victorian scheme was more comprehensive than the one tried in the UK and would be more successful. "This is part of a broader strategy which is also linked through programs like Go For Your Life,'' Mr Brumby said. "I think if you just did this in isolation from a whole range of other initiatives, you might say: 'Well, is it going to work?'''

Mr Brumby said the program would create behavioural change. "I think it'll work. We'll, obviously, evaluate the program but we're making a big investment and we need to do that because we do have a diabetes and obesity epidemic in Australia.'' Schools will be encouraged to buy their fruit locally.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



11 August, 2007

MORE ON THE LATEST STUDY OF COFFEE GOODNESS

I mentioned this study yesterday but I have just now found the original journal article. See the abstract below. The authors acknowledge that coffee consumption varies according to all sorts of social factors ("a wide range of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables") and have made some effort to allow for the possibility that it is an underlying social factor they are examining rather than coffee consumption itself. Such factors are however hard to measure and the fact that differences were observed only among women strongly points to a social rather than a physiological explanation for what was observed. My conjecture that the absolute differences would be small is also confirmed

The neuroprotective effects of caffeine: A prospective population study (the Three City Study)

By K. Ritchie et al.

Objective: To examine the association between caffeine intake, cognitive decline, and incident dementia in a community-based sample of subjects aged 65 years and over.

Methods: Participants were 4,197 women and 2,820 men from a population-based cohort recruited from three French cities. Cognitive performance, clinical diagnosis of dementia, and caffeine consumption were evaluated at baseline and at 2 and 4 year follow-up.

Results: Caffeine consumption is associated with a wide range of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables which may also affect cognitive decline. Multivariate mixed models and multivariate adjusted logistic regression indicated that women with high rates of caffeine consumption (over three cups per day) showed less decline in verbal retrieval (OR = 0.67, CI = 0.53, 0.85), and to a lesser extent in visuospatial memory (OR = 0.82, CI = 0.65, 1.03) over 4 years than women consuming one cup or less. The protective effect of caffeine was observed to increase with age (OR = 0.73, CI = 0.53, 1.02 in the age range 65 to 74; OR = 0.3, CI = 0.14, 0.63 in the range 80+). No relation was found between caffeine intake and cognitive decline in men. Caffeine consumption did not reduce dementia risk over 4 years.

Conclusions: The psychostimulant properties of caffeine appear to reduce cognitive decline in women without dementia, especially at higher ages. Although no impact is observed on dementia incidence, further studies are required to ascertain whether caffeine may nonetheless be of potential use in prolonging the period of mild cognitive impairment in women prior to a diagnosis of dementia.

NEUROLOGY 2007;69:536-545




THERE REALLY IS SUCH A THING AS A FATHEAD

The study below shows that fatties have more white matter (a fatty substance) in their brains. No adverse effect of increased white matter was however shown. It is grey matter that does the thinking.

Brain White Matter Expansion in Human Obesity and the Recovering Effect of Dieting

By Lauri T. Haltia et al.

Context and Objective: Obesity is associated with several metabolic abnormalities. Recent studies suggest that obesity also affects brain function and is a risk factor for some degenerative brain diseases. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of weight gain and weight loss on brain gray and white matter structure. We hypothesized that possible differences seen in the brains of obese subjects would disappear or diminish after an intensive dieting period.

Methods: In part I of the study, we scanned with magnetic resonance imaging 16 lean (mean body mass index, 22 kg/m2) and 30 obese (mean body mass index, 33 kg/m2) healthy subjects. In part II, 16 obese subjects continued with a very low-calorie diet for 6 wk, after which they were scanned again. Regional brain white and gray matter volumes were calculated using voxel-based morphometry.

Results: White matter volumes were greater in obese subjects, compared with lean subjects in several basal brain regions, and obese individuals showed a positive correlation between white matter volume in basal brain structures and waist to hip ratio. The detected white matter expansion was partially reversed by dieting. Regional gray matter volumes did not differ significantly in obese and lean subjects, and dieting did not affect gray matter.

Conclusions: The precise mechanism for the discovered white matter changes remains unclear, but the present study demonstrates that obesity and dieting are associated with opposite changes in brain structure. It is not excluded that white matter expansion in obesity has a role in the neuropathogenesis of degenerative brain diseases.

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 92, No. 8 3278-3284

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



10 August, 2007

Study shows marriage partly governed by fat levels

SOME fall for beautiful eyes while others are smitten with a smile. But when it comes to deciding on true love, you might be better off looking at your intended's waistline. Scientists have shown that we tend to marry partners with a similar level of body fat to our own. Flab, or the lack of it, is just as important as background, class or age in determining who we choose to spend our lives with.

It is thought the phenomenon - known as assortative mating - could be a key factor in the obesity epidemic. Children of overweight couples are likely to inherit genes that make them prone to putting on weight too, and so be more likely to have a weight problem themselves. "If someone who is overweight or obese marries someone who is overweight or obese, their children could have a genetic disposition to obesity," researcher Diane Jackson said.

The study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found body scans of 42 couples showed they shared similar levels of body fat. The finding held true even when factors which can influence weight, such as age and class, were taken into account.

The study also showed that rather than couples simply growing fat together, they actually started off that way. "In the 1940s and 1950s, people mostly got married in their early 20s before they were overweight or obese," researcher Professor John Speakman said. "So it would have been difficult for them to assortatively mate for body fatness because it would have been impossible to distinguish somebody who was thin from somebody who was thin but going to become fat.

"Nowadays, we choose partners and have children much later, but if we are going to become obese, on average we do so much younger. "This makes it possible for potential partners to select each other on the basis of body fatness. "What is currently unclear is how these associations come about. "Perhaps the social activities of the overweight and obese people coincide, making them more likely to meet partners who are also overweight or obese."

Source




Contraceptive pill could thwart cancer for 20 years

THE contraceptive pill can protect a woman against ovarian cancer for at least 20 years after she stops taking it, scientists have revealed. The largest study of its kind has found that the longer a woman uses the contraceptive, the less likely she is to develop the disease. Taking the pill for five to 10 years gave her the best protection when she stopped using it, the scientists said. Even after a 20-year gap, women's chances of developing ovarian cancer were cut by almost half when compared to those who had never used oral contraceptives.

Previous research has recognised that the pill gives protection against ovarian cancer. However, experts say this 28-year study, which involved more than 100,000 women, examines the long-term effects of different contraceptive methods. The findings, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, suggested the protecting effect might come about because women on the pill did not produce eggs. The normal process of egg release triggers cell damage and repair that raises the risk of tumour development.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



9 August, 2007

We need our fat

In this country, the most popular cosmetic surgery procedure is liposuction: doctors vacuum out something like two million pounds of fat from the thighs, bellies, buttocks, jowls and man-breasts of 325,000 people a year. What happens to all that extracted adipose tissue? It's bagged and disposed of as medical waste; or maybe, given the recent news about socially contagious fat, it's sent by FedEx to the patients' old college chums. But one thing the fat surely is not, and that is given due thanks for serving as scapegoat, and for a job well done.

We are now in what feels like the 347th year of the fastidiously vilified "obesity epidemic." Health officials repeatedly warn that everywhere in the world people are gaining too much weight and putting themselves at risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and other obesity-linked illnesses, not to mention taking up more than their fair share of molded plastic subway seat.

It's easy to fear and despise our body fat and to see it as an unnatural, inert, pointless counterpoint to all things phat and fabulous. Yet fat tissue is not the problem here, and to castigate fat for getting too big and to blame it for high blood pressure or a wheezing heart is like a heavy drinker blaming the liver for turning cirrhotic. Just as the lush's liver was merely doing its hepatic best to detoxify the large quantities of liquor in which it was doused, and just as the alcoholic would have been far worse off had the liver not been playing Hepa-filter in the first place, so our fat tissue, by efficiently absorbing the excess packets of energy we put in our mouths, has our best interests at heart.

"Obesity is not due to any defect in adipose tissue per se; it's an issue of energy balance," said Bruce M. Spiegelman of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. If you are consuming too many calories relative to what you burn off, the body must cope with that energy surplus, he said, "and adipose tissue is the proper place for it." "If you had no fat cells, no adipose tissue, you'd still be out of energy balance, and you'd put the excess energy somewhere else," he said, at which point really bad things can happen. Consider the lipodystrophy diseases, rare metabolic disorders in which the body lacks fat tissue and instead dumps its energy overruns in that jack-of-all-organs, the liver, causing extreme liver swelling, liver failure and sometimes liver-bearer death.

"Some adipose tissue is a good thing," said Barbara Kahn, chief of the endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, at Harvard. Indeed, evolutionary biologists have proposed that our relative plumpness compared with our closest nonhuman kin, the chimpanzee, may help explain our relative braininess. Even a lean male athlete with a body fat content of 8 percent to 10 percent of total body mass (half the fat found on the average nonobese, non-Olympic American man) is still a few percentage points more marbled than a wild male chimpanzee, and scientists have suggested that our distinctive adipose stores help ensure that our big brains will be fed even when our cupboards go bare.

Scientists who study fat emphasize that its bland and amorphous appearance notwithstanding, our adipose depots represent highly specialized organs, as finely honed to the task of energy storage as muscle is built for flexing. Our body fat is made of some 40 billion fat cells, or adipocytes, and their supportive matrix, with most of the bulk stashed under the skin but also threaded viscerally, around and between other organs. Each fat cell is essentially a bouncing balloon filled with those greasy lipids we call triglycerides, three fatty acid chains of mostly carbons and hydrogens arrayed in high-energy configurations that explain why, gram for gram, dietary fat has more than twice the calories of meat or starch; and every fatty acid trio is tacked to a sugar-sweet glycerol frame.

In most body cells, the watery cytoplasm where the labor of proteins takes place accounts for maybe 70 percent of the cell's volume, with another 10 percent given over to the nucleus, seat of the cell's DNA. In a fat cell, by contrast, lipids are king, queen and bishop, and the checkerboard, too. They fill more than 95 percent of the adipocyte volume, crowding the cytoplasm with its proteins and the nucleus with its genes up against the cell wall in what Dr. Kahn calls "a crescent moon space."

Yet for all its lipid density, the average fat cell is ever primed to hoard more, to take in more fatty acids and sugars from the blood and stitch them into triglyceride stores, and to swell to several times its cellular waistline of yore. Most weight that we gain and lose in life is the result of our existing fat cells growing and shrinking, absorbing and releasing energy-rich lipids as needed, depending on our diet and exercise regimens of the moment. But when exposed to chronic caloric overload, fat cells will initiate cell division to augment the supply; and because fat cells, like muscle cells, rarely turn over and die, those new lipidinous recruits will be your helpmeets for life.

Fat is no rutabaga. It is dynamic and mercantile, exchanging chemical signals with the brain, bones, gonads and immune system, and with every energy manager on the body's long alimentary train. "We used to think of an adipose cell as an inert storage depot," Dr. Kahn said. "Now we appreciate that it is an endocrine organ," in other words, an organ that like the thyroid or pancreas, secretes hormones to shape the behavior of other tissues far and wide. Squashed to the side a fat cell's cytoplasm may be, but it nevertheless spins out a steady supply of at least 20 different hormones. Key among them is leptin, an essential player in reproduction. Scientists suspect that a girl enters puberty when her fat stores become sufficiently dense to begin releasing leptin, which signals the brain to set the pulsing axis of gonadal hormones in motion.

Fat also seems to know when it is getting out of hand, and it may resist new personal growth. Dr. Spiegelman and others have shown that with the onset of obesity - defined as 25 or more pounds above one's ideal weight - the fat tissue starts releasing potent inflammatory hormones. That response is complex and harmful in the long run. But in the short term, said Dr. Spiegelman, "inflammation clearly has an anti-obesity effect, and it may be the body's attempt to restrain further accumulation of adipose tissue." The fat sizes up the risks and benefits, and it takes its fat chance.

Source




More than three coffees a day could protect memory -- in old women

The effect sounds slight in absolute terms and could tell us more about women of leisure than anything else

DRINKING more than three cups of coffee a day helped protect older women against some age-related memory decline, French researchers said today, giving women more reason to love the world's most popular stimulant. Men did not enjoy the same benefit, they said. "The more coffee one drank, the better the effects seemed to be on (women's) memory functioning in particular," said Karen Ritchie at the French National Institute of Medical Research, whose work appears in the journal, Neurology.

The researchers followed more than 7000 men and women in three French cities, checking their health and mental function and asking them about their current and past eating and drinking habits, their friends, and their daily activities. They used this information to sort out the specific role caffeine played in these women's lives.

They found women who drank more than three cups of coffee per day, or its caffeine equivalent in tea, retained more of their verbal and - to a lesser extent - visual memories over four years. The odds of these women having verbal memory declines was 33 per cent less, and visual and spatial memory declines 18 per cent less, than women who drank one cup or fewer per day. The effect also depended on age, with women over 80 reaping more benefits from these beverages than those who were 10 to 15 years younger, Ritchie's team wrote. It was unclear whether current or former coffee consumption made the difference.

Some studies in mice have suggested that caffeine might block the buildup of proteins that lead to mental decline. Ms Ritchie is not sure why only women benefited in her study. "Our best guess is that women don't metabolise coffee in the same way (as men)," she said. Ms Ritchie plans to follow the women longer to see if caffeine delays the onset of dementia - the mental confusion that signals Alzheimer's disease and other brain disorders. She said people should weigh any brain gains derived from caffeine against other effects of the stimulant, including raised blood pressure.

The average American drinks one to two cups of coffee a day, according to the National Coffee Association.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



8 August, 2007

Maccas has good associations for little kids



The reference given for this report is faulty as no such article appears in the current issue of JAMA. I wonder however if the kids who were studied had ever been to McDonalds or not. I would be surprised if they had not. So attributing the effect to TV advertising is tendentious. The kids may simply have learnt from experience that Maccas has tasty food

Junk-food advertising's influence on young children has been confirmed by research revealing vegetables taste better to preschoolers if served in McDonald's wrappers. In a study prompting renewed calls for restrictions on fast-food marketing, four out of five children preferred hamburgers, chicken nuggets, fries, milk and even baby carrots served in McDonald's packaging, over identical food in plain wrappers.

Childhood obesity experts said the results of 300 individual tasting comparisons, with 63 children aged three to five, were alarming. Seventy-seven per cent preferred fries served on a wrapper with the golden arches logo, compared with 13 per cent who liked them better in plain packaging. Chicken nuggets in a bag branded with the logo were favoured by 59 per cent while more than half (54 per cent) thought baby carrots in a branded french fries bag tasted better than in a plain bag. Forty-eight per cent liked the hamburger with the fast food company's logo compared with 37 per cent who preferred it in a plain wrapper. Even milk tasted better, with 61 per cent preferring it in a McDonald's cup.

The study found that the more televisions there were in a preschooler's home, the more likely they were to prefer foods and drinks from McDonald's. The results from the Stanford University (California) research, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, come a week after federal Labor's health spokeswoman, Nicola Roxon, revealed a Kevin Rudd government would ban the use of licensed characters such as Shrek to market junk food to children.

McDonald's spokeswoman Christine Mullen said they used Shrek to advertise their Pasta Zoo Happy Meal, which has less fat and more calcium and protein than other options.

Source




COKE ROTS YOUR KIDNEYS

Or does it? It depends in part on how well the matching between the diseased and normal population was done. Strictly, the matching should have been with other ill people

Carbonated Beverages and Chronic Kidney Disease

By Saldana, Tina M. et al.

Abstract:

Background: Carbonated beverage consumption has been linked with diabetes, hypertension, and kidney stones, all risk factors for chronic kidney disease. Cola beverages, in particular, contain phosphoric acid and have been associated with urinary changes that promote kidney stones.

Methods: We examined the relationship between carbonated beverages (including cola) and chronic kidney disease, using data from 465 patients with newly diagnosed chronic kidney disease and 467 community controls recruited in North Carolina between 1980 and 1982.

Results: Drinking 2 or more colas per day was associated with increased risk of chronic kidney disease (adjusted odds ratio = 2.3; 95% confidence interval = 1.4-3.7). Results were the same for regular colas (2.1; 1.3-3.4) and artificially sweetened colas (2.1; 0.7-2.5). Noncola carbonated beverages were not associated with chronic kidney disease (0.94; 0.4-2.2).

Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that cola consumption may increase the risk of chronic kidney disease.

Epidemiology. 18(4):501-506, July 2007

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



7 August, 2007

PEDOPHILES ARE BORN THAT WAY

Or they are at least developmentally arrested. Either way, pedophilia does seem to be a physical disorder: Sex-related areas of their brains are notably shrunken by normal standards. It would seem to be an argument for some sort of permanent restraint on them. They can't help themselves

Brain pathology in pedophilic offenders: evidence of volume reduction in the right amygdala and related diencephalic structures

By Kolja Schiltz et al.

Abstract:

CONTEXT: Pedophilic crime causes considerable public concern, but no causative factor of pedophilia has yet been pinpointed. In the past, etiological theories postulated a major impact of the environment, but recent studies increasingly emphasize the role of neurobiological factors, as well. However, the role of alterations in brain structures that are crucial in the development of sexual behavior has not yet been systematically studied in pedophilic subjects. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether pedophilic perpetrators show structural neuronal deficits in brain regions that are critical for sexual behavior and how these deficits relate to criminological characteristics.

DESIGN: Amygdalar volume and gray matter of related structures that are critical for sexual development were compared in 15 nonviolent male pedophilic perpetrators (forensic inpatients) and 15 controls using complementary morphometric analyses (voxel-based morphometry and volumetry). Psychosocial adjustment and sexual offenses were also assessed.

RESULTS: Pedophilic perpetrators showed a significant decrease of right amygdalar volume, compared with healthy controls (P = .001). We observed reduced gray matter in the right amygdala, hypothalamus (bilaterally), septal regions, substantia innominata, and bed nucleus of the striae terminalis. In 8 of the 15 perpetrators, enlargement of the anterior temporal horn of the right lateral ventricle that adjoins the amygdala could be recognized by routine qualitative clinical assessment. Smaller right amygdalar volumes were correlated with the propensity to commit uniform pedophilic sexual offenses exclusively (P = .006) but not with age (P = .89).

CONCLUSIONS: Pedophilic perpetrators show structural impairments of brain regions critical for sexual development. These impairments are not related to age, and their extent predicts how focused the scope of sexual offenses is on uniform pedophilic activity. Subtle defects of the right amygdala and closely related structures might be implicated in the pathogenesis of pedophilia and might possibly reflect developmental disturbances or environmental insults at critical periods



Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:737-746




Mahjong game 'can cause epilepsy'

So watch out!



A study by doctors in Hong Kong has concluded that epilepsy can be induced by the Chinese tile game of mahjong. The findings, published in the Hong Kong Medical Journal, were based on 23 cases of people who had suffered mahjong-induced seizures. The report's four authors, from Hong Kong's Queen Mary Hospital, said the best prevention - and cure - was to avoid playing mahjong.

The study led the doctors to define mahjong epilepsy as a unique syndrome. Epileptic seizures can be provoked by a wide variety of triggers, but one cause increasingly evident to researchers is the playing - or even watching - of mahjong. This Chinese tile game, played by four people round a table, can involve gambling and quickly becomes compulsive. The game, which is intensely social and sometimes played in crowded mahjong parlours, involves the rapid movement of tiles in marathon sessions.

The doctors conclude that the syndrome affects far more men than women; that their average age is 54; and that it can hit sufferers anywhere between one to 11 hours into a mahjong game. They say the attacks were not just caused by sleep deprivation or gambling stress. Mahjong is cognitively demanding, drawing on memory, fast calculations, concentration, reasoning and sequencing. The distinctive design of mahjong tiles, and the sound of the tiles crashing onto the table, may contribute to the syndrome.

The propensity of Chinese people to play mahjong also deserves further study, the doctors say. What is certain though, is that the only sure way to avoid mahjong epilepsy, is to avoid mahjong, which for many people is easier said than done.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



6 August, 2007

Heart discovery to save millions of lives

AUSTRALIA'S top heart specialists believe they have found a treatment to stop heart disease in its tracks, potentially saving millions of lives worldwide. Experts from the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute and Sydney's St Vincent's Hospital will today unveil the groundbreaking discovery which involves using adult stem cells from patients to repair their own hearts. The world-first treatment has been shown to generate new blood vessels and repair dead tissue in the heart. Importantly, the changes appear to be permanent.

Heart disease is the world's biggest killer, claiming 17 million lives a year. In Australia, there are 3.5 million sufferers and 50,000 die annually, 35 per cent of all deaths.

The new treatment involves injecting patients with a hormone to release beneficial stem cells from their bone marrow into their bloodstream. Then the patients are put on a treadmill to encourage the cells to travel to the heart, where they create new blood vessels to restore circulation and boost heart function. Evidence has also shown the hormone -- Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor -- can also actively rescue and protect struggling heart muscles from dying. It has passed safety tests and entered the second phase of human trials last week.

Professor David Ma, head of blood and stem-cell research at St Vincent's, said the development of the treatment was amazing. "It's amazing because a few years back when we started this study our whole hypothesis was different," he said. "It's quite exciting -- it's given us a new direction to attack the situation. "Because of the study results and more evidence coming out in the past couple of years, we have changed our emphasis." He explained how the hormone could stimulate blood vessels to grow in the heart as well as protecting and rescuing heart muscles from dying.

Prof Ma said the findings were significant because heart disease was already a huge problem in developed nations, like the US and Britain, but was also rapidly growing in developing countries, like India and China.

Professor Bob Graham, head of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, said the early findings were "very promising". Speaking from the US, where he was meeting international specialists last week, Prof Graham said: "At the moment we are restricting it to the most severe patients but if it works and is safe for those patients, hopefully we can broaden it. "The nice thing about this trial is that the drug is already on the market -- although it hasn't been used for this application." The hormone is commonly used to help cancer patients recover after chemotherapy.

Dr Sharon Chih, cardiology research fellow at St Vincent's, is co-ordinating the trial. Forty patients with severe angina -- or chest pain from a lack of blood and oxygen supply to the heart -- are being tested with the treatment against a placebo in a double-blind, crossover trial. They will be treated for three weeks and checked with MRI scans to assess the treatment's effectiveness. Poor diet and lack of exercise, as well as smoking, are major contributors to heart disease in Western countries. But the incidence is spreading to developing nations.

Source




Nerve gas antidote made by goats

Scientists have genetically modified goats to make a drug in their milk that protects against deadly nerve agents such as sarin and VX. These poisons are known collectively as organophosphates - a group of chemicals that also includes some pesticides used in farming. So far, the GM goats have made almost 15kg of a drug which binds to and neutralises organophosphate molecules. Details appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

The drug, called recombinant butyrylcholinesterase, could be used as a protective "prophylactic" drug and also to treat people after exposure to nerve gas. The US Department of Defense is funding the development effort by biotech firm PharmAthene to the tune of $213m. It regards the drug as a promising way to protect its troops against exposure to nerve agents on the battlefield. Butyrylcholinesterase could also be stockpiled for use in the event of a terrorist attack on a city with chemical weapons.

It is an enzyme that is made in small quantities by the human body. The compound can be purified from blood, but the yields are poor. However, the team at PharmAthene has been able to produce butyrylcholinesterase in large, commercial quantities and, the company says, at a reasonable cost. "It is a very difficult molecule to produce. There is a long history of people trying to produce this in everything from insects to yeast to bacteria and mammalian cells," said Dr Solomon Langermann of PharmAthene, a co-author on the PNAS paper. "None of them has been able to produce anything beyond milligram amounts. In the goat, we can make two or three grams per litre."

The researchers inserted DNA for making the human form of butyrylcholinesterase into a "vector" molecule. This vector is then introduced into a goat embryo. This allows the human gene to be incorporated into the goat's DNA sequence. The resulting female animals, all healthy, produced large quantities of butyrylcholinesterase in their milk.

The high yields are partly down to "control elements" - stretches of DNA added, along with the human gene, to the vector molecule. These control elements regulate how much of the enzyme the goat produces and ensure that most of it is produced in the milk, rather than in other tissues.

Once the enzyme was purified from milk, the scientists injected it into guinea pigs, and saw that it remained active in the bloodstream. The commercial name given to the butyrylcholinesterase enzyme is Protexia. Dr Langermann said that Protexia was more effective than the combination of the drugs atropine and 2-PAM currently carried by soldiers for protection against nerve agents. "Those (older) drugs get cleared from the blood very rapidly. Even if the soldier were to survive, they would have very severe neurological damage," he told BBC News. "With Protexia, you would survive and be able to go back on the battlefield."

It is also effective against a variety of different organophosphate poisons. The product is still several years from entering use; it needs to pass a safety trial and seek approvals from the US government.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



5 August, 2007

Another hymn to the wonders of fruit

Sadly, these miracles normally fade to nothing when subjected to those pesky double-blind trials

A QUEENSLAND-made punch packed with anti-oxidants killed the cells of five different cancers in clinical tests, it has been claimed. Prostate, breast, bladder, colon and stomach cancer cells were all dramatically reduced after just two weeks of treatment with Dr Red's Blueberry Punch. "It was a very significant drop in cell numbers, and we found that the more concentrated the dose (of punch), the greater the reduction in cancer cells," University of Sydney research fellow Dr Jas Singh said. Dr Singh's team also injected immuno-deficient mice with prostate cancer cells, and after two weeks, found the tumours were 30 per cent smaller.

Brisbane urologists Doctor John Yaxley and Professor Robert Gardiner now plan to take the tests a step further, by undertaking human trials in partnership with the University of Queensland. Up to 150 prostate patients are expected to participate at the invitation of their doctor. "It will be up to their urologist whether they think the patient is appropriate," Professor Gardiner, who hoped to begin the trials in the next few months, said.

Dr Red's owner, biochemist Greg Jardine, said he never set out to make a medicinal product - only a wine with three times the anti-oxidants of standard drinks. "It wasn't our idea. It was the market. People would say 'I'm going to take this wine for my cancer' and I'd say 'No, it's just wine'," said Mr Jardine, from his Mount Nebo vineyard. The punch contains a range of anti-oxidant rich ingredients including ginger and turmeric juices, the pulp of oranges, lemons, mandarins and limes, grapes, grapeseed and grape skin, as well as tarragon and blueberries - lots of blueberries.

"We use a quarter of a kilo of blueberries in every (750ml) bottle. We go through about a tonne a week," Mr Jardine said. He said he was trying to keep the cost of the punch down, but the price of ingredients made that difficult. "It's not cheap. It works out at about $1.15 a glass, and there are 30 glasses in every $40 bottle. "We recommend 25ml a day, but in the trial they were using three glasses a day," he said.

Brisbane dietician Nicola Fox said it was pleasing to see a product prepared to undergo scientific tests. "There's lots of natural products that make all sorts of claims, but they're yet to be tested," Ms Fox said.

Source




An unusual Leftist politician in Australia -- a food realist

LABOR'S push to banish cartoon characters from promotions of food to children have given one of the party's candidates a mild bout of indigestion. George Colbran, who is standing for the ALP in the Queensland electorate of Herbert, operates nine McDonald's restaurants, making him one of the fast food chain's biggest Australian franchisees. He argues that childhood obesity has been over-simplified by those who blame "junk" food. "Junk food: I get upset about that," Mr Colbran told the Herald. "How can a piece of meat put into bread with lettuce and cheese, eggs and muffins and so forth, be considered junk?"

Mr Colbran says voters in the Townsville electorate are far more concerned about the parlous state of local roads and poor access to broadband. He reckons plans by the Opposition health spokeswoman, Nicola Roxon, for restrictions on advertising food to children will never become Labor policy. This week Ms Roxon expressed concern that the character of Shrek was being used to sell everything from yoghurt to chocolate eggs as a marketing tool to get children to pester their parents into buying the products.

Mr Colbran said obesity was a complex issue. "There is a propensity for kids to be bigger now than they were when I was growing up, and there are a lot more reasons for that than McDonald's. "It's to do with lifestyles, kids in front of television and computer screens, kids being driven to school and picked up rather than riding their bicycles."

Herbert is important for Kevin Rudd's chances of winning the federal election, which hinge on whether the ALP can make electoral gains in Queensland. Labor has sought to improve its chances by selecting more candidates with business backgrounds like Mr Colbran. Labor believes a crackdown on food advertising will be popular among parents. But Mr Colbran's remarks suggest the plans may alienate another demographic, owners and employees of the estimated 11,000 food retailing franchises around the country.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



4 August, 2007

NOT BEING ABLE TO READ KILLS YOU?

I don't think most people will be much surprised by the finding below but the interesting question is why. The finding actually surprised me somewhat because the content of most media health messages is a quite obsessive repetition of the mantra that fat and salt are bad for you -- messages that have NO support in well-conducted longditudial studies. So is there some other beneficial content in media health messages? Maybe. Though not being able to read warning signs and labels is more likely to have something to do with it. But I think that we should first look more closely at the study below before we draw any conclusions.

It is actually a more sophisticated study than most epidemiological studies in that it DOES control for education and social class. While education and social class are important, however, two other important social stratification variables not considered are income and IQ -- and neither of those have really close proxies in education and social class. Some well-educated people are poor and some rich people are not very bright, for instance. So, applying Occam's razor, I conclude that the study shows simply that poor people die younger. Given their lesser access to good medical care -- PARTICULARLY in socialized medicine systems such as Britain's NHS -- that is not at all surprising.

Another worthwhile possibility to consider is that illiterate or semi-literate people have to take jobs that are more dangerous in various ways

Health Literacy and Mortality Among Elderly Persons

By David W. Baker et al.

Background: Individuals with low levels of health literacy have less health knowledge, worse self-management of chronic disease, lower use of preventive services, and worse health in cross-sectional studies. We sought to determine whether low health literacy levels independently predict overall and cause-specific mortality.

Methods: We designed a prospective cohort study of 3260 Medicare managed-care enrollees in 4 US metropolitan areas who were interviewed in 1997 to determine their demographic characteristics, chronic conditions, self-reported physical and mental health, and health behaviors. Participants also completed the shortened version of the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults. Main outcome measures included all-cause and cause-specific (cardiovascular, cancer, and other) mortality using data from the National Death Index through 2003.

Results: The crude mortality rates for participants with adequate (n = 2094), marginal (n = 366), and inadequate (n = 800) health literacy were 18.9%, 28.7%, and 39.4%, respectively (P < .001). After adjusting for demographics, socioeconomic status, and baseline health, the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.83) and 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.41) for participants with inadequate and marginal health literacy, respectively, compared with participants with adequate health literacy. In contrast, years of school completed was only weakly associated with mortality in bivariate analyses and was not significant in multivariate models. Participants with inadequate health literacy had higher risk-adjusted rates of cardiovascular death but not of death due to cancer.

Conclusions: Inadequate health literacy, as measured by reading fluency, independently predicts all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death among community-dwelling elderly persons. Reading fluency is a more powerful variable than education for examining the association between socioeconomic status and health.

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1503-1509




Thanks be unto mice

The number of scientific experiments conducted on animals has declined considerably over the past 30 years. The trend, however, has been reversed recently. The total has risen in each of the past five years and new data released by the Home Office this week show that the 2006 figure exceeded three million for the first time since 1991.

This has angered even the more considered elements of the animal rights lobby. The RSPCA pronounced itself furious and shocked, while the Dr Hadwen Trust, which supports medical research with nonanimal methods, blamed the Government's "ethical negligence". Its message was clear: scientists might talk about replacing, reducing and refining animal experiments, but this is mere lip service. The statistics tell a tale of more animal suffering.

This view might look compelling, but it is not founded in logic. A rise in the raw number of animal procedures does not necessarily mean that medical researchers are being cavalier. As it happens, the upward trend has a perfectly reasonable explanation that has nothing to do with callous indifference to animal welfare.

A close look at the Home Office figures makes this plain. The recent rise in animal use is almost entirely explained by the growing importance to science of genetically modified mice. The number of experiments that use these has more than quadrupled since 1995, to reach 1.04 million last year. One in three animal procedures now involves a GM mouse.

This headline figure, though, is a little misleading. The birth of every GM animal must be recorded as a scientific procedure in the Home Office statistics, even if it is never used in an experiment. Two-thirds are created purely to maintain breeding colonies or to provide cells, and are never given drugs or surgery. Many suffer no ill-effects from being genetically altered. Take them out of the equation and animal experiments would have continued to fall.

That said, it is beyond dispute that the number of GM animals used actively in research is rising and will continue to do so as more genes that influence disease come to light. But that is because these mice - and 97 per cent of GM animals are mice - allow scientists to answer medical questions that could not even have been asked a decade ago.

Conditions with a genetic contribution, such as diabetes, can now be modelled effectively by manipulating the genes of laboratory mice. These animals can then be used both to understand the disease process and to test new drugs. Such work is already having important results: treatments for incurable disorders such as muscular dystrophy that have been developed using GM mice are close to beginning clinical trials.

Such insights, regrettably, cannot be obtained in any other way. Scientists are using more GM mice not because they have become hard-hearted but because they are the best available tools for a certain kind of research of exceptional medical promise. From a patient perspective, the increasing number of GM mouse experiments is something to be welcomed. It means that science is closing in on the genetic origins of disease and thus on new approaches to therapy.

The development of nonanimal methods is of course welcome, and when such techniques have been validated it is right to use them. The number of nonGM animal procedures in research, indeed, has come down from 2.27 million in 1995 to 1.65 million last year. Further investment is appropriate, but too narrow a focus on reduction would mean abandoning new animal models just as they are becoming most useful. Science must be serious about both medical progress and animal welfare, but that may mean using more animals when necessary, and fewer when it is not.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



3 August, 2007

GOOD NEWS FOR TANNERS? DOES SUNSHINE PREVENT MS?

This is another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Sun exposure also causes skin cancer so do you get cancer by saving yourself from MS? Fortunately, there is no reason to worry. The study below is on very small numbers and the twins concerned had presumably been reared apart so many other things could explain the differences observed. Maybe the twins who got more sun were raised in richer families (or vice versa) for instance.

I also noticed that statistical significance is not mentioned in the abstract. I wondered why. Given the small numbers, I thought I knew why. And so it was. The differences FAILED the .05 criterion for statistical significance so may well have been purely random. Crap epidemiology just rolls on and on

Childhood sun exposure influences risk of multiple sclerosis in monozygotic twins

By Talat Islam et al.

Abstract:

Objective: To address the role of childhood sun exposure on the risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) after controlling for genetic susceptibility, we investigated the association between sun exposure and MS comparing disease-discordant monozygotic (MZ) twins.

Method: Twins with MS were sought by yearly newspaper advertisements throughout North America from 1980 to 1992. Diagnosis was verified by updated medical documentation through 2005. This analysis was restricted to 79 disease- and exposure-discordant monozygotic twin pairs who had ranked themselves before 1993 in relation to each of nine childhood sun exposure activities. A sun exposure index (SI) was defined as the sum of those exposures for which one twin ranked higher than his or her co-twin. The SI difference within each twin pair was calculated by subtracting the SI value of the affected twin from the SI value of the unaffected twin (range -9 to +9). The results were then analyzed using conditional logistic models.

Result: Each of the nine sun exposure-related activities during childhood seemed to convey a strong protection against MS within MZ twin pairs. Depending on the activity, the odds ratio (OR) ranged from 0.25 to 0.57. For example, the risk of subsequent MS was substantially lower (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.83) for the twin who spent more time suntanning in comparison with the co-twin. For each unit increase in SI, the relative risk of MS decreased by 25%.

Conclusion: Early sun avoidance seems to precede the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). This protective effect is independent of genetic susceptibility to MS.

Source. Fuller report here




Zebrafish study may point way to blindness cure



The ability of zebrafish to regenerate damaged retinas has given scientists a clue about restoring human vision and could lead to an experimental treatment for blindness within five years.

British researchers said on Wednesday they had successfully grown in the laboratory a type of adult stem cell found in the eyes of both fish and mammals that develops into neurons in the retina.

In future, these cells could be injected into the eye as a treatment for diseases such as macular degeneration, glaucoma and diabetes-related blindness, according to Astrid Limb of University College London's (UCL) Institute of Ophthalmology.

Damage to the retina -- the part of the eye that sends messages to the brain -- is responsible for most cases of sight loss. "Our findings have enormous potential," Limb said. "It could help in all diseases where the neurons are damaged, which is basically nearly every disease of the eye."

Limb and her colleagues studied so-called Mueller glial cells in the eyes of people aged from 18 months to 91 years and found they were able to develop them into all types of neurons found in the retina. They were also able to grow them easily in the lab, they reported in the journal Stem Cells.

The cells have already been tested in rats with diseased retinas, where they successfully migrated into the retina and took on the characteristics of the surrounding neurons. Now the team is working on the same approach in humans. "We very much hope that we could do autologous transplants within five years," Limb told Reuters.

Autologous transplants, initially on a trial basis, will involve manipulating cells and injecting them back into an individual's own eye. Eventually, Limb hopes it will also be possible to transfer the cells between different people. "Because they are so easy to grow, we could make stem cell banks and have cell lines available to the general population, subject to typing as with blood transfusions," she said.

Just why zebrafish have an abundant supply of adult stem cells to regenerate their retinas, while they are rare in mammals, remains a mystery but Limb suspects it is because mammals have a limiting system to stop proliferation.

The new work on Mueller glial cells is the latest example of researchers exploring the potential of different kinds of stem cells in treating eye disease. Another team from UCL and Moorfield's Eye Hospital said in June they aimed to repair damaged retinas with cells derived from embryonic stem cells.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



2 August, 2007

Standard anaesthetic practice harmful



Nitrous oxide, better known as laughing gas, is the cornerstone of anaesthesiology but a landmark Australian study has questioned its routine use in major surgery. The study of more than 2000 adult surgical patients worldwide found removing nitrous oxide from the anaesthetic cocktail significantly reduced the risk of major post-operative complications. Researchers reported a lower incidence of fever, pneumonia, wound infection, severe nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing major surgery where nitrous oxide was avoided.

The study, published in the August edition of Anaesthesiology, is expected to trigger fierce debate in the profession given nitrous oxide has been used for more than 150 years. "It would be fair to say all anaesthetists will read this Australian study with great interest across the world," said Brisbane specialist Patrick See, director of the St Andrew's Medical Institute. "It will be a landmark article that will stimulate a lot of discussion."

An estimated one million Australian patients and more than 10 million in the US are administered nitrous oxide annually. But the study's chief investigator Paul Myles, head of anaesthesia at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, expects that to plummet on the basis of the findings. "I think this study is going to reduce the use of nitrous oxide by about five to tenfold right now," Professor Myles said. "Our bottom line is that we should stop using nitrous oxide routinely in major surgery involving adults. "Some anaesthetists stopped using it a number of years ago because they had concerns about it but we've now got hard data."

Professor Myles stressed the results did not apply to patients having minor surgery, women in labour, dental procedures or operations involving children. All patients in the study were at least 18 and underwent surgery lasting two hours or more. They were randomly assigned to receive a nitrous oxide-based anaesthetic or one free of laughing gas.

The study authors reported slightly more heart attacks and deaths in the nitrous oxide group but Professor Myles said follow-up research was needed to back up those findings. "The numbers are too small for us to make any firm conclusions," Professor Myles said. The research team has already launched another study of 7000 patients with a $2.8 million grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Dr See, who was not involved in the research, said he had started using nitrous oxide on fewer patients "some years ago" because of emerging concerns. Nevertheless, Dr See expects the Australian study to raise eyebrows among some anaesthetists.

Source




Hope for MS: Genetics progress

The first genetic advance in multiple sclerosis research in three decades has opened new approaches to treating the neurological disorder, scientists said yesterday. Research has identified two genetic variants that each raises a person's risk of developing MS by about 30 per cent, shedding new light on the origins of the autoimmune disease that could ultimately lead to better therapies. The two genes are the first to be linked conclusively to MS since the mid-1970s, when the only other gene that is known to contribute to the condition was found.

Their discovery is particularly promising as both are involved in managing the activity of T-cells, the "infantry" of the immune system that sometimes mistakenly attack healthy tissue to cause autoimmune conditions. In MS, the immune system starts to destroy the fatty myelin sheaths that insulate nerve cells, leading to progressive neurological damage.

Both genes, which control receptors that T-cells use to find their targets, are potential targets for new drugs to control MS. They were found in a major study of the genetics of MS published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the significance of one has been confirmed in two separate papers published in Nature Genetics.

Scientists said that the genes would have important implications for understanding the disease and ultimately for treating it. Margaret Pericak-Vance of the University of Miami, a senior member of both research groups, said: "They give us a new way of looking at the biology of the disease, and could be targets for therapeutic development." Stephen Hauser, Professor of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said of one of the genes, the interleukin-7 receptor (IL-7R): "I believe that this receptor and its interaction with regulatory T-cells will now become a major focus of research on MS."

While MS is not directly inherited or caused by a single gene, it is known to be partly inheritable: people with close relatives who have the condition are at higher risk. Since the 1970s, however, only one gene that contributes to a raised risk has been identfied. A variant of this gene, known as HLA-DRB1, seems to make the body worse at recognising its own tissue, and increases an individual's chances of developing MS by up to four times.

The new genetic variants affect a different part of the immune system, the control receptors on T-cells that act as receiving antennae for interleukins - proteins that summon these killer cells to attack invaders. Each has less effect on MS than HLA-DRB1, raising the risk by about 30 per cent, but both are common. Some 72 per cent of white Europeans have the most damaging version of the interleukin-2 receptor (IL-2R) gene, while 56 per cent have the most damaging variant of the IL-7R gene. This indicates that these genes are far from the only contributors to MS - the overwhelming majority of people who carry the risky variants are healthy. Many other genes, as well as environmental factors, are involved.

David Hafler, Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who led one of the research teams, said: "Each gene contributes only a small amount of risk. The big question is, how do they interact with each other, and are they in common pathways? A major effort to understand the full complement of genes involved in MS will be necessary to completely understand the disease." A fuller knowledge of how the genes raise risk, however, will still be useful in designing new drugs. It may even prove possible to correct the inter-leukin signalling pathways to stop the condition from developing.

Simon Gregory, of Duke University in North Carolina, who contributed to the research, said: "Our finding is very important because the genetic factors that are already known to be associated with multiple sclerosis only explain less than half of the total genetic basis for the disease."

The discovery that IL-2R is linked to MS is also significant because previous research has suggested it also contributes to two other autoimmune conditions, type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid disease. "Scientists are increasingly finding genetic links between autoimmune diseases that affect different tissues in the body, including type 1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis," Professor Hafler said. "This study will likely spur further research into the connection between these seemingly separate conditions."

The findings have emerged from two slightly different approaches to gene-hunting that have become possible because of advancing technology and the mapping of the human genome. The most important was a genome-wide association study, which scanned more than 500,000 genetic variations from more than 13,000 people to find associations between particular mutations and MS. "People have been looking for genes involved in MS for 30 years," Professor Hafler said. "Why weren't they found? The answer is you couldn't do it without the sequence of the human genome."

Lee Dunster, of the MS Society, said: "One of the great unknowns about MS is what causes it and this looks like a welcome breakthrough in getting to grips with the genetics behind the disease. People with MS often worry about what caused it, and particularly whether it will affect their children, so a better understanding of the role of certain genes is good news. These latest findings will be of great interest to researchers trying to develop future treatments."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************



1 August, 2007

Hooray! Coffee is good for skin cancer

But only in hairless mice, sadly

EXERCISE and moderate caffeine consumption together could help ward off sun-induced skin cancer, researchers said today but cautioned against ditching the sun screen in favour of a jog and a cappuccino.

Experiments on mice showed that caffeine and exercise together somehow made them better able to destroy pre-cancerous cells whose DNA had been damaged by ultraviolet-B radiation, according to scientists at Rutgers University in New Jersey. "We think that it will be important in terms of prevention, and possibly not only for skin cancer but possibly for other cancers as well," said Rutgers cancer researcher Allan Conney.

The researchers studied groups of hairless mice that were exposed to lamps generating ultraviolet-B radiation that damaged DNA in their skin cells. One group drank water containing the human equivalent of one or two cups of coffee a day. A second group exercised on a running wheel. A third group exercised and drank the caffeine. A fourth group neither exercised nor drank caffeine. Both caffeine and exercise alone increased by roughly 100 per cent the mice's ability to kill off precancerous cells that could lead to skin cancer compared to the mice that did neither. But the mice that did both showed a nearly 400 per cent increase in this ability, the researchers found.

The researchers are eager to discover if the findings would apply to humans, but in the meantime warned people not to give up the sunscreen. "Don't go out and exercise and drink a lot of coffee and assume you're going to be protected," Mr Conney said. "Keep in mind that these are studies in mice. Although I think that they may be applicable to humans, it really has to be studied carefully before we can say that," he said.

The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Source




New TB vaccine

One of the most feared diseases in the world is making an alarming comeback in the UK. Cases of tuberculosis increased by 10 per cent in 2005, with 8,494 cases, and are set to continue rising, as the bug becomes increasingly resistant to drugs, and international travel extends its global reach. TB kills about 1.6 million people a year, largely in developing countries, and experts believe that its global resurgence goes hand in hand with the Aids pandemic. However, Helen McShane, a British scientist, announced today that a groundbreaking new vaccine - the first in 80 years, which has taken ten years to develop - is being tested in human clinical trials for the first time.

The areas most affected by the disease in Britain are cities such as London, Birmingham and Leicester, with immigrant communities from areas where the disease is still common: Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of Africa. One in five cases of TB is found in new arrivals into the country. However, the disease is not something you could simply catch on a train; only frequent or prolonged contact with someone with TB puts a person at risk (hence why it's passed within families), and it can be treated with antibiotics if diagnosed quickly. Nevertheless, the Government is so concerned at the growing number of people with TB that it is considering screening visitors to the UK from countries such as China and India, it was revealed this week.

If the new TB vaccine passes its trials, as it is expected to do, it could be available in your GP's practice by 2015, when it would work as a booster for the childhood BCG injection (now given only to children in high-risk groups), conferring long-lasting immunity on all adults and thus preventing the spread of this disease.

Symptoms include a persistent cough, weight loss and fever. Before the First World War there were more than 100,000 UK cases a year, but numbers have fallen steadily since the BCG vaccination was introduced in 1953.

Dr McShane, the scientist behind this latest booster vaccine, is a 40-year-old medical doctor-turned-vaccinologist. It's impossible not to share her excitement, particularly when she describes the day in her Oxford University laboratory when she realised she was on to something. "It was a little tense," says Dr McShane, who was then 35 and five years into a project that she had started as a PhD student in 1997. "I went into the lab to check blood tests taken the day before, looked at the plates and couldn't believe my eyes. The results were excellent. We knew the vaccine would stimulate the production of some antibodies but there were ten times the number we had predicted. I ran down the corridor to show my professor immediately." Dr McShane knew she had created a vaccine that could potentially save two million lives a year worldwide. The Wellcome Trust will today announce her project as the first new vaccine for TB in 80 years.

There are two main reasons why a new vaccine has taken so long to develop. The first is that it's a difficult bug to vaccinate against as it disguises itself efficiently in the body. There are different strains of the bug, but Dr McShane believes that they are similar enough for the vaccine to be effective against them all. The other reason for the delay, according to the charity TB Alert, is that there wasn't any funding. Until recently TB was prevalent only in the developing world and so drug companies were reluctant to plough money into a vaccine.

A potential vaccine is an achievement that Dr McShane would not have dared to imagine when she first joined Professor Adrian Hill at the Nuffield Department of Medicine in Oxford to begin a PhD. "Most students were working on a malaria project; no one was looking at a TB vaccine, so I thought it would be a good idea," she says. Dr McShane had first started to study the tuberculosis bacterium when, as a young doctor, she was working in an HIV clinic in London. The two diseases often present hand-in-hand because TB is an opportunistic infection and finds the weakened immune system of an HIV-infected person an easy way in. Dr McShane says she found it frustrating that she could offer the latest antiretrovirals for the HIV infection but she had nothing to prescribe except traditional antibiotics for the TB. She could see that as different strains of TB bacteria became resistant to these drugs, her armoury was looking more and more depleted. Surely something could be done?

She decided to take her curiosity into the laboratory. Most contagious diseases can be vaccinated against by priming the immune system to recognise the pathogen and building armies of immune cells to attack it if it invades the body. A vaccine against measles, for example, introduces a highly weakened strain of the disease into the body. This allows the immune system to target the responsible bacteria, deal with them, and prepare defences for attacks in the future. But TB is more complicated as it is able to hide inside cells and avoid normal antibodies. Instead it requires a subgroup of white blood cells, called T cells, to be activated, which are better at seeking out the bug to destroy it.

Immunologists have begun to use recombinant viruses to teach the body how to recognise TB bacteria and prepare its T cells correspondingly. These are modified viruses that carry cloned genes containing a simple protein, harvested from the disease to be fought. The "tweaked" virus is harmless to human beings. It arrives in the body, unloads the cloned protein, and dies. The protein, however, is spotted by the immune system, which prepares T cells for attack. Afterwards, the patient's body is left ready for further invasion.

Dr McShane found that her vaccine worked particularly well at boosting the weak immune response primed by the traditional BCG. "It would be fantastic if this vaccine was proven to work and became available," she says. "It's been a huge team effort with units in The Gambia and South Africa and Oxford working to a common end. The real challenges now are to see if it really does stop people getting TB, and if it does, to make sure that it gets to the people who need it."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

Trans fats:

For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.

The use of extreme quintiles (fifths) to examine effects is in fact so common as to be almost universal but suggests to the experienced observer that the differences between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant -- thus making the article concerned little more than an exercise in deception

*********************